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

Notes from Shoreline Council meeting March 7, 2022

Friday, March 11, 2022

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Meeting
March 7, 2022

Notes by Pam Cross

The remote meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Mayor Scully.
All Councilmembers were present.

Approval of the Agenda
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.

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

FINAL REGULAR COVID-19 UPDATE

This does not mean COVID is over. Future updates will follow only as needed.

In addition to thanking the community for keeping one another safe, we would like to recognize the 125 Shoreline residents who we lost to COVID over the last 2 years.


As you know King County vaccination requirements ended on March 1, which also applies to City recreation facilities. We are no longer requiring proof of vaccination or a negative test in order to enter Spartan or Richmond Highland Recreation centers.

The mask mandate will lift on March 12. Masks will not be required in City facilities, but we still recommend their use in our public spaces.

TAKE THE SURVEY:


PROVIDE YOUR IDEAS:


Public Reminders
NONE

NOTE: The Council Meeting for March 14 has been cancelled. The next meeting will be held remotely on Monday, March 21, 2022 at 7:00pm.

Council Reports

CM Pobee
attended the SeaShore Transportation meeting.
There were a lot of presentations made, including one by the City of Shoreline. There was a presentation by King County about the corridor. In the past we have talked about growth policy in a general way, but now we are looking at things separately. For example, air quality, safety, and equity are all now separate items. The good news is that there is about $5M in grants to do the feasibility and architectural studies and, later on, there is funding available to begin construction or to make changes to this corridor.

CM Mork attended the Regional Water Quality Conference.
There was an orientation to get everyone focused on water quality issues, followed by the regular meeting. The goals we’re working on are the Work Plan, and talking about upcoming rate increases earlier rather than later. Previously the County has preferred a large increase one year and a smaller one the next. We would like to make it more predictable with year to year smaller increases.

Mayor Scully and the City Manager kicked off the current CityWise Program.
I also talked to some 5th graders from St. Luke’s school who were interested in what the City is doing for water conservation.

Public Comment (2 minutes, amended to 3)
There were 11 speakers, one of which could speak now or following item 8(a).

Jackie Kurle, Shoreline
I appreciate the City keeping an eye on the operations of The Oaks Shelter. I see no reason it won’t be a success but want regular updates for the safety of the community and the occupants of the shelter.

Jack Malek, Shoreline
Re item 8(a)

NOTE: This comment has been moved to follow 8(a) for continuity of the narrative

The following speakers provided comprehensive and detailed comments about the amendments to tree regulations (refer to study item 9b of the Feb 28, 2022 Council meeting).

Melody Fosmore, Shoreline, speaking on behalf of the Tree Code Preservation Team
Kathleen Russell, Shoreline
Wally Fosmore, Shoreline
Rebecca Jones, Seattle
Bill Turner, Shoreline
Nancy Morris, Shoreline
Susanne Tsoming, Shoreline
Gayle Janzen, North Seattle
Ann Bates, Shoreline

Approval of the Consent Calendar
The Consent Calendar was approved unanimously 7-0.

Action Item 8(a) Action on Ordinance No. 958 – Waiving Council Rule of Procedure 3.6 and Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Section 13.20.040 to Except Temporary Construction Power from the City’s Undergrounding Requirement

Presentation by John Norris, Assistant City Manager

Although this was discussed last week, it is before Council tonight for the first time as an Action item. As a result, public comment will follow the staff report.

On February 28th, the City Council discussed the issue of required electrical utility undergrounding in the 145th Street Station Subarea and the impact on the Sound Transit Lynnwood Link Extension Project and development in the Subarea. This discussion was prompted by Seattle City Light’s (SCL’s) announcement that it was delaying its critical underground infrastructure project that is necessary to serve the Sound Transit light rail project at 145th street. The City’s current Municipal Code regulations prohibit new electrical facilities or extensions, additions, duplications, or rebuilds of existing electrical facilities being constructed on overhead poles.

Last week’s discussion covered both temporary power for construction and interim power for operations. Tonight’s discussion is about the allowance of overhead temporary construction power.

Ordinance 958 adds new Subsection E to SMC 13.20.040 that allows overhead temporary electrical service for construction. This will apply citywide and to all development projects.
The proposed Code language also states that “overhead temporary electrical service must be disconnected and removed when the project is connected to permanent electrical service or prior to Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs sooner.” This will ensure that temporary construction power will truly remain temporary, and that these temporary facilities will be removed from the City once no longer being utilized.

Alternative wordings are provided at Council’s request to make this a narrow allowance for overhead temporary construction power to specific areas of the City:
145th and 185th light rail station subarea's MR-70’ Zone


Reopen Public Comment

Jack Malek, Shoreline
I’m a planning commissioner and realtor. Thanks for advancing this to an Action so quickly. Want to speak to this because I think the recommendation is a little light. I could be wrong, but thought I read it’s just for construction instead of when occupied. They could not use existing power (it would not operate an elevator for example) to begin operation.

This could affect closing loans. Need to interim overhead lines for operation as well as construction. Developers are delivering affordable housing and transit-oriented housing, so they deserve a relationship with the City and certainty they can operate the building once it is constructed. .

No additional public comment.

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to approve Ordinance 958.

I think the discussion we had last week showed the importance of moving this forward. We’ve already made an exception for Sound Transit and I think we need to make an exception for other developers working in the same area.

Motion and second to amend Ordinance 958 to limit it to MUR-70’ Zone.

I think we should be very careful moving forward with this. As a City we want to make sure that our electrical wires are underground. Future projects could be addressed by amending this as the need arises. But I hope there are not other projects in this situation.

I agree. This is something we wish we weren’t having to do at all. So we have to write something narrowly.

Why did staff propose to make it citywide in the first place?
  • Reply: Our understanding from our staff engineers is that this is in a number of municipal codes (not in all). We tried to do as much research as we could, reviewing about 16 other jurisdictions. Some don’t have undergrounding code language at all. For those that do, this is a common exception. We already have codes requiring undergrounding. This ordinance is intended to just streamline that process and get construction started and not have utility work undergrounding be required up front.
Will having this in the MUR-70’ zone be helpful or harmful. Should it be broader?
  • Reply: From the current developers’ standpoint, making specific to MUR-70 will address their concerns. The broader question is, are there future projects that aren’t in front of us right now that may require it? Council could amend the Ordinance in the future. Staff had recommended broader code language and not just MUR-70’ so that we don’t have to amend the code again or bring Council another emergency issue if a developer in another area outside of MUR-70’ needs this exception. Also, from staff’s perspective, Council is supportive of our undergrounding code. This still will ultimately allow for undergrounding . A construction project will generally be in the one to two year range, depending on what’s being built, how complex etc. so that may mean that there are temporary overhead wires for 1-2 years, but ultimately underground as required by current code. Temporary power is quicker to install.
I agree with the amended motion. The City has been forced to be nimble because we don’t have underground 3-phase power and the undergrounding is not going to be completed in time for current projects. We can address other projects later.

In my experience, it is typical to allow temporary construction power and this Ordinance will provide one less bureaucratic area to slow things down. We have enough of those already. I do not support the amendment.

I support the amended motion. I don’t want to do business by addressing emergency motions. If we have a code change, we can do that in the usual course of business. When we have a specific crisis with a specific set of facts, then we should address that specific crisis and that specific set of facts. That way we can get adequate public comment because we’ve publicized it. I don’t like shooting from the hip. For that reason we also need to address operation interim power as soon as staff is able to bring that back to us.

Will ongoing power use (for operations) come back to Council for consideration?
  • Reply: Staff is still working on putting that together and it will come back as a follow up ordinance in the coming weeks. We did not want to hold up the temporary ordinance.
VOTE on the Amended Motion MUR-70’ Zone
The Amendment passes 5-2

CM Mork and McConnell dissenting.

VOTE on Main Motion
Passes unanimously 7-0.

Study Item 9(a) Discussion of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update: Draft Auto Level of Service Approach

Presentation by Nora Daley-Peng, Senior Transportation Planner and
Kendra Dedinsky, City Traffic Engineer

What is the TMP?
The City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is the long-range blueprint for multimodal travel and mobility within Shoreline. The last update to the TMP was in November 2011. For this discussion, staff will provide the Council with a briefing on auto level of service (LOS) policy options that define adequacy of auto capacity and flow on city arterials. The TMP update will provide a framework to guide investments in existing and new transportation infrastructure and programs over the next 20 years in accordance with the community’s transportation priorities.


The team is now working on multimodal LOS policies, draft modal plans, a process for prioritizing projects, and is preparing to launch Outreach Series 3 in April. Over the winter 2022, the project team will develop a draft layered transportation network of modal plans for pedestrian, bicycle, transit, shared-use mobility, and auto/freight modes.

NOTE: The detailed discussion includes several exhibits available in the staff report, beginning on page 9a-3 and continuing to 9a-10.

Auto Policy Approach

LOS - Level of Service


This doesn’t mean A is good and F is bad like in school grades. The City’s current LOS policy requires LOS D at signalized intersections on arterials and most unsignalized intersecting arterials. It is worth noting that while LOS A represents the lowest traffic delay, it is not necessarily the ideal standard to strive for as it is largely unattainable in more urban environments and significantly limits desired redevelopment.

V/C Ratio - Volume to Capacity Supplemental Standard

Simply put, this takes the peak volume of the roadway and divides it by the theoretical capacity which is established by regional models. Shoreline’s current standard is a V/C of .90 or lower on principal and minor arterials. This is not a standard engineering metric.

Growth Projects and Transportation Impact Fees (TIF)

We won’t talk about this today, but I want to point out that the level of service standard directly correlates to TIF paid by development (or by the City in cases where we have exempted development).

Modeling Analysis and Technical Findings


The preferred option for Shoreline is #2 because it anticipates the most growth and balances needs citywide. In the analysis, 2019 numbers were used as a basis in order to avoid the pandemic’s skewing of numbers.

When looking at 2044 Intersection Impacts, preferred option #2 would result in 5 intersections (out of 42) needing improvements. Option #1 would result in 6 and #3 would result in 3. We did not analyze every intersection in the City - these are just representative numbers.


The preferred option for Shoreline is #2 because it anticipates the most growth and balances needs citywide, consistent with the intersection LOS standard.

When looking at 2044 projections, there are number of corridors exceeding the .90 standard. Option #1 results in 9 corridor improvements or exemptions; #2 (preferred) results in 4.

This will return to Council in late March and early April.

DISCUSSION

Clarify what edge issues mean? How will it be identified and then mitigated?
  • Reply Kendra Dedinsky: If you allow for increased delay for particular intersections that butt up against residential areas, for example, we want to make sure that the adjacent intersections are actually performing at their lower LOS and that we’re not inherently producing a lot of cut-through traffic. This is something we need to work through with our consultant because it is something they have identified for us. We haven’t fully flushed this out yet.
When you move from .9 to 1.1, are you increasing or slowing the flow?
  • Reply: Slowing it down. You are increasing congestion, the higher the higher you go on that ratio.
Why are Dayton and 15th exempted?
  • Reply: That was set in our last TMP process in 2011. What they found was that future modeling would result in a V/C greater that .9 so we had to decide how to expand those roadways or exempt them. These are relatively narrow roads with little room to widen.
Regarding the idea of the grouping of intersections. It’s very frustrating as a driver to be stopped at an intersection, go through it, and then have to stop at the next one in one or two blocks. I know we’re not going for free flow, but it should be considered. We’re trying to intentionally make travel by cars a little less comfortable, in favor of walking and biking. Bu some residents are going to say “Thanks, Shoreline! You brought in all this density and now the roads can’t handle it.”
  • Reply: Thanks for that feedback. Travel-time metrics are important and we need to address that as we move along. It’s not something we can use as a forecasting tool.
What is Outreach 3?
  • Reply Nora Daley-Peng: I will be returning to Council on Mar 28 to go over our approach.
How has feedback from the community in the first two outreach events affected what we are discussing today?
  • Reply Kendra Dedinsky: We have feed-back about particular intersections and respect and recognize different issues and adjust our approach. We have heard from pedestrians and bikers as well as drivers.
How does funding work?
  • Reply Nora Daley-Peng: We will update our financial plan to address this but we need to know what our priorities are first.
Is 5th NE and 165th NE included in preferred option? It’s a pretty important intersection. You can get back to on this. I appreciate what you have done and recognize that these metrics are the best that we have at this time.
  • Reply: We can look into this intersection more closely as we move forward.
8(b) Discussing Ordinance No. 955 – 2021 Batch #2 – Miscellaneous and (State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Related Amendments Amending Development Code Sections 20.20, 20.30, 20.40 and 20.50

Due to limited time, the staff is asked to make a very brief summary and trust that Council has read the reports.

Presentation by Steve Szafran, Senior Planner


The amendments have been split into three topics: (1) “miscellaneous” will provide updates, clarifications, and policy changes to parking, residential setbacks, and adaptive reuse of commercial buildings that have been difficult to lease, (2) updates to the procedures and administration of SEPA and (3) modifications to regulations affecting the protection and preservation of trees.

DISCUSSION

Amendment 1 (#A1) Definition of “family”
Staff report states effective July 25, Senate Bill (SB) 5235 a city may not limit the number of unrelated persons occupying a dwelling, yet we still appear to have a limit of 8. You can get back to me on this.

Why do we have to still have to define a family as related by blood or marriage. I think this is something to consider striking. (There was general agreement with this.)

#A11 Re-use of commercial buildings
No new signs facing abutting residential uses. Could it be an upgrade of old sign? Broken sign? Trivial but I’m curious because I wouldn’t want this to stand in the way of repurposing the building.
  • Reply: Old signs can be repaired and upgraded. We just don’t want new signs facing residences.
I’m not fond of this amendment. These are non-conforming uses, holdovers of things that don’t meet our current standards. It’s a bad idea. While I’m sympathetic to the difficulty of leasing these buildings, I don’t know why we would want to encourage non-conforming uses.

Any idea how many lots we are talking about? What it looks like in your examples is that there is a lot of parking all around and I don’t see the parking disappearing in the foreseeable future. And some of these properties will be walked to by the neighborhood residents. I’d like to see these buildings used instead of vacant and boarded up.
  • Reply: These are parcels that have existed for a long time and are now non-conforming. The amount of money to make these buildings useable will trigger compliance with our existing code. That’s not going to happen. They will sit vacant until they are demolished and most likely be rebuilt as multi-family housing. This amendment was kind of a stop gap to allow a use until it is knocked down and something new is built that won’t be affordable and probably won’t attract local tenants. I don’t know how many lots there are totally.
  • Reply Nathan Daum, Economic Dev. Program Manager: It’s our expectation that there is a limited set of locations. And sometimes we are talking about changing from one commercial use to another. The buildings are there so we are looking for ways to bring them back into use to assist local development at a more affordable price. New construction is almost the domain of the national chains and the larger entities.
#A8 Front yard setbacks
I know the code will still require no more than 50% impervious. You were talking about potential ADUs and some other things. I can’t figure out why this amendment was proposed.
  • Reply: Just to provide more flexibility. I think a picture would help.
Yes, we need to see pictures of actual projects because the diagram in the staff report didn’t really help, and this would be a significant citywide change.

#A13 not including parking fees as part of rent
There’s a backstory to this. There a particular building that separated the parking fee from the rental fee. It was a low income building with many occupants using Section 8 funding. Section 8 will not pay for parking, but if it’s part of the rent charged, then they will pay for it. The local neighborhood of single family residences was flooded by people choosing to park on the streets rather than pay for parking. And then it became an equality issue. People who received the government funding no longer had their parking included in the rent. Many worked odd hours and needed a car to get to their jobs but now couldn’t afford parking. The building owner could make more money by renting out their parking spaces. So unless the government has changes its position, I don’t want to support this.

SEPA Amendments
These are necessary and I don’t see any big changes there. I think we can just move ahead with these.

8(c) Discussion of the 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket

Presentation by Steve Szafran, Senior Planner

This year’s Preliminary 2022 Docket was presented to the Planning Commission on February 3, 2022, and contained two privately-initiated amendments and three city-initiated amendments.

Amendment #1 – Amend the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and Transportation Element which includes updated goals and policies.
This amendment will replace the current TMP with a new TMP.

Amendment #2 – 2024 Comprehensive Plan Major Update
The State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties and cities to periodically conduct a thorough review of their Comprehensive Plan and regulations. Shoreline last completed a major update of the Comprehensive Plan in 2012. The deadline for adoption of this periodic update is June 2024.

Amendment #3 – Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Designation from Public Facility to Mixed-Use 1 and change the Zoning from Residential, 18 units/acre (R-18) and Mixed-Business (MB) to Mixed-Business (MB) at the King County Metro Park & Ride Facility at 19000 Aurora Avenue N.

Amendment #4 – Amend the Land Use Element to add a new policy “Housing development and preservation of significant trees can co-exist with the goal of maintaining and increasing Shoreline’s urban tree canopy”.

Amendment #5 – Add Short Term Rental definition, licensing requirements, and location. The Planning Commission recommends this request not be added to the docket, as the the proposed addition of a short-term rental use is already supported by Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals II, Housing Goal III, and Economic Development Goal I.

Potential Amendments proposed by Council:



Change this area on the land use map from public facility to public open space.

This will come back on Mar 21st to establish the Docket, which identifies the items that staff will work on.

DISCUSSION

Regarding Amendment 5 that was not recommended. We just don’t know the impact of short-term rentals (VRBO or Airbnb) on housing availability. Is more studying planned to address this at a later time?
  • Reply: Yes, there is guidance for this in the Comprehensive Plan. If we’re talking about regulating them, that is a separate issue that would happen outside of the Comprehensive Plan process.
Any definition in the Comprehensive Plan really has an impact on the development code, and it is much harder to change any kind of specific code or policy in the Comprehensive Plan because of the process we are currently going through. That is the reason we have presented Proposed Amendments 1&2 above.

Meeting Adjourned



Read more...

Shoreline City Councilmembers to attend National League of Cities Conference in Washington, D.C.

Tuesday, March 8, 2022

Washington, D.C. photo by Harold Mendoza on Unsplash.com

Shoreline City Councilmembers will hear directly from policymakers and thought leaders about the issues important to cities at the annual conference of the National League of Cities, March 14-16, 2022.

The conference highlights important topics such as homelessness and affordable Housing, Federal American Rescue Plan Act funds, energy efficiency and alternatives, safety, and transportation.

On Hill Day, attendees will have the opportunity to meet with our Senators and Congresswoman and their staff, to discuss Shoreline priorities and legislative agenda.



Read more...

Notes from Shoreline Council meeting February 28, 2022

Saturday, March 5, 2022

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Meeting
February 28, 2022

Notes by Pam Cross

The remote meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Mayor Scully.

All Councilmembers were present.

Approval of the Agenda

Are there any changes to the Agenda?

Motion to remove item 7(d) from the Consent calendar and added as Action item 8(a).

Motion and second to postpone the above 8(a) and move to a future meeting.

We need time to discuss and staff will need additional time to prepare. Tonight we already have a busy agenda.

Debbie Tarry: I don’t know how long the bids are good for. Delay will impact the schedule.

Mayor Scully: I would like to delay a week.

Randy Witt (City Engineer): A week delay won’t critically impact the project. Staff can work it in. We just need to watch for the contract's 45 day limit.

Vote: Motion passes 6-1 with CM McConnell opposing delay.

The proposed 8(a) is off calendar for rescheduling.

Amended agenda adopted by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry

COVID-19 Update (as of this meeting Feb 28, 2022)

The trend of new COVID-19 infections continues to go in the downward direction. We finally moved from the “high” transmittal rate into the lower “substantial” rate.


While the County and State have lifted restrictions as shown above, businesses can have their own requirements and we ask that people comply with those requirements.



Community Climate Conversations

We would like feedback from the community to help us design climate action strategies. You can attend any or all three zoom meetings.


Public Reminders

City Council will hold Planning Commission candidate finalist interviews on March 1.

The Planning Commission meeting for March 3 has been canceled.


