CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Monday, June 7, 1999

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

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

ABSENT: None

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of Councilmember Hansen, who arrived shortly thereafter.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

Shoreline Police Chief Sue Rahr provided a report on the shooting incident that occurred on May 28.

Councilmember Hansen arrived at 6:35 p.m.

Mayor Jepsen commended the Shoreline Police Department, the King County Sherriff’s Department, the other personnel and the Shoreline residents who responded to the incident.

In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Chief Rahr said the only cost the City will incur as a result of the incident is some overtime of the Shoreline police officers who were at the scene. She noted that the City’s contract with King County for police services covers SWAT team services. She explained that police from other jurisdictions responded to the incident under a mutual aid agreement.

Councilmember Gustafson asked about the chain of command during the incident. Chief Rahr said she was in charge of the command post as the officer in charge of the Shoreline precinct.

Councilmember Gustafson questioned if it would have been better to allow the parents of North City Elementary School students to sign-out their children and take them home than to lock down the school with the parents waiting for their children outside. Chief Rahr explained that she and School District Superintendent Marlene Holayter chose to continue the lockdown to insure the safety of the children.

Councilmember Hansen suggested that the School District consider the development of an evacuation plan for schools in situations similar to that of North City Elementary School during the incident.

Next, Mr. Deis noted staff plans to discuss Shoreline Pool parking options with the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee and with the School District in preparation for a recommendation to Council.

Mr. Deis went on to discuss the City’s gambling moratorium and advertising by Goldie’s Shoreline. He explained that staff investigated sites before the implementation of the moratorium and that it has continued to monitor them. He said staff will report back to Council on any changes that represent a violation of the moratorium.

Councilmember Ransom recalled that Council granted the City Manager and the City Attorney authority to determine the validity of a "grandfathering" claim by Goldie’s. In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Deis explained that although the City has been in communication with representatives of Goldie’s, staff has not yet determined the validity of the "grandfathering" claim.

Wendy Barry, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, discussed Celebrate Shoreline, which will take place on Saturday, August 21. She went on to review a summary of the Shoreline School District Stadium and Activity Center construction project.

Mayor Jepsen questioned whether the project will address parking at the stadium. Councilmember Gustafson said the District has discussed the construction of additional parking in the area between the stadium and the gymnasium.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Barry and Councilmember Gustafson confirmed that the School District is using funds from past bond levies to finance the stadium and activity center construction project. Councilmember Gustafson went on to note opportunities for City use of the new facilities.

Finally, Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, reviewed a memorandum outlining the support of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee for Paramount Park as the preferred location for the skate park. He asserted that the master planning process for Paramount Park provides a good opportunity to design the skate park and obtain public input on the site.

Dwight Stevens, Chair, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee, commented that the committee took no formal vote on the preferred location for the skate park. He said the consensus of the committee at its meeting on May 20 was that Paramount Park would be the more favorable location.

Councilmember Lee questioned the progress of City discussions with the School District regarding Paramount Park. Mr. Bauer advised that the City and the School District are making progress on a memorandum of understanding (MOU). He asserted that Paramount Park is no longer an obstacle to the completion of the MOU.

Mr. Deis noted School Board President Paul Grace’s comment at a recent meeting that the City should be able to use Paramount Park as it wishes, consistent with the already-existing agreement between the City and the School District. Mr. Deis said President Grace believed that he represented the consensus of the School Board on the issue.

Councilmember Gustafson questioned whether Paramount Park is the best site for a skate park. He said those youngsters who will use the facility are not likely to use it with their families. He noted the support of the Shoreline YMCA for siting the skate park there. He asserted that teenagers would frequent the YMCA site more readily. While he acknowledged the added cost of the YMCA site, he preferred it to the Paramount Park site.

Councilmember Ransom asserted that the choice of sites will ultimately depend on the decisions of the School Board and the YMCA Board of Directors. He said the cost difference is not significant because private donors would likely make contributions to develop a skate park at the YMCA site. He commented that either site is acceptable, and he underscored the importance of moving forward.

Councilmember King questioned whether residents of the neighborhood surrounding Paramount Park support the development of a skate park there. She noted that the North City Neighborhood Association and the North City Business District support the YMCA site. She expressed concern about investing City money on School District property. She asserted the need for restroom facilities at either site.

Mr. Deis said staff assumed that the master plan for Paramount Park would include restroom facilities. He explained that either the YMCA would make restrooms available at its site or the City would incur the expense to provide them.

Councilmember King said the YMCA site is more accessible. She asserted that the skatepark would complement the Friday-night programming for teenagers at the YMCA.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery said she has visualized the development of a skate park in Paramount Park since visiting the multi-use facility in Enumclaw that includes a skate park.

Councilmember Lee highlighted the need to construct a skate park that will be utilized. Noting criteria that prospective skate park users have identified (e.g., availability of transportation and food), she considered the YMCA a better site from their perspective.

Mr. Bauer mentioned the different needs of users of different ages. While he agreed that the YMCA is a better site for older skate park users, he said Paramount Park is a better site for younger users (those eight to ten years old).

Councilmember Ransom recalled the Einstein Middle School poll that said 95% of the students want and would use a skate park.

Mayor Jepsen identified three options: 1) staff can bring a more complete discussion of the issue to the Council Workshop on July 6; 2) pursue the YMCA site; or 3) pursue the Paramount Park site.

Councilmembers Lee, Gustafson, Hansen and King favored the YMCA site. Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmember Ransom (noting concerns expressed by the YMCA) and Mayor Jepsen favored the Paramount Park site.

Mr. Deis said staff would start working with the YMCA.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember Ransom mentioned recent and upcoming meetings of the Jail Advisory Committee.

Councilmember King requested that staff investigate the location of no-parking signs on 1^st Avenue NE near the Shoreline Pool. She mentioned upcoming meetings of the Suburban Cities Association. She noted ongoing discussions at King County and other jurisdictions about a third wastewater treatment plant.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery said the Sound Transit Board will meet later in the week to adopt an implementation plan for various transportation projects. She has contacted members of the board to highlight the needs of Shoreline.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Status Report on the Planning Academy and Development Code Revisions

Tim Stewart, Director, Planning and Development Services, reviewed the staff report.

Anna Kolousek, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Services, described how staff will translate the values reflected in the input of the Planning Academy members into development code standards.

Finally, Mr. Stewart discussed the phases of the preparation of the development code.

(1) Patricia Peckol, 19144 8^th Avenue NW, identified herself as President of Concerned Citizens for Shoreline. She commended the work of the Planning and Development Services staff. She supported the proposed design standards as a means for the Shoreline community to become a leader in Washington State.

Councilmember King and Mayor Jepsen expressed support for the Planning Academy process the City is using to develop its development code.

In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Stewart explained that the Growth Management Hearings Board has established four dwelling units per acre as an acceptable urban density. He said this provides guidance as Shoreline prepares its development code.

Councilmember Ransom questioned how this Growth Management Hearings Board standard affects private covenants. Mr. Stewart explained that private covenants and public law are entirely separate. He said such issues would be dealt with as they come forward.

Ian Sievers, City Attorney, said there is no clear indication yet of how the Growth Management Hearings Board or the courts will address conflicts between public law and private covenants.

Mayor Jepsen expressed his disappointment at the lack of vegetation restoration following new development. He noted that Academy members identified the loss of vegetation as a key problem.

Councilmember Lee commented that the issues the Planning Academy has addressed thus far have been largely noncontroversial. She appealed to the members of the Planning Academy to continue to work cooperatively as they begin to address more controversial issues.

(b) Aurora Pre-Design Study Alternatives Evaluation and Preliminary Preferred Alternative

Kirk McKinley, Transportation Planning Manager, provided an update on the Aurora Pre-Design Committee’s work, noting that Council will be asked to provide feedback on direction and concerns. He introduced several City of Shoreline staff members, as well as individuals from King County/Metro and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). He also noted that Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF) members and neighbors adjacent to Aurora Avenue were in the audience.

Continuing, Mr. McKinley said the last scheduled CATF meeting is upcoming and then a recommendation will be forwarded to the Council. In terms of project status, the three alternatives have now been evaluated. Now the work focuses on refining the preliminary preferred alternative. The Council will receive briefings on July 6 (walkability, street design, aesthetics, level of service and intersection operations) and July 19 (Task Force preferred alternative). The goal is Council action on August 23. Mr. McKinley concluded that Shoreline has been recommended to receive another $1.5 million for this project by the Regional Project Evaluation Committee.

Mr. McKinley reviewed the three alternatives: 1) local access; 2) people mover; and 3) regional design. He reported that at the well-attended May 11 Open House, the majority supported Alternative 2, with Alternative 1 second. Alternative 3 did not receive much support and has been dropped from further consideration. The comments focused on limiting impacts to businesses and providing mitigation, increasing landscaping and aesthetic treatments, making vehicular and pedestrian safety improvements, and addressing the potential for spillover traffic into neighborhoods.

Turning to the results of the evaluation of the alternatives, Mr. McKinley reported that Alternative 2 is the most easily funded and has the best fit with grant criteria. He said staff believes that Alternative 1 would not be very competitive for grants and would mean heavy reliance on local funds. Alternative 1 was found to be slightly better than Alternative 2 for economic development, mainly because of business access issues. Alternative 2 was slightly more costly than Alternative 1. Alternative 1 creates significant traffic spillover onto parallel north/south streets, while Alternative 2 maintains a distribution similar to existing conditions. Transit is benefited most by Alternative 2, particularly in terms of travel time and reliability. He concluded that Alternative 2 is the safest both for pedestrians and vehicular movements and that it provides the best traffic operation.

Moving on to the CATF recommendations, Mr. McKinley reiterated that it is "tweaking" Alternative 2. This includes ways of minimizing impacts to businesses, possibly by reducing cross sections at intersections to seven or eight lanes. Other possibilities include minimizing and mitigating property impacts, maximizing left-turn/U-turn access to businesses, developing frequent and safe pedestrian crossings, and emphasizing landscaping, urban design and art amenities.

Councilmember Ransom alluded to the massive increase in traffic flow predicted for the next twenty years (a 50 percent increase over the 36,000 cars now using Aurora Avenue). He felt that other streets (e.g., Meridian and Dayton Avenues) will eventually be called upon to accommodate these increases, yet there is no discussion of this spillover or coordinated inclusion of this spillover into the plan. He felt this omission will be significant in the future.

Mr. McKinley said a 50 percent increase is high. Part of the issue is whether the design of Aurora attracts cars or whether they go somewhere else. Another factor is how well people can be moved and whether alternatives to cars can be made more attractive.

Councilmember Ransom said if Aurora is to be considered Shoreline’s "Main Street," it must be made more walkable, even if that means slowing down traffic. Without this slowing of traffic, Aurora cannot play this role.

Mr. McKinley said the ideal speed limit will be around 35 miles per hour. He also noted that if the speed limit is lowered to be similar to other alternative streets, they become more attractive.

Councilmember Ransom was also concerned about how limitations on access will impact businesses. Mr. McKinley agreed that this is a very sensitive issue. The CATF may recommend eight-foot sidewalks and a four-foot landscaping strip if a twelve-foot sidewalk would have a major impact on a business. This could be an interim step until the business comes in for redevelopment. The CATF may also ask Council to assure that it will provide a mechanism to assist businesses that may be forced to relocate. This is especially aimed at business owners who lease, rather than own, property.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. McKinley said that it will not be known until the CATF makes its recommendations whether the sidewalks are anticipated to be on the property owner’s side. He added that once this pre-design phase is completed, staff will begin the environmental work and surveying/base mapping. This will involve meeting with every business and property owner along Aurora about specific access and parking needs. He said an attempt will be made to get property owners to share driveways.

Councilmember King liked the bus bubble turn-out concept, which is not in Alternative 2. She felt that trees are needed in the landscaping plan. She also emphasized the need for safe pedestrian crossings, particularly at 185^th Street, and recommended sensitivity to historical considerations.

Len Madsen, King County/Metro Transit, began by saying that the Aurora Corridor is the backbone for transit service in the northwest corner of King County. Using photographs, he reviewed transit-related facilities and amenities. He noted that many current bus stops are inadequate along Aurora.

Moving on, Mr. Madsen explained that transit should be given preferential treatment to increase schedule reliability, contain operating costs, make transit more competitive with cars, and improve the carrying capacity and safety of the operating environment. He noted that bus bulbs are useful in certain situations, but on Aurora it will be important to retain the capacity on the street and not have extrusions into the travel lanes. He demonstrated signal priorities for buses, which will be installed on Aurora this summer. He concluded that it will be very important to be multi-modal in terms of getting funding for projects.

Jack Whisner, Service Implementation, King County/Metro Transit, said a six-year Implementation Plan is in its final stages. Service in Shoreline was restructured in 1997 and in February 1999. The benefits included greater mid-day frequency, greater speed in the off-peak times and, with the signal priorities, better speed and reliability throughout the day. He said the goal is to reduce the current 20-minute service on Aurora to 15 minutes by 2001 and to ten minutes by 2015. At some point in the future, Aurora may be used for three different Seattle markets: downtown; University District; and First Hill. He concluded that one half of the boardings in Shoreline occur in zones associated with Aurora.

Mr. McKinley said the peak hour has seven to nine minute service on Aurora. The more rapidly buses can get through the corridor, the more service can be added without having additional service costs.

Dave McCormick, WSDOT, applauded the unprecedented public outreach program undertaken by the City. He noted that Aurora Avenue plays a vital role in the region’s transportation system. He said the regional plan promotes transit-ridership and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) use. Since there is no extra room on I-5, it is important to get the most capacity from all the regional routes.

Continuing, Mr. McCormick said Alternative 2 provides the best balance in relieving congestion because it promotes transit, pedestrian crossings, complements improvements that Seattle and Snohomish County have made on Aurora, and provides a separate lane for right-turning traffic. Alternative 2 also makes strides in improving traffic safety. He pointed out there have been 300 accidents per year for the last five years on Aurora. These accidents are due to congestion and related to pedestrians or driveways. One-third of the accidents happen at traffic signals. In Shoreline, three percent of the accidents are related to pedestrians, which is a very large number. These account for 41 percent of all disabling and fatal accidents in Shoreline.

Mr. McCormick outlined the items in Alternative 2 that will result in improved safety on Aurora. Then he showed a video of an Aurora location in Lynnwood that was causing two accidents per month. The video was a compilation of a week’s worth of activity at this spot. It demonstrated problems similar to those on Aurora in Shoreline.

Turning to funding, Mr. McCormick demonstrated the unfunded needs for transportation improvements. He said there is funding available for only about 20 percent of requests for funding. He said the State sees a great deal of value in Aurora Corridor improvements as outlined in Alternative 2, due to the emphasis on safety and the multi-modal approach. He mentioned a $400,000 grant to address short term pedestrian problems.

Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.

(1) Cynthia Wills, 18205 Fremont Avenue N, was pleased to see the direction to avoid spillover traffic. She said a petition is circulating with over 100 signatures which states that speed and traffic have a profound effect on the quality of life in her neighborhood and that neighborhood residents oppose any plan that would increase traffic through the neighborhood.

(2) Paulette Gust, 14805 Whitman Avenue, #10, a member of the CATF, was pleased with the process and stated that Alternative 2 will create a safe environment, making people want to linger and shop along Aurora. She urged that the City mitigate impacts to business owners.

(3) Dennis Heller, 14804 North Park Avenue N, also favored Alternative 2. He commended the CATF for its efforts and said Alternative 2 will benefit all—pedestrians, bus riders, automobile drivers, and the Aurora Avenue business community.

(4) Larry Bingham, 313 NE 185^th Street, stated that the WSDOT presentation was a great justification for a tunnel through the Richmond Highlands corridor. He pointed out that the Aurora Corridor can be looked at from a regional perspective and a local perspective. He feared that the current proposal does not represent Shoreline’s economic interests because this plan is a replica of the Puget Sound Regional Council’s interests.

Mayor Jepsen thanked the CATF, staff and all those involved, for a vital process that has taken into account all stakeholder interests. He said it is critical to link the Aurora Corridor with the Interurban Trail. Mr. McKinley noted that the Interurban Trail transfer agreement, is close to coming to Council.

Mayor Jepsen expressed his concern about the fact that Shoreline received no funding from Referendum 49, and he suggested a joint presentation to the State delegation using WSDOT materials to emphasize the needs in the Aurora Corridor.

Mayor Jepsen expressed to King County/Metro the needs for east/west trips. He asked to see the large map of Alternative 2. He supported Alternative 2, which provides less aesthetics but a better traffic flow.

Councilmember Gustafson also supported Alternative 2 and concurred with the Mayor that the link with the Interurban Trail will be key. He complimented everyone involved n the process and looked forward to getting more information on costs.

Councilmember Ransom was concerned about the transit lane, which he felt is more dangerous because of speed. He also felt a transit lane can pose potential safety problems for those who cannot see across to this third lane. Councilmember Gustafson confirmed that the lane will not be an HOV lane but only for transit and right turns.

Mr. McKinley described the history of the Seattle approach, which combined transit and HOV, but which now is transit only. He felt that accidents in this area of Aurora result because of an open center left lane which does not focus turning. A second problem is that driveways are not well defined in this area.

Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. McKinley said the Snohomish County project, which is under construction, is the same concept but without the landscaped median. Seattle is looking at a transit/right turn lane for its portion.

Councilmember Lee mentioned mail deliveries and Mr. McKinley said the U.S. Postal Service will change its operations once a sidewalk is constructed. Councilmember Ransom recommended that mail be delivered to the businesses directly as in an urban area.

Councilmember Lee emphasized the importance of changing people’s perspectives and working with the business owners. She supported Alternative 2 but wanted to take some positive elements from the other alternatives in the final product.

Councilmember King applauded the interjurisdictional presentation tonight. Noting the lack of bus service in Shoreline, she suggested development of a Shoreline plan that considers neighborhood needs for bus service.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 9:56 p.m., Councilmember Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 6 - 1, with Councilmember Lee dissenting.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS

(a) Harley O’Neill, 18744 8^th Avenue NW, CATF Co-Chair, said the biggest concern is how to deal with right-of-way issues. In some places, the right-of-way is only 90 feet wide. The CATF wishes to deal with business owners, particularly those who are leasing property. He suggested incentives for businesses to share ingress and egress, which will allow for longer, safer stretches of sidewalk.

(b) Terry Green, 613 NW 179^th Street, another CATF member, reiterated that business owners, particularly those leasing, are concerned about impacts and about what will be offered as mitigation. She said $10,000 is a "drop in the bucket" for moving or remodeling expenses. She urged the Council to make a policy statement that will reassure businesses about these issues.

8. EXECUTIVE SESSION

At 10:02 p.m., Mayor Jepsen announced that the Council would recess into Executive Session for 15 minutes to discuss one item of potential litigation. At 10:26 p.m., the Executive Session concluded, and the workshop reconvened.

9. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:26 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

________________________
Sharon Mattioli
City Clerk