CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 6, 2004 Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, Grace, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: none
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 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.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS
Steve Burkett, City Manager, reported on the partnership of the City’s Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department with other local agencies to provide Thanksgiving dinner to 15 families in transition. He urged everyone to attend the visit of the Christmas ship on December 14. He commended Eagle Scout Bryan Jenson for his work in the Parkwood Neighborhood Park and concluded by noting that the next recycling event will be held in January at Hamlin Park.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
King County Councilmember Carolyn Edmonds reported on the 2005 King County budget of $3.4 billion. She described how the $539 million in General Fund revenues are allocated and emphasized that there continues to be a budget shortfall because revenues are growing more slowly than expenditures. She outlined strategies aimed at reducing this budget gap, which include reductions/cost savings to criminal justice and other programs. Despite these reductions, King County projects to cut $11 million annually over the next two budget cycles. She also reported on human service allocations for her district and proposed capital projects. She pointed out that the majority of revenues generated from the property tax are the result of voter-approved levies. On another topic, she described the redistricting process that will reduce the number of County Council districts from thirteen to nine. She said there will be a public hearing in Shoreline on January 5 to review the proposed new district maps. All nine Council seats will be open for election in November 2005. She said this would be a very significant change in government, noting that each district would grow from about 135,000 people to 200,000.
Councilmember Grace wondered if there was a percentage increase in human services funding for 2005. Councilmember Edmonds said she could provide precise figures, however, she estimated the funding was maintained at the 2004 level.
Councilmember Ransom commented that many people are not aware of the major County expenditures for public works and Metro transit. He also found it interesting that Shoreline homeowners pay on average about $350 in property taxes, whereas the average tax bill in Lake Forest Park, Bothell, and Kenmore ranges from $500-530.
Councilmember Edmonds said Shoreline’s property tax would need to be added to the fire district levy in order to accurately compare it with Bothell’s. She felt that property valuations or other factors might explain the differences among the cities.
Mayor Hansen thanked Councilmember Edmonds for her report.
Moving on, Councilmember Ransom reported on his activities at the National League of Cities Conference in Indianapolis. He participated on the Planning and Advocacy Committee and on the Human Services Steering Committee. He commented favorably on the City of Reno’s “one-stop” building permit process. He noted that he received the NLC leadership training silver award for continuing education.
Councilmember Gustafson described the NLC workshops as a valuable opportunity to meet and interact with other city officials. He was impressed with Indianapolis’ vision of becoming the amateur sports capital of the United States, and felt that Shoreline could adopt a similar “theme” approach.
Mayor Hansen pointed out that NLC conferences provide valuable opportunities for networking and sharing solutions to the problems cities face. He commented on Indianapolis’ success in integrating government, business, and entertainment in a relatively small, pedestrian-friendly core.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen reported that the NLC Community and Economic Development Steering Committee discussed the status of economic development and housing programs throughout the nation. He emphasized the importance of maintaining adequate federal funding of human service programs. He felt cities should be more persuasive in communicating the benefits of these programs to Congress. He also commented on the tree-lighting event in North City and on the Richmond Beach Christmas tree.
Councilmember Ransom commented favorably on a public works program called “zipper asphalt paving,” a fast and cost-effective method of paving roads. Responding to Councilmember Gustafson’s comment, he felt education or culture, along with parks, could become a major theme for Shoreline.
On another topic, Mayor Hansen read the following into the record: “As Councilmembers, we are elected to represent the interests of the entire community. Part of this job is to carefully guard the spending of City funds and to protect our assets. The City should be particularly proud that it has already adopted its 2005 budget. Like most households, the City also needs insurance to protect us against lawsuits and unanticipated losses. We get this insurance by participating in the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (a risk pool that insures our City on issues such as vehicle/pedestrian accidents, surface water claims and certain land-use cases). We expect to be working actively with WCIA regarding the City of Shoreline’s risk pool status. I have begun by asking for an overview of the favorable audits of the City by WCIA for the period 2002 – 2004. I have asked the City Attorney to assign special legal counsel to assist in the City’s efforts, including review of the City’s communications with WCIA. Foster Pepper, including respected counsel Hugh Spitzer and Steve DiJulio, have been assigned to the project by Mr. Sievers. The Council should expect to address these issues in future executive sessions in the near term.”
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Bob Barta, Shoreline, commented on the need for more time to study the draft Transportation Master Plan, noting that this document will guide transportation in Shoreline for the next 20 years. He expressed concern about the proposed transportation policy to reduce four-lane arterial streets to three-lane roads. He felt people should be provided more time to consider these proposals and prepare appropriate responses.
Mayor Hansen noted there would be public hearings on these plans in the coming weeks.
(b) Bronston Kenney, Shoreline, noted that he has not received any information on the status of the cottage housing issue. He feared the cottage housing moratorium would expire without any improvements to the policy. He said his main concern is the desire of developers who want to build high-density cottages in lower-density neighborhoods. He felt the quality of cottage housing should at least meet or exceed the surrounding neighborhood. He noted that most of the cottage housing has been built on the west side of Aurora Avenue, with the exception of one development. He requested that Council establish goals on the location, zoning, and distribution of cottage housing in Shoreline.
(c) Steve Dunn, Shoreline YMCA Board Chair, spoke about the potential opportunity to create a partnership with the City to help more children, families, and seniors. He said there is a community need for a place for people to gather, noting that the YMCA has been searching for a place to locate for the past seven years.
(d) Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, expressed concern that Shoreline taxpayers have not been included in the property acquisition issue to be discussed later tonight. She commented on the policy of allocating Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues towards the debt service payments for City Hall. She felt REET funds should not be diverted from parks projects to City Hall. She questioned whether the Council is appropriately representing the public, noting that the citizen survey did not rate the City Hall project as a high priority. She urged the Council to follow the Capital Improvement Plan policy of long-range plans developed through extensive citizen involvement.
(e) Mark Deutsch, Shoreline, said he was surprised by the unanticipated proposals on gambling, human services, and sidewalks during last week’s budget discussion. He felt that given the City’s limited revenues and identified capital needs, the Council should not be “playing around with the numbers.” He said the Council seems to be shifting away from being a deliberative body that relies on City staff. He recommended that the Council discuss its role and how it wants to work with City staff at its next retreat.
Mr. Burkett said staff plans to present a recommendation to extend the cottage housing moratorium for another six months. This would include a public involvement process to identify proposed improvements/changes in the cottage housing ordinance.
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Comprehensive Plan Update and discussion of master plans
Planning Commissioners David Harris, Chakorn Phisuthikul, Robin McClelland, Rocky Piro, and Bill MacCully were invited to join the Council for this discussion.
Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, and Dick Deal, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, provided an overview of the Comprehensive Plan and development of the master plans. Mr. Stewart described the effort that the Planning Commission devoted to the review of the draft plans and the extensive public input received. Citizens, interest groups, and regulatory agencies submitted 566 formal comments through oral testimony, letters, and e-mail. All of them were catalogued and incorporated into a matrix that shows how the numerous policies have been amended throughout the process.
Mr. Stewart concluded by outlining the schedule for future public hearings and Council review of the draft plans. He recommended that next week’s public hearing be left open until January 10 so that the Council can be in a better position to determine whether additional public input is needed before Council deliberates the plans.
Dick Deal, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, provided an overview of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Pplan and thanked all those involved in its formulation. He noted that although this plan is a revision of the previous one, it is a good working document that will continue the growth experienced under the current plan. The plan has been reformatted to make it easier to read, and now includes “level of service” standards and information on recreation services.
Planning Commissioners Robin McClelland and Chakorn Phisuthikul explained the process for the review of the land use portion of the Comprehensive Plan. They said no major changes are proposed, although some policies have been consolidated or eliminated and the environmental element has been strengthened by the inclusion of “green policies.” Commissioner McClelland noted that no zoning or land-use designation changes were necessary since these were reconciled in 2001.
Mr. Phisuthikul stated that the Commission recommends adoption of the Central Subarea Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. He explained the need to identify and guide development that will ultimately promote incremental redevelopment of all private properties along Aurora Avenue to achieve a more attractive pedestrian and transit friendly Central Shoreline. Mr. Stewart added that the Central Subarea Plan is attached as part of the plan and recommended for approval.
Continuing, Commissioners Bill MacCully and Rocky Piro described the development of the Transportation Master plan, which emphasizes making Shoreline a more “walkable” community with more multi-modal transportation alternatives. They said financial constraints and growth (both within the community as well as in surrounding communities) were two major considerations in developing the plan. The proposed plan makes changes to the street classification system and proposes a new measurement for level of service.
Commissioner Piro summarized that the City is generally in good shape with its current goals and objectives, so only minor modifications have been proposed. He felt the City should primarily balance the vehicle-oriented concept with a multi-modal approach that reflects an emphasis on safety and pedestrian-friendly design. He said the idea is to implement a system of “moving people rather than vehicles.”
Planning Commission Chair David Harris talked about the Surface Water Master Plan, noting the inadequacy of the infrastructure in this area. Jesus Sanchez, Public Works Operations Manager, described the development of the priority matrix for surface water projects. It reflects community priorities, regulatory mandates, and cost constraints. He outlined the threefold emphasis on flood protection, water quality, and habitat restoration.
Finally, Mr. Deal described the approach taken for the development of the proposed Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, which was largely driven by community priorities as reflected in the 2003 citizen survey. Citizens rated neighborhood parks, trails, natural areas, and community parks as the highest priorities for the future. The plan includes the criteria developed by stakeholders to prioritize identified parks projects.
All Commissioners thanked staff for the work done and the public for its participation in this project. It was noted that the plans were recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Hansen called for public comment.
(a) Virginia Paulsen, Shoreline, urged the Council to delay the public hearing, noting that in order to do full justice to the complex plans, citizens need more time to study them. She inquired about the relative priority of Parks and Recreation to Transportation, Surface Water, Economic Development, and the proposed City Hall. She felt some costs were too high and that some priorities were not clearly established. She said there are not enough funds to cover the $47 million in projects identified in the Capital Improvement Plan, and wondered about how future Parks programs would be funded. She felt the plans should be postponed until full consideration is given to how the City can afford them.
(b) Dennis Lee, Shoreline, urged the Council to delay the public hearing phase and consider implementing criteria-based “interim development controls.” He said the Council should consider “neighborhood subarea plans” as were anticipated in the current Comprehensive Plan, instead of concentrating on business plans such as North City and Aurora Avenue. He feared that the framework goals regarding neighborhood character preservation would be a “sham” for neighborhoods such as Briarcrest. He said neighborhood subarea plans would allow those affected to be involved in the development of their own neighborhoods.
(c) Janet Way, Shoreline, requested a delay of the public hearing on behalf of the Sno-King Environmental Council, the Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund, and the Paramount Park Neighborhood Group. She said people do not have adequate time to study the plans due to the busy holiday season. She said since the fundamental goal of the plans is to encourage and facilitate public participation in all planning processes, the Council should postpone the hearings until after Christmas.
(d) Leta Blackwell, Shoreline, felt it was unreasonable to expect the public to absorb all the information contained in the plans before the holiday season. She requested a delay of the public hearing to provide adequate time for this.
(e) Vickie Westburg, Shoreline, concurred with the previous speaker’s comments. She suggested that the Council schedule the next public hearing on January 10, 2005 and then the third hearing sometime later.
(f) George Mauer, Shoreline, complimented the Council, staff and the Planning Commission for absorbing so much information from various interests in the community. He then expressed concern about the accuracy of population forecasts and demographic information in the plans, noting that the Comprehensive Plan differs markedly from the City’s budget on both population and per capita income projections. He pointed out that the State’s Office of Financial Management estimated the City’s population in 2004 to be 52,740, but the City estimates its 2005 population will be 59,411, a 12% difference. He said if the state’s figures are correct, it would mean Shoreline’s population is decreasing, not increasing. He urged the Council to review the statistics in order to have the most accurate projections on costs and taxes. He also urged the Council to ensure that the public is given an equity position at a competitive rate of return in any public-private partnership to which the City is a party.
Mayor Hansen pointed out that public hearings are scheduled for December 13 and January 10, so next week is not the last opportunity to comment on the plans.
Councilmember Fimia noted that Shoreline’s population figures are largely based on statistics provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council. She then suggested an adoption process that would address the Comprehensive Plan update first and then adoption of the master plans to ensure that any changes to the Comprehensive Plan would be accurately reflected in the master plans. She felt this would give the public more time to review the plans and allow the City to stay within its adoption timeline as required by the State.
Mr. Stewart responded that the Comprehensive Plan must contain a Capital Facilities element, which is derived from the master plans. He did not support the proposal to adopt the Comprehensive Plan with the current Capital Facilities element and then amending it later. He noted that he thought the State would not object to taking more time to allow for an adequate public process.
Mayor Hansen commented that the other northend cities plan to adopt their Comprehensive Plans by February.
Ms. McClelland recommended that citizens who are interested in an expedited review get a copy of the matrix, which includes all proposed changes in an easy-to-read format.
Councilmember Grace wondered if the hearings should be structured in a way to give people opportunity to focus on certain plans.
Mr. Stewart said regardless of how the Council structures the hearings, anyone can submit comments at any time. Staff will continue to catalogue all comments and update the matrix until the close of the hearing.
Councilmember Fimia noted that despite all the work done to date, it is still up to the Council to make the final decision. She noted that the King County Council used a legislative mark-up format to indicate proposed changes to its Comprehensive Plan, which made it easy for the public to review. She suggested that the information be reformatted to include only the proposed changes, organized as technical changes and substantial changes. She felt this would make it easier for the public to review.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen noted that only the policies recommended for change are in legislative format, so it should be relatively easy to find them in the matrix.
Mr. Stewart felt it would have been impossible to determine the various sources of the proposed changes in a strict legislative format, so staff provided more detail in the matrix.
Councilmember Grace said the matrix was the best organization of a document he has ever seen. He felt it would serve as a valuable guide for members of the public who wish to conduct a detailed review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Gustafson concurred. He asked if the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the plans. Commissioner Harris said it ultimately became a unanimous recommendation after much debate on a number of issues.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said he might be interested in extending the public hearing schedule, but he would like to wait until after the first hearing is held next week to decide. He pointed out that this is not the start of the review process, since the Planning Commission has been working on it for 18 months.
Councilmember Fimia moved to schedule adoption of the Comprehensive Plan for January 18, 2005, followed by adoption of the Transportation Master Plan on January 24 and the other two plans on January 31. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which failed 3-4, with Councilmembers Chang, Fimia and Ransom voting in the affirmative.
RECESS
At 9:00 p.m. Mayor Hansen declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m.
(b) City Council Staff Support
Mayor Hansen announced that Councilmember Ransom had agreed to defer this item to next week’s dinner meeting and regular session for action.
7. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Executive Session
At 9:06 p.m. Mayor Hansen announced that the Council would recess into Executive Session for thirty minutes to discuss property acquisition. At 9:36 p.m. the City Clerk announced on behalf of the Mayor that the executive session would continue for another thirty minutes and that the meeting had been extended until 10:30 p.m. At 10:15 p.m. the City Clerk announced that the executive session would continue for another ten minutes. At 10:20 p.m. the executive session concluded and the regular session reconvened.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:21 p.m. Councilmember Gustafson moved to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
(b) Purchase and sale agreement for acquisition of property
Mr. Burkett provided some background on the Council’s goal of acquiring property for the construction of a City Hall. He noted that last year the search had been narrowed down to one site, Echo Lake. He described the property and noted that the proposal includes acquisition of parkland along Echo Lake and a partnership with the YMCA for use of the site. This acquisition cost would be $4,693,840, which is a portion of total estimated $21.2 million for City Hall. He concluded that he has signed an option agreement for the property which will expire on December 16. There is a 90-day window during which time a feasibility study will be conducted and another decision point will occur. A 240-day period will then follow, during which time the appropriate land use approvals must be obtained.
Mayor Hansen called for public comment.
(a) Virginia Paulsen, Shoreline, felt it was poor planning to have so many difficult agenda items scheduled in one meeting. She said she was appalled that the Council would take action on items 7(a) and (b) without adequate information disseminated to the public. She opposed the purchase of property for City Hall because the City cannot even afford to pay for the essential items identified in the various planning documents. She said the availability of the property at Echo Lake is the result of evicting senior residents from their mobile homes and forcing them to find a new place to live. She said any reimbursements made to these residents fall short of fair compensation, given the limited amount of space available for mobile parks in this area.
(b) Janet Way, Shoreline, concurred with the previous speaker, noting that Shoreline residents have not been asking for a new City Hall. She pointed out that neighborhood parks have been identified as a higher priority, and that many people are appalled by the City Hall proposal. She noted that Lake Forest Park waited 20-30 years to build a city hall, and that Shoreline should not be so envious of other cities that have city hall buildings.
(c) Pearl Noreen, Shoreline, member of the Shoreline YMCA Board, supported the City’s purchase of the Echo Lake property, as well as a partnership with the North County YMCA. She asked the Council to be visionary and promote these kinds of valuable collaborations that benefit the entire community. She invited the Council to visit the Northshore YMCA.
(d) Matthew Fairfax, Shoreline, member of the YMCA Board and Center for Human Services Board, supported the City Hall property acquisition. He felt the property could be developed as a partnership that would bring the entire community together. He said many people do want a City Hall as a focal point for the City to come together.
(e) Harley O’Neil, Shoreline, noted that he and eight others purchased the Echo Lake site with the intent to sell it to the City in order to preserve 245 feet of lakefront property for community use. He said that the property would likely be developed into apartments or condominiums with no public lakefront access if sold to a private developer. He mentioned the foresight required to dedicate the Greenlake property to the City of Seattle to preserve it for public use. He felt the Echo Lake site would be a good opportunity for a public-private partnership between the City and the YMCA. He also felt the public would support the City Hall project if people realize the great public benefit this site would provide.
Mayor Hansen noted that passage of this motion is not contingent on that partnership proposal.
Councilmember Chang moved to postpone the motion for one week. Councilmem-ber Fimia seconded the motion.
Councilmember Chang commented on the cost of the project and felt the public should at least have the opportunity to comment on it. He felt it would be advisable to get a broad perspective from the City’s taxpayers before the City considers investing over $21 million for a City Hall.
Mr. Burkett confirmed for Councilmember Ransom that a one week delay will not adversely impact the project, but he saw no advantage for the delay.
Councilmember Fimia felt that the public has not had any knowledge about this process and to keep faith with them, an opportunity for comment should be provided before any action is taken.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen noted that during the 90-day due diligence period the escrow money can be fully refunded, so the City has an exit strategy if it decides not to proceed. He felt it was inaccurate to say the City is spending $4.6 million by approving the purchase agreement.
Councilmember Grace was anxious to get the 90-day period started to learn more about the site. He viewed the 90-day period as a continuous opportunity for public comment while concurrently conducting a feasibility study.
Councilmember Chang pointed out that the City would be spending several hundred thousand dollars during the due diligence process, and the public should have an opportunity to comment since this is the first time it has heard about this potential acquisition.
Councilmember Ransom supported the motion since it would give the public one more opportunity to comment and postponing would not adversely impact the project.
A vote was taken on the motion to postpone, which failed 3 – 4, with Councilmembers Chang, Fimia and Ransom voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gustafson said it makes economic sense to build a City Hall rather than continue to lease. He said although the City Hall project is not a high priority from a citizen perspective, it will end up saving taxpayer money in the long run, particularly given the low interest rates and bidding climate. He felt the Council has an obligation to have a long-term vision as a trustee of the City.
Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Burkett said this issue is basically the same rent-versus-own decision that homeowners have had to make. He felt it would be financially irresponsible to continue to rent because renting has higher long-term costs. He clarified that although the City owes $4 million in low-interest trust fund loans, the City has no general obligation debt.
Councilmember Grace considered this a rare opportunity to acquire lakeside property as well as participate in a community partnership. He said purchasing the property would be a good economic decision, especially since the property abuts the Interurban Trail and offers a unique opportunity for retail, housing, and park development. He pointed out that a development agreement with the YMCA would constitute a significant public-private partnership. He supported the proposal because there are few such property acquisition options in Shoreline. He said this would be a good step forward for the City and that he looks forward to the 90-day feasibility study.
Councilmember Ransom concurred, noting that the City has been looking at sites for nine years, and many of the original 20 sites have gone off the market during that time. He said while it is not possible for the City to purchase the entire 8.6 acres to develop as a park, the site has excellent potential. He felt it would be a great public benefit to preserve a portion of Echo Lake as a community park, noting that it would fulfill his vision of having a “Greenlake North” in Shoreline. He described other potential features of the property, including a pavilion and a future boardwalk surrounding the lake. He also noted the parking benefits of having a Park-n-Ride in close proximity to the site. He felt the City should move forward with the due diligence process to determine if the site is suitable.
Councilmember Fimia agreed that a city hall/civic area is one of the best ways to develop a “sense of place,” but she felt this site is not centrally located. She referred to the original vision in the Comprehensive Plan to have a civic center on Aurora Avenue between 175th and 185th Streets. She also felt that the $21 million estimate for the project was not realistic. She urged the Council to reconsider the project if the feasibility study indicates significant cost increases. She also commented that the City did not do enough to help the 100 low income families who are being displaced from this site.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting until 11:15 p.m. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Continuing, Councilmember Fimia commented on the other demands (sidewalks, surface water improvements, traffic, etc.) on the City’s revenue. She felt there is not enough room for expansion to make the Echo Lake site a true civic center. She said there are still other sites more centrally located that Council could consider for a city hall.
Mayor Hansen emphasized the long-term cost savings that would occur by owning as opposed to renting. He said although this was not his first choice for a city hall site, he felt it is important to move forward because of the scarcity of available sites. He noted that another decision point will occur in 90 days.
Councilmember Chang feared that a $21 million building would not be enough to accommodate Shoreline’s needs for the next 20-30 years.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen noted there will be public process for design if the City moves forward with this site. At that time, the adequacy of the building can be determined. He said he will make a different decision if the price escalates too high. He said he expects to have a design that meets the City’s needs as well as pocketbook.
Councilmember Fimia noted that the City Hall project in the current CIP is over budget by $1.4 million. She pointed out that the City of Lake Forest Park had to relocate its city hall because it was not centrally located. She said it makes more sense to locate a city hall where there is room to grow and congregate. She reiterated that the proposed site does not create a sense of place.
Councilmember Ransom concurred there are concerns about costs and the size of the site, but he felt these could be addressed during the due diligence period. He said if it is projected to cost much more than what is currently budgeted, the City would probably not build it.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 5 – 2, with Councilmembers Chang and Fimia dissenting, and the City Manager was authorized to exercise the option to purchase the Echo Lake property as provided for in Section 1.6 of the Option Agreement and Purchase and Sale Agreement.
8. ADJOURNMENT
At 11:10 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk