CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Monday, February 25, 2002

7:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Grossman, Councilmembers Chang, Gustafson, Hansen, Montgomery and Ransom

ABSENT: None

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:25 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.

3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER

City Manager Steve Burkett mentioned the meetings regarding the Central Shoreline Subarea Plan scheduled 7-8:30 p.m. March 5 and 6.

4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None

5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None

6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Deputy Mayor Grossman moved to approve the agenda. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the agenda was approved.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember Montgomery moved to approve the consent calendar. Council-member Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the following items were approved:

Minutes of Workshop Meeting of February 4, 2002
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of February 11, 2002
Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 11, 2002

Approval of expenses and payroll as of February 15, 2002 in the amount of $1,200,947.96

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute the King County 2002/2003 Waste Reduction and Recycling Interlocal Agreement for $41,679

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute the 2002/2003 State of Washington Department of Ecology Coordinated Prevention Grant Agreement for $53,571

AGENDA INTERRUPTION

There was Council consensus to discuss agenda item 9 (a) before agenda item 8 (a), which was scheduled to begin at 8 p.m.

9. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS

(a) Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Gray & Osborne, Inc. for Engineering Services in an amount not to exceed $200,000

Mr. Burkett briefly reviewed the staff report.

Councilmember Gustafson moved to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract not to exceed $200,000, with Gray & Osborne, Inc. for professional engineering services. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett confirmed that the City Engineer position is one of the three vacant engineering positions. Councilmember Ransom expressed concern about internal control and evaluation of the contract engineering services. Mr. Burkett said Gray & Osborne will, for the time being, act as the City Engineer. In response to Councilmember Ransom, he confirmed that Gray & Osborne will not bid on any of the projects it manages for the City.

Councilmember Gustafson expressed concern about the historical knowledge lost with the departure of three engineers from Public Works. Mr. Burkett asserted the importance of insuring that staff of Gray & Osborne have access to past discussions, directions and decisions regarding City capital projects.

A vote was taken on the motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract not to exceed $200,000, with Gray & Osborne, Inc. for professional engineering services. The motion carried 7-0.

RECESS

At 7:48 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared a recess until 8 p.m.

8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS

(a) Public Hearing to consider citizen comments on Development Code amendments

Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, reviewed the staff report. He discussed the additional information staff developed in response to Council requests during its January 22 workshop.

Referring to page 64 of the Council packet, Mr. Stewart went on to note that staff inadvertently failed to strike "for each tenant and maximum 50 sq. ft." for "Maximum Sign Area" under "Building-Mounted Signs" in Shoreline Municipal Code (SMC) Table 20.50.540B in the draft that Council reviewed earlier.

Referring to page 44 of the Council packet, Mr. Stewart said Ordinance No. 299 does not change the definitions of setback in SMC 20.20.046. He acknowledged Councilmember Hansen’s comment that the definitions are confusing, and he noted the following wording in particular: "measured perpendicular to the building at the closest point to the front lot line." He explained the intent to measure perpendicular to the lot line, not the building. He said staff has prepared alternate language to clarify this intent.

Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing.

(1) James Kim, Burien, represented a group of investors interested in developing a mixed-used building at Aurora Avenue N and N 149th Street. He urged Council to reconsider restricting left-turn access on Aurora Avenue N.

Mayor Jepsen pointed out that the public hearing is meant to address the proposed Development Code amendments. He encouraged people with comments about the Aurora Corridor Project to wait until the "Continued Public Comment" period later in the meeting.

(2) Rob Hill, Shoreline, thanked City staff for its assistance in proposing the amendment to increase the height in the R-48 zone. He encouraged Council to support the proposed amendment.

(3) Bob Koch, Shoreline, expressed concern about the safety and aesthetics of six-foot-high front yard fences.

(4) Randy Ferrell, Shoreline, requested a clear definition of "structurally altered" in SMC 20.50.590, "Nonconforming signs." He suggested specific exemptions for repairs, maintenance and the relocation of signs on buildings.

(5) Steve Ortman, Shoreline, urged Council to reject the proposed amendment in front yard fence height. He said Edmonds, Lake Forest Park and Kirkland cite traffic safety and neighborhood crime prevention as justifications for their front yard fence height limitations.

(6) Jerry Kriesel, Shoreline, advocated that the City publicize the maximum front yard fence height (on its web site and in notifications by mail) to eliminate excuses of not knowing about the limit.

(7) Warren Heggen, Shoreline, supported the proposed amendment to increase the maximum height of front yard fences from three and a half feet to six feet. He said the current height limitation penalizes property owners who comply with it.

(8) Daniel Mann, Shoreline, supported the Planning Commission proposal to work with the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce and Shoreline businesses to develop a viable sign ordinance. He asserted that small businesses on Aurora Avenue N need visibility, accessibility and parking. He indicated that sign restrictions limit the visibility of businesses and, thereby, their competitiveness. He said Council should reassess the illegality of rooftop signs.

(9) Terry Green, Shoreline, said businesses previously requested that Council clarify whether signs grandfathered when Council adopted the Development Code will still be allowed if the Aurora Corridor Project requires their relocation.

(10) Sandra Banduchy, Shoreline, asked Council to reconsider the proposed amendment to increase the maximum building height in the R-48 zone.

Councilmember Hansen moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed.

Ordinance No. 299 amending the Development Code including Shoreline Municipal Code Chapters 20.20 Definitions; 20.30 Procedures and Administration; 20.40 Zoning and Use Provisions; 20.50 General Development Standards; 20.60 Adequacy of Public Facilities; 20.70 Engineering and Utilities Development Standards; and 20.80 Special Districts

Councilmember Hansen moved that Council adopt Ordinance No. 299. Council-member Gustafson seconded the motion.

Councilmember Ransom questioned the proposed requirement that a recreational vehicle (RV) "must be parked on approved surface that meets the Off Street Parking Construction Standards in the Engineering Guide" (page 34 of the Council packet). Mr. Stewart said the provision requires parking on an impervious surface. He confirmed that a standard driveway would be acceptable.

Councilmember Ransom mentioned the proposal he presented at the January 22 workshop to allow RV occupancies of up to four weeks "if connected for water, sewer and electricity." He said this proposal reflects City of Lynnwood’s approach. He went on to express concern about limiting the number of RV occupancies to the number of lots, regardless of lot size. He said some churches occupy lots of more than an acre.

Councilmember Gustafson said the Shoreline School District has hosted multi-day sports tournaments and has permitted families of participating student athletes to occupy RVs overnight on District property. Mr. Stewart said the proposed amendment would limit the District to one RV per lot. He went on to describe the administration and enforcement of the proposed amendment.

In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Stewart said the School District could not legally host 15 to 20 RVs overnight under the proposed amendment. He said staff would need to draft a provision allowing large institutional facilities a more liberal use for this purpose. Councilmember Gustafson advocated that Council direct staff to draft such a provision.

Councilmember Ransom suggested that the City address the issue of RV occupancy at large institutional facilities by stipulating that on large properties each quarter acre count as one lot.

Councilmember Montgomery mentioned long occupancies of multiple RVs on the Crista campus.

Mr. Burkett said the City should not clutter the Development Code in an effort to address every imaginable issue. He commented that the proposed amendment provides an option for most RV occupancies. He noted temporary use permits as an option for others. Councilmember Hansen agreed, saying that large institutional facilities can apply for temporary use permits to address RV occupancies that fall outside of the proposed amendment. Councilmember Chang agreed.

Councilmember Ransom expressed concern about the discretionary application of the proposed amendment. He moved that Council revise the proposed amendment for very large parcels of property owned by non-profits, churches and school districts to count each quarter acre of square footage as one lot for the purpose of determining the number of allowed RV occupancies.

In response to Deputy Mayor Grossman, Councilmember Ransom explained his intent that the revision apply only to non-profit organizations such as churches and school districts.

Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.

Continuing, Councilmember Hansen opposed the motion as an effort to address every possible situation.

Deputy Mayor Grossman commented that a church representative, seeking to comply with the City code, suggested the amendment to allow temporary RV occupancies. He said Council is doing a disservice to those requesting the amendment if it doesn't meet their needs. He favored limiting the revision to non-profit organizations, churches and other institutions.

Councilmember Hansen opposed any distinction by type of property owner.

Commenting that the designation of a quarter acre as a one-lot equivalent seems random, Mayor Jepsen opposed the revision. He supported a provision to address RV occupancies at large institutional facilities. Councilmember Gustafson agreed. He favored a provision specifically allowing temporary use permits to large institutional facilities for temporary RV occupancies.

A vote was taken on the motion that Council revise the proposed amendment for very large parcels of property owned by non-profits, churches and school districts to count each quarter acre of square footage as one lot for the purpose of determining the number of allowed RV occupancies. The motion failed 1-6, with Council-member Ransom voting in the affirmative.

Councilmember Gustafson moved that Council delete Section 20.40.495, "Recreational Vehicle," from Ordinance No. 299 and direct staff to revise it for Council consideration at a future meeting. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 5-2, with Councilmembers Hansen and Montgomery dissenting.

Regarding Tab 15, Councilmember Ransom noted his previous concern about the theoretical possibility of a 60-foot-tall building adjacent to a residential property. However, he agreed that the R-48 zoning designation is meaningless if the owner of an R-48 property cannot achieve that density. He noted the staff determination that the minimum height necessary to accommodate 48 units on the average R-48 parcel in Shoreline is 50 feet. He said it seems reasonable to allow up to 60 feet for flexibility. He asserted that Council should approve the proposed amendment or eliminate the R-48 zoning designation.

Deputy Mayor Grossman said the Development Code provision limiting the height of front yard fences to 42 inches resulted from a great deal of public input. He noted public support for retaining the 42-inch limit. He advocated public education to address confusion about the maximum allowable height of front yard fences.

Deputy Mayor Grossman moved that Council revise Ordinance No. 299 to delete the amendments to Section 20.50.110 of the Development Code, which increase the maximum allowable height of front yard fences. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion.

Councilmember Gustafson called the issue of front yard fence height one of property owner rights versus community good and neighborhood character. He said he has driven around Shoreline considering safety issues and front yard fence heights. He asserted that the proposed amendments make a strong recommendation to limit front yard fence heights to 42 inches while still respecting property owner rights. He supported the proposed amendments and opposed the motion to delete them.

Councilmember Hansen noted that many residents have six-foot-high front yard fences that were grandfathered when Council adopted the Development Code. He said the Development Code currently precludes the neighbors of these residents from having front yard fences of the same height. He opposed the motion to delete the proposed amendments.

Councilmember Ransom supported the right of a property owner to have a front yard fence of the same six-foot height as that of a neighboring property owner. He opposed the motion to delete the proposed amendments.

Councilmember Chang said six-foot-tall front yard fences will make the work of police, firefighters and emergency medical personnel more difficult. He supported the motion to delete the proposed amendments.

Mayor Jepsen expressed surprise at the amount of public input about front yard fence heights. He supported a 42-inch maximum front yard fence height as more visually appealing and conducive to safety. However, he stressed the difficulty of enforcing this height restriction given the number of six-foot-tall front yard fences that already exist in Shoreline. He noted that the City can require the removal of any fence that poses a safety hazard. He favored the proposed amendments.

A vote was taken on the motion to revise Ordinance No. 299 to delete the amendments to Section 20.50.110 of the Development Code, which increase the maximum allowable height of front yard fences. The motion failed 2-5, with Deputy Mayor Grossman and Councilmember Chang voting in the affirmative.

Regarding Tab 32, Councilmember Chang expressed surprise to learn that the rooftop sign at his business is nonconforming. He agreed with the public comments about the importance of visibility to the competitiveness of Shoreline businesses. He asked whether signs grandfathered when Council adopted the Development Code will still be allowed if the Aurora Corridor Project requires their relocation. He also asked whether a business can replace a grandfathered rooftop sign after removing it for repairs. Mr. Stewart noted that other sections of the Development Code allow for maintenance and repair of nonconforming structures. He said the new sign code would apply if a grandfathered sign was altered (i.e., if the physical characteristics or structure of the sign were changed). He asserted that this would be the case even if the alteration were required by a public authority. He said Council can direct staff to initiate an amendment to the Development Code language if this interpretation does not represent Council intent.

Mayor Jepsen commented that the Aurora Corridor Project could affect a grandfathered rooftop sign by requiring alteration of a building. Noting that the City has made many efforts to avoid altering buildings, he asserted that the rooftop sign would continue to be grandfathered. He asked if this assertion is accurate. He went on to note his assumption that the City will address other signs affected by the Aurora Corridor Project under the relocation policy Council adopted. Mr. Stewart confirmed that the relocation policy will govern how the City addresses other signs. He mentioned another class of potentially nonconforming signs: those in legally appropriate locations that exceed the size restrictions in the Development Code.

In response to Councilmember Chang, Mr. Stewart said he does not know how many signs could be affected by the first phase of the Aurora Corridor Project.

Councilmember Gustafson said signs grandfathered when Council adopted the Development Code should continue to be grandfathered if the Aurora Corridor Project requires their relocation. He advocated that the City discuss SMC 20.50.590 with businesses and provide a clear definition of "structurally altered."

In response to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Stewart confirmed that the Planning Commission is currently addressing sign issues. He said Commissioners strongly support additional community involvement before making a recommendation to Council on these issues.

Councilmember Ransom referred to the information on page 38 of the Council packet regarding rooftop signs. He said a Council majority voted to delete Community Development (CD) Policy 19 ("Discourage signs at upper levels of buildings . . .") from the Comprehensive Plan. He said Council discussed this issue several times, and he mentioned signs at Chuck Olson Chevrolet and Aurora Rents during those discussions. He noted the discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan (as amended to exclude CD Policy 19) and the Development Code, which prohibits rooftop signs. He said he submitted a Development Code amendment during the comment process to delete this prohibition. He commented that Planning and Development Services does not like rooftop signs. He said the owner of Aurora Rents can maintain his current upper-level sign, but he cannot upgrade it. He referred to a book published by the International Sign Association, Unmasking the Myths on Signs and the Use of Signage as a Planning Tool. He stressed the importance of signs to businesses. He asked Council to make the Development Code consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Councilmember Ransom moved that Council delete "E. Signs mounted on the roof" from SMC 20.50.550. Councilmember Chang seconded the motion.

Mayor Jepsen said he does not remember the conclusions of past Council discussions on signage.

Deputy Mayor Grossman said he does not support the motion. He said the Planning Commission, which is currently addressing sign issues, is a more appropriate venue for a more thorough discussion of the whole signage issue. Councilmember Gustafson agreed. He said he recalls Council discussion of grandfathering the signs of existing businesses.

Councilmember Chang compared the prohibition of new rooftop signs to the prohibition of new six-foot-high front yard fences. He asserted that businesses will not want to locate in Shoreline if they cannot be competitive.

Councilmember Ransom referred again to the deletion of CD Policy 19 from the Comprehensive Plan. He said this included rooftop signs. He commented that the Development Code precluded Cascade Bingo from replacing its upper-level sign. He urged Council to support his motion. He said Council will not have the opportunity to delete the rooftop sign prohibition for at least another year.

Mayor Jepsen commented that the Development Code has included SMC 20.50.550 (E) for over 18 months. He advocated that Planning Commission consideration of sign issues include a concerted effort to determine how CD Policy 19 was deleted from the Comprehensive Plan. He said discussion of the prohibition represents the tension between community values and current conditions along the Aurora Corridor. He identified the process underway in the Planning Commission as the appropriate means of addressing that tension. He advocated that the Planning Commission process run its course. Councilmember Montgomery concurred.

A vote was taken on the motion that Council delete "E. Signs mounted on the roof" from SMC 20.50.550. The motion failed 2-5, with Councilmembers Chang and Ransom voting in the affirmative.

Councilmember Ransom mentioned that he requested reconsideration of sign restrictions on churches in residential zones. He noted four residential churches had brought the issue to him, including the Shoreline Community Church and the Aurora Church of the Nazarene. He advocated that neighborhood churches be subject to the same sign standards as neighborhood businesses.

Councilmember Montgomery asked if restrictive sign standards in residential zones have been a problem for churches. Councilmember Hansen mentioned a situation involving Prince of Peace Evangelical Lutheran Church on 145th Street.

Continuing, Councilmember Hansen noted the different maximum monument sign sizes allowed under Figure 20.60.560 (page 122 of the Council packet) and the different maximum sizes allowed for freestanding and building-mounted signs in Neighborhood Business and Office zones in Table 20.50.540B (page 199 of the Council packet). He suggested a standard maximum sign size of 50 square feet.

Councilmember Hansen moved that residential churches be subject to the sign standards for Neighborhood Business and Office zones. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.

Mayor Jepsen referred again to the process underway in the Planning Commission to review sign regulations as the best method to address sign standards for churches. He noted that Planning Commission Chair Marlin Gabbert is in the audience and, therefore, aware of the Council discussion.

Councilmember Ransom asserted that making residential churches subject to the same sign standards as neighborhood businesses is reasonable. He said Council is not likely to consider this amendment again for at least another year.

Mr. Stewart commented that Council can request staff to initiate an amendment to the Development Code at any time.

Councilmember Gustafson favored Planning Commission consideration of sign standards for both churches and schools.

A vote was taken on the motion that residential churches be subject to the sign standards for Neighborhood Business and Office zones. The motion failed 3-4, with Councilmembers Chang, Hansen and Ransom voting in the affirmative.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mayor Jepsen confirmed that the issue of sign restrictions on churches in residential zones is a topic that the Planning Commission has on its agenda to address.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart distributed revised language for the definitions of setback in Ordinance No. 299 (page 44 of the Council packet).

Councilmember Hansen moved that Council amend the revisions in Ordinance No. 299 to Chapter 20.20.046 page 30 to read as follows:

Setback, Aggregate Yard

Total yard setback area that equals the sum of the minimum front yard, rear yard, and side yard setbacks.
Setback, Front Yard


A space extending the full width of the lot between the front property line and the setback line which is measured perpendicular from the front lot line to the minimum yard setback line.
Setback, Rear Yard


A space extending across the full width of the lot between the rear lot line and the yard setback line which is measured perpendicular from the rear lot line to the minimum yard setback line.
Setback, Side Yard

A space extending from the front yard to the rear yard measured perpendicular from the side lot line to the minimum yard setback line.

Deputy Mayor Grossman seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.

A vote was taken on the motion that Council adopt Ordinance No. 299—amending the Development Code including Shoreline Municipal Code Chapters 20.20 Definitions; 20.30 Procedures and Administration; 20.40 Zoning and Use Provisions; 20.50 General Development Standards; 20.60 Adequacy of Public Facilities; 20.70 Engineering and Utilities Development Standards; and 20.80 Special Districts—as amended—to delete Section 20.40.495, "Recreational Vehicle," and to amend the revisions to Chapter 20.20.046 page 30. The motion carried 7-0, and Ordinance No. 299, as amended, was adopted.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 9:55 p.m., Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Deputy Mayor Grossman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

10. NEW BUSINESS

(a) Oral Presentation by Shoreline Water District regarding ongoing negotiations with Seattle Public Utilities for the purchase of the West-Side Water System in Shoreline

Mr. Burkett introduced Shoreline Water District Manager Cynthia Driscoll and Rick Harbert, Engineering Consultant to the District.

Referring to a handout, Ms. Driscoll identified the "Attendees" at the February 26 General Tour as the negotiating team participants representing the District and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). She invited Councilmembers to participate in the tour. She said the District has not yet scheduled the Detailed Engineering Tour.

Ms. Driscoll said the District submitted a six-page letter to SPU that included a list of requested documents. She explained that it will take a long time for SPU to provide the documents and that, as a result, the District will not have many details in time for its next presentation to Council.

Mr. Harbert discussed a map representing the west side water system in Shoreline and the area currently served by the Water District. He said SPU serves approximately 12,000 customers west of Interstate 5 between 145th Street and 205th Street. He said the District is "making good progress" in obtaining information from SPU. He asserted the complexity of separating the portion of the SPU system in Shoreline from the rest of the SPU system. He also noted the need to determine the extent of the assets (e.g., booster pump stations, supply pump stations, reservoirs, pipelines) before the District can address the financial issues of acquiring the west side water system.

Mr. Harbert said the District is aware, and it has made SPU aware, that the Aurora Corridor is a high priority to City Council. He noted water pipelines in the Aurora Corridor. He stated the intent of the District to insure that any necessary pipeline replacement in the Aurora Corridor occurs in advance of or concurrent with reconstruction of the roadway.

Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.

(1) Les Nelson, Shoreline, said residents who receive water from SPU are satisfied with the service. He asserted that separating the portion of the SPU system in Shoreline from the rest of the SPU system will restrict circulation in the water system. He expressed concern about the financial impacts to customers of the District purchase of the SPU system.

Councilmember Hansen thanked the District for its report and for its progress in the negotiations with SPU.

Mayor Jepsen asked how people with questions about the proposed purchase of the west side water system can obtain information. Ms. Driscoll said the District is still recruiting members for the Citizen Advisory Committee. She noted the goal to include two representatives from the west side of Shoreline. She mentioned that much of the District deliberations regarding the negotiations will take place in executive session because the information, if public, could affect the purchase price. She said the Citizen Advisory Committee will address issues such as the implementation of the purchase of the west side water system and the potential impact on rates. She stressed that both the District Board of Commissioners and City Council must approve District actions regarding the purchase.

11. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Les Nelson, Shoreline, read from a letter to Council regarding electrical power lines related to the addition at Safeway at Aurora Avenue N and N 155th Street. He contested statements by Safeway's architect in a letter to the City requesting a variance, and he contested text in the Road Standards Variance the City granted Safeway. He reported disruption of electrical power to homes near Safeway. He described the power pole and fixtures now visible from his home. He requested that the City respond to a list of five requested actions in his letter.

(b) Wong Han, Shoreline, noted his plan to develop the property he owns at 16543 Aurora Avenue N. He said the street frontage of the property is 200 feet. He asserted that it will be almost impossible for a northbound driver to make a U-turn and cross three lanes of heavy Aurora Avenue traffic to access his property. He asked the City to consider this situation. He said he knows many of the Korean business owners along the Aurora Corridor. He stated that none of them supports the Aurora Corridor Project.

(c) Daniel Mann, Shoreline, asserted that Council should reflect on the message that it sends to businesses. He said the prohibition of rooftop signs was a taking of a right that Shoreline merchants had, and that Seattle and Lynnwood merchants still have, without prior discussion. He encouraged Councilmembers to talk with business owners about their operations.

Mayor Jepsen asked staff to follow up with the speakers who represented Korean business owners to learn whether they have seen the interpreted newsletters the City has issued to provide information about the Aurora Corridor Project to the Korean community. He asked staff to respond to Council and Mr. Nelson about Mr. Nelson's letter.

Councilmember Chang said Mr. Kim, who spoke earlier in the meeting, represents George Choi of Edmonds and other investors who propose to redevelop the Skyline Motel property. He explained that the investors are concerned that the median proposed as part of the Aurora Corridor Project will limit access to the property and preclude the viability of any business tenants in the mixed-used building they propose to build. He noted a prevalent understanding that "the median is non-negotiable." He advocated Council willingness to negotiate, compromise or, at least, listen.

Continuing, Councilmember Chang said he has received phone calls from Shoreline residents who pay electricity bills for streetlights. He requested information on staff progress on the streetlighting issue. Mr. Burkett said staff is gathering information with which to prepare options for Council consideration later this year.

12. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:30 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

 

____________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk