CITY
OF
SHORELINE CITY
COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor
Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, Grace, Gustafson, and
Ransom
ABSENT:
none
1.
CALL TO
ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2.
FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Hansen led the flag
salute. Upon roll call by the City
Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
(a)
Proclamation of
Jazz Band Week
Mayor Hansen read the proclamation
recognizing the Shorewood High School Jazz Band’s outstanding performance at the
Tenth Annual Essentially Ellington
High School Jazz Band Competition and Festival at
Shorewood band director
(b)
Report by Senator Darlene Fairley
Senator Fairley was not able
to attend due to illness. Deputy
Mayor Jepsen expressed his appreciation for her support of City of
3.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Councilmember
Grace commented on the success of the Renewable Energy Fair hosted by Meridian
Park Elementary.
4.
PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Dom
Amor, Shoreline, expressed support for the Aurora
Corridor project, noting that corridor improvements in other jurisdictions have
resulted in business improvements and improved community safety. He said the “toxic anger” that sometimes
comes out of City Council meetings does not represent his views or those of his
neighbors. He objected to some
people speaking as though they represent the general public. He said while the Council is not
perfect, it is moving the City in the right direction. He supported working past the
differences and doing what’s right for the community. He expressed agreement with the Council
direction on several City projects, including
(b) Bronston Kenney, Shoreline, described the ways in which the
recent meetings on cottage housing have been biased toward cottage housing
advocates, developers and representatives from Planning and Development
Services. He asserted that citizens
have been ignored and their questions have not been adequately addressed. He said planning staff has relegated
citizens to second class status while granting first class status to developers
and builders by controlling the process.
He said homeowners still do
not have an explanation as to why cottage housing is being built in spite of
overwhelming citizen opposition. He
said the Growth Management Act is being used as an all-encompassing
justification for cottage housing.
He urged the Council to work diligently to protect community
desires.
(c) Todd
Linton, Shoreline, thanked the Council for making soccer field turf improvements
a higher priority in the Capital Facilities Plan. He said his soccer affiliates will
continue to pursue other community funds and sponsor fundraisers to ensure that
any City funding is supplemented by the community. He thanked the Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services Board and Director
(d)
Pamela Burt, Shoreline, explained that her rental property in
(e)
Barbara Lacy, Shoreline, described the recent spate of vandalism to
public property and burglaries to several
Mr.
Burkett responded to public comments, noting that the City Attorney is reviewing
the code enforcement issue. He said
the situation on
Responding to Councilmember
Ransom on the Burt four-plex,
Councilmember Fimia
requested information from City departments about the issue to determine if
there is any potential discretion the City Council might have in the
matter.
5.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon
motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Jepsen and
unanimously carried, the agenda was approved.
6.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon
motion by Deputy Mayor Jepsen, seconded by Councilmember Grace and unanimously
carried, the following consent calendar items were
approved:
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of
Minutes of Cottage Housing Forum of
Minutes of Workshop Meeting of
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of
Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute
Local
Agency Agreements, Supplements and Prospectus to
obligate grant funds totaling $496,000 for
the
Interurban Trail Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing
Project
There
was Council consensus to take item 8(a) next because the public hearing was
advertised to begin at
8.
ACTION ITEMS: OTHER
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a)
Motion to 1) authorize the
City Manager to execute a Construction contract with Gary Merlino Construction Co., Inc. for an amount not to exceed
$23,111,987.75 (base bid plus Additive Alternative 1); 2) authorize a 5.9%
contingency authority to complete the Aurora Avenue North Multimodal Corridor
Project N. 145th
Continuing,
Mr. Haines reviewed the two bids received and outlined the results of the
contractor evaluation, noting the highly favorable reference checks for Gary
Merlino Construction Co., Inc. and Merlino’s recent experience with similar projects. He explained that the bid was within 9%
of the engineer’s estimate and the award is supported by all the City’s funding
partners, including the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), the Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Seattle City Light (SCL), Seattle
Public Utilities (SPU) and Metro/King County. He noted that the bids reflect the
current bidding climate and the substantial scope of the
Mayor
Hansen called for public comment.
(a) Dale
Wright, Shoreline, said the improvement of the Aurora Corridor was one of the
primary reasons the City incorporated, noting that the public process began in
1996 for developing the City’s concept for
(b) Keith
McGlashan, Shoreline, urged the Council to award the
bid with Alternatives 1 and 2, noting that this is an opportunity to make
(c) Kevin
Grossman, Shoreline, encouraged the Council to move forward with the contract
and include both alternatives, noting that the project has been in the planning
stage for the past 10 years. He
said after an extensive planning process, including the activities of the Aurora
Comprehensive Planning Action Committee groups, the City has arrived at a
solution that addresses safety, aesthetic, and infrastructure issues. He said the project addresses surface
water issues and will help encourage more substantial development along
(d) Caralee Cook, Shoreline, supported the bid award with both
alternatives, noting that the 8-foot missile barriers on the
(e)
Harley O’Neill, Shoreline, urged the City to move forward with the
project because many businesses hope that the improvements will attract
additional customers from outside of Shoreline. He emphasized the need to attract
outside dollars and keep Shoreline money in Shoreline. He said the project is a significant
start to business success in the City.
(f)
Barbara Guthrie, Shoreline, expressed support for the bid award with both
alternatives, noting that as year-round bicycle commuter, she has anxiously
awaited the completion of each segment of the Interurban Trail in
Shoreline. She felt the Council
would be remiss in not including both alternatives, since the arguments for them
are reasonable and financially sound.
She said it is amazing to think there may be an actual groundbreaking
ceremony, noting that Shoreline will soon be unrecognizable.
(g)
Connie King, Shoreline, noted that the Aurora Corridor project will
fulfill the vision of clearly identifying Shoreline to commuters and
motorists. She said while few
motorists see the City’s beautiful parks, they will see the beauty and foresight
of this Council’s decision. She
commended the Council for being fiscally responsible and encouraged the Council
to approve the contract.
(h) Dan
Thwing, Shoreline, who said he was a construction
engineer, expressed concern about the cost of the project, pointing out that the
bid is 9% above the engineer’s estimate and over 10% above the estimate with
Alternative 2. He wondered if
sidewalks and other City priorities would suffer as a result of approving these
additional expenses. He also
commented on the long-term maintenance costs associated with landscaping and
trail sweeping that may not be included in the Capital Improvement Plan. He hoped the City’s plan carefully
considered whether the project would actually improve safety and not adversely
affect business activities. He said
even though the project is partially funded by federal revenues, he pays federal
taxes so he is being “hit from all sides” as a Shoreline citizen.
(i)
Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, expressed appreciation that City staff met with
business owners in the first mile of
(j)
Ellen Barrington, King County Metro, urged the City to award the
contract, noting that
(l)
Rick
Stephens, Shoreline property owner, said many questions remain unanswered in the
project because the Council was not wise enough to process a National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement. He said the Council is unaware of the
damage that will be done to the business district and the traffic impacts to
adjacent neighborhoods as a result of the project. He said it is extremely disappointing
that the Council considers it more important to build entranceways and signs
that say ‘Welcome to Shoreline” than it is to provide safe walkways for children
to get to school. He said the
City has not been forthright about the actual costs for underground utilities,
noting that Shoreline ratepayers will actually bear this expense. He asserted that the storm water design
for the project does not meet current standards, and that many corrections could
have been made if the Council would have listened to its citizens. He said the project is still the most
expensive one-mile project in the region and the Council has not fulfilled its
responsibility to use taxpayer money to benefit the whole City.
(k)
Mary
Jo Heller, Shoreline, noted that in 1995 she and others stood before the City
Council and expressed their hopes for a future Shoreline, which included “a
downtown that’s actually a downtown and not a pass-through” and “something more
than cleaner streets.” She said
despite the many priorities and continued needs, the Aurora Corridor project
meets the vision that citizens have had for Shoreline since 1995. She urged the Council to fund the
project with the overpass that was discussed in 1995.
(l)
Paulette
Gust, Shoreline, urged the Council to award the contract with both
additives. She commented on the
difference between a needs assessment and strength assessment, noting that there
will always be more needs than the City can satisfy. She explained that the Aurora Corridor
project has tremendous strength in terms of public support and financial
assistance from many funding partners.
She noted that 87% of the funding for the project is provided from
outside sources, and the project has the support of past and current local and
state legislators, including Connie King, Linda Montgomery,
(m)
Dan
Zoretic, Shoreline business owner, urged the Council
to approve the contract with Additives 1 and 2, noting that the project will
update the corridor and “change the face of Shoreline.” He said many people only know Shoreline
as having casinos and don’t know it for its schools, parks, and diverse
community, but the new bridges will make a statement for the City. He commented on the frequent accidents
he witnesses caused by the two-way left-turn “suicide” lanes in front of his
business. He also commented on the
danger that the current configuration poses to transit riders and pedestrians
due to the absence of an adequate buffer.
He said the project will encourage more redevelopment, such as the one
currently underway at
(n)
(o) Stan
Terry, Shoreline, said “It’s about time!”
There
was Council concurrence to move to the public hearing and continue action on
this item after the hearing.
7.
ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING
(a)
Public
hearing to consider citizens comments on four site-specific land use change
requests to the Comprehensive Plan:
File
Number & Project Name:
201277-Harper
Address:
Existing Land
Use Designation: Ballinger Special Study Area (BaSSA)
Requested
Land Use Designation:
High Density Residential (HDR)
File
Number & Project Name:
201371-Crosby
Address: NW Corner of
Existing Land
Use Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Requested
Land Use Designation:
High Density Residential (HDR)
File
Number & Project Name:
201372-Echo
Address:
Existing Land
Use Designations: Mixed Use (MU), Public Open Space (PubOS), and
High Density Residential
(HDR)
Requested
Land Use Designation:
Mixed Use
(MU)
File Number
& Project Name: 301275-James
Alan Salon
Address:
Existing Land
Use Designation: High Density Residential (HDR)
Requested
Land Use Designation: Mixed Use (MU)
Mr. Stewart explained that
rezone actions will come forward next week for the Ballinger and
Mayor Hansen declared the
public hearing open.
(a) Peter
Henry, Shoreline, said as one of the appellants of the
(b) David
John Potter, Shoreline, expressed concern about the potential harm to Boeing
Creek and related habitat as a result of developing the property located at N.
160th and
(c) Janet
Way, Shoreline, noted that Boeing Creek runs directly adjacent to the
(d) Lee
Michaelis, Shoreline, representing the application
recommended for denial, noted that the piped watercourse is not on the subject
property, and even if it was, piped watercourses do not fall under the City’s
definition of streams, which are defined as surface water courses with a defined
channel or bed. He did not feel a discussion of Boeing
Creek was warranted in this case.
He said the applicant is happy to comply with the City’s requirement that
20% of the existing trees remain on the property, noting the applicant’s
willingness to allow three (33%) trees to remain. He pointed out that the current code
allows property owners to remove up to six significant trees. He disagreed with the Planning
Commission’s findings that the proposal would have an adverse impact. He felt the subject property should
be considered for increased density because it serves as a transitional zone
between the High Density Commercial zone to the south and the lower density
zones to the north and west. He
noted that issues such as traffic and aesthetics can be addressed through the
Development Code as part of a development proposal.
(e) David
Maul, Rutledge Moll Architects, urged the City to approve the Comprehensive Plan
change for the Ballinger property and said he is available for questions.
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor
Jepsen, seconded by Councilmember Gustafson and unanimously carried, the public
hearing was closed.
Councilmember Ransom
wondered why the developer did not propose a change from LDR to Medium Density
Residential for the
Mr. Stewart said the
application simply proposed a change from LDR to HDR. The Planning Commission did not feel HDR
was an appropriate land use designation for this parcel, mainly because
Commissioners felt that
Councilmember Fimia asked
about the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and
the zoning designation relative to the
and that structures could not
be built on an underlying land use that is designated as open
space.
Mr. Stewart explained that
the MU designation allows a great number of land use zones within it, so the
zone must be consistent with those outlined in the plan.
Councilmember Fimia felt the
public might be confused by the fact that the land use designation of PubOS has an underlying zoning designation.
Mr. Stewart assured her that
the definition of PubOS clearly states that the
underlying zoning for this designation will remain the same. It does not deny the private property
rights of the developer to have a PubOS designation in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Burkett mentioned that
many City parks are designated as PubOS, but have an
underlying zone of R-6.
RECESS
At
9.
ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND
MOTIONS
(a)
Aurora Corridor and Interurban Trail Bridges Project Bid award
(continued)
Councilmember Gustafson moved to authorize the City
Manager to execute a construction contract with Gary Merlino Construction Co., Inc. for an amount not to exceed
$23,606,287.75 (base bid plus A1 and A2) and authorize a 5.9% contingency
authority to complete the Aurora Avenue North Multimodel Corridor Project N. 145th St. to N.
165th St. and Interurban Trail Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing
Projects for a total amount of $24,992,820.68. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the
motion.
Councilmember Ransom moved to delete A2 from the
motion. Councilmember Fimia
seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom felt the
artwork for the
Councilmember Gustafson
spoke in favor of retaining Additive 2 in the bid, noting that it would provide
an important safety improvement for the community.
Councilmember Fimia
questioned the design of the
Mr. McKinley explained that
the budget did not allow for a ramping system, which would be required for this
type of amenity, in addition to the fact there is not much privately owned
commercial land north of this location.
Councilmember Fimia
questioned whether the City could negotiate with the contractor to find savings
in the project rather than borrow against Aurora Phase 2 for the bridge
additives.
Mr. Haines said the City has
the right to negotiate change orders once a contract is awarded, but he was
skeptical about whether savings could be achieved. He said he would not want to make any
guarantees until the project is well underway.
Councilmember Fimia also
asked for information on current levels of service at the affected intersections
both now and when the construction is complete. She also requested that staff reconsider
the use of ivy in the planting beds since it is considered an invasive
species.
Councilmember Chang pointed out that improvements made
by the utility districts will be charged back to Shoreline citizens through the
rate structure. He felt that there
could be less expensive solutions to some of the safety issues. He cited the installation of a stop sign
at
Mr. Haines agreed that a
traffic signal at
Councilmember Chang noted
that WSDOT would likely respond more favorably if the City applied more
pressure.
Councilmember Ransom
expressed concerns related to irregularities in a number of individual elements
of the bid pricing. He pointed out
that in many cases, the bid price is twelve times
higher than the engineer’s estimate.
He included one on temporary pavement where the engineer’s estimate was
$57/unit for 3,150 units and the bidder’s bid was $1/unit. He said the Public Works department
indicated that some bidders “front load” their bids to get paid off early in the
process and bid low on items they do toward the end. He said contractors also bid high on
items they feel will be included as change orders to make the project more
profitable. He compared the two
bids received and questioned whether the City received a fair second bid. He said it is disconcerting that
contractors manipulate bids in an attempt to overcharge the City.
Continuing, he questioned
whether the City made reasonable accommodation to the businesses, noting that
businesses were promised left-turn access, such as at 149th, where a
u-turn and signal were promised but they were not included in the project. He pointed out that WSDOT acquiesced to
other jurisdictions’ demands for certain traffic features where the council
demanded changes. He also
noted that business owners are concerned that maple trees every thirty feet
might adversely affect visibility for businesses. He said businesses are not satisfied
with the number of left-turns and u-turns and still have concerns about
signage. Councilmember Ransom
emphasized that the project needed to be a win-win process for all
involved.
Mayor Hansen emphasized the
importance of the overall bid as opposed to individual bid items. He commented on the good reputations of
both firms, noting that the bids were relatively close to the engineer’s
estimate.
Councilmember Chang noted
that other jurisdictions spent between $9 million and $13 million per mile for
their corridor projects, but Shoreline’s project is costing over $30
million. He questioned whether
Shoreline’s project was a good value. He said a majority of businesses and
property owners he has spoken to have serious concerns about the
project.
Councilmember Fimia spoke
against the motion, noting that while she has always been in favor of improved
transit and safety on the Aurora Corridor, the proposed plan is not balanced in
terms of cost-benefit and overall transportation needs. She felt the plan should have been for
the entire three-mile stretch of
Deputy Mayor Jepsen spoke in
favor of the motion, noting that the project would bring the community together
and make a “real statement” for Shoreline.
He pointed out that Shoreline has been spending a lot of money over the
past 10 years on dilapidated infrastructure inherited from King County but has
made many improvements in the areas of parks, surface water management, and
roads. He said the project would create economic
development opportunities for both current and future businesses, and it is
important to continue to send this message to the community. He commented on the safety and aesthetic
benefits the project would provide and emphasized Shoreline’s many funding
partners, noting his belief that the project is a “great investment for this
community.” He commented that
people should also acknowledge the reasons for the delays and cost increases
rather than just attacking the project.
Councilmember Grace strongly
supported the motion, noting that while he had to carefully consider the
additives, they make a significant contribution to the overall project. He said he looks forward to the safety
and mobility improvements and the economic development opportunities the project
will provide. He said finishing
this project and moving on to the next priority, such as sidewalks, will show
people that the Council cares about the future of the community. He commented favorably on the
contractor, noting that Merlino Construction has been
very responsive to the businesses community in previous corridor
projects.
Councilmember Gustafson said
he has always been an advocate for the project because it provides so many
improvements in the areas of safety, aesthetics, infrastructure, economic
development, and
Councilmember Ransom
restated his objections to the project due to what he perceived as bid
irregularities and the lack of accommodation to businesses.
A vote was taken on the
motion, which carried 4-3, with Councilmembers Chang, Fimia and Ransom
dissenting. The City Manager was
authorized to execute a construction contract with Gary Merlino Construction Co., Inc. for an amount not to exceed
$23,606,287.75 (base bid plus A1 and A2) and authorized a 5.9% contingency
authority to complete the Aurora Avenue North Multimodal Corridor Project N.
145th St. to N. 165th St. and Interurban Trail Pedestrian
and Bicycle Crossing Projects for a total amount of $24,992,820.68.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to
authorize the City Manager to accept the anticipated additional TIB and federal
funds for the purposes of funding this project and to make necessary changes to
the CIP to reflect these additional revenues. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the
motion, which carried 7-0.
Councilmember Fimia moved to
negotiate with WSDOT to add an additional stop light at
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said he
would probably not support the motion because staff has already asked for this
and was turned down by WSDOT.
Councilmember Ransom noted
that passing this motion means the City intends to pursue this very significant
issue with WSDOT. He emphasized the
importance of persuading WSDOT to allow a traffic signal and crosswalk at the
subject intersection.
Councilmember Chang
reiterated the problems caused by the fact that vehicles cannot make a left turn
from
Mr. McKinley said the City
has already conducted traffic counts and submitted a traffic signal warrant
analysis, both for a pedestrian signal and for a full signal. He reassured the Council that staff
would continue to “push very hard with the DOT to get a signal in there
eventually.”
Mayor Hansen said while he
supports the concept, he does not consider the motion necessary because of
staff’s commitment to working with WSDOT on this issue.
Given that a warrant
analysis has already been conducted, Councilmember Grace wondered what alternate
course of action the City could take with WSDOT.
Mr. Haines said that traffic
pattern changes resulting from the
Mr. McKinley said the
development and redevelopment going on in the area will help the City build a
strong case for a traffic signal.
Councilmember Fimia felt
that staff would have more influence on WSDOT if it had “the formal strength of
the Council” behind it. She also felt it would spur economic
development if people knew the City is “working on this very strongly.”
MEETING
EXTENSION
At
After further brief
discussion, a vote was taken on the
motion, which failed 3-4, with Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, and Ransom voting in
the affirmative.
Mr. Burkett confirmed that
staff would return with strategies to continue working with WSDOT on this
issue.
10.
ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________