CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING
Tuesday, February 22, 2000
6:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Grossman, Lee, Montgomery and Ransom
ABSENT: Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Deputy Mayor Hansen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Deputy Mayor Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll by the Deputy City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exceptions of Councilmember Ransom, who arrived later in the meeting, and Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson.
Councilmember Lee moved to excuse Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS
City Manager Robert Deis noted the 2nd Annual Volunteer Recognition Breakfast on April 12. Eric Swansen, Senior Management Analyst, discussed plans for the breakfast.
Mr. Deis mentioned a joint dinner meeting with the Woodway Town Council on March 27.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Montgomery said she has attended several meetings of the Regional Transit Committee. She reported the ongoing lack of new transit funding to replace funds eliminated by Initiative 695.
Deputy Mayor Hansen said he attended a meeting of the Suburban Cities Association which addressed a variety of issues, including transportation.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Les Nelson, 15340 Stone Avenue N, commented that the Chambers Cable upgrade has resulted in more channels with poor service. He asked whether Chambers Cable must correct problems before its acquisition by AT&T. He questioned whether AT&T will be attentive to customer complaints about the existing system. He expressed appreciation for actions by City staff prompting Chambers Cable to acknowledge problems.
(b) Clark Elster, 1720 NE 177th Street, mentioned the following traffic signal problems: the northbound traffic signal at 15th Avenue NE and NE 155th Street has an extremely short cycle; the red light controlling vehicles turning from 15th Avenue NE to NE 196th Street should be more noticeable (e.g., a blinking red light); and the left-turn light for traffic turning from Meridian Avenue to 185th Street skips a cycle. He advocated any changes to make traffic lights consistent and clearly visible.
Councilmember Ransom arrived at 6:45 p.m.
(c) Jim Turner, 14521 32nd Avenue NE, said City staff advised him that a bed and breakfast establishment must meet congregate housing standards. He asserted that the land use code specifically allows bed and breakfast establishments in residential areas provided that they meet State codes for such establishments. He said there is nothing in the code to prohibit a resident from establishing a bed and breakfast or to require that a bed and breakfast meet congregate housing standards. He commented that he should not have to file a $350 appeal fee to achieve a reasonable consideration of the code.
Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, mentioned that other residents have experienced problems similar to Mr. Nelson’s. He noted his intent to contact Chambers Cable and to report back to Council.
Mr. Deis agreed to relay Mr. Elster’s comments about traffic signals to Public Works Director Bill Conner for follow up by staff.
Planning and Development Services Director Tim Stewart explained that the City issued a notice and order to Mr. Turner on February 17 to correct code violations at his property. He noted Mr. Turner’s right to appeal the notice and order to the City Hearing Examiner. Deputy Mayor Hansen requested that staff report back to Council upon resolution of the issue.
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Water Services Study – Evaluation of Possible City Role in Water Service Delivery – Follow-up
Mr. Bauer noted that Council requested further analysis of three of the five water service delivery options that staff presented at the January 18th Council workshop. He discussed each option in terms of the three criteria on which Council sought to focus. He explained that Option 5—City acquisition of the Seattle Public Utility (SPU) service area in Shoreline and City assumption of the Shoreline Water District system—best meets the criteria.
Mr. Bauer and Consultant Dave Parkinson of CH2MHill went on to respond to issues that the Shoreline Water District raised in its letter to Council of February 10, 2000. These included: pipeline replacement; SPU water rights; a possible Lake Washington water treatment plant; Growth Management Act (GMA) responsibilities; the effect on rates of District participation in the Cascade Water Alliance; the comparison of SPU and District residential water rates; franchise term; and the assumption process. Mr. Bauer disputed the District assertion of factual errors in the City water services study. He acknowledged that different interpretations have led the City and the District to different conclusions.
Mr. Bauer summarized steps the City would need to take to acquire the SPU service area in Shoreline and assume the District system. He stressed that staff analysis of the possible City role in water service delivery is meant for discussion purposes only, and he noted additional public process to follow (e.g., staff presentation at March 1 Council of Neighborhoods meeting).
Deputy Mayor Hansen invited public comment.
(1) Les Nelson, 15340 Stone Avenue N, expressed concern about the impact on Shoreline residents of the different options. He explained that the SPU water main serving his neighborhood is made of "fairly thin" steel, that it was installed in 1947 and that it will soon need replacement. While he anticipated that SPU will replace the water main at little or no cost to him and his neighbors, he feared that they will have to pay the full replacement cost if the District or the City acquires the SPU system. Noting his job as a corrosion engineer with the SPU water department, he estimated the life span of cast-iron and ductile-iron water mains at 100-150 years. He said shorter life spans are indicative of substandard materials.
(2) Dennis Lee, 14547 26th Avenue NE, spoke on behalf of the Briarcrest Neighborhood Association. He praised the performance of the Shoreline Water District. He asserted the inevitability of City assumption of the District and of City acquisition of the SPU service area. However, he advocated that Council slow the process to prevent disproportionate impacts to District customers. He recommended that Council insure the equality of the two systems before combining them. He said the City needs to create a detailed timeline, including opportunities for public participation.
(3) Cynthia Driscoll, District Manager, Shoreline Water District, read a written statement in response to the staff report, and she presented a revised and expanded version of the summary matrix on page two of the Council packet. She noted the additional 13 criteria included in the new matrix. She requested that Council ask City staff to work with the District and SPU to analyze the governance options under the additional criteria. She said the City must address most of the additional criteria under the Boundary Review Board process.
(4) Clark Elster, 1720 NE 177th Street, urged Council to slow its consideration of a possible City role in water service delivery. He described the District system as "functional and well run." He said the City should require SPU to upgrade its system before the City acquires it.
Councilmember Grossman said the City seems prepared to take dramatic action to address issues that might be better resolved through agreements and understandings. He advocated the cost effectiveness of District participation in the Cascade Water Alliance over efforts to develop a Lake Washington water treatment plant. However, he recommended efforts to dissuade the District from pursuing this option, if the City opposes it, rather than assumption of the District to preempt it.
Mr. Deis commented that staff is not proposing "dramatic action." He clarified that staff is responding to the Council request that it evaluate the three water service delivery options in terms of the three criteria on which Council sought to focus.
Councilmember Grossman explained that he interpreted the report to say that the City could accomplish the identified goals (e.g., operational efficiencies) more easily by assuming the District. Whereas, he asserted that the City and the District could work together to accomplish the identified goals.
Deputy Mayor Hansen noted the public comments in favor of "slowing the process." He commented that there is no process to slow, that the City is only gathering information.
Councilmember Ransom said the citizens involved in "Vision Shoreline" anticipated that the City would eventually incorporate all of the freestanding districts. He identified three main districts: the Shoreline Water District; the Shoreline Wastewater District and the Shoreline Fire Department. He agreed that the City is in the process of gathering information. He mentioned the study that the Shoreline Wastewater District is conducting of the SPU sewer system in Shoreline and closer cooperation between the City and the fire department. He said the Shoreline Water District has become an increasingly important "missing piece" as Council considers the Shoreline infrastructure. He asserted that the City should control water service delivery, as well as other elements of the infrastructure, to insure comprehensive planning. He commented that City assumption of this role will take as long as four years. He said the question before Council is when to begin the process. He suggested the assumption of the water district as a first step—prior to acquisition of the SPU service area in Shoreline—in a staged process of taking control of water service delivery. He asserted that it is now time to begin this process.
Continuing, Councilmember Ransom said Mayor Jepsen expressed support of the City first assuming the water district and later acquiring the SPU service area.
Councilmember Lee noted that the City has a two-year franchise agreement with SPU for water service. She expressed concern that the City does not have a franchise agreement with the District. She asserted that the District’s request for a 25-year guarantee of independence is unrealistic.
In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Deis explained that staff has advised Lake Forest Park of the options that Council is considering. In addition, staff assured Lake Forest Park of its willingness to address any concerns that Lake Forest Park may have if Council decides to pursue the assumption of the water district.
Councilmember Lee asked where the City will acquire water after 2002 if it has assumed the District. Mr. Bauer said the City will have the same options as those the District faces now: the Cascade Water Alliance, SPU or identifying a third alternative.
Councilmember Lee questioned SPU’s commitment to upgrading infrastructure in Shoreline under its six-year capital improvement plan. Mr. Parkinson noted that SPU will be working on its comprehensive water plan during the next 12 to18 months. He said now is a good time to discuss City issues and concerns. He commented that SPU can assess the project impacts of a future separation of the system if Council determines the City will acquire the SPU service area.
Councilmember Lee expressed her concern that the City not "get stuck with the cost of upgrading" the SPU system in Shoreline.
Deputy Mayor Hansen expressed concern about aging SPU infrastructure, but he commented that SPU water service has been very adequate. He said SPU was very responsive in resolving the one water service problem in his neighborhood during the past 29 years.
Councilmember Montgomery agreed with Deputy Mayor Hansen’s assessment of SPU water service. She asserted Council’s responsibility to ask questions and obtain data to determine what is in the best interests of Shoreline citizens. She noted her concern about duplication of capital investments and about revenue to provide other services that residents seek. She expressed disappointment at the District’s recalcitrance in negotiating a reasonable franchise agreement. She asserted that the 40-year pipeline replacement cycle is unnecessarily expensive. She said she is "leaning toward" City assumption of the water district and subsequent acquisition of the SPU service area.
Deputy Mayor Hansen concurred that Council is responsible to all Shoreline residents.
In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Bauer said the City could begin discussions with Lake Forest Park about City assumption of the District before completing the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. However, he explained that the City must complete the SEPA process before Council can pass an ordinance to begin the process of assuming the District.
Councilmember Lee asked if City assumption of the District is a prerequisite for addressing the question of a future water source for Shoreline residents. Mr. Bauer said staff can research additional information. He noted that the City must be a water purveyor to have a regional role (e.g., to participate in the Cascade Water Alliance).
Councilmember Lee expressed her concern about the uncertainty of the District’s future water supply.
Councilmember Ransom mentioned the good service he has received from SPU over 29 years in his neighborhood. He went on to ask if water supply pipes in areas the City has designated in the Comprehensive Plan for multi-family housing are large enough to support such housing. Mr. Bauer noted that the City must review and approve SPU and District water services plans. He said City staff assesses the concurrency between such plans and the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Bauer noted three potential reactions by Lake Forest Park to City efforts to assume the District: 1) oppose City assumption of the District; 2) seek to partition the District and assume the portion within Lake Forest Park; and 3) allow the City to assume the entire District and to operate the portion within Lake Forest Park. Mr. Deis confirmed that the City could pursue negotiations with Lake Forest Park before undertaking the SEPA process.
In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Bauer said the City and SPU would need to negotiate the terms under which SPU would give up and the City would acquire the SPU service area in Shoreline. He mentioned that Tukwila acquired the portions of SPU water and wastewater facilities within its boundaries after negotiating a purchase price with SPU. Deputy Mayor Hansen stressed the importance of the price of the SPU service area in Shoreline to the consideration of whether to acquire it.
In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Bauer said the City of Seattle has expressed a greater willingness to negotiate water contracts with individual providers since the failure of the Cascade Water Alliance to fully form.
Deputy Mayor Hansen advocated that the City eventually assume the District and acquire the SPU service area in Shoreline "in one bite."
Councilmember Grossman expressed support for the Comprehensive Plan goals noted on page eight of the Council packet. However, he said the City does not have to assume the District to meet the goals.
Councilmember Lee advocated that the City identify and address all of the potential issues (e.g., the position of Lake Forest Park) before pursuing any of the options.
(b) Economic Development Program Strategy
Mr. Stewart provided a brief overview of the three economic development approaches—passive, partnering and proactive—included in the staff report.
Economic Development Coordinator Ross Cutshaw presented slide photographs of different commercial properties in Shoreline to illustrate aspects of the three economic development approaches.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stewart said Top Foods is proceeding with the permitting process to develop the U&I site at 175th Street and Midvale Avenue. He noted staff efforts to resolve concerns about the transition to the residential neighborhood along the south boundary of the property.
Mr. Stewart explained the staff recommendation that Council choose the partnering approach to implement the City’s economic development effort.
Deputy Mayor Hansen invited public comment.
(1) Jim Turner, 14521 32nd Avenue NE, said rental housing represents the largest business in Shoreline. He asserted that low- and moderate-income housing issues are inadequately supported in Shoreline. He noted the growth nationally of non-traditional households, and he advocated that City economic development efforts address such demographics. He displayed a newspaper article stating that the founder of software company Onyx started the business in his basement. He said City permitting prohibits such action. He commented that City economic development efforts will be useless if the City permitting process stifles business development.
(2) Harley O’Neill, 17844 8th Avenue NW, stressed the need to streamline the City permitting process. He said some investors will be discouraged by a failure to address the permitting process.
(3) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, stressed the importance of the City maintaining an open dialogue with Shoreline business owners. He said the wording and implementation of the City economic development plan will "speak volumes" about how the City treats businesses. He said business owners are counting on Council to honor the commitments it made to respect existing businesses while encouraging new economic development.
(4) Chris Koehler represented Les Schwab Tires. She said the company would like to continue doing business and develop further in Shoreline.
Councilmember Ransom said the passive approach will not meet Council goals to promote economic development. He advocated the brokering included in the partnering approach. He asserted that the proactive approach is too aggressive. He said the partnering approach represents a "nice compromise."
Councilmember Ransom went on to advocate City support for small business development. He mentioned that the economic development specialists that he consulted stated that only two businesses of 200 or more employees would likely locate in Shoreline. He expressed concern that the development code penalizes home-based businesses. He recommended a system to register such businesses. He noted studies attributing half of new employment growth to businesses with less than 50 employees. He said the City should encourage and support small businesses through its permitting process and zoning.
Mr. Stewart discussed a provision regarding home-based businesses in the second phase of the development code under consideration by the Planning Commission. He said the current proposal permits such businesses but limits off-site impacts to prevent disruptions in the neighborhoods in which they are located.
Mr. Deis noted business licensing as one of the potential projects on page 41 of the Council packet. He recommended that the City "follow the lead" of the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce to determine whether licensing would be worthwhile.
Deputy Mayor Hansen expressed wariness about business licensing. He said the City of Edmonds sought to use information from business licensing to implement new taxes.
Councilmember Ransom asserted the advantage of business licensing to create a registry of the types and numbers of businesses in Shoreline.
Councilmember Lee supported Mr. Deis’s suggestion to seek direction from the Chamber of Commerce.
Councilmember Grossman asked if the City has encouraged mixed-use development along 15th Avenue NE and Aurora Avenue. Mr. Stewart said the sub-area plan for North City funded in the 2000 City budget will translate previous designs, including mixed-use development, to specific sites. He stressed that mixed-use is a critical element in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the new design code also presents opportunities for mixed-use development. Councilmember Grossman commented that the park and ride site at Aurora Avenue and 192nd Street would lend itself to mixed-use development.
Continuing, Councilmember Grossman recommended that staff develop a safe way for people who feel they have had negative experiences working with the City to provide feedback about what the City can do differently. Mr. Stewart said staff has already planned a presentation to Council on tools and techniques for soliciting such feedback.
Councilmember Grossman expressed support for the partnering approach. However, he advocated greater City assertiveness in "certain limited cases."
Councilmember Ransom expressed support of greater City assertiveness on selected projects.
Councilmember Lee said she would advocate the proactive approach if the City had funds to support it. She supported greater City assertiveness in instances requiring City action.
Councilmember Montgomery agreed with Councilmember Grossman’s comments. She identified economic development as one of her priorities. She supported the partnering approach as a minimum level of City involvement. She said she would advocate "proactive partnering" if the City had greater resources.
Deputy Mayor Hansen supported Council consideration of greater City assertiveness on a case-by-case basis.
Councilmember Grossman commented that City assertiveness and City-business partnerships are not mutually exclusive. He noted greater thought and longer timelines as prerequisites for accommodating both goals.
Mr. Stewart proposed an addition to the partnering approach recommended in the staff report: "and a proactive approach with specific Council approval."
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stewart said staff would not commit funds to specific projects before receiving Council approval.
Councilmember Lee advocated the encouragement of existing businesses as the City’s first priority, followed by recruitment of new businesses. She asked if the Aurora Corridor redevelopment project is generating business interest. Mr. Cutshaw noted increasing interest. Mr. Stewart commented that the project will create challenges and opportunities.
In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Stewart confirmed that staff has begun developing the "other tools or processes to continue successful progress" listed on page 30 of the Council packet.
Councilmember Grossman suggested an analysis of needed businesses based upon the economic size of Shoreline. Mr. Cutshaw noted the lack of office space as a basic issue. He and Mr. Stewart said the City must rely upon and, to a large degree, react to developments in the commercial market.
Councilmember Ransom advocated a Shoreline post office on property owned by the federal government.
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Jim Turner, 14521 32nd Avenue NE, expressed concern about the City bypassing the opportunities represented by small businesses, including bed and breakfast and boarding house establishments. He noted the economic potential of such businesses. He asserted that low- to moderate-income people represent a profitable customer base. He advocated City economic development efforts to assist small businesses in areas other than North City and along Aurora Avenue. He mentioned elements of the new development code (e.g., height restrictions, variance application fees) that he considers onerous.
(b) Harley O’Neill, 17844 8th Avenue NW, mentioned that the City of Tukwila has designated a redevelopment area along Pacific Highway South and, thereby, provided developers with access to low-interest State and federal funding for projects in the area. He acknowledged that City improvements to the Aurora Corridor s will attract businesses to Shoreline. He advocated access to low-interest funding as another incentive for business development.
(c) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, recommended that Council reconsider Ordinance No. 128 as part of its economic review. He noted the opinion of some business people that the ordinance has obstructed economic growth.
8. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:50 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_____________________________
Ruth Ann Rose, CMC
Deputy City Clerk