CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 13, 2004
Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang,
Fimia, Grace, and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmember Gustafson
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Hansen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll
call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exception of
Councilmember Gustafson.
Upon motion by Councilmember Grace, seconded by Councilmember Chang and unanimously carried, Councilmember Gustafson was excused.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve Burkett, City Manager, commented that bids were opened today for
the 3rd Avenue NW Project and the Gateway Project at N 175th
Street. Thirteen bids were received for
the former, and the apparent low bid was below the engineer’s estimate. There was only one responsive bid for the
latter, which is being evaluated for responsiveness and potential award.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen
announced a number of upcoming events.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, expressed opposition to the new location of the podium,
noting that it blocks views and does not allow citizens to form a line. She then commented on the economic
development discussion from last week’s meeting, noting that every decision the
Council makes has an economic impact.
She felt the City Council has more impact on economic development than
any full-time staff position could ever have.
She suggested that Council’s decision on the North City/15th
Avenue Project “sabotaged” efforts to bring economic development to the City.
(b) Gretchen
Atkinson, Shoreline, asked the Council to find a way to approve the North City
Project before the City accrues additional costs. She said the project is well coordinated with the phone/cable
companies, the Water District, and Seattle City Light. If the project is cancelled, the City will
spend more to upgrade these utilities later.
She said if the City does not accomplish the subarea plan for North City
by doing the necessary utility undergrounding/upgrades, its potential
non-compliance with the Growth Management Act could result in fines and
penalties. She said most dissenters
were misinformed by a group who opposes apartments and other higher-density
development. She said the group hopes
to get a zoning change to make North City a light industrial area. She felt this group has not considered the
betterment of fellow businesses that have invested heavily on the promise of
increased growth.
(c)
Patty
Crawford, Shoreline, also opposed the relocation of the podium. She referred to
a 2001 e-mail correspondence between the King County Economic Development
Council president and former Councilmember Grossman regarding the Aegis
development. She indicated that Deputy
Mayor Jepsen was also involved in the discussion at that time. She said individual Councilmembers should
not be involving themselves in such development groups when they try to
circumvent the legal and legislative process “behind closed doors.” She said the entire Council should be
involved in such decisions, and that the City should abide by the rulings made
in Superior Court. She said the City
has provided legal defense, planning, and infrastructure (fire station) to the
Aegis development, the costs of which cannot be quantified because the City has
not tracked such information.
(d)
Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, urged the Council to carefully consider the Planning Commission
report on the Midvale Avenue Closure so it can fully understand how the
Commission reached its conclusions.
(e)
Anna
Kallis, Seattle, and Sara Deutsch, Shoreline, thanked the Council for its
support of the Teen Link Crisis Clinic and requested that it consider
reinstating the full amount requested for the 2005-2006 biennium budget. They said the additional funding would allow
them to hire additional part-time staff to supervise the crisis hotline,
ultimately to provide more timely response to requests for help. They described the many programs Teen Link
provides, including education on suicide prevention. Ms. Deutsch said that many of her fellow Shorewood High School
students are aware of Teen Link and consider it a valuable resource. She noted that the youth suicide prevention
program is used in the school’s health classes. She said Teen Link has a good presence in the community and the
funds used to support it are used effectively.
Responding
to Ms. Crawford’s comments, Deputy Mayor Jepsen clarified that although he was
mentioned in the e-mail, he had no involvement in the matters discussed
therein.
Councilmember
Fimia inquired about the relocation of the podium. Mr. Burkett said one of the goals is to position the podium so
that people can speak directly to the Council.
He said staff is also experimenting with the configuration of the
Council table. He asked for Council’s
thoughts and suggestions on the new set-up.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor
Jepsen, seconded by Councilmember Grace and unanimously carried, the agenda was
approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved approval of the
consent calendar, pulling the Minutes of August 23, 2004 for review of
Councilmember Ransom’s proposed changes.
Councilmember Grace seconded the motion, which carried 6-0, and the
following consent calendar items were approved:
Minutes of
Workshop of August 16, 2004
Minutes of Dinner
Meeting of August 23, 2004
September 3, 2004 in
the amount of $1,460,421.98
Motion to approve
$5,000 in neighborhood
Mini-Grant funds for
the Richmond Beach
Community Association
to purchase materials
and items for its
community Halloween carnival
Motion to authorize
the City Manager to execute
the School Resource
Officer Interlocal Agreement
with the Shoreline
School District
Motion to authorize
the City Manager to execute a
construction contract
with Paul Brothers, Inc. for the
Interurban Trail North
Section B (N 200th Street to N 205th Street)
and the South Central
Section (N 155th Street to N 175th Street)
improvements and
execute changes orders up to 10%
of the contract amount
Motion to authorize
the City Manager to execute a
construction
administration contract with Otak, Inc.
in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for the South
Central and North B
Segments of the Interurban Trail
Resolution No. 223
authorizing parking restrictions
on portions of NW 159th
Street, 1st Avenue NW,
Palatine Avenue N and
N 160th in the vicinity of
Shoreline Community
College, and establishing a
Residential Parking
Permit Zone
8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING
(a)
Public hearing to consider
citizens’ comments regarding the proposed use of 2005-2006 Community
Development Block Grant and General Funds to support human services
Motion
to authorize the City Manager to execute the contracts to implement the
approved programs and projects
Mayor Hansen opened the
public hearing.
(a)
Chris Johnson, Seattle,
thanked the City for its past support of the King County Sexual Assault
Resource Center (KCSARC), which provides 24-hour response, advocacy, therapy
and support services to sexual assault victims. He said the program helped 32 Shoreline residents, half of whom
were children and teens. He said KCSARC experienced a 14 percent increase in
requests from Shoreline in 2004, and it must leverage two dollars for every
dollar contributed by Shoreline. He
said if the City reduces its funding by 10 percent, KCSARC will have to
leverage even more or reduce services.
He felt that responding to new needs at the expense of other
organizations weakens the existing service delivery system. He requested increasing funding so new
programs could be built on the solid foundation of existing services.
(b)
LaNita Wacker, Shoreline,
expressed strong support for human services funding, noting that if it could be
achieved, she would like to see it doubled over the proposed amount. She questioned why the committee recommended
full funding for large programs like Parkview Homes, but chose to cut small
programs such as Teen Link. She
suggested that Teen Link’s funding be reinstated and that the City fund those
projects that have the greatest impact on the community. She felt that CHS has proven itself as a
worthy recipient of City funding and urged Council to ensure they can
adequately continue their “good works.”
(c)
Tara McCaffrey, Senior
Services Minor Home Repair Program, thanked the Council for its support of her
program, which helps elderly and low-income residents maintain safe occupancy
in their homes.
(d)
Matthew Fairfax, Shoreline,
CHS board president, thanked the City for all the support it has given over the
years. He pointed out that CHS provided
services for 167 clients from Shoreline for the first quarter of 2004 (126 in
family counseling and 41 in substance abuse), and billed out 822 hours of
contracted services with the City. It
had to find additional funding for the 2800+ hours of services it provided at a
value of $196,000. He said the
challenge is to continue to provide services amid increasing costs.
(e)
Taeson Lee, Asian-American
Chemical Dependent Services, urged the Council to consider funding his agency,
which was established in 2003 to address chemical dependency and related
problems in the Asian community. He
said funding is needed because there is no real focus on these problems in King
County, and training and counseling funding is in short supply. He explained that his agency is trying to
establish a culturally-oriented substance abuse treatment program in the
region.
Councilmember
Fimia asked if the agency has a physical location or if it trains counselors
for practicing at existing human service facilities. Mr. Lee responded that his agency is still in its infancy, but
ideally it would eventually be centrally located.
Councilmember
Ransom questioned Mr. Lee’s statement that there is no real focus on human
services for the Asian community. He
named the Korean Counseling Center, located on Phinney Hill in Seattle, as a
resource for Asians in the King County area.
He said it provides substance abuse and gambling addition counseling.
(f)
David Schiber, Shoreline,
representing Parkview Services, supported the recommendation to allocate CDBG
funding to Parkview Homes. He said the
funding would allow the agency to acquire more affordable housing for the
developmentally disabled community.
Although Parkview Services is based in King County, it has
administrative offices and 20 homes located in Shoreline.
(g)
Mark Brown, Seattle,
representing HopeLink, thanked the City for its ongoing support of the program,
noting that it could not provide food, shelter, and emergency financial
assistance to the needy without Shoreline’s assistance. He commented on the difficulty of delivering
effective services when the cost of such services continues to rise. He said an average of 230 families (450
people) per month received food from the food bank, and 205 families (444
people) received emergency financial assistance. Twenty-eight families were housed in emergency shelters in the
2003-2004 biennium (10 more than the previous), and 36 residents received case
management services through the family development program in the last fiscal
year. He requested that the Council
reconsider the recommendation for a 10 percent cut; otherwise, HopeLink will
not be able to offer a wide array of services.
Upon motion by
Councilmember Ransom, seconded by Deputy Mayor Jepsen and unanimously carried,
the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember
Ransom asked if services were being reduced by 10 percent in order to use CDBG
funds on curb ramp and sidewalk improvements.
Mr.
Beem clarified that the capital money was allocated and budgeted separately
from public service funding. He said the
10 percent reduction results from shifting money within the public service
contracting group of agencies.
Mr.
Burkett pointed out that CDBG funds require that the City spend a certain
proportion on capital projects. He said
there is more demand for services than for capital at this time.
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Beem clarified that there is currently a balance
in the home repair fund.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen
moved to adopt the Human Services Allocation Committee’s Recommended 2005-2006
Plan in accordance with Attachments A and B in the Council packet and to
authorize the City Manager to enter into agreements to implement the funded
projects. Councilmember Chang seconded
the motion.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen explained that the City leverages block grant funds with General
Fund money to provide additional services.
He felt it might alleviate confusion to divide the discussion into a
conversation about capital and services.
He asked for further clarification of the 10 percent reduction in some
services.
Mr.
Beem said the recommendation includes a slight increase in funding for CHS,
level funding for some programs, and a 10 percent cut for a third group. He said the recommendation was based on a
budget exercise, similar to what Council does when it considers shifting
priorities within a fixed budget.
Councilmember
Grace commented favorably on the work of the citizen advisory committee, the
evaluation criteria, and coordination with other jurisdictions. He suggested that during the budget discussions
he would support additional funding ($32,000) to allow agencies recommended by
the committee to receive full funding for two years.
Mayor
Hansen concurred, noting that the budget process would be an appropriate time
to consider modifications.
Councilmember
Fimia wished to see a list of the agencies not recommended for funding. She concurred that during the budget process
additional funding should be considered for human service agencies and that the
Council should know what the unmet needs are in the community. She also suggested pooling some of the
capital funding to focus on long-term endeavors, such as developing affordable
housing and a health clinic in Shoreline.
Responding
to Councilmember Fimia, Mr. Beem explained that Appendix B in the Council
packet outlines the funding shifts the City would make, should the actual block
grant amount be higher or lower than estimated.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen noted that the City and School District adopted shared funding for
the School Resource Officer. He was
curious to know what other services on the list have become essential within
the school system. He said it would be
helpful to understand how the costs are being shared amongst the different
entities.
Councilmember
Chang asked if Councilmember Fimia was thinking of setting aside $150,000 for
long-term human service needs.
Councilmember Fimia said the amount would probably be more, although it
would be important to determine the unmet need. Councilmember Chang concurred with Councilmember Grace in that he
would like to see all requests fully funded.
A vote was taken on
the motion, which carried unanimously; and the Human Services Committee’s
recommended plan was adopted and the City Manager was authorized to enter into
agreements for implementing the funded projects.
Councilmember
Fimia asked staff to do some research on the Home Waters Project (formerly the
Thornton Creek Project) for the budget discussion. She described the program as an environmental partnership between
cities, businesses, school districts, and community colleges.
9. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a)
Ordinance
No. 358 vacating Midvale Avenue N approximately 170 feet south of N 185th
Street
Tim Stewart, Planning and
Development Services Director and Paul Cohen, Senior Planner, described the
proposal to vacate a portion of Midvale Avenue N, approximately 170 feet south
of N 185th Street as part of the redevelopment of the former QFC
site. Mr. Stewart updated the Council
on minor changes to the Planning Commission minutes and an additional letter
received from Forward Shoreline. He
also noted that staff has drafted a substitute ordinance, which the City
Attorney will discuss later. He said
Council must deliberate based on the information presented at the Planning
Commission and on the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Mr. Cohen described the
proposal, noting that the Planning Commission had asked for more analysis
regarding the application of Criteria #4, consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan. This analysis was provided in the staff report. The Planning Commission amended the proposed conditions of
approval to delete a condition on the location and approval of the closure of N
183rd Street and the proposed main entry off Aurora Ave. N. The Commission felt it was not relevant to
the vacation/realignment of Midvale because site entry could be resolved during
development review. In addition, the
Commission amended Condition 4 so that Area 2 meets City street standards. The ordinance includes the substance of the
Planning Commission conditions with some editing to remove redundancy and
provide clarification.
Jill Marilley, City
Engineer, described the anticipated effects of the vacation in the context of
traffic circulation. She concluded that
a realigned Midvale Avenue N should function as a normal City street and allow
unimpeded traffic flow. She said staff
would work with the developer to discuss any traffic mitigation that may be
necessary to prevent diversion of traffic onto residential streets.
Mr. Cohen described the
following criteria for street vacations and how this vacation meets them:
Mr. Cohen then described how
the vacation is supported by various policies from the adopted Comprehensive
Plan. He concluded that the vacation
offers four benefits: 1) opportunity to improve traffic circulation onto
Midvale and N 185th Street, and off N 185th Street; 2)
allows adjustment to the Seattle City Light right-of-way and future Aurora
improvements; 3) facilitates economic redevelopment; and 4) meets the four
criteria for a street vacation. The
Planning Commission and staff recommends that City Council adopt Ordinance No.
358, approving the vacation of Midvale Avenue N. Street subject to conditions.
Mr. Stewart noted that the
substitute ordinance clarifies the legal issues and conditions so the vacation
can be practically implemented within a reasonable amount of time.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney,
outlined the changes included in revised Ordinance No. 358. Section 1 finds the vacation is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and adopted street standards. Section 3 clarifies the timing of conditions
that must be met in order for the vacation to take effect. Condition #2 adds a critical option that
allows the City to repurchase an interest in part of the vacated right-of-way
to exchange with SCL if needed to realign Aurora Avenue during Aurora Avenue
Project Phase 2. Condition #3 was
revised to clarify that improvement to Area 2 must comply with City street
standards. This condition has been
attached to the site development and must be completed before occupancy.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Mr. Sievers said the Planning Commission has not seen the substitute
ordinance.
Continuing, Mr. Sievers
discussed the remaining conditions. Condition #4 grants the City vehicle and
pedestrian easements in Area 3 and ensures that the City can make adjustments
as part of the site development plan.
Condition #5 was revised to allow approval of the entrance to the site
from Aurora Avenue during the site plan process. Condition #7 clarifies the timing of the construction of the
Interurban Trail portion of the project, and Condition #9 is rephrased to
clarify that utility easements will include the owner’s responsibility for all
utility facility relocations. He
concluded that Conditions 2,4,6, and 8 must be satisfied prior to recording the
vacation ordinance.
Referring to the Planning
Commission’s recommendation regarding utilities, Councilmember Grace wondered
why the substitute ordinance did not specify all utilities as contained in the
Planning Commission recommendation. Mr.
Sievers clarified the condition that all of the existing utilities must have
easements to remain in place, and if the development requires relocation they
must be relocated at the developer’s expense.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved approval of revised Ordinance No. 358. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt the
wording of the substitute ordinance might limit the City’s ability to modify
the plan to include amenities such as street trees.
Mr. Stewart said the intent
of Condition #4 is to ensure the City obtains a public access pedestrian and
vehicular easement through the site, the location of which may be decided in
the future.
Mr. Burkett noted that many
conditions, such as a requirement for street trees, will be negotiated during
the site plan review process. The
conditions in the ordinance are the minimum that will be required, but others
can be imposed.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen wished
to ensure that Condition #5, construction and use of the main entry to the site
from Aurora Avenue N, is addressed as part of the site development permit.
Mr. Stewart said the
Planning Commission concluded that this issue is connected to the site plan
process, not the vacation.
Mr. Burkett said it is not
the City’s intent to allow additional access from Aurora Avenue if a new access
easement is granted. He emphasized the
need for SCL’s involvement and approval.
Councilmember Ransom
expressed concern about whether the design is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. He felt the “zigzag” route of
Midvale Avenue through the parking lot would be a “disaster,” noting that some
drivers might use residential streets to bypass the property altogether. He recalled that the Comprehensive Plan
envisioned this site with a multi-story mixed-use building, not a one-story
strip mall. He felt the Planning
Commission’s alternative to have buildings on the frontage and build the
parking lot to the east, with Midvale Avenue built in a straight line, would be
a more feasible design. This was the
original proposal by the developer, but City staff changed the alignment. On the other hand, he noted that the
developers have already invested a great deal of money in this plan to
accommodate what staff has required. He
felt the Council is being compelled to approve a “very inadequate plan.”
Councilmember Ransom moved an amendment to strike the words “and further finds that the vacation is consistent with Criteria 4 and the Shoreline Comprehensive Plan.” from Section 1, the Council findings. Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion.
Mr. Burkett pointed out that
since the Planning Commission’s findings do not assert consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, the Council should do so in order to approve the
vacation. If the Council does not find
this consistency, the ordinance should not be passed.
Mr. Sievers concurred,
noting that the Planning Commission recommendation was subject to the Council’s
finding that the vacation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, so it
would not be appropriate to pass the ordinance if all the key criteria are not
met.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen pointed
out that the Central Area Subarea Plan was never adopted. Therefore, the vacation can only be
evaluated by the policies in the Comprehensive Plan, which it does meet. He noted that the Council had not supported
moving forward with the North City Project, even though it is supported by an
adopted subarea plan. He felt the
Council should review the documents it has adopted to determine the goals and
vision for development in Shoreline. He
said whether you like the development or not, it “meets the test.”
Responding to Councilmember
Chang regarding the “zigzag” concept, Mr. Stewart explained that this “meander”
route would have the least potential traffic impact on the adjacent
neighborhood, and results in less right-of-way being vacated. The Planning Commission finally moved this
design forward after much debate and discussion. He noted that adjacent property owners strongly support the
vacation.
Councilmember Chang wondered
how the developer would benefit by giving up nearly 1,700 square feet of
property. Mr. Stewart replied that the
developer obviously sees a benefit in giving up some land in order to gain
additional land that is currently right-of-way.
Councilmember Chang also
questioned the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, wondering if the
“zigzag” concept would be the future for the downtown area.
Mr. Stewart reiterated that
the Central Area Subarea Plan was never adopted, so it would not be appropriate
for the City to enforce it on any development proposal.
Mr. Burkett noted that while
this vacation is not the ultimate or perfect opportunity, the vacation would
lead to substantial improvements in that area.
Councilmember Fimia wondered
if the proposed vacation and street alignment was part of the subarea
plan.
Mr. Stewart responded that
the subarea plan was a 25-year concept that envisioned relocation of the road
and more intensive mixed-use development.
He said the street vacation resolves the primary traffic problem related
to the current location of Midvale Avenue N, which is independent of the land
use issues.
Councilmember Fimia wished
to see more specificity about the standards to which the Interurban Trail will
be developed. Mr. Stewart said this is
another item that would be addressesd as part of the site development permit.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Mr. Sievers clarified that although the Interurban Trail is a condition
of the vacation, it is a frontage improvement that will be completed before an
occupancy permit is issued. He said
staff tried to include in the ordinance only those items tied to the vacation
itself, not the design of the project.
Mr. Burkett noted that the
developer would be required to fund the trail based upon the City’s
design. If the design is not completed
by the time the developer is ready to proceed, bonding would provide the
funding to develop the trail.
Responding to Councilmember
Ransom, Mr. Sievers reiterated that the vacation should not go forward if the
Council does not find that the vacation is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Councilmember Ransom asked
whether the Council could strike the phrase “and the Shoreline Comprehensive
Plan.” Mr. Sievers affirmed that the
ordinance would legally meet the requirements for the vacation if this phrase
were struck. He pointed out that
Criteria #4 includes consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Ransom felt
that striking this phrase would allow the City to meet the law and still “get
the message across” that although the vacation technically meets Criteria #4,
it does not represent what the City really wanted in the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Ransom moved a substitute amendment to strike only the last phrase (“and the Shoreline Comprehensive Plan”). Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion, which failed 3-3, with Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, and Ransom voting in the affirmative.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to amend condition #2 to read “An option for ten years” rather than five. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt
that allowing more time makes sense given the slow progress on the Aurora
Corridor Project.
Councilmember Fimia wondered
whether it is appropriate to make these changes without consulting with the
developer. Mr. Sievers said staff
reviewed the revised ordinance with the developer today. Mr. Stewart added that if the changes make
the conditions too onerous for the developer, the developer could either
request an amendment by Council or simply not fulfill them within the 90-day
window. If the conditions are not
fulfilled within 90 days, the ordinance will not be recorded or considered in
effect.
Mayor Hansen wondered how
likely it would be that the City would not be able to make a decision on the
option within five years. He wondered
if the City could still exercise its option to purchase right-of-way even if
Aurora Avenue were not completed.
Mr. Burkett estimated that
the City could exercise the option within five years, assuming Council adopted
the design of that section of Aurora Avenue.
Mayor Hansen wondered who
would benefit and who would be penalized by changing the purchase option to ten
years.
Councilmember Ransom did not
support a ten-year option. He noted
that Council only needs to have an approved design, and that the Aurora Avenue
project will progress faster as Phase 1 is built.
Mr. Sievers noted that the
option, whether it be five or ten years, simplifies the transaction for both
parties. He said extending it to a
ten-year option might save the City some transaction costs. He was fairly confident the developer would
not object to a ten-year option, noting that the parking scheme would likely be
disrupted in five years rather than the outlying ten.
A vote was taken on the motion to amendment Condition #2 to provide for a ten-year option, which passed 4-2, with Councilmembers Fimia and Ransom dissenting.
At 9:58 p.m. Councilmember Grace moved to extend the meeting to 10:15 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilmember Chang asked
about the extent of the developer’s investment in the design process for the
property. Mr. Stewart said the
developer has completed full building plans, and staff is currently reviewing
site plans.
Councilmember Grace
expressed his support of the amended ordinance, noting the Planning Commission
did a good job of applying appropriate conditions to eliminate unsafe traffic
patterns. He said although he would
like to see a multi-story building, the developers are economic realists, who
know what will be successful at that site.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 6-0 and Ordinance No. 358 vacating 170 feet of Midvale Avenue N was passed.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:10 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk