CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, Grace,
Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: Mayor Hansen
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon
roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exception
of Mayor Hansen.
Upon motion by Councilmember
Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember Chang and unanimously carried, Mayor
Hansen was excused.
(a) Shoreline
Star – Charlotte Haines
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen presented the fifth Shoreline Star to Charlotte Haines and
recognized her many contributions to Shoreline through her involvement with the
North City Neighborhood Association, Council of Neighborhoods, Shoreline Water
District Board, Celebrate Shoreline, and the relocation of the parade from
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Councilmember Fimia
distributed three documents relating to the proposal to reduce
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Janet
Way, Shoreline, reported on the South Woods Preservation Group’s (SWPG) effort
to preserve the property currently owned by the Shoreline Water District and
(b) Dale
Wright, Shoreline, said clarified the purpose and goals of “Progress Shoreline.” He said it is a diverse, non-partisan group
of citizens who are concerned about the long-term effects the upcoming City
Council election may have on the future of the Shoreline. He commented on Shoreline’s significant
progress over the past 10 years and emphasized the need for Councilmembers that
strive to accomplish the hopes and aspirations of Shoreline citizens. He said Progress Shoreline will actively
support candidates who are committed to achieving the citizens’ vision for the
City, not those who are beholden to special interests. He said Progress Shoreline will endeavor to
present the facts and will not participate in slander, negativity, or misinformation.
(c)
Alan Sharrah, Director of Operations for Frank Lumber
the Door Store, commented that the three-lane configuration on
(d)
Vicki Westberg, Shoreline, speaking on behalf
of SWPG, expressed support for the City’s grant application to the King County
Conservation Futures Trust Fund for the South Woods property. She urged the City to read the portfolio she
provided, which supports preservation of this urban forest.
(e)
LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, said that SWPG is dedicated to preserving the
entire South Woods property, and that any kind of development there will “destroy
the forest.” She noted that the Cascade
Land Conservancy assisted in finding out the asking price and the timetable for
the sale of the property. She said the
Shoreline Water District (SWD) will put its portion on the market to private
developers by the end of May if no public party has expressed an interest. The intent of the SWD is to sell the property
at full market value, and if necessary, divide the property and sell its half
for development. She said the City
Manager has indicated there is no will on part of Council to preserve the
entire portion of the property using City funds and the City’s goal is to have
the property developed privately.
(f)
Richard Tinsley, Shoreline, concurred with previous speakers in support
of preserving the entire area of the South Woods property. He said the City would lose an environmental
asset forever if the property is developed into apartments or
condominiums. He said one of the school
district’s goals was to use the property as an environmental education
site. On another topic, he said Superior
Court voided the building permit for the north Aegis building in June 2003, but
Aegis has continued to develop the site against the judge’s warnings. He felt the City has handled the Aegis
development in an arbitrary and capricious manner, noting that the City has not
acted on the judge’s 2003 remand order.
He said the City has violated its own codes and has done everything to
benefit Aegis.
(g)
Gretchen Atkinson, Shoreline, commented that hunger continues to be a
serious problem in Shoreline because food distribution only takes place two
days per month. She noted that while some
churches have some resources, supplies are quite minimal and do not come close
to addressing the need. She noted that 30%
of elementary school students receive free or reduced-price lunches, but this
only happens during the school year. She
said Shoreline needs to come up with a solution to the hunger problem. She announced a food drive on Saturday and
encouraged everyone to participate and give generously.
Mr.
Burkett responded to Council questions regarding the three-lane configuration
on
RECESS
At
Mr.
Burkett was willing to discuss the three-laning issue
with the Council in the context of all other relevant data and consultant
reports at a future meeting. He noted
that the three-lane configuration was accomplished through restriping,
so it could be easily converted back to four lanes if that is Council
policy. He said he would follow up with
Mr. Sharrah’s concerns regarding construction staging
on
Continuing,
Mr. Burkett asserted that the comments attributed to him by Ms. Wacker were
inaccurate. He said the Council has not
made a decision on the South Woods property, and he has not stated that his
goal was to develop the property. He
felt the appropriate time to discuss the issue would be as part of the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan discussion next week. The main reason the property is listed as a
lower priority in the PROS plan is because ownership is currently held by the water
and school districts.
Bob
Olander, Deputy City Manager, responded to the concern about the Aegis
development, noting that the judge did not void the building permit for the
north building. He explained that the
City is following up with the items the judge identified for further
consideration and it is complying with the remand order. Regarding construction staging for the
Councilmember
Fimia’s understanding was that the court order stated
the building permit was void.
Councilmember
Fimia reiterated the need to determine whether the Council had access to the documents
she provided when the Council made its decision on the configuration of
Councilmember
Ransom noted that he was present when the Conservation Futures group toured the
South Woods property, but he was unclear about how much money the City might
have to invest, with or without matching grant funds. He
expressed interest in reconvening the Bond Advisory Committee (BAC) so it can
at least provide a recommendation before the property is no longer
available. He suggested working with the water district
to postpone the sale until the BAC has an opportunity to consider it. On another topic, he noted that he had not
seen the documents Councilmember Fimia provided, but he did hear the Interim
Public Works Director make oral comments to the Council. He said the documents reinforce his concerns
regarding traffic overflow onto
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen encouraged interested parties to approach the two districts about
the process for sale of the South Woods, since they are the current property
owners. He asked if the sale of half of
the property would require a subdivision or new legal description. He felt that these unresolved issues might
make a May selling date unrealistic.
Mr.
Burkett noted that the property owners would likely have to undertake a legal
process to subdivide their interest.
Councilmembers
Chang and Ransom asked that the purchase of the South Woods property be added
to next week’s agenda. It was pointed
out that the PROS plan is already on the agenda, but there was consensus to
specify this issue within the overall discussion. Councilmembers Gustafson and Ransom asked
that field turf for Fields A and B also be called out specifically in the
agenda during the discussion of the PROS plan.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen felt it would be necessary to have the owners of the South Woods
attend the meeting in order to have an effective discussion. Councilmember Fimia asked for a list of
potential funding sources (voter-approved bonds and councilmanic
bonds) for land acquisition projects that might not be included on the revenue
sheet.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Gustafson
moved to approve the agenda.
Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, asking that Item 7(g) be
pulled from the consent calendar and added as Action Item 8(c). A vote was taken on the motion and the agenda
was unanimously approved as amended.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Gustafson moved to approve
the Consent Calendar as amended.
Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 6-0, and the
following items were approved:
Minutes of Dinner
Meeting of
Minutes of Workshop
Meeting of
Minutes of Dinner
Meeting of
Approval of expenses
and payroll as of
in
the amount of $857,488.15
Resolution No. 230
ratifying amendments to the King
County Countywide
Planning Policies
Motion to request the
Planning Commission to
conduct
a Public Hearing and Provide a
Recommendation to
Council on Proposed Amendments
to
the Development Code and Shoreline Municipal
Code regarding Enhancements
to the Code
Enforcement Program
Ordinance No. 384
reclassifying two positions within
the
City’s Classification and Compensation Plan
Motion to select Skyhawks Sports Academy, Inc. as the
sole
source vendor to provide instructional services for
twenty-three
youth sports camps in Shoreline this
summer
and to authorize the City Manager to enter
into
a contract for these services in an amount not to
exceed
$75,000
8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Ordinance No. 382 amending the City’s Official Zoning Map
Tile number 452 to change the zoning of four parcels generally located at 17505
Linden Ave. N. (Parcel #07260492102, 0726049056, 0725049128 and 0726049166)
from Residential 12 DU-AC (R-12) and Office (O) to Residential 24 DU-AC (R-24)
·
Criteria 1: The rezone is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
·
Criteria 2: The rezone will not
adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare.
·
Criteria 3: The rezone is
warranted in order to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
·
Criteria 4: The rezone will not
be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the
subject rezone.
He
explained the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the rezone,
noting that one commissioner voted against it because of concerns about how the
rezone might affect the surrounding neighbors.
Public comments received expressed concerns that RWD might construct a
tall building on the site. The majority
of the Commission supported the rezone because it met the criteria and because the
current zoning of Office (O) would already allow a 35-foot high building on the
site. Mr. Stewart clarified that the
proposed rezone does not include a development proposal. A development proposal would likely reopen
the SEPA process, thereby providing neighbors with an additional opportunity to
discuss any specific building proposal.
He said RWD has expressed interest in working with the neighbors to
mitigate any potential impacts of future development.
Councilmember Fimia moved to
pass Ordinance No. 382. Councilmember
Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmembers
Ransom and Chang expressed concerns about the compatibility of the proposal with
the adjacent neighborhood. Councilmember
Ransom noted that adjacent neighbors expressed concern that their view from
their homes could be obstructed by a structure.
He wondered if the rezone could be approved with conditions.
Mr.
Stewart said that development conditions on a rezone application would not be
appropriate. However, these issues can
be addressed when a specific project is proposed.
Councilmember
Chang was concerned that approving this rezone might open other properties on
the west side of
Mr.
Stewart said the current zoning designation for the west side of
Councilmember
Chang wondered if expansion of RWD was consistent with the City’s plans to
assume wastewater management services as part of a new
City Hall facility. He inferred that a new City Hall would include facilities for these services,
in which case the rezone would be unnecessary.
Mr.
Olander said that some minor office space for utilities was assumed in the
space projections for a future City Hall, but not space for maintenance or
parking. RWD is responding to the need
for increased maintenance and parking space as a result of taking on the
responsibility of providing wastewater services formerly provided by the City
of
Councilmember
Chang felt that Shoreline taxpayers would ultimately be paying for RWD’s expansion.
Councilmember
Gustafson expressed support for the motion, noting that it meets the criteria
and is compatible with the surrounding area.
He felt it would not be detrimental to the community.
Councilmember
Ransom supported the motion since development issues could be addressed as part
of a building permit process.
A vote was taken on the
motion, which carried 5-1, with Councilmember Chang dissenting, and Ordinance
No. 382 was passed.
(b) Continued deliberations on the 2004 Update of the Comprehensive
Plan and master plans for Transportation, Surface Water, and Parks, Recreation and
Open Space
Mr.
Haines concluded his remarks by noting that there are many other unresolved
issues that go beyond the Capital Facilities Element. These include street classifications, local
funding options, regional coordination priorities, Level of Service refinement,
outside growth impacts on Shoreline, speed limits on arterials, business access
routes, trip demand management, and bicycle routing.
Ms. Marilley went on the outline the various capital
projects in the current 2005-2010 CIP and future capital plans, including the Interurban
Trail Pedestrian Crossing, Interurban Trail North Central Segment, Curb Ramp,
Gutter and Sidewalk Program, Traffic Small Works, Pedestrian Program and Bicycle
Program. She emphasized that the list
does not contain many new projects due to limited revenue sources.
Mr.
Stewart reiterated the importance of maintaining the balance between growth,
capital facilities, and level of service, because if the priorities are shifted
there must be compensating adjustments.
Councilmember Grace moved to accept the transportation
components of the Capital Facilities Element dated April 7, 2005. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the
motion.
Councilmember Ransom asked
about the apparent discrepancy between the $22 million in General Fund
allocations in the 20-year forecast of the draft master plan versus the $3
million in tonight’s presentation.
Councilmember Gustafson said
he generally agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation, although he
might prefer some changes to the project priorities in the future. He emphasized that the plan is a working
document that can be changed.
Councilmember Grace noted
that there was consensus at the Council retreat on a comprehensive sidewalk
plan, but this is not reflected until the 2011-2024 time period. He pointed out that moving it into the
2005-2010 CIP would require something else to recede.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said he
would like to know how much additional revenue could be expected in the first
six years as a result of the 9-cent gas tax.
It was his preference to put this revenue into the City’s Street Fund in
order to bring it back up to $700,000, with the remainder being allocated to
the pedestrian program.
Councilmember Fimia noted a
discrepancy between projections in the master plan ($16 million) and past CIPs ($20 million) for the Aurora Corridor project. Ms. Tarry noted that an inflation factor was
assumed in the CIP projections. Mr. Haines
said this approach is consistent with all the master plans.
Councilmember Fimia noted
that most of the pedestrian/non-motorized projects would not be funded if the
staff recommendation is adopted. She
added that 70% of the total $126.6 million goes to only three projects:
Mr. Haines said the Level
1B-3 priorities are not funded in the plan because there is no reasonable
revenue source identified. Mr. Burkett
noted that there is only about $1 million on General Fund money put into the
plan each year.
Mr. Burkett said that 87
percent of Aurora Corridor Phase 1is funded by grants. For both Phase 1 and Phase 2, the total
projected amount of City funds needed is $11 million. Responding to Councilmember Fimia, Mr.
Burkett noted that the Council will have to discuss its priorities if
sufficient grant funds are not acquired.
Staff would likely recommend delaying Phase 2 because the project is
dependent upon acquiring grants from the state and federal governments.
Councilmember Fimia emphasized
that the Council is unsure about impacts to neighborhoods because the Council
did not have access to the documents regarding
Councilmember Grace objected
to Councilmember Fimia’s comments. He felt it was unfair to draw conclusions on
documents that other Councilmembers have not yet read.
Because Council had determined that at
(c) Ordinance
No. 385 providing for the Use of Eminent Domain to Acquire Additional Temporary
Construction Easements and Authorizing Corrections to Legal Descriptions,
Entering into Stipulations, and Taking Less Property
Councilmember Ransom moved to pass Ordinance No.
385. Councilmember Grace seconded the
motion.
Referring to Exhibit B-1 on
page 82.5 of the staff report, Councilmember Ransom inquired about the
different right-of-way (ROW) widths on
Mr. Sievers explained that the City is
widening
Councilmember Fimia asked if
the property owner supports the ordinance.
Mr. Sievers said the City has been working with the property owners for
the past few weeks, and they are aware the City intended to propose this as an
alternative. The property owners
received a copy of the TCE last week.
A vote was taken on the motion to pass Ordinance
No. 385, which passed 6-0.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________