Monday, April 15, 2002

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

3. JOINT WORKSHOP ITEM

Planning and Development Services Director Tim Stewart explained the purpose of the presentation: to review the preliminary draft of the Central Shoreline Subarea Plan; to respond to questions and obtain input from City Council and the Planning Commission; and to obtain confirmation or clarification of the direction of the subarea plan. He introduced Laurence Qamar and Oliver Kuehne, consultants with Lennertz Coyle & Associates, who reviewed the preliminary draft report of the subarea plan.

Mr. Qamar explained the goals of the Central Shoreline Subarea Plan to: create vibrant mixed use areas; act as an incentive for redevelopment; protect surrounding residential neighborhoods; identify development strategies; and integrate the Aurora Corridor Project and the Interurban Trail Project. He also discussed the planning process, which included a series of public meetings and an extensive design charrette.

Continuing, Mr. Qamar reviewed the main elements of the preliminary draft of the subarea plan:

• realignment and redevelopment of Midvale Avenue as a single-sided mixed-use "Main Street" facing the Interurban Trail and a greenway in the Seattle City Light (SCL) right-of-way and Aurora Avenue;
• Aurora Avenue remaining an auto-oriented commercial street with improved visual quality (e.g., open sight lines to the mixed-use "Main Street" on Midvale Avenue) and pedestrian access;
• properties on the east side of Linden Avenue providing a transition in scale and character from the larger-scale urban properties along Aurora Avenue to the residential properties on the west side of Linden Avenue; and
• civic buildings creating special centers of activity.

Mr. Qamar explained that the consultants focused on three specific demonstration sites: Highland Plaza (at the northeast corner of N 175^th Street and Midvale Avenue N); the Gateway site (at the southeast corner of N 185^th Street and Midvale Avenue N); and the "Wedge" (delineated by Aurora Avenue, N 175^th Street and Ronald Place). He discussed the potential effects of the subarea plan on these demonstration sites over the next five years and over the next 25 years (pages 29-31 of the Council packet).

Mr. Kuehne noted the overlay district zones that the consultants identified in the Central Shoreline Subarea: Residential Transition Area; Aurora Commercial District; Central Shoreline Mixed-use District; Gateway Mixed-use District; Garden Residential/ Mixed-use District; Wedge Special District; and Firlands Mixed-use District (page 37 of the Council packet). He went on to discuss the development standards proposed for each of the overlay district zones (pages 39-44 of the Council packet).

Planning Manager Kirk McKinley highlighted a proposal to uncover the bricks of the North Trunk Road under Firlands Way to create a distinctive "Main Street." He noted the need for negotiation with SCL about the use of its right-of-way (page 12 of the Council packet). He also discussed the proposed realignment of Midvale Avenue through the Gateway site.

Mr. McKinley went on to discuss the steps staff is taking to continue development of the Central Shoreline Subarea Plan, including:

• preparation of an appendix of implementation strategies;
• identification of the implications of implementing the subarea plan (e.g., costs, potential funding sources, priorities and sequencing);
• pro forma financial analysis of demonstration site development for inclusion in the appendix; and
• consideration of the environmental review for the subarea plan.

He said staff intends to present the preliminary draft of the plan widely throughout the community during the next three to four months to obtain as much feedback as possible. He said staff will return to the Planning Commission and Council at the end of the summer with a draft plan.

Commissioner Kuboi arrived at 7:15 p.m.

Mayor Jepsen invited public comment on the preliminary draft.

(1) Craig Nickelson, Shoreline, questioned the impacts of the Central Shoreline Subarea Plan on existing businesses.

Mayor Jepsen supported the development of a subarea plan to establish a vision for the subject area. He expressed concern that the five-year goal in the preliminary draft may not be realistic. He questioned whether the City will complete the Aurora Corridor Project and the Interurban Trail Project in the subarea in the five-year period and whether property owners in the subarea will reinvest as projected. He advocated more study of a realistic five-year goal.

Continuing, Mayor Jepsen recommended that the subarea plan include a recipe of specific steps the City will take to implement and realize the plan. He said the City must understand the investment it needs to make to achieve the plan goals, and the costs must be realistically affordable. He requested the identification of initiatives that exceed the scope of the Aurora Corridor and Interurban Trail Projects (e.g., the municipal parking lot proposed for the "Wedge" demonstration site) and of the related costs.

Councilmember Montgomery arrived at 7:42 p.m.

Councilmember Ransom noted past input to Council about the distance and patterns pedestrians prefer to walk when shopping. He estimated the distance between the proposed Aurora Commercial District and the Gateway Mixed-use District at 100 to 120 feet. Noting the desirability of a 60-foot maximum span between business areas, he questioned the effect of the larger distance. Mr. Qamar acknowledged that the subarea plan proposals do not represent a conventional "Main Street." He compared them instead to a Commercial Boulevard, with retail businesses on either side of a busy arterial.

Councilmember Ransom asked about the proposed realignment of Ronald Place south of N 175^th Street given development of the TOP Foods site. Mr. McKinley said staff has met and continues to talk with TOP Foods about the proposed realignment. He noted the TOP Foods concern about business disruptions of future road realignment. He said staff is considering ways to implement some changes as part of the current TOP Foods construction project. He said the realignment is still feasible.

In response to Chair Doennebrink, Mr. McKinley explained the idea that emerged from the Central Shoreline Design Charrette to modify the Aurora Corridor concept to discontinue the northbound business-access transit (BAT) lane at Ronald Place and to route buses to Midvale Avenue via a realigned Ronald Place. He explained that buses would transition from Midvale Avenue to a BAT lane on northbound Aurora Avenue via a transit-only lane (e.g., at approximately N 178^th or approximately N 182^nd Street). He said the plan reduces the width of the Aurora Corridor right-of-way at N 175^th Street, thereby reducing the impacts to properties in the "Wedge." However, he said TOP Foods has expressed concern about Ronald Place right-turn traffic and buses cutting through the edge of its site, and Metro has expressed concern about longer transit times for northbound buses. He noted that a preliminary traffic analysis, jointly funded by the City and Metro, showed the diversion to Midvale Avenue to extend bus transit times by 30 seconds.

Commissioner McClelland supported the concepts of the preliminary draft of the Central Shoreline Subarea Plan. She said she shares Mayor Jepsen's concern that the five-year goal may not be realistic. She asserted that a community-oriented business district with significant pedestrian use already exists along Midvale Avenue. She said the preliminary draft does not address changes and impacts to this community. She questioned the City's role in helping businesses relocate. She said the draft does not document the underlying assumption of significant demand for office space.

Continuing, Commissioner McClelland identified two important steps toward City implementation of the subarea plan: establishing a public space acquisition program to fund the purchase of properties that become available along Midvale Avenue; and changing the Development Code to preclude development that thwarts the goals of the subarea plan.

Mayor Jepsen acknowledged the importance of changes to the Development Code. He commented that the designation of too many different overlay district zones—with different design standards and restrictions—may be too difficult to understand and too difficult to enforce. He asked how to simplify the zoning. He noted that businesses on the west side of Midvale Avenue have month-to-month leases with SCL. He questioned whether anyone will invest in the properties under such circumstances. He asserted that City improvements on Midvale Avenue will benefit the existing businesses and housing on the east side of the street.

Next, Mayor Jepsen noted that the diagrams on pages 20 and 22 of the Council packet do not represent the proposal to realign Ronald Place. Mr. McKinley explained the dilemma of whether to represent the realignment of Ronald Place given the uncertainty of TOP Foods and Metro support. He requested Council and Commission direction on whether to pursue the realignment aggressively. Mayor Jepsen advocated resolution of the issue before adoption of the subarea plan. Mr. McKinley expressed his hope that the draft subarea plan that staff presents to the Commission and the Council at the end of the summer will include a recommendation regarding the realignment of Ronald Place.

Commissioner Gabbert praised the preliminary draft subarea plan the consultants prepared. He went on to question whether the subarea includes enough commercial land to accommodate enough retail uses to create an interesting shopping area. He also questioned the market potential for the redevelopment of the area. He suggested consideration of a multi-story parking facility to preserve commercial land for redevelopment and to provide sufficient parking to support the shopping area. He advocated that the City have a cooperative attitude toward the other public agencies with which it must work to realize the subarea (e.g., SCL, Metro). However, he stressed the need to protect City of Shoreline interests. For instance, he questioned the importance of a 30-second increase in transit time for northbound Metro buses.

Commissioner Doering thanked the consultants. She expressed particular appreciation for the Residential Transition Area along Linden Avenue. She asserted that increased transit times matter to bus commuters. She expressed concern about the scale of a bus in an area of walking amenities. She favored bus use of an uninterrupted BAT lane on northbound Aurora Avenue. She advocated parking on each end of the corridor and a trolley—supported by a non-profit agency—to provide transportation. She commented that many Shoreline residents would walk if pedestrian amenities were available to make it possible. She recommended that City officials make themselves available at public locations (e.g., retail stores) to obtain input on the subarea plan proposals.

Councilmember Ransom said representatives of the QFC site have requested a vacation of Midvale Avenue between 182^nd Street and 185^th Street. He noted that other business people have stressed the need for greater certainty. He asked when the City will be able to define upcoming changes more clearly. Mr. McKinley said a developer can ask the City to vacate a street now. He explained that the City requires a traffic analysis and an environmental review to assess the impacts of street vacation. He noted Mayor Jepsen's suggestion that staff and the consultants develop additional information on the sequencing, cost and coordination of the potential projects.

Councilmember Ransom asked if the City can obtain federal and State grants to fund the proposals between Aurora and Midvale Avenues (e.g., the municipal parking lot, the greenway) or if the City must fund the proposals itself. Mr. McKinley noted the need for additional research on grant funding. He said the Interurban Trail is a very competitive regional transportation project. He reiterated the need to negotiate an agreement with SCL about changes in its right-of-way.

Councilmember Ransom questioned the proposal in the preliminary draft subarea plan to locate the Interurban Trail on the west side of the greenway, closer to traffic on Aurora Avenue, instead of on the east side of the greenway, closer to Midvale Avenue. Mr. McKinley explained that siting the trail along Aurora Avenue between N 178^th Street and N 183^rd Street allows the City to narrow the width of the sidewalk along Aurora Avenue. He also stated the importance of the trail crossing N 178^th, N 180^th and N 183^rd Streets at the intersections with Aurora Avenue, instead of further east, in the middle of the blocks. Councilmember Ransom suggested that the trail cross the streets at the intersections with Midvale Avenue, instead of at the intersections with Aurora Avenue.

Deputy Mayor Grossman thanked the people who have participated in the Central Shoreline Subarea planning process. He expressed doubt that a 100-foot distance would constrain people from walking to a business area. He expressed concern about operating buses on Midvale Avenue. He advocated that buses remain on Aurora Avenue. He asked when Metro or Sound Transit can indicate if they are willing to consider routing buses on Midvale Avenue.

Asserting that the City is not likely to establish a business development authority, Deputy Mayor Grossman stated that it is up to private developers to implement the changes proposed in the subarea plan. He asked when the City will involve private developers to obtain their feedback on the proposals. Mr. McKinley said the time to involve private developers is now. He noted the value of preparing financial information for discussion with developers.

In response to Deputy Mayor Grossman, Mr. McKinley said staff is considering both a planned action environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Central Shoreline Subarea and combining the environmental reviews for the subarea, the Aurora Corridor Project and the Interurban Trail Project.

Councilmember Montgomery expressed appreciation for the preliminary draft of the subarea plan. She expressed concern about diverting buses onto Midvale Avenue. She said longer transit times will discourage ridership. She opposed anything that discourages ridership.

Responding to Councilmember Montgomery's question about the population figures on page seven of the Council packet, Mr. McKinley explained that they apply to census tracts that include areas outside the City of Shoreline.

Councilmember Ransom stressed the finding of the preliminary traffic analysis that diverting northbound buses onto Midvale Avenue would increase transit times by only 30 seconds. He said businesses on Midvale Avenue support the diversion of buses as a means of increasing business. He commented that the subarea could become a downtown, with a cluster of growing businesses on both sides of Aurora Avenue.

Commissioner Gabbert advocated flexibility in the building design standards for the subarea.

Commissioner MacCully requested clarification of the route buses and vehicles will travel as they move north on Midvale Avenue past N 183^rd Street. He expressed concern about traffic infiltrating the adjacent residential neighborhood.

Commissioner McClelland suggested the organization of the owners of property on the east side of Midvale Avenue north of N 175^th Street as a stakeholder group.

Councilmember Chang identified the subarea plan as an economic development plan for Shoreline. He complimented the consultants for talking throughout the process with the businesses impacted by the proposals, and he advocated continued dialogue. He suggested that the plan address the relationship of the subarea to the Aurora Corridor Project and that it focus more clearly on the reality of the subarea.

Councilmember Hansen said that realizing the five-year vision will take much longer than five years. He noted the interrelationship of the Central Shoreline Subarea Plan and the Aurora Corridor Project. For example, he pointed out that the diversion of northbound buses onto Midvale Avenue is meant, in part, to reduce the width of the Aurora Corridor immediately north of N 175^th Street. He said the subarea plan seems "somewhat unrealistic," and he said it may be expensive to implement. He supported the subarea plan as a good vision and as a collection of conceptual talking points.

Mayor Jepsen summarized Council and Commission support for the vision identified in the preliminary draft subarea plan. He said discussion focused on the details of the plan, which need further study (e.g., the diversion of buses onto Midvale Avenue, the route buses and vehicles will travel on Midvale Avenue north of N 183^rd Street, the alignment of the Interurban Trail). He identified two elements to the subarea plan vision: the public piece, including the Aurora Corridor Project and the Interurban Trail Project; and the development standards, which will affect the private sector. He stated the need to be careful about the flexibility of the development standards and the need to test them with the development community to make sure that they're realistic. He noted the need to develop specific action steps with realistic funding and timelines. He reiterated questions about whether the five-year vision can be achieved in five years.

City Manager Steve Burkett asserted that establishing the subarea plan is critical to defining issues related to both the Aurora Corridor Project and the Interurban Trail Project. He acknowledged the importance of determining which steps the City can realistically undertake within its financial limitations. He agreed that development standards for the Central Subarea should be flexible and related to the reality of the market. He stated the value of developer input.

At 8:39 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared a short recess, and the Planning Commission left the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 8:48 p.m.

4. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS

Mr. Burkett reported that three traffic officers have provided a total of 140 hours of traffic enforcement on 15^th Avenue NE during the past two weeks. He said the officers have issued 120 citations. He noted that the City is also using a radar trailer on 15^th Avenue NE to educate people about the speed limit.

5. COUNCIL REPORTS

Deputy Mayor Grossman said he met with Sound Transit Executive Director Joni Earl to discuss the lack of representation of Shoreline residents on the Sound Transit Board of Directors. He said he expressed Shoreline support for the success of Sound Transit in addressing transportation issues and Shoreline concern that it is receiving little benefit from Sound Transit, considering the tax revenue Shoreline residents are contributing. He said Ms. Earl had directed her staff to work on this issue after her meeting with King County Councilmember Carolyn Edmonds the previous week.

Mayor Jepsen noted his suggestion to staff earlier in the day that Councilmember Montgomery serve as the voting delegate for the upcoming Association of Washington Cities conference. He mentioned that Deputy Mayor Grossman will attend the North End Mayors' meeting that was postponed until April 22. He said the pedestrian advocacy group "Feet First" will hold its next meeting April 25 at the Shoreline Historical Museum.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Anthony Poland, Shoreline, expressed concern that the BAT lanes in the Aurora Corridor Project will not improve traffic flow. He objected to surveillance cameras at intersections and other locations on Highway 99 in Edmonds, and he expressed hope that the City is not planning to install cameras along Aurora Avenue in Shoreline.

7. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) 2002 City of Shoreline Survey of Residents

Mr. Burkett spoke briefly about the value and uses of the results of the 2002 survey of Shoreline residents. Community and Government Relations Manager Joyce Nichols introduced Carolyn Browne, the consultant who conducted the survey of residents. Ms. Browne discussed the purpose of the survey and the survey process and methodology. She went on to review the results of the survey.

Ms. Browne said the survey results and the focus group feedback show that participants feel part of a community in Shoreline and feel that the businesses on Aurora Avenue do not represent the community.

Noting that only 20 percent of survey respondents said they are aware of the Customer Response Team (CRT), Ms. Browne said her surveys for cities often indicate that cities need to better market their services.

Councilmember Montgomery noted that only 30 percent of survey respondents rated streetlighting "Excellent" or "Very Good." She said the information on page 49 of the Council packet—showing that 90 percent of respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the level of lighting on major arterials and 62 percent were very or somewhat satisfied with the level of lighting in neighborhoods—seems contradictory.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett confirmed that "Neighborhood Patrols" refers to Shoreline Police patrols in neighborhoods. He noted a lack of specific information about respondents' dissatisfaction with "Planning & Zoning." He said the City would need to conduct a follow-up survey or focus group to learn more about this issue. Ms. Browne asserted that the largest amount of negativity regarded "Street Repair," "Traffic Signal Timing," "Street Lighting" and "Sidewalks."

Councilmember Montgomery said Council has discussed streetlighting at length in the past. She commented that the survey results make additional discussion seem unnecessary. Ms. Browne said the issue of streetlighting in neighborhoods merits further consideration. She noted that 45 percent of the respondents are "somewhat satisfied" with the level of streetlighting in neighborhoods, 36 percent are "not satisfied," and only 17 percent are "very satisfied." She said streetlighting on arterials does not seem to be an issue.

Mayor Jepsen asserted an apparent contradiction between the finding that only 30 percent of respondents rated streetlighting excellent or very good and the finding that 90 and 62 percent of respondents expressed satisfaction with arterial and neighborhood streetlighting, respectively. Referring to page 79 of the Council packet, Ms. Browne reiterated that 36 percent of respondents are "not satisfied" with the level of streetlighting in neighborhoods and only 17 percent are "very satisfied."

Councilmember Chang asserted the importance of designating the geographic location of survey respondents.

Ms. Nichols noted a difference of opinion in the focus group between those participants who supported neighborhood streetlighting for safety and those who opposed it in order to preserve the rural character of Shoreline. Referring to the "Ratings of City Services" (page 75 of the Council packet), Ms. Browne noted that 31 percent of respondents rated streetlighting 3 (good), that 27 percent rated it 2 (fair) and that ten percent rated it 1 (poor). She said this represents a fairly high level of dissatisfaction with streetlighting.

Mayor Jepsen asked what ratings Council can reasonably expect for City services. Ms. Browne recommended against rigid responses to any one survey rating. She asserted the value of considering the rating for a service in the context of ratings for other services. Mr. Burkett noted the availability at the International City Management Association database of surveys for further comparison.

Referring to pages 47 and 48 of the Council packet, Councilmember Montgomery noted that the Aurora Corridor Project will address four of the six most frequent suggestions for improvement.

Councilmember Ransom asked about the sampling technique used for the survey. He noted a discrepancy between the survey finding that 87 percent of Shoreline residents own their home and other statistics showing Shoreline home ownership at 67 percent. He asked if the survey results represent a cross-section of the community. Ms. Browne said the survey selected telephone numbers at random from a reverse telephone directory. She said most surveys oversample single-family housing residents because residents of multi-family housing move more frequently, and they are out more often. She noted the need for more expensive data collection to eliminate this skew.

Councilmember Hansen asserted that the survey attitudes are reasonably accurate and that an apartment dweller would have been just as well represented as any other Shoreline resident.

8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Randy Ferrell identified himself as a board member of the Shoreline Merchants Association (SMA). He asked Shoreline citizens to help the SMA convince City Council that the Aurora Corridor Project is "an extravagant folly, which is reckless in its disregard of Aurora Avenue businesses and must be changed." He said the SMA and Concerned Citizens for Shoreline have developed an alternative plan for the Aurora Corridor with the assistance of Transportation Engineer Ken Cottingham. He said the first mile of Phase I of the Aurora Corridor Project will cost $28.2 million. He said the first two phases of the Lynnwood-Edmonds improvements (not including utility undergrounding and streetlighting) cost $4.1 million per mile. He said Highway 99 improvements in Sea-Tac, Des Moines and Federal Way (which included utility undergrounding and streetlighting) cost between $6.5 million and $15 million per mile.

(b) Heidi Nagel, Shoreline, identified herself as a neighbor of Bethel Lutheran Church. She said the church proposes to invite the tent city of 70-100 homeless people in 40-60 tents to locate at its property. She expressed concern about the potential impact of the tent city. She asked the City to consider changes to its ordinance as planning for the tent city siting continues. She urged Council to keep neighborhood residents in mind.

(c) Bob Harrison, Shoreline, identified himself as a neighbor of Bethel Lutheran Church. He noted church plans to apply for a temporary-use permit to locate the homeless tent city at church property. He opposed the location of the homeless tent city in a residential area. He noted proposals to close King County parks.

(d) Christina Harrison, Shoreline, said she opposes the location of the homeless tent city at Bethel Lutheran Church property because she does not want "to live across the street from a campground." She said past debate about the homeless tent city at locations in Seattle has concerned issues of character. She said this has trivialized the issue of homelessness. She advocated consideration of the homeless tent city siting as a zoning issue, and she supported separate, serious consideration of the City response to homelessness.

(e) Anthony Poland, Shoreline, said the Aurora Corridor Project BAT lanes will increase traffic stagnation on Aurora Avenue, and traffic stagnation will degrade the business environment. He advocated bus turnouts on Aurora Avenue. He otherwise opposed special traffic considerations for buses. He urged Council to discontinue planning for the Interurban Trail given a national trend to relocate railroads away from waterfronts. He noted a federal mandate against prohibitions to access to saltwater beaches. He said Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) has no right to stop people from accessing Puget Sound beaches. He said the bike lane on N 185^th Street east of Aurora Avenue has forced more traffic onto Aurora Avenue.

Mayor Jepsen recognized 32^nd District State Representative Maralyn Chase in attendance at the meeting.

At 10:00 p.m., Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting ten minutes. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

Mayor Jepsen noted the diversity of opinion regarding the Aurora Corridor. He said the SMA has supported reducing the speed limit on Aurora Avenue from 40 to 35 miles per hour; whereas, Mr. Poland opposes reductions in the speed limit. He said the City is preparing the draft EIS for the Aurora Corridor Project. He stressed that Council will not vote on a preferred design until after the City issues the final EIS.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Burkett said the improvements to Highway 99 in Sea-Tac are very similar to those the City is considering. He said the City's consulting engineers advise that the estimated costs for the Aurora Corridor Project are in the same range per mile as the estimated costs for Highway 99 improvements in Sea-Tac. He noted City plans to undertake an intensive value engineering process. He anticipated future Council deliberation of cost considerations.

Mr. Burkett said City ordinances governing the issue of the homeless tent city differ from those in Seattle. He said representatives of Bethel Lutheran Church contacted the City to research City ordinances, and staff provided information. He said the City has not received a request for a temporary-use permit.

Mr. Stewart said representatives of Bethel Lutheran Church requested an interpretation of the Development Code regarding the permissibility of a temporary shelter camp. He said staff issued an interpretation February 13 concluding that a use of this nature might be permitted through a temporary-use permit. He reviewed the five conditions (under Shoreline Municipal Code [SMC] 20.40.540 [B]) for issuance of a temporary use permit. He also described the process for reviewing a temporary use permit application.

Councilmember Hansen asked how an application for a temporary use permit for a homeless tent shelter could satisfy the first and second conditions of SMC 20.40.540 (B). He questioned the permissibility of this use.

Mayor Jepsen advocated the identification of a permanent location for the homeless tent city and efforts to address case management and transportation. He said he will contact County representatives to investigate these issues.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Burkett said the Richmond Beach Community Council discussed BNSF right-of-way enforcement during its April 9 meeting. He explained that BNSF prohibits trespass of its right-of-way to prevent pedestrian fatalities.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, City Attorney Ian Sievers explained that City consideration of a temporary-use permit is a Type A ministerial decision made by the Planning and Development Services Director with no administrative appeal authority. He confirmed the right of appeal to Superior Court.

9. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:16 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

____________________________

Carol Shenk

Deputy City Clerk