CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF JOINT DINNER MEETING

Monday, July 24, 2000

6:00 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Highlander Room

Shoreline City Council

PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Hansen and Councilmembers Grossman, Lee, Montgomery and Ransom

ABSENT: Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson

STAFF: Larry Bauman, Assistant City Manager; Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager; Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director; Kirk McKinley, Planning Manager; Rachael Markle, Senior Planner

Shoreline Planning Commission

PRESENT: Chair Gabbert and Commissioners Doering, Donnebrink, Harris, McClelland, Maloney, Marx and Monroe

ABSENT: Vice Chair McAuliffe

The meeting convened at 6:12 p.m. All Councilmembers were present with the exceptions of Councilmember Lee, who arrived shortly thereafter, Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson. All Planning Commissioners were present with the exception of Vice Chair McAuliffe.

Chair Gabbert discussed the meeting as an opportunity for Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners to get to know each other. He introduced the topic of "Defining Roles." He invited Council to attend the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Deputy Mayor Hansen expressed his willingness to attend.

Councilmember Lee arrived at 6:13 p.m.

Commissioner Doering asked "who is steering the ship?" She expressed her desire to promote dialogue and to insure that a caring group of people is in charge.

Councilmember Montgomery discussed her perspective of community consensus. She noted the responsibility of Council to ask questions and understand issues. She asserted that Council must also trust qualified staff. She said she attends to the recommendations of the Planning Commission because of the time the Commission spends researching issues.

Deputy Mayor Hansen explained that Council sets policy, and that the City Manager handles day-to-day City operations accordingly. He said Council respects that the Planning Commission considers issues in detail, but Council has ultimate responsibility for setting policy.

Councilmember Ransom discussed the planning responsibility of Council. He stated that Councilmembers read the recommendations of the Planning Commission. He said neighborhood groups cannot, by law, administer a separate approval process with veto power on development in the area. He noted that the law establishes the Planning Commission as the direct representative of the public and the Council as the final review authority. He asserted the importance of each Commissioner expressing his or her positions, concerns and views, especially on any split decision by the Planning Commission.

Councilmember Lee expressed her appreciation for the Commissioners' questions. She asserted the value of the management of the City by professional staff. She noted the diverse ways that Council stays informed about and responsible for City operations. She said the Planning Commission should be independent. She stressed the benefit to the decision-making process of the expression of diverse views.

Councilmember Grossman recognized the responsibility of citizens in "running the City." He said the outcome of properly-performed processes (e.g., the Comprehensive Plan) should be respected. He noted that he would have liked to have seen more density to improve economic development.

Commissioner McClelland said she lives and works in Shoreline. She acknowledged the difficulty of developing the sense of a downtown in Shoreline. She expressed her enthusiasm for working on developing that opportunity and a culture of "trading with each other." She asserted the need to focus on more than transportation assets. Chair Gabbert agreed.

Commissioner Maloney asked if the City benefits from new residential construction. He advocated that the City perform the economic analysis to address the issue of impact fees.

Deputy Mayor Hansen discussed marginal costs and infrastructure costs.

Councilmember Grossman said existing studies are very community specific. While he acknowledged the value of economic analysis, he advocated that the City consider quality of life. He asserted that this may be more important than economic analysis. He said general complaints about change are insufficient. He noted the need for better definition and more details of such concerns.

After reviewing past descriptions of Council's vision for City development, Chair Gabbert asked if it had changed. Also, he asked if Shoreline is a suburban or urban community.

Councilmember Ransom pointed out that property taxes are only $6 million, or 30 percent, of the General Fund and that the other 70 percent comes from business taxes. He asserted that business development is necessary to support desired improvements, and this drives toward an urban level of development.

Deputy Mayor Hansen reviewed the sources of revenue supporting City expenditures.

Commissioner McClelland asserted that Shoreline will always be a suburb of Seattle. She said this does not mean that Shoreline cannot develop its own sense of place. She noted the difficulty of making Shoreline a "job importer." She recognized the potential for office development, and she asserted the value of industrial development.

Councilmember Grossman said the cost per square foot of land in Shoreline makes industrial development unrealistic, while office development remains realistic.

Chair Gabbert asked Council to identify major issues.

Councilmember Montgomery acknowledged the issues already discussed. She went on to question how Shoreline will look in 20 years. She said significant demographic shifts will occur as birth rates decline.

Councilmember Lee asserted the importance of leading, as well as listening. She said to her quality of life means a place for families and trees. She also supported a thriving town center.

Commissioner Monroe commented on the value of the North City sub-area planning process. He asked if the City could conduct a similar process for Aurora Avenue.

Commissioner McClelland asserted the importance of visiting areas that have achieved the desired kind of development.

Chair Gabbert suggested that Council and the Commission take a short planning course together. Also, he asked if the Commission should be reporting to Council on a regular basis.

Deputy Mayor Hansen said setting a specific frequency of Commission reports to Council is not necessary. He invited the Planning Commission to report to Council whenever an issue arises.

Noting the value of communication, Councilmember Lee asked staff to provide the Planning Commission with Councilmembers' phone numbers.

Commissioner McClelland suggested that Commissioners communicate with Council through the Commission Chair. There was general discussion in response supporting free communication between Councilmembers and Commissioners except in specific circumstances.

Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, added that Commissioners cannot relate new information to Councilmembers regarding quasi-judicial matters but that they can present the recommendation and results of the Commission's hearing process.

Councilmembers and Commissioners discussed opportunities to meet again. The groups identified joint training as a valuable opportunity.

Commissioner Monroe mentioned the Planning Commission's interest in providing more input on the Aurora Corridor Pre-Design Study. Councilmember Montgomery commented that Council has already adopted a preferred alternative.

The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.

 

_____________________________________
Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager