Showing posts with label city council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label city council. Show all posts

Agenda for Shoreline Council meeting January 10, 2022

Thursday, January 6, 2022

 
Shoreline City Hall and Council Chamber
Photo by Steven H. Robinson
The Agenda for the Shoreline City Council January 10, 2022 virtual meeting includes two study items:


There is no resource or financial impact to tonight’s discussion. Individual property owners may use the King County Assessors link https://localscape.spatialest.com/#kingcountyassessor/Tax to estimate the impact of the proposed levy on their property taxes:

8(b) QUASI-JUDICIAL: Discussion of Ordinance No. 953 – Amending the Zoning Map at 808, 812, 820, and 826 N 145th Street From Residential 12-units Per Acre (R-12) to Neighborhood Business (NB) (PLN21-0117)

The Applicant proposes to rezone four parcels located at 808, 812, 820, and 820 N145th St from R-12 to NB. The applicant is asking for a rezone of four parcels to develop higher-density housing and/or a mixed-use development with commercial uses on the ground-floor. 

Rezoning this parcel to NB is consistent, if not less intensive, with other similarly situated properties abutting N 145th Street and commercial zoning in the City of Seattle on the south side of N 145th St.

Viewing the meeting and making comments
Here's everything you need to know to view or comment on council meetings. They are now streamed live on the City of Shoreline YouTube channel and available immediately for replay. https://www.shorelinewa.gov/government/council-meetings

--Pam Cross



Read more...

Shoreline Council: Keith Scully elected mayor, Betsy Roberson elected deputy mayor

Tuesday, January 4, 2022

District Court Judge Marcine Anderson swears in (top row l-r) John Ramsdell, Laura Mork
(bottom row l-r) Eben Pobee, Chris Roberts

At the first meeting of the Shoreline City Council in 2022, on January 3, three new city councilmembers took their seats, and elections were held for mayor and deputy mayor.

The four councilmember elected in November 2021 took their seats on the council. 
  • John Ramsdell
  • Laura Mork
  • Eben Pobee
  • Chris Roberts (re-elected)

The new council then unanimously elected Keith Scully as Mayor and Betsy Robertson as Deputy Mayor.


 

Read more...

Three councilmembers retiring from Shoreline City Council: Hall, McGlashan, Chang

Wednesday, December 29, 2021

Three members of the Shoreline City Council are retiring this month, after long terms on the council. 

Mayor Will Hall
Will Hall was elected to City Council in 2009, 2013, and 2017. He served as Deputy Mayor from 2010 to 2011 and as Mayor in from 2018 through 2021. 

Serving this community and this Council has been the greatest honor and privilege of my life and I’ve learned so much from other councilmembers. I just can’t express how thankful I am for each of you, your work to make this a special place, and the work the community does as well.
 
I want to acknowledge and thank our City Manager and our employees. Those are the people who do the actual hard work everyday to take care of the City, fix our roads, work with kids on education programs, and clean up our parks. 

Everything that makes this such a beautiful community is thanks to the hard work of our city employees. I think we have the greatest team of employees in the State.

What I appreciate about everybody on this Council, and all the elected officials that represent us at all levels, everyday they are looking for a way to make a positive difference.

That’s what gives me hope that Shoreline will just keep getting better and better. I’ve enjoyed and learned from each of you. And I will miss it. Thank you.

Will

Keith McGlashan
Keith McGlashan was elected to the City Council in 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2017, and served as Mayor from 2010 to 2013.

I want to thank everybody in the community for their support (or non-support). it’s been an honor to serve. 

We’ve been through a lot of growing pains in the 16 years I’ve been on Council. 

I think the City is turning out to be a pretty darned good place because of the decisions we’ve made. 

I’ve learned from them all and at some point during debates something each councilmember has said made me stop and assess my opinion on a topic. 

My sincere thanks to the community for putting their trust in me. It has always been greatly appreciated!

Keith


Susan Chang
Susan Chang was elected to the Shoreline City Council in 2017 and served through 2021.

It has been an honor to serve on this Council and to represent the varied viewpoints of residents of the City of Shoreline.

I’ve met many wonderful, caring people who have become friends, and have so enjoyed attending community meetings to find out what is important to our residents.

This opportunity to work for the good of our city over the past four years has been one of the highlights of my life.  

Thank you for giving me the chance to serve.  

Susan


Read more...

Agenda for Shoreline Council meeting January 3, 2022

Shoreline City Hall and Council Chambers
Photo by Steven H. Robinson
The agenda for the January 3, 2022 Shoreline Council Meeting includes the following highlights:

  • Oath of Office Ceremony performed by Judge Marcine Anderson on December 22, 2021 for Newly Elected City Councilmembers
  • Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor by Councilmembers
  • Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Interagency Agreement with Department of Commerce and to Accept $40,000 in Grant Funding for Creation of Cottage Housing Development Code Regulations
  • Discussion of the Annual Traffic Report
--Pam Cross



Read more...

Notes from Shoreline council meeting December 13, 2021 - last meeting of the year - last meeting for three councilmembers

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Meeting
December 13, 2021

Notes by Pam Cross

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

All Councilmembers were present.

Approval of the Agenda

Mayor Hall proposes moving Council Reports to the end of the Agenda just prior to adjournment. Then the usual Council reports can be followed by any year-end comments, since this is our final meeting of the year.

Revised Agenda approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry

COVID-19 UPDATE
 

King County’s new infection rate is still at the high end of the “substantial” designation, and trending up again as can be seen in the above graph. Hospitalizations and deaths remain low but are slowly increasing. Shoreline infection rates are also increasing, with hospitalizations and deaths remaining very low.


Vaccine Clinic for adults and children through December 17.


Thanks again to our Shoreline FD, Shoreline CC, and UW Medicine for making this resource available to us.

Proposition 1


We are holding a series of factual informational presentations. Please join us online on the dates shown above. Additional dates for presentations are available on the City’s website shown above.

HOLIDAY EVENTS


The map is now available for everyone to use to explore the creative light displays in Shoreline and our surrounding communities. You can still be added to the map by signing up by Dec 19.

Public Reminders

The Planning Commission will hold a virtual meeting on Thursday Dec 16 at 7:00pm to discuss the outdoor seating development code amendment.

This is the final Council meeting of 2021. The next Council meeting will take place on Monday Jan 3, 2022.

Shoreline City Hall will be closed on Friday, Dec 24 and Friday, Dec 31.

Spartan Recreation Center will be closed Friday-Saturday, Dec 24 - 25, and Dec 31 - Jan 1.

For more information, visit shorelinewa.gov/calendar


On behalf of all of us at City Hall, and our other facilities, I want to convey our very deepest gratitude for the many years of dedicated service from our three outgoing members of Council. The City of Shoreline will forever be shaped by your service.

Public Comment

Pam Cross, Shoreline, SAN Reporter
Mayor Hall, Councilmembers McGlashan and Chang will be missed for their knowledge, insight, humor, and vision for our City. Although I don’t always agree with them, I believe they make informed decisions based on what they believe is best for our City. Looking at Seattle, it is easy to see what happens to a city when Councilmembers are more interested in making a name for themselves than doing what they were elected to do. Thank you for your service.

Jackie Kurle, Shoreline
I too want to thank the outgoing Mayor and Councilmembers for their service.
Additionally, I want to reiterate the importance of having maximum transparency for the operations of the advanced shelter with regular updates of shelter operations, success stories or challenges.

Approval of the Consent Calendar
Consent Calendar approved unanimously (7-0)

Council Reports

CM Robertson
We had a meeting of the North King County Coalition on Homelessness. Predominately, this was a discussion with the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. We got to see a document that they are preparing that summarizes the activities that are taking place in the North KingCo cities. This would include the number of units that are available, and the number of individuals and beds in those units and so forth. We also got to see a list of investments that Shoreline has made, and makes throughout the year, to our area services supporting the homeless. They started to ask about future consolidation of those funds and whether or not Shoreline would consider putting them in the hands of the Regional Authority for them to distribute throughout the North KingCo region. This was very preliminary and will require Council discussion.

Regarding the three outgoing Councilmembers: I will never forget working with this group for my first seat on the Council. Thanks for your wisdom, support and camaraderie.

CM Roberts
At the Sound Cities Association (SCA) annual meeting, the association adopted its budget without challenges.

At the The SCA Public Issues Committee (PIC) meeting last week, the board elected CM Roberts as Vice-Chair for 2022. Bill Boyce, Kent Councilmember, is the new Chair.

I don’t know where to even begin thanking the outgoing members for their service to the community on this Council. Our Council works because of the people who are on it. When CM McGlashan was Mayor, he was able to bring us together. He was able to create this environment where we are able to respectfully disagree, and where we can have policy disagreements that don’t affect how we treat each other as individuals. And I think that has really been something that has made our Council work unlike other Councils across the region. I’m grateful to serve on a body that is supportive of everyone’s efforts.
I want to thank CM Chang for the way she has brought passion and a sense of humanity to this Council, for everything she brought from her background, as well as her ensuring that the voices of the community were heard and felt.
Mayor Hall, I appreciate your passion for the environment. We have done some great work on this Council and I think we can be proud of what we have done for the environment and our community. I believe we have done our part for the community and for the generations to come.

Deputy Mayor Scully
CM Chang, we all relied on your technical expertise. Sometimes you asked questions I didn’t understand, but you also have a gift for turning complicated concepts into words that we all can understand. I think you’ve help elevate our understanding of some of the technical stuff. More than that, you’re really connected to the community and I’ve always been impressed by how actively you listen and how well you bring forward what you’ve heard from folks. I’ve appreciated your friendship and support.
CM McGlashan and I were more likely to vote together on any issue than any other two Councilmembers. But the one thing we couldn’t do at the same time was say the Pledge of Allegiance. (Laughter). We always had a slightly different cadence. I relied on his experience and appreciated his connection to the small business community. Mostly, I appreciated his ability to just cut to the chase. That has kept us grounded on many occasions
Mayor Hall, we’ve had a long working relationship. We conflict on some policy stuff, but the reason why I think this is, is because we both feel very passionate about things. I have learned from you over the years how to temper that and how to better interact with those around me. I’ve come to view you as mentor and a friend and it will be a very different Council without you three members.

CM McConnell
You are all a diverse group of people and, as already stated, we all have unique qualities that make us all work better for the community. I never saw anyone with a personal agenda. I will miss the more casual times when we travelled and didn’t talk “shop.” I wish you all a great life “afterwards” because we know you have plans of how you’re going to spend your time.

CM Chang
I’m going to miss all of you. It has been an honor to serve the City and I think we’ve done some great things. We spent so much time together. This has been one of the highlights of my life. Thank you.

CM McGlashan
I want to thank everybody in the community for their support (or non-support). it’s been an honor to serve. We’ve been through a lot of growing pains in the 16 years I’ve been on Council. I think the City is turning out to be a pretty darned good place because of the decisions we’ve made. And heartfelt thanks for your kind words. Best to you in the new year. I’ll be around.

Mayor Hall
I want to share my appreciation for all of you. Serving this community and this Council has been the greatest honor and privilege of my life and I’ve learned so much from you. I just can’t express how thankful I am for each of you, your work to make this a special place, and the work the community does as well.
 
I want to acknowledge and thank our City Manager and our employees. Those are the people who do the actual hard work everyday to take care of the City, fix our roads, work with kids on education programs, and clean up our parks. Everything that makes this such a beautiful community is thanks to the hard work of our city employees. I think we have the greatest team of employees in the State.

We’re all flooded with negativity on the news and the internet, even in conversations with friends. There’s certainly a lot to complain about between COVID, racism, climate change, homelessness, gun violence, inequity between the haves and the have-nots, and the list goes on. But in the midst of all that negativity, we can either just complain about it, or we can look for ways to make a difference. And what I appreciate about everybody on this Council, and all the elected officials that represent us at all levels, everyday they are looking for a way to make a positive difference - instead of just complaining.

That’s what gives me hope that Shoreline will just keep getting better and better. I’ve enjoyed and learned from each of you. And I will miss it. Thank you.

MEETING ADJOURNED



Read more...

Notes from Shoreline council meeting December 6, 2021

Friday, December 10, 2021

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Meeting
December 6, 2021

Notes by Pam Cross

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

All Councilmembers were present. (CM Roberts is on his way so counted as present.)

Approval of the Agenda
Agenda approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry

COVID-19 UPDATE

King County’s transmission rate is trending upward - which is the wrong direction! This is close to the High category (we are currently in the Substantial category). Shoreline’s rate is also trending up.



PROPOSITION 1


HOLIDAY EVENTS


No display is too small! Participation is free.

Register by Dec 13 to enter the contest and by Dec 19 to be placed on the map.

Council Reports

CM McGlashan attended the SeaShore Transportation meeting where climate change was discussed. There were updates from King County and KingCo Metro about electrification of their fleets. As they order and get in more electric buses, the biggest challenge facing them is charging the buses. They need facilities where buses can pull in and be charged which could take some time. They also need refreshing chargers throughout the County so Shoreline may end up with a charging station. There was also a presentation by Peter Heffernan from PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council) on the evaluation process overview for funding that’s coming out of the Federal funds to the State. It will be a competitive process where projects will be put in by different cities and each area is allowed a certain amount of projects. These funds should be coming out in 2024 or 2025.

CM McConnell also attended the meeting and said they had to say goodbye to CM McGlashan and he will be missed (CM McGlashan did not run for re-election to Council this year).

Public Comment

The following people spoke in support of Ordinance 948 (Amended Energy Code) Action Item 8(a)

Lily Fredericks, Mountlake Terrace, Climate Justice Club at Shorecrest HS
Deepa Sivarajan, Seattle, Climate Solutions
Melinda McBride, Shoreline
Dennis Heller, Shoreline
Lee Keim, Shoreline

Kathleen Russell, Shoreline, Save Shoreline Trees
Save Shoreline Trees submitted a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan under the element of land use. Housing development and preservation of trees can exist together with the goal of maintaining and increasing Shoreline’s urban tree canopy. We request Council support this proposed amendment.

Jackie Kurle, Shoreline
I want to encourage maximum transparency for the operations of the advanced shelter (The Oaks). It would be good to receive an update on shelter operations, success stories or challenges, and number of occupants.

[Ed. see article Volunteer opportunities at The Oaks]

Tom McCormick, Shoreline
I strongly support Prop 1 (parks). I support all access to open space. Council supported in 2005, 2011, 2017 acquiring additional beach access. Where is the access other than Salt Water Park? Nowhere. Need to secure beach access at the three possible access points.

Approval of the Consent Calendar
Consent Calendar approved unanimously (6-0 CM Roberts not yet present)

Action Item 8(a) Action on Ordinance No. 948 – Amending Chapter 15.05, Construction and Building Codes, of the Shoreline Municipal Code, to Provide Amendments to the Washington State Energy Code - Commercial, as Adopted by the State of Washington

Presentation by Ray Allshouse, Shoreline Planning and Community Development department

Council discussed this topic on August 16 and November 15 of 2021, and indicated general support for an ordinance to limit the use of fossil fuels for commercial construction and multi-family projects over three stories in height. Washington State prohibits local governments from passing electrification ordinances for new residential construction.

Ordinance No. 948 bans of the use of fossil fuels in new commercial and large multi-family construction projects for space heating and most water heating as well as numerous other increases in energy efficiency requirements.

Shoreline may be one of the first to limit the use of fossil fuels, but other cities and the State will follow.

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to approve Ordinance No 948.

We have had robust discussions of this in the past.

I support this but have some clarifying questions about existing buildings. If there is a big change to a building with a planned replacement, then you have to change to follow the new energy code and switch to electric. But there’s an exception that if one out of two boilers fail, you can replace it with the same kind rather than change to electric. What about the in-betweens? What if owner can’t afford to make the change? If the building is not repaired and is therefore not habitable, will we be making the occupants homeless?
  • Reply: If the building is legally constructed, the intent is that it can remain in operation. So there would have to be a *compelling* reason to stop that. In general they would have to do something that would endanger the life safety of the occupants. This is a policy to require a more efficient structure. The intent of code is not to put buildings out of commission. That is why we have an exception as well as an appellate process.
I understand Seattle allows some flexibility to do something else.
  • Reply: Seattle’s experience has been broadly applied. That is, If an owner has major difficulties, Seattle has determined they will not put a perfectly good building out of commission by forcing the owner to follow current code changes they can’t afford to make. They also allow - the term they use is “energy tradeoffs.” A trade off is: we can’t afford to do that, so how about if we do this instead? This can make that can make energy updates more palatable and still achieve the intent of the code.
We all have to work at mitigating the effects of climate change. I thank there are other things besides electrification. Are we attacking the correct issue for Shoreline? Regionally, yes it makes sense. But these multi-unit buildings will come with a like number of vehicles. Cars put out more emissions I believe. It seems hypocritical to do this. I will be supporting the ordinance but wonder: Are we really looking at the big issue for Shoreline or just looking for a plaque on the wall?

There were some costs to up-zoning. We lost trees and we lost porous surfaces that help the environment. But we did it because of light rail. That is the area where we are putting multifamily housing. We are trying to get people out of their cars. Growth is going to come so let’s have it happen here in Shoreline, right next to light rail stations, rather than a vehicle-dependent area in east KingCo. So step #1 is getting people here, and I see this as step #2, let’s reduce the impact on the environment as much as we can. There are a lot of steps to go.

I agree. The 2020 Sustainability Report showed the impact on climate change of housing and transportation choices and concluded that new construction with the built-green mandate in the station areas has 1/10th of the carbon footprint of a new single family home without built-green construction or access to light rail. Even though we are seeing the loss of some tree canopy and additional impervious surfaces, remember our building code is not what changes the population of this region. The choice we have is do we want people cutting down more forests in east KingCo and building homes and driving cars where they have ten times the carbon footprint of what they would have if they lived in a new construction unit here near light rail. I think that’s huge. But this is just one step.

Someone stated electric heat is more expensive than gas and I guess if you have old baseboard heaters, that’s the case. But we’re talking about a different electric heat, right?
  • Reply: That is correct. What goes along with this is parsimonious use of electric resistance heat, and heat pumps are inherently more efficient. We are moving away from electric resistant and moving to heat pumps. Like anything else, prices will come down as heat pumps become more popular.
I just want add that if we adopt this, at the next cycle for the energy code at the state level, having more municipalities support this will help. So our actions tonight could have a bigger effect.

VOTE
Passes unanimously 6-0 (CM Roberts not yet present)

Action Item 8(b) Action on Ordinance No. 950 - Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 10.20 Speed Limits

Presentation by Kendra Dedinsky, City Traffic Engineer

As discussed on Jan 4, 2021 and again on Nov 22, speed is a key factor in fatal and serious injury collisions. Industry update to speed limit setting methods recognizes that reducing speed limits is an important tool for creating safer streets.

Council discussed a speed limit reduction of five mph, from 35 mph to 30 mph, for:
  • N/NE 175th Street from Aurora Avenue N to 15th Avenue NE,
  • Meridian Avenue N from N 145th Street to NE 205th Street,
  • 15th Avenue NE from NE 145th Street to NE 175th Street,
  • Greenwood Avenue N from N 145th Street to NW Innis Arden Way, and
  • N/NW Richmond Beach Road from 8th Avenue NW to Fremont Avenue N.

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to approve Ordinance No 950.

In studies of these corridors, the data support reduction in the speed limit to improve outcomes from accidents and collisions, and to prevent pedestrian injuries.

Motion and second to amend Ordinance No 950 to include 15th Ave NE from NE 180th St to NE 196th St.

I think this is needed because I drove 15th tonight when it was dark, foggy and drizzly. And this stretch butts up against 30mph on same street.

Do we have the data to run 15th using the new tool used on the five corridors in the ordinance?
  • Reply: Yes, the tool recommended 35 mph because of the higher operating speeds (the speed most people are actually driving). Other areas are looking at target speeds rather than the current traveled speed. We think a lower speed limit might have some small impact. Although the tool did not recommend reducing the speed, Council can decide either way.
The City of Lake Forest Park requested this speed reduction on 15th. LFP is reviewing all of its speed limits in 2022 and stated, in part, “We believe that it is critical to be consistent with speed limits at the approaches to our city and ‘set the tone’ for speed limits feeding downhill from 15th St NE.” (Full letter available in Documents on the City of Shoreline website). I don’t want LFP to become a speed trap. I think we should reduce it to be consistent with LFP.

I think it will be safer and I think it will feel very slow. I wonder if future design opportunities will help with this feeling?

I don’t support the amendment because it is not supported by the data.

VOTE ON AMENDMENT (adding 15th)
Passes 5-2.

Mayor Hall and CM Chang dissenting.

What we’re doing is setting the speed limit down to a speed where we know that half of the people on the road are already speeding. I think the concern about enforcement is important from not only a racial and equity perspective, but also is it reasonable to pass a law when we know that the moment it goes into effect 50% of the people here will be violating it everyday? Even though over time we can make engineering changes to the roads to slow them down, we’ve been advised in the past by our traffic staff that traditional traffic calming measures (chicanes, speed humps, traffic circles) are not appropriate on these arterials. I don’t like making a decision where we will either have to enforce it (so half the people who live here will be getting tickets), or adopt a law that we know that we will not enforce. I can’t support this ordinance.

VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED
Passes 7-1.

Mayor Hall dissenting

Study Item 9(a) Discussion of Utility Undergrounding for the 175th Street (Stone to I- 5) Project

Tricia Juhnke, City Engineer introduced Leif Johansen, Engineer II Capital Projects, who did the presentation

It’s been almost a year ago when we started the conversation about utility undergrounding on this corridor.



We are at the 30% design point. The work we are doing here will meet the requirement for utility undergrounding in SMC 13.20.050 because we are impacting utilities, doing major trenching, and it is a large scope project.


If we didn’t underground and remove the utility poles, we would have to relocate them either into the amenities zones or behind the shared-use path. With the constraint we have on right-of-way, I believe it would be pretty tough to get them behind the shared-use path but those are the two options.

In addition to increased project costs of $1.87M, the undergrounding of electrical system would result in an increase to rate payers of approximately $1.00 per billing period (once every two months) for 25 years.


Next steps:
  1. Proceed with design (is undergrounding in or out?);
  2. Proceed with targeted right-of-way;
  3. Pursue Funding.
DISCUSSION

I support undergrounding. We’re going to be doing the trenching anyway, so it’s either move the poles or underground. There are costs with both options but one is more aesthetically pleasing. And it won’t be susceptible to power outages when we have windstorms. I’m curious, is this an area with power outages due to weather issues?
  • Reply: I don’t know about weather issues there. But as for relocation of the poles, Seattle City Light would have to relocate the poles so we took a “credit” for that when determining the cost to the taxpayer.
What is the cost to relocate the poles?
  • Reply: $4.1M is the credit we took.
I want to make sure I understood the numbers. The staff report said the $1.87M was the difference between undergrounding and not undergrounding, right?
  • Reply: That is accurate. That is for the three non SCL (Seattle City Light) utilities.
Putting trees and poles in that narrow amenities zone between the road and the sidewalk would create a sight distance problem. We see this in other areas of the city. You can’t see to get out of driveways.

I’m concerned about the185th St corridor. In order to transform it, we really need to underground. I worry about stacking up charges too much and I was concerned that undergrounding here might undercut doing it on 185th. But it seems that Council is fine with both of these projects - and of course we have new Councilmembers joining us. I hope they feel the same way.

Undergrounding in general is good and I note that a few years ago we had to repeal a resolution from the “distant past” that promised to have the entire city underground by 2010 (laughter). Underground is better and I am supportive of this.

I support it as well. The plan to underground the entire city would have meant undergrounding even if no construction was going on. We realized that’s not a very efficient way to do things. When you are already spending $50M+ to rebuild a road, it makes sense to underground. This is the right time. 185th is more important but 175th is also a very visible, very important gateway to our city - for people who choose to drive instead of taking light rail.

I also agree. The aesthetics of undergrounding like you see on Aurora - wow - people love it and it looks better and feels better. Poles being gone improves safety and visibility. This is a great opportunity to get it done.

Can this project be eligible for rate assistance through current utility programs?
  • Reply: don’t know
Are Shoreline residents eligible for Seattle City Light (SCL) rate assistance?
  • Reply by Debbie Tarry: Yes, if they meet the low income requirements.
Are these fees eligible for the SCL discount?
  • Reply by Debbie Tarry: I don’t know for sure. We can find out for you.
Also this fee goes to everybody - not as a percentage of electricity use.

I’m concerned about moving forward with undergrounding. I think it’s very unfair that SCL charges Shoreline residents for undergrounding in Seattle, but Shoreline residents have to pay for their own. It is fundamentally unfair. This needs to be vigorously pursued when their contract comes up. Even if we have to go through the Legislature.

I agree regarding SCL. It is a problem and needs to be addressed through legislative or even legal strategies. It is unfair that they can charge us, but we can’t charge them. We need to keep working on this.

There is general consensus to go ahead with undergrounding on 145th with some dissent.

MEETING ADJOURNED



Read more...

Notes from Shoreline council meeting November 29, 2021

Friday, December 3, 2021

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Meeting
November 29, 2021

Notes by Pam Cross

Mayor Hall called the remote meeting to order at 7:00pm.
All Councilmembers were present.

Approval of the Agenda
Agenda approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, presented by John Norris, Assistant City Manager

COVID-19 UPDATE

Cautious good news: In King County and statewide, new case rates continue to drop week to week as we remain in the substantial (down from high) transmission category. New cases have decreased in Shoreline from 29 to 23 cases (Nov 22 - Nov 29).

Remember to wear a mask, even if you are fully vaccinated. We encourage everyone to get vaccinated and, if eligible, get a booster shot. Masks are mandated for everyone in indoor public settings and outdoor crowded settings. To find available vaccines and for additional information, visit doh.wa.gov

In accordance with the Public Health Order effective 10/25/21 in all of King County, proof of vaccination or proof of a negative COVID-19 test taken in the last 72 hours will be required for: indoor dining, bars, and recreational activities of any size including theaters, gyms (including Spartan), and performances as well as outdoor events with 500 or more people. More information: kingcounty.gov/covid

Vaccine Clinic for adults and children through December 17.


HOLIDAY EVENTS


No display is too small!

To register and get placed on the map, as well as have an opportunity to win a prize, register here

Council Reports

Mayor Hall offered his congratulations to CM Roberts for his election to the National League of Cities Board of Directors.

Public Comment

Jackie Kurle, Shoreline
I know you’ve heard me before but I just want to reiterate the importance of having maximum transparency for the operations of the advanced shelter. I think it’s a great opportunity to support the homeless folks in our area. I support the cause but want to make sure there is transparency to the public with regular updates of shelter operations, success stories or challenges.

Approval of the Consent Calendar
Consent Calendar approved unanimously

Action Item 8(a) Public Hearing and Discussion on Ordinance No. 951 - Extension of Interim Regulations to Allow for Additional Extensions of Application and Permit Deadlines Beyond Those Provided for in the Shoreline Municipal Code Due to COVID-19 Impacts

Rachael Markle, Director, Planning and Community Development did the presentation

On July 27, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 893, enacting interim regulations that provide relief for applicants by creating additional extensions of application and permit deadlines due to the economic and health impacts of COVID-19.

This ordinance was extended twice and will expire Dec 20, 2021 (nearly 1.5 years later). The State of Emergency is still in effect for Washington even though some statewide restrictions have lessened.

PUBLIC HEARING is opened
No public comments

DISCUSSION

Do you have any idea how many permits we’re talking about?
  • Reply: These are permits where work has not yet started. They haven’t paid inspection fees and picked up their permit. I don’t have an exact number. There are some in their first 180 days, some in the second, and some in the third extension.
I realize that supply chain is still an issue, but the older ones fall under the older code. If we have to extend this yet again in six months, we should have a discussion of possibly requiring the older ones to meet the new code.
  • Reply: there aren’t that many under their third extension.
The supply chain problem is a real thing. I have personally experienced it, having to wait months for something I could have readily picked up at Lowe’s or Home Depot. People don’t want to pay now when they don’t know when they’ll get the supplies to actually complete a project. I support this ordinance.

No other comments

This will return on Consent.

Action Item 8(b) Public Hearing and Discussion on Ordinance No. 952 – Extension of the Interim Regulations Authorizing Outdoor Seating on Private Property and Within Approved Public Rights-of-Way Due to COVID-19 Impacts

Andrew Bauer, Planning Manager, made the presentation

On July 27, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 895, enacting interim regulations for outdoor seating areas for existing restaurants and bars due to indoor seating restrictions in place at that time related to COVID-19. The interim regulations have been extended twice and will expire on December 29, 2021, if not extended. Indoor seating restrictions continue.

Five businesses have utilized the registration for seating on private property. There haven’t been any right-of-way applications.

Staffing is looking into permanent regulations for outdoor seating.

PUBLIC HEARING is opened
No public comments

DISCUSSION

I support this ordinance. Is there a plan to take this to the Planning Commission so we can put this into permanent regulations?
  • Reply: Yes. The plan is to bring forward in the near future. We will probably start discussions with Planning Commission Dec 16 to scope out some potential development code amendments that we can make permanent to allow for more flexibility for outdoor seating.
Do you think you will bring this back within this 6 month extension?
  • Reply: That is the goal. It will be close, depending on the scope and the depth of the amendments. It’s possible one more extension might be required.
Recognizing that most outdoor seating is in our nice summer months, it is my hope that we get regulation is place in time for the summer, or figure out some way to bridge the summer. I don’t think too many people are clamoring for outdoor seating at this time (laughter).

Are we continuing any outreach to businesses?
  • Reply by Ms Tarry: Yes, through our electronic notification to businesses. We have a newsletter where we provide updates on a variety of issues including COVID-19. We continue to encourage our businesses to sign up for this ordinance.
This will return on Consent for Dec 13

Study Item 9(a) Discussion of the Light Rail Station Subareas Parking Study 2021 Update

Kendra Dedinsky, City Traffic Engineer, made the presentation

This is the third data update to the study of parking utilization in the light rail areas. Council allocated $25,000 annually from 2018 through 2021 to study parking in the station areas. The first study provided background about existing practices and policies. The other two studies provided an overview of parking supplies and baseline parking utilization information, provided on-street parking demand projections, and recommended near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to manage parking demand.

On-street parking utilization is highly tied to household growth. There has not been a lot of added household growth in 2020. There were 4 net new households in the 145th subarea and 31 in the 185th subarea. So there is not a large increase in utilization. We do recognize that in 2020 COVID-19 was in full swing, and there was a lot of construction and related operations reducing available on-street parking. This is only the current update to ongoing parking studies in these areas.

Less than 70% represents an underutilized asset, while over 85% can be detrimental in terms of drivers circling the block which has both traffic and environmental impact.

Because this is a highly detailed report and the maps did not show well, please go to the staff report for additional details.


These projections are updated as we receive new data. We are not at the point yet where we really need to dig into more dynamic parking management within the next five years or perhaps longer.

New walk-shed analysis around light rail stations is provided this year in preparation for future Sound Transit hide-and-ride mitigation efforts. A 15-minute walk-shed around station areas will require consideration for tools such as restricted parking zone (RPZ) permitting.

Note: walk-shred or pedestrian shed means an area, approximately circular, that is centered on a common destination. A 15-minute walk is the distance a pedestrian will walk at a leisurely place in 15 minutes (approximately one mile).
 
A Standard Pedestrian Shed is 1/4 mile radius or 1320 feet, about the distance of a five-minute walk at a leisurely pace. It has been shown that provided with a pedestrian environment, most people will walk this distance rather than drive.

Near-term recommendations for 2021-2025

Complete
  • Analyze and adopt a monetary penalty schedule for parking violations specific to the City of Shoreline;
  • and update restricted parking zone (RPZ) policies, procedures and fees to prepare for anticipated new RPZ’s surrounding light rail stations

Ongoing
  • Utilize basic time of day and load zone parking restrictions;
  • Use study data to inform the Engineering Development Manual updates; and
  • Explore potential development of code revisions to encourage reduced car ownership. One item that is being discussed is “unbundling” parking fees from rents charged, which can work towards housing affordability and reduced car ownership.
New
  • Fund a position dedicated to parking management and enforcement;
  • Consider updated Transportation Master Plan (TMP) parking policies; and
  • Group subarea parking utilization reporting into smaller analysis zones.
Mid-Term Recommendations 2026-2031
  • Evaluate need for special use zones;
  • Establish basic real time parking information technology; and
  • Perform feasibility analysis of metered parking in business locations.
Long-Term Recommendations 2032+
  • Implement metered parking in key locations;
  • Expand real time parking information & tech; and
  • Continue to build upon and refine existing parking management strategies and resources.
DISCUSSION

You indicated inclusion of the non-motorized bridges in some of the walk-sheds. But the 145th walk-shed map does not include the chance of there being a 148th St bridge and/or the Trail along the Rail. Otherwise that would expand further to the northwest?
  • Reply: I did have them include the 148th bridge. The Trail along the Rail was not directly included but it is included in the off street routing.
Are these types of studies still going on throughout the City? In the Town Center area the large apartment buildings are impacting the parking along the storage units and the park there, and some parking is bleeding into the neighborhoods.
  • Reply: This subarea study effort has supplemental funding approved by Council. As a general rule of thumb, we are always available to the community to do operational studies. So, if and when the community does initiate action to study for RPZ (restricted parking zones), we are compelled to act on it. I haven’t received any requests for the area you described. Also, occupants of the apartments are also residents so they are entitled to have residential use permits - we can’t arbitrarily exclude certain residents. We do work with target developments to create mitigation plans to manage the parking.
I like the way the timelines are laid out so that it seems to be “baby steps” to grow into such things as metering. Because if you want to upset a community, start putting parking meters all over the City.

This is the first time I’ve heard discussion of smaller areas within the subareas. Is there a policy being developed about when to create smaller areas?
  • Reply: Last year I thought we needed to start honing in on smaller geographic areas in order to capture areas of higher utilization. However, I think that will be more important a couple years down the road as we see more development.
I have a few questions.
  1. There are two parking issues here: the growth from development and the potential growth from people trying to access the light rail station. Residents may want to utilize street parking, but recognizing that there are other people who also will to utilize it, especially during the day, is there a way to try to figure out distinct areas that we really need to focus on because of those who want to park to access light rail stations?
  2. Also we don’t have complete sidewalks. Can we really put a meter where there’s no sidewalk? I’m trying to look at the whole picture. These are just questions for future consideration in how we craft regulations.
  3. Does a 15 minute walk make sense for people using the light rail station? Should it be 5 minutes? I don’t know.
  • Reply: We are starting “big” with 15 minutes but we will hone in. This gives us a good baseline because it it’s a broad area. I would guess we’ll probably be starting into this in 2023.
What are the mitigation measures that we are expecting Sound Transit to do?
  • Reply: There are a couple of different forms. The main one we’re talking about now is restricted parking (RPZ) permits. There is an RPZ by Shoreline Community College that has signs that you cannot park there without a zone permit.
But that would be done by the City. I thought there was mitigation that is the responsibility of Sound Transit (ST).
  • Reply: ST is required to implement an RPZ at least at the time of the start of the program. They will have to study and determine where it is needed and then put in signs in order to cover the start-up of the program. Ongoing, it will be the City’s responsibility.
Have we considered charging stations for the (hopefully) increased use of electric vehicles 10 years from now? We may want to include a forecast of the types of vehicles we’re trying to serve.
  • Reply: There is a shared role among on-site development, ST, and homeowners. ST has some charging stations. I haven’t seen much in terms of charging stations in public right of way parking. Probably because it requires quite a bit of maintenance and there are other issues including the cost of installation. It would be a lovely amenity, though. I think we’re going to see more micro-mobility demand (that last mile connection).
I think we should have early parking enforcement. There is a pent-up demand throughout the City, not only in these areas but some others. For example people in the south-east area of Shoreline that have spill-over parking from multi-family development in Seattle. We have seen complaints from other areas with similar problems and I expect a flood of complaints once light rail opens up. Some of these complaints include blocked mailboxes and blocked, or partially blocked, driveways. We can’t expect patrol officers to enforce parking violations. It’s not realistic.

I live in what will be an RPZ. And I note that you state permits will be available “for purchase.”
  • Reply: I think that will be adjusted but we haven’t worked through a preliminary fee schedule. The RPZ by SCC is so small and simple to oversee, the fee is very small ($17.50). I think Seattle charges about $65. We’ll be looking at that in about 2023 when the stations are getting ready to open.
One of the issues has nothing to do with light rail or growth or other things we’ve discussed but it is people’s perception that you can move into this (my) neighborhood with RV’s and boats and cars and park them on the street. So I’m very interested in having RPZ studied and see what impact it would have on neighborhoods like mine.

Is there a sense of where these cars are registered? Do we know what percentage of cars parked in a particular neighborhood are registered on that block? Is there a threshold?
  • Reply: We do actually look into this. We use a threshold. If 100% of the cars are from the neighborhood, then you aren’t impacting the cars from the fringe areas. So we look at 30% of the cars originating from other areas. RPZ’s are for the residential area to preserve residential on-street parking. Metering is used in a commercial area to support more turnover parking.
Appreciate the approach that is being taken by staff.

MEETING ADJOURNED



Read more...

Agenda for Shoreline council meeting December 6, 2021

Wednesday, December 1, 2021

Shoreline City Council 2021

The December 6, 2021 Shoreline City Council Regular Meeting includes two action items and one study item.

Action Item 8(a) Action on Ordinance No. 948 – Amending Chapter 15.05, Construction and Building Codes, of the Shoreline Municipal Code, to Provide Amendments to the Washington State Energy Code - Commercial, as Adopted by the State of Washington

Council discussed this topic on August 16 and November 15 of 2021, and indicated general support for an ordinance to limit the use of fossil fuels for commercial construction and multi-family projects over three stories in height since Washington State prohibits local governments from passing electrification ordinances for new residential construction.

Council will consider adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 948 which bans of the use of fossil fuels in new commercial and large multi-family construction projects for space heating and most water heating as well as numerous other increases in energy efficiency requirements.

Action Item 8(b) Action on Ordinance No. 950 - Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 10.20 Speed Limits

At their November 22, 2021 regular meeting, Council discussed a speed limit reduction of five (5) miles per hour (mph), from 35 mph to 30 mph, for:
  1. N/NE 175th Street from Aurora Avenue N to 15th Avenue NE,
  2. Meridian Avenue N from N 145th Street to NE 205th Street,
  3. 15th Avenue NE from NE 145th Street to NE 175th Street,
  4. Greenwood Avenue N from N 145th Street to NW Innis Arden Way, and
  5. N/NW Richmond Beach Road from 8th Avenue NW to Fremont Avenue N.
Council will consider adding two additional locations for this same speed reduction
  1. 15th Avenue NE between NE 180th Street and NE 196th Street, and
  2. Dayton Ave N between Westminster Way N and Carlyle Hall Road N.
Study Item 9(a) Discussion of Utility Undergrounding for the 175th Street (Stone to I- 5) Project

Staff is requesting direction from Council on the staff recommendation to include undergrounding of existing overhead utilities as part of the project along N 175th St from Stone Ave N to Interstate 5.

In addition to increased project costs of $1.87M, the undergrounding of electrical system would result in an increase to rate payers of approximately $1.00 per billing period (once every two months) for 25 years.

Proposed electrical undergrounding.
Note: Top Foods is now the Everett Clinic, Trader Joe's and Mud Bay

View the meeting, view staff documents, make comments here

--Pam Cross



Read more...

Reception for retiring Shoreline Councilmembers on December 13

Monday, November 29, 2021

 

The City of Shoreline is holding a reception for Will Hall, Keith McGlashan, and Susan Chang, who are retiring at the end of their terms on the Shoreline City Council the last day of December.

Monday, December 13, 2021 from 5 - 6:30pm.

The reception will be held outside and under cover at City Hall, 17500 Midvale Ave N, Shoreline WA 98133.

Proof of COVID-19 vaccination and masks are required. Light refreshments will be served. Questions - call 206-801-2214.



Read more...

Notes from Shoreline council meeting November 22, 2021

Sunday, November 28, 2021

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Meeting
November 22, 2021

Notes by Pam Cross

Deputy Mayor Scully called the remote meeting to order at 7:00pm.

Mayor Hall was excused for personal reasons. All other Councilmembers were present.

Approval of the Agenda
Agenda approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager Debbie Tarry

COVID-19 UPDATE

Case rates continue to slowly decline statewide and in King County we are at a level of substantial (down from high) transmission of COVID-19 infections. Unfortunately new cases are increasing in Shoreline.

Wear a mask, even if you are fully vaccinated. We encourage everyone to get vaccinated and, if eligible, get a booster shot. Masks are mandated for everyone in indoor public settings and outdoor crowded settings. To find available vaccines and for additional information, visit doh.wa.gov

In accordance with the Public Health Order effective 10/25/21 in all of King County, proof of vaccination or proof of a negative COVID-19 test taken in the last 72 hours will be required for: indoor dining, bars, and recreational activities of any size including theaters, gyms, and performances as well as outdoor events with 500 or more people. More information: kingcounty.gov/covid

Vaccine Clinic for adults and children through December 17.


HOLIDAY EVENTS

The Holiday Crafts Market last Saturday had over 3,000 shoppers making it a great success.

Registration is open for the Winter Porch Light Parade.


Council Reports

CM Chang attended possibly the last meeting of the Regional Transit Committee on Service Guidelines, the Strategic Plan and the Long-Term Plan for KingCo Metro. We did the best we could for Shoreline. There was already some restructuring with the Northgate station opening and there will be more when our stations open. The amendments that passed basically allow for our buses to be moved out of our area to other areas in the County with greater needs, so there’s no guarantee we’re going to keep the bus service that we have. The most important part is that there is a provision that KingCo has to engage with the affected areas and develop a set of goals for the restructuring. There is a section in there where there is a goal of serving light rail but that the area can’t be left with worse service than they currently have. It is really unclear what that means in Shoreline because we don’t really have any routes that go east-west right now. We couldn’t get any new routes or new service which requires large concentrations of priority populations and we don’t have that. We need to make sure the City of Shoreline residents stay involved to protect our interests.

CM McConnell offered congratulations to CM Roberts for his election to the National League of Cities (NLC) Board of Directors. He was elected to a 2-year term and will provide strategic direction and guidance for NLC’s federal advocacy, governance and membership activities. NLC is the largest and most representative organization for cities, their elected leaders and municipal staff, and advocates for city priorities in Washington by building strong federal-local partnerships. The conference was remote and very busy. CM McConnell will be reapplying for the Transportation Committee.

CM Roberts thanked CM McConnell for her support for him and others. CM Roberts stated five Washingtonians were elected to the NLC board. The membership elected Tacoma Mayor Victoria Woodards as First Vice President, and Seattle Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, Bellevue Councilmember Janice Zahn, and Vancouver Councilmember Ty Stober to two-year terms on the board. This is good representation from the Northwest for a national board of about 55.

DM Scully went to the Brotherton Cadillac groundbreaking for their new Shoreline facility and did the ribbon cutting at Grounded, a non-profit located behind Black Coffee NW.

Public Comment
NONE

Approval of the Consent Calendar
Consent Calendar approved unanimously

Action Item 8(a) Appointment of Pro and Con Committee Members for City of Shoreline Proposition 1: General Obligation Bonds for Parks, Improvements and Park Land Acquisitions

Eric Bratton, Communications Program Manager, gave the brief presentation


Pro Committee Applicants
  • Brian Branagan
  • Katie Schielke
  • Mary Ellen Stone
Con Committee Applicant
  • Joseph Smith
For the primary and general election, King County publishes a voters’ pamphlet. The City Council is responsible for appointing committees to prepare statements in favor of and in opposition to a ballot measure. These statements will be published in the voters’ pamphlet. Committees must submit their statements to King County Elections by December 14 and their rebuttals by December 16. The City must also provide an explanatory statement of the ballot title for the voters’ pamphlet.

DISCUSSION
Motion and second to appoint the volunteers (shown above) for the Pro and Con Committees.

DISCUSSION
Council stated appreciation for the volunteers who applied for the committees.
No additional comments.

VOTE
Passes unanimously 6-0.

Action item 8(b) Adopting the 2022 State Legislative Priorities

John Norris, Assistant City Manager, made the presentation

At its November 8 meeting, the City Council reviewed and discussed the proposed 2022 State Legislative Priorities. For 2022, staff proposes the continuation of efforts to secure funding and/or other legislative support for: a bike/pedestrian bridge at N 148th Street; planning support, in collaboration with partner cities, for a regional crisis triage center; and increased investment in behavioral health and misdemeanor court diversion.

Additional issues raised on November 8 included changing the residential energy code, potentially adding a priority to seek local authority to make changes to the State’s residential Energy Code. Council also discussed whether ongoing efforts by the State to develop the Fircrest Campus ought to be included as part of the Legislative Priorities.

Staff does not recommend adding Fircrest but did prepare a potential motion regarding the residential energy code.

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to adopt 2022 State Legislative Priorities

Motion and second to amend the main motion to read:


Last week we discussed the energy code around multi-family buildings. We want to allow the City to look at the residential codes as well as the multi-family. It will not commit the City, but gives us the authority to make changes if we so desire.

We need to be careful here. The energy code is very long and technical, with credits added and subtracted, in order to make a project work out. It’s nice to have Statewide code so there is no advantage to one City or County over another. Thank about vehicle emission standards where California has more restrictive requirements than the rest of the country. But a vehicle manufacturer cannot be expected to build vehicles differently for every individual state. I see the energy code in a similar way. One Statewide code is easier to work with and has the advantage of being vetted.

I share that caution. This is a short and therefore fast session so we should keep our legislative priorities very focused. This is a little broad. Adding to priorities takes away from our other ones that I think are more important.

I support it but I would be astonished if anything happens on it this session. It will probably be a multi-year process but now could be the time to start the conversation. And it should be a recurring discussion.

VOTE ON AMENDMENT
Motion passes 5-1, with CM McGlashan opposing

VOTE ON MAIN MOTION as amended
Passes unanimously 6-0

Study Item 9(a) Discussion of Ordinance No. 950 - Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 10.20 Speed Limits

Kendra Dedinsky, City Traffic Engineer, made the presentation


Historically, speed limit setting practices have relied heavily on 85th percentile speeds. That is, the speed at which 85% of traffic is traveling at or below on a particular street or road. This car-centric practice was based on the idea that most drivers are prudent, however this approach diminishes the experience and safety of non-driving roadway users. A 50th percentile operating speed may provide a better approximation of the average speed.

After additional review based on Council feedback from the January 4 discussion, staff worked with engineering consultant DKS to study speed limits and developed proposed amendments to SMC Chapter 10.20 Speed Limits for Council consideration. A new tool was used developed by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP).


Staff proposes a speed limit reduction of five miles per hour (mph), from 35 mph to 30 mph, for five of the six corridors studied:
  • N/NE 175th Street from Aurora Avenue N to 15th Avenue NE
  • Meridian Avenue N from N 145th Street to NE 205th Street
  • 15th Avenue NE from NE 145th Street to NE 175th Street
  • Greenwood Avenue N from N 145th Street to NW Innis Arden Way
  • N/NW Richmond Beach Road from 8th Avenue NW to Fremont Avenue N
Analysis of the sixth corridor, 15th Avenue NE from NE 180th Street to NE 196th Street resulted in a recommendation to retain the existing speed limit. Council retains the authority to lower the speed limit on this segment if it chooses.

At the January meeting Council also mentioned concerns about speed enforcement. The plan is to retain existing citation rates and enforcement practices. Education and outreach will be key components of these changes.

Drivers often choose a speed within a certain increment above the posted speed limit. Study data confirmed that when posted speeds were lowered, operation speeds decreased.

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) also showed that crashes were lowest where the average vehicle operating speed was within 5mph of the posed speed.

Other main concerns were:
  1. sensitivity to the disproportionate impact traffic enforcement and citations have on lower income populations and people of color
  2. the economic cost of slower speeds.Increased travel time costs for all 5 corridors is estimated at $2.25M annually, and collisions are estimated to cost about $7M annually. If a significant reduction in injury collisions is realized, a balanced benefit/cost could be achieved.
  3. interest in a second review of the northern 15th Ave NE segment. New data was collected and the recommendation remained the same largely due to high operating speeds (using 50th percentile).
  4. the ability of posted speeds alone to influence lower operating speeds.

DISCUSSION

I was looking thru the spreadsheet results in the back of the staff report, and some of the streets were characterized as urban rather than suburban. Do we have urban streets in Shoreline?
  • Reply: the categories were chosen by the consultant. It was more qualitative - whether there were commercial or multifamily or single family homes. Our arterials fit into the urban category. I played around with the speed setting tool a bit and changing from urban to suburban didn’t really change the outcome. Density of signals, pedestrians and bikes didn’t have much of an impact either. There wasn’t as much sensitivity in the tool as I expected.
The Greenwood stretch had a really small number of accidents and 1 fatality. Other segments had much higher. Why is this part being reduced?
  • Reply: I was surprised too. The results seem to depend on whether they used 85th or 50th percentile. The tool still heavily relies on data that we put in. So if other factors (density of signals, the presence of pedestrians and/or bikes) had resulted in use of the 50th percentile, accident numbers would not make a difference.
A speeding vehicle caused the horrible accident we just had so the impact of speed is obvious. But we also need to keep design in mind as a big element because there will always be people who ignore speed limits and drive recklessly. I think 15th NE design needs to be addressed because the current design propels you through that corridor. I think a lot of people will be using it when we have light rail here.

Many of these roads have a lot of transit on them. Has Metro been consulted? Do they have any input?
  • Reply: Last year I talked to Metro and there weren’t any major concerns. They support Target Zero (Washington State’s Target Zero plan represents a bold vision: zero deaths and serious injuries on Washington's roadways by 2030). And of course they care about their users who are pedestrians as well. Metro is more concerned about congestion affecting their travel times. We will touch back with them before implementation.
We need to go beyond these corridors, and look at Dayton and 15th NE that we’ve already talked about. As we look at the land use map and look at these roads - all the current 35mph streets are generally on routes that have larger commercial, wider roads, and are not adjacent to R6 (single family) zoning. Dayton and 15th sections are R6. 35 mph needs to be limited to more commercial areas, not single family homes where you tend to see a lot of children. Neighborhood streets are not captured in the data.
Also they are looking at current usage. If you lower the speed limit and perhaps make some minor improvements, people will feel safer and walk and bike in areas where they currently don’t. Because of the changes we made to Richmond Beach Road, we see more bicyclists there now that we lower speeds and have bike lanes.

I support staff coming back to us sooner than another 10-15 years because we have such significant growth as we increase density around the light rail stations. Even with projections, we don’t know what it will really look like until it happens. We need to be proactive as these areas develop.

Thanks to the staff for answering the questions that we raised in January. I do have a concern that if we reduce a speed limit that is currently not followed, that would just create a bigger pool of people who can be cited - but it’s not necessarily safer. I would like traffic enforcement to concentrate on the ones that are going 50 or 60mph, and appear to be impaired. The seriousness of the accidents can be reduced by driving at a slower speeds.

I was surprised we do get safer as we set lower speed limits because most people will drive slower. But we’ll have to watch this. We don’t want to target any particular population.

Council is supportive.

This will come back as an Action item to allow additional discussion.

Study Item 9(b) Discussion of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update

Nora Daley-Peng, Senior Transportation Planner, gave the presentation.

What is the TMP?
A realistic plan that results in action. It will guide transportation spending over the next 20 years based on community needs and priorities.

Why update the TMP?


This is a multi year process with a goal of completion at the end of 2022. The last update to the TMP was in 2011. This is the second briefing - the last briefing was in May.


Since May, we had various forms of outreach from mid-June to mid-July.

These were the key discussion topics:
  • Future transit service
  • Shared-use mobility to provide convenient ways (such as community van/shuttle, bike share, scooter share and ride hailing) for people to make that first and last mile connections without needing to drive.
  • Future traffic patterns and volumes when light rail stations open in 2024
  • The impact of redevelopment around the light rail stations
  • Interest in formalizing, beautifying, and extending a network of neighborhood paths to key destinations such as schools, parks, and commercial centers
  • Desire for more comfortable and direct bicycle connections to key destinations
  • And getting the highest and best use of curb space

DISCUSSION

How does the TMP interact with what’s going to happen at Metro? It seems like there is information here that’s important to get to Metro.
  • Reply: Nytasha Walters, our Transportation Services Manager, has been attending those meetings.
  • Reply by Nytasha Walters: We have been sharing our desire for Metro Connects (King County Metro's vision for bringing more service, more choices, and one easy-to-use system over the next 25 years). We have been advocating for the utilization of that as part of the restructuring that will be occurring with Lynnwood Link coming online. We are continuing to advocate for getting that implemented in the interim rather than long term.
The map of network pathways. Are these pathways developed? Or ones neighborhoods would like to see developed?
  • Reply: This was just a survey - not a study. So we wanted all ideas - existing or new additions. We do have these little “unimproved right of way” areas throughout the City. Some neighborhood associations have fixed them up using City grants and volunteer labor. It is City right of way and there was a lot of interest in them.
Are any on private property?
  • Reply: there might be some that infringe on private right of ways, but the respondents stayed focused on the City property.
If the City does them, do we have to do the maintenance?
  • Reply: Yes. If we want more, we need to figure how to pay to get them to created and maintained.
We are making good progress completing projects in the TMP. These long term plans are big, but they really do shape where we’re going with our City. Transit is important aspect as previously discussed.

Looking at some of the prioritization and scorecard for sidewalks, are we really going to look at them since they’re not mentioned in the 2011 TMP?
  • Reply: I know Council was very involved in the Sidewalk Prioritization Plan. It was the beginning of the pedestrian aspect of the TMP. We are heading into this update with that Plan in place and we’re building upon it. In terms of the metrics, we learned quite a bit. We can break down other goals the same way. We don’t have that yet. We need to be rock solid on the foundational stuff first before we move into a point system and metrics.
So you’re coming up with a score card for metro, roads, etc all as part of the TMP?
  • Reply: we are looking at a layered network (transit, walking, driving, biking). They overlap in many ways. Also we will talk about the prioritization process with everyone - but the scoring report will be outside the actual TMP. It’s too focused for a master planning document. Having it outside the master document allows it to be updated on a more regular basis.
But the scoring categories, and how we score, will be in the TMP?
  • Reply by Kendra Dedinsky: The metrics - yes. There will be different metrics for the different modes (biking/metro/roads). The standards that the modes are measured against will be in the TMP.
  • Reply: the TMP is about the process of how we want to prioritize the construction of projects over the next 20 years. The prioritizations metrics should be available next time we meet for input from Council. Things like how are we going to measure safety. We will have specific metrics and it will be a very early draft that will require much more work.
I thought the Sidewalk Prioritization we great - it was really well done. But we didn’t build in an update mechanism. And the safety valve was “Council can change it.” But we’ve learned that facts on the ground change faster than the update. Also, Council isn’t positioned to do that. I’m hoping we can build into the metrics a way to update the matrix more frequently and to capture the changes such as changing bus routes or new development, changed the priority. A project that made sense 5 years ago, may no longer be important.

This will come back in February or March.

MEETING ADJOURNED



Read more...
ShorelineAreaNews.com
Facebook: Shoreline Area News
Twitter: @ShorelineArea
Daily Email edition (don't forget to respond to the Follow.it email)

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP