CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

Tuesday, January 19, 1999

6:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen, King, Lee, and Ransom

ABSENT: Mayor Jepsen

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Deputy Mayor Montgomery, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Deputy Mayor Montgomery led the flag salute. Upon roll by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of Mayor Jepsen.

Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember Lee and unanimously carried, Mayor Jepsen was excused.

3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

Robert Deis, City Manager, reported that Joyce Nichols, Community and Government Relations Manager, had informed him that Aurora Avenue through Shoreline is on the list prepared by the Chambers of Commerce of King County of proposed projects for Referendum 49 funding. Mr. Deis also referred to a memo from Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, regarding vesting and quasi-judicial actions. Councilmember Lee asked for the RCW references on quasi-judicial actions.

4. COUNCIL REPORTS

Deputy Mayor Montgomery announced the selection of Officer Brent Naylor as Shoreline’s first "Officer of the Year." Police Chief Sue Rahr described why Officer Naylor was selected and commended him for his outstanding service.

Councilmember King reported that Shoreline Owner’s Manuals were distributed at the general meeting of the Suburban Cities Association (SCA) and received very positive responses. She also reported that she and Councilmember Gustafson will attend the "Near Shore" meeting on Thursday.

Councilmember Ransom said he was appointed to the National League of Cities (NLC) Human Development/Human Services Committee. He reported on the partisan nature of the discussions at the last NLC meeting. He concluded by announcing that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Committee had its first meeting and elected Dwight Stevens as Chair and Patty Hale as Vice Chair.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None

6. WORKSHOP ITEMS

(a) Development Code Review and Revision Process

Mr. Stewart reviewed the staff report, noting the importance of the review and revision of the development code. He described the proposal for a Planning Academy, at which the citizens of Shoreline could express their values and beliefs about the land use code and the staff could share technical knowledge, as well as learn about these values. The Academy would not be a legislative body, but, rather, frame issues for debate.

Mr. Stewart described the structure of the Academy, the topics of its nine sessions, the proposed reporting process, and appointment procedures.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery noted that Mayor Jepsen had informed Councilmembers that he agreed with the concept of the Planning Academy but was concerned about the way the representation was organized. He felt it would be more appropriate to have each of the groups propose a list of appointments for Council review to ensure balance.

Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Stewart explained that the intent of the Academy is to provide education to all interested parties, including staff. Staff and the community will learn from each other what set of land use regulations make sense for Shoreline. The hope would be that the individual members of the Academy would take the information back to their groups for discussion.

Mr. Deis emphasized that staff will develop the revised code but it is important that it reflect community values. The Planning Academy is a key citizen involvement project.

Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Stewart said the meetings will be open to the public but public comment will not be taken. Individuals can contact Academy members to have their views discussed. Then when the public hearings occur, everyone will be encouraged to participate. Because time will be limited, the written worksheets are proposed to ensure that everyone’s views are considered.

Councilmember Gustafson liked the concept but was somewhat concerned about the number of people involved. Responding to his question about how Academy members will continue their involvement at the conclusion of the sessions, Mr. Stewart said it is not anticipated that the group will continue to interact; however, individuals will have developed leadership through knowledge and will hopefully speak at public hearings.

Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Stewart described his experiences with other planning forums. He said this concept is really based on the police academy and the theories of John Freedman about how to meld personal knowledge (held by the community) and technical knowledge (held by the professionals). Mr. Stewart explained how the session evaluation worksheets will be used to determine community views on various issues and to develop alternatives.

Councilmember Lee said her concern was the end result of the project. Mr. Stewart said its two products will be the "proceedings" (worksheets) of the Academy and, indirectly, the development code. The Academy will not write the code, but it will help staff understand the issues.

Councilmember Lee said the end product is similar to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committees (CPACs). She said the members of the Academy should represent the whole community and be very committed. She wanted to see a mission statement for the project with a clear product as an end result. Mr. Deis concurred with having a mission statement and attempting to be sure that Academy members are committed to the process.

Councilmember King supported the Academy concept, noting she and Councilmember Lee had attended the police academy. She asked how the Academy members will get feedback on their input, and Mr. Stewart said the staff recommendations will give a sense of what the opinions were at the Academy.

Councilmember King felt there will be many individuals willing to commit to the requirements, and Councilmember Gustafson liked the link to the neighborhood groups.

Councilmember Ransom had serious concerns about the Planning Academy:

Mr. Stewart said staff wrestled with the appropriate mechanism to be sure that all stakeholders are represented. The City Manager’s appointments were designed to be sure there is broad representation from all sides. He said how broad to make the public process is always debatable. However, the group will not propose anything that Council will need to endorse. Staff will propose the amendments, which will be tested at the Planning Commission with public hearings.

Mr. Deis said the appointments could be made by the City Council after seeing the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Council of Neighborhoods. This would allow the Council to address questions of representation and allow all stakeholders to be represented.

Councilmember Ransom felt Council should be able to appoint a larger portion of the Academy members. He also asked for clarification of the role of the Academy, Planning Commission and City Council.

Mr. Stewart said the Planning Commission’s role will be discussed on Thursday evening, but Commissioners have already expressed strong support for the concept. It may be that some Planning Commissioners would like to serve on the Academy themselves, which he said is an option. If there is not Planning Commission participation, staff will bring forward updates to both the Commission and the Council. Ultimately, the Planning Commission and the Council have a legal role in updating the code. However, this is a legislative role, not a quasi-judicial one. Therefore, broad discretion is allowed for debate and discussion. He said a similar discussion will occur at the Council of Neighborhoods.

Councilmember Ransom thought it was inappropriate for Planning Commissioners to serve on the Academy when they will be reviewing what comes forward. Mr. Stewart said he would agree if the role of the Academy were voting on specific proposals. However, the role will be broader, in terms of moving ideas to the point of developing a consensus. So the Academy would benefit from the wisdom of the Commissioners, who have struggled with various land use policies over the past three years.

Councilmember Lee concurred with Councilmember Ransom because the Academy provides the opportunity for the community to let Commissioners and the Council know its values. She said she needs something very clear and concrete to allow her to recruit membership to the Academy. She also felt the Council should look at the appointments of the other groups first to see what groups are not represented.

Mr. Deis said staff can return next Monday with a mission statement of what the Academy will do and the parameters of the commitment to membership. He said the Council will be asked to do some of the recruitment in the community.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery supported involving more people in the process, even though it adds to the difficulty of getting consensus. She warned there is some potential for the proposed codes not to be in the future best interests of the entire City.

Mr. Deis felt that generally the individuals he has worked with in Shoreline have given good direction in the best interests of the community.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery confirmed Council consensus for staff to move forward.

(b) Discussion of Lead Status and Grant Application for Funding regarding the Interurban Trail Project

Kirk McKinley, Transportation Manager, reviewed the staff report, which outlines the Transportation Enhancement Grant application for the Interurban Trail project and requests staff to pursue lead agency status for the project. He noted that because the grant is so large, $5.2 million, the City identified two parts of the proposal that could be taken out: the crossing of Aurora Avenue at 155th Street, and the section between 175th Street and 188th Street. He said staff of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) has advised the City that the proposal is competitive. He outlined the decision points for the grant, which conclude with a final decision by the Legislature and Governor Locke in April. If the proposal is funded, the monies should be available in early 2000.

Continuing, Mr. McKinley said the application is based on King County’s work on this project. The County conducted a very involved public process that resulted in a recommended corridor and projected costs. He hoped that Shoreline’s design process would confirm what King County has already done. He noted that the feedback during Shoreline’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement processes was supportive of the trail and that adoption of these plans in 1998, along with completion of the Seattle City Light franchise, were the major building blocks to allow the City to move forward.

Mr. McKinley emphasized that Shoreline and King County staffs are working together and that King County is supportive of Shoreline assuming lead agency status. This will require an amendment to the interlocal agreement with King County for the transfer of parks properties. He said Seattle City Light is also a partner in the implementation and has agreed to write a letter of support for the project. When Shoreline assumes lead status, the funding that King County has already received for the project will be transferred to Shoreline. The County has offered to bring together a committee of all those on the corridor, north Pierce County to Everett, to coordinate design and future grant applications. Mr. McKinley concluded that if Shoreline receives lead status, the next step would be to initiate the design process. A continuing step is to make sure this project is being coordinated with the Aurora project and kept on the "front burner" for economic development efforts.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery reported that Mayor Jepsen had emphasized that the Aurora Pre-Design work and the trail project must be coordinated and promote the City’s economic development plan.

Councilmember Ransom pointed out that although the project is listed at $12.5 million, $6 million is the estimated value of the right-of-way, not a project cost. It will cost about $6 million to create the trail and the City is looking for grant funding for more than 80 percent of that amount. Additionally, the County has $400,000 for project design.

After Mr. McKinley explained potential funding that may be provided by King County, Councilmember Lee said she is still trying to confirm how economic development and the redevelopment of Aurora Avenue are integrated with this proposal. She did not want to see simply a walking/biking trail. She felt the public should be able to do a variety of things along the route of the trail, and she did not see anything in the project description to indicate this.

Mr. McKinley said some of the development project representatives that have talked with the City lately have indicated an interest in access to the trail because this is another corridor that can draw customers or add to the attractiveness of a facility.

Mr. Deis added that one of the keys for economic development along Aurora Avenue is to get people to stop and get out of their cars. He also noted the possibility of a community college technology center locating along Aurora Avenue, which would be a generator of bicycle use.

Councilmember Gustafson asked about the width of the trail. Mr. McKinley said the Burke-Gilman Trail is usually 12-15 feet wide, which is what is proposed here. A soft-surface path may also be constructed.

Councilmember Gustafson asked to see the "Shoreline Interurban Trail Final Design Report." Mr. McKinley reiterated that the County has done a lot of the design work for the trail. The $400,000 in County funding can be used for construction designs.

Responding again to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. McKinley said that Seattle City Light has the ability to lease parts of the right-of-way. Most of the leases, which are between Midvale Avenue and Aurora Avenue in the 185th Street area, are 30-day leases. Many properties have leases for parking, access, or storage. Some have leases with buildings actually in the right-of-way.

Councilmember Gustafson advised that as much research as possible should be done to look for funding. Mr. McKinley said staff will continue to seek all sources of funding.

Mr. Deis added that this is a benefit of working with King County, because all staff expertise can be pooled. Councilmember Gustafson said Shoreline should develop a plan for promoting this project, including private and group donations.

Councilmember Ransom noted that most of the right-of-way is 100 feet wide. Noting the trail at Greenlake is 30 feet wide, he was concerned that saying the trail will be 10 - 15 feet wide will close off a desirable opportunity, particularly in terms of enhancing Aurora Avenue. Mr. McKinley said the 12-15 feet is the paved portion of the trail. This will occur within about 30 feet of space, so the planning is for the wider area.

Councilmember Hansen said his concern in this project is identifying the users of the trail and how they will use it. He said an overhead crossing of Aurora Avenue is provided around 155th Street but bicyclists will not be able to use this. He noted that even pedestrians do not like to climb the walk for an overhead crossing. He felt it made more sense to use an existing crossing at 160th Street. Councilmember Hansen said that more planning will be necessary to firm up the design.

Mr. McKinley said that one of the reasons the overhead crossing was identified as a pull-out was that the Aurora Pre-Design study is looking at opportunities for crossing Aurora Avenue. He agreed that pedestrians do not use bridges unless it is a link to where they want to go.

Councilmember Hansen also asked about connectivity with the Seattle and Snohomish County portions of the trail, as well as the Burke-Gilman Trail. Mr. McKinley said the description in the Comprehensive Plan for the connection with the Burke-Gilman Trail was not a trail but a bicycle-demand corridor, which would partly use the streets.

Responding to Councilmember King, Mr. McKinley said the County study identified two options for an aerial bridge at 155th Street. There was also an underground crossing at 175th Street, but this may be a long way away.

Councilmember Lee pointed out that the study did not envision Aurora Avenue as the "center" of Shoreline and the key to its economic development. Shoreline’s goals could change parts of the study.

Referring to the PSRC, Councilmember Lee felt that perhaps Shoreline should designate a person to be active in the PSRC. She said it has funding to allocate, so it would be worthwhile for an elected official from Shoreline to be able to influence the PSRC. Mr. Deis said the conduit for membership on the PSRC board is through SCA.

Councilmember King said the way to get appointed by the SCA is to attend the PSRC meetings. If a person attends consistently, then the following year that person will probably be appointed.

Councilmember Lee commented on the difficulty of part-time Councilmembers attending meetings during the day. She needed to know indirect ways to assist Shoreline’s agenda.

Councilmember King added that this is an advantage of having a separately-elected Mayor, who is free during the day to attend meetings.

Councilmember Gustafson concluded by thanking King County Councilmember Maggi Fimia for her efforts in carrying forward the Interurban Trail project, as well as Shoreline resident Patty Hale.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery confirmed Council support for the application process and directed staff to pursue lead agency status.

8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Maggi Fimia, King County Councilmember, was happy that this project is moving forward again. She said King County would like to continue working on this, in the role of coordinating efforts between the jurisdictions and the Department of Transportation. She said the County would like to be involved in the design and public process. She emphasized that this is a regional trail and the grants should be approached interjurisdictionally. She also asked that King County be recognized in signage and materials.

(b) Patty Hale, 16528 8th Avenue NE, said the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee would like to look at the trail design. She noted that because there was no one at tonight’s meeting to speak about the trail, the inference could be drawn that there is full public support for it.

Turning to the Planning Academy, Ms. Hale said the feedback forms should go back to the Academy members to provide accountability of staff reporting about the Academy. Ms. Hale also felt that Planning Commissioners should not be seated on the Academy.

8. ADJOURNMENT

At 8:48 p.m., Deputy Mayor Montgomery declared the meeting adjourned.

 

_______________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk