CITY
OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 28, 2004
Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang,
Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmembers Fimia and Grace
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Hansen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll
call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exception of
Councilmembers Fimia and Grace.
Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember Ransom and unanimously carried, Councilmembers Fimia and Grace were excused.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve Burkett, City Manager,
commented on the City’s effort to work with both sides in the Innis Arden
tree-cutting dispute. He reported on
the building permit application at 19027 Richmond Beach Drive, noting that the
City is working with the property owner; but if all the codes are met, the
building permit must be issued.
Finally, he commented on his meeting with the representative of the Door
Store, noting that the focus of the dissatisfaction with the North City Plan
seems to be the reduction of 15th Avenue NE from four lanes to
three. He also commented on the amount
of money the City has already spent pursuing the North City Plan.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Jae
Chung, Shoreline, commented on the ongoing noise problem created by the China
Clipper Restaurant adjacent to his home.
He said that the music is so loud his family cannot sleep, and that the
police department has not been helpful in resolving this matter. He asked what his rights are in this kind of
situation.
(b) Gary
East, Shoreline, noted that the public process for the North City project has
been long, extensive, and inclusive. He
commented on the participation of City staff, business and property owners and
the public, all of whom have spent countless hours on the project. He said there are now some citizens who want
to rescind this lawful and well-considered decision. He said it will do a grave disservice to property owners who have
supported the project, and City staff who worked on it, if the Council decides
to listen to the “noise of the discontented.”
He urged the Council to stand by its commitment to the community and the
legislative process.
(c)
Leigh
Brendemuhl, Shoreline, speaking on behalf of Ruth McCurdy and Sensible Growth
for Richmond Beach, spoke in opposition to the proposed building permit for
19027 Richmond Beach Drive NW. He said
a King County Parcel and Development Conditions Report states that the parcel
is designated as a landslide hazard area and a seismic hazard area, and that
the applicant’s geotechnical report indicates the project site lies within
Seismic Zone 3, the highest seismic designation. He noted that the site has already experienced slope
failure. He inquired about what kind of
seismic impact the project would have on the slope, as the March 2004
geotechnical report does not address this issue. He also asked what impact that the installation of ecology blocks
would have on impervious surfaces and how seismic activity would affect the
land mass with these blocks in place.
(d)
Nancy
Passe, Shoreline, another member of Sensible Growth for Richmond Beach,
concurred with the previous speaker’s comments. She said in addition to seismic and slope failure issues, there
are also critical areas issues involved because the parcel is located directly
adjacent to a wetland. She said it is
imperative that a qualified biologist evaluate the environmental impact this
project will have on the wetland area.
She asked that the Planning Department provide scientific and objective
reports to determine the project’s buildable footprint and evaluate potential
hazards to the neighborhood.
(e)
Andrea
Massoni, Shoreline, also of Sensible Growth for Richmond Beach, asked the City
to deny the permit for the aforementioned project, noting that allowing the
project as proposed will diminish property values and her quality of life. She said the project should comply with
Comprehensive Plan SM 47, which says the City should “align new residential
development setbacks along the shoreline with existing setbacks of the residences
on each side of that development to protect views, unless it causes a property
to be unbuildable.” She said optional
aggregate setbacks do not provide neighbors with any benefit, and that the
proposed project would change the style and character of this unique
neighborhood forever.
(f)
Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, said that the proposed development between N 183rd
and N 185th at Midvale Avenue N takes advantage of the City’s offer
to close the street but does not honor any of the concrete assumptions that
were included in the Central Shoreline Subarea Plan. These assumptions include underground parking and higher-density
development. She said the preliminary
site plan leads one to believe that Midvale Avenue N is being closed to provide
surface parking for the applicant’s development. She asked if it is worth closing a public street to provide 46
parking spaces for private development.
(g)
Jim
Abbott, Shoreline, disagreed with the previous speaker’s comments. As one of the owners of the property located
at Midvale Avenue N, he pointed out that most of what is now Midvale Avenue N
will remain intact. Over the past year
the property owners have reached an agreement with the City staff to provide an
access for Midvale Avenue N and allow it to align with Midvale and connect to N
185th Street. He said that
Midvale Avenue N would be too close to Aurora Avenue anyway under the Central
Subarea Plan, so this proposal would be a benefit to the City to accommodate
the closure of that portion of Midvale.
He said even though the owner will receive 7,561 square feet by using it
as parking, the owner gives up 15,384 square feet by allowing access through
the property to align with N 185th Street. He said financial and environmental (water table) studies show
that neither housing nor underground parking would be feasible at the site.
(h)
Harley
O’Neil, Shoreline, provided a detailed background of the property formerly
occupied by QFC (N 183rd to N 185th at Midvale Avenue N)
which has been owned by Gateway Center Associates (GCA) since 1997. He explained that QFC originally intended
to expand, but after Fred Meyer acquired QFC, the store was closed in order to
eliminate competition. He said despite
initial opposition to the City’s request to maintain a roadway between N 183rd
and N 185th, the GCA group determined it would be in the best
interest of the community. He said
rather than simply leasing out existing spaces to whoever would pay a
reasonable rent, GCA chose to bring in an experienced developer as a partner so
the property could be completely remodeled.
He said valuable space is being given up to connect N 183rd
to N 185th, and the 46 parking stalls do not come close to replacing
the parking lost by providing the roadway.
In
response to Mr. Chung’s comments, Mr. Burkett said that enforcing the City’s
noise ordinance is difficult because it involves some degree of subjectivity
and discretion. He said the City would
continue to work with residents and businesses to try to resolve this issue.
Mayor
Hansen reported on behalf of the Shoreline Water District that it has not taken
a position on the North City project.
He also noted that the Water District will be excavating along 15th
Avenue NE to support the requirements of a 660 water pressure zone.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion by Councilmember
Gustafson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Jepsen, and unanimously carried, the agenda
was approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson,
seconded by Councilmember Ransom and carried 5-0, the following consent
calendar items were approved:
Minutes of Special
Meeting of June 7, 2004
Minutes of Regular
Meeting of June 14, 2004
Approval of expenses
and payroll for the period ending
June 11, 2004 in the
amount of $3,499,682.66
Ordinance No. 356
extending the franchises under
which Seattle Public
Utilities is authorized to provide
water within the City
of Shoreline
Resolution No. 218
authorizing application for funding
assistance for a
Washington Wildlife and Recreation
Program (WWRP) project
to the Interagency Committee
for Outdoor Recreation
(IAC) as provided in Chapter 79A.15 RCW,
acquisition of habitat
conservation and outdoor recreation lands
Ordinance No. 355
amending Chapter 15.05 of the
Shoreline Municipal
Code to provide for local amendments
to the Building Code
and Chapter 3.01 Building Fees
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said he
debated whether to oppose Councilmember Ransom’s amendment to the June 7
meeting minutes [proposed in the City Clerk’s memo to Council] regarding the
letter sent to Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). He said that although the letter described
in the amendment refers to shortening the length of left-turn access to 450
feet, he felt it did not factually represent Council’s action because the
actual length of the proposed left-turn lane is 380 feet.
Councilmember Ransom said his
intent was to clarify that WSDOT is considering double left-turn lanes, not
necessarily a focus on the exact length of the turn lanes. He said the idea proposed in the letter was
to reduce the length of the left-turn lane in half by adding a second left-turn
lane. He noted that the 450 feet figure
came from an initial study conducted by the Public Works Department.
8. ACTION ITEMS:
PUBLIC HEARING
(a)
Public hearing to consider
citizen comments on the proposed 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Plan and the
proposed 2005-2010 Transportation Improvement Plan
Debbie Tarry, Finance
Director, provided a brief overview of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The Proposed 2005 – 2010 CIP totals $130
million, with $25 million in General Capital projects, $97 million in Roads
Capital projects, and $9 million in Surface Water Capital projects. She went on
to describe the three funds involved, the funding sources, and the long-term
financing issues the City faces.
Mayor Hansen opened the
public hearing.
(a) Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, suggested that the City’s General Debt Policy list the impact
on taxpayers as the first bullet point instead of the last. She pointed out that the proposed CIP shifts
$4 million from the General Fund to the City Hall project, funding that could
be used for operational needs such as roads maintenance. She suggested that the City restore the
recommended $700,000 for roads surface maintenance, since the long-term costs
for road replacement are higher than performing regular maintenance. She concluded by asking staff to explain
where Seattle City Light is finding the $1.3 million to reimburse the City for
utility undergrounding costs in North City.
(b) Mark Deutsch,
Shoreline, expressed concern about the timing of the CIP adoption relative to
the master planning process, noting the difficulty of establishing priorities
without the benefit of citizen feedback.
He also inquired about the relationship between the CIP and Council’s
priorities versus citizen priorities.
He expressed concern about using $10 million of the City’s accumulated
fund balance for the City Hall project, noting the project does not appear to
provide an immediate benefit to the community.
He was pleased with the continued progress on the Aurora Corridor and
North City projects, and wished to see more project integration such as
Cromwell Park. He suggested the City
pursue partnerships with the school district for sidewalk construction projects.
(c) David
Anderson, Shoreline, expressed similar concerns about the timing of CIP
adoption relative to the master planning process. He was concerned that the Council would adopt the CIP without
considering input from the master planning process. He urged the Council to take additional public comment following
the staff presentation on the CIP.
Councilmember Gustafson moved the close the
public hearing. Councilmember Chang
seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom
suggested the hearing might be continued to allow for public comment after the
last staff presentation. Councilmembers
noted that the public has several more opportunities and means to provide input
outside the public hearing. A
vote was taken on the motion to close the public hearing, which passed
unanimously and the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Burkett said Seattle City
Light (SCL) went out of its way to identify funding in order to be able to
reimburse the City for undergrounding costs.
He noted that SCL ultimately recovers its costs through its rates. Responding to Mayor Hansen, Mr. Burkett
explained that SCL is proposing to segregate undergrounding projects starting
in 2004, so Shoreline ratepayers would be responsible only for undergrounding
projects in Shoreline.
Responding to Councilmember
Ransom, Mr. Burkett said that Shoreline ratepayers would subsidize the North
City undergrounding project under this new system. He said the advantage of this is that Shoreline ratepayers will
not finance projects in areas outside Shoreline.
Regarding the relationship
between the CIP and the master plans, Mr. Burkett noted that the CIP is
slightly ahead of the master planning process in terms of timing, but the
master plans can certainly be used to prioritize for the 2006-2011 CIP. However, if staff or the public identifies
a project they consider to be a higher priority than those in the 2005-2010
CIP, it would be brought to Council’s attention.
Paul Haines, Public Works
Director, reviewed the proposed timetables, estimated costs and funding sources
of individual projects in the Roads Capital Fund and the Surface Water Capital
Fund. He explained a chart showing
where sidewalks have either been built or are proposed in Shoreline. He said the proposed CIP includes 41,000
linear feet of sidewalk/pedestrian facilities, largely the Aurora Corridor and
Interurban Trail projects, which equate to over $13 million in investment. He explained that past CIP projects have
constructed 19,000 linear feet of pedestrian facilities ($6.5 million), and
that between 1997 and 2004, 8,000 linear feet ($1.6 million) of pedestrian
facilities were constructed as a result of development.
Councilmember Chang asked if
the City’s plan to repair 900 linear feet of sidewalk this year equates to
approximately three city blocks. Mr.
Haines concurred, with the caveat that areas in need of repair are scattered
throughout the City and depend on numerous factors. He said the budget is targeted at repairing very short segments
that present tripping hazards or segments missing panels altogether.
Councilmember Chang wondered
about the process for prioritizing new sidewalk construction in the City. He felt the City should try to collaborate
with the school district on sidewalk construction near schools.
Councilmember Gustafson
pointed out that the City has already partnered with the school district for
sidewalk grant funding.
Mr. Haines explained the
effort to acquire a grant for Sunset Elementary through the Washington Traffic
Safety Commission. He said the application
requires that the school district take the lead, and that the City provide
matching funds. He went on to comment
that the Transportation Master Plan will provide further guidance on the
prioritization of sidewalks in the City.
Councilmember Ransom was
concerned that the CIP does not reflect the high priority citizens have placed
on sidewalks. He felt the Council
should reprioritize to find at least part of the $5.5 million that has been
identified as the need for sidewalks.
Mr. Haines noted that the
Transportation Master Plan, which includes sidewalks, would likely align well
with the CIP adoption process in 2005.
Councilmember Ransom noted
that the Council consciously decided to allocate $500,000 for road maintenance
instead of the recommended $700,000 because, even though a majority of
Shoreline voters did not support it, Initiative 776 was specifically tied to
road funding.
Mayor Hansen concurred,
noting that public officials should respond by cutting back in those areas that
voters want less emphasis.
Councilmember Chang wondered
how much Shoreline households would end up paying in utility fees for the
undergrounding costs of the North City and Aurora Corridor projects. He estimated that undergrounding costs could
exceed $10 million for both projects.
Mr. Haines said that, while he could not determine anticipated ratepayer
fees, staff could study the rate structure with SCL to try to determine rough
estimates.
Ms. Tarry briefly reviewed
the projects in the Surface Water Fund, noting that half of the funding for
these projects would come from surface water fees.
Councilmember Ransom asked if
there were any current or future plans to daylight Thornton Creek or any other
watercourses in Shoreline.
Mr. Haines said although
there are no current plans to daylight any streams, daylighting could be
explored as part of the Surface Water Master Plan.
Councilmember Gustafson
thought the opening of the culvert at Twin Ponds could be a minor form of
daylighting. Mr. Burkett noted that opening the culvert is part of the
mitigation required for the Aegis project.
There was Council consensus to allow additional
public comment.
(a)
David Anderson, Shoreline,
explained that some features of the North City Project, including chicanes and
street trees, actually make the street more difficult for the disabled to
navigate. The blind have more
difficulty following an uneven curb, and street trees can act as obstacles to
the blind and wheelchair users. He
suggested that street trees be eliminated from the design, and that stop signs
be removed from curb ramps. He also
suggested that the City explore the possibility of using engineering students
for stream restoration projects in order to save money.
(b)
Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, said if
the Council has discretion to take money from the General Fund to finance City
Hall, it should be able to add an extra $200,000 to the roads maintenance fund
to adequately maintain City streets.
She noted that streets were rated as a higher priority than City Hall in
the recent citizen survey; therefore there is no public mandate for the City
Hall project. She pointed out that
properly maintained roads would not require rebuilding.
Mayor Hansen said he supports
City Hall and other projects that result in long-term savings to Shoreline
taxpayers.
Councilmember Chang noted
that several members of the disabled community have contacted him about forming
a committee on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues. He suggested that the City explore the
possibility of forming a volunteer committee to make capital projects more
efficient and cost-effective.
9. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a)
Motion to adopt the City
Council’s 2004-2005 Work Plan
Robert Olander, Deputy City Manager, briefly reviewed how the work plan of six continuing goals and two new goals was developed. During the City Council retreat of April 23-24, 2004, the Council reviewed and updated its annual work plan. The Council identified six goals to continue from the 2003-2004 Work Plan and the following new goals:
·
Review
and consider improvements with Code Enforcement and Visual Standards
·
Enhance
public participation in city government
Mr. Olander said staff is recommending minor wording changes in the two new goals as follows:
· Review and consider improvements in code enforcement standards
· Develop and adopt policies to enhance public participation in city government
The reason for the first minor change is that visual standards should be considered as part of code enforcement standards if they are to be enforceable. The reason for the suggestion on the second goal is to add specificity and measurability to this goal. Otherwise one would never know when the goal is met.
Councilmember Ransom felt the
public should have further explanation of what was meant by Goal #7 relating to
code enforcement standards.
Mr. Olander responded
that the last public survey indicated
that people were more concerned about litter, weeds, and abandoned cars than
they were about building code issues.
The Council felt it should be more proactive in this area, so Goal #7
was proposed. Following approval of this
new goal, staff intends to present a more detailed work plan to Council for review
and approval.
Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Jepsen and unanimously carried, the work plan was adopted.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen looked
forward to seeing the work plan with measurable accomplishments as benchmarks
toward completion of the goals.
10. NEW BUSINESS
(a)
Information prior to Council
July 12, 2004 consideration of Midvale Avenue N Closure
11. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:15 p.m., Mayor Hansen
declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk