CITY OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Fimia,
Grace, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmember Chang
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll
call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exception of Councilmember
Chang.
Upon motion by Councilmember
Fimia, seconded by Councilmember Ransom and unanimously carried, Councilmember
Chang was excused.
(a)
Proclamation of Shoreline’s 10th Anniversary
Mayor
Hansen presented the proclamation to the 10th Anniversary Committee,
staffed by
Ms.
Devoir described the structure of the Anniversary Committee, noting it is
comprised of four groups: 1) Accomplishments; 2) Shoreline Stars; 3) Gala
Celebration; and 4) Marketing/Promotion.
She listed all the members of each committee, outlined the committees’
various work plans, and concluded by thanking all those involved in ensuring
the anniversary celebration is a success.
(b)
Mayor’s State of the City Address
Mayor
Hansen delivered the State of the City address, emphasizing the City’s past
accomplishments, current condition, and future challenges. He described the City’s present condition as “excellent,” owing in part to the City Council’s
conservative approach to finances. He outlined the City’s major goals, objectives,
vision and values that have shaped the City’s development over the past ten
years, including improved infrastructure and basic services. He noted that Shoreline has accomplished the
following since incorporation:
He then reported on the
status of various City projects, including the Third Avenue NW Drainage
Improvement Project, the Interurban Trail, City Hall,
Mayor Hansen concluded his
address by outlining Shoreline’s major challenges for the next ten years. He noted that despite conservative budgeting,
the cost of maintaining current services is expected to outpace revenues in the
coming years, mainly due to a slow economy and voter initiatives that reduced
local tax revenues. However, the City
continues to look for cost savings and efficient service delivery. He said the Council will be coming to the
Shoreline community for help in setting priorities for the services we provide
and how we pay for them. He expressed
confidence that by working together, the City will maintain its financially
stable position and continue to make significant accomplishments in the coming
years.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Gretchen
Atkinson, Shoreline, supported the
(b) Dennis
Lee, Shoreline, commented on the meeting between the Sno-King
Environmental Council, Planning Commission members, staff, and City Councilmem- bers. He emphasized the importance of having an
open dialogue and considering the history of changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that several of them have weakened
the document, making it less restrictive.
He expressed concern about the effort to “wordsmith” the document, noting
that the original policies were written with specific purposes in mind. He urged the Council to consider citizens
advisory committees and encourage more citizen input.
(c) Janet
Way, Shoreline, representing the Sno-King
Environmental Council and the Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund (TCLDF),
expressed concern about consent item 7(e), City Hall delivery process. She felt consideration of this item was
premature since the Council has not yet authorized the land purchase and has
not finished the Comprehensive Plan review process.
(d) Vicky
Westberg, Shoreline, provided background on her
father, who had a great influence on her current respect for living things and
the natural environment. She said this
is a healthy attitude to have as the City works together toward achieving a
healthy community.
(e) Virginia
Paulsen, Shoreline, thanked the Council for meeting with members of the Sno-King Environmental Council to discuss specific concerns
relating to protection/enhancement of the environment. She hoped there would be more such meetings
between Councilmembers, citizens, and staff.
She said it is essential to ensure streams, wetlands, and shorelines are
preserved, since society is dependent upon them for survival. She expressed continued concern about the
City’s fiscal policies, urging the Council not to spend the $11 million it has
“hoarded” for a
(f) Michael
Rasch, Shoreline, questioned the appropriateness of the meeting between Councilmembers
and special interest groups. He noted
that the meeting with SKEC was not widely noticed, nor was it televised. He was concerned about the potential
precedent this would create, noting that the comments submitted by SKEC have
not been discussed in open meetings. He stated
that the group is proposing some “radical changes,” such as prohibiting all
development in critical areas. He asked
if other special interest groups, such as the Innis
Arden Club, would have similar access to express its opinions on trees and
views. Finally, he asked about the
process for requesting a special meeting.
(g) Egill Johnsen, Shoreline, noted
that the City has changed the street configuration in certain locations from
two travel lanes/two parking lanes to travel lanes/ bicycle lanes, thereby
eliminating spaces for parking. He said
to sell the public on the idea of cityhood, Vision
Shoreline established several goals, including local control of zoning, citizen
impact through public hearings, and protecting private property. He asserted that these goals have been
ignored, and that the traffic revisions have the appearance of a “secret affair.” He said bicycle lanes have been preplanned in
secret for other streets, including
(h) Richard
Johnsen, Shoreline, noted that the 10-year
anniversary proclamation failed to mention Vision Shoreline, the organization
that preceded the transition team which brought Shoreline into existence. He described his participation as a member of
the advisory board, noting his contribution to the financial study that determined
if cityhood was a viable option for Shoreline. He said the Mayor has a duty and an obligation
to “set the record straight” and ensure that Vision Shoreline is equally
represented in the proclamation.
(i) Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, urged the Council
to remove item 7(e) from the consent calendar, noting that the
lease-to-own/design build delivery method for City Hall does not comport with
the conservative financial approach the Mayor described in the State of the
City address. She emphasized the
disadvantages of the design/build option, noting her preference for a hybrid of
the two options. She expressed
skepticism that the
(j) Fran
Lilleness, Shoreline, also expressed concern about
Council’s meeting with SKEC. She said
the group proposes an amendment to protect critical areas that would impact the
property rights of others. She explained
that public views throughout the City of
(k) Rick
Stephens, Shoreline, supported the City Council, staff, and citizens getting
together to discuss differences, express opinions, and find common ground. He felt the SKEC meeting will “change the way
things happen in Shoreline,” because now people have way to express their views. He said more such meetings are needed, and communication
is always the best goal.
(l) Peter Eglick,
and
that his clients would like to have had a special meeting with members of the
Council. He objected to the lack of widespread
public notice.
There
was Council consensus to watch an eight-minute video presentation provided by
Dot Brenchley of Fircrest. The video described the potential impacts on Fircrest residents if the facility is closed.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Fimia asked that the minutes of January
18 and February 3 be pulled.
Councilmember Ransom asked that item 7(e) on the City Hall delivery
system be pulled from the consent calendar.
It became Item 9(b).
Councilmember Gustafson moved that item 9(b) regarding the
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Deputy Mayor Jepsen
moved approval of the consent calendar as amended. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion and
the following consent items were approved unanimously:
Minutes of Special Meeting of
Minutes of Special Meeting of
Approval of expenses and payroll as of
February 3, 2005
in the amount
of $2,863,497.53
Ordinance No. 368 amending the
Development Code
Chapter 20.40, adding tent city
to the use tables and
requiring
the applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting
prior to
application
Ordinance No. 373 reclassifying a
Finance Technician
position in the
Finance Department to a new classification
entitled Accounts
Payable Technician and amending
Ordinance No. 366, by amending the 2005
non-exempt
salary table to
add this classification
Motion to authorize the City Manager to
execute an
agreement with Metro
for improvements related to the
Hidden
upgrade and
approval of Metro easements for Boeing
8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING
(a) Public hearing to consider citizens comments on the 2004 Update of the Comprehensive Plan and the master plans for Transportation, Surface Water and Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Mayor Hansen opened the public hearing.
(a) Rick Stephens, Shoreline Merchants Association
(SMA), outlined the SMA’s recommended changes to the
sign code. He urged the Council to
delete the prohibition on billboards, noting that they are a legal form of
advertisement. He said courts have ruled that signage is a form of speech that
is protected under the first, fifth, and fourteenth amendments of the U.S.
Constitution. Turning to transportation, he noted that the traffic plan does
not provide improved Level of Service (LOS) in the long-term for various
segments of
(b) Harry Obedin, Shoreline, noted that trees are living things, but if people treat them as sacred objects then people are, in effect, committing “economic terrorism.” He said trees lose their ability to be useful when they exceed a certain size and start to decay. He outlined the various hazards that trees can cause to both people and to the sensitive areas the City wants to protect. He said although some environmental activists have good intentions, they are not concerned with view preservation, which is very important because views determine property values. He urged the City to practice responsible forestry by conducting periodic evaluations of every tree within the City. He said trees that have outlived their usefulness should be replaced with other trees of similar or superior characteristics.
(c) Ewa Sledziewski, Shoreline, opposed the changes proposed by SKEC regarding tree preservation, noting that it is totally nonsensical to require stringent regulations for removing trees or branches on slopes. She said there is no scientific proof that removing a branch or even a tree from such a slope is detrimental to the slope, and that people making such proposals have no clue about biology, trees, slopes, or geotechnical matters. She said Innis Arden was developed over 60 years ago as a result of a clear-cut, but there were no mudslides at that time. She said the two mudslides in Innis Arden Reserve M took place on slopes with huge trees, but the trees did not prevent mud from sliding down. She said pruning is required to maintain tree health and to maintain property values. She said it is a great limitation on personal freedom to “come to a bunch of bureaucrats for a permit to cut a branch on my tree.”
(d) John Hollinrake, Shoreline, also expressed concern about the SKEC proposals, which he felt are adverse to the interests of Innis Arden residents. He said the current law allows residents to work with the planning department and the City Attorney to manage views in a scientifically and environmentally friendly manner. He said this often involves arborists, geotechnical engineers, and stream scientists. He said the purpose of government is to protect the interests of people and their property, hence the need for the police department, fire department, building codes, inspectors, etc. He emphasized that “people come first, and trees come second.” He said many residents have lost property value in the range of $40,000-$90,000 due to a loss of view. He encouraged the Council not to adopt the proposed changes by SKEC, but to streamline the process and “fine tune it” so it works for all the citizens of Shoreline.
(e)
(f) Vicky Westberg, Shoreline, urged the Council to carefully consider any proposals to “streamline” the permit process. She said while she would like the permit process to be speeded up, she does not want to lose any environmental protections as a result.
(g) Virginia Paulsen, Shoreline, described the circumstances that allowed her to purchase a home in Shoreline. She explained that since that time, a significant portion of her retirement income is spent on property taxes and maintenance. She noted that heating oil has increased from 98 cents per gallon in 1998 to $2.12 today. She expressed concern about increased property taxes and bond rates resulting from the purchase of City Hall. She feared that the City’s fiscal plans would not enable her to stay in her home.
(h) Roger Lowell, Shoreline, urged the Council not to adopt measures that would place more restrictions on tree management. He encouraged the City to avoid “another bureaucracy in the City or a situation where neighbors tattle on neighbors about trees.” He concurred with previous speakers that residents have lost property value through view loss due to tree mismanagement. He said restrictions would decrease the City’s revenue base and leave the City vulnerable to lawsuits for taking property without due compensation. He said further restrictions would erode the City’s fiscally conservative approach spoken of by the Mayor.
(i)
Michael Rasch, Shoreline, asked the Council to consider
modifying the Comprehensive Plan policies to allow the planting of non-native
species in specified areas. He said
after
(j) Judy Allen, Shoreline, agreed with previous Innis Arden speakers, noting that the City relies on a tax base of $322 million in property value represented by Innis Arden residents. She said the majority of this figure comes from the value of view property. She said the people proposing the restrictions do not live in Innis Arden and do not pay the taxes. She urged the City to continue working with the Innis Arden Club and its reserves committee.
(k) Bob Allen, Shoreline, said he is bothered that people seek control over how residents manage their own environment. He asserted that property owners have a higher interest in managing the environment, and that trees provide a value and spiritual uplift for present and future generations. He was concerned that a group of “like-minded people” express their opinions to the Council in unpublicized meetings as though they represent the community’s will. He said people should give more credit to Innis Arden residents and not regard them as people who want to destroy the environment.
(l) Peter Henry, Shoreline, urged the Council to change its policy on applause, and complimented the Friends of Fircrest for their presentation. On another topic, he noted that the people living at the Holiday Resort mobile home park represent the opposite end of the spectrum from those in Innis Arden. He said it is shocking and reprehensible that the City waited until a meeting was convened with the King County Housing Authority to explore how it could help the dislocated residents. He said government is here to help people, but the City seems to be “helping them get kicked out.” He urged the City to provide more help.
(m)
Diana Stephens, Snohomish, agreed with the economic
development goals of the Comprehensive Plan, but said many of them will be
difficult to accomplish without an economic development manager. She encouraged the City to move forward with
hiring someone as well as creating an advisory committee. She urged the City to follow up words with
action and to look at
(n) Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, commented on item #234 of the Comprehensive Plan matrix relating to traffic safety. She said although safety for pedestrian and bicycle traffic is a commendable goal, Shoreline residents still rely heavily on vehicles for transportation. She said until there is expanded bus service, vehicular traffic is still a high priority in Shoreline. She commented on the possibility of degraded LOS in the Transportation Master Plan, noting that LOS for Aurora Avenue and Ballinger Way NE would likely decrease. She said intersection delays would likely increase due to lack of capacity, thereby causing a high level of driver frustration. She said until the City can fund more sidewalks, walkways, bicycle lanes, and buses, it needs to improve the LOS rather than degrade it.
(o)
Peter Eglick,
(p)
Brian Derdowski,
Councilmember
Grace moved to close the public hearing.
Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
9. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLTIONS, AND MOTIONS
(a)
Ordinance No. 369
amending the Development Code Chapter 20.50.550 to allow an exception to offsite
sign prohibition
Mayor Hansen called for
public comment.
(a) Rick
Stephens, Shoreline Merchants Association, reported on the meeting between the
SMA, Chamber of Commerce, and City staff, characterizing it as a “very healthy
discussion about signage.” He said it is
becoming apparent to businesses today that access, signage, visibility, and
parking are equally as important as location. He questioned the rationale for linking the
sign ordinance to land use, noting that everyone at the meeting agreed that
signage should be separate from land use regulations. He disagreed that “shared common access” should
be a requirement of the off-site sign exemption. He said the City should support consolidation
of signage even if joint access is not available. He noted that good signage can grow a
business, but small or poorly located signs can cause business failure. He said he is surprised to see Mr. Stewart
now supporting the “shared common access” requirement.
(b) Jim
Abbott, Shoreline, spoke on behalf of the
(c) Peter
Henry, Shoreline, said it seemed that some of the City’s justification for
changes to the sign code was for safety reasons. He noted that signage such as the “No War”
banners draped on the overpass on Interstate 5 is regulated by the Washington
State Department of Transportation. He
felt the City should not duplicate what the state is already regulating.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 11:00
p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________