Notes from Shoreline Council meeting September 23, 2019 - including Point Wells discussion

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Shoreline City Hall and Council Chamber
Photo by Steven H. Robinson
Shoreline City Council Meeting
September 23, 2019
Notes by Pam Cross

Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 7:00pm

All councilmembers were present.

Report of the City Manager Debbie Tarry
The Shoreline Racial History Display continues through Sept 27 in Shoreline City Hall Lobby 8am to 5pm. Learn about the policies and practices that have impacted Shoreline’s racial history.

Sept 25, 7 - 9pm Proposition 1 Information Meeting at Shoreline Library, 345 NE 175th. This proposition will appear on the November general election ballot.

Oct 5, 8am - 10am - The 8th Annual Monster Mash Dash. This is a family 5K fun run and walk along Shoreline's Interurban Trail. Costumes are encouraged and prizes will be awarded for the best costume in each age group as well as best group costume. Details and registration information available online.

Public Reminders
The PRCS/Tree board meeting scheduled for Sept 26 has been cancelled. The next meeting will be Oct 3.

Council Reports

Councilmember Chang attended the KingCo Regional Transit Committee meeting. This is the group that helps KingCo Council oversee Metro. The Metro Transportation Equity Cabinet, which is made up of 22 community members, provided detailed recommendations about developing the mobility framework that will make sure Metro addresses the people who are most reliant on public transportation (disabled, no income, low income, immigrants etc).

Mayor Hall attended a symposium to discuss the success of the RADAR program that Shoreline has had for several years. (RADAR is an effort by the Shoreline Police Department to address the rights and needs of individuals with behavioral health issues and/or developmental disabilities/pac)

Public Comment
Gretchen Atkinson, President of the Board of the Ronald Wastewater District (RWD), spoke on behalf of the Board regarding City assumption of RWD and issues regarding Point Wells.

Wes Brandon, RWD Commissioner, said there are outstanding items that need to be wrapped up before finalizing the assumption of RWD by the City.

Laura Mork, RWD, pointed out that ratepayers (in Shoreline and Snohomish County) have paid for the equipment in the ground at Point Wells.

Geneva spoke in support of the Skip the Straws Pledge.

Tom Mailhot, past board member of Save Richmond Beach and current board member of its successor The Sno-King Environmental Protection Coalition, talked about the proposed agreement with Woodway (Agenda Item 8a). He appreciates the united coordinated approach. He asks that Council carefully review Mike McCormick’s letter sent to Council. (letter available on line)

Alex Tsimerman stated that Seattle is Fascist and Shoreline should not follow that thinking. Stand Up America party member.

Fran Lilleness said that in the 1940’s there was a road from Point Wells through Woodway. We need to restore or rebuild it.

Laethan Were Invited Council and city staff to NW Golden Hearts luncheon 10/8 at Bell Harbor Convention Center in Seattle

The agenda was adopted unanimously.

The Consent Calendar was accepted unanimously.


Study Item 8a Discussion of Proposed Settlement and Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Shoreline and Town of Woodway

Recently the Court of Appeals overturned a favorable ruling by the Superior Court that had determined that Point Wells was part of the Ronald Wastewater District (RWD) service area. RWD is appealing this decision and has asked for review by the Washington State Supreme Court.

Margaret King, City Attorney,  provided the staff report

Point Wells, located in Snohomish County, has been identified as a future annexation area for both Shoreline and Woodway. Each city has adopted a vision for the area. In Jan 2019 both cities agreed to formal mediation to resolve their differences. The resultant settlement and interlocal agreement is what is before Council tonight. This must include annexation, development standards, traffic levels of service and sewer lift station 13 in Point Wells.

Requirements must include, at a minimum, that Point Wells be zoned as a primarily residential development with limited commercial uses, dark sky regulations (minimize glare while reducing light trespass and skyglow/ pac), mandatory public recreation that is available to residents of both Shoreline and Woodway, a traffic study for each city, and a maximum building height of 75’.

Once adopted, the cities agree to keep the adopted regulations in place for 2 years post annexation, unless agreed to by the other city.

Shoreline agrees to not annex Point Wells, nor to object to Woodway’s annexation of it. Shoreline agrees to affirmatively support Woodway’s annexation, and to not reduce the current 4,000 ADT (average daily trip) limitation on Richmond Beach Drive or restrict access to Point Wells via RB Drive unless necessary to protect the health and safety of its residents and the public or to implement emergency measures.

If Woodway decides not to annex, Woodway needs to formally advise Shoreline so that Shoreline can immediately attempt annexation with Woodway’s support.

Woodway must start the annexation process within 3 years. If they do not, then after 3 years, Shoreline can begin the annexation with Woodway’s support.

If Point Wells is annexed by Woodway, any development or redevelopment of 25 or more units requires Woodway to provide a general-purpose public access road, wholly within Woodway, that connects to Woodway’s transportation network, and provides a full second vehicular access to Point Wells.

The next step is for Council to review and discuss the proposed Settlement and Interlocal Agreement.

If Woodway doesn’t annex within 3 years, Shoreline can proceed to the annexation process. The process is still required, correct? Yes.

What have been the barriers to annexation? Snohomish County has not recognized Point Wells as a potential of area of annexation in their Comprehensive Plan.

Upon annexation by Woodway, and development of 25 units, Woodway must provide an access road. In the same paragraph “This provision may not be relied upon by …”

This seems contradictory. Why is this sentence there? Reply: This is a negotiated agreement so our city attorney cannot really respond, except in an Executive Session, because she would be providing legal advice.
The intent may be that Woodway wants to retain the ability to approve the design and standards. Woodway does not want to approve a road that hasn’t been designed yet.

But we need a second road to be absolutely required. Should this be reworded? Reply: Council has the right to make any proposals to change the agreement. Our city attorney can provide legal advice if they would like to recess to an executive session.

In his written comments, Tom McCormick suggests Woodway’s level of service A be included in the Agreement. (Level of Service A means a 10 second delay or less at intersections/ pac). That would require mediation if a different level of service is desired, right?
Reply: This is an important issue for Woodway. Our city attorney can provide legal advice if they would like to recess to executive session.

By Shoreline giving up the right to go below the current 4,000 ADT (average daily trip) limitation on Richmond Beach Drive or restrict access to Point Wells via RB Drive, we are not supporting the development at Point Wells, but agreeing that Woodway gets to annex it. Correct?
Reply: We are saying that we support Woodway’s annexation and Woodway agrees to recognize our level of service on RB Drive.

Woodway probably won’t be able to continue a level of service A. It’s a little town now. We need to have a strong commitment to an access road through Woodway, but it doesn’t appear so now. Woodway shall provide an access road. The agreement does use the word “shall.”
Response: Woodway has indicated on several occasions that there will be a road through Woodway but they didn’t want it assumed that they agreed to something they haven’t yet seen.  Woodway can’t be forced to approve a road that doesn’t meet their standards.

The staff report states that any development application for Point Wells include a traffic study of Shoreline and Woodway roads. What are we thinking about for Shoreline?
Reply: What we were going for, is that each city, depending on which one annexes, must recognize the impact to the other city as well. The City Attorney defers to our traffic engineer for a more detailed response.

In his written comments, Tom McCormick suggests Shoreline be named as State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) lead agency for traffic and other impacts within our city, and Woodway be named as SEPA lead agency for traffic and other impacts within their city. Staff is ok with this. Did we get clarifying language for this?
Again, the City Attorney can answer legal questions only in an executive session.

Why not do this now?
Reply: There are some legal issues, including moving forward when neither city has an application before them. So the attorneys agreed on a broader brush approach and to focus on the issues of concern (traffic for Shoreline). We can enter into a SEPA agreement at a more appropriate time.

SEPA is under the Woodway section, but it sounds like a shared responsibility.
Reply: We will work on this issue since the question has been raised several times.

Woodway is having their public hearing tonight as well. What is the process from here?
Reply: We don’t know what took place in Woodway, but based on this meeting alone, an Oct 7 meeting might be delayed a week or two.

It’s good that both cities are on the same team, and by detailing it in this Agreement we know what being on the same team means.
We need to remember this is an agreement between only Shoreline and Woodway. It does not include Snohomish County and that is where the decision is now. 

Over the years the proposed development of Point Wells has caused a lot of anxiety leading to a lot of litigation, but when it comes down to it, Ronald Wastewater District and the cities of Shoreline and Woodway have similar interests.

We all want to control the scale of the development and control traffic through our communities. Snohomish County has fought Shoreline’s annexation of Point Wells at every step of the way so if Woodway has better potential to annex, and if Woodway can agree with what we want, then that’s better than trying to annex and failing. We do not want to let Snohomish County permit something that’s not acceptable to our community.

If staff can get us written responses to Council’s concerns, do we need another study session or can we move to this to an action item?
We absolutely need this agreement with Woodway in place so it depends on how soon staff can provide written responses.

The public has a right to follow this process out in the open, but Council has been silent for months.

It is probable that a level of service A in Woodway would send everybody to RB Drive. Woodway needs a decent level of service that will be tolerable for more traffic. Woodway is getting a lot of concessions from Shoreline so we should stay firm because traffic affects more than the Richmond Beach neighborhood. We need to take a look at how other roads are affected.

If we assume staff from Woodway and Shoreline get together tomorrow and identify the remaining issues, and they are unable to agree before Oct 7, we can change it from an Action to a Study item then.

The points we discussed aren’t difficult things. If both sides just have smaller items, then Oct 7 should be fine. We can always remove it from the Oct 7 agenda if necessary.

Decision: This will be brought on as an Action item for the Oct 7 meeting. That doesn’t guarantee action - just starts the process, and makes it predictable to the public while maintaining transparency. 

9B. Study Item 8b Discussing Ordinance No. 867 – Amending Section 8.12.395 of the Shoreline Municipal Code to Include E-cigarette’s (Vaping) as Prohibited Activities in parks (pac)

John Norris, Assistant City Mgr, provided the staff report.

This amendment would include e-cigarettes within SMC8.12.395’s prohibition of smoking and tobacco use in parks. Vaping would be prohibited only in city parks like tobacco was in 2012. Technically, vaping does not include tobacco, but nicotine. As a result current codes do not apply to it. News media has pointed out the medical dangers of vaping. When it comes to enforcement, Shoreline  relies on peer to peer pressure and education. Park signage will be addressed. And smoking or vaping is not in line with what we want to see in our community as a healthy city.


If I’m near, can I get second hand nicotine? Like with smoking? Yes.

What about places where there is a “no smoking” sign like in city buildings or other smoke free zones? Or will this apply just to parks? 
Reply: Haven’t worked out this detail yet.

There have been a lot of deaths in the short time they have been available but we do have to remember that cigarettes are more dangerous. Even very far away, the second hand smell is very strong. The signs need to be larger.
Will look into that. Staff can take care of signs and details.

Just curious, but what other cities have taken this step?
Reply: Don’t know but can find out.

Placed on the Oct 7 Consent Calendar.

8:25pm Council retired for an Executive session expected to last 20 minutes. Not expected to take action tonight.

9:09pm Meeting adjourned.


Post a Comment

We encourage the thoughtful sharing of information and ideas. We expect comments to be civil and respectful, with no personal attacks or offensive language. We reserve the right to delete any comment.
Facebook: Shoreline Area News
Twitter: @ShorelineArea
Daily Email edition (don't forget to respond to the email)

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by 2009

Back to TOP