CITY
OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, May 3, 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: none
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Ransom commented on his daughter’s recent
wedding and on another daughter’s life-threatening experiences as a member of
the armed forces in Iraq.
Mayor Hansen reported on the northend Mayor’s meeting,
which included discussion about whether the northend group wants to form a
human services roundtable, as other jurisdictions have done.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen noted that the sister cities
delegation from Boryeong, South Korea will be visiting Shoreline next
week.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a)
Beverly Smilanich, Shoreline,
described the excessive student parking in her neighborhood (Palatine Avenue N)
due to the lack of parking at the community college. She said this is causing increased traffic and safety hazards for
children and elementary school students in her neighborhood. She felt if the college reduced the cost of
parking, it would help alleviate the problem.
She also requested that her neighborhood be used for a zone parking
pilot project, and that it be implemented this fall.
(b)
Jeff Lewis, representing
Forward Shoreline, thanked the City for its support of the Shoreline/Lake
Forest Park showmobile, noting that it is scheduled for completion by the end
of May. He then described the mission
and objectives of the organization Forward Shoreline, which is to “promote and
enhance the residential and business community we turn over to our children and
grandchildren.” He said promoting pride
and investment in Shoreline is complementary to the City’s economic development
objectives. He thanked the City for its
initial support and invited participation from others in the community.
(c)
Dale Wright, Shoreline, noted
that the Aurora Corridor is just as important to the overall community as it is
to the businesses along it. He said the
City’s plan is designed to specifically achieve the community goal of improved
traffic safety for vehicles and pedestrians.
Two elements essential to achieving this goal are raised medians and
limited access. He then explained the
conclusions of a Georgia study which indicate that raised medians, as opposed
to two-way left turn lanes, significantly reduce accident rates. He also said the claim that raised medians
will have adverse economic impacts on adjacent businesses is not supported by
the experience of other states. He said
the major factors that determine where people shop include customer service,
quality of product, and competitive pricing, not ease of access. He urged the Council to maintain the plan’s
integrity so it can achieve the community’s goals for the Aurora Corridor.
RECESS
At
6:50 p.m. Mayor Hansen declared a recess so that members of the Civic Light
Opera, rehearsing next door, could retrieve their costumes from the closet in
the Mt. Rainier Room. At 7:00 p.m. the
meeting reconvened.
(d)
LaNita Wacker, Shoreline,
explained that the retention of Fircrest School in Shoreline directly relates
to the Council goal of promoting economic vitality. She emphasized that Fircrest employs 760 people and is the second
largest employer in Shoreline. She
urged the Council to help protect these union-wage jobs. She said Fircrest receives substantial
federal funding each year, and this should be taken into account when
considering overall economic vitality in the City. She asked that staff track the current litigation regarding the
closure of Fircrest, and that the Council lobby state legislators on behalf of
the City. She noted that the City of
Buckley is lobbying the legislature, and Shoreline should do the same.
(e)
Vance McElmurry, Shoreline,
requested that the Council intervene in the zoning regulation issue at his
home. In his opinion, the City’s
development regulations were not intended to prevent him from making certain minor
remodeling changes to his home. He said
the concrete slab on his property was built in 1942 and leaks through to the
garage below, making it practically unusable.
He said the current development regulations prevent him from building a
roof above the concrete slab because of the ten-foot setback requirement, even
though his design is only deficient by 11 inches. He said the application of the rules in this case is for no other
purpose than the application of the rules.
He asked the Council to help him resolve this conflict so he can
complete his project.
(f)
Russ McCurdy, Arlington, Vice
President of the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce, provided a brief history of the
Shoreline Chamber of Commerce, noting that it was established in 1977 and now
represents over 211 small, medium and large businesses. He said despite its problems over the years,
the Chamber remains a strong organization that strives to enhance business and
the overall community. He felt the Chamber
could work with the City in implementing the goals of Forward Shoreline, emphasizing
that the business community needs to be stronger than ever before. He said the Chamber’s focus is on creating
the strongest business community possible, which will enhance the overall
community.
(g)
Daniel Mann, Shoreline, past
president of the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber played a
strong role in the development of the City and has tried to cooperate with the
City. However, many businesses believe
that “things are not working” and they cannot thrive under current
circumstances. He said that the City’s
actions would not be perceived as friendly if the Council avoids honest
dialogue with businesses. He said the
vast majority of comments he receives are that Shoreline is not a friendly
place to do business. He asked the
Council to reflect on how it instructs staff to interact with
constituents. He said staff often
become advocates for positions that have been developed behind closed doors
rather than soliciting honest input on how to make this a more viable, thriving
business community.
(h)
Pat Murray, Shoreline, asked
why the recycling contract with Waste Management was revised when Shoreline
incorporated. The revision eliminated
the feature of paying citizens a token amount to recycle. He suggested this feature be restored and
that City government itself engage in recycling. He concluded by saying that he would rather comment at Council
meetings after people have spoken than before he hears what they have to say.
(i)
Patty Crawford, Shoreline,
referred to a letter she received from Tim Stewart explaining the extent of
construction work going on at the Aegis development. She contended that a variety of construction work is happening
within the critical areas buffer, in direct violation of the Critical Areas
Special Use Permit approved by the Council.
She asserted that construction is happening 15 feet from the “edge of
water,” far beyond the designated 75-foot buffer. She said based on comments from staff, she always suspected that
Peverly Pond would be drained. She
said Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife never recommended lowering the
water level to make fish passage more successful, or restoring a stream channel
through the Aegis site. She said Mr.
Stewart claims that Peverly Pond was drained “because Aegis has done such a
good job with their mitigation, it’s turning back to nature.” She concluded by explaining the difference
between pond habitat and stream habitat.
Mayor
Hansen asked Ms. Crawford to keep her comments respectful. Ms. Crawford said the Mayor has not been
respecting the City and has never attended a single Aegis hearing in four
years.
(j)
Bob Barta, Shoreline,
suggested that the Council goal of “healthy, vibrant neighborhoods” would not
be achieved if unrestricted parking were allowed to occur in neighborhoods
adjacent to Shoreline Community College.
He agreed that the college is an asset to the community, but said the
parking problem must be addressed soon.
He pointed out that the college and other areas of the City do not
tolerate unrestricted parking, and neither should the neighborhoods. He asked that the City fulfill its
commitment to putting together a zone permit parking code to be implemented
this fall. He concluded by describing
the negative impact of the “parking lot atmosphere” in the neighborhood.
Responding
to Mr. Burkett, Paul Haines, Public Works Director, briefly explained the
status of the overflow parking issue around the college. He said that in response to the enormous
number of requests received by the City, staff would introduce an ordinance
this summer for zone parking. He noted
his participation at the SCC master planning meetings and his familiarity with
the concerns of the neighbors. He
confirmed that parking would be addressed in the master plan. He also commented on proposed changes to the
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program (NTSP) to allow for quicker action on
certain types of problems.
Responding
to Councilmember Fimia, Mr. Haines noted that the City has received over one
hundred requests for different types of traffic-related remedies. He said he could provide a map to show the
distribution of requestors in the community.
Responding
to Councilmember Fimia’s comment that the need for traffic calming devices and
other remedies should be addressed in the Transportation Master Plan, Mr.
Haines said there is an entire chapter devoted to safe and friendly
streets. It contains a series of
traffic solutions as a necessary investment of the transportation system.
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom, Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services
Director, explained the situation at Mr. McElmurry’s home and why it has been
difficult to resolve. He said the
problem with pursuing a building permit is that it could not be legally issued
if the 10-foot setback requirement is encroached upon. Staff wants to find an acceptable outcome,
but Mr. McElmurry does not qualify for a variance under the code because he had
already constructed a wall, a “self-created hardship.”
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom about whether the Aegis development has adhered to the
75-foot buffer requirement, Mr. Stewart stated that the south site was
originally developed under a legally authorized permit that was later withdrawn
as a result of various court actions.
He said mitigation of the disturbed area of the site will occur as part
of the construction in accordance with the Critical Area Special Use Permit,
which must be completed prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy.
Mayor
Hansen commented that substantial replanting of native vegetation has already
occurred in that area.
Reading
from a recent court order, Councilmember Fimia said that the building permit is
presently suspended, and that the amended building permit for the north site
was not issued validly under SEPA. She
wondered if the permit for the south site is likewise not in compliance since
it was issued under the same SEPA process as the north site.
Ian
Sievers, City Attorney, clarified that that review was used for a different
project on the south site, and the north site did not have the same procedural
defects (the same SEPA issues that were remanded by the court). He added that the Mitigated Determination of
Non-Significance (MDNS) was not invalidated at the time the building permit was
issued.
Councilmember
Fimia asked for a tour of the entire site so she can compare what is occurring
with what was approved by the Critical Areas Special Use Permit. She also asked for clarification of the
status of the Aegis project.
6. ACTION ITEM
(a)
Motion to authorize the City
Manager to execute the Brightwater Mitigation Agreement
Councilmember
Fimia was still concerned about odor control.
She suggested the following wording for Section 8: “King County will be responsible for odor
control and testing and will promptly investigate and remedy City or public
complaints about odor.” She feared that
under the language proposed by Mr. Olander, the County could investigate a
complaint and find there was no problem.
Then the City would have to pay for the testing.
Mr.
Olander said he thought her proposal would meet the County’s concerns. He said that if the motion was to approve
the MOA in substantially the form attached, there is authority to insert the
language proposed by Councilmember Fimia.
Both the maker and seconder concurred.
Councilmember
Gustafson said he felt the County is fully committed to not having any
odor. He supported the agreement.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen asked whether the Brightwater mitigation budget is defined. Mr. Olander said this is a global amount of
$88 million. There is no portion of
this budget specifically allocated to Shoreline.
Councilmember
Ransom wondered whether the concern about rail and barge removal being part of
construction versus mitigation relates to King County’s 1% for art from the
construction budget.
Mr.
Olander said art will be a part of the treatment plant but he said most of what
is constructed in Shoreline would be underground. He was not familiar with how the County applies its policy.
Councilmember
Fimia commented that the portals would be partly above ground. She recommended that staff look at the portal
designs and ask that some of the art money be used to enhance the way those
look. The art funding must be spent in
conjunction with the projects and not elsewhere.
Mr.
Olander did not think there would be a distinction about whether the funding came
from the construction or mitigation budgets.
A vote was taken on the
motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into the Memorandum of Agreement
regarding the Brightwater mitigation substantially in the form presented, which
carried unanimously.
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor
Jepsen, seconded by Councilmember Gustafson and unanimously carried, the City
Attorney was authorized to withdraw Shoreline’s appeal of the FEIS.
7. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a)
Status
of the Comprehensive Plan and Master Plan updates
Mr. Stewart and Paul Inghram, consultant to the project, provided background on the Comprehensive Plan review and the development of the draft master plans for Transportation, Surface Water, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space.
Mr. Stewart
explained that the state-mandated deadline for submitting the update is
December 1, 2004. As part of the 2004 update to the Comprehensive Plan and
development of the Transportation Master Plan, Surface Water Master Plan and
Parks Recreation & Open Space Plan, the City is developing a 20-year
Capital Facilities Program. City staff
and consultants began the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan and
developing the master plans last fall.
This process began with public open houses held on September 24th
and 25th. Subsequently, the
Planning Commission divided into three workgroups and reviewed public comments,
existing policies and policy options during a series of informal work
sessions. Between October and December
of last year, 19 workgroup meetings were held, each open to the public. The City has received several comment
letters during the update process. The
themes that seem to repeat themselves in many of the comment letters include:
·
Business access on Aurora
·
Street Classification and Speed Limits
·
Basin-wide improvements to Thornton Creek
·
Enhance environmental protection
Mr. Stewart noted that the
draft plans will be available on May 6, with an open house to be held May 13 to
advertise the availability of the draft.
He said people would be instructed on how to read the draft and how to
submit additional input. He then
briefly outlined the projected schedule for review and adoption of the update,
noting that several more hearings would be held in both the Planning Commission
and City Council. He noted that the
major issue of the master planning process is the establishment of criteria for
City priorities.
Mr. Inghram
described the funding constraints that will be involved in prioritizing the
projects in the master plans. He said
the City anticipates about $124.7 million in revenue for capital projects in
the 20-year timeframe of the plans. The
potential capital projects identified so far would cost over $400 million. Mr. Inghram then asked for the Council’s
input on the prioritization criteria listed in the Council packet on pages
76-79.
