CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Tuesday, September 4, 2001

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Grossman, Gustafson, Lee and Ransom

ABSENT: Councilmember Montgomery

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the Deputy City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exceptions of Councilmember Ransom, who arrived later in the meeting, and Councilmember Montgomery.

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to excuse Councilmember Montgomery. Council-member Lee seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and Council-member Montgomery was excused.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

City Manager Steve Burkett reported that the City again received the Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Award. He mentioned that a charity auction has scheduled a ten-minute fireworks display offshore from Shoreline in Puget Sound beginning at 9 p.m. September 8. Finally, Mr. Burkett and Shoreline Police Chief Denise Pentony said Shoreline citizens helped Shoreline Police to apprehend a crime suspect earlier in the day. Chief Pentony said she intends to recommend one of the citizens for recognition by the King County Sheriff's Office.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember Grossman reported on City efforts to work with the Seashore Forum to be more proactive in the regional transportation planning process.

Deputy Mayor Hansen mentioned City efforts to gain improvements to the solid waste transfer station in Shoreline. Mayor Jepsen said he signed a letter expressing Council's ongoing desire to achieve Interstate 5 access to and from the transfer station via the Metro bus facility and expressing Council support of the master plan for the transfer station.

Mayor Jepsen said north-end mayors will meet September 10 to discuss the response of local jurisdictions to County cuts in health and human services.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, said the agenda for an upcoming Planning Commission meeting includes a staff recommendation to add portable signs, banners, inflated signs and figures to those signs prohibited by the City. He said to his knowledge the City has not solicited public comment on the proposal. He stated that a staff recommendation without public comment "seems to be a cavalier disregard for public comment and due process and does not seem consistent with a policy supposed to encourage successful business."

(b) Richard Johnsen, 16730 Meridian Avenue N, praised the action of Shoreline Police in their pursuit of the crime suspect earlier in the day. He advocated that the City broadcast Planning Commission meetings on the government access cable television channel.

(c) Virginia Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, expressed surprise at the news that the Planning Commission is going to consider changes to the City sign policy. She said the City should provide notice further in advance of any proposed changes.

(d) Bonnie Mackey, The Highlands, thanked Council for its accomplishments since Shoreline incorporated. She presented a photograph of nine 2001 Shorewood High School graduates. She "implored all of the governing bodies to remain steadfast."

Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, said the Planning Commission will discuss over 150 proposed Development Code amendments at its September 6 workshop meeting. He explained that the Planning Commission and the City Council must both hold public hearings before Council adopts any amendments. He anticipated extensive public debate on the sign issue and the other proposed amendments.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart confirmed that the Planning Commission will address proposed amendments for approximately three months before staff brings them before Council. He noted that the Planning Commission has previously held multiple public hearings on issues before forwarding recommendations to the City Council.

In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Stewart said the staff presentation of the proposed Development Code amendments to the Planning Commission follows the same format that staff used to present the draft Development Code, including staff recommen-dations.

Deputy Mayor Hansen emphasized that the Planning Commission cannot adopt any ordinance. He disputed any implication that the City was attempting to adopt changes without citizen input.

Mayor Jepsen supported Council consideration of City broadcast of Planning Commission meetings. He reiterated his past recommendation that other taxing districts within Shoreline also televise the meetings of their governing bodies.

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Economic Development Program Update

Mr. Burkett explained that staff seeks Council review and feedback on the draft Economic Development Program. He stressed the importance of the "Program Goals" and of the "Measurements of Success."

Councilmember Ransom arrived at 6:55 p.m.

Economic Development Coordinator Jan Briggs introduced Ed Starkie, Economic and Real Estate Market Consultant.

Mr. Starkie discussed demographic trends in Shoreline, which indicate long-term demand for multi-family housing and increased demand for urban housing. He said income trends indicate potential for retail development or redevelopment, and employment forecasts indicate potential for more employment in Shoreline.

Mr. Starkie noted that most retail properties in Shoreline were built before 1970. He explained that retail buildings are typically meant to be amortized over 20 to 30 years. He said private-sector office properties in Shoreline are "functionally obsolete."

Mr. Starkie went on to explain the national retail trend toward "main street" community-oriented retail development. The "main street" model includes: retail stores on both sides of the street with buildings up to the sidewalk; auto speeds of 25 to 30 miles per hour; continuous street frontage with small store fronts; and a center of activity between six and 12 blocks long.

Mr. Starkie said, historically, Shoreline developed commercial nodes to serve local needs (e.g. Richmond Beach, North City, Aurora Square, Aurora Village). He suggested that Shoreline build on these historic nodes to reinforce community identity and quality of life and to create authentic community shopping and gathering places. He noted that the shallow depth of many commercially-zoned properties in Shoreline poses a "design challenge" to redevelopment. He recommended in-fill or mixed-use development, corridor enhancement (primarily at nodes), and cross "main streets" (e.g., along cross streets to Aurora Avenue N). He stressed that changes must match national and local market trends, that efforts should be concentrated on specific locations and that planning should not exceed market support. He noted a possible need for public-private partnerships for parking and land assembly.

Ms. Briggs discussed the projects on which staff is working. She has been managing three redevelopment projects: implementation of the North City Subarea Plan; Westminster/Aurora Square redevelopment feasibility analysis; and the Ronald Subarea Plan. She also serves as a team member on three other projects: the Aurora Corridor Project; the Shoreline Park and Ride Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Project; and the Interurban Trail Project.

Councilmember Grossman noted Mr. Starkie's observation that pedestrians typically shop both sides of "main street" retail developments in a counterclockwise loop. He asked if having to cross Aurora Avenue poses an obstacle. Ms. Briggs questioned whether it is reasonable or feasible for Aurora Avenue to function like a "main street."

Ms. Briggs said she has heard frequent public comments that the City is overemphasizing redevelopment at the expense of existing businesses. She said staff has responded by making the goal of the draft Economic Development Program to enhance the overall business environment in Shoreline.

In response to Councilmember Grossman, Mr. Starkie estimated the amount of disposable income that Shoreline residents annually spend outside Shoreline at $150 million. Councilmember Grossman pointed out that this amount would support one-half million square feet of retail space priced at $300 per square foot.

Councilmember Grossman asked about the potential for new office space in Shoreline to "capture" some of the residents who currently commute to jobs located outside of Shoreline. Mr. Starkie said the possibility of new office space to capture such employment is very good over the long term. He stressed that the market for office space is currently glutted.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Briggs explained that Mr. Starkie presented a preliminary draft of his report. She said the final draft will be published and made available to the public.

Councilmember Ransom said health care professionals have commented to him that "it is virtually impossible to relocate" or find office space in Shoreline. Ms. Briggs said the Economic Development Program includes a goal addressing "the live-work combination."

Ms. Briggs went on to review the draft Economic Development Program.

Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.

(1) Brian McCulloch, 633 NW 180^th Street, asserted that the City is trying to change the nature of Shoreline into something that Shoreline residents do not want. "You don't like how it looks. You don't like the businesses that are here. That's too bad. The people who live here do like it." He commented that a speed limit of 25-30 miles per hour does not fit the State perspective of Aurora Avenue. He said Richmond Beach residents do not want a big business district in their neighborhood. He questioned the definition of "marginal retail." He suggested that "mechanisms for public-private partnership and parcel aggregation" include the payment of fair market values for property.

Mayor Jepsen asserted his perspective that the City intends the Economic Development Program to provide a variety of ways to introduce economic development that fits within its context. He stressed the differences between Aurora Avenue, North City and other areas of Shoreline.

Mayor Jepsen questioned the use of "customer friendly" in the fifth short-term strategy ("Improve the permit process to be more customer friendly, predictable and timely"). He asked who the "customer" is. He said Council has previously recognized other community residents as stakeholders along with applicant. He advocated a "cleaner, easier statement" that focuses on predictability and timeliness.

Mayor Jepsen also advocated higher prioritization of short-term strategies 11 and 12.

Councilmember Lee noted her understanding from Mr. Starkie's comments that the City has a database of businesses in Shoreline. She questioned the difference between that and the "commercial land inventory" of strategy 11. Ms. Briggs said the City has sales tax reports, but she does not have a formal database system. Councilmember Ransom commented that the former City Planning Director inventoried commercial businesses, particularly along Aurora Avenue. Mr. Stewart said a commercial land inventory is very dynamic. He stated that staff needs Council direction on whether to devote existing resources to developing and maintaining an inventory.

Councilmember Lee asked how important a commercial land inventory is to the overall City economic development plan. She asserted that the plan will determine the designation and prioritization of critical elements.

Mayor Jepsen commented that all of the short-term strategies are important. He advocated careful consideration of strategy six and how it may work. He said Council needs to know how many unsolicited contacts the City receives, how critical the commercial land inventory is to providing requested information and how critical an inventory is to being competitive in the region.

Ms. Briggs said staff receives at least one inquiry each month from businesses considering locating within Shoreline. She described the information that staff provides to pre-applicants. She explained that inquiries often fail to reach fruition because the developer and the property owner cannot agree upon a price.

Mayor Jepsen commented that short-term strategies five, six, seven and 12 seem applicable to providing information to pre-applicants. He said strategy one does not seem applicable—"We're responding to someone who has already decided they want to come here."

Councilmember Grossman recommended that Council delete short-term strategy ten. "We have enough on our plate. That would be a significant additional project." He suggested that any commercial land inventory be fairly modest, focused on identifying primary opportunity areas. Regarding short-term strategy five, he agreed with Mayor Jepsen that customer friendliness "is not the issue," that predictability and timeliness are critical. He advocated that the City be a "facilitative instrument for core areas"—as it has been in North City—and insure that permits are understandable, executable and predictable.

Mr. Burkett said the City needs to focus on strategies three, four, five, six and 12 as tasks that only it can do.

Councilmember Ransom said he has learned at seminars and workshops that the City is likely to attract only one or two of the "big box" businesses on which it has focused. He asserted the value of small businesses, particularly those of fewer than 25 employees, to employment growth. He recommended that the City concentrate on supporting small retail and home-based businesses. He mentioned a City of Everett initiative to support new small businesses.

Councilmember Ransom expressed "displeasure" with the poor predictability and timeliness of the City permit process. He discussed past staffing increases in Planning and Development Services during the Comprehensive Plan development and zoning phases that should have freed up staff now, and the increase from two to four managers. He said it is disturbing that permit processing has slowed. He expressed skepticism about a proposal to budget more funds for additional employees to improve the timeliness of permits.

Mr. Burkett said the City has not proposed to increase staff in Planning and Development Services. He explained the proposal for the 2002 City budget to evaluate and improve the permitting process by auditing the process, setting standards and measuring performance.

Mr. Burkett went on to state that creating more jobs in Shoreline is not a goal of the Economic Development Program. He pointed to the generation of additional retail sales as the area of opportunity for the City. He said per-capita property and sales tax revenues in Shoreline are among the lowest of any city in the area. He said the creation of additional jobs in retail businesses will be a "collateral benefit."

Councilmember Ransom said "one-stop shopping" for building permits was one impetus for City incorporation. He mentioned the criticism of the time-consuming serial permitting process of the County that took up to two years for a commercial permit. He commented that the Development Services Group (DSG) seemed successfully timely in its responses to applications after Shoreline incorporated. He said current City responsiveness seems to be slowing, and the permit process seems to be growing more serial.

Mayor Jepsen said timeliness is a valid concern. He commented that the applicant should be accountable as well as the City. He noted that he has investigated cases of delayed permit processing and that the majority of them involved unprepared applicants. He said the proposed permitting system requires a sophisticated applicant. He stressed City concern about the permitting process. He noted that Council readdresses it every couple of years.

Councilmember Grossman asserted that the City is not trying to attract "big box" businesses. He identified the conversion of Aurora Square into a development like University Village as a desirable goal. He said he likes the "main street" concept that Mr. Starkie presented. He noted that the development of University Village has benefited other businesses in its vicinity.

Councilmember Grossman went on to discuss the City permitting process. He said applicants who complained a year ago now say that the process has improved. He acknowledged Planning and Development Services for "making headway."

Councilmember Grossman said the "driver" of the City Economic Development Program is unclear to him. He advocated services and facilities that "feel more consistent" with Shoreline. While he acknowledged that increases in tax revenues and jobs are related, he said "it's more an issue of economic vitality that's consistent with the vitality of Shoreline." He said the built commercial environment does not reflect the current vital capacity of the community.

Councilmember Ransom said it is not clear what economic development Councilmember Grossman wants to see in Shoreline.

Mayor Jepsen recommended that the "Measurements of Success" (page six of the Council packet) include the availability and variety of services as a way to address Council-member Grossman's comments.

Deputy Mayor Hansen said he has received community feedback that the permitting process is still a problem. He noted that he has had difficulty obtaining specific examples of problems. He said he would like to review statistics of the City process and to learn about specific problems before agreeing that the City is performing poorly. He acknowledged that there is always room for improvement.

Mayor Jepsen said the City should be more of a facilitator than anything else. He supported language in the draft Economic Development Program promoting reinvestment in existing businesses as well as redevelopment. He supported the "Measurements of Success."

Councilmember Lee advocated that the Economic Development Program include: information on whether and how demographic trends in Shoreline differ from those in other suburban cities in King County and whether the City will be competing with other cities as it implements the program; more specific examples of how a "main street" in Shoreline might look; and greater specificity about the City's competitive position.

Councilmember Gustafson supported the "Program Mission" and the "Program Goals." He agreed that the "main street" model is attractive to shoppers. He expressed support for the direction of the draft Economic Development Program.

(b) Ronald Subarea Plan Update

Ms. Briggs introduced Consultant Bill Lennertz of Lennertz Coyle & Associates, LLC. She distributed a new map of the subarea including focus areas along Firlands Way at 185^th Street and along Ronald Place at 175^th Street.

Mr. Lennertz reviewed the subarea planning process. He said staff has nearly finished the "Research and Education" step. He noted that participants at the July 17 neighborhoods meeting and the July 24 kick-off meeting voted on names for the area and that "Central Shoreline Subarea Plan" received the most votes. He identified areas under consideration as demonstration sites or areas of focus. He reviewed the schedule for the four-day charrette, which is scheduled for October 8-11 at Ronald United Methodist Church.

Ms. Briggs requested Council input on the name of the project and on the themes of the subarea plan.

Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.

(1) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, referenced the subarea boundary on Stone Avenue N from 178^th Street to 185^th Street. He pointed out that the properties on the west side of this line are designated residential in the Comprehensive Plan. He said the boundary should run to the west of the residential properties. He also advocated that the charrette process include information on economic, socioeconomic and environmental costs to insure that participants' input is well informed.

(2) Richard Johnsen, 16730 Meridian Avenue N, opposed naming the project "Central Shoreline Subarea Plan." He recommended that the City include businesses south of the subarea in the charrette.

(3) Brian McCulloch, 633 NW 180^th Street, questioned the definitions of "Demonstration Sites" and "Special Focus Areas."

Ms. Briggs said the consultants will focus on the demonstration sites as if they were developers designing buildings for the sites. She explained that the process will address economic feasibility and regulations as well as design. She said the special focus areas deserve additional attention, but the project scope and budget do not allow the City to address them in as much detail as the demonstration sites.

Referencing Mr. Mann's comment about the proposed subarea boundary, Mayor Jepsen advocated location of the boundary in the center of the block. He said much of the socioeconomic and environmental information about the subarea will emerge from the programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS).

Continuing, Mayor Jepsen supported the key themes of the 25-year visions that citizens submitted at the July 17 and 24 meetings. He acknowledged the conflicting themes about housing. He questioned the likelihood of single-family housing on Aurora Avenue. He asserted the need for more information to assess the viability of mixed-use housing in the area.

Mayor Jepsen supported the demonstration sites, but he recommended the elimination of the proposed special focus areas, especially the area along Firlands Way. He said the City should focus limited resources where it can actually make a difference. He indicated no preference about the name of the project.

Councilmember Gustafson supported the majority opinion of meeting participants on the project name: "Central Shoreline Subarea Plan." He agreed with the location of the east boundary of the subarea between 178^th Street and 185^th Street along the center of the block. He asserted that the location and design of the Interurban Trail will determine a great deal about the subarea and that the trail should therefore have a high priority in the subarea planning process. He stressed the importance of preserving and protecting quiet neighborhoods.

Councilmember Ransom expressed his willingness to support the majority opinion on the project name. He supported the elimination of the special focus area along Firlands Way, and questioned the special focus area at 175^th and Aurora as raising anxieties.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Lennertz said the east side of Aurora Avenue at 175^th Street merits special attention because of the large number of interesting elements located there (e.g., the brick road, the Interurban Trail, City Hall, the businesses on the "wedge"). He suggested the elimination of this as a special focus area "if it's going to raise a bunch of flags."

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Briggs said staff can relocate the east boundary of the subarea between 178^th and 185^th Streets. She explained the intent to "deal with commercially-designated properties" and to address impacts on adjacent residential areas.

Deputy Mayor Hansen supported the relocation of the east boundary between 178^th and 185^th Streets. He commented that the subarea boundary may encompass several areas that will not change. He noted his indifference about the name of the project and his willingness to accept "Central Shoreline Subarea Plan" as the preference of the majority.

Councilmember Grossman supported the relocation of the boundary if doing so "makes the neighbors more comfortable." He expressed no preference about the project name.

In response to Councilmember Grossman, Ms. Briggs said staff has notified property owners and tenants in the subarea and residents of the four neighborhoods adjacent to the subarea of the subarea planning process.

Councilmember Grossman supported the provision of information to people requesting it. However, he asserted a "bigger interest" to provide design expertise to enable people to provide input about the evolution of the subarea over the next 15 to 20 years.

Deputy Mayor Hansen said the City does not want to provide so much detailed information that it implies that it knows more about the future of the subarea than it really does.

Councilmember Ransom commented that businesses in the subarea are very concerned about the location of the Interurban Trail. He expressed concern that the City will not have determined the location before requesting input at the charrette. Mr. Lennertz said the OTAK consultants designing the trail have "worked in more detail" to the north and south of the subarea. He stated that the charrette will include the trail, and he noted efforts to include the OTAK consultants in the charrette.

Mr. Burkett agreed that the location of the Interurban Trail is a critical issue. He said determining the location is one of the major purposes of the subarea planning process.

Councilmember Lee supported the restriction of the subarea boundary to the commercial area. She expressed indifference about the name of the project and her willingness to accept the preference of the majority . She supported the proposed demonstration sites. She clarified that some City offices are currently located in the demonstration site on 175^th Street but that the City does not consider it a permanent City Hall site.

Mayor Jepsen expressed Council support for eliminating the proposed special focus areas. He noted that Council generally concurs with the key themes of the 25-year visions that citizens submitted.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Richard Johnsen, 16730 Meridian Avenue N, advocated that Council name the subarea Ronald-Echo Lake as a way of emphasizing historic areas of Shoreline. He mentioned a newspaper article about a residential property in Shoreline designated a National Wildlife Habitat. He suggested City recognition of such achievements.

(b) Dale Wright, 18546 Burke Avenue N, provided information about a Texas Transportation Institute study of the impact on businesses of the installation of raised medians. Based on the study, he asserted that businesses along Aurora Avenue will benefit economically from the installation of raised medians.

(c) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, asserted that the Aurora Improvement Council (AIC) supports a safer Aurora Corridor. He said the AIC does not oppose "the judicious use of some medians as long as the businesses continue to have reasonable access." He stated that AIC is strongly opposed to a continuous center median that will require motorists "to go to the next intersection." He also noted AIC opposition to 12-foot sidewalks as "excessive." He disputed the assertion that businesses that lease space have a short-term perspective. He attributed the lack of commercial vitality to uncertainty in the face of the Aurora Corridor Project.

(d) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193^rd Street, said concerns about the proposed center median focus on its size. He asserted that a reduction in capacity on Aurora Avenue will force vehicles onto arterial streets through neighborhoods. He said the City cannot implement the proposed Aurora Corridor Project "without damage to this community."

Mayor Jepsen said the City Council has been flexible. He reiterated City willingness to adjust corridor plans as it works with businesses. He said the Aurora Corridor Project will improve the corridor.

Councilmember Lee said someone must take the initiative to implement change on Aurora Avenue.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett acknowledged that statements of a State Department of Transportation (DOT) representative at a recent AIC meeting contradict earlier DOT direction to the City. He indicated that the City intends to request a written outline of DOT positions and regulations.

8. ADJOURNMENT

At 9:40 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

________________________
Carol Shenk
Deputy City Clerk