CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
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
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll
call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
(b) Proclamation of Girls Basketball Week
Mayor Hansen presented the proclamation to the King’s
High School Lady Knights basketball team, who won the Class 2A state
championship on March 12. Coach Eric
Rasmussen accepted the proclamation on behalf of the team and presented the
Mayor with an autographed picture of Shoreline’s state champs.
(a) Shoreline Star—Scott Keeny
Mayor Hansen presented the fourth Shoreline Star to
Scott Keeny and outlined his many accomplishments and contributions to
Shoreline through his involvement with the Fire District, the Richmond Beach
Community Council, the Shoreline/Lake Forest Park Arts Council, the
3. CITY
MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager
5. PUBLIC
COMMENT
(a) Bronston
Kenney, Shoreline, said there has been no substantive discussion on cottage
housing since the City passed since the cottage housing moratorium nine months
ago. He asserted that City staff has
been developing positions and arguments without citizen input in an attempt to
control the debate. He said the two
fundamental questions are: 1) Why is cottage
housing being pursued over the fundamental objections of the residents?; and 2) Who is forcing cottage housing forward against the
will of citizens, and what is the motivation?
He said the only possible explanations are that staff believes its
visions are superior to the desires of constituents, or that developers have
untoward influence at City Hall. He
noted that the Council rejected the opportunity to solve the problem by
limiting cottage housing to areas of medium and high density zoning, as proposed
by Councilmember Ransom. He said many
citizens look to the next election as the only remaining avenue to stop this
blight on neighborhoods.
(b)
(c) Virginia Paulsen, Shoreline, related
several quotes from Ole Hansen, a pioneer real estate developer in
(d) David Kettles, Shoreline, said his
mother contacted the City upon hearing about the proposal to redevelop the
(e) Brian Derdowski,
(f) Patty Crawford, Shoreline, asked for the
results of the soil boring tests on the Twyman/gateway
property. She asserted that the definition for
reasonable use was illegally put into the Development Code by staff, and that
there must be public input on the cottage housing debate. She read portions of a memo from Planning
Director
(g) Tim Crawford, Shoreline, said Superior
Court Judge Erlick ruled that if nothing changed on
the north site of the Aegis project, the “north building would be torn down and
pulled out of the buffer.” He cited
another case in which a building had been torn down because it violated
development requirements. He said the
deadline for written public comments on the Aegis north site is May 9. He said the Department of Transportation and
Washington State Fish and Wildlife recognize the creek as a salmon-bearing
stream, but the City improperly classified it as a “ditch.” He noted that “Up Thornton Creek,” a video
that chronicles his family’s efforts to protect the stream, will be shown at
the Highland Ice Arena on May 3.
(h) Peter Henry, Shoreline, encouraged the
City to incorporate “green” building practices in Shoreline projects. He quoted a Seattle P.I. article which
describes
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Gustafson moved to approve the
agenda. Councilmember Grace seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously, and the agenda was
approved.
Minutes
of Workshop Meeting of
Minutes
of Regular Meeting of
Approval
of expenses and payroll as of
in the amount of $1,809,359.33
(a) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, commented on the issues and challenges
associated with building sidewalks on
Councilmember Grace suggested
talking about sidewalk construction around schools with the
Mr. Haines clarified that
staff included safety as a criteria in developing the priorities. He said this issue would be discussed in more
detail as part of the Transportation Master Plan deliberations.
Mr. Haines pointed out that many
neighborhoods in other jurisdictions pay for their own sidewalks through
assessments such as local improvement districts (LIDs). He
discussed the funding options for Shoreline and recommended that the City fund
what it can afford and then try to leverage the rest with grants. He noted that most grants are not very substantial
unless they are linked to a major road construction project.
Councilmember Gustafson
mentioned the “in-lieu of” program, which to-date has accumulated about
$50,000. He expressed interest in the
looking at the alternatives to building traditional concrete sidewalks.
Councilmember Ransom
recommended that private schools also be included in the consideration of
sidewalk placement. He pointed out that
the
Mr. Haines noted that the
walking routes for the Kings school are used less because a large percentage of
students arrive by car, although all areas should have safe pedestrian
facilities. Mayor Hansen added that Kings
has very aggressive traffic patrol and monitoring program.
Councilmember Ransom
expressed interest in finding ways to reduce costs as well as shorten the time
frame for building pedestrian facilities from 20 years to 12 years. He noted that $2 million would not do much to
address the problem, considering that the Bond Advisory Committee identified
$5.5 million as the amount needed just for sidewalks for public elementary
schools.
Mr. Burkett clarified that
the City has not identified $2 million in its current budget for sidewalks. This figure was simply illustrative. He felt that since sidewalks are expensive
and grant funding is insufficient, a reasonable alternative is to ask for help
from residents.
Councilmember Chang agreed
with the approach to partner with the
Mayor Hansen brought up his
suggestion from several months ago to adopt a plan similar to
Councilmember Fimia felt that
talking about “safe walkways” rather than “sidewalks” provides the Council a
whole range of opportunities to address the need. She pointed out that in some neighborhoods
the solution might be reduced vehicle speeds, while in others it might be
sidewalks, pathways, or extended curbs.
She said sidewalks are “one of the most important things a City can do
for its citizens,” because they provide safety and foster a sense of community. She noted that the current 10 million trips
per day in four counties are expected to increase to 16 million trips by
2030. She said sidewalks encourage more
pedestrian trips, which equates to fewer trips by car. She suggested that the Existing Pedestrian
Facilities map should only reflect existing conditions, not those that are
anticipated in the six-year CIP. She
felt the map should also not include widened shoulders because they are not
considered a safe pedestrian facility. She
asked if the City’s gas tax revenue could be allocated for sidewalks.
Mr. Haines said the map was
intended as a planning and inventory tool, so all current or future facilities
were included.
Mr. Burkett confirmed the gas
tax revenue could be used for sidewalks, although there is not currently enough
gas tax revenue to cover the City’s street maintenance needs. The City is also using General Fund money to
supplement the street maintenance budget.
Councilmember Ransom wondered
if the recently adopted gas tax increase would fill the gap in the road
maintenance fund. Mr. Burkett said it is
likely that cities will receive some funding, but it might only bring the
street fund up to the level it was at three years ago.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen concluded
that it is difficult to gain consensus about priorities, noting that the
program will have to be “fleshed out” in cooperation with the public. While the map indicates that sidewalks on
(b)
Continued
deliberations on the 2004 Update of the Comprehensive Plan and master plans
Council continued its
discussion of the policies on the “blue list” of Repeated Discussion Items.
#265 (T23)—Councilmember Fimia moved to reconsider and
retain the existing language.
Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion. Councilmember
Fimia urged the Council to support the existing language, which requires large
commercial or residential projects to include transit stop improvements. She felt without this policy the Development
Code has no basis. A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7 – 0.
#268 (Td)—Councilmember
Fimia pointed out that she thought other policies could incorporate similar
wording: “Provide adequate, predictable and dedicated funding . . .”
#291 (TV)—Councilmember Fimia moved to reconsider and
retain the existing language.
Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion. Councilmember
Fimia felt the existing language should remain because it retains the policy of
protecting the livability and safety of existing neighborhoods from the adverse
impacts of the automobile. Councilmember
Gustafson felt the language recommended by the Planning Commission was more
precise. A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 4 -3, with Mayor Hansen,
Deputy Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
#311 (T53)—Councilmember Fimia moved to reconsider and
retain the existing language.
Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion. Councilmember
Fimia said this policy is necessary in order to establish authority to regulate
truck traffic through residential areas at night. Mr. Stewart noted that the Comprehensive Plan
contains companion policies that address issues relating to cut-through traffic
and freight mobility. Councilmember
Fimia pointed out that policy T53 focuses specifically on truck traffic in
neighborhoods. Councilmembers Grace and
Ransom concurred. A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7 – 0.
Upon completion of the
Comprehensive Plan policies, the Council asked staff to begin its presentation
on the master plans.
Mr. Stewart introduced this
item, explaining that the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan
is mandated by the Growth Management Act and is balanced by three factors: 1) rate of growth (land use); 2) level of
service (LOS); and 3) capital facilities.
He requested Council’s direction
on funding sources, projects, and priorities identified by staff.
Mr. Haines provided an
overview of the Storm and Surface Water Master Plan, noting the services
provided by the utility fall into three program areas: flood protection, water quality and stream
habitat. He then described the three
priority levels for each program. He
said the current Comprehensive Plan policy ENh is
consistent with the current Water Resource Inventory Area 8 (WRIA-8) plan, and
priority level 2 would surpass the WRIA-8 standard. He reviewed the public involvement process and
financial strategy in the development of the master plans and the Planning Commission’s
recommended priorities for the Storm and Surface Water Master Plan:
He noted that surface water
management fees in Shoreline are comparable to other jurisdictions, and a
reasonable rates increase would allow the City to generate enough revenue to
fund the identified priorities. He
concluded by outlining the CIP implementation schedule through 2024 and the
assumptions for the recommended funding strategy.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
Councilmember Fimia asked for
a breakdown of the funds that are allocated to Operations and Maintenance
(O&M), Repair and Replacement (R&R), and Capital. Mr. Haines said about 45% of the generated
revenue goes to Capital (either cash or debt service), about 50% goes to
O&M, and about 5% goes to R&R. He
explained that the $27.2 million in projected revenues over the 20-year time
period would fund Priorities 1 & 2 for each area, and Priority 3 for
O&M. Funding all three priorities
would cost an additional $12 million over the 20-year time frame.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Mr. Haines said that debt service makes up approximately 20% of the 45% that
is allocated to Capital. He emphasized
the need for a plan that is feasible yet cost constrained. Councilmember Fimia suggested ways to improve
the format of the matrix to make the revenues and expenditures more detailed
and easier to understand. She noted that
grant funding is not assumed in the revenue projections.
The Council then discussed
what the preferred policy might be with respect to per-parcel rate increases, debt
(bonding), cash flows, and revenue projections.
Mr. Burkett noted that staff
prefers the proposed schedule primarily for the flexibility it provides. He said staff could provide many different
schedules and manipulate the figures as a part of the City’s financial plans,
but felt it should not be part of adopting the Comprehensive Plan.
Art Griffith, Financial
Consultant from R.W. Beck, said all the details and strategies about rates and
debt will be brought back to Council through an administrative/legislative
process. He emphasized that the plan
looks at what the City needs to have in revenue streams in order to support a
capital facilities plan.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
10. ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________