CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Grossman, Councilmembers Chang,
Gustafson, Hansen, and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmember Montgomery
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Jepsen announced that Councilmember Montgomery had left a voice mail for the
Council announcing her resignation as of
Mayor
Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll
call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of
Councilmember Montgomery.
Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Deputy
Mayor Grossman and unanimously carried, Councilmember Montgomery was excused.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE
AGENDAS
Steve
Burkett, City Manager, distributed the Third Quarter Financial Report, noting
that there are no significant changes and the General Fund revenues are
slightly above projections.
Mr.
Burkett asked
Mr.
Stewart addressed a concern relating to the “edge of water” delineation for the
project. He said Aegis has not changed
the edge of water delineation, and that the delineations for edge of water and
the buffers are identically reflected in the CASUP and the building permit
application. He noted that the
application proposes construction of paving and asphalt over that portion of
the water quality vault located outside of the buffer areas. He said a decision on the building permit
application must be made within 120 days after it is determined to be complete,
assuming no additional information is needed.
Mr.
Stewart responded to various concerns expressed by the Mayor. He clarified that the building permit
application does not include a parking lot and turnaround area as was
originally proposed. He said the parking
has been reconfigured to be located outside the wetland/buffer area. He said the proposal staff is now reviewing
includes construction outside the “no-build area” as reflected in the
CASUP. Mr. Sievers affirmed that the
CASUP as approved by the Council established the building demarcation.
There
was additional discussion of the building demarcation. Mayor Jepsen concluded that the building
permit may or may not be approved depending on whether it meets the conditions
that were previously required by the CASUP.
Councilmember
Ransom expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that both sides seem to have
claimed victory in the court decisions.
He questioned whether there have been any clear winners, and whether
there will be a final resolution in the near future. He felt that staff has given an overly
optimistic impression of the proceedings. He then asked if Aegis moved the building
footprint further to the south as was required by the CASUP.
Mr.
Stewart said the revised building plan appears to be consistent with all the
terms and conditions that were included in the CASUP, although the application
is still under review.
Councilmember
Ransom asked if the City is taking independent measurements of the buffer or if
it is relying on measurements provided by Aegis.
Mr.
Stewart said the application with associated building plans includes a survey
conducted by a registered land surveyor.
He said the City would undertake further investigation if there is
reason to believe the survey is not accurate.
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom’s question about whether City staff normally reviews surveys
for accuracy, Mr. Stewart said the City will undertake a thorough review of all
aspects of the application, including zoning and land use, to determine if it
meets the criteria of the MDNS and the CASUP.
He said all issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the City
before a permit is issued.
Mr.
Sievers said a new survey is not required because the CASUP itself references a
survey that was initially performed by Aegis.
He said even though the Hearing Examiner upheld that survey and Council
adopted it, staff should ensure that it is staked out correctly.
Councilmember
Ransom asked about the status of the fish barrier at Peverly Pond.
Mr.
Sievers explained that the property owner, Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT), would not permit the City to remove the fish
barrier.
Mr.
Stewart pointed out that the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife
is instructing Aegis to remove the barrier, while another state agency, WSDOT,
is prohibiting Aegis from removing it. He
recalled that contingency mitigation was included in the event the state would
not grant permission.
Mr.
Sievers noted that staff has already reviewed some preliminary plans for stream
enhancement in
Councilmember
Ransom said the public perception is that the City has already taken a position
on the issue because of what has progressed thus far.
Mr.
Stewart explained that the City has 120 days to undertake a detailed review of
all areas of the permit application. He
said it will be checked for completeness and compliance with all City codes and
conditions of both the CASUP and MDNS.
Councilmember
Chang expressed concern about the continuing conflict between the public and
the City on this issue. He wondered if
the Planning Department and the City Attorney fully understand the concerns
involved. He wondered if the problems
can be resolved by the Council or whether they must be addressed in the courts.
Mr.
Sievers cited a case in
Mayor
Jepsen suggested that Councilmembers reacquaint themselves with the provisions
of the CASUP as approved the Council.
Mr.
Burkett concluded that it is now staff’s responsibility to review the
application and ensure it complies with the Council’s decision.
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Sievers said the arguments brought forth by the
Crawford’s attorney focus solely on the north site. He reiterated that the appeal period for the
CASUP and the associated MDNS has long since expired, so the only remaining
item for the south site is the building permit.
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom’s earlier remarks, Mr. Burkett agreed that this is a
very contentious issue with no clear winners or losers. He felt that a simple resolution could not be
achieved due to the complex issues involved.
Upon
consensus by Council, the Crawford’s were given time to present their arguments
with regard to this matter. Mrs.
Crawford disputed the information presented by the City Attorney and said there
are three different lawsuits that are now combined and the court has not
completed its ruling on the south site.
She also said that she and her husband appealed the CASUP decision and
the MDNS in November 2002. She said the
judge ruled that Shoreline and Aegis misapplied the provision allowing buffer
averaging and misinterpreted the provision allowing intrusions into the
buffer. She said he also determined the
Hearing Examiner applied an erroneous standard regarding the “ordinary high
water mark.” She asserted that the MDNS
cannot possibly be applicable if the impacts of the new proposal have not been
measured.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS: none
5.
PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Leta
Blackwell, Shoreline, discussed the organization of the Planning and Public
Works departments and said the City should not contract out for such projects
as
(b) Doug
Timpe,
(c) Bill
Meyer, Shoreline, commented on the political nature of the Council appointment
process. He said the Council will
basically make a selection decision that best serves the majority in power now. He felt the majority is doing everything in
its power to retain control of the direction of the City. He strongly requested that the process be
postponed until January to allow a new mix of Councilmembers to make the
decision, and to allow adequate time for people to apply. He supported the bipartisan proposal and
said the new Council mix will give a better picture of constituent thought.
(d) Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, called attention to an error in last week’s North City Landing
staff report which represented $113,000 in one-time revenue as annual income
for 10 years. She said she would
appreciate more honesty from staff.
(e) Virginia
Paulsen, Shoreline, expressed numerous concerns about the proposed process to
fill the Council vacancy. She said
allowing the Councilmembers to select the replacement differs from a democratic
system in which power remains in the hands of the people. She characterized the process as a “rush to
judgement.” She asked the Council to
respond to the rumor that former Mayor Connie King is the predetermined
choice. She hoped that all candidates
will be given fair and unbiased consideration.
She asked if any current Councilmembers have any past, personal, or
professional affiliation or business stake in the development of the Aurora
Corridor project. She urged the Council
to allow Shoreline citizens to provide input on all matters related to
government decision-making.
(f)
Ginger Botham, Shoreline, recalled a time when the Council allowed more
time for the public to comment on policy issues. She said reducing the public comment time
makes the public and the process irrelevant.
She urged the Council to use the full 90 days for the Council vacancy
process.
On
another topic, she asserted the City’s consultant did not evaluate the habitat
for artificial water courses in Shoreline as part of the stream inventory,
noting that every watercourse has been modified at some point in time. She said staff recently impugned the
integrity of neighbors who claimed they did not receive notice of a SEPA
determination.
(g) Dennis
Lee, Shoreline, said Council is jeopardizing the democratic system if it tries
to control public testimony. He urged
the Council to extend the Council vacancy process to allow the newly elected
member to participate. He pointed out that
there is a process for recalling elected Councilmembers. He said the Council’s voter mandate is
slipping away, and citizens should be allowed to comment at the end of all
public meetings.
(h) Janet
Way, Shoreline, asserted that Aegis removed the “check dam” at Peverly Pond
without permission from WSDOT or WDFW, thereby reducing the size of the pond to
make the Aegis site more amenable to its construction plan. She said Thornton Creek is a Class II salmon
stream that deserves the respect of the City, and that the pond no longer
matches the Seattle Public Utility Stream Characterization Report.
(i) Justin
Osemene, Shoreline, said he legally represents a client regarding the process
for replacing Councilmember Montgomery.
As an attorney, he cautioned the City to take more time and win the
people’s confidence, noting that the incoming Councilmember should be able to
participate in the process. He
questioned the motives, ethics and morals of the Council for wanting to
conclude the process before December 31.
He advised Council that the process would be tracked by his law firm,
and that it will set a precedent for future actions.
(j) Richard
Johnsen, Shoreline, pointed out that the
(k) Stan
Terry, Shoreline, said the 32nd District Democrats would have more
credibility if they were more consistent with their own practice in making an
argument about the Council vacancy process.
He pointed out that they supported a short timetable to select Maralyn
Chase to fill the vacancy in the State House of Representatives created by the
departure of Carolyn Edmonds.
(l) Larry
Owens, Shoreline, expressed support for the joint resolution by the 32nd
District Democrats and 32nd District Republicans. He discussed Councilmember attendance at
Council meetings over the past year, noting that Councilmember Ransom has 100%
attendance. He said Councilmember
Montgomery represents approximately 46% of all absenteeism, and that she and
Deputy Mayor Grossman represent 62% of all absenteeism this year. He said the appointed Councilmember should be
someone who is committed to participating and listening to all viewpoints. He asked Council to reconsider the three minute
rule for speakers, noting that they mean no disrespect if they exceed the
allotted time.
(m) Patty
Crawford, Shoreline, said the Council should ignore the advice of the City
Attorney because case law supports the Council’s involvement in cases such as
Aegis. She asserted that the City has
tried to change its various codes to cover up for the mistakes of
developers. She disagreed with the new
definition of reasonable use, which states that it shall be “liberally
construed to protect the constitutional rights of the applicant.” She said no more changes should be made to
the Comprehensive Plan and other city codes.
She said that Aegis originated the term “artificial water course,” and
that WDFW has invalidated its approach in other jurisdictions. She said the City is changing the code to
lessen the environmental protections specifically related to the cases she has
brought to court.
(n) Rick
Stephens, Shoreline, said the City’s files on the Aurora Corridor project
indicate that 98% of the citizens who commented are opposed to the plan
proposed by the City. He asserted that
the City has ignored this information in favor of proceeding with a plan that
is too expensive and that adversely affects property owners.
(o) Tim
Crawford, Shoreline, pointed out that there are numerous lawsuits filed against
the City regarding the Aegis project. He
asserted that the City Attorney “is lying” when he says there is only one case
pending in court.
Mayor
Jepsen expressed his opinion that it is more cost efficient to contract for
construction inspection services rather than hire full time staff. Councilmember Gustafson concurred. Mr. Burkett pointed out that two new
positions funded in the Capital Improvement Plan will provide more staff
oversight for future capital projects.
Responding
to Mayor Jepsen, Jan Knudsen, Economic Development Coordinator, acknowledged
the validity of Ms. Ryu’s analysis of last week’s staff report on the North
City Landing project.
Despite
the error, Mayor Jepsen felt the Council’s action last week was consistent with
its policy relating to affordable housing and the City’s Growth Management Act
targets.
Mayor
Jepsen asked staff to verify whether the check dam has been lowered or removed
at Peverly Pond. He commented favorably
on the community’s effort in publishing the Judge Ronald book.
Responding
to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart gave an update on the stream inventory process,
noting that the Planning Commission is reviewing it this week. He said one of the issues will be
clarification of the term “artificial water courses.” He said staff is recommending language that
would clarify there are no regulatory policy distinctions between the terms
“open water course” and “artificial open water course.”
Mayor
Jepsen responded to comments regarding the Council vacancy process. He indicated that a resolution passed by the
32nd District Democrats recommends that Council appoint one of two
people to the Council position. He felt
the application process approved by Council should run its course since it is
fair and open to all who wish to apply.
He said he looks forward to reviewing all the applications, adding that
he has not come to any predetermined conclusions.
Responding
to Ms. Paulsen’s comments, Councilmember Hansen said he does not have any
interest in properties along
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Deputy Mayor Grossman moved
approval of the agenda. Councilmember
Hansen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and the agenda was
approved.
7. CONSENT
CALENDAR
Councilmember
Ransom asked that Item 7(d), Ordinance No. 344, be removed from the Consent
Calendar and made Action Item 8(a). Councilmember Hansen moved approval of the
consent calendar as amended.
Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion,
and the following items were approved unanimously:
Minutes of
Special Meeting of
Approval of
expenses and payroll as of November 21,
2003 in the
amount of $1,179,155.99
Motion to
authorize the City Manager to execute a
construction management agreement with W
& H
Pacific for
the
Improvements
Project for an amount not to exceed
$60,080
Motion to
authorize the City Manager to execute
an amendment to the professional
services contract
with KPG for up to $50,000 to
complete design, plans
and specifications for the
up to $25,000 for construction
engineering services
during construction
Resolution No.
211 approving an amendment to
the §401(a) Defined
Contribution Retirement Plan
established for all employees under
Nationwide Life
Insurance
Company Contract No. 013-06329 to
supplement minimum distribution
requirements in
compliance with recent federal laws
8. ACTION
ITEMS
(a) Ordinance No. 344 extending the
franchises under which Seattle Public Utilities is authorized to provide water
within the City of Shoreline
Councilmember Ransom moved
to pass Ordinance No. 344. Councilmember
Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember
Ransom suggested that the extension of the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU)
franchise should be longer than six months to enable the City to negotiate the
eventual purchase of the franchise.
Mayor
Jepsen favored moving forward with the ordinance since the water district is
well aware of the City’s intentions.
Councilmember
Hansen said longer-term agreements could cause uncertainty and prevent the City
from seeing where the negotiations might lead.
Mr.
Burkett noted that the City will probably return with another extension in
order to allow the Shoreline Water District to continue negotiating with
SPU.
Councilmember
Chang asked if this extension will affect the rates. Mr. Burkett noted that the rates are set by
the Seattle City Council.
A vote was taken on the
motion, which carried 6-0, and Ordinance No. 344 was passed.
9. NEW
BUSINESS
(a) Project
status for development of master plans and Comprehensive Plan update
Mr. Stewart and Anna Koulosek, Assistant Director of
Planning and Development Services, provided a report outlining the current
status of projects and next steps for developing master plans and the
Comprehensive Plan update. They
explained that the Master Plans and Comprehensive
Plan Update Project includes developing master plans for transportation,
surface water facilities and parks, recreation and open spaces, and
completing a major update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Their presentations included the following
points:
Mr. Stewart
summarized the City’s next steps, noting that a draft Comprehensive Plan update
and master plans should be available for public review in mid-January.
Responding
to Councilmember Hansen, Ms. Koulosek clarified that three Planning Commission
members comprise the Environmental Surface Water Group. She noted that the Thornton Creek Watershed
Oversight Council (TCWOC) has been attending some of the group meetings and presented
the group with their official comments and suggestions.
Mr.
Stewart noted that he and other staff members have met with the TCWOC, which is
eager to participate in the process.
Councilmember
Gustafson said he looks forward to the seeing the draft, noting that these
updates will give Council the policy direction it needs to proceed
forward.
Deputy
Mayor Grossman wanted assurance that the goals of the Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Plan would also be represented in this effort. Mr. Stewart confirmed that the objective is
to satisfy as many needs as possible.
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stewart confirmed that the Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services Board (PRCSB) is primarily
responsible for parks-related issues. He
said the Planning Commission and the PRCSB will be brought together to ensure
there is dialogue and cooperation in this effort.
Councilmember
Ransom pointed out that the parks survey indicated a strong need for sidewalks
and other transportation-related items.
He wondered if they would be considered as part of the Transportation
Master Plan.
Paul
Haines, Public Works Director, indicated that they would, although priorities
and available resources must be identified in the process. He emphasized the importance of continuous
contact between the various groups in order to progress at the same rate. He said the goal is to ensure the City
considers multiple uses for all facilities that are built.
Councilmember
Ransom wondered if the City is planning for adequate traffic capacity on
streets such as Aurora Avenue. He felt
the three-lane configuration of
Mr.
Haines said all these questions will be considered in a policy discussion about
transportation priorities. He said the
City will continue to use regional modeling to predict growth and
capacity.
Mayor
Jepsen suggested that Councilmember Ransom reintroduce his traffic concerns
after the draft is released in January.
Regarding
the public input aspect of the plan, Councilmember Ransom noted that some
people’s comments have not been included in past records. He wished to ensure that all comments are
included in follow-up reports.
Mr.
Stewart confirmed that the City is collecting, summarizing, and cataloguing all
comments that are received.
(b) North
Central Interurban Trail—next steps
Bob Olander, Deputy City Manager, explained that
staff is requesting authorization to accelerate the design process of the north
central segment of the Interurban Trail (N 175th to N 192nd)
from 2006 to 2004. The various segments
of the Interurban Trail project are moving ahead as scheduled. He pointed out that two development
possibilities along Aurora in the Central Area may make it advisable to
accelerate the planning and design for this segment of the Interurban
Trail. Development at the
"wedge" north of 175th and at the Gateway site would
likely trigger mitigation requirements to construct adjacent trail segments
similar to what was required at Top Foods.
While the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) does not schedule construction
of this segment until 2006, current plans by developers may provide an
opportunity to move ahead sooner rather than later. Given the complexities of these
inter-relationships staff proposes that full design for this trail segment be
initiated.
He outlined the following advantages to moving
ahead:
1. It will resolve issues
needed for the private redevelopment of Gateway and Ronald wedge north of 175th.
2. It will provide assurance of
a unified trail design through this area even if parts are built in segments as
development mitigation.
3. This level of detail will be
required to satisfy Seattle City Light (SCL) prior to authorizing trail
construction.
4. Final plans will allow the
City to be eligible for new or "leftover" grant funds.
5. It allows the City to
proceed with SEPA review.
6. The process (in conjunction
with private redevelopment) will provide the framework for as much advance
notice to business owners located on SCL right-of-way as possible.
7. As the other trail segments
are completed there will be increasing public demand to finish this
"missing link."
Some disadvantages include:
1. The City does not have grant
funds for the design and would have to reprogram 2006 local CIP funds to
2004. This could be mitigated if a waiver
of retroactivity can be obtained from the State Interagency for Outdoor
Recreation (one of the primary granting agencies).
2. The City may have to add
staff capacity.
3. There may be concern about
displacement from the businesses in this area, although it would still be
preferable to give them as much advance notice as possible. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to
find comparable lease rates. However, if
the City is to build this trail section the businesses will have to relocate,
and it is beneficial to provide as much advance notice as possible
4. Private redevelopment may
not happen.
Mr. Olander concluded by saying that staff believes
the advantages of proceeding strongly outweigh the disadvantages. Moving
ahead with design in 2004 will require reprogramming approximately $400,000 in
the CIP from 2006 to 2004. The Finance
Director indicates the City has sufficient cash flow to accommodate this
request.
Mayor Jepsen expressed support for moving forward
because planning for potential redevelopment is a sensible approach.
As in previous discussions about the Interurban
Trail, Councilmember Hansen asked if Shoreline is coordinating the trail
alignment with the City of Edmonds.
Kirk McKinley, Interurban Trail Project Manager, said
the City is working with Edmonds, although no alignment has been selected
because Edmonds just started the Request for Qualifications phase of its
project.
Councilmember Hansen expressed concern about a lack
of safety if pedestrians are made to cross N 205th Street at grade
level. He felt the City should consider
the possibility of designing the crossing underneath the roadway. Councilmember Ransom concurred, noting that
one section of N 205th Street would be an ideal location for an
underground crossing.
Mr. Haines pointed out that the design from 200th
to 205th is mostly painted roadway.
Therefore, if Council chooses a different design, such as an underground
crossing, it will need to identify a revenue source to fund it.
Councilmember Ransom pointed out that relocation
costs for property owners in the wedge are much higher than the staff report
indicates. He said the report does not
consider the fact that many property owners will be forced to construct new
buildings.
Mayor Jepsen noted that most business owners
recognize that changes along
Councilmember Ransom restated his point that the
estimate does not reflect the whole story about business relocation costs. He wished to have the issues in the wedge
resolved in conjunction with the design of the trail in order to provide
certainty to businesses in that area.
Mr. Olander explained that Mr. Stewart will be
heading up the effort with businesses in the wedge. He said planning for the wedge and Interurban
Trail design will proceed on a parallel track to ensure trail uniformity and
redevelopment are complementary and well-timed.
Responding to Councilmember Chang, Mr. Olander said
the proposal is to move forward approximately 400,000 from the 2006 CIP while
simultaneously moving ahead more rapidly with the grant application
process. He felt moving forward with the
design now is worthwhile even if the grant funding cannot be acquired
immediately. He noted the possibility of
reallocating CIP funds or funding it through private development mitigation.
Councilmember Chang expressed concern that the City
could lose the sales tax generated by the businesses along this segment of
Mayor Jepsen said the proposed action is more of an
opportunity to plan ahead rather than an action that triggers relocations or
lease provisions. He said it simply
provides certainty to potential developers who wish to locate there. He pointed out that this same kind of
planning allowed Top Foods to locate and build a section of the Interurban
Trail as part of its mitigation.
There were five Councilmembers who supported the
recommendation. Councilmember Chang had
continued reservations because of the potential loss of tax revenue due to
businesses leaving the wedge.
Mr. Olander reiterated that the recommendation
simply proposes that the design be initiated.
Mayor Jepsen asked staff to follow up on Councilmember
Chang’s question regarding sales tax revenues from businesses in the
wedge.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________