CITY
OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 26, 2004
Shoreline Conference Center
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 7:30 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, with the exception of
Councilmember Gustafson.
Upon motion by Councilmember Ransom, seconded by Deputy Mayor Jepsen and unanimously carried, Councilmember Gustafson was excused.
(a) Proclamation
of “Relay for Life Days”
Mayor Hansen read the proclamation recognizing “Relay for Life,” a community-based event that raises funding for the support of cancer programs, including services to cancer patients, public education and cancer research. Relay for Life will take place at the Shoreline School District field from noon, Saturday, May 22 to noon Sunday, May 23. The Co-Chairs of the Shoreline Relay for Life committee, Kris Shelley and Jodi Temer, and the American Cancer Society partner, Chris Aversano, accepted the proclamation and invited Shoreline residents to participate in this event.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve Burkett, City Manager
reported that Police Chief Denise Turner received a promotion in the King
County Sheriff’s Office and would be leaving her position as Shoreline Police
Chief. He acknowledged her leadership
over the past four years, noting that crime rates are down and that police
services were rated highest in the recent customer satisfaction survey.
* Status
of Brightwater Negotiations
* Richmond
Beach Community Council regarding Brightwater
Robert Olander, Deputy City
Manager, reported on the status of the City’s appeal of the Brightwater
Environmental Impact Statement, noting that the City and King County’s
negotiations on mitigation have made significant progress. He asked for an executive session at the end
of the meeting to review the status of the negotiations.
David Bannister, President
of Richmond Beach Community Association, and Starla Hohbach thanked the City
for allowing the organization to participate in the Brightwater negotiations. Ms. Hohbach then highlighted Richmond
Beach’s specific mitigation requests of King County relating to traffic,
transport of construction materials and debris, construction hours, street
cleanliness, and the impacts of noise and lighting. She noted that King County considers barging/railing debris out
of the construction area to be mitigation, but she felt it should be considered
a “cost of doing business.” She also
emphasized Richmond Beach’s request that King County follow all environmental regulations
relating to the clean up of the Chevron site.
She concluded by outlining what Richmond Beach residents would consider
fair compensation for unmitigated impacts.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
Mayor Hansen announced that
approval of the agenda would be taken next, followed by the public hearing,
which is scheduled to begin at 8:00 p.m.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Fimia moved
approval of the agenda, removing item 10(b) and placing it on next week’s
agenda. Councilmember Grace seconded
the motion, which carried 6-0, and the agenda was approved as amended.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to amend the agenda further to add an executive session after item 10(a). Councilmember Grace seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
(a)
Public hearing to consider
amendments to the Shoreline Development Code
Ordinance No. 352 amending the Development
Code Chapters
20.20, 20.30, 20.40, 20.50, 20.70, 20.80 and
20.90, including
changes to zoning variance criteria; changes
to home business
regulations; allowing pitched roofs in high
density
residential zones to extend 5 feet above the
base height
limit of 35 feet; clarifying right-of way
regulations, clarifying
components of the sign standards and
technical amendments
Tim
Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, explained that the
Development Code is reviewed each year in response to changing needs or desires
in the community. It is also reviewed
in order to bring it into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stewart then briefly described the
purpose of each of the proposed amendments, as outlined in the staff
report. He noted they were initiated by
citizens, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Of the twenty-seven proposed amendments,
thirteen are considered substantive, and fourteen are technical. He noted that the Council has three options
for addressing amendments: it can accept them; further amend them; or reject
them. If the Council initiates new
amendments, they would be referred back to the Planning Commission for a public
hearing before it could take action.
Mr.
Stewart reviewed each of the amendments and explained the reason for them.
Mayor
Hansen opened the public hearing.
(a) Janet
Way, Shoreline, representing Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund, expressed a
general concern about the proposed changes to the Development Code. She asked for clarification regarding
distribution, noticing, and appeal of State Environmental Protection Act
threshold determinations. She then
questioned what implications that amendments #4, #3, #TA4 and #TA9 would have
on critical areas, homeowners, property owners, neighbors, and, in the case of
#4, on pending court cases. She said
amendment #3 should be more concerned about the public’s right to know rather
than slowing the development process.
She wondered what effect the reasonable use exemption would have on the
environment. She questioned the change
of “hardship” to “practical difficulties,” noting that it could impact not only
homeowners and property owners but also critical areas. She said that technical amendments #TA4 and
#TA9 could have huge implications on the community, and she also wondered why
so many terms were changed in the right-of-way code.
(b) Ginger
Botham, Shoreline, expressed support for amendment #7 (which is recommended for
denial), noting that although housing the homeless in a tent city is a good
thing, the public should receive prior notice.
She felt the proposed changes relating to variance criteria remove many
protections, and that the Council’s policy should be that variances are not
“common and easy” but rather the exception to the rule. She said most code changes during the past
few years have made it easier to grant and receive variances, thus creating an
“anything goes” situation in Shoreline.
She said there would be no need to follow the code if one can get a
variance. She asked the Council to
consider what kind of city it wants, and whether it should follow the rules or
find ways to circumvent them.
(c) Starla
Hohbach, Shoreline, said the purpose of the variance amendments should not be
to soften the criteria and allow staff more flexibility to determine what is
reasonable. She said loosening
standards would create more opportunities for variances to be granted. Allowing staff more flexibility will create
more legal challenges. She objected to
changes in the language of amendment #5 from “hardship” to “practical difficulties,”
as well as the elimination of criteria #11.
She said one person at the City should not determine standards. She believed that the changes that are
listed as technical are really substantial.
She advised caution when determining what is considered a technical
change.
(d) Chris
Eggen, Shoreline, concurred with previous speakers’ comments. He noted that contrary to what Mr. Stewart
asserted, there was very lively discussion on reasonable use in the Planning
Commission. He said there must be
specific standards for reasonable use, and staff should not be allowed any latitude
to make policy. He wondered if a site
development permit would require public notice, and expressed support for the
tent city amendment, noting that neighbors should be aware of what is going on
around them.
(e) Laurence
Yaffe, Shoreline, opposed amendment #5, noting that the changes do not improve
clarity or serve any meaningful purpose.
He objected to criteria #1 involving the necessity of zoning variances,
as well as the change to “practical difficulties” in criteria #2. He said there is no mention of severity or
significance of difficulties, so all applicants could claim difficulty and
receive a variance. He asserted there
is no mention of potential modification of building plans in order to avoid the
need for variance, and staff’s justification is unacceptably generous to
builders. He felt that the fact that an
applicant’s desired structure is not suited to the lot should not be valid
criteria for granting a variance. He
felt that criteria #11, which is proposed for elimination, is the bedrock
principle upon which variance applications should be judged. He said staff needs more guidance for
variance requests, not less. He urged
the Council not to accept the proposed changes.
(f) John
Budlong, Shoreline, urged the Council to oppose amendment #5 on the grounds
that it gives the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and the City
Attorney too much discretion to nullify critical areas environmental
protections in the Development Code. He
said these three bodies are already using the Critical Areas Reasonable Use
Permit to circumvent the Development Code’s prohibition against building in
critical landslide areas with slopes in excess of 40 degrees. He noted that the City approved the Casper
project in Richmond Beach, which would allow a “mansion” to be built on an
undersized lot with a 70-degree slope, a wetland and Type II stream. He said the Hearing Examiner rejected the
application because it is an illegal, undersized lot. He said if the City allows these three agencies discretion to
grant variances, then it will remove the only remaining protections people have
because zoning variances are enforceable by statute. He asserted that Marlin Gabbert, Planning Commissioner and
proponent of amendment #5, has a conflict on interest because he represents Mr.
Casper. He urged the Council to oppose
amendment #5 and help remedy this problem.
(g) Brian
Derdowski, Issaquah, on behalf of the Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund and
Public Interest Associates, opposed the changes in amendment #5, noting that
variance authority is limited and must comply with the Land Use Protection Act
(LUPA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA).
He said if variances are so broad that they allow changes that cumulatively
affect a jurisdiction’s compliance, then they are unlawful. He objected to the criteria that would allow
variances based on existing development in the vicinity or zone, including
nonconforming development. He explained
that this is not lawful and would allow an applicant to apply for a variance
based on a nonconforming use. He also
stated that the addition of “practical difficulty” would fail a legal
challenge. He asked that staff prepare
a written opinion about the City’s authority to adopt variance criteria under
state statute. He asserted that the
technical amendments are substantive, and that amendment #2 authorizing site
development permits for many different applications is problematic. He said site developments permits were
intended for subdivisions. It invites
piecemeal analysis and opens up significant vesting issues if such permits are
extended to all types of development.
Mr. Derdowski suggested that staff provide an analysis of the
differences in vesting if it is applied.
He also felt the nonconforming uses amendment to be overly broad,
suggesting that the term “abandonment” be moved to a previous section so that
partial abandonment would allow the termination of a nonconforming use.
Councilmember Fimia moved to leave the hearing open to receive written comments. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Councilmember
Fimia explained the reason for her motion, noting that there are enough
questions to warrant additional Council review and additional public comment.
Mayor
Hansen stated that it is not necessary to leave the hearing open because
Council can always call another public hearing on this topic.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen spoke against the motion, noting that people can continue to
submit comments while staff moves forward to address the issues raised tonight. Then another public hearing can be scheduled
rather than leaving this one open.
Councilmember Grace also opposed the motion for the same reasons.
Councilmember
Ransom expressed concern about leaving the hearing open, despite the fact that
many issues need to be addressed. He
raised the possibility of closing the hearing but accepting written comments
for 30 days.
Councilmember
Fimia noted that people will need more time to comment, especially if the
Council proposes additional amendments.
She felt there is much to gain by leaving the hearing open.
Councilmember
Chang felt the Council could continue on in its agenda even if the hearing is
left open.
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed 2-4, with Councilmembers Chang and Fimia voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ransom moved to close the public hearing but accept public comment on this item for the next 30 days before taking action. Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen felt Council could continue to take public comment while moving
the process forward.
Mayor
Hansen noted that any significant changes or amendments would require another
public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 4-2, with Councilmembers Fimia and Chang dissenting.
Mr.
Burkett suggested scheduling a Council workshop to address these issues, and
that Council might provide direction on which amendments staff should focus
on.
Councilmember
Fimia suggested putting each amendment on a separate page to provide
clarity. She said she would send her
recommendations in writing, and would be asking the Council to consider
additional amendments.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a)
LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, announced two events sponsored by Friends of Fircrest: a
fundraiser at the American Legion Hall on May 1, and a rally starting at
Ridgecrest School on May 15. She
encouraged the community to come out and support the Fircrest cause.
(b)
Nancy
Miller, Shoreline, urged the Council to support Richmond Beach’s request that
King County minimize the intrusion of construction for the Brightwater project
through the use of barges and rail cars.
She said heavily loaded trucks, traffic, and other factors pose significant
safety hazards for the neighborhood, especially when the Hidden Lake Pump
Station; the Richmond Beach Overcrossing; and Brightwater will be built
concurrently. She urged the Council to
ensure that mitigation funds are spent on safety measures in the
community.
(c)
Stan
Terry, Shoreline, commented on a Seattle Times article that focused on the role
that urban trees play in controlling storm water runoff and improving air
quality. He noted that nationwide, more
urban trees are cut down than what is harvested in national forests. He complimented the City for supporting the
neighborhood mini-grant program, which often goes toward the planting of street
trees. He noted that street trees are
an important part of the design of the North City and Aurora Corridor
projects. He concluded by urging the
Council to consider forming an environmental quality commission similar to Lake
Forest Park’s, in which people in the community could provide guidance and
direction to develop sound environmental policies.
(d)
Ginger
Botham, Shoreline, asked for clarification on maps in the Council packet
describing acquisition and temporary use easements. She said that from the maps it is difficult to determine which
properties the City is considering condemning.
.
(e)
Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, addressed Ordinance No. 350 and commented on the lack of time
and notice given to property owners to grant easements. She said although she was contacted about
temporary construction easements a few weeks ago, none of the items the project
management team mentioned previously were in the easement document she
received. She said staff did not
mention the possibility of acquisition and condemnation action happening so
soon. She said staff should have had
the courtesy to inform property owners the Council would be considering condemnation. She said it came as a very unpleasant
surprise to see her property address listed in tonight’s agenda item
authorizing “acquisition and condemnation.”
(f)
Janet
Way, Shoreline, concurred with the previous comments, adding that some property
owners are treated differently than others.
She also concurred with Mr. Terry’s comments about urban trees. She then suggested that the City find some
way to give citizens a preview of the following week’s agenda for next meeting,
noting that she was not informed of tonight’s agenda. She felt the City should use Channel 21, the City web site, and
other means to give citizens a “heads up” about what is happening in
Shoreline.
(g)
Diana
Stephens, Snohomish, representing the Chamber of Commerce, urged the Council to
work with the property owners who want to redevelop properties along Aurora
Avenue. She said the Shoreline Chamber
of Commerce supports these developers, who plan on investing between $40 and
$100 million, and that all they ask in return is for access to their
property. She encouraged the Council to
meet with WSDOT and the developers to find a way to allow left-turn
access. She said accident statistics
suggest that the locations in question do not pose a safety hazard. She said Shoreline cannot afford to have
these businesses go elsewhere.
(h)
Rick
Beadle, representing Golden Nugget Casino, stated for the record his concern
that the Aurora Corridor design could negatively affect accessibility to his
business.
(i)
Rick
Stephens, President of the Shoreline Merchants Association, commented on the
lack of communication between the City and Aurora businesses, noting that
businesses are afraid of the Council’s actions and some are moving out. He noted that one business owner hopes to
expand and move to Woodinville. He said
the Council needs to be open, but Councilmembers have not communicated to the
business community on condemnation or easements. He affirmed that there are no accident statistics for the
sections of Aurora Avenue where these developers want to build. He asserted that WSDOT’s own manual states
that a median can be a two-way left turn lane.
He said all the businesses want is access. He urged Council to help businesses make Shoreline their
location.
Responding
to Councilmember Grace, Mr. Stephens clarified that businesses are concerned
about eminent domain action. He also
noted that Cingular Wireless is also moving out of Shoreline.
(j)
Brian
Derdowski, Issaquah, Public Interest Associates, suggested that the Council
separate the issues of acquisition and condemnation as other jurisdictions do
in order to determine whether staff has performed their tasks
appropriately. He said authorizing both
acquisition and condemnation in one action ignores the important role of
oversight over the acquisition negotiation.
He said Council should ask staff to report on what other jurisdictions
practice. He asked Council to delay
action until staff reports back on whether the City is fully compliant with all
federal guidelines for authorization of condemnation and acquisition.
(k)
Richard
Johnsen, Shoreline, said citizens should be allowed to speak passionately about
issues, regardless of whether Councilmembers agree with them. He said he felt deprived because Mr.
Crawford was not able to finish what he had to say at last week’s Council
meeting. He also suggested that Council
meet with staff to determine a solution to the technical problem that occurred
in last week’s television broadcast that prevented him from understanding the
presentation on the 2004 citizen survey report.
Councilmember
Ransom asked that the members of Forward Shoreline who have been waiting be
allowed to comment.
(l)
Jeff
Lewis, representing Forward Shoreline, stated that he will defer his comments
until next week.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Fimia moved approval of the
consent calendar. Councilmember Grace
seconded the motion, which carried 6-0, and the following consent calendar
items were approved:
Minutes of Dinner
Meeting of March 22, 2004
Minutes of Community
Forum of March 29, 2004
Minutes of Community
Forum of April 1, 2004
Minutes of Special
Meeting of April 5, 2004
Minutes of Community
Forum of April 10, 2004
Minutes of Special
Meeting of April 12, 2004
Minutes of Regular
Meeting of April 12, 2004
Approval of expenses
and payroll as of April 9,
2004 in the amount of
$1,070,361.42
9. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Ordinance No. 350 authorizing the
acquisition and condemnation of certain real properties at 14507, 14515, 14525,
14701, 14703, 14705, 14709, 14711, 14713, 14715, 14721, 14725, 14729, 14717,
14727, 14729, 14731, 14817, 14825, 14901, 14915, 14927, 15011, 15005, 15007,
15009, 15011, 15031, 15015, 15017, 15023, 15027, 15029, 15019, 15033, 15201,
15332, 15555, 15565, 16005, 16017, 16037, 16053, 16301, 16357, 16340, 16330,
16300, 16200, 16032, 16048, 16004, 15736, 15740, 15744, 15730, 15526, 15210,
15208, 15216, 15222, 15226, 15230, 15206, 15214, 15214b, 15200a, 15200, 15200b,
15200c, 15202, 15236, 15238, 15240, 15252, 15036, 15030, 15010, 14926, 14910,
14720, 14710, 14700, 14540, 14510, 16503, 16510, and 15510 Aurora Avenue North;
15915 Westminster Way N.; 914 N 145th St; 826 and 820 N. 145th
St; 15002 Midvale Avenue N; and 1111 N 157th St., Shoreline.
Washington.
Mr.
Burkett said tonight’s action begins the right-of-way acquisition process for
the Aurora project. He referred to the
project schedule in the staff report, noting that the City is committed to
construction starting this time next year and the right-of-way acquisition
process is the critical path. He said
the City must follow a federally regulated process in this case because of the
use of federal funds on the project.
The policies for right-of-way acquisition, adopted in 2001, do
this. He assured Council that no
buildings must be acquired, just narrow pieces of property along Aurora
Avenue.
Continuing,
Mr. Burkett said the other item to be authorized tonight is proceeding with the
condemnation process in cases in which no agreement can be reached with the property
owner. He said that the negotiation
process may go into the beginning of next year, but eminent domain will
probably be initiated in cases where it appears that agreement will not be
reached in June of this year. He said
if these two authorizations are not done concurrently, it will add several
months to the schedule. He explained
the significant differences between this action and the process in North City,
i.e., that lengthy negotiations had already occurred in North City and in this
case the negotiations have not begun.
Mr.
Sievers reviewed the legal issues related to eminent domain. He emphasized that the acquisition process
is guided by both federal and state laws.
He referred to the Acquisition and Relocation Guidelines Manual
developed two years ago and updated in November 2003. This ordinance gives authorization for condemnation rather than
being a condemnation ordinance. Under
the federal guidelines, the City is required to make an offer with an appraisal
and allow the property owner to consider it.
This must occur before condemnation can be filed. Under state law, applied in North City,
condemnation can begin immediately and the appraisal is not required to be
disclosed prior to condemnation.
Mr.
Sievers described the other regulations that govern the condemnation, noting
that this ordinance also lists temporary construction easements that will be
needed. He noted that individual notice
to the property owners for action on this ordinance is not required. Individual notice is provided for the court
hearing on public use and necessity.
Kirk
McKinley, Aurora Project Manager, provided the background on adopting the
design for the Aurora Project and the adoption on November 17, 2003 of the
Aurora Corridor Real Property Acquisition Guidelines update. This was reviewed by the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
He described the notices provided to property owners and tenants and the
meetings with everyone along the corridor about the construction proposed and
the schedule. He said in most cases all
that is needed from property owners is a temporary construction easement and a
license to underground utilities. He
said the City doubled the funding to $10,000 offered to property owners to
connect to the new underground distribution lines.
Continuing,
Mr. McKinley said appraisals have been developed, which are reviewed in a
“review appraisal.” This is presented
with the offer to buy the right-of-way.
Right-of-way totaling 38,000 square feet is required from 32 parcels. Most of this is in one- or two-foot
sections. Other pieces are required at
intersections. No buildings are to be
taken, and in two cases where the buildings were too close to the sidewalk, the
sidewalk was narrowed to accommodate them.
Review materials have been sent to 14 parcels where only a temporary
construction easement is required.
There are 34 properties that will need a license to underground and 11
properties needing a permanent wall easement.
Mr. McKinley concluded that full packages where right-of-way must be
purchased will be sent out when all the appraisal information is complete. He emphasized this is the start of the
right-of-way process and sets the groundwork in case condemnation is needed.
Mr.
Sievers noted that Councilmember Chang owns property in the area in
question. He said a property owner
involved in a condemnation ordinance should not be at the Council table.
Responding
to Councilmember Fimia, Mr. Sievers said Councilmember Chang should not
participate in the discussion or vote.
Councilmember Chang recused himself and left the Council table at 10:03 p.m.
Councilmember
Ransom wondered why Councilmember Chang should recuse himself, based on a
Mountlake Terrace Supreme Court decision saying this was not necessary when a
councilmember had made full disclosure of his property interests during the
campaign. Councilmember Ransom said it
was always well known that Councilmember Chang owned property in the
Corridor.
Mr.
Sievers said decisions on project design, budget authorizations, etc. are
legislative decisions. If the public
knows the interests, the councilmember can vote. However, this ordinance authorizes a transaction that could
result in a financial benefit to Councilmem-ber Chang. It is also a quasi-judicial decision to find
this is a public use and necessity for this project. Either reason would require Councilmember Chang to step down.
Councilmember
Ransom asked about Mr. Derdowski’s concern about authorizing both acquisition
and condemnation in the same ordinance.
Mr. Sievers responded that even if condemnation were not addressed this
evening, it would need to come back in another month or so because the City is
ready to go out with offers and many of the appraisals are complete. Certain tax benefits accrue to property
owners, related to reinvesting under threat of condemnation the proceeds from
the sale of the property, by passing the condemnation finding with this
ordinance.
Mr.
Burkett said this approach is not unusual and several of the cities that have
done similar projects have approached them in this way.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to
pass Ordinance No. 350. Councilmember
Grace seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom said there was a timing issue with North City but there is not the same urgency here. He said mediation would help establish a better relationship with local businesses, which are very concerned about the terminology of condemnation. He felt a formal mediation process would be “a great step forward in public relations.”
Mayor
Hansen noted the City already has a mediation policy.
Councilmember
Grace asked what the effect of mediation would be on the timeline. He noted a mediator would need to be hired
and meetings scheduled.
Mr.
Burkett said in addition to timing, there would be a cost to adding in
mediation.
Mr.
Sievers said this would delay the filing of condemnation and the project by at
least a month to 45 days. He said there
might be cases where the issue will have to go to trial. The City is working under a very tight timeframe
under the guidelines, and there already is an incentive for the City to make a
settlement. Mr. Sievers pointed out
that mediation is mandatory in the courts before trial begins. He did not think mediation would be fruitful
at the beginning.
Confirming
that mediation is a mandatory requirement before the case goes to Superior
Court, Councilmember Grace wished to ensure that every alternative is pursued
before the case goes to court.
A vote was taken on the amendment, which failed
2-3, with Councilmembers Fimia and Ransom voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember
Ransom introduced this item, which he and Councilmembers Chang and Fimia had
requested. He said the following
business owners in the first half-mile of the Aurora Corridor requested that
Council discuss their development interests:
·
George
Choi, who has the options on the property at 150th and the ski shop,
where he wants to build a bank and a 60 unit condominium for $23 million;
·
Dan
Dally, owns the Pepper Hill Business Mall with 25 businesses and wishes to add
35,000 square feet of retail space and perhaps some apartments;
·
Larry
Wheaten, General Manager of Goldies, a business that pays between $740,000 and
$800,000 each year in taxes and would like to make improvements;
·
Tim
Isley, who owns two square blocks between 145th and 147th
between Aurora and Whitman and wishes to build a new casino of 10,000 square
feet with retail shops and restaurants and will consider some apartments on the
upper floor; and
·
The
Panos family, who own the Park Plaza between 152nd and 155th.
Councilmember
Ransom said that all of these businesses are asking about the Council’s
willingness to make some concessions to them for their developments. He said
that the state has 30 different ways to provide tax incentives to businesses to
locate in Shoreline, but these businesses are not asking for any of them. They are asking the City to make a
concession, i.e., to go to WSDOT and argue for a two-way left-turn median on
Aurora Avenue. He said an example of
this would be 150 feet of two-way left-turn and then a 25-foot long safety
island, repeating this design again and again for the half-mile. This would allow left-turn access into these
properties. The businesses indicate
they will agree to the WSDOT proposal of no left-turns out of their properties. They feel that the ability of customers to
access their properties from the north and south is critical to the success of
their businesses.
Councilmember
Ransom emphasized that the combined investment of these businesses is about
$100 million. He described this as “a
dream come true for the City in terms of investments.” He concluded that the businesses are
anticipating the deliberation of the Council on their request and he suggested
that Council has the following options:
·
Deny
any concessions (the City is likely to lose any additional investment these
property owners are likely to make);
·
Agree
to go to WSDOT and try to find a compromise that will meet the businesses’
needs, such as the two-way median described above; or
·
Give
the businesses specific or behavioral instructions as to what the Council will
agree to for business development incentives and under what circumstances, so
everyone clearly understands the terms of criteria for assistance and what the
assistance will be.
Councilmember
Ransom asked that Mr. Choi, Mr. Dally, and Mr. Panos be provided an opportunity
to address the Council.
Ken
Panos, owner of the Park Plaza Shopping Center, said his tenants viewed
negatively anything that restricts access and the two-way median is very important
to protect the shopping center’s access.
He asked how the current design was developed, noting that WSDOT says
Shoreline developed the standards.
Shoreline says WSDOT sets in place the standards. Mr. Panos did not know who is
accountable. He said a number of local
merchants, in addition to his family, are concerned about limitations on
access. He urged the Council to make a
recommendation to study the access question or have WSDOT study it.
Councilmember
Fimia said the Councilmembers who brought up this issue are not advocating for
a study. They are advocating for the
City Council to sit down with WSDOT and explore how much leeway they actually
have.
Mr.
Panos said he asked to meet with WSDOT and staff from Shoreline, but this was
denied.
Councilmember
Fimia said she is not saying Mr. Panos should meet with WSDOT. She asked if Mr. Panos would be willing to
forego left-turns out of the business and exit via right turns only. Mr. Panos said left-turn ingress would be
something of a win.
Responding
to Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Panos said the current access is at Wendy’s. He understood this is a difficult
access. He explained that Safeway
patrons come through the shopping center parking lot to use this access. He said they might have to close the
easement between the properties if the circulation requires patrons to cross
their property to 152nd Avenue.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen said the right-turn only does not address this problem, but Mr.
Panos said at least getting the left-turn would be a partial win. He said Shari’s would be very severely
impacted by no left-turn.
Mr.
Dally described his proposed development at the Pepper Hill Shopping
Center. He said all the 25 businesses
there are low to medium profitability with 75 employees altogether. He feared if his tenants leave, the new
tenants will not be as desirable. He
said he has had the property for 20 years and he would like to rebuild to have
a mixed-use building with underground parking at the south end. However, the approximate 110 – 150
apartments or condos need direct left-turn access, as would the
businesses. He mentioned working with
the City of Seattle along Aurora Avenue.
Left-turn access was denied for two years and finally the City of
Seattle changed its mind and allowed access.
Mr.
Dally said his redevelopment in Shoreline could be reoriented but there would
be no retail facing Aurora. He
distributed pictures of the type of development that could occur on the Pepper
Hill site. He suggested a double
left-turn lane southbound on Aurora Avenue at 145th Street. He said this would be a preference of
WSDOT. However, it would require taking
some property at 145th. This
solution would also require working with the City of Seattle. He said a double left-turn lane would cut down
from 900 feet to 145 feet the length of the left-turn lane. This would leave room for a direct access
left-turn pocket into Pepper Hill. Mr.
Dally concluded that whether the development of Pepper Hill occurs now or
later, the current businesses need direct left-turn access to keep them
profitable.
Councilmember
Ransom said the left-turn Mr. Isley is concerned about is at the end of his
building between the space between the Hideaway and the Pepper Hill
building. Mr. Isley is considering
taking down the Hideaway and getting a left-turn at the edge of his property
about 450 feet from the corner of 145th Street into his proposed
retail space.
George
Choi, who had spoken to the Council previously about his project, said he
started discussing it in 1997. At that
time there was no debate about left or right turns from Aurora Avenue. He described his efforts at developing the
site. In 2001 he and his architect
began serious discussions and he spoke with Paul Cohen of the Planning and
Development Services Department and other staff. He emphasized that his project of a 25,000 square foot bank
building with 60-unit condominiums will only be feasible with left-turn
access. He said he will provide parking
on site. Mr. Choi distributed
information regarding the bank that he is working with and the draft contract
he is discussing with the bank. He
concluded that his project will be good for Shoreline and the Council has the
power to make the decision to allow the project to move forward.
Councilmember
Fimia thanked Mr. Choi for coming to Council to demonstrate the seriousness of
his project. She confirmed with Mr.
Choi that his project could move forward without a left-turn out of the
property.
Councilmember
Ransom referred to the easement map on page 230 of the Council packet, pointing
out that the properties in question are #10 and #9 (Choi), #5 (Dally), #4, #3, #2 and #42 (Isley), and #49
(Panos).
Councilmember
Fimia said she is seeking Council direction to sit down with WSDOT staff to see
what concessions can be made by WSDOT to change the design of the project to
modify the access. She said there is no
proposal to take existing left-turns in the design away from property owners on
the opposite side of the street, as suggested in a letter by Mr. Burkett to the
Seattle Restaurant Store.
Councilmember
Chang concurred with Councilmember Fimia.
He said it is important to provide the business owners in this segment
of the project the opportunity to survive.
Left-turn access is critical to this.
If WSDOT is willing to work with the City, a continuous left-turn from
145th to 155th with some safety accommodations in between
will be workable and fair for business owners.
Councilmember
Grace asked who from WSDOT could participate in this and has the authority to
say that a change could be made.
Councilmember
Fimia said she would leave this up to WSDOT.
She suggested the Deputy Administrator has indicated that if Council
asks, WSDOT would be willing to sit down and work with the City with the
understanding that left-turns out of businesses would be off the table. WSDOT “would make the call.”
Responding
to Councilmember Grace’s question about a timeframe, Councilmember Fimia said
this would be up to WSDOT. The idea is
to sit down with WSDOT as soon as possible, with the understanding a decision
is needed as soon as possible. Whatever
modification is agreed to would drive the schedule. Staff would provide a briefing on the new schedule; what the
modifications would be; what the benefits would be of changing the design and
schedule; and then weigh the pluses and minuses. She believed her proposal could result in “an amazing win-win”
for the City. Council could stand
together and then be able to say that “we have done a miracle on Aurora Avenue,
and that is make it work as best it can for all the needs that it has to
serve.”
Councilmember
Ransom asked the staff’s description of the documentation provided by Mr.
Choi. He asked if Mr. Choi has a line
of credit in the contract.
Mr.
Sievers said one packet contains an unsigned letter of intent to lease part of
the property with a purchase and sale agreement. Mr. Burkett said the other document was an annual report for
Pacific International Bank.
Mr.
Choi explained he has a group of 13 investors.
Some of them have been supporting him for as long as three or four
years. He said he talked to the PI Bank
two and half years ago. The bank
chairman is worried about the delays in the project because its current lease
is expiring. If decisions do not come forward
as soon as possible, the bank will consider other options. Mr. Choi says construction needs to start as
soon as possible.
Mayor
Hansen read into the record two letters from the Department of Transportation:
“I am following up with you
on a brief discussion I had with a Shoreline City Councilmember about the SR-99
project. I was asked if WSDOT would be
willing to consider any changes to the plan currently being designed by the
City. I explained that we will look at
any proposal the City wants to put forward, but it needs to be consistent with
the RCW and WAC regarding access management.
In particular, median treatment is required. A continuous two-way left-turn lane is not acceptable. The WAC is very clear and does not allow any
deviation from this requirement. Please
give me a call if needed to discuss this any further.” This is an e-mail by Ron Paananen, WSDOT
Northwest Region Deputy Regional Administrator.
From Douglas D. MacDonald,
Secretary of Transportation, an excerpt, dated April 19, 2004. “I would like to clearly reiterate what I’ve
stated verbally and what our staff has communicated in writing—that medians are
required on this project. While there
are a number of complex design, safety, and regulatory reasons for this
decision, the primary reasons are the necessity for vehicles to cross three
lanes of traffic when turning left, the high volume of vehicles on the portion
of Aurora in Shoreline, and the high accident history. I trust this provides useful
clarification. I look forward to a
continued productive partnership on this and other projects in your city and
region.”
Mayor
Hansen said these statements are consistent with conversations he has had with
Secretary MacDonald as far back as three years ago. At that time the Shoreline Merchants Association submitted its
plans for Aurora, which were rejected.
He said this issue has been reviewed time and time again.
At
11:25 p.m. Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting to 11:45 p.m. Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to adopt Resolution
No. 213. Councilmember Ransom seconded
the motion.
Councilmember Ransom felt
the policy is too restrictive in not supporting City Councilmembers’ ability to
attend various activities. He feared
the Sister City Association would not be able to pay for Councilmembers’ travel
to sister cities. Councilmember Chang
agreed.
11.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 11:35 p.m. the Council
recessed into executive session until 12 o’clock midnight to discuss
litigation. At midnight Mayor Hansen
announced that the meeting would be extended for twenty minutes and the
executive session continued until then.
At 12:15 a.m. the executive session concluded and the meeting
reconvened.
12. ADJOURNMENT
At
12:15 a.m. Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________________
Sharon
Mattioli, City Clerk