CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 Shoreline Conference Center

6:30 p.m.                                                                                                      Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT:       Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, Grace, and Ransom

ABSENT:        Councilmember Gustafson

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. by Mayor Hansen, who presided.

2.         FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Mayor Hansen led the flag salute.  Upon roll call by the Assistant to the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of Councilmember Gustafson.

Upon motion by Councilmember Grace, seconded by Deputy Mayor Jepsen and unanimously carried, Councilmember Gustafson was excused.

            (a)        Proclamation of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Month

Mayor Hansen read the proclamation declaring the month of July 2004 as Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Month.  Dick Deal, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, introduced Ros Bird, Executive Director of the Shoreline/Lake Forest Park Arts Council, Terry Pollard, Shoreline YMCA, and Briana Maxie, of the Shoreline Teen Program.  Each spoke of the public benefits of various parks facilities and programs and thanked the City for this recognition.

3.         CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS

§Steve Burkett, City Manager, announced that there would be an informational meeting for the 3^rd Avenue Drainage project on July 13.  He also noted that Initiative 864 did not receive enough signatures to get on the ballot this fall. 

4.         COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember Fimia announced she would not be able to attend the August 23 Council meeting.

5.         PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Bob Barta, Shoreline, expressed general support for the Residential Parking Zone (RPZ) program.  He felt it would benefit both the neighborhoods and the City in general by alleviating neighborhood impacts and reducing road maintenance costs.  He complimented City staff for this “forward looking” plan, which he felt other cities might imitate.  He concluded by recommending several changes to the RPZ draft relating to permit types, fee structure, signage, and enforcement.

(b) Barbara Lacy, Shoreline, commented favorably on the City’s efforts to monitor the water quality in Echo Lake.  She commented on factors that can affect water quality, such as pet waste and feeding ducks.  She said the City recently informed her that a King County website compares Echo Lake with other freshwater lakes in the area, and that Echo Lake’s water quality consistently rates between good and excellent.  However, no one can guarantee that any outdoor pool or lake is safe for swimming since conditions can change rapidly.  She thanked the City for the time and expense of taking weekly samples, and suggested that water quality information be made available on Channel 21.

(c) Ginger Botham, Shoreline, expressed support for the RPZ program and thanked the City for finally addressing the ongoing problems associated with non-resident parking and traffic.  She pointed out that the affected area is relatively small, and that most heavily impacted people voted for the RPZ, whereas the least impacted voted against it.  She expressed concern about the proposed fees and suggested that guest/temporary permits be either free or relatively inexpensive.  She concluded by urging the Council to listen to those who are impacted by the problem.

(d) Bonnie Dalton, Shoreline, opposed the RPZ program, noting that four members of her family recently received citations for parking in front of her home.  She said permits don’t work for families that have more than four cars.  She suggested that the City remove the “No Parking” signs and come up with another solution. 

(e) Jack French, Shoreline, described the parking, litter, and safety problems associated with non-resident parking in his neighborhood.  He expressed concern about the safety of his children who play at the nearby elementary school.  He pointed out that Shoreline Community College provides a shuttle from its overflow parking at the Sears parking lot.  He favored some form of restricted parking, noting that overflow parking should not occur in his neighborhood.

(f) Dan Mann, Shoreline, thanked the City for its support of the Showmobile, and for consideration of potential traffic impacts to Stone Avenue N resulting from the Gateway Plaza redevelopment project.   He also thanked the City for sending a letter to the Washington State Department of Transportation regarding consideration of possible changes to the first phase of the Aurora Corridor project.  He expressed appreciation for the meeting between the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce and City Manager Steve Burkett, noting that economic development requires serious dialogue with existing business owners.  He said the City has marginalized dissent in the past, which has led to unnecessary litigation.  He felt a merchant advisory board might help avoid confrontations in the future. 

(g) Rick Stephens, Shoreline business owner representing the Shoreline Merchants Association and the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee, commented favorably on the meeting between the Chamber and City Manager, which focused on ideas for promoting and growing business in Shoreline.  He stressed the importance of not scaring businesses by using terms such as “inverse condemnation” and “eminent domain.”   He recommended that the City conduct more open meetings with existing businesses, who want to be partners in the City’s redevelopment.

(h) Ken Cottingham, Shoreline, also commented favorably on the Chamber of Commerce meeting and thanked the City for installing a right turn only at N 165^th Street and Aurora Avenue.  He felt that more right only turns would reduce accidents along Aurora Avenue.  He said the National Safety Council reported that Washington reached its lowest accident level this year (0.8 fatalities per hundred million vehicle miles traveled).  He said Aurora Avenue accidents were likely decreasing because of education, enforcement, and now, to some extent, engineering.  He suggested that the City consider lowering the speed limit to 35 miles per hour.  He said accident maps for 2002 reveal that no two-way left turn lane accidents occurred on Aurora Avenue between N 145^th and N 150^th Street, yet the City still insists on installing raised medians.  

(i) Walt Hagen, Shoreline, asserted that the clearing taking place within 3-4 feet of McAleer Creek is not permitted by the City’s development code.  He then asked about the relationship between the funds set aside for the City’s legal obligations and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects.  He asked the City Manager to provide the name of the business organization that might assist in paying legal costs associated with CIP projects.

(j) Diana Stephens, Shoreline, thanked Councilmembers Chang and Ransom and Mr. Burkett for attending the Chamber of Commerce meeting, which she found to be very productive.  She suggested that similar meetings be conducted more frequently, and said she looks forward to more open forums between the City and business community.

(k) Gretchen Atkinson, president of the North City Business Association (NCBA), provided background on the NCBA’s efforts over the years to promote business interests and development in North City.  She outlined the extensive public process and the publicity involved in the North City project.  She said six new businesses have located to North City as a result of the redevelopment effort, and new business interest is growing.  She said it is irresponsible to say businesses were not aware of the North City project, noting that some who oppose the design are buying additional properties. She remarked that some people who signed the petition opposing the project are not even residents or business owners in Shoreline, and that at least one letter was signed to maintain peace among neighbors.  She concluded by urging the Council to approve the construction contract for the project.  

Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, responded to Council questions regarding the Critical Areas Reasonable Use Permit (CARUP) issued for the Metcalf townhomes development adjacent to McAleer Creek.  He explained that the critical areas buffer covers the entire site, but construction is proceeding according to CARUP conditions.  He said inspectors have consistently surveyed the site, and that he would report back on the most recent inspection activity. 

Mayor Hansen asked for a copy of the permit to better understand the issues involved.

6.         WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Residential Parking Zone Program

Paul Haines, Public Works Director, and Rich Meredith, City Traffic Engineer, explained the proposal to implement a residential parking zone program (RPZ) to mitigate burdens that have been imposed on Shoreline residents as a result of spillover traffic and parking adjacent to their neighborhoods by non-residents.  They explained the proposed criteria for establishing an RPZ as well as the types of permits offered, fee structure, and level of resident support required.  They recommended that an ordinance be established that would grant authority to the City to create and administer residential parking zones in Shoreline.  Under this proposal, the Public Works Director would be given authorization by administrative action to designate certain areas of the City as RPZs, consistent with the program.  Mr. Haines noted that while most comments have been very supportive of the program, permit fees and guest/temporary permits continue to be subjects of debate.  He said Shoreline Community College (SCC) recognizes the problem and is attempting to address it in its master plan process.

There was considerable Council discussion regarding the different types of permits, fees, and the amount of resident support required to establish an RPZ. 

Mayor Hansen pointed out that RPZs can often result in unintended consequences.  He noted the RPZ experience of Seattle and Edmonds and said the City should be careful in determining the size of an affected area.

Councilmember Grace felt SCC should play a primary role in addressing the issue so the problem isn’t moved from one neighborhood to another.  He said while residents should have adequate parking for family events, there should be some restriction on the number of guest passes issued.

Mr. Haines said the question of guest passes is whether they are added to the cost recovery process.

Councilmember Fimia felt the City should work with SCC and transit to create incentives rather than burdening neighborhood residents with parking fees.  She suggested that neighborhood storefront volunteers and police could be used to administer the program.   She felt that the capital and operating budgets could contribute more funding to the NTSP program.  She also suggested that people could appeal to the City Council as a final “safety valve,” and that RPZs be kept as small as possible. 

Councilmember Chang felt that SCC should be responsible for paying for permits since it created the problem.  He commented on unintended consequences and said neighborhood residents should not bear the burden of the program.

Councilmember Ransom wondered how many parking and guest/temporary permits would be issued per household.  He felt there should be a procedure for accommodating residents’ special events. He expressed concern about the voting process, emphasizing the importance of ensuring a representative sample.  He wondered if households with multiple adult residents would be fairly represented by one vote.  Finally, he said the City should urge the state legislature to provide funding for a parking garage, noting that SCC’s north lot could accommodate hundreds of vehicles.

Deputy Mayor Jepsen emphasized the importance of establishing a clear process for collecting and counting petitions.  He agreed that an RPZ should be the minimum size required to deter the problem.  He noted that an RPZ is enforced during daytime hours, so evening activities would not be effected.  He felt the process would work best if permits were tied to specific vehicles, and if there is a limitation on guest permits issued.  He felt the guest permit should be cheaper than an annual permit, and that SCC and the Shoreline School District should be directly involved in the policy.

There was general consensus that Shoreline Community College should take the lead in finding a solution since students are largely responsible for the problem.  Mr. Haines summarized Council’s comments and said he would return to Council with a modified proposal.

(b) Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program

            Progress Report and Proposed Modifications

Mr. Haines and Mr. Meredith explained the proposed modifications intended to streamline the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program (NTSP) as outlined in the staff report.  The changes respond to concerns raised about the length of time to get devices built and specific requirements for approval of devices.  Staff evaluated the program and recommends changes to clarify some points, streamline certain processes, and add more features to the toolbox to enable neighborhoods to implement traffic solutions more efficiently. 

Mr. Meredith explained the proposal to change the threshold for approval from 70 percent to 60 percent.  He said approval is based upon households rather than survey respondents, since an affected area is defined more by location than by individual respondents. 

Councilmember Fimia said the format of the actual survey form is critical, and that each household must fairly represented.  She suggested the survey could include multiple signature lines for households with more than one voting adult.  She asked about the annual costs of the program, excluding staff.  She suggested that striping all streets could reduce speeds by making the road appear narrower, and that different road surfaces could distinguish neighborhood streets from arterials.  Staff noted that channelization and striping are NTSP tools.  Councilmember Fimia stressed the need to reprioritize and focus on essential services, noting that people want safe neighborhoods.

Mayor Hansen felt that centerlines on roadways actually encourage increased speeds.  He emphasized the importance of education, engineering, and enforcement.

There were mixed feelings about whether votes should be counted based on individual residents or households. 

Councilmember Ransom felt the 60 percent approval threshold should be based on individual adult residents, since many households have multiple residents.

Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt households with multiple adult residents are likely to have more vehicles, thereby comprising a disproportionate voting block compared to neighbors with fewer vehicles.

Mr. Haines said the NTSP tries to avoid the election mentality, and that the mixed-use nature of neighborhoods can skew the voting results.  Mr. Meredith noted that Seattle uses a one-vote-per-address system.

The Council then discussed the proposed categorization of traffic calming devices, which are grouped from the least restrictive to most restrictive.  Councilmember Ransom felt the threshold for implementing chicanes and traffic circles should be a higher than other traffic devices.

Responding to Councilmember Grace, Mr. Meredith speculated that a one-way street would fall under Group 2 or Group 3.

Councilmember Fimia noted that King County uses “Local Access Only” signs, which have been successful traffic calming devices.  She recommended that staff contact the county regarding its experience with them.

Councilmembers then discussed the effectiveness and aesthetics of traffic circles.

Deputy Mayor Jepsen wondered why traffic circles were in Group 1 and chicanes were in Group 2.  He felt that if neighborhoods want traffic circles with landscaping, they should be responsible for maintaining them.  Mr. Meredith said the intent of the NTSP is to have volunteers maintain them, otherwise, decorative asphalt would be installed.

Councilmember Chang felt that two votes per household may be more appropriate since some landlords and tenants have different objectives.  He felt NTSP funds should not be used unless they are used wisely.

Councilmember Ransom suggested that the City consider installing a four-way stop at the intersection of N 183^rd Street and Stone Avenue N.  He said a fence obstructs drivers’ views and they don’t stop.  He also commented on the dangerous situation caused by the steep grade at N 167^th Street and Ashworth Avenue N. 

Mr. Meredith said the Meridian Park neighborhood recently approved traffic circles, which would hopefully be installed in August.  He commented on the safety record of traffic circles.

Referring to page 39 of the Council packet, Councilmember Grace commented that neighborhood residents should not be required to pay for removal of ineffective physical devices.  Responding to Councilmember Grace regarding page 41, Mr. Meredith said the criteria for Average Weekday Daily Traffic Counts have been changed from “device not permitted” to “device not recommended” to add more flexibility to the system.

Councilmember Fimia stressed the importance of determining the unmet need, and how much the City should invest in both capital and operating funds to match the need.

Mr. Haines felt the City should evaluate the effect of the changes first, since the previous criteria made it difficult to implement NTSP solutions.

Mayor Hansen felt the City could learn more about what is needed by evaluating existing or completed NTSP projects.

Responding to Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Meredith said decorative paving would be used for traffic circles unless a written agreement can be reached with the neighborhoods for landscape maintenance.

Mr. Haines said staff would return with proposed amendments based on Council’s discussion.

(c) Economic Development Strategic Plan

Mr. Burkett reviewed the desired goals, outcomes and strategies for updating the Economic Development Program.  The current goals of the program include:

1) Enhance the existing business environment in Shoreline

2) Improve the aesthetics of commercial areas to encourage higher quality investments

3) Provide citizens greater choices to live, work, shop and play in Shoreline

4) Foster a healthier economic base generating increased property value and additional sales revenues

The desired outcome of these goals has been to stimulate new retail sales in the City’s commercial areas by making strategic CIP investments. 

Councilmembers generally supported the goals, but there were mixed feelings about the desired outcomes. 

Councilmember Ransom felt the position of Economic Development Coordinator, for which the City has already spent over $1 million, has not been effective in achieving the desired goals over the past eight years.  He also felt the Council had not been properly informed or consulted on economic development matters.  He suggested that the position not be filled, and that a full-time project manager be hired for the North City Project, since it only has a part-time manager.  He felt economic development funding could be better spent on the City’s major capital projects.

Mayor Hansen felt the Council received economic development information whenever it requested it.  He commented on several businesses that have developed in Shoreline since the position was created, including Walgreens and Top Foods.  Councilmember Ransom did not think the position was responsible for the development of these businesses.

Mr. Burkett emphasized that private enterprise, not the City, decides whether or not to invest.  He said the City’s commitment to economic development is long-term, and that one single position will not achieve all desired goals.

Councilmember Ransom commented that other municipalities use the media and other resources to actively solicit companies to invest.

Councilmember Grace felt that not having a strategic plan would send the wrong message about Shoreline.  He agreed with the stated goals, noting that a strategic plan is critical to Shoreline’s economic success.

Councilmember Chang felt the City should be more aggressive in finding its unique identity and focusing on its strengths and advantages.  He felt this could be accomplished by engaging existing businesses in productive dialogue, especially small business owners.  He also felt the Chamber, local organizations and competent community members could contribute to the process and help take economic development to the next level.

Councilmember Fimia felt the City needs a strategic plan, but it must first determine its unmet need.  She preferred to see more measurable goals, particularly a measure of return versus investment.  She stressed the need to protect existing businesses and to consider the least costly methods first.  She thought that job growth is an important indicator and desired outcome.  She felt said that in addition to retail sales, the City should focus on promoting Shoreline as a center for education, arts and international culture.  She emphasized the need to focus on Shoreline’s resources and not to change its basic character.

Mayor Hansen agreed that service job growth would be a desired outcome, although Shoreline’s options are limited due to land constraints.

Councilmember Ransom suggested that office space be included as a desired outcome because it would help attract retail sales.  He noted that other municipalities and entities have successfully attracted business and development by increasing their office space.

Deputy Mayor Jepsen agreed with previous speakers but emphasized that communication with the business community is a “two-way street.”  He pointed out that the Chamber’s Economic Development Committee focused on using eminent domain as a “last resort,” but he felt the City already does this.  He asked for the Chamber’s support in identifying areas in which the City is “business-unfriendly” and to help get a positive message out.  He felt comfortable with the stated economic development goals.

Mr. Burkett said any discussion of economic development should include the City’s major capital projects, such as Aurora Corridor, North City, and the central subarea.  He felt the focus should also be on relieving the residential tax burden, since Shoreline is mostly a residential community with limited commercial capacity.

Councilmember Chang wondered how the City would measure the program’s success.  He pointed out that the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce is now flourishing.  He restated the need to aggressively reach out to the Chamber, school district, and community college with a clear and specific plan.

Mayor Hansen said that Chamber growth is a good sign, and that much future development depends on completion of major City projects.  He expressed optimism about the future and felt the current plan has yielded positive results.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 10:00 p.m. Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

Councilmember Grace suggested adding the phrase “in cooperation with Shoreline business organizations” to Goal #1, “Enhance the existing business environment in Shoreline.”

Mr. Burkett said staff would return with modifications to the plan based on Council input.

(d) Continued discussion of the 2005-2010

Capital Improvement Plan

Staff responded to Council questions relating to new sidewalk construction, Cromwell Park, and the North City project. 

Mayor Hansen noted that the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is more of a planning document as opposed to a program document. 

Councilmember Grace asked who determined the need for $5-6 million for new sidewalk construction.  It was noted that the figure came from the Public Works Department and the Bond Advisory Committee (BAC).  The BAC determined there was a need for new sidewalk construction near schools.  Councilmember Grace felt that needs should be carefully determined since a high percentage of students are bused in some areas. 

Mr. Burkett called attention to last week’s presentation illustrating where new sidewalks have either been built or are proposed in Shoreline.  He said the BAC identified $20 million in desired funding for sidewalks, but it felt the public would only accept a $5-6 million project.  He said the Transportation Master Plan would provide additional guidance on funding priorities for sidewalks.

Councilmember Fimia said while the economic development plan tries to reduce the burden on residents, the CIP seems to spend money on non-essential projects.  She felt voters should not be asked to pay for essential items like sidewalks in a bond issue.  She stressed the need to reprioritize the CIP and devote more funding to essential functions like sidewalks and street maintenance. 

Councilmember Ransom asked if there are grants that specifically address sidewalk construction.

Mr. Haines said the department’s policy is to pursue any and all grants associated with sidewalk construction.  He noted that CIP projects include pedestrian facilities, mostly on arterials, but there is little funding for sidewalks in neighborhoods.

Councilmember Fimia said only two arterials would be covered with sidewalks while other arterials suffer.  She said the issue of sidewalk construction is a matter of degree and prioritization. She said she would prepare some CIP amendments for Council consideration.

Responding to Councilmember Grace, Councilmember Ransom explained his suggestion to postpone the Cromwell Park improvements until the Council makes a final decision on City Hall in order to keep all options open.  He also suggested that a full-time project manager be assigned to the North City project.

Mr. Burkett noted that funding for project management is included in all capital projects.  He pointed out that staff is formulating options for the North City project since the low bid was substantially higher than the CIP budget.

7.         CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, asked the Council to reinstate the full amount ($700,000) that was identified as the need for roads maintenance.  She felt the City should adhere to the Chamber’s suggestion to use eminent domain as a last resort.  She concluded by asking how many court actions the City has filed against business and property owners.

(b) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, felt that the NTSP serves to pit neighborhoods against each other.  He said his neighborhood is experiencing the same controversies that the Richmond Highlands neighborhood has in terms of traffic solutions.  He said nobody contacted him about the proposed traffic circles in the Meridian Park neighborhood.  He also wondered why Stone Avenue N did not originally include a four-way stop.  He said parts of neighborhoods are being ignored, and the City should reconsider what constitutes a neighborhood.  He suggested that neighborhoods could be reduced to smaller units.

Councilmember Fimia noted that City Clerk Sharon Mattioli received her certification as a Master Municipal Clerk.  She suggested that the Council formally recognize her achievement at a future meeting.

Deputy Mayor Jepsen disagreed with Ms. Ryu’s comment regarding eminent domain.  He felt the City already exercises eminent domain as a last resort.

8.         ADJOURNMENT

At 10:27 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.

_________________________

Scott Passey, Assistant to the City Clerk