Council Reports

DM Robertson attended the Regional Transit Committee. The return to full transit services planned for Mar 1st was delayed due to COVID. I hope it will be rescheduled soon now that COVID cases continue to decrease. They are reworking the Orca Card program but you don’t need a new card if you already have one. Details will follow.

Mayor Scully attended the Lake Ballinger Forum which is a group of the communities in the Lake Ballinger Watershed. Shoreline staff has identified an opportunity to pursue Army Corps of Engineers funding to improve some habitat in the adjacent watershed, which is on the Shoreline side. Possible grant for $250k would go into our existing stormwater infrastructure improvements and improve habitat next to Brugger's Bog Park.

Also,

The City Manager and I attended the Echo Lake Neighborhood Assn. They were interested in how the City has responded to the COVID crisis and its financial impacts. It’s always fun to get out into the community and see how informed and engaged our residents are.

Public Comment
Motion to extend time in order to let everyone speak for 2 minutes. Passed unanimously

Jacke Kurle, Shoreline
Thanks for the recent report on The Oaks Shelter in Currents. It appears that things are going well. I look forward to regular updates.

The following spoke in support of the proposed tree codes in Item 9(b)

Melody Fosmore, Shoreline
Wally Fosmore, Shoreline
Bill Turner, Shoreline
Kean Engie, Shoreline
Martha Diesner, Shoreline
Jean Hilde, Shoreline, Member of PRCS/TREE Board but speaking on her own behalf
Rebecca Jones, Seattle but former longtime Shoreline resident with family still here
Janet Way, Shoreline, Shoreline Preservation Society
Susanne Tsoming, Shoreline, member of the Tree Preservation Code Team
Kara Pomeroy, Shoreline
Kathleen Russell, Shoreline
Jonna Reeder, Shoreline
Nancy Morris, Shoreline
Barbara Johnstone, Shoreline

Speaking in opposition to some of the tree codes

Peter Eglick, Attorney for Innis Arden Club and speaking on its behalf.

Innis Arden has planted hundreds of trees in their forested reserve tracts. But they are concerned that some of the proposals are over the top regulations.

Speakers in favor of 9(a) interim use of above-ground three-phase power.

Jake McKinstry, Seattle, Spectrum Development Solutions
Chris Kelly and Rosalie Merks, AAA Management
Robert Gregg, Clinton, Construction Manager on two projects in 145th station area
Jack Malek, Shoreline, Realtor with Windermere

The Amended Consent Calendar was approved unanimously 7-0.

Action Item 8(a)

*This is a quasi-judicial action for which the Council does not take public comment.

Action on Preliminary Formal Unit Lot Subdivision No. PLN20-0139, Dividing Eleven (11) Existing Parcels into Seventy (70) Unit Lots at 2105, 2117, and 2123 N 148th Street; 2116, 2122, 2132, 2142, and 2150 N 147th Street; 14704, 14710 and 14718 Meridian Avenue N (East side of Meridian Avenue N, between N 147th and 148th Streets)
No disclosures.

Presentation by Cate Lee, Senior Planner

The public hearing for this subdivision was held on Jan 18, 2022 by the Hearing Examiner, which created the record for the basis of a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council.


The Applicant has proposed 70 unit lots. Each proposed lot is rectangular in shape, containing the necessary footprint for an attached single-family home and a portion of landscaping, walkways and driveways into private garages. There are two tracts proposed, Tract A is an access tract for vehicular circulation, and Tract B is common outdoor space.

The Subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general welfare, drainage, access, and other facilities and services. The Subdivision will also serve the public use and interest, creating additional opportunities for owner-occupied housing developed in a manner that is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan policies.

The Hearing Examiner recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to conditions listed in the staff report.

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to approve the application.

I’m concerned about access to the subdivision.
  • Reply: There is no access off of Meridian, but multiple access points both on north and south sides.
Does the City have any restrictions or code requirements about access?
  • Reply: It is a private access tract - it’s not a public right of way. The City will not have an easement for public use. This would be a homeowners development with joint use and maintenance of common garage, parking, vehicle access, landscaping, utilities and so forth.
How many square feet of open space is on this tract?
  • Reply: I can look it up - don’t know off-hand. But this is the area where the trees are being retained. Fairly big part of the property.
Will there be any amenities there? Like playgrounds or picnic tables where the community can congregate? As density increases, we need access to open space. I do note it is two blocks from Twin Ponds.
  • Reply: No playgrounds, but walking paths and so forth.
There was feedback from the public regarding density and saving trees. How did you address this feedback?
  • Reply: We reduced the number of units to provide better tree retention.
We are limited in what we can consider here because this is a quasi-judicial decision. We need to apply the code, and I believe this meets the code requirements.

Broader issues: it is an environmental benefit by getting 72 residences in a fairly small area. This is also a way to make housing affordable for first time homebuyers.

VOTE

Motion passes unanimously 7-0.

Study Item 9(a)

Discussion of Required Undergrounding in the South Shoreline/148th Street Light Rail Station Area and the Impact on the Sound Transit Project


Presentation by John Norris, Assistant City Manager

In SMC 13.20 Electrical and Communications Facilities, the City Code puts a high value on undergrounding utilities because of better system reliability, increased safety, and less visual clutter or aesthetics for our community. But there is a high cost to that when it comes to electrical facilities.


Given the power loads (higher voltages) required to run light rail, 3-phase power with thicker wires is needed, rather than the less robust single-phase power or the existing direct buried 3-phase power in 5th Ave NE. Many projects, including multi-family projects or commercial projects, as well as light rail, need the more robust higher voltage.

Seattle City Light (SCL) currently has three-phase (3-phase) underground power running down 5th Avenue NE, in front of the future Shoreline South/148th Light Rail Station. This underground power is what is called “direct bury” power, in that the powerlines are not installed in any conduit (typically plastic piping), but rather are buried directly in the ground as was the typical practice in past years. The issue with direct bury lines is that they degrade over time due to exposure to the elements and the difficulty in replacing the lines as the lines must be dug up rather than being “pulled” like those in conduit. All current underground electrical lines are constructed in conduit for these reasons.

Constructing new connections to this existing direct buried line is not viable for most development, including the Lynnwood Link Extension (LLE) Light Rail Project, due to its age and the inability to replace or upgrade the cables without digging it up. Given that the 5th Ave NE 3-phase line has reached the end of its useful life and is in danger of failing, SCL has planned for its replacement with new 3-phase power in a duct bank project (multiple conduits put together) within 5th Ave.

However, in early 2021, SCL informed Sound Transit and the City that it does not have the capital funding to complete the Duct Bank Project in coordination with the LLE Project timeline. Seattle City Light is looking at 2027 to complete the duct bank project, well past the 2023 target.

Prior to, and independent of the delay of the Duct Bank Project, Sound Transit still needed to start construction of their Shoreline South / 148th elevated station and garage to keep the LLE Project on schedule. Therefore, in April 2020, the City permitted Sound Transit and SCL to construct a temporary overhead, 3-phase powerline along NE 148th St, pulling the 3-phase power from the existing overhead powerlines that run north/south along 8th Ave NE, and included six new poles within City right-of-way installed in June 2020. Code requires removal of temporary overhead powerlines, once a project is complete.

Traction Power Sub- Stations (TPSS) allow light rail to move by supplying power to the trains.


For new developments that were relying on the duct bank project, they would need temporary construction power and interim operational power until the duct bank is completed. This would require a code amendment to allow it as an exception to undergrounding regulations. There is also a proposal for some overhead interim power to be constructed and remain in place until the duct bank is completed.

Question for Council:
  1. Is Council supportive of an amendment to allow for temporary construction power?
  2. Is Council also supportive of some level of interim overhead power until Seattle City Light planned facilities are installed?
DISCUSSION

Do you have any concerns that SCL will not follow through with building the duct bank? Or further delay past 2027?
  • Reply: SCL says they are planning to construct the duct bank. We continue to work with them to get a further commitment so we can learn when it will be constructed. SCL staff do understand the importance of the project for Sound Transit and for private development. So, at least at the staff level, there is a strong commitment to get the project constructed.
Can we include language in these proposals to encourage the completion?
  • Reply: I’m not sure our code language would do it. This is really SCL’s infrastructure - it is their capital project and they are the electrical provider for Shoreline.
For the temporary power for new developments, what kind of timeframe is “temporary”?
  • Reply (Trish Juhnke): “Temporary” would just be for construction. It would have to be removed prior to the building being occupied. And it would be conditioned as such. Building construction has a somewhat finite time frame of a couple of years.
So what if SCL isn’t ready? Can they not use their building until SCL can complete their duct bank?
  • Reply (Trish Juhnke): There needs to be a focus on both temporary power and also interim power as mentioned in the second part of the question for Council.
  • Reply (John Norris): Temporary construction power would be available throughout the City where there isn’t this specific geographical issue in the 145th light rail area. For operational use, they would have to connect to underground power.
There don’t appear to be many options.

Is there a way to limit this ordinance to something other than citywide? I’d rather have it narrowly tailored to the station area or MUR 70 zones. But I need more information.
  • Reply: Yes, we could bring back some options for Council.
Temporary occupancy - how would that work for Sound Transit (ST)? There is temporary project power there already.
  • Reply (Juniper Nammi, Project Mgr Light Rail Project): Do you mean if the interim power isn’t allowed?
Until we know what the lever is with Sound Transit, it might affect what options we have available in the future. If we only adopt option one would that preclude ST from operating because they wouldn’t be able to occupy the building?
  • Reply: That is correct. They would need the interim power as well as the temporary. Or, ST would have to build the powerline at much greater expense. Or they would have to delay opening until they had power.
What is the expectation that Shoreline has, or other similar cities have, in expecting developers to provide underground power to their property? Is the general expectation that the developer will have to bring power from the nearest available source?
  • Reply (Tricia Juhnke): We haven’t looked at cities other than Seattle. We can get back to you with the information if you’d like.
But with ST, there was the expectation that the cost was too high to bring it and/or too far.
  • Reply: We looked at 5th Ave as the primary source of power and it’s a fairly short distance to underground so we hadn’t considered 8th Ave or other locations. If that project would have gone as planned, ST would have pulled power from there either to their station or their TPSS site.
  • Reply (John Norris): In 2016 when we were looking at this with ST, the assumption was that the duct bank project would be in place by 2023 to support the station, the garage, and the TPSS. We did some preliminary work leading up to it. Now this hold up is delaying a critical project.
The permits that the City issued ST were based on the idea that the duct bank project would be completed and that would provide the power to ST?
  • Reply (John Norris): Correct.
Then that didn’t happen. Is it normal for any city to issue a permit based on the completion of the public works project of another entity? If we think about other utilities such as sewer, we wouldn’t grant an exemption for a developer to not have the required lines for the permitted occupancy. So I’m trying to decide how we said to ST, your permit is OK - when it was based on SCL which was not party to the permit. Does that make sense?
  • Reply (Trisha Juhnke): Yes. Let me see if I can compare this to another project. Other projects often have to do a lot of utility work to bring all the necessary utilities (water lines to provide fire flow or to upgrade service from a small waterline). That is the developer’s responsibility. They would have to work with Seattle’s Public Utility or North City Water District to make provisions for that. We really don’t get heavily involved during our permitting process - it is the developer’s responsibility and therefore the developer’s risk. If they have a problem, we leave that to the developer to resolve.
So we’re in this situation because promises were made to ST and to the developers that the duct project would be complete and now it’s not. So shouldn’t ST really be working with SCL to get that done? And other future developers would work with the line that ST did, and theoretically reimburse ST for the work.
  • Reply: We do have options for latecomers on some utilities, but it’s my understanding that latecomers cannot apply to electrical companies.
Thank you. I think it’s a shame that we’re in this position but I think we need to move ahead with option 2.

It’s concerning that SCL has put us in this predicament. Didn’t they see this coming? We have light rail stations we’re trying to open up and large developments - this is big for both the City and the developers. A 4 year delay is not acceptable. ST cannot have it.

I wish there were people here from SCL to answer these questions. These are not questions for our staff - they are questions for Seattle City Light. I don’t feel that we can trust their word because they are not going forward on a commitment that they made to this community and the much larger community that is relying on the link light rail station.

In 2016 the buried line on 5th was considered to be at the end of its useful life and was in danger of failing. In 2016! Why has this project been put off by SCL? Why has it not been considered a priority? They are a public utility. Can we ask them for their budget and try to determine what other projects SCL has deemed of a higher priority? Where are they channeling their funds? Has something catastrophic happened to their budget in the last 3-4 years? This is so frustrating. And when this project finally happens, whenever that is, it is going to be a massively disruptive project for people trying to access the light rail station. It doesn’t feel good to not have a choice.

This is not our first challenge with Seattle City Light. There have been several items including customer service, dramatic over-billing of residents, and the ongoing inequity between Shoreline ratepayers who have to pay to underground and Seattle ratepayers who do not. Unfortunately the contract with them is valid for several more years. This is a big deal. This isn’t a supply-chain issue or something, it’s just a policy decision that they have made. Shoreline needs the same respect and not be expected to wait “maybe four years” for something as crucial as this. As I understand it, the answer has to come from the Seattle City Council who has to say this has to change.

Developers need certainty and a lot of those projects are funded. You can’t go to a bank and say I think we’ll have the power we need? We can construct it but we might or might not be able to hook it up to power? We need a solution in place. We started thinking that our City requirements were making it too difficult for these projects to move forward. And if we throw yet another thing at them, we could have people pulling out and Shoreline could become a place where no one is willing to invest.

Study Item 9(b)

Discussion of Ordinance No. 955 – 2021 Batch Development Code Amendments Group C - Related to Tree Regulations, Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Sections 20.20 and 20.50


The Development Code Batch Amendments consist of three distinct groups of amendments that have been grouped by topic:

  • Group A: Miscellaneous amendments proposed by City of Shoreline staff.
  • Group B: Amendments to the procedure and administration of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The proposed amendments to SEPA procedures are largely clarifying amendments that make the administration of SEPA less cumbersome and clarify that SEPA is not a permit type but a decision that is tied to a proposed permit or action.
  • Group C: Amendments to tree regulations.
This discussion will focus on Group C.

There are 31 slides in the presentation and it’s 9:05pm. Councilmembers have read the staff report. Mayor Scully has asked staff to move quickly through the slide presentation only to orient us to the discussion.

Presentation by Cate Lee, Senior Planner

Slides concerning Code regulations for trees on private property. The brief overview covered when a permit is required, number of trees that need to be retained, some exceptions available, replacement trees, requirements for developments.

Presentation by Steve Szafran, Senior Planner

The 10 proposed tree amendments are mostly proposed by individual members of the Tree Preservation Code Team, which is a group of residents committed to protecting and preserving trees in Shoreline. One amendment in the Group was proposed by staff.

There are several clarifications of definitions regarding different trees.

Because of the brevity of the presentation, the staff report should be reviewed.

DISCUSSION

Thank you to the members of the community (members of Save Shoreline Trees and the Tree Code Team) who put together this list of recommendations. It had to take a tremendous amount of work. I look forward to further conversations.

There is room for potential discussion only when it comes to the denials. I believe the staff did a really nice job of justifying and explaining the reasons for denial. The only one that I would like to continue to talk about and question is C6 - Exemptions from permit. I am not an expert. But for me, it was the justification itself that I didn’t agree with. It was the idea that all properties be treated equally. A property that is densely forested should not be treated the same as an unforested property. I feel there should be a way for us to give extra attention and extra value to forested properties and try to steer development towards the ample other lots that are available in Shoreline.

I agree with that comment. As a general statement, how often is the tree canopy measured? Some people asked about incentives and enforcement and I do not believe these things are adequately addressed. As regards C10, the tree protection standards, I’m not clear what the timeframe is. What is the duration of the permit that the additional irrigation water would be required? A couple years during construction?
  • Reply: Typically we require a 3 year period where we would inspect it after the 3 years to make sure that what was replaced is living.
What happens if it’s not living?
  • Reply: then we have the bond in place to replace it and try again,
Is that a sufficient incentive for developers to want to keep things living? Is the amount of money sufficient?
  • Reply: In my experience, it has been.
When this comes back to us, I would like to change the diameter measurements of significant trees. I appreciate the work of the planning commission and would just like to see that one item come back.

Item L was not presented in the Council presentation that related to penalties. Can Mr. Szafran speak to that?
  • Reply: The Planning Commission did not recommend this so it was not included as part of their recommendation.
Does that mean these fines are still in place?
  • Reply: No, they would not be approved and would have to be added back into the amendment language.
Why were the fees taken out?
  • Reply: There are other avenues that the City has to enforce or impose penalties on someone who doesn’t follow the permits and staff felt there would be a conflict with the new language and the processes we already have.
Are the other enforcement tools you mention monetary?
  • Reply: yes, monetary.
I would like to know more about what they are.

We are in a climate crisis. We know that the most effective way to reduce our carbon footprint is to increase density and transportation corridors. Some of these items may create barriers to accessing public transportation. Does staff have an opinion of whether these amendments may hamper some of those proposed developments like the pedestrian bridge? Would changing tree codes create a barrier for projects like that?
  • Reply: We are strengthening what we already have. It’s nothing that would be detrimental to development under our two light rail areas. We are strengthening what we have now.
We need an opportunity to talk to our residents about urban forestry, about stormwater, and about other sustainability issues.

Which sections of which zoning designations do these amendments apply to?
  • Reply: Unless they’re specifically called out zones, they apply citywide.
The tree code doesn’t apply to MUR70, right?
  • Reply: Commercial zones, MUR70 are specifically exempt.
Can you walk us through the amendment that would allow the director to reduce the tree retention percentage?
  • Reply: Yes, apparently the director can reduce the tree retention. There have been circumstances where a property with a single family home has one significant tree and that tree has caused foundation and utility issues. The property owner wants to remove the tree and the director doesn’t have the authority to approve that - even though it’s causing property damage. That’s where the amendment came from. For the director to actually approve that, there are criteria that a property owner would have to meet. There has to be good justification to do that. But there’s also, in that same section, it does say that if the exemption is granted, they are still subject to the tree replacement requirement.
I generally support the staff recommendations except for this last one and the one that follows. It’s not limited to trees that are impacting the foundation. It’s a broad brush that lets the director get rid of the entirety. This needs to be narrowly constrained.

MEETING ADJOURNED.



Read more...

Shoreline council to study transportation plan, development code, and comp plan including tree amendment

Thursday, March 3, 2022

The agenda for the March 7, 2022 Shoreline City Council Regular meeting includes three study items:

8(a) Discussion of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update: Draft Auto Level of Service Approach

The City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is the long-range blueprint for multimodal travel and mobility within Shoreline. The last update to the TMP was in 2011. For this discussion, staff will provide the Council with a briefing on auto level of service (LOS) policies options, as part of the TMP update.

Over the winter 2022, the project team will develop a draft layered transportation network of modal plans for pedestrian, bicycle, transit, shared-use mobility, and auto/freight modes.

8(b) Discussing Ordinance No. 955 – 2021 Batch #2 – Miscellaneous and SEPA Related Amendments Amending Development Code Sections 20.20, 20.30, 20.40 and 20.50

In a Feb 4 letter to Council (attachment C to the staff report), the Planning Commission stated, in part:

These amendments were presented into three sections: (1) miscellaneous amendments proposed by Planning Staff to provide clarity and efficient administration, (2) updates to the procedures and administration of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) proposed by Staff, and (3) modifications to regulations affecting the protection and preservation of trees proposed primarily by a citizen group named the Tree Preservation Code Team.

For the Miscellaneous Amendments and for the SEPA Amendments, the Planning Commission recommended approval of those amendments as presented by Planning Staff with a vote of 5-0.

The amendments to the City’s tree protection and preservation regulations were comprised of 11 privately- initiated amendments and one proposed by Planning Staff. After one private amendment was withdrawn, Planning Staff recommended approval or approval as modified by Planning Staff for eight of the proposed amendments and recommended denial for three proposed amendments.

However, with this recommendation the Planning Commission encourages the City Council to direct Planning Staff to further refine these regulations by engaging in additional study of the issues surrounding protection and preservation of trees, including smaller trees and additional counterbalancing incentives, with a holistic approach that engages all stakeholder interests and balances those interests in the future.

8(c) Discussion of the 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket

This year’s Preliminary 2022 Docket was presented to the Planning Commission on February 3, 2022, and contained two privately-initiated amendments and three city-initiated amendments. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted to recommend one privately-initiated and three city-initiated amendments be placed on the 2022 Final Docket.

Amendment 1 – Amend the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and Transportation Element which includes updated goals and policies.

This amendment will replace the current TMP with a new TMP. (Note: refer to 8(a) above).

Amendment #2 – 2024 Comprehensive Plan Major Update

The State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties and cities to periodically conduct a thorough review of their Comprehensive Plan and regulations to bring them up to date with any relevant changes in the GMA and to respond to changes in land use and population growth. This mandatory “periodic update” takes place at least once every eight years. Shoreline last completed a major update of the Comprehensive Plan in 2012. The deadline for adoption of this periodic update is June 2024.

Amendment #3 – Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Designation from Public Facility to Mixed-Use 1 and change the Zoning from Residential, 18 units/acre (R-18) and Mixed-Business (MB) to Mixed-Business (MB) at the King County Metro Park & Ride Facility at 19000 Aurora Avenue N.

This supports Goal 1, Action Step 10 of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use, which states: “Support King County Metro’s evaluation of the 192nd Park and Ride as a potential location for expanded transit operations and transit-oriented-development.”

Amendment #4 – Amend the Land Use Element to add a new policy “Housing development and preservation of significant trees can co-exist with the goal of maintaining and increasing Shoreline’s urban tree canopy”.

The applicant states that the Comprehensive Plan contains many statements about the need to protect and preserve the tree canopy in Shoreline. This proposed amendment adds the recommendation that building and the protection of the tree canopy can coexist.

The above four amendments were recommended for addition to the 2022 Comprehensive Plan Docket.

Amendment #5 – Add Short Term Rental definition, licensing requirements, and location.

The Planning Commission recommends this request not be added to the docket. As the applicant stated in their justification for the amendment, the proposed addition of a short-term rental use is already supported by Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals II, Housing Goal III, and Economic Development Goal I.

The staff report states that the topic of short-term rentals is most appropriately addressed as an independent work plan item for which Council can direct staff to study the impact of short-term rentals on housing availability and housing price to inform a future decision on adding the proposed use of short-term rental, licensing requirements, and location requirements to the Development Code through the Development Code Amendment process. Significant stakeholder and community engagement would also be a component of this topic as an independent work plan item.

Full agenda, links to staff documents, how to comment, how to attend the meeting: HERE

--Pam Cross



Read more...

Shoreline council to hold strategic planning retreat Friday and Saturday

St. Edwards Lodge
The Shoreline City Council will hold a retreat on March 4-5, 2022
  • Friday 8:30 - 4pm, and 
  • Saturday from 8:30 - 12:30pm 
at St. Edwards Lodge in Kenmore, WA. 

The purpose of this meeting is to hold a strategic planning and goal-setting workshop to monitor progress and determine priorities and action steps for the coming year. 

The result is the establishment of the Council’s goals and workplan. 

This workplan, which is aimed at improving the City’s ability to fulfill the community’s vision, is then reflected in department workplans, in the City’s budget and capital improvement plan and through special initiatives.

To attend the meeting on Zoom, click this link:https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87246221977?pwd=UElsQ1ZiZzA4NFFxSGlBSGJtRUpTZz09#success

Full agenda and staff documents can be seen here:

The public may attend in-person at the Remington Room - The Lodge at St Edward State Park
14477 Juanita Drive Northeast, Kenmore, WA 98028 (parking fees apply; or use Discover Pass)

3-4-2022 Added in person attendance information


Read more...

Agenda for Shoreline council Monday - staff report for Study Item 9(a) is now available

Sunday, February 27, 2022

The agenda for Monday's Shoreline council meeting is here. At the time of publication, the staff documents for Study Item 9(a) were not available.

Study Item 9(a)
Discussion of Required Undergrounding in the South Shoreline/148th Street Light Rail Station Area and the Impact on the Sound Transit Project


Seattle City Light (SCL) currently has three-phase (3-phase) underground power running down 5th Ave NE, in front of the future Shoreline South/148th Light Rail Station. This underground power is what is called “direct bury” power, in that the powerlines are not installed in any conduit (typically plastic piping), but rather are buried directly in the ground as was the typical practice in past years.

The issue with direct bury lines is that they degrade over time due to exposure to the elements and the difficulty in replacing the lines as the lines must be dug up rather than being “pulled” like those in conduit. All current underground electrical lines are constructed in conduit for these reasons.

Constructing new connections to this existing direct buried line is not viable for most development, including the Lynnwood Link Extension (LLE) Project, due to its age and the inability to replace or upgrade the cables without digging it up. Given that the 5th Ave NE 3-phase line has reached the end of its useful life and is in danger of failing, SCL has planned for its replacement with new 3-phase power in a duct bank project (multiple conduits put together) within 5th Ave.

However, in early 2021, SCL informed Sound Transit and the City that it does not have the capital funding to complete the Duct Bank Project in coordination with the LLE Project timeline.

This will be a discussion of “what do we do now?” See the staff report to review the options under consideration.

--Pam Cross



Read more...

Agenda for Shoreline council meeting February 28, 2022

Friday, February 25, 2022

The agenda for the February 28, 2022 Shoreline City Council Meeting includes one Action item and two Study items:

Action Item 8(a)
*This is a quasi-judicial action for which the Council does not take public comment.

Action on Preliminary Formal Unit Lot Subdivision No. PLN20-0139, Dividing Eleven (11) Existing Parcels into Seventy (70) Unit Lots at 2105, 2117, and 2123 N 148th Street; 2116, 2122, 2132, 2142, and 2150 N 147th Street; 14704, 14710 and 14718 Meridian Avenue N (East side of Meridian Avenue N, between N 147th and 148th Streets)

The public hearing for this subdivision was held on Jan 18, 2022 by the Hearing Examiner, which created the record for the basis of a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council. As such, the City Council cannot hear any additional public comment on this item and should not have external discussion regarding this request with members of the public.

As part of the City’s Planned Action Determination and subsequent adopted 145th Street Station Subarea Plan, a total of 2,214 housing units were allocated throughout the station area. 

As the proposed Shoreline 5 Degrees Townhomes project would remove 11 single- family homes and construct 70 low-rise multifamily units, a net increase of 59 housing units would result (assuming a 1:1 equivalency). As such, the proposed Shoreline 5 Degrees Townhomes development is consistent with the 145th Street Station Area Subarea Plan and EIS, as the combined known redevelopments along the 1st Ave N and Meridian Ave corridors result in a net increase of 405 housing units (280 as part of the Shoreline 147th Apartments, 66 units as part of the Shoreline Townhomes project, and 59 housing units of the proposed project) representing approximately 18 percent of housing growth planned within the 145th Street Station Subarea Plan.

The Hearing Examiner recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to 25 conditions listed in the staff report.

Study Item 9(a)
Discussion of Required Undergrounding in the South Shoreline/148th Street Light Rail Station Area and the Impact on the Sound Transit Project


The staff report has not been finalized yet but will be issued no later than Saturday Feb 25.

Study Item 9(b)
Discussion of Ordinance No. 955 – 2021 Batch Development Code Amendments Group C - Related to Tree Regulations, Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Sections 20.20 and 20.50


The Development Code Batch Amendments consists of three distinct groups of amendments that have been grouped by topic:
  • Group A: Miscellaneous amendments proposed by City of Shoreline staff.
  • Group B: Amendments to the procedure and administration of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The proposed amendments to SEPA procedures are largely clarifying amendments that make the administration of SEPA less cumbersome and clarify that SEPA is not a permit type but a decision that is tied to a proposed permit or action.
  • Group C: Amendments to tree regulations. The proposed tree amendments are mostly proposed by individual members of the Tree Preservation Code Team, which is a group of residents committed to protecting and preserving trees in Shoreline. One amendment in the Group was proposed by staff.

This discussion will focus on Group C.

Full agenda, links to staff documents, attend the meeting, make comments: here

--Pam Cross



Read more...

Notes from council meeting February 14, 2022

Thursday, February 17, 2022

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Meeting
February 14, 2022

Notes by Pam Cross

The remote meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Mayor Scully. Councilmember Ramsdell was excused for personal reasons.

The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry

COVID-19 Update

The trend of new COVID-19 infections continues to go in the downward direction. However cases currently remain at a higher point than in previous waves.


Please continue to follow the above public safety guidelines until Governor Inslee’s changes go into effect.

At this time people visiting any city facility are still required to wear face coverings while in the facility.

ShoreLake Arts Lantern Festival

We had a great and enthusiastic crowd celebrating Lunar New Year on Feb 12, with a Lion Dance and Kung Fu performances at Monka Brewing and Uplift Climbing. We are wishing everyone happiness, health and prosperity in the Year of the Tiger.

Proposition 1 Update

Nearly 70% of the voters in Shoreline approved Prop 1 for park improvements and park land acquisition. There will be opportunities for public input on final designs in the coming months.
Shorelinewa.gov/prop1

CityWise Applications due Friday Feb 18


There will be 9 informational sessions that will be held virtually this year. Learn who is eligible and apply at: Shorelinewa.gov/citywise

Black History Month



Public Reminders


The Planning Commission will hold a virtual meeting on Thursday, Feb 17 at 7:00PM to discuss the Transportation Master Plan Update: auto level of service approach.

The PRCS/Tree Board will hold a virtual meeting on Thursday, Feb 24 at 7:00PM for the Director’s Report.

In recognition of President’s Day on Monday, Feb 21:
  • City Hall will be closed
  • Spartan Recreation Center will be open on their regular schedule.
  • There will be no City Council Meeting. The next meeting will be Feb 28.
Council Reports

Deputy Mayor Robertson attended the meeting of the North King County Coalition on Homelessness (NKCCH) and provided a brief update:
  • During January, six individuals moved to permanent housing from The Oaks enhanced shelter. The shelter remains at capacity with a wait list of 30-40 individuals.
  • Emergency housing vouchers were allocated to King County as part of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) but housing is not available in order to fully utilize them.
Councilmember McConnell met with the Domestic Violence Initiative for the first time this year:
Progress in preventing domestic violence is very slow and it got worse during the pandemic. I have been involved in this for decades and know it can take years or even to address because jurisdictions are not coordinated in their. But we now have a regional approach to laws and how to conduct the cases through the system. I was surprised and saddened by the number of firearms in these homes which increases the danger astronomically. We want to get firearms out of these homes but you often have to have the victim’s cooperation to admit there is a firearm in the house. They are also now keeping track of strangulations because they are predominately a product of domestic violence. As a community we have to help these victims who are living in fear.

Mayor Scully went to Olympia for the AWC’s (Association of Washington Cities) Mayors Conference.
I was also fortunate to be able to testify in favor of the State Spending Bill, on the Senate side. I have very good news: Our staff, due to years of effort, have managed to get money into the Senate side of the budget (still have to get the House) that will go a significant way to funding the 148th Street Non-Motorized Bridge. Current appropriation would be about $7M. We need a total of $19M but staff has identified a variety of other sources.

Public Comment

Jacke Kurle, Shoreline
Thanks for the recent report on The Oaks Shelter in Currents, and today’s update about the six residents who have found permanent housing. I look forward to regular updates.

The Consent Calendar was approved unanimously 6-0.

8(a) Discussion of Ordinance No. 954 – Amending the 2021-2022 Biennial Budget
  • Presentation by Rick Kirkwood, Budget and Tax Manager
It was a very brief presentation referring to the staff report and its attachments for the details.

The City Council approved Ordinance No. 922, which allocated a portion of the 2020 unobligated ending fund balance towards expenditures carried over from the 2019-2020 biennial budget, Ordinance No. 923 for other budget amendments, and Ordinance No. 945 for the mid-biennial budge modifications.

This is an opportunity for the Council to review proposed Ordinance No. 954 and ask specific questions and provide staff direction. If the Council does not have any concerns, staff will immediately commence recruitment to fill the positions impacted by this amendment and schedule action on proposed Ordinance No. 954 on February 28, 2022.

  • NOTE: This was the end of the report. The following has been taken from the staff report:
Information Technology Reorganization: The current job market for technology positions is challenging and the City has been unsuccessful in recruiting for a critical higher level Information Technology (IT) position to support critical enterprise software. Additionally, staff have been unable to identify qualified consultants to assist in this effort. To address this challenge and workload demands in the short term, the City Manager is proposing a reorganization of existing IT positions that support critical enterprise applications.

  • NOTE: those positions include a Parks, Fleet and Facilities manager which is critical now that Prop 1 has passed.
Plans Examiner III: The City has maintained only two full time commercial building plans examiner positions since the year 2000. Since that time, projects and the associated construction codes have grown in both volume and complexity. Developer assemblage activity has recently accelerated and pre-application appointments are increasingly representative of large new multifamily projects. Compared to the City of Seattle, where permitting can take years, the accessibility and timeliness of Shoreline’s entitlement process has historically been a selling point. Ensuring adequate staffing to review permit applications in a timely fashion could be a meaningful stimulus in and of itself, while also quickening the pace of added housing to a regional supply that has been at crisis levels for many years.

Discussion

Pleased to see we have added a Full Time Facilitator for Parks.

This might seem like a quick look at this but it is actually a culmination of numerous meetings over a long time.

Ordinance No. 954 will come back Feb 28 on the Consent Calendar.

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