[0:03] >>I would like to call the May 2022
[0:04] shoreline city Council meeting to
[0:05] order. These call the roll.
[0:07] [CALLING ROLL]
[0:39] >>Next item is approval of the
[0:40] agenda. Are there any suggested
[0:41] changes to the agenda? Councilmember
[0:42] Roberts?
[0:43] >>Thank you, I would like to pull 7
[0:44] off the consent calendar.
[0:45] >>Item 7 I will be pulled and made
[0:46] action item 8A.
[0:47] >>Thank you.
[0:48] >>Are there any other requested
[0:49] changes to the agenda?Miss Terry?
[0:53] Okay, alright picking other requested
[0:54] changes to the agenda? Seeing no
[0:55] objections the agenda will be adopted
[0:56] as proposed. Next item's report of
[0:57] the city attorney.
[0:58] >>Thank you, Mayor and Council.
[1:33] Interim shoreline police chief Ryan
[1:34] Abbott invites you to join him for
[1:35] coffee at Caf aroma on Wednesday,
[1:36] May 25 from 11 AM to 12 PM. It is an
[1:37] opportunity for you to meet shoreline
[1:38] police officers and then in an
[1:39] informal setting, ask questions,
[1:40] express concerns, and build
[1:41] relationships. If you can't make
[1:42] this event we plan on more coffees at
[1:43] different locations throughout the
[1:44] year. Stop by, grab some coffee,
[1:45] talk to the chief.The location for
[1:46] Caf aroma is 509 NE. 165th St.
[1:52] Beginning May 29, you can explore the
[1:53] fascinating world of marine beaches
[1:54] during low tide with volunteer beach
[1:55] naturalist in these fun free and
[1:56] informative beach explorations in
[2:04] saltwater part. You can dress for
[2:05] the weather, weatherproof footwear is
[2:06] recommended and you can get the dates
[2:07] and times and more
[2:08] information@shorelinewa.gov/low tide.
[2:35] From June 4 to October 1 and will be
[2:36] there from 10 AM to 2 PM. The market
[2:37] offers a variety of fresh Washington
[2:38] produce and organic meats and
[2:39] showcases local farms, artisans, and
[2:40] musicians.Shop for local produce,
[2:57] berries, and an array of tempting
[2:58] treats. Snap cards are accepted,
[2:59] many member vendors except WIC and
[3:00] senior FM in PHX. The popular pop
[3:01] club is back introducing kids to this
[3:02] easily and the magic of produce. You
[3:03] can visit shoreline farmers
[3:04] market.org for all the details.
[3:10] And join walk leader Donna
[3:11] (INAUDIBLE) through the NSR
[3:12] neighborhood in bowling Creek Park on
[3:13] Saturday, June 4, at 10 AM. The
[3:14] walks program is free and designed
[3:15] for adults ages 50+ but open to all
[3:16] ages and abilities. No need to sign
[3:17] up, just show up on Saturday at 10 AM
[3:18] and you can learn
[3:19] more@shorelinewhy.gov/shoreline WA.
[3:37] The state of the community breakfasts
[3:38] and civic leaders are invited to
[3:39] attend. This will be an opportunity
[3:40] to celebrate the city's
[3:41] accomplishments and look forward to
[3:42] the future. The event is 3 on June 9
[3:43] but space is limited. Call
[3:46] 20680122142 RSVP.
[3:47] A few public reminders, the parked
[3:48] recreation cultural servicesWill hold
[3:56] a remote meeting on Thursday, May 26
[3:57] at 7 PM and the plan commission
[3:58] meeting originally scheduled for June
[3:59] 2 has been canceled.An honorable
[4:03] boreal day, City Hall will be closed
[4:04] on Monday, May 30, there will be no
[4:05] Council meeting and the next Council
[4:09] me will be held on Monday, June 6.
[4:10] That is the end of my report.
[4:15] >>Thank you, Miss Terry. Next up is
[4:16] Council reports. Any Council reports?
[4:17] Councilmember Ramsdell?
[4:22] >>Thank you, Mayor. I have a few
[4:23] reportsTo provide. On May 11 I
[4:31] attended the shoreline Rotary club
[4:32] breakfast meeting and at the meeting
[4:43] Executive Director Kathleen Hoss
[4:44] filled with the Homestead community
[4:45] land trust provided a PowerPoint
[4:46] presentation on the program. I
[4:47] walked away very impressed with the
[4:48] program, the trust provides
[4:49] affordable homeownership
[4:50] opportunities for families 50 to 80%
[5:09] of any of my. And couple of things
[5:10] that really stood out was the trust
[5:11] owns the land and the buyers purchase
[5:12] the structure, so it provides an
[5:13] opportunity for to purchase homes
[5:14] between the price range between
[5:15] $224,000 and $378,000. This from
[5:35] freeze families from the worry of
[5:36] displacement as renters. The homer
[5:37] can use the equity built to purchase
[5:38] a market rate on the future, so far
[5:39] the land trust has created
[5:40] opportunities for 235 homes that are
[5:41] currently listed in the trust and
[5:42] what's impressive is that 50% and %
[5:43] are owned by (INAUDIBLE) families and
[5:44] for closure rate is less than 1%.
[5:48] On 14 May I attended the leadership
[5:49] meeting. That meeting they elected
[5:50] to new cochairs, Nathan Hawkins and
[5:51] Michelle Moyes. They are planning
[5:52] during the meeting for them
[5:58] (INAUDIBLE) against crime and also
[5:59] there is much interest in the
[6:00] development of the park, especially
[6:01] with the recent influx of young
[6:02] families with children who have moved
[6:03] into the neighborhood. On June 25,
[6:04] the neighborhood will be hosting a be
[6:10] With Leeson facilities manager
[6:11] Nicholas Borg to start a conversation
[6:12] about part. On 16 May I attended
[6:17] meeting with folks the staff andBoard
[6:31] members with the north urban human
[6:32] services alliance. And their primary
[6:33] concern during our conversation was
[6:34] they are concerned about the future
[6:35] of the oats enhance shelter, the
[6:36] current contract ends in the middle
[6:37] of 2023 and they are having a little
[6:40] bit of frustration finding out
[6:41] information from community services
[6:42] about what the status of the shelter
[6:43] will be. I will be meeting withWill
[6:50] co-spurn from solid brown and Katie
[6:51] Wilson from transit riders Union on
[6:52] June 6 is a follow-up. Thank you,
[6:53] Mayor.
[6:56] >>Thank you. Please keep us posted
[6:57] on those things. Happy Mayor
[6:58] Robertson?
[7:13] >>Thank you, Mayor, I will give a
[7:14] brief update on the regional transit
[7:15] committee that Took Pl., May 18.
[7:16] Quickly, year-over-year ridership on
[7:17] Metro April to April is up 20% from
[7:18] last year so things are returning you
[7:19] have heard it before but the new Orca
[7:20] programLuxturna 16. There've been a
[7:27] few hiccups but if anyone is
[7:28] experiencing hick ups with their orca
[7:29] card you don't need a new one, just
[7:30] transfer it over, you can go to my
[7:31] Orca.com and get some help with that.
[7:36] And then the primary, also, I'm
[7:37] coming, it's not implemented yet but
[7:38] we are going to be talking about a
[7:39] proposal to reduce youth fairs on
[7:40] Metro 20. Stay tune for more
[7:47] information about that. In the main
[7:48] purpose of the meeting was to discuss
[7:49] the Metro connects implementation
[7:50] reportWhich looks at the cost to
[7:53] implement Metro connects as a
[7:54] regional plan. I guess the King
[8:09] County plan. The gaps, funding
[8:10] sources and engagement strategies
[8:11] they will have moving forward is
[8:12] beastly very long conference of and
[8:13] if anybody would like us to make that
[8:14] available to them we can certainly do
[8:15] that. But the meeting, things are
[8:16] progressing and coming back for
[8:17] Metro. Thanks.
[8:18] >>Thank you, Deputy Mayor.
[8:19] Councilmember McConnell?
[8:20] >>Thank you, Mayor. I attended the
[8:26] Zoom meeting for domestic violence
[8:27] initiative a few weeks ago, and I
[8:30] want to tell you that it was very
[8:31] promising thatThey found out what
[8:37] probably should not be a surprise
[8:38] that there are resources out there
[8:47] but the access to them are broken
[8:48] because of the language barrier,
[8:49] cultural barrier, etc. Can so the
[8:56] caucus met afterwards and usually
[8:57] when I think there's an opportunity
[8:58] for change I get really excited and
[8:59] give them theLet's do whatever we can
[9:00] becauseDomestic violenceVictims will
[9:09] File a complaint, but then they won't
[9:10] follow throughTo the other sequences
[9:16] of the legal system because they
[9:17] don't know how to. And there isn't
[9:18] really a real good follow-up. What
[9:31] we found out is those people need to
[9:32] be legal, they are not just
[9:33] advocates, they need to be attorneys,
[9:34] so we asked them to check up on
[9:35] people who are attorneys but they are
[9:36] still in schoolSo will be a little
[9:42] cheaper, but their real function is
[9:43] to hold victims hands so that they
[9:44] really follow throughOn their
[9:50] restraining orders, etc. Because
[9:51] this is a real big problem for women
[9:54] Of any income level, but clearlyIt's
[10:00] a more pressing problem for people of
[10:01] color because they don't know how to
[10:04] access the systemLike some of us
[10:20] might. So and then the 2nd thing
[10:21] which people haven't mentioned, but I
[10:22] was very happy to attend the short
[10:23] leg parks gala with almost everybody
[10:24] on this council, so shame on you for
[10:25] not patting yourself on the back.
[10:29] Last we heard $60,000 and then some,
[10:30] and then that was before everything
[10:31] was counted and before some of my
[10:32] bids came in after I left. So it was
[10:39] a great, I'm really so proud of
[10:40] Council that really comes out and
[10:41] shows up for the community. It was a
[11:05] little scary because I was probably 1
[11:06] of the few people that regularly put
[11:07] my mask on and 8 in short bursts and
[11:08] then put my mascot again because of
[11:09] family and health issues. But I
[11:10] still was excited that they finally
[11:11] had a new person auction, so thank
[11:12] you again for, I got to have the
[11:13] superintendent with us, so I was
[11:14] pretty excited, She is so new that I
[11:15] think she's a little leery of going
[11:16] to these things on her own and so
[11:17] with Miss Terry's help I met herA few
[11:23] weeks before that, so I just reached
[11:24] out to her and said are you coming,
[11:25] if you are, come join us. So thank
[11:26] you all for showing up and hopefully
[11:27] we will do it again next year. Thank
[11:28] you.
[11:31] >>Thank you. Are there other
[11:32] councilmembers?Councilmember Mork?
[11:36] >>I attended theElected officials K
[12:03] foresee the King County climate
[12:04] change Consortium town hall which was
[12:05] led by Rod Dembo ski and the main
[12:06] topics were the addition of 2 new
[12:07] cities, ball full in Maple Valley to
[12:08] the consortium and then we also
[12:09] discussed at length vision 0 and the
[12:10] relationships between people feeling
[12:11] safe on the road whether they're
[12:12] walking, biking, or driving and the
[12:15] relationship and climate change to
[12:16] try to get people spending more time.
[12:21] Thank you, Mayor.
[12:22] >>Thank you, councilmember. Other
[12:23] councilmembers?I attended a meeting
[12:32] of the late Ballenger forum and we
[12:33] had the exciting presentation from
[12:34] WashDOT who was making the creek that
[12:35] leads up to Lake Ballenger Salmon
[12:36] accessibleUnder I-5 which is a pretty
[12:58] intense impressive project, they are
[12:59] doing with the boring machine because
[13:00] there's not a way to cut it and cover
[13:01] on I-5. There are some concerns from
[13:02] our neighbors to the east about
[13:03] downstream flooding. I'm hopeful we
[13:04] can work those out because I
[13:05] obviously want to protect everyone in
[13:06] our region from the impact of
[13:07] flooding the same time we're having's
[13:34] such a tough time with the salmon P
[13:35] whatever we can do for them it's our
[13:36] obligation to do so. I'm delighted
[13:37] to announce that representative Paul
[13:38] has included funding for our
[13:39] Ballenger Creek potential restoration
[13:40] project which should make that
[13:41] particular creek fish passable up to
[13:42] partners blog, part of a funding
[13:43] request to the White House. That's
[13:44] step one, we got a lot of steps to go
[13:45] through before we get that funding
[13:46] and even that is only step one
[13:47] because that gets us a Corps of
[13:48] Engineers grant to come up with a
[13:49] plan to make that particular passage
[13:50] of the creek not only fish passable
[13:51] but environmentally friendly and
[13:52] debris in the spring and cover next
[13:53] to it and all the rest. I'm excited
[13:54] about that. Any project that helps
[13:55] us impact the environment make it
[13:56] better is something we should care a
[13:57] lot about. I hope those 2 can move
[13:58] forward. And other reports?All right.
[14:11] Next up is public comment, this is
[14:12] opportunity for the public to address
[14:13] us on items on the agenda or items of
[14:14] concern. If 19 people signed up
[14:15] tonight so that limits us to 2
[14:16] minutes per person and it also puts
[14:17] us beyond the 30 minutes per member.
[14:18] Rather any, councilmember Roberts?
[14:19] >>I move that we spend our Council
[14:25] rules and allow all 19 individuals
[14:26] who joined up to speak to speak for 2
[14:27] minutes, please.
[14:28] >>Thank you.
[14:29] >>Are there any objections to that
[14:30] motion? Seeing no objections, the
[14:41] motion passes unanimously in all 19
[14:42] people have 2 minutes to speak. We
[14:43] asked of these person addresses with
[14:44] their name and city of residence and
[14:45] please proceed for 2 minutes. Ms.
[14:46] Hardy, we go ahead and minister
[14:47] public comment? I'm sorry, Miss
[14:48] Simulcik Smith?
[14:49] >>Yes, Mayor. Our 1st speaker this
[14:50] evening is Richard
[14:51] :.And he will be with us in just
[14:55] one moment.Mr. kink, go ahead when
[15:01] you are ready, please.
[15:02] >>Can year me? Thank you. TodayI
[15:27] submitted public comment to the
[15:28] Council about eminent domain action
[15:29] by the city of Seattle over a street
[15:30] in on Lake Washington. As a brief
[15:31] recap in 2015 the city offered 100,
[15:32] $400,000 under threat of eminent
[15:33] domain, and 2019 the city wins in
[15:34] court and pays the property owners
[15:35] $800,000. A couple of interesting
[15:36] Points about this propertyIn the
[15:37] Seattle Times August 2015 article the
[15:38] tone of the city wasTo take it or
[15:46] you'll be lucky to get half as the
[15:47] article points out and waterfront is
[15:48] listed for only $119,000. Ultimately
[15:49] Seattle paid twiceTheir offer. With
[16:10] regards to parcel 0905 there are a
[16:11] lot of unknown variables that could
[16:12] dramatically affect the acquisition
[16:13] costs. Interestingly the appraiser
[16:14] told the property owner that they had
[16:15] not physically viewed the parcel.
[16:16] While there are conflicting surveys
[16:17] on the land side of parcel 0905,
[16:18] there is no survey of 0905 and
[16:19] accordingly needs to be surveyed to
[16:20] determine total Upland's entitlements.
[16:21] Also there is an issue with the south
[17:04] facing bulkhead that appears to be
[17:05] within parcel 0905 within the
[17:06] Shoreline Master program
[17:07] single-family residence our preferred
[17:08] use had the bulkheads are noted as
[17:09] necessary to protect the home and
[17:10] property. Additionally there are
[17:11] public access regulations within the
[17:12] Shoreline Master program that appear
[17:13] not to have been addressed regarding
[17:14] this parcel. Request, excuse me,
[17:15] respectfully, I request council table
[17:16] ordinance 967 and get the property
[17:17] owners permission to do a proper
[17:18] survey of the parcel and from the
[17:19] survey negotiate with the parcel
[17:20] owner to result any bulkhead issues.
[17:21] Thank you for your time.
[17:22] >>Thank you, Mr.
[17:23] :.
[17:24] >>Our next speaker is Brian Chow.
[17:25] >>Hello, can you hear me?
[17:26] >>Yes, please go ahead whenever
[17:27] you're ready.
[17:28] >>Thank you for your time, it's Brian
[17:29] Callen I live on 27 27th Ave. NW. I
[17:30] am also calling to discuss my
[17:31] feelings about ordinance 967. I
[17:51] understand the feeling behind it, I
[17:52] am not opposed per se to the idea of
[17:53] public use of the beach as there are
[17:54] people who come down and use that
[17:55] Beach already from time to time.
[17:56] However, I feel like there are a lot
[17:57] of issues that could to be have yet
[17:58] to be addressed in the ordinance. I
[17:59] found out about this yesterday or
[18:00] just last week and the fact that this
[18:01] process seems to be really speeding
[18:02] through from offerOf purchase from
[18:03] the cityTo the current owner to the
[18:15] boat potentially in June it's like
[18:16] almost less than month, and I feel
[18:17] like doing this without any sort of
[18:18] meaningful dialogue with the biggest
[18:19] stakeholders of this purchase, the
[18:20] people on the street, seems troubling
[18:21] to me. Again, rich kind of brought
[18:22] up the S&P. The SMP as you knows a
[18:53] shoreline master program which
[18:54] governs development of any property
[18:55] within 200 feet of the high watermark
[18:56] which this parcel falls under.
[18:57] These, there is a public access
[18:58] element within the S&P and there's a
[18:59] few things that are written there
[19:00] that I don't think of been really
[19:01] addressed at all. Really the biggest
[19:02] thing talks about how any sort of
[19:03] public access has to be made barrier
[19:04] free for people with disabilities,
[19:05] any access in any public access as to
[19:06] be connected to the nearest street,
[19:07] so the near street is either my
[19:08] street which ends that a private road
[19:09] before it hits the beach orIt's NW.
[19:10] 195th St. There's going to be a lot
[19:11] of money tied up making this public
[19:12] accessible less required by the SMP
[19:13] and it just I am just concerned there
[19:14] hasn't been a real good survey of the
[19:15] cost going to be necessary to make
[19:16] this comply with regulations. I
[19:17] appreciate your time and thank you
[19:18] for giving me the opportunity.
[19:19] >>Thank you, Mr. Chow.
[19:20] >>Next up is Jim McCurdy.
[19:26] >>Good evening, trust you can hear
[19:27] me?
[19:28] >>Yes, go ahead whenever you're
[19:29] ready.
[19:30] >>I am Jim(INAUDIBLE)
[19:31] >>We lost Mr. McCurdy. Is it
[19:38] possible you muted him?
[19:39] >>That was my fault, let me get him
[19:40] back real quick. Sorry about that.
[19:41] >>No worries.Let's reset the time.
[19:54] >>Here we go here, right.
[19:55] >>I apologize, your time is restarted
[19:56] and that was a an error. I
[20:03] apologize.
[20:04] >>I also live on (INAUDIBLE) also
[20:05] known as (INAUDIBLE) Avenue. I
[20:06] recently had the pleasure of turning
[20:07] the cityOn the financial
[20:11] sustainability advisory committee,
[20:12] they reviewed the finances and
[20:13] budgets and made recommendations
[20:28] place a levy on the fall ballot.
[20:29] During this process I have found
[20:30] working with the city to be
[20:31] collaborative, inclusive, and
[20:32] transparent. It is a pleasure to
[20:33] work on that. But I am not seeing as
[20:34] the (INAUDIBLE) south of us is not
[20:35] collaborative include (INAUDIBLE) a
[20:36] landgrab without due process. The
[20:41] main questions any of us are asking
[20:42] about of have all parties been
[20:43] brought into the discussion?Fire
[20:44] department, emergency access,There
[20:47] are issues in the summer, So forth
[20:54] Will it be patrolled, what about
[20:58] Private property to get there,Public
[21:06] access in terms of ADA access to the
[21:07] bulkhead at the end, I think there's,
[21:15] We basically have just come to a
[21:16] conclusion we would like to ask you
[21:17] to delay any vote on this while we
[21:18] have all discussed(INAUDIBLE).
[21:19] >>Thank you, Mr. McCurdy.
[21:25] >>Next up is Nathan Beard.
[21:41] >>Thank you. My name is Nathan Beard
[21:42] and I'm the president of the
[21:43] preservation Association, the
[21:44] nonprofit representing the folks on
[21:45] 27th Ave. NW. and like the other
[21:46] folks mentioned our Street(INAUDIBLE)
[22:07] 967 would condemn peer queers the
[22:08] city to postpone any consideration of
[22:09] this ordinance while we appreciate
[22:10] the goal of expanding parklets, the
[22:11] city should not vote on acquiring
[22:12] this particular beach until it
[22:13] actually puts together a plan,
[22:14] engages the community, waste the
[22:15] costs and benefits, and addresses a
[22:16] variety of issues that will arise if
[22:17] this speech is converted to a city
[22:18] park. The ordinance distillsTo the
[22:34] simple matter of the city spending
[22:35] hundred $10,000 out of its general
[22:36] fund and this vastly underestimates
[22:37] the amount of money it will take to
[22:38] condemn, litigate, and compensate the
[22:39] owner for the property, but more
[22:40] importantly it ignores the issues
[22:41] that come with acquiring the beach.
[22:42] For one, the ordinance does nothing
[22:43] to address access. And less the tide
[22:44] is out there is no public access
[22:45] speech. Our street is a single lane
[22:46] road, the 600 feet is privately
[22:48] owned, there is no turnaround, no
[22:49] parking, scarce room for emergency
[22:50] vehicles, the city declined the
[22:51] purchase of this beach because of
[22:52] these issues. Nothing is changed
[22:53] since then. The recent move to
[22:54] condemn this property was made
[22:55] without input from the stakeholders
[22:56] most affected,The data of this agenda
[23:04] was announced we submitted a public
[23:05] records request. I was told not to
[23:06] expect to receive a full response
[23:07] until August 16. That is a Regent
[23:09] reason to postpone. Many comments
[23:10] offered to show the beach owners
[23:30] permitted people to access the speech
[23:31] recreation for decades, so there's no
[23:32] reason for the city to upset the
[23:33] status quo before engaging
[23:34] stakeholders addresses the issues
[23:35] related to condemning the beach and
[23:36] is for these reasons we respectfully
[23:37] request the city postpone further
[23:38] consideration of ordinance 967.
[23:39] >>Thank you, Mr. Beard.
[23:40] >>Next is David Barnett.
[23:47] >>Mayor Scully, Deputy Mayor
[23:48] Robertson and members of the city
[23:49] Council, can you hear me?
[23:50] >>Yes, go ahead whenever you're
[23:51] ready.
[23:52] >>I've been a resident of shoreline
[23:53] for over 18 years. I am also the
[23:54] chairman of the (INAUDIBLE). It is
[23:55] not context I address you today.
[23:56] (INAUDIBLE) for stealing myNeighbors
[24:21] land is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
[24:22] Community members is no different
[24:23] from the Robert land barons to change
[24:24] legal descriptions of land threatened
[24:25] to ensure even murder my people and
[24:26] force them off their lands and then
[24:27] exploited their about gains for
[24:28] purposes. In the Farias abusive
[24:29] government authority embedded in the
[24:30] plan before you is nothing new. My
[24:31] people or foresaw for mailing acres
[24:32] of land at gunpoint as the Army
[24:33] carried out official government
[24:34] directives using government as a
[24:35] chauffeur and appropriate private
[24:36] interest is today as it was then
[24:37] fundamentally corrupt. We won't be
[24:38] full door forced away this time. My
[24:41] I purchased my family's home at a
[24:42] premium because my I swore to my
[24:43] answer ancestors to never let
[25:04] colonizers take away my rights for my
[25:05] landlord dishonor my aboriginal
[25:06] rights as a Native American. In
[25:07] striking contrast to the rhythmic
[25:08] abuses by my people and other
[25:09] indigenous peoples the peters
[25:10] permissions muted numerous Native
[25:11] Americans use this parcel for
[25:12] district purposes with the permission
[25:13] including ceremonies and tribal
[25:14] landings and related culturally
[25:15] significant practices. It's tried to
[25:16] restore and grow their connection to
[25:17] the land already stolen from them.
[25:18] Please let's not steal it again. The
[25:19] tribes enjoy sovereign immunity. In
[25:39] the inherent rights to build and
[25:40] enjoy meaningful relationship with
[25:41] private generous people like Peter
[25:42] it's not impede or dishonor this
[25:43] balance by inappropriately and
[25:44] unwisely promoting self-interest
[25:45] under government authority. I will
[25:46] do everything in my power to keep the
[25:47] property as is to honor my people and
[25:48] their traditions and end the cycle of
[25:49] abuse. Thank you.
[25:50] >>Thank you, Mr. Barnett.
[25:51] >>Next is Sandra Gillett.
[26:07] >>Thank you. This is Sandra Gillett,
[26:08] I live on Richmond Beach Drive and I
[26:09] have lived here since 1971. So I am
[26:10] probably 1 of the longest residents
[26:11] here now. My family and my neighbors
[26:12] and everybody has spent many an hour
[26:13] on the beaches and I really am
[26:18] excited about the opportunity that
[26:19] you have is city Council to explore
[26:20] this possibilityOf acquiring this
[26:22] piece of land which abutsThe
[26:25] saltwater Park. The boundary, the
[26:34] north boundary of the saltwater park
[26:35] is contiguous with this piece of
[26:36] property, this is an unmatched
[26:37] opportunityFor US councilmembers to
[26:38] really acquire a beautiful piece of
[26:46] property for the city, for the
[26:47] shoreline for the use of the people.
[26:49] For years I've walked on 27th NW.
[26:58] which I fondly remember Fondly
[26:59] Remembers Appletree Ln., North and
[27:00] South to get to the beaches. AndNow
[27:04] the north and is blocked off and so
[27:05] people get to the beachIn a very
[27:13] unsafe way by going over to railway
[27:14] tracks and down the rocks and people
[27:15] will continue to access the unsafe
[27:20] lien less you make sure it's done
[27:21] safely. It's a liability issue for
[27:34] this issue because you have this
[27:35] opportunity now if you do not act on
[27:36] it you're putting yourself in a
[27:37] liable position possibly. So I
[27:38] support very strongly the city buying
[27:39] the beach parcel. It will be very
[27:40] nice when the city owns it. For one
[27:53] thing, they can have more
[27:54] jurisdiction over the use of it as in
[27:55] ill legal use page partners parties
[27:56] and setting fires and things. Thank
[27:57] you so much for your time.
[27:58] >>Thank you.
[27:59] >>Next is Jack (INAUDIBLE).
[28:10] >>Hi, can you hear me?
[28:11] >>Go ahead whenever you're ready.
[28:12] >>My name is Jack Malek, I am a 21
[28:13] year resident of Richmond Beach, I
[28:14] live at 2022 423rd Pl. NW.I share Mr.
[28:15] let's enthusiasm. I don't have her
[28:29] tenure, that's for sure, but it's
[28:30] been a lovely community, lovely place
[28:31] to live and raise a child and until
[28:32] recently I didn't even know that that
[28:33] stretch of beach didn't belong to the
[28:48] Park service. I should say it was
[28:49] probably about 5 or 6 years ago that
[28:50] I learned of that. As I was
[28:51] researching (INAUDIBLE) in the area.
[28:52] And quite honestly that land, I doubt
[28:53] many people would know that that is
[28:54] privately held land, that 2 acres.
[28:55] You know,It was recently sold along
[28:56] the property, the home near there. I
[28:57] don't see the benefit it affords that
[29:00] home, you can't build on it for
[29:01] residential or businessAnd the only
[29:25] real utility is recreation which
[29:26] seems consistent with a park and it's
[29:27] how people use it at least all 21
[29:28] years I have lived here. It's in
[29:29] continuity and follows natural
[29:30] contour of the tilings in the
[29:31] existing beach. The only safe way to
[29:32] get there is either through the salt
[29:33] water park access or from within the
[29:34] neighborhood would be in continuity
[29:56] with the road 27th Ave. I think the
[29:57] safest way to access and enjoy that
[29:58] beach, I think it's appropriate the
[29:59] city purchases it, I am in favor of
[30:00] the ordinance and this agenda item
[30:01] and I hope you move forward with it.
[30:02] Thank you very much.
[30:03] >>Thank you, Mr. Malik.
[30:04] >>Next on the list of Tom Meyer,
[30:05] however, I don't see Mr. my it's in
[30:06] the list of attendees. It could be
[30:07] that he is 1 of our telephone
[30:08] attendees. If you are there, can you
[30:09] please raise your hand by pressing *9
[30:10] on the phone or using the hand in the
[30:11] zoom application?There we go.Okay.
[30:25] >>My name is Tom Meyer, I am a rich
[30:26] resident of Richmond Beach, I'm
[30:27] commenting on 9C2Purchase of
[30:50] beachfront parcel my family has lived
[30:51] there for the last 38 years, we have
[30:52] 2 sons now in their 30s. My family
[30:53] also watched the access to either end
[30:54] of 27th Ave. NW., Appletree Lane
[30:55] starting with our (INAUDIBLE). We
[30:56] increasing walk to the beach using
[30:57] the South access with her
[30:58] granddaughter, multigenerational
[30:59] tradition. In those 38 years they
[31:00] almost always met others blocking
[31:01] these routes to or from the beach.
[31:02] Pedestrians using (INAUDIBLE) is
[31:03] clearly a long-standing not just
[31:04] something my family have always done.
[31:10] There are multiple very good reasons
[31:11] for the city to purchase this parcel.
[31:12] The city made its ownGoals to
[31:18] acquire beach access. The city will
[31:19] never find a beachfront parcel at
[31:20] this size at this price. (INAUDIBLE)
[31:27] about confusion about a saltwater
[31:28] part. For all these reasons the city
[31:29] should personal purchase the parcel
[31:30] at 27th Ave. (INAUDIBLE) 27th Ave.
[31:51] the city should work with order road
[31:52] get pedestrian easement on the
[31:53] portion of the road by the railroad.
[31:54] These actions will make sure
[31:55] (INAUDIBLE) to saltwater Park is
[31:56] preserved for future (INAUDIBLE).
[31:57] Also totally support riveting public
[31:58] parking 27th Ave. NW., access should
[31:59] be reserved for neighborhood walkers
[32:00] and anyone (INAUDIBLE) should use the
[32:01] saltwater part. Thank you.
[32:02] >>Thank you.
[32:03] >>Next is Tom McCormick.
[32:10] >>Hello, Council.
[32:15] >>Hi.
[32:16] >>I'm Tom McCormick here in Mission
[32:17] Beach.If you pop down in the beach
[32:29] for the 1st time ever on a nice day
[32:30] and you just sit on a log or rock,
[32:31] what you going to see? You're going
[32:32] to see not an empty beach, you're
[32:33] going to see lots of people on a nice
[32:37] day filling that space as they have
[32:38] been doing for decades, it's going to
[32:39] continue the matter what Council does
[32:40] , people are going to flock to that
[32:41] beach. We heard that what changed
[32:44] since the last timeThe acquisition
[32:49] issue? Will 2020, COVIDAnd the
[32:54] unbelievable actions that the city
[32:55] and membersOf the Association on 27th
[33:04] to try to keep people out instead of
[33:05] encouraging people to be at the
[33:06] beach, people were kept outSuddenly
[33:36] tell us we are trespassing, multiple
[33:37] signage, but moreover what's changed,
[33:38] saltwater part, I discovered that
[33:39] sends extends north to the boundary
[33:40] of the property. That's extended to
[33:41] a natural breaking point at the
[33:42] bulkhead. Are there issues to be
[33:43] worked out? Of course. There's
[33:44] always issues to be worked out.
[33:45] Somebody suggested doing a survey.
[33:46] And surveys going we done in the
[33:47] process. We're not going to acquire
[33:48] the property tomorrow after this
[33:49] ordinance is passed and there will be
[33:50] a title check. The title currently
[33:51] Says the owner owns the tidelands.
[33:52] There's currently upland's there too.
[33:53] Who owns those? These things are
[33:54] going to be addressed in the process.
[34:02] It was someone said the biggest
[34:03] stakeholders are on 27. The people
[34:04] in 27 phone 2.5% of the road. We are
[34:05] the stakeholders as well that you
[34:06] side of the tracks leading to use
[34:07] that road for our safety. Safety
[34:08] cannot be put on the back burner.
[34:11] That is a huge reason why the Council
[34:12] needs to take this action. We need
[34:13] to be able access the beach safely.
[34:17] >>Thank you, Mr. McCormick.
[34:18] >>Next is Randy Stein.Mr. Stein, ask
[34:34] you to unmute yourself.
[34:37] >>There he goes.My name is Randy
[34:45] Stein, live on 27th Ave. My wife and
[34:46] I have enjoyed this for many years.
[34:50] The question we have is how much is
[34:51] enough?They have a part to the north
[34:57] of us and we have a part to the south
[34:58] of us within 1/2 mile.When the city
[35:07] uses eminent domain it's kind of a
[35:08] bullying process. You're taking
[35:09] private land as several have said and
[35:22] converting it to public use. 34
[35:23] present parks, how much is enough?
[35:24] And we are saying this is definitely
[35:25] disputing, disrupting our living here
[35:26] in the area. There is some the
[35:27] residents have the dogs we haven't
[35:45] complained about the neighbors
[35:46] walking up and down the streets.
[35:47] Yes, signs of been put up for people,
[35:48] a lot of people drive past those
[35:49] signs and try to turn around which is
[35:50] a no turnaround area. So it's very
[35:51] inconvenient. Somebody ought to come
[35:52] here and just live here and stay
[35:53] here, visit here. Dog poop, beer
[35:54] bottles, tin cans, all kinds of
[36:03] garbage is left here by these people.
[36:04] A lot of them are nice and we
[36:05] appreciate the fact they pick up the
[36:06] poop, but it's just it's
[36:07] inconvenient. When they park in our
[36:08] parking spaces in front of our house
[36:13] of our garage it's inconvenient.
[36:14] It's not necessary. This is just
[36:15] going to encourage more. Over the
[36:16] years the city has spent a lot of
[36:17] energy preventing, trying to prevent
[36:20] wells point from adding new housing
[36:21] in the area. And this again is going
[36:22] to encourage, we have got one street
[36:23] more traffic more involvement with
[36:27] other people. It's not fair. We
[36:34] paid for expensive private use here
[36:35] and we appreciate that. Thanks for
[36:36] the opportunity to talk.
[36:40] >>Thank you, Mr. Stein.
[36:41] >>Next is David Spellman. I do not
[36:44] see Mr. Spellman in our list of
[36:45] attendees. Mr. Spellman signed up as
[36:52] a lawyer for Tal Liani when I do see
[36:53] Mr. Italiano in the list.Could you
[37:00] please raise your hand?
[37:01] >>If Mr. Spellman is Present we are
[37:02] happy to hear from him.Mr. Italiano
[37:05] is not signed up.
[37:12] Let's pass for now and we will return
[37:13] at the end to make sure Mr. Spellman
[37:14] is present.
[37:16] >>Okay, sounds good. Our next speaker
[37:19] is Forrest Taylor.
[38:59] >>Good evening, Mayor Scully, Deputy
[39:00] Mayor Robertson and members of the
[39:01] Council. My name is Forrest Taylor,
[39:02] I live on Northwest 1/98 next to the
[39:03] beach entrance we are talking about.
[39:04] I support the city of Shoreline
[39:05] buying the parcel. I always thought
[39:06] it was part of the park, it's not
[39:07] clear at all that it isn't. It
[39:08] should be. I walked down along that
[39:09] beachfront hundreds of times, I had
[39:10] no reason to think I was trespassing.
[39:11] There's nothing there. at that point
[39:12] the beach is not allowed as an
[39:13] entrance what are we supposed to do?
[39:14] The next closest entrance is walking
[39:15] up a hill for over a mile and then
[39:16] walking back down to the beach.
[39:17] That's not going to happen. People
[39:18] aren't going to walk up and down a
[39:19] hill to go to a beach that's right
[39:20] there. we are just going to go by the
[39:21] closest route. And that's already
[39:22] what's been happening. No one is
[39:23] taking a walk to the beach and saying
[39:24] let's go a mile out of the way
[39:25] because maybe the railroad or
[39:26] somebody owns that part of the beach.
[39:27] People are already using the beach
[39:28] as part of the beach, so let's just
[39:29] make it official. Some people want
[39:30] to be, the beach to be a private
[39:31] property or private road, there's the
[39:32] serious things that need to be
[39:33] researched and investigated. We
[39:34] don't need investigation. I've been
[39:35] there hundreds of times. Maybe they
[39:36] want to make people pay for the
[39:37] privilege of going the closest route
[39:38] to the beach, but people aren't going
[39:39] to pay to walk to the beach, they're
[39:40] just going to walk to the beach
[39:41] whether someone says it's a private
[39:42] property or not. You put a gate
[39:43] people going to walk around it as
[39:44] well they should. Richmond Beach is
[39:45] for everyone. Can I say let's make
[39:46] it official and keep it that way. I
[39:47] yield the rest of my time.
[39:48] >>Thank you.
[39:49] >>Next is Tom Peterson.
[39:50] >>Hello, this is Tom Peterson, I live
[39:51] at 1719 NW. 192nd St. in Richmond
[39:52] Beach. I have been enjoying the
[39:53] comments other people of been making
[39:54] and would say yes, certainly, the
[39:55] city Council should meet with
[39:56] residents to studyTheir concerns and
[39:57] allay any such concerns. I do
[39:58] support the city acquiring the beach
[39:59] for the park. I agree with many and
[40:00] have lived in Richmond Beach for 25+
[40:01] years that there would be little or
[40:02] negligible increase in foot traffic
[40:03] Just the usual locals as they always
[40:04] have strolling through on their way
[40:05] to the beach on 27th. I do support
[40:06] prohibiting outside parking on 27th
[40:07] and better signage and strict
[40:08] enforcement so that it is still
[40:09] residents only.And I think the city
[40:10] should work with Burlington Northern
[40:11] Santa Fe on a dedicated pathway to
[40:12] the south end of the 27th Ave.Beach
[40:24] access so that visitors are not
[40:25] disturbing residents are infringing
[40:26] on their rights, similar to pathways
[40:27] and cut through's like the one
[40:28] between 15th Ave. NW. and 198 Street.
[40:29] Thank you, and I yield the rest of
[40:30] my time.
[40:31] >>Thank you.
[40:33] >>Next is the (INAUDIBLE).Miss
[40:42] McCrory is joining us from a cell
[40:43] phone.
[40:56] >>Teresa look Watt Edmonds, Director
[40:57] of shoreline Lake Forest Park Senior
[40:58] Center. Joining you tonight on
[41:04] behalf of the instructors volunteers
[41:05] 600+ members and the rest of the
[41:09] aging community of shorelineTo
[41:21] support Council as you proclaim the
[41:22] month of May senior month we have
[41:23] been hosting many wonderful events
[41:24] online which will culminate June 11
[41:25] with the large wellness fair that
[41:27] will be opened on the community. I
[41:32] especially want to thank
[41:33] councilmembers for the continued
[41:34] support, Not only in the past 2 years
[41:37] but at all times. Whenever we have
[41:45] been in need you have been there.
[41:46] And each year I find that we have a
[41:48] broader understanding of our
[41:49] partnership. We learn from you what
[41:53] your expectation is of us and I think
[41:58] you know we do our best to try and
[41:59] meet that expectation. We look
[42:06] forward to 2022 and continued years
[42:07] and working alongside many employees
[42:10] of the city in various departments
[42:15] and servicing our Asian community.
[42:16] Thank you, and I yield my time.
[42:17] >>Thank you.
[42:21] >>Next is Jackie Curley. I do not see
[42:37] Ms. Curley in the list of attendees
[42:38] for she emailed me previously she is
[42:39] having some audio issues. Ms.
[42:40] Curley, if you're joining us on the
[42:41] phone could you please press *6 to
[42:42] unmute yourself?
[42:48] >>I'm not seeing anyone, let's move
[42:49] overTo Mr. Spellman at the end.
[42:50] >>So next is Bill Turner.And Mr.
[43:10] Turner, could you please raise your
[43:11] hand if you're in the list of
[43:12] attendees?Actually I see he is on the
[43:21] telephone as well. Let me rename Mr.
[43:22] Telok Turner and allow him to talk.
[43:29] Okay, Mr. Turner, go ahead when
[43:30] you're ready.
[43:48] >>Mr. Turner, if you can hear me, go
[43:49] ahead and speak.I don't see that the
[43:58] phone is muted, but I also don't see
[43:59] him on our list, the Simulcik Smith,
[44:00] the list of presenters.There we go.
[44:05] Mr. Turner, I apologize. And whenever
[44:06] you're ready, please unmute and speak.
[44:13] >>You are unmuted, Mr. Turner, go
[44:14] ahead.
[44:26] >>Mr. Turner, if you can hear us,
[44:27] please go ahead and speak. I think
[44:28] you should be unmuted at this point.
[44:43] I hate to do this, but let's pass Mr.
[44:44] Turner and return to the
[44:45] (INAUDIBLE).
[44:46] >>Mr. Turner had called me previously
[44:47] and said he would be joining under a
[44:48] different name and also don't see
[44:49] that name. So we will try again at
[44:50] the end.
[44:51] Next is Kathleen Russell.
[45:04] >>Kathleen Russell, a resident of
[45:05] shoreline on behalf of saved
[45:06] shoreline trees. Regarding 9B
[45:07] staffing requests it is
[45:08] understandable more developments lead
[45:09] to more permanent activity. More
[45:10] development also lead to increased
[45:11] questions from citizensIn more public
[45:22] records request. As residents who
[45:23] live here we pay property taxes,
[45:24] license fees, sales taxes and
[45:25] therefore residents would question
[45:26] should also receive an appropriate
[45:27] level of response.Question about
[45:38] statement in 9B, quote, this trend is
[45:39] expected to continue over the next
[45:40] several years with current projects
[45:41] of 7000Question about statement in
[45:43] 9B, quote, this trend is expected to
[45:44] continue over the next several years
[45:45] with current projects of 7947 units
[45:46] to develop by 2025. This refers to
[45:52] current projects. Is it possible to
[45:53] get a location list of these projects?
[46:09] Regarding Richmond Beach, we continue
[46:10] to have questions about the 20th Ave.
[46:11] NW. new sidewalk. The design is now
[46:12] 8 feet wide along 20th Ave. NW. from
[46:13] 1/90 to 1/93. And then 10 feet wide
[46:14] from 1/93 to 1/95.We ask for a
[46:19] continuous 8 foot wide sidewalk. We
[46:37] are completing the survey but we have
[46:38] questions that the design will be at
[46:39] a 100% before we get answers. Can
[46:40] the city possibly set up a fact sheet
[46:41] to answer the questions as email to
[46:42] the project manager and Council?
[46:43] Thank you.
[46:44] >>Thank you.
[46:45] >>Derrick Blackwell.
[46:51] >>Hello. My name is Derrick Blackwell
[47:07] It can you hear me?
[47:08] >>Yes, go ahead whenever you're
[47:09] ready.
[47:10] >>Thank you. I live close by to the
[47:11] newly proposed apartment building on
[47:12] Linden Ave., North to replace our in
[47:13] Park Apartments. Bill Creek
[47:14] residential held a 2nd community zoo
[47:15] meeting on May 10This was not in good
[47:20] faith, nobody schedules meetings at 8
[47:21] PM unless they want to purposely
[47:22] minimize participation, the start we
[47:23] had almost 50 people. By the end
[47:24] most dropped out.Some deafly could
[47:25] make it. The 1st community meeting
[47:43] was publicized, clearly Millcreek
[47:44] wishes to minimize discussion. Is it
[47:45] coincidence that the announcements
[47:46] for braille apartments on Linda
[47:47] Avenue one block away came out 4 days
[47:48] after this Millcreek meeting? Here we
[47:49] have 386 propose but at least there's
[47:50] vehicle accessIn Linden and Aurora
[48:02] avenues. The proposed building does
[48:03] not and exceptional and it's very ill
[48:04] suited for the surroundings. Earlier
[48:05] we made Millcreek where all aware of
[48:06] the safety issues on May 10 we are
[48:07] very arrogantly told they would have
[48:08] just one vehicle entrance because
[48:09] there would only be one conflict
[48:10] point with pedestrians which would
[48:11] obviously be worse, everyone waiting
[48:27] longer at that one point. Yes, we
[48:28] have one more parking space on the
[48:29] street. They are not getting
[48:30] rational reasons, they don't have to.
[48:31] They have already been assured all
[48:32] they have to do is meet code
[48:33] requirements and their application
[48:34] will be approved. Lack of vehicle
[48:35] access came up several times in the
[48:36] meeting, Kate Lee stated she needed
[48:54] to defer to the traffic engineer for
[48:55] traffic problems. As I mentioned
[48:56] earlier I had already spoken with
[48:57] David da Vinci, very nice person who
[48:58] made it clear this is not a
[48:59] discussion to get involved in. Okay,
[49:00] who is? The city could prevent future
[49:01] safety problems by making a statement
[49:02] about it now before the application
[49:03] is submitted number 1 on the list is
[49:04] emergency vehicle response. Thank
[49:05] you for hearing.
[49:06] >>Thank you. I see Mr. Spellman has
[49:07] joined.
[49:13] >>Mr. Spellman, go ahead and unmute
[49:14] yourself and you're ready, please.
[49:15] >>Can hear me now?
[49:16] >>Yes, go ahead whenever you're
[49:17] ready.
[49:18] >>I am here on behalf of the property
[49:19] owner regarding agenda item9C which
[49:20] is the condemnation ordinance. I was
[49:27] retained in December by the property
[49:28] owner regarding an email by Mr.
[49:29] McCormick who had proposedThat enough
[49:34] of public trust to require acquire
[49:35] the property. That was in December.
[49:41] In May the property owner learned for
[49:42] the 1st time about a proposal to
[49:43] condemn the property.Our position is
[49:56] The city should postpone the motion
[49:57] and conduct a proper transparence and
[49:58] inclusive process consistent with
[49:59] principles of equity and inclusion.
[50:00] The fact that the city's response to
[50:01] theNeighborhood groups public records
[50:08] request says there will not be a
[50:09] response until August shows thatThe
[50:11] cities blitzkriegIn an attempt to
[50:23] condemn the property is ill advised.
[50:24] This requires a process. The context
[50:25] is under 1984 lawsuit. The original
[50:26] property owner(INAUDIBLE) through
[50:34] trust had agreed to permissive public
[50:35] use of the property. That's the
[50:49] status quo. What's the reason to
[50:50] rush from that? There needs to be an
[50:51] analysis with the recent plans of the
[50:52] city of Seattle to close Golden
[50:53] GardensAnd through public safety
[51:09] concerns, one can understand why my
[51:10] client has concerns. Moreover there
[51:11] are concerns about access. The city
[51:12] is changing its position, the
[51:13] position is expressed in city signage
[51:14] showing there is no public access to
[51:15] the beach and(INAUDIBLE).
[51:16] >>Thank you, Mr. Spellman.Has Ms.
[51:18] Curley or Mr. 20 turn or join us?
[51:38] >>I do not see Ms. Curley. Mr.
[51:39] Turner is still on the call, we can
[51:40] give it a try again to see if it
[51:41] works.
[51:42] >>Are there instructions you can give
[51:43] him? I am not sure the problem is.
[51:44] Mr. Turner, I'm going to press a
[51:45] button that allows you to talk and
[51:46] you press *6 to unmute yourself.
[51:48] Parent Mr. Turner, can you hear us?
[51:59] Mr. Turner, it looks like you're
[52:00] activated, could you try speaking?
[52:04] Unfortunately, we are going to need
[52:05] to move on. Mr. Turner, you're
[52:10] welcome to submit comments in writing
[52:11] or attend our next, are you there?
[52:34] Unfortunately looks like this is not
[52:35] going to work. We're going have to
[52:36] pass. The Simulcik Smith, believe
[52:37] that closes public comment, correct?
[52:38] >>Yes.
[52:39] >>Thank you. Next up is the consent
[52:40] calendar. Death HUMIRA Robertson?
[52:41] >>I moved we approve the consent
[52:42] calendar as amended, correct, from
[52:43] earlier?
[52:44] >>Item 7 I is no longer on the
[52:45] consent calendar.Is there a 2nd?
[52:46] >>2nd that.
[52:47] >>Thank you. Will the court please
[52:48] call the vote?
[52:49] >>
[52:50] [CALLING ROLL]
[53:04] >>The consent calendar passes
[53:05] unanimously in the new action item 8
[53:06] a is the former 7 I which is adopting
[53:07] 491For appealing resolution number
[53:10] 459 which authorizes hybrid meetings.
[53:31] >>City attorney Margaret King was
[53:32] going to do a very brief presentation.
[53:35] >>Whenever you're ready.
[53:52] >>Can you hear me? I apologize. I
[53:53] was just trying to click my unmute
[53:54] when the screen popped up and I
[53:55] couldn't find it. My apologies.
[53:56] >>You are here now, go ahead.
[53:57] >>Mayor and Council, this is a
[53:58] resolution number 491Repealing
[54:01] resolution number 459 temporarily
[54:02] authorizing meetings in public
[54:03] hearings to be held remotely due to
[54:04] COVID-19.I don't know whyMy screen is
[54:10] not working.There we go.Okay.Okay, so
[54:22] theLegislative actions that we are
[54:39] addressing today in this discussion
[54:40] is resolution number 459, the Council
[54:41] adopted on June 1, 2020, it suspends
[54:42] the city Council 5.3 and 5.5That
[54:47] allowed us to go to virtual meetings.
[54:48] Those rules require there to be a
[54:49] meeting on site of City Hall. It
[54:55] also directs the planning commission
[54:56] in the park board to hold meetings
[54:57] virtually. There is a typo on I
[54:58] apologize, it'sSubstitute House Bill
[55:00] 1329 was passed in 2022. Amends the
[55:17] public meetings act require physical
[55:18] location. It does permit entirely
[55:19] virtual meetings but it does so only
[55:20] when there's a declaration of
[55:21] emergency and the meeting can't be
[55:22] held in person with reasonable safety.
[55:23] And then the governor's
[55:24] proclamation 2028 16 is terminates
[55:26] and resumes requirements and public
[55:27] meetings to be held virtually.
[55:30] Effective June 1, 2020, the governor
[55:32] has taken that action.
[56:02] So we have also integrated new
[56:03] technology into the city system, it
[56:04] integrates cameras and microphones
[56:05] into a videoconferencing platform,
[56:06] staff presentations can be shared in
[56:07] Council chambers and on the
[56:08] videoconferencing platform and it
[56:09] also allows public comment to be made
[56:10] by telephone or videoconferencing
[56:11] software or, of course, in person
[56:12] allow us to do these meetings.Staff
[56:13] recommends the city Council adopt a
[56:14] resolutionRepealing resolution 459
[56:20] and returned to in person meetings
[56:21] effective June 1, 2022. And I am
[56:22] available for any questions.
[56:30] >>Thank you pick this is an action
[56:31] item so we normally start with a
[56:32] motion. Is there a motion related to
[56:33] this item?That be Mary Robertson?
[56:49] Thank you, I move that we adopt
[56:50] resolution number 491 repealing
[56:51] number 459.
[56:52] >>Ms. Simulcik Smith, you have a
[56:53] comment?
[56:54] >>Mayor Scully, since this itemWas on
[57:10] action for the 1st time?
[57:11] >>Yes, just everyone knows staff
[57:12] reminded be about that and I just
[57:13] forgot. I apologize before we do
[57:14] motion we need to open it up for
[57:15] public comment. This is an action
[57:16] item on the agenda for the 1st time
[57:17] without prior notice, we open up for
[57:18] public comment. If there any members
[57:19] of the public in attendance Ray
[57:20] surehanded we will call on you to
[57:21] provide comments on this action item
[57:22] only.I am not seeing any hands.
[57:55] >>I don't see any either.
[57:56] >>With no hands raise I will close
[57:57] the public comment. I apologize for
[57:58] a meeting that we have a motion but
[57:59] not a 2nd. Consider 2nd for the
[58:00] deputy mayor's motion?
[58:01] >>2nd.
[58:02] >>Deputy Mayor Robertson, would you
[58:03] like to address your motion?
[58:04] >>I want to thank the staff,
[58:05] everybody was been involved in making
[58:06] virtual meetings possible and for the
[58:07] members of the public with continue
[58:08] to participate in even in greater
[58:09] numbers in many cases throughout the
[58:10] pandemic. I look forward to seeing
[58:11] you all in person. Thanks.
[58:12] >>
[58:13] [CALLING ROLL] Councilmember
[58:14] McConnell?
[58:15] >>Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank
[58:16] councilmember Roberts for pulling
[58:17] this off of consent because I believe
[58:18] because it's the 1st timeOn the
[58:19] agenda and we are coming to a vote,
[58:20] it is important for me, at least, we
[58:25] do have a discussion so the public is
[58:26] aware of the moveScheduled for June 6
[58:40] to go back into the city chambers. I
[58:41] am glad we are going to do that, but
[58:42] I particularly have several reasons
[58:43] why I'm going to participate in the
[58:44] hybrid model, which is assumingFor
[58:45] both councilmembersWho want to zoom
[58:48] in and also for the public. It's
[58:49] actuallyTo tell the public we can
[59:00] continue to participate as fully as
[59:01] you have been during the pandemic
[59:02] because we actually have all
[59:03] commented that we have much more
[59:04] public participation. I particularly
[59:07] am of the medical (INAUDIBLE) that I
[59:38] am boosted not once but twice. And
[59:39] that makes me a vulnerable population
[59:40] and in addition to that I also in the
[59:41] sole caregiver for a 1-year-old who
[59:42] is not vaccinated and then another
[59:43] grandchild in that immediate family
[59:44] who cannot be vaccinated because of
[59:45] the age. So we have already stumbled
[59:46] upon some quarantine, and when that
[59:47] happens I can't show up for a week or
[59:48] more untilWe are sure thatNo one is
[59:49] going to be infecting each other.
[59:50] Because everybody knows, this is a
[59:51] very, veryCentury, once in a century
[59:53] situation. I will be taking my cues
[1:00:01] As things change, is my comfort level
[1:00:02] changes, etc. I really do miss being
[1:00:06] in the council chambers because we
[1:00:07] have so many new people and visit a
[1:00:13] great opportunity to have a lot more
[1:00:14] dialogue prior to and after meetings,
[1:00:15] soI am very sad to say that at least
[1:00:28] For a little short. I will be
[1:00:29] zooming in and I hope that the staff
[1:00:30] will be able to get the bugs out of
[1:00:31] that system. Again, thank you,
[1:00:33] councilmember Roberts, for pulling
[1:00:34] that off the agenda so the public
[1:00:43] knows what we're doing. Thank you.
[1:00:44] >>Thank you. Other questions or
[1:00:45] comments, councilmember Roberts?
[1:00:46] >>I have a couple of questions about
[1:00:50] What the public and the Council is
[1:00:51] going to expect when we come back to
[1:00:52] chambers. It was mentioned the
[1:00:55] technology and theThe public
[1:01:02] councilmembers are going to be
[1:01:03] allowed to and encourage to
[1:01:04] participate.This sort of some the
[1:01:08] specific questions I have are around
[1:01:28] Is in the past we have had seating in
[1:01:29] the Council Chambers rose roughly 100
[1:01:30] people. Is that going to is that
[1:01:31] capacity going to be similar to what
[1:01:32] we've had in the past? Also, I know
[1:01:33] that some of the details have not
[1:01:34] been finalized, but are there going
[1:01:35] to beStill the same requirements
[1:01:36] about around whenPublic who chooses
[1:01:39] to participate remotely or virtually,
[1:01:46] that still the same time. To sign up
[1:01:47] to give public comment, is that going
[1:01:48] to beStill the case? And to the
[1:01:56] extent that some of these Kino again
[1:01:57] some of these details are still to be
[1:01:58] worked out, but to the extent that
[1:02:03] Staff can provide some answers to
[1:02:04] those questions about what to expect
[1:02:05] I appreciate that.
[1:02:15] >>Miss Terry?
[1:02:16] >>Thank you, Mayor. I will answer
[1:02:17] those things that I might know. We
[1:02:18] have not discussedA capacity limit in
[1:02:21] the Council Chambers. I think it's
[1:02:37] the Council is pretty familiar, is
[1:02:38] very unusual circumstances when it
[1:02:39] might've gotten to that capacity. We
[1:02:40] would like to spread the chairs a
[1:02:41] little bit further apart to allow
[1:02:42] that, and I know historically when we
[1:02:43] have had a larger crowd that couldn't
[1:02:44] that overflowed the number of seats
[1:02:45] in the chambers we have also allowed
[1:02:57] or provided the speakers out in the
[1:02:58] lobby and additional seating out
[1:02:59] there is an opportunity certainly by
[1:03:00] providing the opportunity for people
[1:03:01] to continue to participate virtually
[1:03:02] like has been happening for the last
[1:03:03] 2 1/2 years, That hopefully will be
[1:03:06] very convenient for people. So
[1:03:07] people that choose to participate
[1:03:08] virtually really nothing will change
[1:03:09] for themDear, would anticipate that
[1:03:14] we would still ask for the same sign
[1:03:15] up time frames just so we can
[1:03:16] coordinate that it certainly if
[1:03:17] that's going to change we would let
[1:03:21] the public know that plenty of time.
[1:03:22] AndI know earlier today I think when
[1:03:29] I talked with councilmember oversee
[1:03:30] asked a question about over protocols
[1:03:34] and mask wearing, I think is I've
[1:03:35] talked with councilmembersCurrently
[1:03:37] at City Hall when the mask mandate
[1:03:41] was dropped on a statewide basis we
[1:03:42] alsoDo not require masks be borne by
[1:03:55] those coming into City Hall, we
[1:03:56] encourage people to do that but we
[1:03:57] would anticipate at least at this
[1:03:58] time that would be the practice
[1:03:59] within the council chambers itself.So
[1:04:02] and with the new technology we would
[1:04:05] hope that people would be able to
[1:04:07] ExperienceA meeting both virtually in
[1:04:11] person and that is what we are
[1:04:14] striving forAnd so if there's any
[1:04:20] other specifics we can try to answer
[1:04:21] those or we can follow up later with
[1:04:30] additional information. One way I
[1:04:31] would say is I think I shared with
[1:04:32] Council our staff and working very
[1:04:33] hard on this and so they just did a
[1:04:34] final testing last week to make sure
[1:04:42] People we couldn't afford
[1:04:43] technologically and we would be
[1:04:44] providing additional information
[1:04:45] Council as far as anything that you
[1:04:46] should be aware ofThis weekThe next
[1:04:49] meeting 2 weeks from tonight on June
[1:04:50] 6.
[1:05:01] >>Further questions, councilmember
[1:05:02] Roberts?
[1:05:03] >>No, thank you.
[1:05:04] >>Councilmember Moore?
[1:05:05] >>My apologies, I must not understand
[1:05:06] this clearly. So does this
[1:05:07] resolution for the parks board, the
[1:05:08] planning commission and the city
[1:05:09] Council indicate that it is mandatory
[1:05:11] that allOf the people who are on
[1:05:23] those commissions or the Council of
[1:05:24] peer in person unless there is a
[1:05:25] state of emergency that says we
[1:05:26] cannot simply come?
[1:05:36] >>Ms. King?
[1:05:37] >>No, what it does is before the
[1:05:38] resolution mandated that they only be
[1:05:39] virtual and that everybody had, no
[1:05:43] one could come into a meeting and so
[1:05:44] what this would do is undo that
[1:05:50] mandate that everything be fully
[1:05:51] vulture virtual and then it allows
[1:05:54] Like councilmember McConnell pointed
[1:05:55] outSome hybrid form which can allow
[1:06:02] Members of the commission or the
[1:06:03] parks board to attendRemotely as well
[1:06:10] as in person as well as the public to
[1:06:11] do so. To set answer your question?
[1:06:16] >>I think so. Would there be a
[1:06:17] specific protocol that would need to
[1:06:18] be followed, for instance, if the
[1:06:19] parks board memberDidn't feel
[1:06:27] comfortable coming to one meeting but
[1:06:28] did feel more comfortable coming to
[1:06:29] the other, would they be able to just
[1:06:35] , Would they have the link and be
[1:06:36] able to zoom in? Or appear in person
[1:06:37] and it's not requiring a specific
[1:06:38] communication or is thatAhead of
[1:06:46] time?
[1:06:47] >>That I'm going have to defer to the
[1:06:48] technological people, but I would say
[1:06:49] that as far as attending remotely we
[1:07:07] have done that prior to COVID-19 and
[1:07:08] if a particular member could not
[1:07:09] attend in person they could call in
[1:07:10] by phone, we have that technology.
[1:07:11] So I think it's going to be just a
[1:07:12] matter of how you access the new
[1:07:13] technology, and I will have to defer
[1:07:14] to other people that are much moreUp
[1:07:15] to date on the technology.
[1:07:16] >>The Simulcik Smith?
[1:07:26] >>Yes, so the Council Chambers has
[1:07:27] had the hybrid equipment installed
[1:07:28] and our other conference rooms are on
[1:07:29] the schedule to be installed
[1:07:30] currently we have been battlingBack
[1:07:31] order of critical equipment. Room
[1:07:35] 303, which the park board typically
[1:07:36] meets in, that room should be
[1:07:39] Installed soon. If we get the
[1:07:40] equipment on the timeline they last
[1:07:42] gave us.
[1:07:53] >>Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.
[1:07:54] >>Thank you. I would add is a
[1:07:55] Council we considered sort of how we
[1:07:56] are going to implement this during
[1:07:57] our retreat we considered various
[1:08:02] leasing mechanisms and we also
[1:08:03] decided we didn't want to do that,
[1:08:04] Council members are free to decide
[1:08:05] for themselves whether and how often
[1:08:06] they choose toDo it remotely. I will
[1:08:15] extend to the boards and commissions.
[1:08:16] We are proposing a hybrid model
[1:08:17] wears totally optional how you
[1:08:18] participate and obviously will take
[1:08:19] it as it goes and if it turns out
[1:08:20] something isn't working we may have
[1:08:25] to re-visit it. But for now
[1:08:26] councilmembers are able to attend
[1:08:27] completely remotely for as long as
[1:08:28] they need to. Were there other
[1:08:29] questions or comments from Council?
[1:08:30] The Simulcik Smith, will you please
[1:08:31] call the boat?
[1:08:35] >>
[1:08:36] [CALLING ROLL]
[1:09:01] >>Thank you, the motion passes
[1:09:02] unanimously. Next up is now I 18
[1:09:03] which is a public hearing discussion
[1:09:04] on 951To the extension of the interim
[1:09:05] regulations beyond those provided in
[1:09:17] shoreline municipal code do COVID-19
[1:09:18] impacts. It's a public hearing so we
[1:09:19] will have the staff presentation 1st
[1:09:20] and then the public hearing. I
[1:09:21] believe Mr. Bauer will present.
[1:09:29] >>Eye and promoting Mr. Bauer right
[1:09:31] now.
[1:09:50] >>Good evening, Mayor and Council.
[1:09:51] REMICADE evening, go ahead whenever
[1:09:52] you're ready.So yes, tonight I am
[1:10:08] here to present proposed ordinance
[1:10:09] number 965 which would extend for
[1:10:10] another 6 months the interim
[1:10:11] regulations for the outdoor seating
[1:10:12] to provide for ongoing flexibility in
[1:10:13] response to the COVID-19 pandemic.And
[1:10:15] if I could advance the slide here,
[1:10:25] Here we go. So the interim
[1:11:01] regulations, they were as you recall
[1:11:02] 1st adopted in July 2020, they have
[1:11:03] been extended 3 times. The latest
[1:11:04] extension is due to expire June 21
[1:11:05] unless actions taken to extend them.
[1:11:06] The interim regulations before you
[1:11:07] tonight would establish or continue
[1:11:08] to establish, rather, no fee
[1:11:09] registration process for the seating
[1:11:10] areas on private property and then
[1:11:11] also the expedited permit review for
[1:11:12] areas in the right-of-way. They
[1:11:13] don't change any regulations related
[1:11:14] to the safety.
[1:11:23] Staff anticipates this would be the
[1:11:24] last extension needed as the planning
[1:11:25] commission just last week at a study
[1:11:26] session on the draft regulations to
[1:11:27] allow outdoor seating on private
[1:11:28] property on a permanent basis. The
[1:11:29] planning commission scheduled to hold
[1:11:30] a hearing on permit regulations on
[1:11:31] July 21 meeting and recommendation
[1:11:32] the Council will be expected
[1:11:33] following that hearing. As of today,
[1:11:34] there is currently 2 businesses that
[1:11:35] continue to operate under the interim
[1:11:36] regulations.Tonight is the public
[1:11:44] hearing on the six-month extension
[1:11:45] and potential action is scheduled to
[1:11:46] come back to CouncilFor the June 6
[1:11:49] meeting. With that, will turn it
[1:11:50] back over to they what back.
[1:11:51] >>Thank you. Since this is a public
[1:11:56] hearing I will open up the public
[1:11:57] hearing for comment on this agenda
[1:11:58] item only.Has anyone signed up for
[1:12:07] this particular public hearing?
[1:12:08] >>No one registered for this item.
[1:12:09] >>For the folks in the attendee list,
[1:12:10] if you'd like to speak on this item,
[1:12:11] please raise your hand.Seeing none I
[1:12:24] am going to go ahead and close the
[1:12:25] public hearing at this point this is
[1:12:26] an action item, this is not an action
[1:12:27] item, study action item. Are there
[1:12:28] questions or discussion from Council?
[1:12:38] Epi Mayor Iversen?
[1:12:39] >>Thank you, Mayor. I'm glad that we
[1:12:40] did this, I think was great response
[1:12:41] to what was happening in our
[1:12:42] community during the pandemic. I am
[1:12:53] happy to support another extension
[1:12:54] and also happy to see we have some
[1:12:55] permanent recommendation headed our
[1:12:56] way soon so thank you for your work
[1:12:57] on this. The one thing I called out
[1:12:58] as I was reading again is that a part
[1:12:59] ofThe ordinanceSuspends minimum
[1:13:23] offstreet parking requirements, so I
[1:13:24] am just going to like drop this for
[1:13:25] the future reference. As we continue
[1:13:26] to focus on making neighborhoods
[1:13:27] multi-modal I would be interested in
[1:13:28] looking further at reducing the
[1:13:29] minimum requirements for offstreet
[1:13:30] parking for food and drinking
[1:13:31] establishments. That just my little
[1:13:32] soapbox on this and I look forward to
[1:13:33] supporting it when it comes back
[1:13:34] traction.
[1:13:35] >>Thank you. Councilmember McConnell?
[1:13:36] >>Thank you, Mayor. Just wanted to
[1:13:37] say this is a great idea. I'm a
[1:13:38] little disappointed with the lack of
[1:13:39] participation but may be I am not
[1:13:40] going to the areas where it's more
[1:13:42] viable. But downtown, you could
[1:13:49] hardly go on the sidewalk because
[1:13:55] there is more tables and restaurants
[1:13:56] that didn't have outdoor seatingEven
[1:14:02] last year or something. So nobody
[1:14:03] seems to mind that they are eating on
[1:14:04] the sidewalk. Nobody seems to mind
[1:14:17] that (INAUDIBLE) walked by and quite
[1:14:18] honestly I can see what's on the menu
[1:14:19] by looking on people's tables. Thank
[1:14:20] you for the staff and the Council to
[1:14:21] be so flexible for this sort of
[1:14:22] thing, because eating is, eating and
[1:14:24] socializing is a great activity that
[1:14:29] we can do a little bit more safely
[1:14:30] outdoors duringThis pandemic which I
[1:14:34] hope I never have to live through
[1:14:35] another one. Thank you.
[1:14:40] >>Thank you, councilmember. Other
[1:14:41] other comments or questions from
[1:14:42] Council?Seeing none, just sad I
[1:15:11] remember when this 1st came up at the
[1:15:12] very beginning of the pandemic and we
[1:15:13] talked about various models which we
[1:15:14] can regulate this and what Council
[1:15:15] said unanimously back then was let's
[1:15:16] get it out of the way and let this
[1:15:17] happen. Let's make it it is easy as
[1:15:18] possible as cheap as possible and see
[1:15:19] what happens. I am not disappointed,
[1:15:20] I'm not surprised we haven't had more
[1:15:21] participation in it, just the way our
[1:15:22] city is structured and as the city
[1:15:23] changes I hope these regulations
[1:15:24] become permanent we start getting
[1:15:25] businesses, Start to build around
[1:15:26] this concept that we can have
[1:15:27] something like Edmonds we can have a
[1:15:28] public street scene that we all
[1:15:29] participate in. We've got parts of
[1:15:30] that, North city Richmond Beach
[1:15:31] there's other neighborhoods. This
[1:15:32] other neighborhoods where that starts
[1:15:33] and I'm hoping we can develop even
[1:15:34] further as time goes on in these
[1:15:35] regulations only encourage it.
[1:15:36] Councilmember Roberts?
[1:15:37] >>Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to
[1:15:38] say I could your sentiments.I think
[1:15:41] that there is optimism in sort of
[1:15:43] looking forward with developments
[1:15:48] around light-rail stations, I think
[1:15:49] there's going to beAs our previous
[1:15:53] economic development director talked
[1:15:57] about is that place making field and
[1:15:58] that's whatYou have a certain number
[1:16:05] of businesses as councilmember
[1:16:06] McConnell talked about sort of
[1:16:07] vibrancy of the street, That sort of
[1:16:12] brings people to get out, that brings
[1:16:13] and one business to business is doing
[1:16:19] especially if they're working near
[1:16:20] each other start to have that
[1:16:21] streetscape where people commentAnd
[1:16:22] want to sort of come and lingerAnd say
[1:16:27] that place looks interesting. So I
[1:16:31] am very excited about this and I
[1:16:32] think when paired with ourThe review
[1:16:50] of our regulations that are coming in
[1:16:51] shortly I think we have this great
[1:16:52] opportunity to sort of make shoreline
[1:16:53] especially our light rail station
[1:16:54] areas very vibrant place. Thank you,
[1:16:55] Mayor.
[1:16:56] >>Thank you. Any other questions or
[1:16:57] comments?Seeing none, when we do see
[1:16:58] this comeback?
[1:16:59] >>This is scheduled for action on
[1:17:00] June 6.
[1:17:05] >>Is there, was councils opinions on
[1:17:06] consent? And you do a thumbs up on
[1:17:07] consent? Okay. It looks like
[1:17:18] unanimous thumbs up. Let's put it
[1:17:19] consent and thank you for the
[1:17:20] excellent presentation.
[1:17:21] Next up a study item 9A, discussion
[1:17:22] of 9166 amending the shoreline
[1:17:23] municipalCode deferring underground
[1:17:26] facilities. Since my screen is it
[1:17:27] working I don't know the staff
[1:17:28] members.
[1:17:31] >>I will be presenting this item
[1:17:32] tonight. John Noris, city manager,
[1:17:40] good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor,
[1:17:41] and Council pick with me tonight as
[1:17:42] well is tritium
[1:17:43] : Our city engineer. So she will
[1:17:45] answer any questions as well that the
[1:17:46] Council may have. And this is a
[1:17:49] discussionAs the mayor mentioned and
[1:17:55] you can see the title of the ordinance
[1:17:57] on our slide here. Just by way of
[1:18:01] background as Council recallsOn
[1:18:06] February 28 you discuss the required
[1:18:07] electrical utility under grounding in
[1:18:26] the South Shore line 148 light rail
[1:18:27] station area and the challenges that
[1:18:28] both sound transit members of the
[1:18:29] development community were having
[1:18:30] with regard to meeting the cities
[1:18:31] underground code given the delay
[1:18:32] Seattle city lights Fifth Avenue duct
[1:18:33] bank project which is an underground
[1:18:34] project replacingThree-phase
[1:18:35] electrical cable that is currently in
[1:18:36] the ground running north-south
[1:18:42] up-and-down Fifth Avenue North East.
[1:18:43] Given the delay, sound transit is a
[1:18:44] private developers expressed the city
[1:18:45] and Seattle city light the need for
[1:18:46] both overheadTemporary construction
[1:18:47] three-phase powerTo construct their
[1:18:52] large projects and for that overhead
[1:18:53] interim power to continue to energize
[1:19:08] Or operationalize their new
[1:19:09] developments until that duct bank
[1:19:10] project is complete. On March 7 the
[1:19:11] city Council adopted ordinance 958
[1:19:12] which addressed the 1st issue, so
[1:19:13] that was that allowed for temporary
[1:19:14] construction powerAnd tonight
[1:19:15] bringing you back ordinance 966 take
[1:19:20] a look at the 2nd issue there that
[1:19:21] Council discussed on February 28. So
[1:19:30] in front of Council tonight is
[1:19:31] ordinance 966 which provides for new
[1:19:32] section of the municipal code which
[1:19:33] is section 1320 060, so this is all
[1:19:34] newMunicipal code language in that
[1:19:38] section. It allows for interim
[1:19:39] overhead power within the limited area
[1:19:44] If a property owner who would need
[1:19:45] that power to operationalize their
[1:19:46] property enters into what we are
[1:19:50] calling a deferred underground
[1:19:51] facilities agreement or Adolfo for
[1:19:52] short, Everything needs an acronym so
[1:19:57] that's the acronym we have chosen.
[1:19:58] The deaf would be good for 5 years
[1:20:01] from the date of the issuance of the
[1:20:02] development permits for development
[1:20:03] project or for projects that of
[1:20:05] already been issued development
[1:20:20] permit such as the sound transit
[1:20:21] project, the five-year timeframe
[1:20:22] would start on the potential adoption
[1:20:23] of this code section about Council
[1:20:24] does approve this which is currently
[1:20:25] scheduled for June 6, 2 weeks from
[1:20:26] now. The code will also allow for12
[1:20:27] year extension if through no fault of
[1:20:31] the applicant Seattle city light
[1:20:32] underground project is not completed
[1:20:33] within the five-year timeframe and
[1:20:39] the applicant requesting the deaf oh
[1:20:40] would need to design and construct
[1:20:41] underground electrical utility
[1:20:42] infrastructureWhich is typically an
[1:21:05] underground vault that would go on
[1:21:06] their property are potentially in the
[1:21:07] city right-of-way to make for that
[1:21:08] future connection, so that would have
[1:21:09] to be agreed to in the deaf at that
[1:21:10] they would construct that as part of
[1:21:11] their development project. So that
[1:21:12] that future underground connection
[1:21:13] could be made and they would also
[1:21:14] need to initiate a permit in the
[1:21:15] future of Seattle city light doesn't
[1:21:16] do this automatically to make sure
[1:21:17] Seattle city light bins connects their
[1:21:21] Fifth Avenue duct bank underground
[1:21:22] project to their development in the
[1:21:23] future. So we want to make sure that
[1:21:24] the development is ready for that
[1:21:25] underground connection and that the
[1:21:26] connection is made in the future.
[1:21:29] This is the map of the proposed stuff
[1:21:30] at designated area, so it is the area
[1:21:31] outlined in the orange
[1:21:39] triangular-shaped there, the reason
[1:21:40] why this initial designated area was
[1:21:41] selected as this is basically the
[1:21:42] rough outline of whereThe 1st 10
[1:21:47] blocks of the Fifth Avenue duct bank
[1:21:48] project were served, so it doesn't
[1:21:49] serve obviously the entireEast area,
[1:21:51] if you will, of the148 station area
[1:22:04] as Council may recall, there is
[1:22:05] overhead three-phase power running
[1:22:06] north and south up and down 8th
[1:22:07] Avenue, and so any developmentIn the
[1:22:08] eastern portion of the light rail
[1:22:19] station area out to the east of that
[1:22:20] orange line would likely be served
[1:22:21] through the connection that would
[1:22:22] determine where that connection would
[1:22:23] be but this is whyThis initial
[1:22:34] designated area was selected.
[1:22:35] Obviously the designated area could
[1:22:36] be expanded if there is a need to do
[1:22:37] that. But on the February 28 staff
[1:22:38] heard from Council the desire to keep
[1:22:39] this, keep these regulations as tight
[1:22:44] as possible and so identifying the
[1:22:45] designated area around where that
[1:22:46] Fifth Avenue duct bank project will
[1:22:47] serve was what was selectedFor your
[1:22:48] consideration tonight.
[1:23:00] So finally it's ordinance 966 has a
[1:23:01] component for requirements of the
[1:23:02] electric utility service provider in
[1:23:03] the city which of course is Seattle
[1:23:04] city light. It would require them to
[1:23:32] coordinate and perform work for these
[1:23:33] interim overhead facilities. This
[1:23:34] includes appropriate design and
[1:23:35] construction of the interim power
[1:23:36] goals, we do not want those goals and
[1:23:37] wires to once installed to preclude
[1:23:38] any future development. We want to
[1:23:39] make sure the setbacks, the height of
[1:23:40] those poles and wires, there are
[1:23:41] specific setbacks needed, Seattle
[1:23:42] city light has requirements of
[1:23:43] setbacks from their infrastructure,
[1:23:44] want to make sure that is in
[1:23:45] precluding any future, so there's a
[1:23:51] requirement that they are designed
[1:23:52] and that by way on the utility also
[1:23:53] requirement for attending new goal of
[1:23:54] the overhead pulse from city light
[1:23:55] once the duct bank is completed and
[1:23:56] the code also provides for
[1:23:57] enforcement provisions against city
[1:23:58] light if they fail to comply with
[1:23:59] this code. Again, we have been
[1:24:06] Sharing this information with key
[1:24:07] stakeholders. You can see the
[1:24:08] stakeholders there including Seattle
[1:24:09] city light. This is a fairly
[1:24:10] complicated issue, at least has been
[1:24:11] for myself if there a lot of
[1:24:12] intricacies to it, we at the staff
[1:24:13] level did not want to create any
[1:24:14] unintended consequences so in the
[1:24:19] future a stakeholder could not meet
[1:24:20] code requirements. I was helpful to
[1:24:21] receive feedback. Some that feedback
[1:24:24] was incorporated into the code in
[1:24:25] front Council tonight. As well as I
[1:24:34] hopefully Council is aware I did
[1:24:35] provide an additional memo to Council
[1:24:36] today, we did receive some additional
[1:24:37] feedback. Last week after the staff
[1:24:39] report was issued and I am happy to
[1:24:42] provideAny questions or answer any
[1:24:56] questions Council may have about
[1:24:57] that. Staff in that memo did
[1:24:58] proposed, of a friendly amendment, if
[1:24:59] you will, to what is in proposed
[1:25:00] ordinance 966, which is in the
[1:25:01] Council packet given the intricacies
[1:25:31] of pole removal, so it's not just
[1:25:32] Seattle city light that is removing
[1:25:33] their polls. And most cases they are
[1:25:34] also telecommunication companies that
[1:25:35] are hanging their wires, so to speak,
[1:25:36] are attaching their wires to Seattle
[1:25:37] city light poles as part of the
[1:25:38] removal process those
[1:25:39] telecommunication or fiber-optic or
[1:25:40] cable companies are doing that
[1:25:41] removal, and so the feedback received
[1:25:42] from city light is we want to make
[1:25:43] sure to provide enough time for all
[1:25:44] of that work to happen so that those
[1:25:45] interim poles again once the
[1:25:46] underground project is complete can
[1:25:47] be removed in a timely way while we
[1:25:48] are still able in our code to kind of
[1:25:49] hold accountable city light to make
[1:25:50] sure that work is accomplished.
[1:25:51] No action is required tonight with
[1:25:52] regard to a recommendation from
[1:25:53] staff. This is an opportunity for
[1:25:54] Council asking questions of staff
[1:26:10] regarding this, providing feedback,
[1:26:11] staff does recommend adoption of
[1:26:12] ordinance 966 when this is brought
[1:26:13] back to Council on June 6. Again,
[1:26:14] with those staff recommended
[1:26:15] amendments as I just mentioned and I
[1:26:16] do have those on the slide, I would
[1:26:17] be happy to pull that up if Council
[1:26:18] has any specific questions about
[1:26:19] that. With that, happy to answer any
[1:26:20] questions. Make any questions or
[1:26:21] comments from Council?Councilmember
[1:26:22] Roberts?
[1:26:25] >>Thank you. I have a couple of
[1:26:26] questions and then questions about
[1:26:27] the proposed amendment. The 1st
[1:26:30] question is in your do for, is that
[1:26:31] how we're describing this?It includes
[1:26:49] some annual are 45 zone. And the
[1:26:50] ordinance that was adopted earlier
[1:26:51] this year, we limited under sort of
[1:26:52] temporary underground or overhead
[1:26:53] wires to him you are 70. Do we need
[1:26:54] to go back andRevisit that ordinance
[1:26:55] to includeMR 45, or make it even
[1:26:58] tighter and say that develop sort of
[1:27:03] this do for language for that
[1:27:04] ordinance as well?
[1:27:10] >>Great question, councilmember, and
[1:27:11] staff did have this discussion about
[1:27:12] reconciling the allowance for
[1:27:20] temporary construction power poles in
[1:27:21] the right-of-way which is only in MMU
[1:27:22] are 70 as you rightly pointed out.It
[1:27:24] is most likely thatAn agency or
[1:27:29] developer applying for a do for would
[1:27:32] likelyTakeAn interim power pole that
[1:27:43] would be allowed, and then utilize
[1:27:44] that on an operational basis. So
[1:27:55] that would, again, those temporary
[1:27:56] construction power poles are only
[1:27:57] allowed the MER 70, so Council could
[1:27:58] go back and we did not bring this
[1:27:59] forward as part of this ordinance,
[1:28:01] expand into the M you are 45 as you
[1:28:02] mentioned, that allowance for
[1:28:07] Temporary construction power poles.
[1:28:08] It is possible that there may be a
[1:28:09] need or there could be a time at
[1:28:19] which there is a need for an interim
[1:28:20] power that wasn't constructed off of
[1:28:21] a temporary power pole. You could
[1:28:23] also scale backThe designated Duff
[1:28:33] area, as you mentioned, kinda make
[1:28:34] that orange area a little tighter. I
[1:28:38] think there may be some proposed
[1:28:39] development and then him you are 45
[1:28:43] Zone in the future, so that may then
[1:28:44] preclude them fromAgain utilizing
[1:28:51] this until that Fifth Avenue duct
[1:28:52] bank project is complete. You would
[1:29:04] have a dude out for Bates Avenue in
[1:29:05] here for mems of the development
[1:29:06] community, that may be a challenge
[1:29:07] for them to then incorporate that
[1:29:08] cost in their development projects.
[1:29:09] So all of those are options for
[1:29:10] Council. We felt like having an
[1:29:11] inconsistency at the outsetIsn't
[1:29:14] necessarily a problem. It may be
[1:29:19] that Council and I guess from staff's
[1:29:20] recommendation our recommendation
[1:29:28] initially on temporary construction
[1:29:29] goals was not to limit it just the
[1:29:30] MER 70 area or MER 70 zone and soYou
[1:29:52] could go back and fix that in the
[1:29:53] future.
[1:29:54] >>We are not adopting the do for zone
[1:29:55] itself. We're just saying that there
[1:29:56] (INAUDIBLE).
[1:29:57] >>That's correct. The way that the
[1:29:58] code as currently proposed allows for
[1:29:59] the director, which is director of
[1:30:00] public works, to identify what that
[1:30:01] zone is, the map that was included
[1:30:02] was soCouncil was aware of what
[1:30:03] staffs intention would be as an
[1:30:04] initial map and it would be staffs
[1:30:05] intention to just expand the map, we
[1:30:06] would do that very judiciously, I'm
[1:30:07] sure we would share with Council
[1:30:08] before there was anyChange to that,
[1:30:12] so it doesn't impact the code.
[1:30:14] >>My 2nd question isAround the
[1:30:19] temporary pulls. I know normally
[1:30:26] Seattle city light is renting their
[1:30:27] space through a variety of different
[1:30:28] utilities, Most notably cable, but at
[1:30:30] least today cablePreviously unmet was
[1:30:36] telephone wires and the like and
[1:30:37] probably still is.The question is
[1:30:54] There's nothing in the code that
[1:30:55] prohibits Seattle city light from
[1:30:56] renting temporary poles for these
[1:30:57] projects. We have the sense from
[1:30:58] Seattle city light they are planning
[1:30:59] to rent those poles for these
[1:31:00] processes?
[1:31:01] >>Yes, because some of these polls
[1:31:04] may replace existing single phase
[1:31:05] poles I think it is likely thatThe
[1:31:11] telecom or fiber-optic whole
[1:31:25] attacher's that is kind of the term
[1:31:26] we use, so those other companies that
[1:31:27] are attaching to Seattle city light
[1:31:28] poles very well may be on these
[1:31:29] interim poles. In speaking with
[1:31:30] their economic development program
[1:31:31] managerThis code again allows for
[1:31:36] operational power for future
[1:31:37] development projects, and it is
[1:31:38] likely that fiber-optic or telecom
[1:31:50] providers very well may way want,
[1:31:51] that may be the easiest connection in
[1:31:52] the interim is to use these interim
[1:31:53] poles to connect to those future
[1:31:54] development projects until, again,
[1:31:55] the duct bank project is complete. So
[1:32:06] We don't quite know exactly what the
[1:32:07] future would hold, but it's our sense
[1:32:08] that it's likely that these polls
[1:32:09] would have those 3rd parties attached
[1:32:10] to them.
[1:32:11] >>Thank you. My my last question is
[1:32:12] about the specific amendment and in
[1:32:13] the deed to be, both in the amendment
[1:32:18] and in the sort of original draft, it
[1:32:19] talks about 2 different things, the
[1:32:20] completely capital project, and then
[1:32:21] you have the connection.There seems
[1:32:29] like there could be some difference
[1:32:30] of when the connection can occur
[1:32:31] before the project is complete. I
[1:32:36] mean at least in theory is there may
[1:32:37] be other work that has to be done
[1:32:38] after the connectionIs done. So I'm
[1:32:45] wondering if there needs to be some
[1:32:46] clarity about what is the time point
[1:32:47] the clock starts, whether it'sThe
[1:32:52] actual connection or the completion
[1:32:53] of the project? I don't know if, I am
[1:32:58] wondering if it needs to be cleaned
[1:32:59] up before it's adopted is my comment
[1:33:01] at this point.
[1:33:10] >>Mayor, if I can respond to that.
[1:33:11] >>Please do.
[1:33:12] >>Yes, great point, definitelyI know
[1:33:19] it gets a little wordy here in terms
[1:33:20] of what we are proposing. I think
[1:33:21] the intent was and we can deafly take
[1:33:22] a look at to make sure we're not using
[1:33:24] Different terms for the same meaning.
[1:33:25] I think the point is onceThe
[1:33:33] underground project is energized and
[1:33:34] so I guess that would be kind of when
[1:33:35] it's connection is made they can then
[1:33:38] stop using those overhead facilities
[1:33:39] to energizeWhatever future
[1:33:42] development project or transit
[1:33:47] project or the AAA project asunder
[1:33:48] permitting nowAnd that at that point
[1:34:06] the wires that are on the interim
[1:34:07] overhead poles can be removed from,
[1:34:08] by Seattle city light, that would be
[1:34:09] the 1st step, they would go in and
[1:34:10] remove the wires and transformers and
[1:34:11] other facilities is our understanding
[1:34:12] of what the sequencing is. Then
[1:34:13] typicallyAny attackers, any of the
[1:34:29] telecommunication companies, cable
[1:34:30] companies and the like were going
[1:34:31] sequentially remove all of their
[1:34:32] wires and then Seattle city light as
[1:34:33] the polymer would come in and finally
[1:34:34] remove the pole. So yes, if there
[1:34:35] is, we can deafly take a look if
[1:34:36] there's cleanup needed in terms of we
[1:34:37] are using both construction and
[1:34:38] connection interchangeably, We don't
[1:34:39] want that in the code, so there isn't
[1:34:40] confusion about what the trigger
[1:34:41] point would be. So will deftly take
[1:34:42] a closer look at that.Yes, we were,
[1:34:53] the intent wasn't to have different
[1:34:54] meanings for those terms, I really it
[1:34:55] was once that underground project is
[1:34:56] energized and the connection to those
[1:34:57] buildings is how power is now being
[1:35:03] provided, that's when the overhead
[1:35:04] wires, power isn't being provided the
[1:35:05] overhead and then all those wires.
[1:35:06] >>Thank you.
[1:35:08] >>Thank you. Councilmember Pobee?
[1:35:20] >>Thank you, Mayor. I think part of
[1:35:21] my question has been partially
[1:35:22] answered, I think councilmember
[1:35:23] Roberts did ask that, but just for
[1:35:24] clarity sake and thank you, Mr.
[1:35:29] Norris, I always enjoy when we have
[1:35:30] developers making a lot of the
[1:35:31] investment in our city and especially
[1:35:36] just put in the infrastructure by the
[1:35:37] things which is necessary to keep the
[1:35:38] city up and running. I would
[1:35:39] experienceLike we don't want any of
[1:35:55] these errors that come back in for us
[1:35:56] to address again. Just to clarify,
[1:35:57] you said on point number 4 and slide
[1:35:58] 3 requires developer to install
[1:35:59] underground infrastructure and that's
[1:36:00] not just for construction base. That
[1:36:01] is after. So I'm wondering,When in
[1:36:17] the process does it take place? Is it
[1:36:18] before permit? And is it already
[1:36:19] going to be in the permitting process
[1:36:20] just like we have the traffic impact
[1:36:21] analysis as part of the whole
[1:36:22] permitting process?
[1:36:23] >>Yes, so the deaf a would require
[1:36:24] thatThe underground, and I'm just
[1:36:31] going to use the term vault, it's
[1:36:32] typically a vault or a box, a big
[1:36:33] metal box that's underground, and
[1:36:34] that is where the connection is made
[1:36:35] between the public underground
[1:36:39] projects, Seattle city lights
[1:36:40] project, and then the connection to,
[1:36:41] let's say a multifamily development.
[1:36:42] Generally, andTricia Young key, are
[1:37:07] city engineers here, so I'm going to
[1:37:08] not ask you to answer but if I get
[1:37:09] out on a limb and don't answer
[1:37:10] correctly, priests jump in and
[1:37:11] correct me. Generally, that work is
[1:37:12] done as part of the development
[1:37:13] project. So obviously the developer
[1:37:14] needs to make sure the connection to
[1:37:15] their building is there, so they are
[1:37:16] running all of their internal lines
[1:37:17] on their propertyAnd into their
[1:37:18] development. The duffel would
[1:37:19] require that that underground
[1:37:20] electrical connection infrastructure,
[1:37:21] that Volt, be completedPrior to the
[1:37:24] development being completed. Can so
[1:37:25] we want to make sure that there is an
[1:37:44] agreement that says that this is
[1:37:45] going to happen and the development
[1:37:46] will be able to basically accept
[1:37:47] underground power. What we don't
[1:37:48] want to do is get into a situation
[1:37:49] where a developer says I will just do
[1:37:50] that later and they're not able,
[1:37:51] then, to accept underground power when
[1:37:58] their operational powers going to be
[1:37:59] served through these overhead wires
[1:38:00] in this interim basis. So that's the
[1:38:01] point of that agreement, and we are
[1:38:02] asking developer to say yes, I will
[1:38:03] make sure this is part of my
[1:38:04] development project.So you want to,
[1:38:05] if it's really an assurance that on
[1:38:06] the development sideThat the
[1:38:10] development will be ready to make
[1:38:11] that underground connection. So
[1:38:12] that's the whole pointOf part of this
[1:38:22] agreement between the city and the
[1:38:23] developer is we are getting an
[1:38:24] assurance that that work is going to
[1:38:25] be done in the development will be
[1:38:26] ready for that connection.
[1:38:27] >>Thank you, I appreciate that. I
[1:38:28] really enjoy the part that there's
[1:38:29] going to be in agreementThe people
[1:38:30] can be held accountable. Thank you.
[1:38:31] >>Any other questions or comments
[1:38:34] from Council?All right. Seeing none,
[1:38:42] other than the unfortunate acronym,
[1:38:43] is there any objection to this as
[1:38:52] amended by staff being added to the
[1:38:53] consent calendar? Thumbs-up?
[1:38:54] Councilmember Roberts is so so, let's
[1:38:55] go ahead and put this on as an action
[1:38:56] item on the next meeting.Mr. Noris,
[1:38:58] when will that happen?
[1:38:59] >>Is currently scheduled for June 6,
[1:39:00] Mayor, so we can bring it back at
[1:39:15] that time.
[1:39:16] >>Let's look forward to it as an
[1:39:17] action and on June 6. Next up is
[1:39:18] 964, planning and community
[1:39:19] development staffing request to
[1:39:20] support increased development permit
[1:39:21] volume, believe Miss Marple is doing
[1:39:22] the presentation.
[1:39:23] >>She is joining as a panelist right
[1:39:24] now.
[1:39:34] >>Hi, Miss Marco. Whenever you're
[1:39:35] ready.
[1:39:36] >>Anything. Just wait a 2nd for the
[1:39:37] presentation a pop up. Thank you to
[1:39:38] Jessica.
[1:39:48] So good evening, Mayor and Council.
[1:39:49] We really appreciate this opportunity
[1:39:50] to prevent a plan to you for
[1:39:51] additional permanent staffing.
[1:39:57] Development has been occurring at an
[1:39:58] increased and sustained rate since
[1:39:59] about 2015 multiple subareas
[1:40:00] throughout the city. Not only are
[1:40:11] the number of places for people to
[1:40:12] live increasing but much of the
[1:40:13] housing is being built green and with
[1:40:14] 20% of the units being affordable as
[1:40:15] a requirement to participate in the
[1:40:16] cities incentive programs. With
[1:40:37] this, the skill set for staff and the
[1:40:38] time it takes staff to do review of
[1:40:39] permits has grown with these
[1:40:40] requirements and incentives to
[1:40:41] achieve certified green standards in
[1:40:42] the adoption of more stringent
[1:40:43] version of the state energy code
[1:40:44] which will continue to be amended to
[1:40:45] reduce consumption by 70% in 2031. I
[1:40:51] am also stormwater critical area
[1:40:52] resident of a to become more complex
[1:40:53] to administer as well. I say all
[1:40:54] this to the combination of the
[1:40:55] increased volume of permit
[1:40:56] applications which is representative
[1:41:09] of the success of the planning that
[1:41:10] councils have done in the areas to
[1:41:11] create transit oriented development
[1:41:12] and the increased complexity of the
[1:41:13] reviews and inspection along with
[1:41:14] other factors that are noted in the
[1:41:15] staff report, it's now a challengeAnd
[1:41:17] it's begun to exceed the city's
[1:41:18] ability to provide predictable and
[1:41:19] timely reviews and permit issuance.
[1:41:24] So now we are seeking budget
[1:41:25] amendment to hire additional staff to
[1:41:26] provide permitting services. The
[1:41:29] additional requested staff are
[1:41:30] expected to bring our around of 1st
[1:41:37] reviews back to within the 2019
[1:41:38] averages which are shown in the staff
[1:41:39] report.
[1:41:46] So the proposal is for 6.5 full-time
[1:41:47] equivalent employees. The 2
[1:41:53] development engineers traffic
[1:41:54] engineer senior planner permanent
[1:41:55] technician and administrative
[1:41:56] assistant to would be working almost
[1:42:01] exclusively on permanent processing.
[1:42:02] The addition of these reviewers would
[1:42:03] allow for the creation of what we are
[1:42:08] calling 1/5 group to provide reviews
[1:42:09] to process largely the new buildings,
[1:42:11] the traffic engineer 2 will provide
[1:42:27] Support to permitting for new
[1:42:28] buildings and major remodels as well
[1:42:29] as a variety of other development
[1:42:30] projects. Currently the traffic
[1:42:31] review can become a bottleneck in the
[1:42:32] process due to the resource being
[1:42:33] really spread thin over a lot of
[1:42:34] divisions throughout the city. The
[1:43:00] administrative insistent is intended
[1:43:01] to provide overall support for
[1:43:02] permitting tasks such as project
[1:43:03] noticing, applicant registration,
[1:43:04] processing of revisions, etc. with
[1:43:05] the idea that this would relieve the
[1:43:06] group reviewers from having to
[1:43:07] perform some of these tasks creating
[1:43:08] more time for them to complete
[1:43:09] reviews, thereby reducing turnaround
[1:43:10] time for permits. We are also
[1:43:11] requesting the ability to increaseAn
[1:43:12] existing GIS position from a .5 FTE
[1:43:17] to a full-time employee. I believe
[1:43:18] the .5 is already approved and this
[1:43:19] would just make it into a one
[1:43:20] full-time employee and this request
[1:43:21] comes from administrative services
[1:43:49] Dear call the city's functional plans
[1:43:50] will need to be updated in the next
[1:43:51] couple of years and all required GIS
[1:43:52] resources, the budgets to complete
[1:43:53] these updates the plans include or
[1:43:54] will include money for GIS
[1:43:55] assistance, the idea here is to
[1:43:56] combine the resources that have or
[1:43:57] will be allocated to GIS support for
[1:43:58] the functional plans and instead
[1:43:59] combine those resources to fund the
[1:44:00] other half of the GIS technician. We
[1:44:01] estimate the approval of this request
[1:44:02] Could reduce permits around time by
[1:44:03] about 20% if not more. We are making
[1:44:04] the request in advance of the '23-'24
[1:44:05] by annual budget to buy time to
[1:44:06] recruit and train the staffApproval
[1:44:08] to hire these staff positions will
[1:44:09] certainly reduce permit review
[1:44:10] timelines but it's not necessarily
[1:44:12] the end-all be-all to achieveWhat our
[1:44:23] customers are looking for for
[1:44:24] turnaround time so we may need to
[1:44:25] request additional permitting staff
[1:44:26] in the future budget cycle.
[1:44:37] I wanted to take a minute and point
[1:44:38] this out, I'm sorry there's an error
[1:44:39] in your staff report, this slide
[1:44:40] corrects that information here, I
[1:44:51] neglected to carryover the costs that
[1:44:52] are proposed to be paid for from the
[1:44:53] wastewater utility to the total cost
[1:44:54] column. This shows you what
[1:44:55] should've been in your staff report,
[1:44:56] I am sorry about that.So but that,
[1:45:16] this slide is about how we propose
[1:45:17] that this could all be paid for, this
[1:45:18] request, the proposal would largely
[1:45:19] be paid for by permit revenue from
[1:45:20] increased sustained permanent
[1:45:21] activity, one-time contribution from
[1:45:22] the general fund balance to offset
[1:45:23] the green and affordable housing
[1:45:24] incentives which waive things like
[1:45:25] permit fees, Small percentage would
[1:45:26] be covered by the wastewater utility
[1:45:27] because we do, We would be doing
[1:45:28] wastewater reviews with the
[1:45:29] development engineer positionAs well
[1:45:31] as our current wastewater review
[1:45:32] specialist and we also are as I
[1:45:39] explained looking to use project
[1:45:40] budgets for the plan updates to fund
[1:45:41] the GIS position. Based on the fact
[1:45:50] that 92% of the projected permit
[1:45:51] revenue has already been collected as
[1:45:52] of the beginning of May for the
[1:45:53] biennium we feel confidentThat in
[1:46:04] recommending that these positions can
[1:46:05] be funded almost entirely by permit
[1:46:06] revenue into the foreseeable future
[1:46:07] and there's information, of course,
[1:46:08] your staff report that explains that
[1:46:09] a little further.
[1:46:16] And I will just put the
[1:46:17] recommendation up for now, but this
[1:46:18] item could be brought back to the
[1:46:19] Council if desired on July 25. Thank
[1:46:22] you very much for your consideration
[1:46:23] of this request. Please let me know
[1:46:24] if you have any questions.
[1:46:28] >>Thank you, Miss Markel. Further
[1:46:29] questions or comments from Council?
[1:46:36] Councilmember Pobee?
[1:46:37] >>Thank you so much. I appreciate
[1:46:38] how you surprised me because I did it
[1:46:42] and I saw the slide and its change.
[1:46:43] So surprise. All right. I was just
[1:46:48] wondering, now we have possibly
[1:46:49] enough revenue coming in for funding,
[1:46:52] so thinking of revenue source. But
[1:47:01] then to fund all these positions, how
[1:47:02] about a projection in the future? Can
[1:47:03] we see some forecasting in case
[1:47:04] revenue for permitsWas the back half,
[1:47:07] how are we going to sustain all these?
[1:47:14] >>Where would you like me to
[1:47:15] responders that just a request for
[1:47:16] the future?
[1:47:41] >>I would appreciate your response.
[1:47:42] I'm not sure what councilmember Pobee
[1:47:43] was looking for.
[1:47:44] >>You said you would.
[1:47:45] >>Yes, please.
[1:47:46] >>We will be doing projections for
[1:47:47] the biennial budget and as part of
[1:47:48] what we looked at for this staff
[1:47:49] report where all the different
[1:47:50] projects that were in the pipeline
[1:47:51] and we have like 7000 units that are
[1:47:52] very, How should I put it? Nothing is
[1:48:06] ever a done deal, but these permits
[1:48:07] have gone a long way and been in
[1:48:08] projection for a good long while,
[1:48:09] property is been purchased, options
[1:48:10] have been purchased, we've been
[1:48:11] tracking them for quite some time and
[1:48:12] our feeling is that through 2025 when
[1:48:13] the station opens that these projects
[1:48:14] Are veryDefinite. And then we also
[1:48:16] have indications from pre-application
[1:48:17] meetings of future projects thatAre
[1:48:31] in the works and that shows what's
[1:48:32] going to happen most likely past
[1:48:33] 2025, of course he gets a little
[1:48:34] murky the further you go out and
[1:48:35] there are many variables in between
[1:48:42] For with regard to the level of
[1:48:43] development that we are seeing
[1:48:44] currently and 3 2025 we can expect
[1:48:45] the revenue to remainAt I would say
[1:48:52] the $7 million plus per biennium that
[1:48:53] we currently have and had I believe
[1:48:54] last year or last biennium as well.
[1:48:59] All very general at this point.
[1:49:04] >>Anything further, councilmember?
[1:49:10] >>I would be more comfortable if we
[1:49:11] have that showing projections just
[1:49:13] for planning purposes. Thank you.
[1:49:16] >>Miss Terry?
[1:49:29] >>What I will add is as I've worked
[1:49:30] with our budget staff on looking at
[1:49:31] this proposal we have also been in
[1:49:32] the process of updating our 10 year
[1:49:33] forecast andWe believe that based on
[1:49:35] the projections that Miss Markel
[1:49:36] discussed that we would be able to
[1:49:38] sustain the funding for these
[1:49:52] positions through the next 2
[1:49:53] biennium's car for the next 4 years,
[1:49:54] and obviously gets a little bit more
[1:49:55] difficult after that, but again,
[1:49:56] these are positions by development
[1:49:57] revenue, Not that anyone wants to be
[1:49:58] in this position, but if we were to
[1:49:59] start to see a sudden decline in the
[1:50:06] future, then we would have to address
[1:50:07] that from a staffing perspective.
[1:50:08] The other piece I would say is that
[1:50:09] we get the revenue upfrontOr a large
[1:50:20] part of it, and then there is still
[1:50:21] much review time, so even a lot of
[1:50:22] the revenue that we are seeing we
[1:50:23] really cover work that's going to be
[1:50:24] happeningThrough the beginning of the
[1:50:28] next biennium. So I don't think that
[1:50:29] we couldGuarantee anything beyondThe
[1:50:38] next to Byam's for sure because
[1:50:39] things can change, but I think we
[1:50:44] also recognize that this is work that
[1:50:45] is tied to a specific revenue source
[1:50:55] and will continue to have to monitor
[1:50:56] what that workload is and if things
[1:50:57] were to have significant change than
[1:50:58] we would have to make personnel
[1:50:59] adjustments.
[1:51:00] >>Thank you, Miss Terry.
[1:51:01] >>Councilmember Roberts?
[1:51:03] >>Thank you. Councilmember Ramsdell
[1:51:12] Lowered his hand?
[1:51:13] >>He did, we will go back to him.
[1:51:14] >>Okay. I deafly do support this and
[1:51:15] I appreciate the staff recommendation
[1:51:17] That Council supported they will
[1:51:18] start the hiring process nowAnd with
[1:51:21] an ordinance to follow. Obviously
[1:51:24] Can't hire anyone without the
[1:51:25] ordinanceBut at least we can start
[1:51:27] the process, getting applications in
[1:51:34] and the like. But I think what is,
[1:51:35] what I really like about this is that
[1:51:39] From 2019 to 2021 or additions for
[1:51:44] single-family residential, You've
[1:51:50] almost doubled your couple of year
[1:51:51] period. Can it's good that there's a
[1:51:52] lot ofActivity, butWhen you are
[1:51:56] trying to remodel, If you have to
[1:52:01] wait just doubleEvery week waiting
[1:52:09] for a permit is, it feels like a very
[1:52:10] lengthy time and to see that double
[1:52:13] Amount of time is difficult.So I hope
[1:52:17] that this proposal will sort of
[1:52:22] address not only sort of multifamily
[1:52:23] but alsoThose additional models, the
[1:52:31] sort of mid tier, not quite
[1:52:32] over-the-counter but often much
[1:52:33] simpler permits than building a new
[1:52:37] facility. Thank you, Mayor.
[1:52:38] >>Thank you.Debbie Mayor Robertson?
[1:52:39] >>Thank you, Mayor Pete my comments
[1:52:56] are going to echo councilmember
[1:52:57] Roberts. I was pleased, very
[1:52:58] delighted, to see this request come
[1:52:59] through. I do think our staff
[1:53:00] planning staff has been stretched too
[1:53:01] thin, I think those wait times are
[1:53:02] far too long and I look forward to
[1:53:08] not just supporting this with seeing
[1:53:09] those numbers come down across the
[1:53:10] board, not just for the big
[1:53:11] development prefer the single-family
[1:53:12] homes as councilmember Robert said.
[1:53:13] Thank you.
[1:53:14] >>Councilmember Ramsdell?
[1:53:17] >>Thank you, Mayor. I just reiterate
[1:53:18] councilmember Roberts comment
[1:53:19] regarding remodels for single-family
[1:53:23] homes, I am actually going through it
[1:53:24] right now, we submitted a permitFor a
[1:53:35] 12 x 12 deck and we were told that it
[1:53:36] would be 17 weeks before the permit
[1:53:37] would be approved, so we really
[1:53:38] looking forward to havingA deck this
[1:53:39] summer. Please hireStaff as soon as
[1:53:42] possible. Thank you.
[1:53:50] >>Thank you. Councilmember Mark and
[1:53:51] I apologize for the hide and seek
[1:53:52] with the hand thing. We were working
[1:53:53] at cross purposes.
[1:53:54] >>No problem. I would like to echo
[1:53:58] my colleagues comments, I completely
[1:53:59] agree on the planning commission,
[1:54:12] Planning departments ads. I am
[1:54:13] really encouraged that with the
[1:54:14] amount of the green building and
[1:54:26] appreciate that does take longer to
[1:54:27] get done and want to see it done
[1:54:28] correctly, but director Marco, if I
[1:54:29] could get you to put back up your
[1:54:30] slide that shows the positions,
[1:54:31] please? It would make it easier for
[1:54:32] me to ask my more specific question.
[1:54:33] The GIS person, I know how important
[1:54:42] they are for in all aspects to the
[1:54:43] city, so again, I do not question
[1:54:44] that. I can appreciateHow it's
[1:54:54] needed. I share concerns about the
[1:54:55] future, but for these positions, it
[1:54:56] seems very logical that they are
[1:54:57] required, and I can understand that
[1:54:59] the traffic engineer may be, It would
[1:55:04] be in high demand and there seems to
[1:55:09] be lots of work for traffic engineers
[1:55:10] in the city of Shoreline, But I am
[1:55:15] not clear on the development review
[1:55:16] engineers. We have just and 2021,
[1:55:21] the city Council added quite
[1:55:22] significantly toThe number of people
[1:55:29] that were in the Department of Public
[1:55:30] Works, and I am not quite clear, Some
[1:55:40] of them were associated with
[1:55:41] wastewater utilities, so just like to
[1:55:42] have a little bit better
[1:55:43] understanding, please, if you could
[1:55:44] elaborate a little bit more on what
[1:55:45] those people are doingThat speeds up
[1:55:46] thePermit approval process, please?
[1:56:12] >>Mayor, if I may, be glad to answer
[1:56:13] that question.
[1:56:14] >>Please.
[1:56:15] >>Tricia Yankee I think is still
[1:56:16] here, if anything needs to be added.
[1:56:17] The review engineers are really part
[1:56:18] of the permitting process, 1st and
[1:56:19] foremost. They are not part of
[1:56:20] general public works capital programs
[1:56:21] or utilities per se.They support
[1:56:59] permitting. They are just like a
[1:57:00] planner, they are just like a plans
[1:57:01] examiner, those 5 groups that do
[1:57:02] permitting, we can't issue the
[1:57:03] permits without most of those new
[1:57:04] buildings without a development
[1:57:05] review engineer doing their part,
[1:57:06] they do the site development permits,
[1:57:07] they do connections between the
[1:57:08] right-of-way and the building itself.
[1:57:09] So they are very much so dedicated
[1:57:10] to permitting. And they haven't had
[1:57:11] an increase in the number, we haven't
[1:57:12] had an increase in the number of
[1:57:13] development review engineers in a few
[1:57:14] years. I don't know in the last one
[1:57:15] was added, but there are 3 of those
[1:57:16] currently, 3 development review
[1:57:17] engineers, and really, if we make 1
[1:57:18] of the new, If we make a line for
[1:57:19] permitting a review that is equal, if
[1:57:20] we didn't have all 5 teams be equal
[1:57:21] it would create aAnother bottleneck
[1:57:22] because we would be funneling in 5
[1:57:23] people's worth of work into 3 person
[1:57:24] team and they need to be equivalent
[1:57:25] in order to not create bottlenecks.
[1:57:26] To set help answer the questions we
[1:57:28] >>It does, I really appreciate it.
[1:57:29] The one aspect, though, that I'm not
[1:57:30] I don't understand is theAdditional
[1:57:36] positions that were added in 2021 and
[1:57:44] the Sam key, you may be in a better
[1:57:45] position answer that. To they have
[1:57:46] no relationship at all to permitting?
[1:57:47] >>Years was specifically to the new
[1:57:52] positions that were added for the
[1:57:53] wastewater utility? Ann yes, ma'am.
[1:58:04] 2021.
[1:58:05] >>Yes, in the '21 budget affected
[1:58:06] 2022 that we have just finished
[1:58:07] getting close to finish hiring on?
[1:58:23] Only 1 of those positions has a
[1:58:24] tertiary support for development
[1:58:25] review. 1 of the E2 positions was
[1:58:26] geared towards helping on operational
[1:58:27] side. They could provide some
[1:58:28] support, not really support but they
[1:58:29] will be a resource for development
[1:58:30] review when it comes to understanding
[1:58:31] the system. Those positions were
[1:58:32] more in line of reducing our reliance
[1:58:33] on the consultant as well, we are
[1:58:34] currentlyWastewater specialist that
[1:58:35] does do permit reviewDoes rely on the
[1:58:48] consultant for understanding how the
[1:58:49] system works, where their capacity
[1:58:50] issues, things like that. In the
[1:58:51] future, that would go toward 1 of
[1:58:52] their FTEs instead of to the
[1:58:53] consultant.But in general those new
[1:58:55] positions do not provide significant
[1:58:56] development review support.
[1:59:05] >>Thank you. 1 of the concerns I
[1:59:06] think that we all have is we want the
[1:59:07] city to function efficiently, but we
[1:59:08] don't want toBuild something so big
[1:59:12] that we can't sustain it.And it
[1:59:23] difficult decisions in the future and
[1:59:24] none of us know what the future is.
[1:59:25] So I want to be very cautious in
[1:59:26] making sure we are only putting
[1:59:27] people on that, We really truly need
[1:59:29] to solve problems that we see for the
[1:59:35] foreseeable future at this time.Thank
[1:59:37] you.
[1:59:43] >>Any further comments or questions
[1:59:44] for Council?All right, we'll just
[2:00:00] add, I appreciate the desire to not
[2:00:01] hire people we can't retain. That
[2:00:02] is, of course, goal, we want to
[2:00:03] provide a good job for a buddy we
[2:00:04] want to not have inconsistencies.
[2:00:05] Our customer base, are citizensAnd
[2:00:23] right now for a variety of reasons we
[2:00:24] are in a boom time and I have heard
[2:00:25] so many times in the limited specter
[2:00:26] my been sort about about post
[2:00:27] pandemic so many times folks have
[2:00:28] told me we can't get permits done.
[2:00:29] That's coming from business,
[2:00:30] homeowners, I'm hearing that more
[2:00:31] than I am stuff about sidewalks and
[2:00:32] trees which in shoreline means it's
[2:00:33] the forefront issue. I want to fix
[2:00:34] that. And I am, I don't want to hire
[2:00:35] somebody in 18 months down the road
[2:00:43] Sam sorry we don't have a job, but as
[2:00:44] long as we are honest and open about
[2:00:45] that, for me, that concern to provide
[2:00:46] consistency in employment is way less
[2:00:47] than the need to provide expedited
[2:00:48] permit returns or even average
[2:00:49] permanent returns. We are falling
[2:00:54] behind on a lot of things. I've
[2:00:55] heard a lot of frustration from folks
[2:00:56] trying to get stuff done, not only in
[2:00:57] our sort of high density areas for
[2:00:58] just and regular areas that I don't,
[2:01:18] I support this, and I hope it's
[2:01:19] sustainable, but if we come back in
[2:01:20] 18 months in the construction climate
[2:01:21] has changed, that's a sacrifice I'm
[2:01:22] personally willing to make because I
[2:01:23] think there is a defined need right
[2:01:24] now. I've heard some dissent on
[2:01:25] Council so unless someone wants to
[2:01:26] raise their hand I think this should
[2:01:27] come back as an action item. Would
[2:01:28] anyone like to propose a consent item?
[2:01:29] Okay. So Miss Markel, when will we
[2:01:30] see this as an action item?
[2:01:41] >>Suggested was July 25.
[2:01:42] >>Miss Terry, did you have something
[2:01:43] to add?
[2:01:44] >>I was going to reiterate what
[2:01:45] councilmember Roberts had said and
[2:01:46] was in the staff report, we will move
[2:01:47] forward with starting the hiring
[2:01:48] process, we anticipate the ordinance
[2:01:49] would come backBefore we actually
[2:01:50] hired any individuals but I just
[2:01:51] wanted to make sure Council was
[2:01:52] comfortable with that process.
[2:01:53] >>Is there any objection to Miss Terry
[2:01:54] Hiring?That's a bit cart before the
[2:02:00] horse but my understanding is you
[2:02:01] won't make a final offer unless the
[2:02:02] finding is in place. Is that
[2:02:03] accurate?Any other questions or
[2:02:05] comments on this action item, study
[2:02:06] item? Seeing none, that brings us to
[2:02:15] the last study item which is
[2:02:16] discussion of ordinance number 967
[2:02:17] authorizing the use of eminent domain
[2:02:18] for acquisition of certain real
[2:02:19] property. And I think it's Ms. King
[2:02:30] who is presenting.
[2:02:31] >>Can you hear me?
[2:02:32] >>Ahead whenever you're ready.
[2:02:33] >>Thank you. You have ordinance 967
[2:02:34] discussion on authorizing the use of
[2:02:35] eminent domain
[2:02:36] >>I apologize. I knew about this and
[2:02:37] again I forgot. Councilmember
[2:02:38] Connell, go ahead?
[2:02:39] >>Thank you. I thought I'm just
[2:02:40] going to start butting in. Because I
[2:02:56] want to get off-line. I wanted to
[2:02:57] let the public know and of course the
[2:02:58] Council already knows that I will
[2:02:59] continue to recuse myself from this
[2:03:00] topic and further discussion. There
[2:03:01] were at least one executive sessions
[2:03:02] regarding that and I neverWas at
[2:03:03] those either. SoI am going to sign
[2:03:20] off and wish you all a good evening.
[2:03:21] Thank you, Mayor.
[2:03:22] >>Thank you. Councilmember O'Connell
[2:03:23] lives on the street in question and
[2:03:24] has chosen to recuse herself. Have a
[2:03:25] good night. Ms. King, I apologize,
[2:03:26] go ahead.
[2:03:27] >>No, thank you, Mayor, I have
[2:03:28] forgotten to give her the opportunity.
[2:03:30] What you have here is ordinance 967,
[2:03:31] discussed the authorization of the
[2:03:32] use of eminent domain for the
[2:03:33] acquisition of second-class tidelands
[2:03:34] for public purposes. Except for the
[2:03:41] Second-class tidelands associated
[2:03:42] with Richmond Beach saltwater ParkIn
[2:03:51] the city of Shoreline Puget Sound
[2:03:52] shoreline is in private ownership,
[2:03:53] and that's primarily ownership of
[2:03:54] Burlington (INAUDIBLE).I am not
[2:03:58] seeing my clicker. There we go.Here
[2:04:27] is a picture of the access points on
[2:04:28] the left side is the Richmond Beach
[2:04:29] saltwater Park pedestrian bridge, the
[2:04:30] access to the city poolside lens in
[2:04:31] the mid-the bindle is an authorized
[2:04:32] act grade crossing across the BNSF
[2:04:33] railroad as well to the BNSF on
[2:04:34] tidelands, and then to the right is
[2:04:35] (INAUDIBLE) Park where there is an
[2:04:36] unauthorized crossing to again BNSF
[2:04:37] owned tidelands.This ordinance would
[2:04:43] authorize the use of eminent domain
[2:04:44] for the property identified with the
[2:04:45] star on the screen. As provided in
[2:04:46] RCW Chapter 8.12, the propertyWhen
[2:05:04] acquired would add Lanson city's
[2:05:05] public park systems, specifically
[2:05:06] additional second-class tidelands.
[2:05:07] Of course just compensation will be
[2:05:08] paid and provided to the property
[2:05:09] owner. The city's consultant has
[2:05:10] reached out to the property owner and
[2:05:11] the objective is to negotiate a
[2:05:12] purchase and sale agreement with the
[2:05:13] property owner and eminent domain
[2:05:14] would only be used if those efforts
[2:05:15] failed after good faith negotiations
[2:05:16] are exhausted.We would be following
[2:05:25] all the statutory requirements with
[2:05:26] respect to eminent domain as far as
[2:05:27] valuation offers as well as the
[2:05:28] notice the mayor required to provide.
[2:05:36] This would increase the city on
[2:05:37] tidelands by approximately 2.6 acres.
[2:05:57] As you can see it would provide
[2:05:58] access for the red arrow across the
[2:05:59] public bridge and then up 27th Ave.
[2:06:00] NW., it would connect the city on
[2:06:01] tidelands to the south that are
[2:06:02] associated with Richmond Beach
[2:06:03] saltwater Park and it responds to the
[2:06:04] land survey request to require
[2:06:05] shorelineEach access.I think there is
[2:06:14] no action required tonight, Council
[2:06:15] is to discuss and provide feedback on
[2:06:16] the ordinance and whether to
[2:06:17] authorize the use of eminent domain.
[2:06:18] The actual action on that issue will
[2:06:19] be is currently scheduled for June 6,
[2:06:20] 2022. And with that I am ready for
[2:06:22] any questions.
[2:06:27] >>This is a study item, so are there
[2:06:28] questions or comments from Council?
[2:06:30] Councilmember Ramsdell?
[2:06:36] >>Thank you, Mayor, I don't want to
[2:06:37] play hide and seek this time. So I
[2:06:39] am wondering about the27thSection
[2:06:47] that there seems to be some dispute
[2:06:48] about who owns thatStreet.I've seen
[2:06:56] some information that indicates that
[2:06:57] BNSF owns or has a right-of-way for
[2:07:00] the entirety of that street and other
[2:07:09] information says that's not the case
[2:07:10] where the Richmond Beach preservation
[2:07:11] SocietyAsserts that the street is
[2:07:13] split in 2, half of it belongs to
[2:07:22] BNSF and half of it belongs to the
[2:07:23] property owners. Did you have any
[2:07:24] clarification regarding that issue?
[2:07:27] >>I do not have any clarification on
[2:07:28] that particular issue here tonight.
[2:07:38] That would be a separate issue that
[2:07:39] would be separate and apart from the
[2:07:40] ordinance that's in front of the
[2:07:41] Council tonight, which is solely
[2:07:42] focused on these particular tidelands
[2:07:43] . But I can certainly look into that
[2:07:44] if the Council would like me to look
[2:07:45] into that issue separately.
[2:07:50] >>Further questions or comments?
[2:07:54] >>I would like to have some clarity
[2:07:55] on that issue.The other question I
[2:08:07] have is regarding access to the
[2:08:08] beach. Currently there is 1 of the
[2:08:09] comments that I have heard is there's
[2:08:10] really to get safe access to the beach
[2:08:11] you need to use that 27thLane get
[2:08:12] access to the beach. GiveThe
[2:08:23] alternatives are to my understanding
[2:08:24] we have to go over the railroad and
[2:08:25] kind of scramble over rocks to get to
[2:08:26] the beach it's my understanding
[2:08:27] correct?
[2:08:28] >>To this particular beachOr to the
[2:08:30] beach in general?
[2:08:31] >>To that particular area of the
[2:08:36] beach?
[2:08:37] >>If you don't utilize 27? You have
[2:08:38] to go over the right-of-way? I will
[2:08:45] let Miss Terry address this issue,
[2:08:46] because she knows the area actually
[2:08:47] better than I do.
[2:08:49] >>I just wanted to remind Council we
[2:08:50] have also made application to
[2:08:52] Burlington Northern for requesting
[2:08:56] lease access to their right-of-way
[2:09:00] That would allow people to traverse to
[2:09:15] this tideland when they're coming
[2:09:16] from the north, people will be able
[2:09:17] to access this tideland if they're
[2:09:18] coming from the south result
[2:09:19] waterpark. So it depends on where
[2:09:20] you're coming from, but we do not
[2:09:21] have an answer yet from Burlington
[2:09:22] NorthernOn our release requestBut we
[2:09:23] have made that application.
[2:09:40] >>Thank you, that's all the questions
[2:09:41] I have for the time being.
[2:09:42] >>To Epi Mayor Robertson?
[2:09:43] >>Thank you, Mayor, and thanks to
[2:09:44] everybody who has provided comments
[2:09:45] over the last several days. The
[2:09:46] folks who joined us earlier tonight
[2:09:47] to give their testimony, who are
[2:09:48] remaining on the call todayPeer, will
[2:09:49] just come right out and say I will be
[2:09:50] in support of moving forward with the
[2:09:51] property acquisition of these
[2:09:52] tidelands and extending the beach and
[2:09:54] extending the ownership that we can.
[2:09:55] I think this is the 1stOf many steps
[2:09:59] that it will take to provide safe
[2:10:00] access. That's really what I am
[2:10:16] interested in is preserving the idea
[2:10:17] of in the ability for members of our
[2:10:18] community, members of this
[2:10:19] neighborhood who have been accessing
[2:10:20] that beach for decades to continue to
[2:10:21] be able to do so but to do so in a
[2:10:22] safer way than they have historically.
[2:10:25] I look forward to continued
[2:10:26] discussion, imagine this is the 1st
[2:10:27] of many discussions we will have on
[2:10:28] this matter. Thank you.
[2:10:29] >>Thank you. Councilmember Mork?
[2:10:34] >>I would like to echo Depp you Mayor
[2:10:35] Robertson's comments. I so
[2:10:38] appreciate everybody's time to calm
[2:10:49] and talk to us and give us our views
[2:10:50] and read the ordinance and all the
[2:10:51] input I think is just wonderful and I
[2:10:52] would like to thank everybody involved
[2:10:58] . 1 of the things I wasn't clear on
[2:10:59] and perhaps Ms. King I got confused
[2:11:00] even with your last answer, Some of
[2:11:07] the commenters pointed out, that they
[2:11:08] felt that 27th Ave. should not have
[2:11:09] car parking that would be allowed as
[2:11:12] part of this. Is that part of this
[2:11:13] resolution in any way or if the
[2:11:16] Council wanted to include that, how
[2:11:17] would that be done?
[2:11:24] >>Thank you, councilmember. This
[2:11:25] ordinance before the Council simply
[2:11:31] Authorizes the use of eminent domain.
[2:11:32] If we are unsuccessful in negotiating
[2:11:33] a purchase of the property. As to
[2:11:36] the issues regarding parking,
[2:11:38] circulation, Unless it doesn't relate
[2:11:56] to this particular property so I am
[2:11:57] not looking at that issue in this
[2:11:58] ordinance before the Council tonight,
[2:11:59] the Council can certainly direct
[2:12:00] staff to as part of this we were in
[2:12:01] addition to this to take a look at
[2:12:02] those issues. I would say that
[2:12:07] traffic engineer would be involved as
[2:12:08] far as parking issues and other
[2:12:09] issues like that, but there is
[2:12:10] right-of-way that can be utilized for
[2:12:11] parkingAnd so I don't see it as part
[2:12:15] of this particular ordinance in
[2:12:16] relation to authorizing condemnation,
[2:12:19] but I do understand that there are
[2:12:20] some concerns you might want staff to
[2:12:22] look into some issues.
[2:12:28] >>Thank you, that's really helpful.
[2:12:29] The other comment I heard that I
[2:12:36] would be curious on your thoughts on
[2:12:37] is they said that some the commenters
[2:12:38] alluded to the city did not follow
[2:12:42] Regular process for this. Could you
[2:12:43] comment about that, please?
[2:12:47] >>The city has followed all the
[2:12:48] requirements with respect to moving
[2:12:54] forward with an ordinance with
[2:12:55] respect to exercising eminent domain.
[2:13:00] We have the process we utilize the
[2:13:01] process a lot for roads and for other
[2:13:03] Stormwater infrastructure access
[2:13:05] easements, full acquisitions for park
[2:13:11] property and so we follow a process
[2:13:12] very closelyThat set out by state
[2:13:27] law. What I heard is some people
[2:13:28] wanting there to be more public
[2:13:29] process and more of a robust
[2:13:30] discussion within the neighborhood.
[2:13:31] But that is not a legal requirement,
[2:13:32] we have met all of the legal
[2:13:33] requirementsFor adoption of this
[2:13:36] ordinance should the Council choose
[2:13:37] to go in that direction when it comes
[2:13:38] up for the councils action.
[2:13:41] >>Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.
[2:13:44] >>Thank you. Other questions or
[2:13:45] comments from Council?I would like to
[2:13:55] speak for little longer than I
[2:13:56] usually do on this because this is
[2:13:57] sort of in my neighborhood is an area
[2:13:58] that has importance to me. So I moved
[2:14:33] To Richmond Beach about 4 years ago 1
[2:14:34] of the 1st things I desire walked out
[2:14:35] with my twins, 5 or 6 at the time,
[2:14:36] cross the public funded bridge and
[2:14:37] walked along turn left walk south
[2:14:38] along Appletree Lane and said Hi took
[2:14:39] couple of other school friends who
[2:14:40] happen to live there and then there
[2:14:41] was an older gentleman. I sadly
[2:14:42] don't remember his name, I am not
[2:14:43] sure if he is past owner simply
[2:14:44] moved, but he is no longer there. I
[2:14:45] knew that the beach parcel was his so
[2:14:46] I asked him if it's okay if we walk
[2:14:47] there. he said it was fine. So that
[2:14:48] became 1 of our family tradition says
[2:14:49] we have heard from so many public
[2:14:50] commenters that it's been a tradition
[2:14:51] over the years. So you walk down for
[2:15:37] the publicly funded bridge, he walked
[2:15:38] down the street, will talk about the
[2:15:39] ownership of the street but you walk
[2:15:40] in the street get on the beach and
[2:15:41] then there is public property south
[2:15:42] of the high water mark in their legal
[2:15:43] distinctions and all that but
[2:15:44] basically what Puget Sound belongs to
[2:15:45] all of us, nobody owns it and if it's
[2:15:46] Puget Sound is covered partly in not
[2:15:47] covered parking we you can walk on it
[2:15:48] what is not covered. That particular
[2:15:49] parcel, the beach parcel owned now by
[2:15:50] Doctor Vitelli on oh is accessible by
[2:15:51] 2 roads for 20 go down by 27th and
[2:15:52] get on, the others you come north
[2:15:53] from saltwater Park which is a public
[2:15:54] park that you're perfectly entitled
[2:15:55] walk on regardless of who you are.
[2:15:56] And that is accessible at all tied
[2:15:57] levels except that King tied. So
[2:15:58] there these giant high tides are the
[2:15:59] entirety that beach parcel is
[2:16:00] covered, it's kind of impressive,
[2:16:01] water all over it, splashing up onto
[2:16:02] the tracks. But ordinary high tide,
[2:16:03] you've got beach there and you've got
[2:16:04] rocks that you can scramble along.
[2:16:05] And I did that walk with my 70
[2:16:06] something-year-old dad onceAnd I did
[2:16:17] know it was this high tide but we
[2:16:18] managed to get there. you can get
[2:16:19] there either through willing down
[2:16:20] Appletree Lane or from saltwater Park
[2:16:21] under all but the most extreme
[2:16:22] circumstances. That beach is as we
[2:16:23] have heard from so many public
[2:16:24] comments used by lots of people.
[2:16:25] It's community tradition, a tradition
[2:16:26] for folks outside of the community.
[2:16:27] So something has changed. What's
[2:16:28] that, that particular gentleman a
[2:16:29] longer lives there. Somebody wants
[2:16:30] to lock it off. For me this is a
[2:16:31] chance to implement what we have
[2:16:32] always talked about with public sure
[2:16:33] online to make this truly part of a
[2:16:34] domain. We do that by providing fair
[2:16:35] value. And don't take anything from
[2:16:36] anybody, we pay full price for it.I
[2:16:59] am pleased that Doctor Italiano has
[2:17:00] chosen to allow tribal members on
[2:17:01] there. if he had chosen to allow all
[2:17:02] of us we would be in a different
[2:17:03] position but that's not where we are.
[2:17:04] I don't want to see this community
[2:17:05] tradition taken away. I want to
[2:17:06] address a couple of comments that
[2:17:07] were addressed are made during public
[2:17:08] comment on the details of it.
[2:17:09] There's a police fire concern, it's a
[2:17:10] narrow 1 Lane Rd., there's no
[2:17:11] turnaround, no question. There's a
[2:17:12] bunch of houses down there and if 1
[2:17:13] of them catches fire it's going to be
[2:17:14] a big problem for fire apparatus to
[2:17:15] get down there. Likewise if somebody
[2:17:16] gets in trouble on the beach is going
[2:17:17] to be a problem for fire department
[2:17:18] or EMS to get down there. This has
[2:17:19] been used as a public beach for not
[2:17:20] time immemorial but certainly for a
[2:17:21] long timeCertainly my lifetime in the
[2:17:22] lifetime of many of others living in
[2:17:23] Richmond Beach. I askedMiss Terry to
[2:17:24] pull the police and fire reports. As
[2:17:25] part of the comments. Nobody has
[2:17:26] call for help there. we are not
[2:17:27] proposing expansion, we're proposing
[2:17:28] a continuation. Are there challenges
[2:18:07] to getting down there? If someone has
[2:18:08] a medical emergencies is 1 of those
[2:18:09] houses? Sure, same challenges is on
[2:18:10] the beach, same as in a variety of
[2:18:11] places at shoreline. Parking.
[2:18:12] That's a big concern, that's not a
[2:18:13] new thing. In all the years that
[2:18:14] I've gone down there I will tell you
[2:18:15] during the pandemic when neighbors
[2:18:16] down there started raising concerns I
[2:18:17] stopped going. I didn't want to
[2:18:18] intrude on people space even though I
[2:18:19] think I was perfectly entitled to I
[2:18:20] chose not to go down. I been plenty
[2:18:21] of times, I've never seen a car go
[2:18:22] down and need to turn around. It's
[2:18:23] not a street you want to drive down.
[2:18:24] Instead there's a ton of parking upon
[2:18:25] Richmond Beach Road, Katona parking
[2:18:26] right up there, perfectly safe, on
[2:18:27] the dirt shoulder a week and do
[2:18:28] better as signage, we can do better
[2:18:29] at enforcement if there becomes a
[2:18:30] problem. There's not a problem now I
[2:18:31] don't think there's going to be one.
[2:18:32] Other concerns such as the seawall,
[2:18:33] the surveys, those are things that
[2:18:34] were sorted out during the course of
[2:18:35] this process. But we are authorizing
[2:18:36] not the final proposing but the
[2:18:37] ability of staff to proceed with
[2:18:38] acquiring this property through
[2:18:39] eminent domain if necessary. A
[2:20:07] couple of the public comment struck
[2:20:08] me tonight and I think we are pretty
[2:20:09] telling, there is a gentleman who is
[2:20:10] concerned about folks walking their
[2:20:11] dogs along that street. My window
[2:20:12] happens look out in the street so I
[2:20:13] started looking out and accounted no
[2:20:14] less than 17 people crossing in front
[2:20:15] of my house 5 of which had dogs.
[2:20:16] That's part of living in a city. If
[2:20:17] the concern is they want to live in a
[2:20:18] private neighborhood they need to
[2:20:19] move somewhere else. This is
[2:20:20] probably funded bridge onto a road
[2:20:21] which is owned for the most part by
[2:20:22] BNSF. There are concerns about
[2:20:23] whether BNSF owns down the middle of
[2:20:24] the street or just on the left side
[2:20:25] of the street on the east side of the
[2:20:26] street but if you walk down there
[2:20:27] what you will see is the NSF has put
[2:20:28] their no trespassing signs on the
[2:20:29] extreme edge of that road. So in
[2:20:30] other words BNSF is not enforcing
[2:20:31] their ability to foreclose the public
[2:20:32] from walking down that paved road.
[2:20:33] Whether it's on only the left side or
[2:20:34] whether you can also walk on the
[2:20:35] right side, I don't know, that will
[2:20:36] get sorted in the survey. The NSF as
[2:20:37] chosen to allow full to walk down
[2:20:38] there. They could put up no
[2:20:39] trespassing except for residents
[2:20:40] signs, they have chosen not to do
[2:20:41] that we are working to clean up even
[2:20:42] that deal detail by getting an
[2:20:43] easement. Because BNSF has chosen
[2:20:44] only to enforce the trackside the
[2:20:45] public is entitled to walk down that
[2:20:46] road across that publicly funded
[2:20:47] bridge to get to the stretch of the
[2:20:48] beach they have used response some
[2:20:49] significant time. Because of all
[2:20:50] these reasons I'm sympathetic to the
[2:20:51] desire to keep something to you for
[2:20:52] yourself, the desire not to have
[2:20:53] folks intruding on your space with
[2:20:54] the speech, this is part of something
[2:20:55] I think we all should on and I would
[2:20:56] encourage us to carry through this
[2:20:57] and use eminent domain if necessary
[2:20:58] to acquire. Based on my comments is
[2:20:59] there anything from staff or Council
[2:21:00] about that?Or in general? All right,
[2:21:01] seeing nothing, Ms. King, when does
[2:21:02] this come back before you?
[2:21:03] >>I think it's scheduled for your 1st
[2:21:04] council meeting in June which isOn
[2:21:05] June 8. Is that correct?
[2:21:06] >>Looks like 6, From councilmember
[2:21:07] Moore.
[2:21:08] >>June 6, there is. And was on my
[2:21:09] slide but I don't have my slide up.
[2:21:10] >>No worries.June 6 we will come
[2:21:11] back. It definitely needs to be an
[2:21:12] action item once I hear something
[2:21:13] from Council about consent. It has
[2:21:14] to be an action item. Anything else
[2:21:15] from counselor staff on this item?And
[2:21:16] that is our last agenda items I
[2:21:17] believe that concludes this
[2:21:18] agenda this meeting. Thank you, and
[2:21:19] we are adjourned.
[2:21:20] >>Thank you.