Notes from Shoreline council meeting November 15, 2021

Pam Cross, reporter

Shoreline City Council Meeting

November 15, 2021

Notes by Pam Cross

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

All Councilmembers were present.

Proclamation
I, Will Hall, Mayor of the City of Shoreline, on behalf of the Shoreline City Council, do hereby proclaim November 15, 2021, as AMERICA RECYCLES DAY in the City of Shoreline and call upon all residents to celebrate this special occasion by thanking their fellow community members and businesses for their hard work and significant contribution in reducing, reusing, and recycling and protecting our environment.

Approval of the Agenda
Agenda approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager Debbie Tarry

COVID-19 UPDATE

Case rates continue to slowly decline statewide but we remain at a level of high transmission of COVID-19 infections.

Wear a mask, even if you are fully vaccinated. We encourage everyone to get vaccinated and, if eligible, get a booster shot. Visit cdc.gov/coronavirus for information and eligibility. To find available vaccines, visit Vaccines.gov

In accordance with the Public Health Order effective 10/25 in all of King County, proof of vaccination or proof of a negative COVID-19 test taken in the last 72 hours will be provided for: indoor dining, bars, and recreational activities of any size. More information: kingcounty.gov/covid

Vaccine for Ages 5-11

Vaccine Clinic for adults and children

GREEN SHORELINE DAY
Thanks to all of the volunteers!

HOLIDAY EVENTS

PUBLIC REMINDERS

The Planning Commission will hold a virtual meeting on Thursday, Nov 18 at 7PM to discuss 2021 Development Code Amendments - Tree Amendments.

Council Reports
None

Public Comment
(2 minutes per person) Total time extended to allow all who signed up to speak.

The following people spoke in support of Ordinance 948 Regarding C02 Emissions by restricting the use of fossil fuels, specifically natural gas, in Shoreline.

Vivian Korneliussen, Shoreline
Lily Fredericks, Mountlake Terrace, Climate Justice Club at Shorecrest HS
Melinda McBride, Shoreline
Dennis Heller, Shoreline
Ariana Ylvisaker, Shoreline
France Giddings, Shoreline
Lee Keim, Shoreline
Hank Rohs, Bothell, Climate Justice Club at Shorecrest HS
Kathleen Russell, Shoreline, Save Shoreline Trees
Deepa Sivarajan, Seattle, Climate Solutions
Alex Ramel, Bellingham, Stand.Earth
Janet Way, Shoreline
Linda Lawrukovich, Shoreline
Isabella Tancreti, Lake Forest Park, President of Climate Justice Club, Shorecrest HS
TJ Gose, Shoreline, Climate Justice Club at Shorecrest HS
Alex Sargeant, Shoreline
Jackie Kurle, Shoreline

Jackie Kurle, Shoreline (continues)
I want to make sure the public is made aware of any happenings as well as successes at The Oaks shelter on a regular basis, ideally monthly or quarterly, to keep open communication with the public at the forefront of the City’s business.

Approval of the Consent Calendar
Consent Calendar approved unanimously

Action items
8(a) Adoption of Ordinance No. 945 – Amending the 2021-2022 Biennial Budget as Amended, According to the Mid-Biennium Budget Modification
8(b) Adoption of Ordinance No. 946 – Setting the 2022 Regular Property Tax Levy
8(c) Adoption of Ordinance No. 947 – Setting a Fee Schedule for Impact Fees
8(d) Adoption of Resolution No. 484 – Setting the 2022 Fee Schedule

Rick Kirkwood, Budget and Tax Manager, made the presentation

At the November 1 meeting, the Council was presented a brief financial update, recommended adjustments to the 2021-2022 Biennial Budget, and provided information on related policy issues. At the November 8 meeting, the Council conducted public hearings on the 2021-2022 Biennial Budget and the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Plan Mid-Biennial Update required by state law (RCW 35A.34.130) for the purpose of modifying the City’s biennial budget prior to the City Council’s adoption of proposed Ordinances No. 945, 946, 947 and proposed Resolution No. 484.

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to adopt Ordinance 945.
Motion and second to add Amendment 1 (shown above) to Ordinance 945

There have been previous discussions about this sidewalk going back at least a year. Not only would this sidewalk, if built, serve the Aldercrest Campus, but also the people who live in apartments on 25th NE. This project does not score well on the Safe Routes to School grant program. The City needs to finish it.

Why wouldn’t it score well?

• Reply Tricia Juhnke: We look at projects for Safe Routes to School every two years. The criteria include accidents, traffic volume, and connectivity. This location has no accident history and it’s a low volume street. It could become more competitive if combined with sidewalk improvements on 25th, perhaps when we build the Maintenance Facility on 25th, or if the Parks Bond is approved there might be a sidewalk by the park there. We haven’t felt it would score well, but we’ll look at it again. If we do it now, we’ll get the grant money in the summer of 2023.

I’ve been against this previously but now I favor it. We have systems in place to rank sidewalk projects and I don’t think we want individual Councilmembers to champion individual projects. But the process doesn’t get looked at very often so it doesn’t take into account changes that happen after the rating is established. We aren’t removing one sidewalk project for another here. I think it makes sense, and $200k is not a problem for me to approve.

Tons of streets in Shoreline need sidewalks. There are lots of school areas. NW 190th St between Richmond Beach Road and 8th Ave NW is a narrow street with a ditch on one side and private property on the other. It serves Syre and Einstein. This is just one example. We’re not district representatives. There are needs throughout the city so I’m opposed to advancing this project.

I support this - I don’t see it as pet project but a community safety project where the case has repeatedly been made.

We all know of areas that need sidewalks to school from home. We represent the entire city. And I don’t want to be inundated with comments “you got that one project through, how about this one?” This one has a funny drop-off, but doesn’t have a lot of traffic and no accidents history. Where is this section on the sidewalk plan?

• Reply Tricia Juhnke: It is on the sidewalk priority map as a medium priority.

I think about 195th St between Kings Elementary and Einstein Middle School. We’ve got two schools a couple of blocks apart on a very narrow road with a guard rail on one side that pinches it. There’s no question that a sidewalk would be useful in this location and other locations. I don’t have the ability to know for certain which one should be a higher priority and that’s why I tend to rely on the prioritization work that was done by staff.

I want to support this project but I don’t think we should bring up these individual projects - we have their rankings.

There is a challenge because the Sidewalk Matrix didn’t capture the pedestrian path and it will be another 2 or 3 years before we look at the Matrix again.

We know different areas that are in of need sidewalks. I would hope that staff continues to look for grants for all of our schools. We are doing so many changes in our neighborhoods, how often are we reevaluating points - especially if there’s a big project?

• Reply: We haven’t come up with a system yet, or the timing of when we would reevaluate scores. It was agreed that we need to do that, even if we don’t change our criteria, because, as you’ve said, things could have changed. Right now we’re still focused on the 12 priority sidewalks that are funded with the sales tax increase, so there’s no value in re-scoring until we’ve made more progress on those and can see if we’ll have additional sales tax money.

VOTE on AMENDMENT
Fails 3-4
Opposed: Mayor Hall, CM Chang, CM McGlashan, CM McConnell

Other comments?

I am still suffering sticker shock from the number of changes at mid-biennial. The staff has provided an explanation for each one and they make sense. I’m convinced that we need it and need it now. But I hope we will see fewer in the future.

VOTE Ordinance 945 as presented by staff
Adopted unanimously 7-0

8(b) Adoption of Ordinance No. 946 – Setting the 2022 Regular Property Tax Levy

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to adopt 946

Percentage-wise this is more than we have done in recent years but in 2016 voters said they want us to provide basic services. Inflation has gone up so the cost of providing those services has gone up.

No additional discussion

VOTE
Adopted unanimously by a vote of 7-0

8(c) Adoption of Ordinance No. 947 – Setting a Fee Schedule for Impact Fees

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to adopt 947

These figures were set years ago. Increases are due to inflation. These are real increases - nothing new is being funded. The fees mean growth pays for growth.

VOTE
Adopted unanimously by a vote of 7-0

8(d) Adoption of Resolution No. 484 – Setting the 2022 Fee Schedule

Motion and second to adopt 484

DISCUSSION
None

VOTE
Adopted unanimously by a vote of 7-0

Study item 9(a) Discussion of Ordinance No. 948 – Discussion of Ordinance No. 948 – Amending Chapter 15.05, Construction and Building Codes, of the Shoreline Municipal Code, to Provide Amendments to the Washington State Energy Code - Commercial, as Adopted by the State of Washington

C. Ray Allshouse, Building Official

We are here to discuss changes that are solely applicable to new commercial construction. I am joined by Duane Jonlin, the current Energy Code and Energy Conservation Advisor for Seattle's Department of Construction and Inspections, to assist in answering any questions Council may have.

As discussed on August 16, fossil fuels are the key sources of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change. We have goals to reduce GHG at the City and State levels.

The City’s 2019 GHG emissions show a 1.3% increase since 2009. This is not on track to meet near or long term emission reduction goals. We must significantly decrease our GHG emissions in order to meet our 2030 and 2050 targets.

Seattle has resources that we don’t. Seattle determined more energy code provisions would be necessary to meet carbon goals, and they needed to be as cost effective as possible for owners and tenants. Seattle started by establishing a long range roadmap to success, comprised of universal guiding principles as shown on this slide.

Seattle’s aggressive stance on energy conservation and electrification has resulted in a reduction of annual electrical consumption each year notwithstanding ongoing development growth. Shoreline joining the program can only help the overall picture.

Where are we now?

• 2018 WA State Energy Code was effective Feb 2021
• 2018 Seattle Energy Code Adoption: Mar 2021
• Bellingham Ordinance to Council: Nov 2021
• KingCo Ordinance to Council: First Quarter 2022

State Building Code Council (SBCC) has recently commenced rulemaking for 2021 WA State Energy Code. This is significant because one can expect the incorporation of the bulk of Seattle’s current provisions into the State Commercial Energy Code as early as July of 2023. This will be part and parcel of the next regular State Building Code update.

Note: These proposed amendments apply only to multifamily residential and commercial buildings.

The delays were a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

For additional detail, please see the staff report.

DISCUSSION

I think it’s important to note that this is not just an ordinance that bans fossil fuels. It really is a wholesale energy code amendment in terms of making the building better and using electricity more efficiently. It’s actually a whole package; It’s not just limited to the fossil fuel component. What has Seattle’s experience been since adopting this in March 2021 in terms of new applications and/or difficulties in trying to administer this code?

• Reply Duane Jonlin: Our applications have been “storming along”. There has been no slowing down and people are complying with the new code. Not everybody likes it - but that’s typical. We have made a couple of accommodations for areas that weren’t clear in the code. We found the only real road block has been with existing buildings switching over from conventional heating to heat pumps because it’s expensive and technically difficult.

Can you elaborate on that a little bit? When would it be required?

• Reply Duane Jonlin: In a situation where a heating system is being completely replaced, we require that it meet the new code. There is an exemption for when a water heater or a boiler (one piece of equipment) is failing, or has failed, you can just replace it like for like. It’s not the time of year to start hiring engineers to replace the entire system. If this was easy, everyone would have done it already (laughter).

I support this. But in the letter we received from Puget Sound Energy, they were discussing RNG (renewable natural gas). What is this and is it a valid argument?

• Reply Duane Jonlin: I haven’t see that letter but it is an argument that the (natural) gas industry does make that there is a certain amount of renewable natural gas that can be made from methane that comes from land fills, farms, sewage processing plants and so forth. That is a good use of methane. I believe there’s only a very small fraction of our current usage of gas that could be replaced if we were able to get *all* sources of renewable gas captured somehow. My thought is that if you’ve got this renewable natural gas, it’s kind of a precious resource of clean energy and that it would make more sense to use in vehicles. In buildings, you can have a big piece of equipment that sits in the basement but vehicles would work well with natural gas. I can’t really imagine a battery operated fire truck. We’re all in favor of developing renewable natural gas but it’s not a large enough resource to cover it all.

Relative to additions and alterations, do you think that the requirements are proportional to whatever the additions and alterations are?

• Reply Duane Jonlin: Yes. We try to make the requirements proportional to the size of the project. With additions, whatever “new” you are building has to meet the new code but it typically allows all of the existing building and its facilities to remain as they were. With alterations, in Seattle we have “substantial alterations” when you completely tear down and replace something we treat it pretty much like a new building. You don’t have this concept in Shoreline. As large systems get to the end of their life and you replace them, when the boiler is not working and all of the pipes are rotting out, that is the time that we choose to apply the new code requirements. It will still be more expensive - but it will never be less expensive if you have to do it decades from now.

When we’re talking new construction, are we including townhomes?

• Reply Duane Jonlin: Townhouses generally fall under the residential energy code. So we treat them like a single family home.

Sometimes in older apartment buildings, each unit has its own water heater. In the new buildings, does each unit have its own water heater? Or do they use a central boiler or something?

• Reply Duane Jonlin: This ordinance impacts central water heating systems, not individual ones. Taller buildings (over 3 stories) have central water heating systems. We do see individual water heaters in low rise buildings. And, by a quirk of the code, apartment buildings that are 1-3 stories tall also fall under that residential energy code.

I’m curious why individual residences are excluded? New homes in Shoreline are over 2,500sf with a gas fireplace or 2 or more. And electric heat (baseboard heat) is not cost effective so most new homes are being built with gas forced-air, so why are we excluding the “elephant in the room”?

• Reply Ray Allshouse: It’s the State Legislature at work. They passed this law and I know there is interest and there are probably already bills being put together trying to break that and change direction on that because of what’s happening, but it’s been in the RCW (revised code of Washington) for over a year.

Had this been in effect in 2009, how much closer would we be to our reduction goals?

• Reply Duane Jonlin: Space heating and water heating are about 90% of gas usage for buildings - the 10% for cooking, fireplaces and dryers. So Shoreline has had this explosion of construction in the last decade. For multi-family it’s likely they are all gas. So I’d say, we’d have cut by 3/4-ish the new GHG that we’ve added in the last decade. But the technology we have now did not exist widely in 2009 so we’re taking advantage of some terrific technological developments.

We are lucky we have electrical power that comes from hydro so we can convert to electricity without worrying that we’re burning coal to get there. And we’re lucky that we have a Council and a community that is on board with making the tough changes that go along with the easy commitments to reducing GHG. It is also helpful to have Councilmembers with a lot of different expertise so questions are asked that wouldn’t even occur to me but once I’ve heard the responses, I feel even more confident that this the right thing to do.

I’m glad we’re moving forward with this - and it would make more sense if we could also apply this to the residential code. Last year’s staff Sustainability Report showed that the carbon footprint of a new suburban house that doesn’t have light rail is more than 10 times the carbon footprint of a multifamily unit within walking distance of light rail. (If they take light rail.)

If we adopt something like this, does this help at a State level? If they see that multiple municipalities have adopted these changes ahead of time?

• Reply Duane Jonlin: Absolutely. Up until now, it’s only been Seattle. Having it be more widespread with the County and a couple of cities, I think would be a very powerful statement to them.
• Reply Ray Allshouse: Also, as we look ahead, we’ll actually be able to help Seattle as they develop their next round because they will update their code so we’ll be in a position where Shoreline can tag along a lot closer to Seattle as they go through their next increment.

Building operations are currently responsible for about 28% of all global CO2 emissions. What we can do to reduce the footprint of the buildings that we live in is really important. I’ve submitted to our list of priorities to ask the legislators to consider allowing cities to make changes to the residential energy code.

We will keep this on the calendar as an action item, rather than consent when we see it on December 6. We will require only a brief recap from staff at that time.

MEETING ADJOURNED