CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Monday, April 16, 2001

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

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

ABSENT: Councilmembers Grossman and Gustafson

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

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

Councilmember Lee moved to excuse Councilmembers Grossman and Gustafson. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS

City Attorney Ian Sievers reviewed the status of appeals of the Paramount School Park Improvements Project. He said one appeal has been withdrawn. The other is being addressed through an alternate dispute resolution process.

Kristoff Bauer, Interim Assistant City Manager, recapped the April 12 meeting of the BrightWater Siting Advisory Committee. He noted the April 25 workshop at Shorewood High School regarding Pt. Wells as a potential site for the new wastewater treatment facility. Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Ransom said they planned to attend the meeting.

Deputy Mayor Hansen arrived at 6:38 p.m.

Interim City Manager Larry Bauman distributed a news release regarding the outcome of the King County Superior Court hearing of an appeal regarding the Aegis Assisted Living Project.

Finally, Mr. Bauman proposed, and Council agreed, to substitute a public reception for new City Manager Steve Burkett for the May 21 City Council Workshop.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember Montgomery said the Puget Sound Regional Council will act on its long-range transportation plan, Destination 2030, on May 24. Also, she reported that changes to Metro bus routes in Shoreline anticipated to occur in June have been canceled.

Mayor Jepsen noted that King County Executive Ron Sims would visit Shoreline and Lake Forest Park April 18. He said he had reiterated to County staff the City request that the County identify roles and responsibilities regarding the Shoreline Transit-Oriented Development Project.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Clarification of Council direction regarding potential interlocal agreement with Shoreline Water District

Mr. Bauer reviewed the staff report. He noted the list of nine potential objectives and the matrix (page seven of Council packet) illustrating possible combinations of objectives.

Mayor Jepsen said the first objective—"Create a City water utility as soon as possible"—is not a priority. He asserted the importance of the second, third and fourth objectives:

2) Move toward the eventual creation of a City water utility serving all of Shoreline.
3) Assist the City in acquiring Seattle Public Utilities' water service area within Shoreline.
4) Take action to improve the consistency and quality of water service within the area of Shoreline currently served by Seattle.

He commented that the wording of the fifth objective—"Assert control over key policy decisions before the District Board. . . ."—may be too strong and that the wording of the sixth objective—"Influence key policy decisions before the District Board. . . ."—may be too weak. He expressed his hope that the City and the Shoreline Water District will work together closely enough to insure that each is fully informed of options, decisions and impacts.

Continuing, Mayor Jepsen asserted the importance to the City of gaining a meaningful voice in regional water supply discussions (Objective 7). Acknowledging that the ninth objective—"Consolidate services and seek operational efficiencies"—may be "a longer-term" goal, he stated that it is also important.

Mayor Jepsen said Council concluded at its March 19 workshop that it supports an interlocal agreement that will allow the District to work with Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) to consolidate water service in Shoreline and that will allow the City to participate in discussions and decisions. He said Council also concluded that the interlocal agreement should identify City assumption of the District as an option in the future.

Mr. Bauer requested clarification of Council support for Objective 7. Mayor Jepsen asserted that communication is critical to the City having "a meaningful voice in regional water supply discussions." He mentioned Shoreline Fire Chief J. B. Smith's regular updates of Council regarding the Emergency Medical Services Levy as an example of communication through which Council has had "a meaningful voice" in discussions of concern to the City.

Councilmember Lee said moving toward the eventual creation of a City water utility (Objective 2) must be part of the overall plan. Assuming this is a City goal, she asserted that the City must begin the necessary planning and allocating the necessary resources. She said she would not support City assumption of water service delivery until the City is able to assume and support the transition of the services.

Regarding Objective 3, Councilmember Lee explained her understanding that one path to eventual creation of a City water utility is for the City to assist the District in acquiring the SPU water service area within Shoreline.

Mr. Bauer requested clarification of Council support of a future option for City assumption of the District. He asked if Council seeks a different option at the conclusion of the consolidation process. Mayor Jepsen said he supports a cooperative process between the City and the District. He asserted that City assumption of the District is an available option if a cooperative process is not possible and as a choice at the end of a cooperative process.

Councilmember Ransom asserted his understanding that a majority of Councilmembers supported City assumption of the District as the "end goal" of a successful cooperative process between the City and the District.

Mr. Bauer commented that an interlocal agreement between the City and the District could address a cooperative process to consolidate water service in Shoreline, as well as other issues, and not address City assumption of the District. Assuming the interlocal agreement does not limit City activity, he said the City would always have the option to assume the District.

Deputy Mayor Hansen reiterated his support of the City becoming a full-service city. He acknowledged that this entails eventual City assumption of the District. However, he advocated that the City and the District work collaboratively to achieve their common goal of assuming the SPU service area in Shoreline and ensuring that it functions well.

Mr. Bauer asked Council about a check-in or completion point. He noted that in the case of the Wastewater District assumption of SPU facilities this occurred when the Wastewater District became legally responsible to provide service to the area previously served by SPU. Mayor Jepsen criticized the lack of communication with the City in the Wastewater District's assumption of SPU wastewater facilities. He asserted that the Water District should seek Council input and concurrence at strategic points, when addressing policy or funding decisions.

Councilmember Montgomery suggested the revision of Objective 3 to read, "Assist the District in acquiring Seattle Public Utilities' water service area within Shoreline." She asserted the importance, upon completion of District assumption of the SPU service area, of City participation in District policy decisions. She recommended the revision of Objectives 5 and 6 to read, "Participate in key policy decisions before the District Board, e.g. capital investment, facility development." She asserted that the water service area on the west side of Shoreline should not "look exactly like the east side in terms of capital investments and rates." She said the City should pursue assumption of the District if it offers a significant advantage to Shoreline citizens.

Mayor Jepsen and Deputy Mayor Hansen supported Councilmember Montgomery's recommended revision of Objectives 5 and 6.

Councilmember Montgomery supported Mayor Jepsen's emphasis on communication between the City and the Water District. She advocated regular meetings or reports of the outcomes of decisions as the consolidation process proceeds.

Councilmember Ransom stressed the importance of a "very clear and tight relationship" between the City and the Water District to achieve the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and other City goals. He noted that other cities have had difficulty trying to meet infrastructure needs through interlocal agreements with separate districts. He said the City of Bellevue eventually identified assumption as the only way to meet its goal to build infrastructure. He commented that the City has had difficulty obtaining cooperation from the District in the past. He attributed the District's current cooperativeness to the threat of assumption by the City. He stated that the interlocal agreement must be very clear about the cooperation necessary between the City and the District. He said Councilmembers should occasionally attend meetings of the Cascade Water Alliance because City representatives participating in discussion of water issues at the Suburban Cities Association will otherwise be uninformed.

In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Councilmember Ransom said he is not pursuing Objective 1 because there is not a Council majority to support it. He reiterated that an interlocal agreement must be "very, very clear" about the amount, the degree and the level of cooperation between the City and the District.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Bauer said there will be no penalties to enforce an interlocal agreement between the City and the District. Mayor Jepsen asserted, and Mr. Bauer confirmed, that the City could always opt to assume the District.

Deputy Mayor Hansen stated that the current City Council cannot bind future City Councils. He said he agreed with some of Councilmember Ransom's comments. However, he stressed that the City must cooperate with the District just as the District must cooperate with the City. He noted his intent to attend some District meetings to become more familiar with District operations.

Mr. Bauer said the City and the District can draft an interlocal agreement that establishes contractual authority limiting future Councils and future District Boards of Commissioners during a certain term. He reiterated the issue of enforcing an interlocal agreement.

Mr. Bauer said he understood the primary Council objective to be to work with the District to support the consolidation of the water systems in Shoreline and to create mechanisms for regular communication between Council and the District Board on policy issues of mutual concern. Mayor Jepsen asserted the need for more frequent communication between District and City staff.

Councilmember Lee asked if the overarching goal of consolidating water systems in Shoreline is the provision of equal levels of service. Mayor Jepsen said some residents on the west side of Shoreline are concerned that capital investment and rates on the east side of Shoreline are too high. He added that some east-side residents may be concerned about the quality of the water system on the west side of Shoreline. He asserted the need to discuss such issues.

Councilmember Lee said the key goal is to insure the best possible water service to Shoreline citizens and the operational efficiency of service delivery. Mayor Jepsen mentioned the goals of local decision making and consistency (not equality) of water service. Councilmember Ransom emphasized the importance of insuring sufficient infrastructure, especially along Aurora Avenue and in other areas that the City has designated for business development and higher housing density.

Mr. Bauer asked about a process for resolving disagreements between the City and the District. Councilmember Ransom noted the Council assumption that sufficient dialogue between Councilmembers and District Commissioners will minimize differences between the two bodies. Mayor Jepsen said the City and the District could part ways in the event they disagree.

In response to Mr. Bauer, there was Council concurrence in support of consolidating services and seeking operational efficiencies (Objective 9).

Mr. Bauer asked about a term or timeline for the interlocal agreement. Councilmember Ransom asserted a lack of Council consensus. Commenting that the interlocal agreement will be the "communication bridge" between the City and the District, Deputy Mayor Hansen said it must remain in effect until the City assumes the District. Mayor Jepsen asserted the need to establish, and to endeavor to meet, milestones.

Mayor Jepsen referred to the schedule the Water District presented at the March 19 meeting as a potential timeline for the interlocal agreement.

Mr. Bauer noted his understanding that the interlocal agreement should focus on the consolidation of the water systems in Shoreline, not on the consolidation of the City and the District. Councilmember Lee expressed her adamant support for retaining the option to assume the District. Deputy Mayor Hansen asserted full Council agreement in support of retaining the option. Mayor Jepsen noted that at the conclusion of the discussion of water service delivery March 19 four Councilmembers supported an interlocal agreement leading to City assumption of the District.

In response to Mr. Bauer, Mayor Jepsen agreed that the interlocal agreement does not need to address City assumption of the District, providing it does not preclude assumption. He suggested a statement in the "preamble" to the agreement indicating Council intent that the City eventually assume the District.

Cynthia Driscoll, Manager, Shoreline Water District, asserted that the City and the District "are already on the same page." She distributed a draft document, "Issues for Interlocal Agreements ('ILAs') between Shoreline Water District and Cities of Shoreline and Lake Forest Park." She said the Board of Commissioners is committed to open communications between the District and the City.

(b) Addressing single family design through regulation of bulk, scale and impervious surface

Rachael Markle, Senior Planner, reviewed the history of discussion in Shoreline of the need for design standards in single-family zones. She described the process by which the Planning Commission arrived at a recommendation to amend the Development Code to address design issues through regulation of bulk, scale and impervious surface rather than design standards. She said the Planning Commission came to the conclusion that requiring structures to be compatible with the bulk and scale of existing housing is as important to neighborhood character as specific design standards. Therefore, it recommends a Development Code amendment to reduce bulk by decreasing lot coverage and impervious surface for single family detached residences in R-8 and R-12 zones. The amendment would reduce the maximum building coverage to 45 percent in the R-8 zone and 55 percent in the R-12 zone. It would also reduce the maximum impervious surface to 65 percent in the R-8 zone and 75 percent in the R-12 zone. The Commission also recommends adding an exception to Table 20.50.020 ("Densities and Dimensions") to read as follows: "the maximum building coverage shall be 35 percent and the maximum impervious surface shall be 50 percent for single-family detached development, excluding cottage housing, located in the R-12 zone."

Ms. Markle used diagrams to illustrate the alternatives the Planning Commission considered and the impacts of the recommended changes. She concluded that staff is drafting design guidelines to address other design issues. The guidelines will be non-regulatory, but they will provide developers with ideas on how to design homes that are compatible with neighborhood character.

Mayor Jepsen thanked the Planning Commission for its careful consideration of the issue. Councilmember Lee concurred.

Councilmember Ransom said he did not object to the provisions of the amendment. However, he said it exemplifies an attempt to prevent change in the community. He opposed the imposition of regulations to do this. He said the City has already developed many more regulations than the County had. He reported that his neighbors want to be allowed to develop their property as they wish. He said new regulations should only be adopted when there is a problem to solve.

Mayor Jepsen responded that the new regulations are designed to reflect Shoreline values. He said Council is being responsive to the community’s desires.

Councilmember Lee added that the design guidelines are non-enforceable. They simply describe how to build in the context of neighborhood character.

Councilmember Ransom noted that a clear majority of the Planning Commission supported the recommendation.

Mr. Bauman pointed out that neither the intent nor the affect of the recommendation is to prevent change. The goal is to balance the rights of private property owners with community values.

Deputy Mayor Hansen wondered what percentage of Shoreline land use is R-8 and R-12. He thought it was probably fairly small. He said he was, like Councilmember Ransom, "wary of overregulation." However, he said the proposal is not unreasonable. He asserted the importance of limiting the amount of impervious surface, given that it contributes to drainage problems.

There was Council concurrence to bring this item forward.

(c) Transit Policy Guidance for Metro’s Six Year Transit Development Plan for 2002 – 2007

Sarah Bohlen, Transportation Planner, explained that King County is in the process of creating its Six Year Transit Development Plan and is seeking Councilmembers’ input on the draft plan. She reviewed the issues as seen by Metro: 1) new service and capital investments; 2) allocation of future system growth; and 3) system performance and evaluation. She concluded with a summary of her recommendations regarding the plan:

Ms. Bohlen introduced Victor Obeso, Transit Planner for King County Metro and the Project Manager for the Six Year Transit Development Plan update. Mr. Obeso explained Metro’s approach to transit planning. He distributed a document entitled "Discussion of Issues and Areas for Policy Development and Direction." He noted that three objectives guide the current Transit Plan: mobility, market share, and cost and efficiency. He emphasized the significant increase in transit ridership during the last Six Year Plan, with over 100 million riders in 2000. The basic assumption for the new plan is that there is not a significant need to change course.

Continuing, he explained that the discussion focuses on choices about whether to emphasize "growth management" (emphasizing improvements to Metro’s core service connections), "coverage" (addressing gaps in service coverage) or "ridership" (improving services that provide frequent core service connections and higher speed, long-distance connections). He said another key would be improving the transit service operating environment, such as Shoreline’s improvements to the Aurora Corridor. He said the plan will have to address tradeoffs, but in all three alternatives there is an assumption that expansion of Park and Rides will occur and additional service hours will be allocated to address capacity increases at these locations. Mr. Obeso concluded by reviewing the results of the Survey of Priorities for the Six Year Plan contained in his handout.

Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.

(1) Richard Johnsen, 16730 Meridian Avenue N, asked Mr. Obeso about Transit Route 301. He provided background on his transit ridership and recommended a route change for 301. He commented on the crowded conditions at the Northgate Transit Center and the Northgate Park and Ride. He said he lives on the 317 route and does not wish to see Metro eliminate it, even though ridership appears low.

Mayor Jepsen stated that it is impossible to choose between the three alternatives and that the Six Year Plan should be a combination. He said although Shoreline wishes to be regionally focused, Councilmembers also want to ensure that Shoreline residents are "getting something back." He noted that the service cuts made in response to Initiative 695 have never been restored. He added that the north-end mayors have been discussing creation of a new sub-area, and he asserted the need for more information to understand the benefits and detriments of this proposal. He also pointed out that there is a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) planned for the Shoreline Park and Ride. He said it should be named in the Six Year Plan, and service improvements to go along with this development called out in the plan. He said the link between service improvements and capital investments should be clearer. He used the example that improvements are occurring at the Aurora Village Transit Center without service enhancements.

Responding to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Obeso commented on the complexity of the sub-area boundary issue. He said it is difficult to distribute services because people do not travel neatly within jurisdictions. He explained that Metro tries to design services to meet local, as well as regional, needs. While Shoreline wishes to receive a fair share of resources, it is difficult to identify what this should be given the large amount of north-south through travel. He pointed out there are service issues among the cities in each of the sub-areas. However, there are generally enough common interests that three sub-areas work well for planning purposes.

Mayor Jepsen advised that if combinations of the three alternatives are applied to each sub-area, they could be applied in different percentages. The coverage emphasis might be used on a sub-sub-area (or jurisdictional) basis. This emphasis could provide transit service even on routes where ridership is low. Mr. Obeso responded that the challenge in balancing the alternatives is to identify the criteria for making choices about where to make high-coverage investments.

Councilmember Ransom commented on two key issues for Shoreline residents: east-west service and frequency of buses on Aurora Avenue.

Mr. Obeso said the restructuring of services currently on the drawing board might improve some of these connections. With respect to route frequency on Aurora Avenue, the 358 bus currently runs as frequently as every seven minutes during the peak period. He noted the postponement of additional increases to frequency. The Aurora Corridor is a high priority; however, again, it becomes a question of choices about the allocation of resources.

Mayor Jepsen said the staff recommendations are acceptable. He highlighted the importance of Comprehensive Plan policies T-14, T-17 and T-19.

Ms. Bohlen added that she will forward Council’s desire to see the Shoreline TOD added to the Six Year Plan.

Mr. Obeso thanked the Councilmembers for their input and thanked Ms. Bohlen for her participation and attention to the process.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Richard Johnsen, 16730 Meridian Avenue N, asked if Mr. Obeso would have Metro look into his proposal regarding Route 301. He provided more background on this route. He expressed the view that people would start riding this route if it connects to the 307 route and if Metro educates people about the service. Mr. Johnsen also briefly addressed the issues of water supply and lot size.

Mr. Obeso said he would look into Mr. Johnsen’s suggestion, but he could not commit to planning a transit route.

8. ADJOURMENT

At 9:13 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

 

 

________________________

Sharon Mattioli, CMC

City Clerk