CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Monday, April 19, 1999

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmembers Hansen, King, Lee and Ransom

ABSENT: Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Deputy Mayor Montgomery, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Deputy Mayor Montgomery led the flag salute. Upon roll by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson, who were absent, and Councilmembers Lee and Ransom, who arrived later in the meeting.

Later in the meeting when a quorum of Council was present, Councilmember King moved to excuse Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

Assistant City Manager Larry Bauman reported on the City’s Earth Day Celebration to be held Saturday, April 24, 1999.

City Manager Robert Deis reported that a sewer line break at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park has necessitated closure of the restrooms. He went on to remind Council of the Volunteer Appreciation Breakfast on Friday, April 23, 1999. Finally, he distributed a flyer that has been circulated in Richmond Beach regarding the Richmond Beach Saltwater Park Bluff Trail. He said it makes inaccurate representations about the bluff trail and Council’s action. Additionally, it contains a model letter to be sent to City Councilmembers. He said that staff would respond on behalf of the Council to such letters and clarify misrepresentations in the flyer.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember King reported that the frogs seeded in Paramount Park are alive and croaking, and that students from Meridian Park Elementary School have collected money to buy a tree in memory of police officer Mark Brown.

Councilmember Hansen reported on his attendance at the Suburban Cities Association meeting on April 14, 1999.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Bucky Tokusaki, 18054 8^th Avenue NW, mentioned the long history of the Bahá’í faith in Shoreline. He distributed a booklet produced by the Bahá’ís entitled "Two Wings of a Bird: The Equality of Women and Men."

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Aurora Pre-Design Study Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria

Kirk McKinley, Transportation Manager, introduced the members of the Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF), reviewed the process for development of the Aurora Pre-Design Study, and outlined the next steps, which include evaluation of the three alternatives, an open house on May 11, and a return to Council this summer with a preferred alternative. He also reviewed the status of funding for Aurora Corridor improvements. Finally, he noted key criteria that the State and federal government use to assess transportation projects for funding: 1) partnerships; 2) meeting regional needs; 3) access management and safety; 4) congestion mitigation to meet Level of Service goals; 5) air quality impacts; and 6) the impact of the Endangered Species Act, which will probably drive up project costs considerably .

Using four large boards for each alternative, Tim Bevan, CH2MHill, reviewed the three design alternatives recommended by the CATF. He said Alternative 1 ("Local Access") has four through lanes, including as many left-turn lanes as possible for local access to businesses and properties along the corridor. It has wider sidewalks and potentially a double row of street trees. This alternative includes additional signalized intersections, safety modifications (such as closing Westminster Way southbound), transit queue by-pass lanes, and bus pullouts.

Alternative 2 ("People Mover") provides additional regional capacity by having transit right-turn only lanes in addition to the queue jump lanes. The outside lanes would also provide access to properties. This alternative has a raised, landscaped center median, with breaks and special U-turn capabilities at signalized intersections. This alternative also has street trees in the median and on both sides.

Mr. Bevan then described Alternative 3 ("Regional Design"), which is oriented to providing for regional through traffic. It has two through lanes in each direction with no at-grade signalized intersections directly in the roadway. Frontage roads would provide access to properties, and there would be planted barrier medians separating the through lanes. The major intersections would have grade separation for through traffic, with ramps for access at certain locations. There would also be grade separated pedestrian crossings. These could be combined with transit stops.

Councilmember Ransom arrived at 7:07 p.m.

Mr. McKinley said the goal at this point is to analyze objectively how the three alternatives perform. He said Alternative 1 would have the least impact on right-of-way, although it would involve some "takes" at intersections. Alternative 2 is similar to what Snonomish County is building.

Councilmember Lee arrived at 7:14 p.m.

Mr. McKinley reviewed the 13 criteria for evaluation of the alternatives (listed on page 79 of the Council packet), which fall into the general categories of: 1) economic factors; 2) environmental factors; 3) mode choice factors; and 4) traffic operations factors. He noted that Alternative 1, since it does not add capacity, may have impacts on north/south neighborhood streets. He asked for Council input on the alternatives and the criteria.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery called for public comment.

(1) Kathy Halliburton, 18315 Wallingford Ave. N., hoped that the preferred alternative would have curb bulbs, which would shorten the distance for pedestrians crossing the street. She also liked the pedestrian overpasses. She said Shoreline does not have to be like Seattle or Snohomish County and hoped the preferred alternative would represent the ideal.

Responding to Councilmember King, Mr. Bevan explained that the planters in Alternative 3 would be raised, with a sloped edge, so the traffic could drive at a higher speed adjacent to them without being a safety hazard. In Alternative 2 the planters are raised, but only six inches.

Councilmember King felt there is a not enough transit service in Shoreline to dedicate a lane to transit. However, she liked the jump start lane. She added that curb bulbs work very well in Bell Town. She said there may be concerns about business access, but she herself preferred limited access points to businesses.

Responding to Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Mr. McKinley said the transit lane could be a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in Alternative 2. However, Seattle has had higher accident rates with its HOV lanes.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery liked the street trees and landscaping but asked whether on-street parking is completely eliminated. Mr. McKinley said it has been but there may be opportunities for some parking pockets in Alternative 1. He emphasized that the transit lane in Alternative 2 is also designed to provide business access.

Responding to Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Mr. Bevan said there will be pedestrian crossings associated with all overpasses in Alternative 3, along with some overpasses for pedestrians at other points along the corridor. However, there is a pedestrian grade separation in all alternatives for the Interurban Trail.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery wondered which alternative will generate the most in grant funding. Mr. McKinley responded that this is one of the criteria that will be used in the upcoming evaluation process. He thought Alternate 1 would score the lowest.

Councilmember Hansen felt it would be preferable to have the full 120-foot right-of-way the entire length of the corridor. After discussion of the width needed for Alternative 3, he noted that intersections with grade separation are very expensive. Mr. Bevan responded that Alternative 3 has grade separation at four intersections. A full interchange with ramps in both directions would cost somewhere in the range of $10 million.

Councilmember Hansen agreed with Deputy Mayor Montgomery and Councilmember King that two dedicated transit lanes with no increase in bus service planned in the next six years is questionable. Councilmember Lee pointed out that it may take longer to build the project than six years.

Mr. McKinley said a lack of an access management system contributed to the increase in accident rates in Seattle with the HOV lanes.

Councilmember Hansen said Aurora Avenue should not be viewed in isolation. He felt more attention should be placed on the connection of 185^th St. to potential freeway access. He said even having frontage roads along I-5 would take traffic that comes from Richmond Beach and divert it from 175^th St. He also suggested that purchase of the Chevron property at 185^th and Aurora might provide more property for intersection work. Mr. Deis said part of that property may be purchased by a private party, but staff is monitoring activities related to this property.

Councilmember Hansen supported closure of Westminster Way and redesign of the intersection at 155^th. Mr. Deis added that such a closure could make more land available for redevelopment at Aurora Square.

Councilmember Ransom was concerned that the alternatives do not reflect the concepts explained in Dan Burden’s presentation last year on "Walkable Communities." He pointed out that safety in street crossing is a paramount concern. Mr. Bevan said there are signalized pedestrian crossings and refuge islands in Alternatives 1 and 2. Sidewalks are wider in Alternative 1, allowing for a double row of trees, which could be used as a buffer between pedestrians and the roadway.

Councilmember Ransom felt the emphasis on walkable communities is lost in these alternatives, despite the fact that the concept was very well-received at the time of presentation. He also was concerned about the trees affecting business visibility and blocking signage.

Mr. McKinley explained there were several components to the Dan Burden presentation, including street trees, width of sidewalks, and pedestrian crossings. He said the final design will consider where trees are located and how they interface with signage, and the business community will be consulted. Mr. Burden also mentioned pedestrian-scale street lighting, which is assumed to be part of all alternatives, as are street furnishings and textured pavement at key pedestrian crossings.

Councilmember Ransom said his biggest concern with Alternative 2 is that it will be dangerous to have HOV lanes next to the sidewalk. He had believed that this lane would be on the inside next to the median. Mr. Deis noted that the trade-off for putting it on the inside is that people have to walk across traffic to get to the bus. Mr. McKinley added that such a configuration adds approximately 40 feet to the width of the crossing.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Bevan said that in Alternative 3 the buses use the outside through lanes with bus turn-outs for access to pedestrian areas.

Responding again to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. McKinley said the alternatives will be evaluated for grant funding by experts on the CH2MHill staff.

Councilmember Ransom asked whether these alternatives reflect the thinking of the CATF. Mr. McKinley explained how the alternatives were developed, noting the CATF has put forward these three alternatives. He emphasized these are three distinct approaches, upon which good comparable information can be developed. There is no expectation that any of the three alternatives will be the ultimate recommendation.

Councilmember Ransom pointed out there has been criticism from certain segments of the community in the past that they were participating but not being heard. He wanted to be sure these criticisms would not be made about this process, particularly in light of the fact that last year there was support for walkable communities and these concepts do not seem to be embodied in these three alternatives.

Mr. Deis said the recommendations were made by the CATF. Citizen input is taken very seriously by staff and it is hoped that CATF input will be a representative sample of the community. He said staff has taken the walkable communities concept very seriously and various components (trees, landscaping, benches, pedestrian refuges, widths of sidewalks, separation of pedestrians from traffic, and pedestrian level lighting) will probably be incorporated into the preferred alternative.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery felt that all the alternatives are more walkable than current conditions.

Councilmember Lee liked the diversity among the options. She questioned having two rows of trees in Alternative 1, and felt the concern about blockage of business signs is valid. She also commented on pedestrian overpasses, noting they work well on high pedestrian-traveled streets. However, she was concerned that it will be many years before the Aurora Corridor is at that stage. Mr. McKinley explained that pedestrian overpasses only work when the street is barricaded so pedestrians cannot get across.

Councilmember Hansen commented on the use of right-of-way in California on El Camino Real for a skatepark.

Councilmember Lee questioned whether having wider sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities will really generate more pedestrian traffic. She also wondered whether additional traffic will be forced to go through the neighborhoods if no more capacity is added to the corridor. Mr. McKinley said staff suspects that if no capacity is added, as in Alternative 1, the neighborhoods will receive spillover traffic. He said that trips in Alternative 3 may shift off of other arterials or the freeway and onto Aurora if the traffic flows faster. Councilmember Lee said traffic speeding through neighborhoods is a major issue.

Continuing, Councilmember Lee asked if there is a projection about periods of the day for high pedestrian usage and what kind of pedestrian usage it will be--recreational walking or destination oriented. She said this would dictate how the street is designed. Mr. McKinley responded that pedestrian usage will depend on land uses. This process will not generate pedestrian predictions, which is very difficult to do. Mr. Bevan added there was a dramatic increase in pedestrian activity when the sidewalks were added in SeaTac. Good pedestrian facilities should increase the number of transit riders. He agreed that development of the land uses should also increase the number of short walking trips.

Mr. Deis reported to Council on Councilmember Gustafson’s comments. His first priority was safety. He was also interested in seeing the relationship between Shoreline’s preferred alternative and the approaches of Seattle and Snohomish County. He felt the queue jump lanes were preferable to dedicated lanes to accommodate transit.

Councilmember Hansen felt the approach should be to convert the corridor to a more locally focused roadway to support emerging community activity centers through reducing speed limits, reducing lane widths, and providing other features that contribute to slower auto traffic such as sidewalks, medians, and landscaping.

Councilmember King and Councilmember Ransom mentioned problems with the intersection of Aurora and 155^th St. Mr. McKinley advised that this will be looked at and that the intersection will change, particularly if Westminster Way is closed.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery expressed Council support for the proposed criteria and the three alternatives and thanked the CATF for its work.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Terry Green, 613 NW 179^th St., spoke as a member of the CATF, saying that committee members are aware of the "Walkable Communities" recommendations and many of these amenities are available in all three plans. She mentioned width of right-of-way, pedestrian amenities, and the impacts of the Interurban Trail.

(b) Richard Johnsen, 16730 Meridian Ave. N., asked why the tunnel option was not brought forward as an alternative. He also asked about putting in a traffic signal at Ashworth Ave. and 175^th St., noting his belief that Ashworth Ave. should carry its fair share of north/south traffic. Finally, he mentioned lowering the hump of land on 175^th St. at the Top Foods property to address safety issues.

(c) Bill MacCauley, 19741 10^th Ave. NE, another CATF member, said some members of the CATF felt sidewalk improvements should be done simply because "it is the right thing to do." He suggested visiting Everett Mall Way and Evergreen Way in Everett and Highway 99 in SeaTac to see comparisons of how things can be built.

Responding to Mr. Johnsen, Mr. McKinley explained that the tunnel design was looked at in a technical memo as one of the many ways of improving traffic operations. The CATF did not select this option because of high construction and on-going maintenance costs. As to using Ashworth Ave. as an arterial, he said it is now a local access street and was treated as such by the County. Mr. Deis added that with regard to Mr. Johnsen’s final comment, eliminating the hump on 175^th has been discussed. However, the City would probably not find additional funding sources to work on improvements to this section of 175^th St., so this would be an expensive project for the City to undertake.

8. ADJOURNMENT

Deputy Mayor Montgomery declared the meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m.

_________________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk