Notes from Shoreline Council meeting May 23, 2022

Pam Cross, reporter

Shoreline City Council Meeting

May 23, 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

CM Roberts requests removal of item 7(i) from the Consent Calendar
“Adoption of Resolution No. 491 - Repealing Resolution No. 459 – Temporarily Authorizing Meetings and Public Hearings to be Held Electronically Due to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency”

Item 7(i) is removed from the Consent Calendar and made Action 8(a)

Revised agenda approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry
Presented by Ms. Tarry

Coffee with the Chief.
There will be more events like this at different locations throughout the year.

 

Low tides - Waterproof footwear is recommended

Support Shoreline’s Farmers Market at its new location
Leashed dogs are welcome

Shoreline Walks

Open to all ages and abilities
No need to sign up in advance
Leashed dogs welcome

State of the City Breakfast

Please RSVP because space is limited.

Public Reminders

The Planning Commission meeting originally scheduled for June 2 has been cancelled.

In honor of Memorial Day, City Hall will be clsed on Monday, May 30. There will be no Council meeting.

The next Council meeting will be held on Monday, June 6.

Council Reports

CM Ramsdell
I attended the Shoreline Rotary Club breakfast meeting. I was impressed with the Homestead Community Land Trust program. The Trust supplies affordable homeowner opportunities for those earning 50 - 80% of AMI. The Trust owns the land and the homeowner purchases the structure that can be purchased for between $224,000 and $338,000.

I also attended the Westminster Triangle Neighborhood Group Meet. They discussed the development of the park.

And I attended a meeting with the staff and Board members of the North Urban Human Services Alliance (NUHSA). Their primary concern is the future of The Oaks Enhanced Shelter. The current contract ends in 2023 and they are finding it a little frustrating trying to find out from Catholic Community Services about the future of it.

DM Robertson
I’ll give a brief update on the Regional Transit Committee. Metro ridership is up 20% from last year. The new ORCA card launched on May 16. You don’t need a new card. You can connect your ORCA Card to the new myORCA app or manage your account at myORCA.com.
They are going to be talking about reducing fares for youth on Metro to zero. The rest of the discussion was about Metro Connects as part of the regional plan.

CM McConnell
I attended the Zoom meeting for the domestic violence (DV) initiative a few weeks ago. It was very promising that there are resources out there but access to them is broken because of language and cultural barriers. Victims will file DV claims but then they don’t follow through with the rest of the sequence through the legal system because they don’t know how to. We need attorneys acting as advocates to guide victims through the following steps for restraining orders etc.

I want to mention that I attended the ShoreLake Arts Gala with almost every member of the Council who should be patting themselves on the back. The last number I heard from the silent auction was $60,000.

CM Mork
I attended the Elected Officials K4C, the King County Climate Change Consortium Town Hall which was led by KingCo Councilmember Rod Dembowski. The main topics were the addition of two new cities (Bothell and Maple Valley) to the Consortium. We also discussed at length Vision Zero and its ultimate goal of no deaths or serious injuries on roadways using road safety reform.

Mayor Scully
I attended the meeting of the Lake Ballinger Forum. We had an exciting presentation by WSDOT about making the creek that leads up to Lake Ballinger salmon-accessible by putting access under I-5, which is a pretty impressive project using a boring machine since there no way to cut and cover on I-5. Concerns about potential flooding will have to be addressed.

Also Representative Jayapal has included funding for our Ballinger Creek potential restoration project as part of her funding request to the White House. That would make that particular creek fish-passable up to Brugger’s Bog. This is just step one but this is an exciting start.

Public Comment
Each speaker allowed 2 minutes. There were 166 written comments at the time this report was prepared. Many speakers had also provided written comments.

The following speakers commented on item 9(c) Discussion of Acquisition of Certain Real Property for Public Park Land

Opposed to City Acquisition
Richard Kink, Shoreline
Bryan Chow, Shoreline
Jim McCurdy, Shoreline
Nathan Beard, Shoreline, President of Richmond Beach Preservation Assn
Dave Barnett, Shoreline, Chairman of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe
Randy Stime, Shoreline
Forrest Taylor, Shoreline
David Spellman, on behalf of the property owner Peter Vitaliano

In favor of City Acquisition
Sandra Gillette, Shoreline
Jack Malek, Shoreline
Tom Wyatt, Shoreline
Tom McCormick, Shoreline
Tom Petersen, Shoreline

Other topics
Theresa LaCroix, Edmonds, Director of Shoreline/LFP Senior Center
Thanks for continued support of the Senior Center

Kathleen Russell, Shoreline, Save Shoreline Trees
Item 9(b) Staffing request. Requested list of projects

Derek Blackwell
Opposed to proposed apartment on Linden Ave N

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

Action Item 8(a) Resolution No. 491 - Repealing Resolution No. 459 – Temporarily Authorizing Meetings and Public Hearings to be Held Electronically Due to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency

Presented by Margaret King, City Attorney

Summary of Legislative Actions

Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution 491 repealing Resolution 459 and return to in-person meetings effective June 1, 2022.

PUBLIC COMMENT
This is required because this item is on the Agenda for the first time without prior notice.

No comments.

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to adopt the Resolution.

There has been much more public participation since we have had remote meetings. This will also allow a hybrid meeting so that Councilmembers who are unable to attend, and for the public who are unable to attend in person or may prefer to attend electronically via Zoom.

Does staff expect in-person attendance be similar to what we’ve had in the past? (About 100 people)

• Reply Debbie Tarry: We have not discussed capacity in the Council meetings but we would like to spread the chairs apart a little bit more. Historically, when we’ve been at capacity in Chambers we have allowed additional attendees to participate in the lobby and provided seating.

Will electronic attendees who wish to give public comment have to sign up well in advance of the meeting like they do now?

• Reply Debbie Tarry: Probably so that we can coordinate the speakers. If that changes we will let the public know in advance.

What about Covid protocol and masks?

• Reply Debbie Tarry: When the mask mandate was dropped Statewide, we stopped requiring masks at City Hall. We do encourage people to wear masks. At this time we plan to take that same approach in Council Chambers.
• We expect and encourage continued remote participation even though some of the details are still being worked out.

Does this Resolution apply the same way to the Planning Commission and the Parks Board in requiring mandatory in-person attendance unless there is a State of Emergency that says we cannot come?

• Reply Margaret King: No. What it does is “undo” the mandate and allow a hybrid meeting so attendance of members or the public can be done remotely or in-person.
• Reply Jessica Simulcik-Smith, City Clerk: Council Chambers has had the hybrid equipment installed and our other conference rooms are on the schedule to be installed soon. Currently we have been facing a back-order of critical equipment.
• Reply Mayor Scully: At our retreat this was something we discussed and we decided Councilmembers are free to decide for themselves whether and how often they choose to participate in person or remotely. I believe this will extend to other boards.

VOTE
Motion passes unanimously by a vote of 7-0.

Action Item 8(b) PUBLIC HEARING and Discussion on Ordinance No. 965 – Extension of the Interim Regulations Authorizing Outdoor Seating on Private Property and Within Approved Public Rights-of-Way

Presented by Andrew Bauer, Planning Manager

On July 27, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 895, enacting interim regulations for outdoor seating areas for existing restaurants and bars due to indoor seating restrictions in place at that time related to the COVID-19 pandemic. These regulations include expedited permit review and waiver of fees. Council has adopted three extensions of the interim regulations during the course of the pandemic. Although most restrictions associated with the pandemic have been lifted, a fourth and final six-month extension is necessary as the Planning Commission continues their work on Development Code amendments for permanent regulations.

PUBLIC HEARING
No comments

DISCUSSION

This is a great idea and I wish there was more participation. We lack a downtown area like Edmonds has, but as our city develops around the light rail, there will be more areas where this can evolve.

I supported this in the past and look forward to making it permanent.

Councilmembers agree to this returning to Council on the Consent Calendar.

Study Item 9(a) Discussion of Ordinance No. 966 – Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 13.20 to Add a New Section SMC 13.20.060 – Deferred Underground Facilities

Presented by John Norris, Assistant City Manager

Required undergrounding of the electrical utility in the 148th St light rail area has been delayed by Seattle City Light’s (SCL) 5th Avenue Duct Bank Project. In early 2021, SCL informed Sound Transit and the City that it was pushing back the timing of this replacement project as it does not have the capital funding to complete the Duct Bank Project in coordination with the light rail project timeline. SCL estimates a 2027-2030 timeline instead of 2024. As a result, temporary above-ground 3-phase power is required in order to continue with the light rail project as well as private development in the station area.

On March 7, 2022 Ordinance 958, passed by Council, addressed the temporary construction of 3-phase power. Tonight Council will consider overhead interim operation 3-phase power until the first 10 blocks of the SCL 5th Ave Duct Bank Project is complete. This will require a new section to the code.

Seattle City Light, as the electrical utility service provider, will be required to:Ensure that interim poles are designed and constructed to not preclude future full development of adjacent sites
Upon completion of undergrounding, remove the interim poles and wires within proscribed timelines
Comply with provided enforcement provisions

Because other utilities (such as fiber optic or cable companies) will be using these poles, SCL requested that the other utilities be allowed enough time to remove their cables so that SCL can then remove the poles in a timely way. Staff has proposed an amendment to address this.

DISCUSSION

DUFA (see above slide) includes MUR 45 zones. But in the ordinance adopted earlier this year, we limited temporary above-ground to MUR 70. Do we need to go back and revisit that to include MUR 45?

• Reply: Staff did discuss this. It is most likely that applicants for a DUFA would take an interim power pole that would be allowed and utilize that on an operational basis. The temporary construction power poles are only allowed in MUR 70. Council could go back and expand into the MUR 45. Or scale back DUFA to not include MUR 45. But the latter would preclude development in adjacent MUR 45 until the 4th Ave Duct Bank project is completed.

We’re not voting on DUFA tonight, right?

• Reply: Correct.

Normally SCL is renting space on their poles to a variety of different utilities. There is nothing in our code prohibiting these rentals. Will SCL be renting the space during the temporary above-grounding?

• Reply: Yes. Some of these poles may replace existing single-phase poles, so it is likely that the different utilities will be on these interim poles.

I have a question about the specific amendment and the original draft. They talk about two different things - the completed capital project and then the connection. Can the connection occur before the project is complete? In theory, of course. Should there be some clarity about the timing of the end of it all?

• Reply: Great point. The intent is that once the underground project is energized - when the connection is made - they can then stop using the overhead poles to energize whatever future development or project. At that point the overhead wires can be removed by SCL, and then the other renting utilities remove their wires. Following that, SCL (that owns the poles) will come in and remove them. We will take a closer look at the wording we have used to make sure we are clear and not confusing the terminology.

This will return to Council as an Action item on June 6.

Study Item 9(b) Discussion of Ordinance 964 - Revenue Supported Permit Staffing Request

Presented by Rachael Markle, AICP, PandCD Director
Tricia Juhnke, P.E., City Engineer

Due to the increase in volume and complexity of permits for developments in the station areas and the Town Center, there are not sufficient staffing resources to process permit applications within a reasonable time frame.

The most complex permit types from application intake to permit issuance require equally complex skill sets for staff. We are talking about permits for projects such as new mixed-use, multi-family, commercial, Deep Green Incentive Program projects, Affordable Housing projects and projects within Critical Areas.

This issue needs immediate attention to address the current and anticipated permit processing backlog at the current staffing level. Staff recommends adding six regular staff positions. So we are seeking a budget amendment to hire additional staff for permitting processing.

Additional details are in the staff report. The following slide is a correction to the one in the staff report that failed to carry over the costs that are proposed to be paid for from the wastewater utility.

DISCUSSION

You mentioned that revenue from permits will pay for these positions in the foreseeable future. Do you think this is a sustainable source of funding?

• Reply: We will be doing projections for the biennial budget. Current projects in the timeline should sustain us until 2025. From pre-application meetings there have also been indications of future projects that are in the works. So these are likely to happen after 2025. Of course the further you go out, the murkier it gets because there are many variables.
• Reply Debbie Tarry: We have also been in the process of updating our 10-year forecast and we believe that this is sustainable funding through the next two bienniums. However, these positions are funded through development and should we see a marked decline in development we would have to review staffing. Additionally we get a large part of the revenue up front.

We have also seen a lot of permits for remodeling of residences and I know that when you are remodeling, and you have to wait for a permit every week feels like a very long time and to potentially see that time double is difficult.

I planned to add a deck to my house and was told it would be a 17 week wait for the permit to be approved. We were looking forward to having the deck this summer.

I’ve been hearing more frustration about permit wait-times than I have sidewalks and trees - and that’s saying something.

This will come back as an Action item on July 25.

Study Item 9(c) Discussion of Ordinance No. 967 – Authorizing the Use of Eminent Domain for Acquisition of Certain Real Property identified as King County Tax Parcel No. 727810-0905 for Public Park Land

CM McConnell recused herself from this discussion and stated that she has not participated in any Executive Sessions regarding it. CM McConnell lives on the street in question.

Presented by Margaret King, City Attorney

In or about 2020, the City of Shoreline elected not to seek to acquire property at the southern end of 27th Avenue NW when it came up for sale. The property for sale included not only a residence but also a large parcel of 2nd Class Tidelands.

Except for the 2nd Class Tidelands associated with Richmond Beach Saltwater park, Puget Sound shoreline is in private ownership, primarily Burlington Northern right-of-way.

Acquisition of this parcel would provide a continuous public connection to these tidelands, and preserve this area in its natural state. Acquisition would also facilitate the public survey response for more shoreline and beach access and increase the City’s inventory of park land.

Staff would like Council to consider proposed Ordinance No. 967 (use of eminent domain) as a precautionary step in the event a voluntary sale of the tideland parcel cannot be achieved.

Citizen interest in acquiring the tideland portion of the properties has continued as the City has actively been engaged in acquiring public park land throughout the City.

The City consultant has contacted the property owner with the objective of negotiating with the owner, using eminent domain only after efforts are exhausted.

DISCUSSION

There appears to be some question about who owns 27th Ave.

• Reply: I do not have clarification of that issue tonight. That would be a separate issue from tonight’s discussion.

Is safe access to this particular area of beach only by using 27th Ave or by crossing the railroad tracks and across the rocks?

• Reply Debbie Tarry: We have also made application to Burlington Northern to request lease access to their right-of-way that would allow people to traverse to this tideland when they’re coming from the north. We do not have an answer from Burlington Northern.

People can access this part of the park from the south through Saltwater Park.

All of the input from the public is greatly appreciated.

I support moving ahead with this in order to provide safer access.

Is part of this ordinance regarding parking on 27th? Some speakers mentioned they did not want parking there.

• Reply: No, it is not. This simply authorizes the use of eminent domain for purchase of the property if other negotiations fail.

Some speakers said the City did not follow regular process for this. Can you comment about that?

• Reply: the City has followed all of the requirements with respect to moving forward with an ordinance with respect to exercising eminent domain. We very closely follow the process set out by State law. Some people want more public outreach and neighborhood discussions, but that is not a legal requirement. We have met all of the legal requirements.

It’s a tradition of the community as well as people from outside of the community, to walk along this beach. I have made this traditional walk along the beach a number of times. The previous owner of the property in question allowed access to the tidelands, but no longer lives there. The current owner does not want to allow access. I believe shorelines should be part of the public domain. We accomplish that by providing fair market value - we don’t take anything from anybody - we pay full price. I am pleased the current owner allows tribal members on there, but I don’t want this tradition to be taken away from the rest of us. This has been used as a public beach for a very long time. We are not proposing an expansion here, just a continuation of the existing use.

This is scheduled to come back June 6 as an Action Item.

MEETING ADJOURNED.