CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Tuesday, July 6, 1999

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

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

ABSENT: Mayor Jepsen

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. by Deputy Mayor Montgomery, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Deputy Mayor Montgomery led the flag salute. Upon roll by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exceptions of Councilmembers Hansen and Ransom, who arrived shortly thereafter, and Mayor Jepsen.

Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember Lee and unanimously carried, Mayor Jepsen was excused.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

City Manager Robert Deis reminded Council that next Monday night’s meeting has been cancelled and that the workshop on July 19 will begin at 5:30 p.m. with a bus tour.

Captain Clement Rusk, Shoreline Police Department, distributed a letter responding to John Hull, who spoke at last week’s Council meeting about being stopped twice in 12 weeks by Shoreline officers. Regarding one of the stops, Capt. Rusk explained that although there was a valid reason for it, the officer did not explain that reason as well as he could have.

Capt. Rusk reported on Shoreline’s first fourth of July under the fireworks ban, noting that there were no fires or medical calls related to fireworks. The fireworks calls were down this year, although it is hard to say whether it was because of the ban or the wet weather.

Councilmember Hansen arrived at 6:41 p.m.

Larry Bauman, Assistant City Manager, reported on his attendance at one of four hearings on the first draft of the King County Law, Justice and Human Services Committee’s human services framework policies, which will provide a framework for how King County will fund and support the human service activities of the County. Mr. Bauman reported that the County has done a good job in terms of sub-regional planning. However, there is still a problem with funding. The County has made the City entirely responsible for funding certain services, but the regional services to be provided by the County will be provided in the incorporated areas only if there is partnership available for funding those services. Private sources or local providers may be partners, but these would probably look to the City for assistance. In the unincorporated areas, King County will take total responsibility for funding human services, thus continuing the negative flow of dollars from incorporated to unincorporated areas for the support of human services. He added that adult daycare has changed from a regional to local service. The Senior Center receives $33,000 from King County that would not continue under this proposal.

Mr. Bauman said staff will draft a letter with Shoreline’s concerns about the policies for transmittal to County Councilmember Larry Gossett, the Chair of the Committee. He said the next step will be to have a Councilmember testify once the Committee has responded to the input it has received in the hearings.

Councilmember Ransom arrived at 6:53 p.m.

Councilmember Gustafson commented on the importance of following this issue. He felt another avenue for input could be the Human Services Roundtable. Mr. Bauman said the County has bypassed the Roundtable at this point. Councilmember Gustafson offered to attend the meeting in August.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember King reported that the Regional Water Quality Committee will meet on Thursday. Representatives of the Suburban Cities caucused this morning on many amendments to the Regional Wastewater Services Plan and will ask for postponement of a decision until August.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Colleen Holbrook, 1361 N 180^th Street, said a large development is proposed for her neighborhood on Stone Avenue. She was referred to planning staff for information.

6. WORKSHOP ITEM

(a) Aurora Pre-Design Workshop on Walkability, Traffic Analysis and Right-of-Way Process

Kirk McKinley, Transportation Manager, introduced Tim Blevan of CH2MHill and provided background on the development of a preferred alternative for the Aurora Pre-Design and the future schedule for selection of a design. Mr. McKinley introduced the other consultants working on the project: Todd Slind, Collie Hough-Beck, Jim Dale, Linda Lane and Al House.

Ms. Hough-Beck used slides to describe design elements that will unify the entire Corridor and create a special character for Shoreline. These will include landscaping (shrubs and street trees), both pedestrian and street lighting, public art, site furnishings (benches, drinking fountains, signage, etc.), and special paving.

Continuing, Ms. Hough-Beck described the methods for creating gateways at each end of the City, as well as areas such as 175^th and 185^th and the Interurban Trail. These would represent Shoreline’s community character in a way that welcomes residents and visitors. The area between 175^th and 185^th might be treated as a special zone. She said all the principles needed to create walkability as described by Urban Designer Dan Burden will be considered in the design treatment. Part of this would be the use of 12-foot sidewalks, the first four feet of which would be an "amenity zone" with elements such as signs and street trees to buffer the traffic.

Ms. Hough-Beck concluded by noting the public safety elements that will protect pedestrians, including corner radius reductions, driveway consolidations, marked crosswalks, refuge islands, curb bulbs, signalization and signage.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery called for public comment.

(1) Virginia Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, recommended that Councilmembers review the citizen questionnaires and comments from the open houses. Noting the difficulty of relocating, she said her goal would be to protect existing businesses.

(2) Colleen Holbrook, 1361 N 180^th Street, asked how the members of the Citizen Advisory Task Force (CATF) were selected. Then she expressed the opinion that Shoreline does not have a downtown, and she liked it that way. She was concerned about safety, cut through traffic in her neighborhood, and the elimination of existing businesses.

(3) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, spoke as an Aurora business owner, noting that businesses feel threatened by the loss of driveways and parking and the construction of medians. He told Council about the formation of the Aurora Improvement Council (AIC), which has 50 members. He said the group was formed because business and property owners felt they were not being heard by the drafters of the plan. He reminded Council that businesses generate 80 percent of tax revenues, with 50 percent of that coming from the Corridor. He referred to the AIC’s position statement regarding sidewalks, noting the sidewalks should not be put in at the expense of businesses.

(4) Les Nelson, 15340 Stone Avenue N, gave his experience in dealing with street lighting. He had concerns about designing the lighting when it is not known what the trees will be like. He also had a concern about street trees and overhead wiring.

(5) Mark Deutsch, 19715 Ashworth Avenue N, was pleased to have walkability addressed. He felt the emphasis of the plan has been on moving traffic, but he was uncertain how well it will move pedestrians. He also asked if there are other sections of Highway 99 that have been made more walkable. Finally, he cautioned that the design for the Interurban Trail by Echo Lake should not reduce the amount of beach.

(6) Russ McCurdy, 17532 Aurora Avenue N, read the AIC’s mission statement, which is to beautify and add safety to Aurora while not displacing or destroying businesses and multi-generation institutions in the process. He recommended looking for a compromise that would have smaller sidewalks and reduced medians.

(7) John Peel, 8820 194^th Street, Edmonds, related his experience in dealing with improvements such as those proposed. Noting the Aurora Corridor is a major north/south arterial, he expressed the opinion that the sidewalks should be smaller because he doubted pedestrians would walk along Aurora. He recommended working with the business community and offered to help.

(8) Bonnie Mackie, The Highlands, said this is an opportunity to be forward looking and create something special. She said the design must give a sense of place and give people a reason to want to come to Shoreline, which is critical to community growth.

(9) Dorothy Stephens, 17030 2^nd Avenue NW, owner of the Highland Ice Arena, expressed concern about the elimination of the left-turn lane. She, too, doubted whether pedestrians will walk in this area. She said the elimination of the left-turn lane will impact her business, which draws regional customers.

(10) Suzanne Dowley, 14701 Aurora Avenue N, did not want to see the City do anything that is unhealthy for businesses. She noted that if many businesses fail because customers cannot get access, there will be many vacant buildings along the Corridor. This situation would continue over time and damage the business district.

Responding to Councilmember Lee, Mr. McKinley said that lighting analysis will look at the light on the sidewalk and consider trees and shadows and also consider road lighting. Selection of lights will happen in the next phase of the project. He also mentioned that SeaTac has done improvements to two miles of Highway 99 (now called International Boulevard), with plans for another two miles. There have been increases in pedestrian activity and the use of crosswalks. Mr. Blevan added that sidewalks there are eight-feet wide, but the plan is now to expand this. There are also projects underway on Highway 99 in Des Moines, Federal Way, Lynnwood and Tukwila.

Councilmember Ransom was concerned about trees in the medians. He supported medians, because they contribute to pedestrian safety. However, he questioned the width of the medians in some places. He felt trees as high as 20 feet would be real barriers to businesses across the street. He also questioned ongoing funding for maintenance of street trees. He suggested using shrubs not over six feet or trees that do not grow higher than 12 feet with open canopies.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery also commented on the problems the roots of trees can create for sidewalks. Mr. McKinley said tree design has improved and now arborists can address growth patterns for roots, width of trees, etc. Ms. Hough-Beck added that landscape designers work with utilities to plant trees compatible with lighting systems.

Councilmember Ransom mentioned the width of the right-of-way and of sidewalks. He felt the City should be more sensitive to the businesses that are close to the street and consider the impacts to them. He suggested that the plan be designed in such a way that some changes do not take affect for ten or 20 years. He could not envision the public walking long distances along Aurora Avenue, and he questioned the amount of bus service Shoreline will receive. He felt people will drive to cluster areas to shop. He was very concerned about the fact that the sidewalk was originally included in the right-of-way. Now the plan has the sidewalk coming from the property owner’s side rather than the right-of-way. He liked the concept of a walkable community but, he felt the plan sacrifices too much for transit.

Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. McKinley explained how the CATF members were selected. Councilmember Hansen said he is looking for a balanced approach to this project. He commented that El Camino Real in California is very walkable in sections. He said the impacts of this project will not be felt for a year or so, and he used a personal example of a redevelopment project that has been very successful. He said the plans will be continually evolving. Business concerns must be taken into consideration, but change is not necessarily negative for those businesses.

Councilmember King commented on the raised brick crosswalks in Burien, which are a good visual reminder for drivers and are well used by pedestrians. She also commented that six-foot shrubs can hide those intent on crime.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery commented that the baby boomers are aging and will be walking more.

Turning to the traffic and transit report, Mr. Dale said the plan addresses the City’s Level of Service (LOS) standards and the Comprehensive Plan. He explained the basis of the traffic analysis, noting the results will be used to determine the geometric design of the roadway. He pointed out that the roadway is under the design jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Therefore, the traffic analysis must be done in a manner acceptable to them.

Continuing, Mr. Dale reviewed a handout with analysis results that demonstrated that Alternative 2 was the best alternative in terms of average system delay, average bus travel times, and bus schedule reliability. It met the goal for the other category of average traffic travel times. Then he demonstrated simulated traffic operations and compared Alternatives 1 and 2 in terms of traffic delay, transit travel time and mid-block traffic.

Mr. Blevan noted that the CATF emphasized the importance of left-turn locations. WSDOT has said left turns may be developed within 700 feet at those locations that generate the most traffic.

Mr. Dale used a graph to demonstrate the relationship between the average traffic delay and the number of lanes. There is a lot of improvement from adding a seventh lane but not much improvement after that. He said they are working with WSDOT to limit the number of lanes to three in each direction, with a single or double left-turn lane. He felt WSDOT will understand the compromises needed in Shoreline to reduce impacts and still provide reasonable traffic operations.

Moving on to right-of-way considerations, Mr. Blevan noted this part of the process has been started very early in this project. Normally it is part of the final design stages. He identified Ms. Lane and Mr. House as the right-of-way experts on the project. He noted that the typical right-of-way needs are for road widening, permanent easements for utilities, walls, bus zones, slopes, signal equipment, and temporary easements for construction of driveways, installation of landscaping, etc. Then he described the steps in right-of-way acquisition planning.

Continuing, Mr. Blevan said it will be important in the fall to develop City policies and procedures related to right-of-way acquisition. These will set out the acquisition process based on federal guidelines, with points of contact, decision authority, appeal process, if any, and agreements about interim improvements. Mr. Blevan concluded that there are many issues to discuss with business owners in addition to right-of-way: storm drainage issues, utilities, access, circulation, parking, landscaping, irrigation and grading.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery called for public comment.

(1) Dimitrios Voltsis, a business owner at 185^th and Aurora, pointed out that it seems to be a contradiction to move traffic faster while encouraging pedestrians to walk on a busy street.

(2) Les Nelson, 15340 Stone Avenue N, questioned the extra transit lane. He said Metro wants the extra lane yet there are only two buses per hour on Aurora at this time. He suggested reconfiguring the center lane for left and right turns rather than adding a lane.

(3) John Peel, 8820 194^th Street, Edmonds, said he served on a task force redeveloping Aurora in Lynnwood/Edmonds in 1990 but the work is only starting this year. He questioned trees in the median because of visibility problems for those making turns. He suggested not using medians all the way and giving the convenience of being able to make left turns. He suggested signage saying "U-turn permitted" to access retailers. He said retailers will benefit by moving more traffic.

(4) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, liked the idea of compromise, which he said is what business owners want. He suggested lane reduction, reduction of lane widths, and flexibility with respect to sidewalk requirements. He said the City must work within the road width. He liked the idea of interim standards as a way to address concerns until redevelopment of individual businesses occurs.

(5) Randy Farrell, a business owner at 175^th and Aurora, pointed out that Shoreline differs from other areas along SR 99 because the properties are quite narrow and many are constrained on the east side by the Interurban Trail.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery asked if there is a disconnect between the concept of moving traffic more quickly while expecting increased use of sidewalks by pedestrians. Mr. McKinley reminded Council that if capacity on Aurora is not increased, traffic will go down neighborhood streets. Mr. Blevan added that the goal is not to increase the speed of traffic on Aurora but to ensure that it is not delayed or stopped. This should actually reduce speeds, which has occurred in SeaTac.

Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Blevan said it is expected that Alternative 2 will be compatible with both Seattle and Lynnwood’s sections. Noting that Metro intends to increase service, he reported that transit agencies do not like turn-outs because buses get stuck in them. Mr. McKinley added that Metro feels it can add more service without additional costs if buses can get through the Corridor more efficiently.

Councilmember Ransom wondered where the ridership for buses every six minutes will come from and where the riders can go. Deputy Mayor Montgomery said once the service is frequent, ridership will increase. Mr. McKinley said staff is working with Metro to improve east/west service but on Aurora the goal is to give transit a competitive advantage to encourage ridership. Another goal is to break down the regional barrier between King and Snohomish Counties so that people can easily ride across the county line. He identified the goal of the additional lane not only to move transit through the Corridor but also to provide access to businesses.

Councilmember Ransom was still concerned about the high speed of the buses and the danger to pedestrians. Mr. McKinley responded that the buses are stopping frequently in the lane, which will slow the traffic.

Councilmember Lee wanted to focus on the big picture of economic development and increased traffic capacity. She said the plan will not destroy business but provide additional customers. Using her own small business as an example, she said traffic is only one small portion of what makes a thriving business. She was pleased to see that the City is working with agencies and listening to public input in developing the plan.

Responding to Councilmember Lee, Ms. Lane explained how a hypothetical appraisal would be done on Spiros Restaurant with a cost-to-cure analysis of the space to be replaced.

Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. McKinley said Alternative 2 has gone through several iterations in the effort to minimize impacts to businesses. Most impacts are between 175^th and 185^th, primarily on the east side of the road. He assured Council that staff will look for opportunities to compromise. He said the CATF will recommend allowing for an eight-foot minimum sidewalk if the business will be impacted, with the goal of getting an extra four feet at the time of redevelopment. Mr. Blevan added that the CATF has reduced the impacts of Alternative 2 by about 30 percent by recommending refinements.

Councilmember King commented on the fact that sometimes no cars are able to take a right turn from 185^th Street onto Aurora because of the length of time it takes some pedestrians to cross the street. She suggested putting the bus stop on the northeast corner. Mr. McKinley said the proposal is to put a right-turn lane there. Staff could also work with Metro about placement of bus stops.

Councilmember King did not support increasing speeds along Aurora but she did like breaking up the center turn lane and the use of common driveways.

Councilmember Gustafson was concerned about WSDOT design rights. Mr. Blevan explained that the City will have to submit the geometric design, which will have to comply with WSDOT standards on such things as access management and traffic operations. He said if WSDOT does not agree, it will be very difficult to convince them to approve the project. Mr. McKinley added that the interagency advisory team has allowed the City to understand WSDOT requirements. Several members of WSDOT staff have followed the project since its inception, and the State supports what the City is trying to do.

Councilmember Gustafson said his major concern is safety. He also wanted to partner with businesses in a way to show them respect. He appreciated that the businesses have gotten together to work with the City. He thanked the CATF for their efforts. Finally, he said the Interurban Trail is a key piece of giving the City of Shoreline a sense of place. He was also concerned about the median design.

Councilmember Ransom was also pleased with the AIC’s presentation. He said small businesses are key to Shoreline’s success and will do more for Shoreline than having a few large businesses relocate here. He was also concerned about the Interurban Trail, but he wanted it to be viewed primarily as a recreation facility. He said the City will have to address the impacts to the homes on the east side of the trail.

Councilmember Lee advised the AIC to get together with staff and the CATF to work together to provide constructive input.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS

(a) Naomi Hardy, 17256 Greenwood Place N, asked Council to think about how the changes to the Aurora Corridor will affect the surrounding neighborhoods. She advised that the plan could create empty houses that the City would have to buy.

(b) Evan Voltsis, 1406 NW 196^th Street, said 50 - 70 businesses would be affected by the current plan, including his family’s restaurant. He wondered where the traffic will be rerouted while the street is under construction and how long this will take. He said businesses will suffer because access will be cut off and many businesses may not survive. He asked if there will be compensation for loss of revenue or employees.

Ms. Lane responded that projects with federal or State funds must have a relocation plan prior to acquiring property. She said tenants and owners will be interviewed about relocation, but the first step is to develop policies and procedures. She said the City has options in terms of reimbursement for appraisals, parking requirements, etc. The State does not reimburse for loss of good will. Mr. Blevan added that the City can implement strategies to expedite construction and assist businesses during the construction phase.

Ms. Lane said the discussion can proceed once policies and procedures are drafted. She suggested allowing businesses to review these.

Councilmember Hansen commented that a business owner always has redress through the courts if he or she feels that treatment is unfair.

Ms. Lane concluded that it is important to have a good working relationship between owner and tenant.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 10:00 p.m., Councilmember Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 10:25 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

(c) Cynthia Wills, 18205 Fremont Avenue N, was concerned about spillover traffic in the neighborhoods. She said a petition with over 200 signatures is ready for submission to Council. She was also concerned about the artificial concept of a city center, although she liked the idea of the Interurban Trail as a unifying factor. She noted that at some points the trail comes very close to Aurora, so there seems to be no reason to have a large landscaped sidewalk when people could walk on the trail.

(d) Dale Horton, 17212 Aurora Avenue, spoke as another property owner and a long-time resident of Shoreline. He said his life savings are in the value of his property and the good will in his business, and he cannot relocate. He advised that everyone should work together.

(e) Russ McCurdy, 17532 Aurora Avenue N, another business owner, said the AIC is willing to work with the CATF. He said his business will probably not survive no matter what happens, but those businesses that will be marginally affected should be allowed to remain.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery thanked everyone for their input.

8. EXECUTIVE SESSION

At 10:10 p.m., Deputy Mayor Montgomery announced that the Council would recess into Executive Session for ten minutes to discuss litigation. At 10:30 p.m., the Executive Session concluded, and the workshop reconvened.

9. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:30 p.m., Deputy Mayor Montgomery declared the meeting adjourned.

________________________
Sharon Mattioli
City Clerk