Responding to
Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stewart acknowledged the value of using the survey
results in developing prioritization criteria.
He also explained how the feedback has been listed in the report, noting
that an attempt was made to incorporate all comments. He said staff then used its knowledge of the community to develop
recommendations that would serve as a good starting point for debate.
Mr. Burkett
noted that additional open houses and opportunities for debate, discussion, and
additional input would follow in both the Planning Commission and City Council.
However, in the end, Council would make the final decision.
Councilmember
Grace wished to ensure that the public be educated about the plans in a
meaningful way in order to solicit the best possible feedback. He suggested that a portion of the open house
be televised and the criteria be placed on the web page. He wanted to be sure the information was
disseminated as widely as possible.
There was considerable
discussion about how the public input would be weighed and tracked. Mr. Stewart noted that it is basically a
process of balancing the competing needs and interests of the community. He said as long as the issues are clearly
articulated, it will ultimately be up to the Council to evaluate and judge the
projects.
Councilmember Fimia
commented that it would have been helpful to have a prioritization list prior
to drafting the master plans. She also
felt that a topic-related matrix of the type and number of public comments
would help the Council as it moves along in the prioritization process.
Mr. Stewart said the attempt
is to focus the comments on a particular policy, and then catalogue/inventory
the number of people for or against the particular issue. He emphasized the need to keep the process
flexible as the plan becomes more refined.
Councilmember Fimia said she
would need more specificity in order to know if the comments are being
reflected in the document. She said
although the four bulleted items are the most common concerns, it would be helpful
to see if people are saying the same thing in different ways. She then emphasized the importance of
ensuring there is a proper feedback process, as suggested by Councilmember
Grace, so that people do not claim they “didn’t have enough time to comment.” She also suggested taking public comment at
each Planning Commission meeting.
Councilmember Fimia felt
that the Council should prioritize the projects so the public and the Planning
Commission have something to react to, and so there is a “feedback loop.” She suggested adding “level of community
support” as a criteria on all the lists, as well as “degree of existing work on
the project,” and a “cost/benefit ratio” for the project.
Mr. Stewart explained that
the proposed process is to establish criteria for 20-year planning, which then
get narrowed down to the six-year CIP and then to the annual budget.
Mr. Inghram added that
detailed project definitions usually occur at the six-year CIP process. Therefore, a precise cost/benefit analysis
at the 20-year level is difficult to accomplish.
Mayor Hansen emphasized the
importance of “getting through this process.”
He said the 20-year plan would likely be revised numerous times, and
that the details are refined at the six-year level.
Councilmember Grace
commented that a number of the criteria seem to be overlapping, and he wanted
to make sure the criteria are distinct and commonly understood. He used “green streets” and “multi-modal” as
examples of items that might mean different things to different people. He also supported including “number of
accidents” as Councilmember Ransom suggested.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen
suggested deleting these criteria, as well as deleting “improve traffic
flow.” He suggested adding “ability to
maintain in the future” and “potential for additional funding.”
Councilmember Ransom
emphasized the importance of knowing how the community survey results would be
weighed and factoring this in for all lists.
He also suggested adding “maintenance costs, and “accidents at or near
the project” for the street projects as additional criteria. He also added:
He emphasized the need to
analyze community needs, recreational activity requests (demand for particular
projects), and fee-based programs for adults.
He explained that revenue from fee-based adult programs could help fund
other programs. He noted that surface
water should be an “enterprise fund,” so that fees can balance the costs.
Mr. Burkett noted that the
separate survey for the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan would be useful
in determining markets and priorities.
Responding to Councilmember
Gustafson, Mr. Stewart explained the status of the stream inventory, noting
that the final draft would be submitted to the Planning Commission next
month. He noted that the Commission
directed staff to remove the distinction between open-water courses and
artificial open-water courses, since additional scientific work was needed to
establish the base data for artificial open-water courses.
Councilmember Gustafson
emphasized the important of the stream inventory within the framework of the
master planning project.
There was Council consensus to take public comment next.
8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, said the City could pursue abatement as a remedy to the fire hazard created by the vacant, asbestos-laden buildings at Fircrest. She then invited the Council to take an official tour of the residential habilitation center (RHC) to assess its facilities. She differentiated between the disability levels of residents living in the skilled nursing facility (SNF) versus those living in the intensive care facility (ICF). She pointed out that Fircrest’s SNF is the only facility in the western part of the state, and is ranked among the top ten in the nation. She urged the Council to visit Fircrest to “see what’s there.”
(b)
Vance
McElmurry, Shoreline, invited the Council to visit his home and observe the
situation there. H explained the City
code that prevents him from improving his home, but said that Council could use
its discretion to permit him to make a reasonable modification. He asked the Council to think about his
proposal logically and consider changing the wording of the code to allow his
development to move forward.
Responding
to Mayor Hansen, Mr. Stewart said staff did not recommend that Mr. McElmurry
apply for a variance because it probably would not be granted due to the
self-created hardship rule.
(c)
Street
Lighting Program Funding Options
Mr.
Olander explained that the City pays for street lights in the Briarcrest and
Innis Arden neighborhoods, whereas individual customers pay for street lights
in other parts of the City. He
explained that a recent Supreme Court decision deemed it illegal for electric
utilities such as Seattle City Light to add to their rate base for street
lighting. Therefore, the staff
recommendation is to partner with a utility district to adopt a street light
utility fee in the City.
Mr.
Olander then introduced Bernard Seeger, Management Analyst, who provided
statistics on the deficiencies in the current street light system, including
inconsistent standards for various street classes and inequitable funding of
operations and maintenance costs. He
presented four funding options, rating them on impacts to the General Fund,
level of service (number of lights funded), ease of implementation, equity, and
annual direct cost to property owners (residential and commercial). The funding options include:
·
Option
1: General Fund and
Residential/Commercial Property Owners (Status Quo)
·
Option
2: General Fund and
Residential/Commercial Property Owners (City devolves responsibility for all
residential lights)
·
Option
3: General Fund (City assumes
responsibility for all street lights in the public right-of-way)
·
Option
4: Utility Fee Collection Model with
Wastewater/Water Utility (Partner with a Utility District to Adopt a Street
Light Utility Fee)
Mr.
Seeger concluded by recommending that Council pursue Option #4.
Mayor
Hansen noted that the Ronald Wastewater District would be the logical utility
because it covers the entire City.
After discussion, Councilmembers expressed the following views:
Councilmember
Ransom: agreed with #4 if it is
feasible; otherwise #3;
Councilmember
Fimia: support for #3 and asked that
staff bring back a list of non-essential budget items to potentially fund it;
she also wanted to be sure there was an offset for low-income citizens and
seniors;
Councilmember
Grace: #4; if not feasible, then
consider #3;
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen: explore #4 but find out
how many lights are currently above standard and develop a policy related to
that;
Councilmember
Chang: #4 with low-income offset;
Councilmember
Gustafson: a combination of #3 and #4;
and
Mayor
Hansen: #4.
Council
and staff concluded that lighting standards is an important element in the
overall analysis of street lighting needs.
Mr. Olander summarized that the majority of the Council wishes staff to
explore Option #4 but not preclude Option #3.
(d)
Forward
Shoreline
Councilmember
Ransom said he still has many unanswered questions about the relationship of
the City and Forward Shoreline. He
expressed concern that the Council and the Chamber of Commerce had not seen the
proposed contract for economic development services that the City is pursuing
with Forward Shoreline.
At
10:00 p.m. Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting for fifteen
minutes. Councilmember Fimia seconded
the motion, which carried 4-3, with Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen and
Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen left the meeting at 10:01 p.m.
Mr.
Burkett said staff is proposing that the City contract with Forward Shoreline
to provide services related to the City’s goal of economic development. He explained that one of the City’s
strategic plans is to partner with others in the community to accomplish this
goal.
Councilmember
Ransom questioned why this proposal has been going on for the past ten months
without Council knowledge. He was also
concerned about the attempt to develop a group similar to the Chamber of
Commerce without the Chamber’s knowledge.
Mayor
Hansen said Mr. Lewis had approached the Chamber to fulfill the function of
Forward Shoreline several months ago and nothing occurred, so Forward Shoreline
was formed.
Mr.
Burkett added that there is overlap between the Chamber membership and Forward
Shoreline. He said Mr. Lewis had been
discussing this for over a year. He
said it is common for cities to have a Chamber of Commerce and a separate
organization focused on economic development.
Councilmember
Gustafson said he had been aware of the activities of Forward Shoreline and he
supports the direction being taken.
Councilmember
Chang asked for the draft contract with Forward Shoreline and wondered where
the funding will come from. Mr. Burkett
noted that there is funding in the economic development budget for this
purpose. He reiterated that the strategic plan recommends using partnerships in
a variety of areas to accomplish City goals.
He pointed out that members of Forward Shoreline have the ability to use
their networks and specialized knowledge to encourage development in
Shoreline.
Councilmember
Chang questioned the motivation of trying to establish a group with similar
goals and objectives. He emphasized the
importance of process, fairness, equity, and inclusion. He was particularly concerned about the use
of City money and staff time on this issue.
There
was discussion of the City’s past relationship with the Chamber.
Councilmember
Grace felt it would not be appropriate to continue this discussion without the
involvement of representatives of Forward Shoreline. He moved to table further
discussion of this item. Councilmember
Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.
(e)
Potential
Revisions to the approved Aurora Corridor Design
Councilmember
Ransom emphasized the importance of having key members of Washington State
Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) executive staff at a Council meeting on
camera to answer questions regarding WSDOT’s position on access issues.
Councilmember
Grace said Council needs to give some direction about the purpose of WSDOT
coming to a meeting. He said Council
should provide specific questions about access to which WSDOT could respond in
a decision-making mode.
Councilmember
Gustafson commented that he is not willing to discuss the issue of raised
medians, although he would be willing to discuss left-turn access options in
specific cases. Mayor Hansen concurred
with Councilmember Gustafson, although he was willing to hear what other
Councilmembers have to say. He said
there are no concrete proposals for projects on the sections of Aurora under
discussion.
Mr.
Burkett said WSDOT is not willing to discuss continuous left-turn lanes, but if
the City Council had other specific issues, WSDOT would consider them. He
mentioned two specific issues:
At
10:15 p.m. Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting until 10:30
p.m. Councilmember Grace seconded the
motion, which carried 5-1, with Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
Mayor
Hansen had serious concerns about a double-stacked left-turn lane because of
the potential to install a signalized intersection at N 149th Street. He felt a short, two-way left turn lane
would decrease reaction times and create a significant safety hazard.
Councilmember
Ransom commented on Goldie’s problem of lack of official access from 152nd
Street. Mr. Burkett said it is
impossible to provide left-turn access because of the proposed traffic signal
near 152nd to serve this property.
Councilmember
Ransom said he had a fourth property that he was considering bringing forward
for discussion. He suggested that WSDOT
be invited to respond to the Council on television about what it will approve.
Councilmember
Fimia commented on the need for economic development and business viability and
the different solutions to access management that may be acceptable to
WSDOT. She said the City should say its
goal is “maximum access and maximum safety,” and WSDOT should be asked “how to
get us there.”
Councilmember
Chang commented on the loss of left-turn access to his business in the
plan. He said his business does not
compromise traffic safety and has more traffic coming in than does the Seattle
Restaurant Store across the street.
At
10:30 p.m. Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting for 5 minutes. Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion,
which carried 5-1, with Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
Mayor
Hansen summarized that the four properties mentioned would be submitted for
consideration. Councilmember Fimia said
Councilmember Chang’s property should be added to the list.
Mr.
Burkett asked Council to provide direction for staff to evaluate these sites
before contacting WSDOT. He did not
wish to send proposals to WSDOT that are not feasible from a technical or
safety standpoint. Then, Council could
review the evaluation and decide which proposals to send to WSDOT.
Councilmember
Fimia objected to this approach, so Mayor Hansen said the Council “would
operate in the dark and go with whatever the proposals are.”
Councilmember
Gustafson described the lengthy process of studies, input, and design that have
culminated in the approved Aurora Corridor project. He said he is willing to look at these three or four properties,
but he feared that other businesses would also come forward to ask for
consideration. He reiterated that the
City should move forward and make decisions based on staff’s recommendations.
Seeing
that it was 10:35 p.m., Mayor Hansen said this discussion would have to be
continued at a later date.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:35 p.m., Mayor Hansen
declared the meeting adjourned.
________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk