CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, July 19, 1999
5:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen, King, and Ransom
ABSENT: Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Lee
1. CITY COUNCIL BUS TOUR
The bus tour departed from the Shoreline Conference Center at 5:43 p.m. All Council-members were present with the exceptions of Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Lee. The tour was conducted by Kirk McKinley, Transportation Manager. Several other City of Shoreline staff members, Tim Bevan and Todd Slind of CH2MHill, and Carol Doering and Paulette Gust of the Aurora Corridor Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF) were also on the tour.
The tour made five stops along Aurora Ave. between 145th and 185th: 1) Arden Rehabilitation Center; 2) Pepperhill Center and the Hideaway Card Room; 3) the Seattle Restaurant Store; 4) Kyms Kiddy Corner; and 5) the vicinity of Monarch Appliance. Mr. McKinley pointed out features of the Aurora Corridor Pre-design preferred alternative as the bus proceeded. He mentioned that the details of the design will change as it moves through the design process. He also noted that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will have final approval over channelization and signalization plans. He emphasized that along most of the three miles to be improved, the third lane already exists. Eighty percent of the work will be very low impact to adjacent businesses.
Mr. McKinley pointed out that in some locations, such as the Hideaway, the center of the roadway could be shifted to the east within the right-of-way to reduce impacts. He also said that the link with Seattle across 145th will be coordinated if such shifting occurs. At the Seattle Restaurant Store, Mr. McKinley pointed to an example of eight-foot sidewalks with a five- to seven-foot amenity strip, noting that it does not appear overly spacious. Tim Stewart, Director of Planning and Development Services, added that here the alignment of the sidewalk and curb was adjusted to accommodate the remodel of the building.
Moving north, Mr. McKinley pointed out the inaccessibility of the bus stops for wheelchairs. He also noted that the CATF is recommending flexibility on lane widths at certain points in order to be sensitive to the needs of adjacent businesses. He pointed out that the City may need to buy the AMT Transmission site in order to meet the operational needs of the east leg of the 160th Street intersection.
Continuing, Mr. McKinley said that an effort will be made to retain Ronald Place. The CATF wanted to preserve the heritage of the red brick road, although the bricks may have to be relocated. He pointed out that Key Bank has located its drive-up window in the Ronald Place right-of-way. Many of the businesses in this section of Aurora are accessed from the back, rather than the front, because of the proximity of the buildings to the Corridor and the lack of parking. These are the businesses that will be most affected by the plan. Mr. McKinley pointed out that those from Ronald Place north are built upon the Seattle City Light (SCL) right-of-way. These businesses are generally operating on 30-day leases. They will probably all have to be relocated eventually since they may also be affected by the development of the Interurban Trail or by future SCL transmission lines.
Mr. McKinley concluded that the Council will hear the recommendation for a preferred alternative from the CATF this evening and be asked to take action on August 23, 1999. The tour concluded at the Shoreline Conference Center at 6:20 p.m.
2. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was reconvened at 6:30 p.m. by Deputy Mayor Montgomery, who presided.
3. 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 Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Lee.
Upon motion by Councilmember Hansen, seconded by Councilmember King and unanimously carried, Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Lee were excused.
4. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
City Manager Robert Deis mentioned that King County identified several housekeeping changes to the draft agreement to be adopted in Item 8(c). He distributed a memo explaining the changes and asked that Council include these changes in the adoption of the motion.
Continuing, Mr. Deis commented on the success of Clean Sweep, which collected 43.4 tons of material from more than 400 households. He also explained that the project in The Highlands mentioned in an article in the Sunday Seattle Times involves a permit initially approved in 1995. He said the City has not received any complaints from the neighbors about the project.
City Attorney Ian Sievers added that the issue is currently a private matter involving the enforcement of covenants in The Highlands.
5. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmembers Hansen, King and Gustafson commented briefly on various items.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Gretchen Atkinson, 17521 15th Ave. N., requested that North City receive proper crosswalks, as recommended in the North City Report last February. She said crosswalks across 15th Ave. N at 176th and 179th are needed before the holiday festival.
(b) Charlotte Haines, 836 NE 194th, speaking for the North City Neighbor-hood Association, noted that North City has been the subject of several studies, but now it is hard to keep the momentum going if nothing happens to show the City really cares. She supported the request for crosswalks. Mr. Deis said the City Engineer will respond.
7. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Hansen moved to approve the agenda with the amendment to the Consent Calendar to incorporate the change to the Interlocal Agreement with King County referred to in the City Manager’s Report. Councilmember King seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the agenda was approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Hansen moved to approve the consent calendar. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 5-0, and the following items were approved:
Minutes of the Workshop of June 21, 1999
Minutes of the Dinner Meeting of June 28, 1999
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 28, 1999
Minutes of the Workshop of July 6, 1999Ordinance No. 201 granting a franchise to Allied Waste Industries, Inc. aka Rabanco Companies to operate in certain Annexed areas, in accordance with RCW 35A.14.900
Ordinance No. 202 granting a franchise to Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (formerly known as Washington Natural Gas) for operation of a gas distribution system in that portion of the City of Shoreline annexed thereto by City Ordinance No. 198
Ordinance No. 204 adopting an Interlocal Agreement between Shoreline and King County relating to processing of building permits and land use applications and adopting by reference the King County Comprehensive Plan and Title 21A, Title 16, Title 19, Section 20.44, Section 2.98, and Title 27 of the King County Code for Annexation Area A-2 in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement
9. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Aurora Corridor Pre-Design Study Recommendation from Citizens Advisory Task Force
Mr. McKinley introduced Harley O’Neil and Carol Doering, co-chairs of the CATF, to present the preferred alternative for the design of the Aurora Corridor. Mr. O’Neil gave background on the members of the CATF and acknowledged their time and effort. Ms. Doering explained that the preferred alternative was approved unanimously by the 12 committee members present at the last meeting. She commended the committee members and described their public outreach efforts and learning activities.
Paulette Gust, CATF member, explained that the preferred alternative encourages alternative modes of transportation, such as transit, bicycling and walking. She said the business access transit lane will allow buses to move more quickly and provide infrastructure to take advantage of future transit enhancements. In addition to speed and reliability, the alternative provides safety and ease of use.
Mr. O’Neil said the CATF approached the issue with an open mind and considered a variety of solutions. The biggest problem was the width of the right-of-way. He said the preferred alternative provides for pedestrian safety and moving both people and cars through the Corridor. He made the following points about the preferred alternative:
Mr. O’Neil concluded that many business owners are worried about how the improvements will affect their businesses.
Tim Bevan, CH2MHill, summarized the physical features of the recommendation, noting that the details will be refined in the design phase. He said the City will work with the businesses owners, as well as WSDOT, in this process. He pointed out the four new signalized intersections and more evenly-spaced left-hand turns and pedestrian crossings. He also noted there are opportunities to realign the roadways to lessen impacts on existing businesses. He mentioned the buildings most affected by the design, noting the final impacts will be established as the design proceeds.
Mr. McKinley reminded Councilmembers that they will be asked to take action on the preferred alternative at the August 23rd meeting.
After acknowledging the presence in the audience of State Representatives Edmonds and Kagi, Deputy Mayor Montgomery thanked the CATF for their work and then called for public comment.
(1) Scott Smith, an attorney representing the Aurora Improvement Council (AIC), said the AIC shares the values of the CATF. Key priorities are to make the Corridor safe and beautiful, but at the same time be sensitive to impacts on businesses. He said there will undoubtedly be negative short-term impacts, with businesses closed and jobs lost. The businesses should be accessible, with adequate parking. He concluded that 12-foot sidewalks are an appropriate vision for the long run, but there should be interim steps of narrowing sidewalks and the median and realigning the Corridor.
(2) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Ave. N., 17920 Stone Ave. N., urged Council to pay careful attention to items such as narrowing sidewalks and mitigating property takes, giving clear guidance that businesses should get the attention they need. He said the Council must make a clear statement about how they will treat businesses in Shoreline during the interim period.
(3) Terry Green, 613 N. 179th St., spoke as a member of the CATF and the AIC. She pointed out that the vote for the 12-foot sidewalks was six to five. She said the concerns of the AIC include retaining businesses in Shoreline that must be moved. She suggested grandfathering current uses and having a signage variance for businesses that stay through the construction period. She said there are businesses that will be damaged no matter what is done, and it is important to treat them fairly.
(4) Jeri Nofsinger, Care Plus Medical Center, 147th and Aurora Ave. N., said the AIC believes a continuous center median is not business friendly. She advised installing center medians only at pedestrian crossing points for improved safety. She pointed out that Everett does not have a continuous center median and Lynnwood and Edmonds do not plan for one. She questioned the need for continuous medians for the number of pedestrians who will be on the street.
(5) Randy Ferrell, 17510 Aurora Ave. N., said his business is scheduled to be taken. He agreed with previous speakers that the CATF worked hard to represent diverse interests. He pointed out that in the process of land acquisition Council should be sensitive to the interests of business owners and particularly tenants who will displaced. He said the current federal minimums will cover little of the costs of relocation and he urged careful consideration of this.
(6) Russ McCurdy, 17532 Aurora Ave. N., also spoke for the AIC and said it was a tribute to all concerned that everyone was working together and felt heard in the process. He said the most important issues he has heard are the sidewalk widths, signage and parking.
(7) Naomi Hardy, 17256 Greenwood Pl. N., said her neighborhood has been very active in Corridor planning. She pointed out the designation of the Corridor adjacent to the Richmond Highlands neighborhood as "high level urban design landscaping" noting the neighbors like the current look. She also questioned why the Interurban Trail is not mentioned, particularly as a mitigation to allow narrower sidewalks at certain points. She also submitted a petition with over 300 signatures which opposes spillover traffic in the neighborhood.
Councilmember Ransom agreed with concerns about the width of the sidewalks and the size of the right-of-way. He said the Interurban Trail was to be developed as a recreation feature and a business feature. He said the major concern about sidewalks is between 175th and 185th and perhaps not so much sidewalk would be needed on the east side if the Interurban Trail in that area were utilized as a pedestrian walkway. He said what is needed is a plan for development of the trail in this area that is open to the businesses. He felt perhaps the medians could be narrower in this area.
Mr. McKinley said the City has not yet received the funding to design the Interurban Trail. The key point for the trail is that it should not be next to Aurora because of safety issues. He recommended not reducing the sidewalks, because pedestrians will need a sidewalk as a buffer between themselves and the traffic. He said the Interurban Trail needs to be a separate design issue, in terms of location. It should not change the decision about what is recommended for Aurora Ave.
Councilmember Gustafson agreed with Councilmember Ransom. He felt the design of the Interurban Trail must be considered in conjunction with what is done on the Aurora Corridor and businesses should have information about what the trail will look like.
Mr. Deis explained that the City has $12 million in grants and some thought has been given to doing the Aurora Corridor in pieces, waiting until the end to do the portion between 175th and 185th. This would allow the Interurban project to catch up. Then this area could be dealt with holistically. However, from a transportation planning standpoint, waiting for the Interurban should not eliminate the need for a sidewalk on the east of Aurora in this area.
Mr. McKinley said funding for design of the Interurban is expected in early fall. He emphasized that the pre-design decision for the Corridor should not be held up waiting for the Interurban Trail design.
Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. McKinley said the Interurban crossing of Aurora concept between 155th and 160th has not been finalized and will be part of the Interurban project. Councilmember Hansen felt the schematic as shown would be an excellent way of crossing Aurora.
Councilmember King said she would like to see an incentive for businesses that decide to relocate in Shoreline. Mr. Deis said the CATF has also recommended this.
Councilmember Ransom commented that the addition of four new signalized intersections and four pedestrian crossings will automatically reduce speeds. Deputy Mayor Montgomery asked if the reduction will increase spillover traffic.
Mr. Bevan said the City will have to work with the WSDOT to get acceptance of the new pedestrian crossing lights but they would only be activated by the demand of a pedestrian. The spacing is such is that the traffic will still move through the Corridor without delay.
After commenting that the CATF has done an outstanding job, Councilmember Gustafson said his first priority is safety, the second is to be business friendly and keep businesses in Shoreline, and the third is to beautify Aurora. He was concerned about the sections for high level urban design landscaping, commenting that the City must be considered as a whole. He was also concerned about spillover traffic at 35 miles/hour. He also mentioned the suggested closures at Westminster, and the two ends of Firlands Way.
Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. McKinley said preservation of the red brick road is conceptual at this point, but the key is to preserve that heritage.
Deputy Mayor Montgomery commented that at this point there is not much "disconnect" between the CATF recommendation and the AIC. She said both groups want to address the issues of safety and beautifying Aurora. The businesses want to be assured that they will be sustained. The center median is one outstanding issue and whether it is business friendly. She felt the center median must address safety issues, both now and in the future.
Councilmember Ransom suggested that if the City acquired the corner of Aurora and 185th and if the median were reduced at that location, perhaps some of the width of extra turn lanes could be accommodated and the businesses could survive better.
After commenting that it is critical to have frequent left-turn lanes because businesses depend on this access, Deputy Mayor Montgomery declared a recess.
RECESS
At 8:02 p.m., Deputy Mayor Montgomery declared a five-minute recess. At 8:06 p.m., the meeting reconvened.
(b) Code Enforcement Program
Tim Stewart, Director of Planning and Development Services, said this item responds to Council’s eighth 1999 Work Program goal, to develop a code enforcement program reflective of City values. He said the presentation is an interdepartmental team effort and focuses on the development of the code enforcement program, consideration of options for enforcement strategies and to start thinking about the "dirty dozen" types of code violations in Shoreline and which should be aggressively pursued. He said staff recommends Option #3, which is a proactive three-strikes model.
Mr. Stewart reviewed the staff report and described the four options presented to Council. He reviewed the benefits and drawbacks of each approach. He explained the three strikes include an initial warning asking for voluntary compliance, a more aggressive approach threatening citation, civil fines, abatement and/or misdemeanor charges and as step three, turning the file over for actual implementation of enforcement measures. He said that the recommended option has a proactive component. It is community-oriented and emphasizes an educational approach. A potential drawback is that it will generate more complaints. He said this option provides a gradual approach to enforcement problems while taking a proactive approach in developing special projects to inform the community about particular problems.
Mr. Stewart referred to page 80 of the Council packet, which lists the "dirty dozen." He said the current budget can accommodate Option 3, but the level and speed with which the problems are addressed are budget-dependent. He said that to determine community values, staff will talk to neighborhood groups about this program to determine which projects would be appropriate or desirable. This information will be brought back to Council in the fall.
Deputy Mayor Montgomery noted that the data the City has already compiled would provide information about community values. She supported Option 3.
Councilmember Hansen said the whole concept makes him "a little squeamish." He said it is difficult to define community values and there is potential for abuse. He was in favor of the concept, but he also believed in personal property rights and wants to go very carefully in this area. Councilmember King concurred with going easy; however, she felt it was not appropriate to be too easygoing when no respect is shown for Shoreline regulations.
Mr. Deis agreed that the goal posts have to come from the community. Staff will attempt to flesh that out and see if there is Council concurrence to move forward.
After a brief discussion of garage sale signs, Mr. Stewart said the City can write the rules but the code then has to be enforced. The question is how aggressive the enforcement action is and the penalties imposed. This is a value question.
Responding to Councilmember King, Mr. Stewart said staff is working with the City Attorney to develop the enforcement section, which would include fines. There may be other ways to enforce the code, and the staff may bring forward other alternatives.
Responding again to Councilmember King, Mr. Stewart said traffic enforcement and major criminal enforcement are responsibilities of the police.
Councilmember King cautioned against being overly enthusiastic and Mr. Stewart said staff favors the "baby-step" approach, with checks and balances on the most troublesome cases.
Councilmember Gustafson supported getting the community values, and he suggested talking with the Council of Neighborhoods. He supported Option 3 but also advised caution. He said costs will be an important issue, and if Option 3 is the most expensive, that will be important. Mr. Stewart said staff is determining cost levels for the intensity of activity.
Councilmember Ransom was concerned that the work related to the Comprehensive Plan is not completed, which is "keeping the pot stirred with the public." He did not think the City should implement another program to "stir the pot more." He favored Option 1 or 2, which are used by several cities.
Deputy Mayor Montgomery said the approach is to decide on the priority issues and what would be the leverage on enforcing those. She said this could actually be fewer items than presently responded to, rather than more.
Sherri Dugdale, Enforcement Officer, presented the problems with the current approach, which is complaint driven.
Deputy Mayor Montgomery and Councilmembers Gustafson and King supported the proactive approach. Councilmember Hansen said he would support Option 3 at this point. Councilmember Ransom supported the traditional approach.
(c) Discussion of proposed Ordinance No. 203 granting US Crossing Inc. a non-exclusive franchise for ten years to construct, maintain, operate, replace and repair a multiple conduit fiber optic telecommunications system, in, across, over, along, under, through and below certain designated public rights-of-way of the City of Shoreline, Washington
Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, described the proposed non-exclusive, ten-year franchise to US Crossing Inc. to provide a fiber-optic communications link down the center of Aurora Avenue. He reviewed the staff report in the Council packet, noting that US Crossing will not provide services directly to the residents of Shoreline. It is not considered a telecommunications business and, therefore, not subject to state restrictions on franchise fees. He clarified that US Crossing disagrees with this interpretation but is willing to accept it in order to move forward with the franchise. Mr. Bauer described the proposed benefits to the City for granting the franchise as described on page 90 of the Council packet.
Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Bauer reiterated that US Crossing will install two two-inch conduits the full length of Aurora Ave. in Shoreline, along with access vaults at major intersections. The City will own and be able to use one conduit. The conduits will be installed in the turn lane, thus minimizing the impact of the installation. The system will create access holes rather than dig up the streets.
Councilmember Ransom was concerned about this franchise because he felt US Crossing should pay a franchise fee and be treated more like a regular franchisee. He said we cannot predict what will happen in ten years, and he did not like giving them a "free ride" for that length of time. He questioned what would happen if US Crossing started selling capacity in Shoreline.
Mr. Bauer said the franchise does not allow US Crossing to sell services within the City. If the uses were to change, a new franchise would be negotiated.
Mr. Deis added that typically a franchise fee is applied to revenue and, in this case, no revenue will be generated from Shoreline customers. The value of the conduit is being amortized over ten years in lieu of a franchise fee.
Responding to Councilmember Ransom’s question about why US Crossing is not considering serving Shoreline customers, Mr. Bauer said it is not a retailer but a wholesaler, selling to long-distance providers.
Mr. Deis added that many cities are doing the same thing in order to create the capacity to lay their own fiber in the future. Shoreline could use the conduit to create its own institutional network, so the process has great potential.
There was Council consensus to bring the franchise forward on the July 26th agenda.
(d) Sound Transit Commuter Rail Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Mr. McKinley reviewed the sites under consideration for the Sound Transit commuter rail stations and asked for Council direction on the proposed sites. He used overheads to demonstrate the locations and common features (120 parking spaces, 1000-foot covered platforms on both sides of the track and twelve trains per weekday) of the Richmond Beach Saltwater Park site, the Point Wells site and the Metro Pump Station site. He noted that a Shoreline station is not currently funded, but staff believes a station could be funded if Shoreline wants one. Then he detailed the issues related to each of the sites.
Continuing, Mr. McKinley said the Richmond Beach neighborhood did two surveys, both of which indicated that respondents favored having a station by a slim majority. There was no consensus on the location but there was strong opposition to the Saltwater Park site. The other issues raised by the Richmond Beach residents were traffic, parking, pressure to intensify land use, loss of neighborhood character, safety and security issues, tying the transit system to the station, and the suggestion to site a station in Edmonds instead of Shoreline.
After a brief discussion of mitigation possibilities at each site, Mr. McKinley said the comments made by Shoreline for the scoping process for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are still valid and could be resubmitted. He asked for Council direction to send a letter to Sound Transit summarizing the general issues, identifying station-specific mitigations as well as general mitigations, and asking that the Saltwater Park site be eliminated from consideration. He suggested continued consideration of the pump station and Point Wells. He noted that Point Wells is going through the planning process now, and in a month or two Council will be considering direction about land use there.
Deputy Mayor Montgomery called for public comment.
(1) Larry Bingham, 313 NE 185th St., concurred with staff that Saltwater Park should not be considered. However, he said not much consideration has been given to how Richmond Beach would be accessed at either of the other sites. He felt the City should consider opening 205th and making it the main access to Richmond Beach.
(2) Bill Clements, 19704 21st, speaking for the Richmond Beach Community Council (RBCC), explained the two polls done by the RBCC. At the July 15th public hearing, the RBCC conducted an exit poll. There was no consensus to support or oppose a commuter rail station in Richmond Beach and no clear consensus of the most favored location. He said the surveys and comments are available to Council. He felt there is more public comment to be heard because the community wishes to continue to be involved in the planning process.
Responding to Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Mr. McKinley said that access to Richmond Beach via 205th is addressed in a policy in the Comprehensive Plan, which says that extending 205th should be considered as a mitigation in case of future development.
Councilmember King agreed that the Saltwater Park site should be eliminated. She felt the pump station site would present advantages, such as being below grade, providing for increased pedestrian safety, and not bringing cars so far into the neighborhood. She also noted that Shoreline would be the permitting authority. She commented that this might be an opportunity to decrease traffic on Richmond Beach Drive if another access were provided.
Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. McKinley explained the differences in the survey statistics, noting a smaller sample was taken from the July Open House, where 40 percent of the participants were residents in the area north of Richmond Beach Road and west of 20th Avenue NW—the area more impacted by Point Wells and the pump station. So those surveys were more in favor of the Saltwater Park site.
Councilmember Gustafson said his first choice is not to have a station in Shoreline but to provide transit to an Edmonds location. His second choice was the Metro pump station, as there are too many unknowns about Point Wells at this point. He noted that either site would create cut-through traffic.
Mr. McKinley responded that it has been found that commuters will not go north to get south. He also noted that Sound Transit projects that in 2010 there will be 150 riders in the morning and 150 in the evening.
Deputy Mayor Montgomery felt this must be a low estimate, and Councilmember Hansen commented on the high costs to serve this size of ridership. Mr. McKinley clarified that the station is projected to cost $4 to $7 million.
Councilmember Ransom felt Shoreline should plan for a station. He concurred with Councilmember Gustafson that the future of Point Wells is unknown at this time.
Councilmember Hansen said he had mixed feelings about the project. He felt if there is a station in Shoreline, the only logical spot is the pump station. He agreed that it is questionable whether Point Wells will be available, noting Chevron seems content with the current situation.
Mr. Deis said staff recommends leaving two options open until the process of deciding the future for Point Wells is complete. Right now the Comprehensive Plan shows mixed use development there. He asked for clarification about whether the pump station is the preferred choice.
Councilmember King reiterated that Shoreline would have control of the pump station site and the neighborhood would benefit.
All Councilmembers felt there is no reason to eliminate Point Wells at this point.
Deputy Mayor Montgomery asked if having a station at Point Wells would enhance the possibility of annexation. Mr. Deis said this could be a potential benefit. However, Council will be deciding in the next few months whether to pursue development of Point Wells. There was consensus to convey mitigation for both options.
Barry Hennelly, Project Manager for the Sound Transit Commuter Rail Project, explained that Sound Transit is not required to make a decision on an unfunded site. The Saltwater Park site could be dropped and a supplemental environmental assessment done on the remaining sites at some time in the future. Sound Transit is aware of traffic concerns and will work with Shoreline on parking and alternative access.
Mr. McKinley said staff would draft a letter summarizing Council direction expressing opposition to further consideration of the Richmond Beach Saltwater Park site and to continue review of the Metro pump station and Point Wells sites.
(e) Permit Processing Software Application Acquisition Project
Joe Meneghini, Finance Director, explained that staff is seeking Council consensus on acquiring an integrated software application for permit processing, land use planning and code enforcement. He explained the reasons why staff proposes using a prepackaged system, noting the cost of all three segments is projected to be approximately $85,000. The next steps are a needs assessment and vendor review/demonstrations. A recommendation will be brought back to Council in the fall.
After Council questions, there was consensus to move forward.
10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Larry Bingham, 313 NE 185th St., pointed out that regional through traffic has driven the number of lanes on Aurora Avenue and is projected to increase 100 percent in the next 25 years. This will inevitably result in spillover traffic into the neighborhoods. He said Council must consider the future and how this increased traffic will be handled. Through traffic must be separated from local traffic, and in his view a tunnel under Aurora Avenue is the only option that gives the regional interests the ability to expand while maintaining integrity for Shoreline traffic.
Deputy Mayor Montgomery commented that the financial resources are not available to pursue such an option. Mr. Bingham responded that the need is there. He suggested that Mercer Island was able to accomplish something similar for I-90 because it took a strong stand on the matter.
Councilmember Ransom noted that Alternative C, which provided for more traffic, was not well-received and would have required Shoreline to carry a greater funding burden.
(b) Richard Johnsen, 16730 Meridian Ave. N., supported Mr. Bingham’s comments, emphasizing that Council must plan for the future. He felt funding should not be the major consideration because the State can provide money when it wants to. He agreed Shoreline should follow Mercer Island’s example and lobby for a tunnel.
11. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:55 p.m., Deputy Mayor Montgomery adjourned the meeting.
______________________
Sharon Mattioli
City Clerk