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

Agenda for Shoreline council meeting April 11, 2022

Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Shoreline City Council 2022

The agenda for the April 11, 2022 Shoreline City Council regular meeting includes 2 action items and 1 study item.

Action Item 8(a) Action on the Final 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket

This year’s Preliminary 2022 Docket was presented to the Planning Commission on February 3, 2022, and contained two (2) privately-initiated amendments and three (3) City-initiated amendments. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted to recommend one (1) privately-initiated and three (3) City-initiated amendments be placed on the Draft 2022 Docket for Council’s consideration.

Planning Commission Recommended 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
  1. Amend the Transportation Master Plan and Transportation Element which includes updated goals and policies.
  2. 2024 Comprehensive Plan Major Update. Begin the update of the City of Shoreline Comprehensive Plan.
  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.
  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.”

During the Council’s discussion of the Draft 2022 Docket on March 7, 2022, Councilmember Roberts introduced two additional potential Docket items for consideration. As well, one additional Staff-initiated Docket item was brought forward to change the land use designation of one parcel in the Richmond Beach Saltwater Park from Public Facility to Public Open Space. Council will consider whether or not to add these to the Docket.

Action Item 8(b) Public Hearing and Discussion of Resolution No. 489 - 2023-2028 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)

The City’s six-year TIP must be consistent with its comprehensive plan transportation element. The six-year TIP should include transportation projects, such as road and bridge work, as well as new or enhanced bicycle or pedestrian facilities.

The City will hold a Public Hearing to receive public feedback on the proposed updates to the 2023-2028 TIP (see staff report) followed by a discussion by the Council.

Study Item 9(a) Discussing the 2021 Year-End Financial Report

This report provides details on the actual revenues and expenditures for 2021 and is provided to keep the City Council informed of the financial issues and the financial position of the City as we complete the second year of our first biennial budget.

Full agenda, link to meeting, make comments, staff documents HERE

--Pam Cross



Read more...

Notes from Shoreline council meeting March 28, 2022

Friday, April 1, 2022

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

Notes by Pam Cross

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

Proclamation
I, Keith Scully, Mayor of the City of Shoreline, on behalf of the Shoreline City Council, hereby proclaim March 31, 2022 as CESAR CHAVEZ DAY in the City of Shoreline, and encourage all residents to observe this day by remembering the contributions of farm workers whose labor feeds the nation and to engage in action that honors Cesar Chavez's enduring legacy.

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

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry

Shoreline Walks - Hillwood Art


Help Shape the Future of Transit


Mayor Scully recognized former Planning Commissioners, Commissioners Malek and Mork.
I had the pleasure of working with both of them when I was on the Planning Commission several years ago, and I know not only how difficult the work can be, but how hard the two of them worked. Thank you for your service.

Council Reports

Mayor Scully
I attended the bill signing of the Transportation Package because there is $7M in there for our non motorized bridge. We are not 100% there, but a lot closer than I ever thought we would be at this time.

Public Comment (name, city, topic)

Tim Malone, Hospital Director for Animal Hospital, Shoreline
new uses of existing non-conforming structures

Matt Robins, IntraCorp, a housing developer with a project in the 145th area
unbundling parking fee from dwelling rent

Kathleen Russell, Shoreline
Tree codes - definition of landmark tree

Jackie Kurle, Shoreline
The Oaks Enhanced Shelter

Nancy Morris, Shoreline
Tree codes - replacing mature trees

Approval of the Consent Calendar
The Consent Calendar was approved unanimously.

Action Item 8(a) Action on Ordinance No. 963 - Waiving Council Rule of Procedure 3.6 and Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 20.50.300 Regarding Tree Penalties and Financial Guarantees

Presented by Steven Szafran, AICP, Senior Planner

The City Council discussed the tree-related Development Code amendments and adopted Ordinance No. 955 on March 21, 2022. Council requested that a portion of Amendment C5, SMC 20.30.300 – General Tree Requirements, come back to the Council for additional discussion and action. During the Council discussion on March 21st, it became apparent that staff had erred in stating that the proposal by Tree Preservation Code Team (TPCT) would lower fines and penalties. Staff had not recognized that the civil penalties proposed by TPCT were in addition to those already provided in SMC Section 20.30.070 as opposed to replacing them.




These penalties will apply to the R-8, R-12, R-18, R-24, R- 48, TC-4, MUR-35’, and MUR-45’ zoning districts.

The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the penalties and financial guarantees section of Batch Development Code Amendment C5. They believe current penalties are enough and non-significant trees are not regulated in the code so no penalty for removal should be imposed.

Based on the definition of development, gardening and yard maintenance could be included in the term development site and as such, using this term may have unintended consequences. Staff assumes that the intent of this penalty is not “development” but the area of impacted tree removal.

Financial Guarantees
Performance assurance requirements for tree replacement, site restoration and monitoring already exist SMC.

If Council wants to approve the applicant’s (TPCT’s) proposed language, a Councilmember will need to move to modify the Planning Commission’s recommendation as follows:

“I move to reject the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial of the portion of Batch Development Code Amendment No. C5 related to penalties and financial guarantees by adopting Ordinance No. 963 with Exhibit A-1 and waive Council Rule of Procedure 3.6 requiring three readings of an ordinance.”

DISCUSSION

Opening motion (as shown above) and second to reject the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

I think this makes a nice balance between proposals by staff and the TPCT.

I liked the things we’ve already approved. Penalties should not be added to. The current ones are severe and significant. We’ve made incredible progress but I stick with staff.

I support increased penalties that will affect larger developers with deeper pockets. I’m concerned about combined lots with more trees that can be lost “under the cloak of darkness”. Once trees are gone, they are gone. We need stronger penalties.

Who will enforce these penalties?
  • Reply: the enforcement process will not change. The City has to know about illegal clearing from the public or if code enforcement sees it.

Landmark trees definition

Is it 24 dbh, plus other requirements to be designated as landmark? Last week we voted to reduce to from 30 dbh to 24 dbh, but there was no mention of other requirements.
  • Reply: There is a process to designate a tree as landmark: arborist report, significant size or look, etc., then the director can designate as landmark.
Any there any here in Shoreline?
  • Reply: No.
Then 5b which reduced the dbh to 24 doesn’t mean anything since we don’t have any designated landmark trees.

Motion and second to amend part 5b.
The only thing we are changing is the penalty for landmark trees.

City Clerk reads the motion:
Motion to amend SMC 20.50.300(b) to include the $15,000 fine applying to trees of 24” dbh.

  • VOTE passes 5-2 with CM Roberts and CM Robertson dissenting

VOTE on Main Motion as Amended

Clarification provided prior to voting: The Planning Commission’s initial recommendation was to deny, this it to accept the applicant’s proposal.

  • Passes 5-2 with CM Mork and CM Robertson dissenting

Action Item 8(b) Action on Ordinance No. 959 - Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapters 20.20, 20.30, 20.40, and 20.50 Regarding the Miscellaneous and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Related 2021 Batch Development Code Amendments

Presented by Steven Szafran, AICP, Senior Planner

The proposed miscellaneous and SEPA related Amendments are entirely proposed by staff. The Council discussed these proposed amendments on March 7, 2022. Council had questions and comments on some of the proposed amendments that I will address tonight. Staff has provided amendatory motions for Council’s use, if needed.

Amendment #A1 Definitions
Council questioned the reasoning for a definition of family, especially after the State removed the occupancy requirements of unrelated persons living together. Council also questioned why a family should be defined “related by blood or marriage,” because many people live together without those requirements.

Proposed revision
Family: An individual; two or more persons related by blood or marriage, a group of up to eight persons who may or may not be related, living together as a single housekeeping unit; or a group living arrangement where eight or fewer residents receive supportive services such as counseling, foster care, or medical supervision at the dwelling unit by resident or nonresident staff. For purposes of this definition, minors living with a parent shall not be counted as part of the maximum number of residents.

Amendments #A8 and #A9
These are the amendments related to parcels that have two front yards. The amendment would seek to reduce one of those front yards by 10’. Setting aside the lot area for parcels with two front yards can make it challenging to develop or expand an existing house.

Amendment #A8 would seek to reduce one of those front yards by 10’. Setting aside the lot area for parcels with two front yards can make it challenging to develop or expand an existing house. It would also provide more flexibility for a developer. #The main reason for a front setback is to provide the necessary room to park a vehicle in the driveway without the vehicle encroaching into the public right-of-way.

Amendment #A9 is a separate but related amendment that also allows a 50% reduction in one of the front setbacks.

Amendment #A11
This is the Commercial Adaptive Reuse amendment. Council had concerns about allowing new uses in existing non-conforming structures. Council may prefer that the buildings either come into conformance with the current development code, or have those structures removed and replaced with new structures that meet the code.

Existing signs could remain, changing the sign face to advertise the new tenant. However no new signs would be allowed if they face residential uses.

Amendment #A13
This amendment concerns unbundling of parking and rent charges.

20.50.410 Parking design standards
  • A. All vehicle parking and storage for single-family detached dwellings and duplexes must be in a garage, carport or on an approved impervious surface or pervious concrete or pavers. Any surface used for vehicle parking or storage must have direct and unobstructed driveway access.
  • B. All vehicle parking and storage for multifamily and commercial uses must be on a paved surface, pervious concrete, or pavers. All vehicle parking shall be located on the same parcel or same development area that parking is required to serve.
  • C. Parking for residential units must be included in the rental or sale price of the unit. Parking spaces cannot be rented, leased, sold, or otherwise be separate from the rental or sales price of a residential unit.
Concerns about this amendment are spillover parking in the surrounding neighborhoods, and inequity because housing vouchers do not cover parking fees. These renters often work non-traditional hours when public transportation is not available, and may not be able to afford the cost of parking.

SEPA AMENDMENTS
 

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to approve Ordinance 959 (Main Motion)

Motion and second to amend #A1 and revise the definition of “family” as as presented by staff.

VOTE
Passes 6-0, CM Roberts abstaining


I would like further clarification on A13.
  • Reply: The proposal is to strike C which unbundles, so parking fees and dwelling rents are separate charges. Our parking requirements do not call for one parking space per unit. So if everyone had a car, some people would still be unable to get parking yet pay the same total rent+parking. If you don’t have a car, you’re also being charged for rent+parking. This results in higher rents for everyone, whether they have a car or not. These are equity issues. There are other reasons as well. Some buildings are not complying with the current bundling requirement, which is an enforcement issue.
How do you think Restricted Parking Zone (RPZ) zoning might help/hinder spillover parking? As well as light rail riders who use the streets instead of the parking garage for light rail? Briefly, how can RPZ permits help unintended consequences of spillover parking?
  • Reply: we have an rpz program by SCC. The traffic division of the public works department is who you should ask about this.
  • Reply Debbie Tarry: We have parking studies going on. It is being studied and monitored.
It seems to me that if the goal is get people out of cars, we need to help people not have cars. Things like bike racks, easy access to short term rentals and so forth.

VOTE ON MAIN MOTION
Passes 5-2 with CM Roberts and Pobee dissenting.


Study Item 9(a) Discussion of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update: Draft Prioritization, Performance Measures, and Outreach Approach

Presented by Nora Daley-Peng, Senior Transportation Planner

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. This is the fourth in a series of briefings to Council, with the last one on March 7, 2022. This meeting will provide a briefing on the TMP draft prioritization metrics, draft performance measures, and upcoming Outreach Series 3 events and activities for Council’s feedback.

The team developed draft quantifiable metrics that correspond with the the project’s goals of safety, equity, multi-modality, connectivity, climate resiliency, and community vibrancy. The prioritization metrics do not have an assigned point system yet. They are waiting for input from Council as well as the public which we will seek during the Outreach Series 3. The input will be used to assist weighing of the prioritization credits. Once that is done, staff will use the prioritization metrics to score potential transportation projects as high, medium or low priority.

The safety goal is to decrease injury collisions. We have created draft metrics that identify collision hot spots. We are using history as well as speed and volume on roads. To do that we are using the posted speed limit and using street classification as a surrogate for volume because they are both indicators of collision hot spots. We use both because not all arterials with a high volume of vehicles have a posted 35mph limit (e.g., 15th Ave NE.).

What we measure matters. Let’s see how equity metrics work in performance measures.
The equity goal’s desired outcome is to increase equitable access to transportation options. To achieve this requires investments in areas of concentrated need that we’re calling equity priority areas, based on age, income, race, disabilities and language spoken. The City could track the number of new projects in equity priority areas.



DISCUSSION

How will Council have an opportunity to provide feedback?
  • Reply: It’s still a work in progress, but we do have experience from the Sidewalk Prioritization where we use a similar approach. We got input from a Sidewalk Advisory Committee, we did community outreach, and then brought it back to Council for staff review (it’s been a few years so I think that’s the correct order) and show how it rated some examples.
Do you consider the cost of the project?
  • Reply: That has come up quite a bit. We haven’t included cost. Cost is something that continues to change, and there are unforeseen grant opportunities etc.
I agree that cost is a factor. Relative cost may be a way to think about it.
  • Reply: Part of this process will be developing that project list this spring, and associated high level costing. When we get to early summer, we will be in a good position to look at relative cost.
I guess my question is, should we do a huge project or several smaller projects? This doesn’t have to be answered tonight, just a thought I have.

The metrics determine how the scores come out. For example, for Safety you have both speed and street classification, and these are closely correlated. That means certain streets appear to get double points. 

What is the rationale for this?
  • Reply: These are the same metrics that we used for sidewalk prioritization. We felt speed and volume leads to collisions, and we’re trying to find out where those hotspots are. The annual traffic safety report provides the collision history, but this is a way to see where we might be able to prevent accidents from occurring.
Speed and volume are different. Arterials and local streets are different. You can have low-volume arterials and high volume local streets. I would prefer volume instead of street classification.

I think the Sidewalk Prioritization Project was kind of a mixed bag. We didn’t get anything wrong, but we did have some difficulty explaining why one project was rated differently from another. We can look at the numbers, but the numbers themselves didn’t quite get there. That may be because this kind of project inherently weights the middling project. Sometimes a project that has a true need just doesn’t rate that well. At the end of the day, this gets us a recommendation that the Council can use to approve a particular project.

No further discussion.

Study Item 9(b) Discussing the 2022-2024 City Council Goals and Work Plan

Presented by John Norris, Assistant City Manager

At the City Council’s annual Strategic Planning Workshop, which was held March 4 and 5, 2022, the Council discussed their proposed 2022-2024 Council Goals and Work Plan. The Council Goals continue to focus on achievement of Vision 2029 and being a sustainable city in all respects. These are not just annual goals, they are longer term goals, and although the action steps do change.

The Proposed Council goals are listed here. Note slight changes to Goal #5.
  1. Strengthen Shoreline’s economic climate and opportunities;
  2. Continue to deliver highly-valued public services through management of the City’s infrastructure and stewardship of the natural environment;
  3. Continue preparation for regional mass transit in Shoreline;
  4. Expand the City’s focus on equity and social justice and work to become an Anti-Racist community; and
  5. Promote and enhance the City’s safe community safety, healthy and neighborhoods, programs and initiatives and a coordinated response to homelessness and individuals in behavioral health crisis.
Council added two Action Steps, or sub-goals, that implement the five Council Goals:
  • Goal #1: Incorporate Age Friendly Community policies into the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update
  • Goal #5: Use data driven information to inform the City’s actions and plans to provide shelter and housing for all individuals in our community.
Staff is asking for feedback to make sure this report or sub-goals, that implement the five Council Goals reflects Council’s goals. This is scheduled for action on April 11.

DISCUSSION

Appreciation is expressed for staff’s accurate summary.

Meeting adjourned at 8:42pm



Read more...

Agenda for Shoreline council meeting April 4, 2022

Thursday, March 31, 2022

The April 4, 2022 Shoreline City Council meeting includes four study items:

8(a) Discussion of Ordinance No. 960 - Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 12.30 Public Tree Management

The PRCS/Tree Board evaluated the Tree Preservation Code Team’s (TPCT) proposed amendment, which proposed a 90-day notification period for right-of-way (ROW) tree removal, and recommended that the notification period for the removal of non-hazardous trees in the ROW be set at 45 days; less than the TPCT proposal but greater than the current 14-day requirement in the Shoreline Engineering Development Manual. 

While staff recommended that the PRCS/Tree Board not make a recommendation to the City Council to change the tree removal notification period, staff is proposing some clean-up to the language in SMC Chapter 12.30 to reflect current delegation authority and to provide clarity for these regulations.

8(b) Discussion of Ordinance No. 961 Unlimited Tax General Obligation (UTGO) Bond 2022 – Park Improvement and Park Land Acquisition and Ordinance No. 962 Amending Ordinance No. 829 Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes

On February 8, 2022, Shoreline voters approved Proposition 1 (Parks) with nearly 70% of voters supporting the proposition. Proposed Ordinance No. 961 authorizes the issuance of unlimited tax general obligation bonds (Bonds) in the principal amount of up to $38.5 million to finance and refinance: parks improvements to five neighborhood parks; investments in park amenities for three additional parks; and the acquisition and improvement of new park land and public art.

8(c) Discussion of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update: Draft Transit, Shared-use Mobility, and Pedestrian Plan

The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the City Council with the fifth in a series of briefings about the TMP. Staff will provide Council with a presentation on the TMP draft Transit, Shared-use Mobility, and Pedestrian Plans.

Please note that staff will return to Council to present the TMP draft Bicycle Plan in mid- April 2022.

8(d) Update on the Wastewater Rate Study Project and Policy Discussion

The City assumed the Ronald Wastewater District on April 30, 2021. After assumption, the City retained FCS Group (FCSG) to conduct a wastewater rate structure. Staff will present Council with an update and status on the wastewater rate study, and provide information from policy issue papers developed by FCSG. Staff are seeking Council input and direction to inform the wastewater rate study in advance of preparation of the 2023-2024 biennial budget later this year.

Considering the policy implications and the practical limitations on the City’s access to water usage data, staff recommends that the City continue charging its single-family customers a fixed monthly charge, with no volumetric component.

Full agenda, staff documents, link for meeting, how to comment here

--Pam Cross



Read more...

Notes from Shoreline council meeting March 21, 2022

Saturday, March 26, 2022

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Meeting
March 21, 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, Debbie Tarry

COMMUNITY PLANTING PROJECT


CLIMATE CHANGE CONVERSATIONS


PUBLIC REMINDERS
 

Council Reports

Deputy Mayor Robertson
I attended a meeting of the North King County Coalition on Homelessness. The Oaks is still at capacity with a waiting list of 40+. They are also having another transition in leadership. Additional details to follow. The Board of Lake City Partners is very interested in adding members of the Shoreline community to the Board.

I attended the National League of Cities Conference and learned that some financial assistance may be available in order to promote digital equity.

Councilmember Mork
I attended the Community Climate Conversation on keeping warm and staying cool. This is a great series and encourage people to attend.

Councilmember Roberts
I also attended the National League of Cities Conference. With three hour time zone change as well change to Daylight Saving Time, it made the 7:30am meeting very rough (laughter). As a member of the Board, we unanimously adopted a resolution in support of Ukraine, and had a discussion with the Mayor of Kyiv. I attended a panel on how other cities are using their ARPA funding. And we heard from the President, Transportation Secretary, and the Speaker of the House.

Councilmember McConnell
I want to congratulate Councilmember Roberts who received an honor at the National League of Cities Conference for his work with the Democratic Municipal Officials organization.
NOTE: Shoreline Area News reported this award in their March 17 Edition.

Mayor Scully
I also attended the National League of Cities Conference. The huge benefit of this group is that it lobbies for cities to the federal government. A lot of the projects we do in here in Shoreline are funded, at least in part, by federal grants. There is more funding available so staff is working on that.

Public Comment (2 minutes per person)
Note: in addition to the speakers, there were 100 written comments and numerous voicemails left for Councilmembers. The Mayor assured that all of the correspondence was read, and all of the voicemails were listened to. (All Councilmembers nodded in agreement).

Steve Hanson, Interim President of Shoreline Community College
Spoke in support of Council authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Washington State University in the Amount of $363,000 for Small Business Advising and Technical Assistance to Small Business through its Small Business Development Center (Note: This item is on tonight’s Consent Calendar)

The following speakers discussed Study Item 8(c) Regarding the Tree Related 2021 Batch Development Code Amendments

Gayle Janzen, Seattle, Member of the Tree Preservation Code Team Communications.
Clarified that the proposed Tree Codes do not apply to the citywide Shoreline Tree Canopy, but pertain to residential MUR-35, MUR-45, and TC-4 (Town Center) zones only.

Wally Fosmore, Shoreline
Importance of penalties for removal or injury beyond rescue of protected trees on R-8 through R-48, critical areas and buffers. Shoreline is lax on enforcement for developers. There must be consequences. Penalties do not apply to private property.

Suzanne Tsoming, Shoreline, Tree Preservation Code Team Member
John Norris has said additional studies are required. These studies will take years. Instead, include a provision that the decision should be reviewed after studies are completed.
[Ms. Tsoming’s comments regarding Agenda Item 8(b) are shown below]

Nancy Morris, Shoreline
Interdependence of trees and environment must be acted on now to address climate change. We need visionary policymakers - this is no longer business as usual.

Janet Way, Shoreline Preservation Society
I’ve been talking about trees for 20 years - you can make me go away by getting something done. It is time.

Lee Keim, Shoreline
We lose biodiversity when we lose our trees. Shoreline is seriously below meeting our 2030 targets which puts the 2050 target of Net Zero completely out of reach.

Kathleen Russell, Shoreline
Please approve the 6”dbh significant tree measurement and the requirement of a permit to remove trees 24” dbh and larger; and, eliminate Director authority to waive and reduce tree retention and tree replacements. (Note: DBH means Definition of Diameter Breast Height. A tree's diameter at your breast or chest height is the most common tree measurement made by tree professionals.)

Melody Fosmore, Shoreline
A recent NOAA aerial photo shows the true reality of the results of development in Shoreline. Except in parks and privately held lots, it shows our tree canopy cover has become sparse.

Rebecca Jones, Seattle
When we had temperatures over 100 degrees, I measured heat in three separate areas of Shoreline. It was significantly lower at Boeing Creek Park among the large trees. Tree replacement cannot make up for loss of mature trees.

Suzanne Tsoming, Shoreline, Tree Preservation Code Team Member
Action item 8(b) - the 5th Avenue NE (NE 175th – NE 182nd) Sidewalk Project
Would like consideration of shifting the new roadway and sidewalk near NE 178th which is the location of the two largest cedars.

Other topics not on tonight’s agenda

Jackie Kurle, Shoreline
I again want to emphasize the importance of transparency about the operations of The Oaks Shelter. From DM Robertson’s comments, it appears things are going well.

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

Action Item 8(a) Appointing the 2022 Members to the Planning Commission

Presented by Steven Szafran, AICP, Senior Planner

The Planning Commission is a seven-member board which is appointed by the Shoreline City Council. Its purpose is to provide guidance and direction for Shoreline’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, zoning code, shoreline management, environmental protection and related land use documents.

There were 13 applications.

The subcommittee of Deputy Mayor Robertson and Councilmembers Roberts and Mork met on February 19th and March 1st to conduct interviews, and after deliberations, unanimously recommended that the full Council appoint Mei-shiou Lin for a second term, Leslie Brinson, and Christopher Mosier to the Planning Commission for four-year terms that will run from April 1, 2022, through March 31, 2026.

DISCUSSION
Praise for all of the applicants. It was a difficult decision.

VOTE passes unanimously

Action Item 8(b) Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $3,291,215 for the 5th Avenue NE (NE 175th – NE 182nd) Sidewalk Project

Presented by Tricia Juhnke, City Engineer




We looked at a number of options:
A shared use trail required more width than we have available;
  • Locating the sidewalk behind trees would require easements from the private property owners and would place the sidewalk very close to the homes;
  • An elevated walkway similar to the one on Dayton but the roadway section here is different so that it wouldn’t work;
  • Reducing the sidewalk width (we did this in some places) and removal of the bike buffer would provide only half of the needed distance from the trees to protect them.
DISCUSSION

This is a critical piece of roadway for light rail. We have listened to the public comment and considered the alternate options. Staff did review the options. We went from removing 90 to 23 trees.

The trees are gorgeous and it will be sad to lose them, but the ultimate goal is to reduce our carbon footprint. We need people to get out of their cars and use light rail so we need to remove barriers for people walking or biking to the light rail stations.

This is just the third sidewalk project. We need to focus on modern sidewalk construction - not the standard ones. We don’t want trees coming down. Let’s not look at 1960’s designs. But we MUST get people out of cars and a safe way to use sidewalks.

Why can’t it happen on the east side of the road?
  • Reply: We have sidewalks on both sides. We talked about moving the roadway centerline, but there is pump station that cannot be moved. So we couldn’t shift the centerline without impacting the pump station.
You said all options were considered except two. Why?
  • Reply: There were two separate options for the foundation of the sidewalks. They might have been considered, but the project manager is on vacation so I was unable to confirm it. However, she did provide the extensive list of what was considered, and these two were not included.
I’m glad this came back as an Action item rather than on consent. It gives everyone the opportunity to see that staff has looked a lot of options that may not have been included in the previous staff report. I hope staff will continue to look at saving as many of the remaining 23 trees as possible.

I think we learned from the Dayton Ave project. With that one we had a proposal that removed a large number of trees resulting in significant public comment. Council got involved and we had hearings and study sessions and the ultimate design removed only a few trees - way less than originally proposed.

This time we started out with how can we save all the trees. And then worked backwards from there. We worked to reduce the number of trees removed. We can’t save all trees because we need sidewalks too. We often can’t do both. I hate to lose trees, but I think we took the right approach this time.

VOTE
Passes 7-0 unanimously

Action Item 8(c) Action on Ordinance No. 955 - Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapters 20.20 and 20.50 Regarding the Tree Related 2021 Batch Development Code Amendments

Presented by Steven Szafran, AICP, Senior Planner

This presentation will just focus on the amendments that resulted in comments and questions from Council, as well as any amendatory endorsements proposed since the last meeting.


This new size criteria is in keeping with other cities in our region which have adopted these measurements for their Significant and/or Landmark trees because they are rapidly disappearing due to development. It also matches the definition of the City’s Public Works Department that is used when evaluating trees in the right-of-way.

On Amendment #C5, there have been questions from various Councilmembers on the provisions in the existing Shoreline municipal code regarding assessing fees and fines for violations to the City’s Significant Tree Retention requirements. The following slide shows what the fees and fines looked like in two examples. The City’s penalties for issues in the right-of-way (ROW) and critical areas are more substantial than the penalties proposed by the applicant.


(See staff report for recommendations and detailed justifications of all 10 amendments.)

DISCUSSION

Since this a large batch of Amendments numbered C1 through C10, a Councilmember will first makes a motion to approve the ordinance. Following this main motion, Councilmembers make motions to reject/approve any Amendment. This is followed by a discussion and vote on the individual motion. At the end, a final vote is taken on the main motion (either as amended or not amended).

Main Motion to Approve Ordinance 955.

Motion to reject Amendment #C2 (Proposed definition of Significant Tree)
Discussion: It makes sense for consistency as staff noted above. There is some concern about unintended consequences but we should move ahead now and have staff study further and report back, rather than wait years for additional studies and delay this decision.
Vote: Passes unanimously.

Motion to approve the community amendment portion of Amendment #C5 Penalties and Amendment #C6 Exemptions from permit
The two examples provided by staff were addressing residential violations. Have there been any recent violations regarding larger developments?
  • Reply: These were the only two examples we could pull that talked about substantial penalties. The Innis Arden one was a development of over two dozen homes.
There seems to be a lot of discretion by the Director in determining the penalties. I can see room for bias in how the methodology is applied. I like the idea of stated penalty amounts.
  • Reply (Debbie Tarry): In the example about the trees illegally removed from the right-of-way, we had two arborists come in to evaluate. It is not the Director that determines the value of the trees.
I think the current penalties are stronger than those proposed by this amendment. Lower penalties remove the incentive to save trees.
What the community wants is both penalties. In addition to the methodology there would be $3k, $9k or $15k penalties, correct?
  • Reply: That’s how I interpret it. So the penalties would actually be larger.
What makes the City enforce illegal activity?
  • Reply: We find out about it if someone reports it, or a City employee sees it. We have to know that there is illegal activity taking place, unless it’s a development where we go to the site and inspect to make sure the approved plan is being followed.
We need to not only protect trees, but to make sure that any replacement trees remain healthy for the long term. We saw at Shorewood HS that many of the trees did not do well in the first two years. This needs to be studied further.

Could I have additional clarification of #C6?
  • Reply: Exemptions from permits currently exist in our critical area code. Financial guarantee and maintenance bonds are required with 3-5 years monitoring. Amendment #C6 would add an additional two years monitoring for those in the MUR-70 zones that now require only 3.
If it said 3 years to be consistent with current monitoring, would staff recommend acceptance?
  • Reply: That’s what we currently do, so it would be business as usual.
I would like to postpone this particular amendment until we review the rest of the batch code amendments in a couple of weeks. I think we need more clarification of what this amendment is actually doing. That would be the cleanest way to proceed.

Motion to postpone Amendments #C5 and #C6 until further discussion.

No additional discussion.
Vote: Passes unanimously.

Motion to reject #C8 Significant Tree Retention
When we give authority to the staff, we need to be clear who we are giving the authority to. I don’t think it’s appropriate to give waiver authority to the Planning Director on this.

The Director has authority for several things. Why take away the power in this one area? This could be career limiting for the director in this city. I believe it will be used carefully and extremely thoughtfully. We pick our directors very carefully and they represent the citizens directly - more than we do. Director’s authority is there for efficiency and the ability to make a decision and turn it around quickly.

Staff do excellent work. However I believe in reducing liability on individual members. The magnitude of these decisions involve our environmental health. I think it would be better if we have a constituted body to make an informed decision.

The problem with that is potential damage for certain homeowners that need to quickly remove a tree that is causing structure and utility damage (such as a side sewer), and there aren’t other options available.

I’m generally supportive of a Director’s authority for a few reasons. The code is full of these and I’ve always voted against removing the director’s authority. We set a bunch of criteria that decisions be careful, comprehensive with built-in safety valves so decisions are not made in foolish ways. Constitutionally, we cannot take away a person’s “reasonable use” of their property if a side sewer is damaged or a house is threatened by a significant tree. I don’t think council needs to police individual decisions by staff members. That being said, I’m concerned that this is too broad. I’d like to see a more narrowly constrained exemption.

Vote
Motion passes 4-3 with CM Mork, CM McConnell, and DM Robertson dissenting

Vote on Main Motion as amended
Passes unanimously.


Study Item 9(a) Discussion of Resolution No. 488 Approving the Relocation Plan and City Manager Property Acquisition Authority, and Ordinance No. 957 Authorizing the Use of Eminent Domain for Acquisition of Certain Real Properties to Construct the State Route 523 (N/NE 145th Street) & I-5 Interchange Project

Presented by Tricia Juhnke, City Engineer

The State Route 523 (N/NE 145th Street) and Interstate-5 (I-5) Interchange Project, “The 145th Street Interchange Project”, has an ambitious schedule to be completed prior to the Shoreline South/148th Station opening with light rail service in 2024.

Currently, the City Manager has property acquisition and relocation claims authority up to $50,000 under Shoreline Municipal Code (SMC) Section 2.60.090. Proposed Resolution No. 488 is project specific, and increases the City Manager’s signing authority to $1 million for property acquisition for the 145th Street Interchange Project. Additionally, it approves the Relocation Plan that authorizes the City Manager to approve documented relocation claims up to the limits prescribed by federal or state law regardless of amount. And it authorizes the City to acquire private property for public use through the use of eminent domain only if all negotiation efforts have been exhausted.


This Ordinance includes six parcels in Shoreline but does not include two parcels within the City of Seattle because they are outside of our jurisdiction, or two parcels owned by Seattle Public Utilities.

DISCUSSION

What happens with the City of Seattle’s property and that owned by Seattle Public Utilities?
  • Reply: We will negotiate with Seattle, get appraisals and obtain offers. But we cannot use eminent domain over another public entity. We do have a letter of agreement with Seattle, should it be needed, that they will proceed with eminent domain on our behalf. But eminent domain is always our last resort.
Funding is almost exclusively provided by Sound Transit, correct?
  • Reply: That is accurate.
No additional discussion. This will be back on April 4 on Consent.

MEETING ADJOURNED at 9:05pm

##

REVISED AGENDA FOR 03/28/2020 MEETING

Action Item 8(a) has been added
Action on Ordinance No. 963 - Waiving Council Rule of Procedure 3.6 and Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 20.50.300 Regarding Tree Penalties and Financial Guarantees.

This is a result of Council's decision to postpone these items for additional discussion: Motion to postpone Amendments #C5 and #C6 was passed unanimously.



Read more...

Agenda for Shoreline council meeting March 28, 2022

Wednesday, March 23, 2022

The March 28, 2022 Agenda for the Shoreline City Council regular meeting includes the following:


The proposed miscellaneous and SEPA related Amendments are entirely proposed by staff. The Council discussed these proposed amendments on March 7, 2022. Council had questions and comments on some of the proposed amendments that will be addressed at this meeting. Staff has provided amendatory motions for Council’s use, if needed.


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. This is the fourth in a series of briefings to Council. This meeting will provide a briefing on the TMP draft prioritization metrics, draft performance measures, and upcoming Outreach Series 3 events and activities for Council’s feedback.


At the City Council’s annual Strategic Planning Workshop, which was held March 4 and 5, 2022, the Council discussed their proposed 2022-2024 Council Goals and Work Plan. The Council Goals continue to focus on achievement of Vision 2029 and being a sustainable city in all respects. A copy of the Drafted Goals is available in the staff report.




Read more...

Agenda for Shoreline council meeting March 21, 2022 includes planning commission, sidewalk construction, tree code, property acquisition

Saturday, March 19, 2022

The Shoreline City Council Monday March 21, 2022, 7pm Regular Meeting includes three Action Items and one Study Item.

Action Item 8(a) Appointing the 2022 Members to the Planning Commission

The Planning Commission is a seven-member board which is appointed by the Shoreline City Council. Its purpose is to provide guidance and direction for Shoreline’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, zoning code, shoreline management, environmental protection and related land use documents.

The subcommittee of Deputy Mayor Robertson and Councilmembers Roberts and Mork met on February 19th and March 1st to conduct interviews, and after deliberations, unanimously recommended that the full Council appoint Mei-shiou Lin, Leslie Brinson, and Christopher Mosier to the Planning Commission for four-year terms that will run from April 1, 2022, through March 31, 2026.

Action Item 8(b) Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $3,291,215 for the 5th Avenue NE (NE 175th – NE 182nd) Sidewalk Project

This project involves the construction of a new sidewalk along both sides of 5th Avenue NE from NE 175th Street to near NE 182nd Court where it will connect to sidewalks currently being constructed by Sound Transit creating a continuous sidewalk on 5th Avenue NE from 175th Street to 185th Street and the Shoreline North/185th Station. Funding will come the voter approved increase in the Sales and Use Tax in 2018 to construct new sidewalks.

Action Item 8(c) Action on Ordinance No. 955 - Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapters 20.20 and 20.50 Regarding the Tree Related 2021 Batch Development Code Amendments

Given the complexity of the proposed Batch Development Code Amendments, length of Council discussion and level of public comment on the amendments, staff has split the adoption of the proposed amendments into two actions. 

At this meeting, Council is scheduled to take action on proposed Ordinance No. 955, which would adopt the Group C tree related Batch Development Code Amendments. Staff has also provided amendatory motions in this staff report for Council’s use, if needed, related to some of these proposed amendments.

It is important to note that the Urban Forest definition includes all trees within the city limits. “This includes public parks, city streets, private yards and shared residential spaces, community spaces (such as libraries) and commercial and government property.” 

All the tree related Development Code amendments are available in the Agenda (including tree amendments recommended for denial).

Study Item 9(a) Discussion of Resolution No. 488 Approving the Relocation Plan and City Manager Property Acquisition Authority, and Ordinance No. 957 Authorizing the Use of Eminent Domain for Acquisition of Certain Real Properties to Construct the State Route 523 (N/NE 145th Street) & I-5 Interchange Project

The State Route 523 (N/NE 145th Street) and Interstate-5 (I-5) Interchange Project, “The 145th Street Interchange Project”, has an ambitious schedule to be completed prior to the Shoreline South/148th Station opening with light rail service in 2024.

Currently, the City Manager has property acquisition and relocation claims authority up to $50,000 under Shoreline Municipal Code (SMC) Section 2.60.090. Proposed Resolution No. 488 is project specific, and increases the City Manager’s signing authority to $1 million for property acquisition for the 145th Street Interchange Project. Additionally, it approves the Relocation Plan that authorizes the City Manager to approve documented relocation claims up to the limits prescribed by federal or state law regardless of amount.

Join the meeting or comment here

--Pam Cross



Read more...

Op-Ed: To Save Shoreline Trees - contact the Shoreline City Council

Friday, March 18, 2022

The tree canopy of Shoreline is sparse
Map shown as part of NOAA's Sea Level Rise map viewer

For two years Save Shoreline Trees has been active in our community to save our tall existing trees. 

This Monday, March 21, 2022 the Shoreline City Council is reviewing the tree codes presented by the Tree Preservation Code Team and making final decisions whether to approve them. 

At this pivotal point, let’s review.

The King County Growth Management Act created strategic goals through 2035. Shoreline’s growth target for 2006-2031 included building a minimum of 5,000 additional housing units which equates to a minimum of 13,920 new residents by 2035. 

A recent NOAA aerial photo of Shoreline shows the true reality of the results of development in Shoreline. Except in parks and privately held large, wooded land lots, it shows our tree canopy cover is sparse. What is Shoreline’s vision for what kind of city are we becoming? Are we going to be another Ballard? How does all of this affect our tree canopy?

Based on the number of city permits in place, we expect to see another 1,000 trees, a conservative estimate, to come down

(This is the same number of trees removed along 1-5 for the Sound Transit Link in Shoreline alone.) Along with the housing requirement, the city is also implementing the voter-approved new sidewalk installations throughout Shoreline. 

In March 2021, Shoreline staff changed the width requirements of new sidewalks from 5’ to 6’. The idea behind wider sidewalks is to encourage people to walk more, especially on streets connected to the Lynnwood Link transit stations. 

The city claims replacement trees, wherever they can fit, will make up the loss of removed trees. Cutting down our mature trees in favor of wider sidewalks in the hope of changing the behavior of people living here is a false assumption. 

We do believe housing and sidewalks are important – none of this is contested, but all of it is happening at the cost of our trees. We want the city leaders and staff to execute thoughtful creativity and a holistic approach to development that includes retaining and protecting our tall trees.

The city does not know how many trees there are in Shoreline. The last census of sidewalk trees was taken in 2003 and based on the 2003 data of the street tree inventory, a financial replacement value of $45,618,301 was assessed for just the right of way trees. These trees have value! 

According to City tree removal information, hundreds of trees are removed each year, Shoreline has lost conservatively over 2,000 trees since 2019. We need to save more trees.

A European study showing temperature differences
between a concrete and steel street and a tree lined street
Temperatures are in centigrade

Since the inception of Save Shoreline Trees, we have learned that in addition to the science-proven benefits of our mature, native Douglas Firs, Western Red Cedars and other evergreen species, are our FIRST line of defense to fight climate change by sequestering carbon 24/7. 

Our trees filter runoff that feeds our watersheds which in turn feeds the Puget Sound sea life; they clean the air we breathe, provide shade to counter heat island effects, are homes for birds and other urban wildlife. Replacement trees will take decades to do the job of a mature tree.


Douglas Fir in Shoreline. Photo by Melody Fosmore

As we studied and examined the City Code by reading the details, we found ourselves asking more questions and determined the city needs to strengthen and update existing tree codes.

If you agree with these code changes, please email, or call the City Council this weekend in time for the Council meeting on Monday. 

Every voice counts.


Our goal is to continue to save trees wherever they are in Shoreline for today and the near future. 

For example, we are advocating for creative sidewalk solutions so that mature tall trees remain to provide shade and ambience in our neighborhoods. 

We are advocating for a stand-alone Urban Forestry Advisory Panel that will pool volunteer community experts who will advise and assist the City on tree canopy issues.

In our two years, our readership and support has grown which is a sign that people care and value our trees and are willing to speak for them. 

All of us understand that Shoreline is growing, and the loss of trees is a casualty of development to meet future multi-housing needs. 

Yet, it is our belief that our city’s policymakers can guide this type of development to retain and preserve more of our existing tree canopy. Let’s prove to a new future Shoreline resident that Shoreline is livable because of thoughtful preservation of its natural environment and the trees in it.

Melody Fosmore
Co-Chair, Save Shoreline Trees
www.SaveShorelineTrees.com



Read more...

Shoreline City Council - it isn't just about sitting at the dais on Monday nights

Monday, March 14, 2022

Council chamber photo courtesy City of Shoreline
It isn't just about sitting at the dais on Monday night.

Shoreline City Councilmembers help shape policy on regional, state, and federal levels.

In addition to their duties of setting City policy, laws and regulations, establishing the City’s budget and approving contracts for services, Shoreline Councilmembers also represent Shoreline residents on many different local and national organizations. 

These organizations play critical roles in establishing regional, state, and federal policies.

Below is a list of the many different committees Shoreline Councilmembers have been appointed to for 2022.

COMMITTEE 

MEMBER 

Association of Washington CitiesT 

  • Equity Workgroup 
  • Legislative Priorities Committee 

 


Doris McConnell 

Chris Roberts 


King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) 

Laura Mork 

Lake Ballinger Forum 

Keith Scully 

National League of Cities 

  • Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee 
  • Asian Pacific American Municipal Officials (APAMO) 
  • Racial, Equity and Leadership Council (REAL) 
  • Transportation and Infrastructure 

 


Chris Roberts 

 

Doris McConnell 


Chris Roberts / Doris McConnell 

Doris McConnell 


North King County Coalition on Homelessness 

Betsy Robertson 

Puget Sound Regional Council  

  • Executive Board* 
  • Operations Committee* 

 


Chris Roberts 

Chris Roberts 


SeaShore Transportation Forum* 

Eben Pobee – Co-Chair  

Doris McConnell 

Sound Cities Association  

  • Domestic Violence Initiative Regional Task Force (DVI) 
  • Equity Cabinet 
  • Public Affairs Committee 
  • Public Issues Committee* 
  • Regional Transit Committee 

 


Doris McConnell – alt. 

 

Chris Roberts 

Chris Roberts 

Chris Roberts / John Ramsdell – alt. 

Betsy Robertson 


WRIA 8* 

Keith Scully / Laura Mork k – alt.  

*Mayoral Appointment
*Mayoral Appointment
#SCA Appointment
TAWC pays for committee travel 




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