CITY OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang,
Fimia, Grace, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: none
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.
(a) Proclamation
of Rotary Day
Mayor Hansen presented the proclamation acknowledging
Rotary International’s 100th anniversary to former Mayor Connie
King, President of the Lunch Rotary, Scott Saunders, President of the Breakfast
Rotary, and Jeff Wiseman of the Lake Forest Park Rotary Club.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
Councilmember Fimia reported on her attendance at the Cascadia Conference, which focused on the interface between
technology and transit. She indicated
she would provide a written report to the Council later in the week.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a)
(b) Virginia
Paulsen, Shoreline, said postponing a decision on the City Hall project is the
fiscally prudent and responsible approach, given the cost and complexity of the
project. She referred to consent item
7(d) and asked why a motion is needed if this amount has already been approved
as part of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
She wondered where the money would come from if the City is required to
provide “dollar for dollar” matching funds for the $412,000 grant for the
Interurban Trail.
(c) Clark
Elster, Shoreline, urged the Council to postpone a
decision on the City Hall project until the public has more information to make
an informed determination about whether the project should be supported. He expressed concern with the overall
process, noting there have been no discussions about future tax appraisals for
the Aurora Corridor project. He felt the
Council would be considering a “stealth tax plan.”
(d) Tom
Dunnihoo, Shoreline, noted his suspicion about the
“secret” deal between the new owners of the
(e) Fran
Lilliness, Shoreline, felt that the City should
totally disregard complaints made by people who wish to remain anonymous. She felt their issues should be ignored if they
do not have the courage to stand behind their convictions. She said this practice of anonymous complaints
has cost the City and Innis Arden thousands of dollars. She outlined the activities of such
“troublemakers” in the community, noting that there is a group going around misrepresenting
itself as the Innis Arden Club.
(f) George
Mauer, Shoreline, spoke about his experience with Rotary and the positive
contributions that Rotary makes to the community. He urged anyone who might be interested to
consider joining the organization.
(g) Brian
Derdowski,
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion by Councilmember
Fimia, seconded by Councilmember Grace and carried unanimously, the agenda was
approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Grace moved to approve the Consent
Calendar. Councilmember Gustafson seconded
the motion. Councilmember Fimia
requested that items 7(c), 7(e), 7(f), 7(g) and 7(h) be pulled from the Consent
Calendar. A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
7-0, and the following Consent Calendar items were approved:
Minutes of Dinner
Meeting of
Minutes of Workshop Meeting
of
Minutes of Dinner
Meeting of
Minutes of Special
Meeting of
Minutes of Special
Meeting of
Minutes of Dinner
Meeting of
Approval of expenses
and payroll as of
Motion
to authorize the City Manager to (1) execute
Local Agency Agreements and Supplements
to obligate
grant funds
totaling $412,000 for the Interurban Trail
Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Project,
and (2)
adopt Ordinance
No. 372, amending the 2005 Roads
Capital Budget
8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES,
RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) (7c)
Motion to authorize the City Manager to (1) execute a Nickel Gas Tax
Agreement to obligate $10,026,000 of funding for the Aurora Corridor Project
(Phases I and II), and (2) execute a General Maintenance Agreement for the
Aurora Corridor Project (Phase 1) with the Washington State Department of
Transportation
Mr.
Burkett explained that this motion allocates Shoreline’s share of the state gas
tax increase enacted last year. He
clarified that it does not represent a tax increase.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to authorize the City
Manager to execute the Nickel Gas Tax Agreement and the General Maintenance
Agreement. Councilmember Grace seconded
the motion.
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Burkett clarified that the sufficiency of funding
for Aurora Corridor Phase 1 enables the City to transfer over $7 million of
this funding to Phase 2. This does not reduce
any of the City’s matching portion needed for Phase 1,
which amounts to approximately $3 million, or 13% of the total project
budget.
Councilmember
Fimia wondered about the appropriateness of having both the maintenance
agreement and the tax issue in the same motion.
She wondered if this might violate a scope and object standard.
Mr.
Burkett did not feel there was a conflict since the agreement is not executed
by ordinance. The motion simply authorizes the City Manager to execute these
two agreements.
Mayor
Hansen noted that the funding was granted for the Aurora Corridor project
without any specific requirements on how the funding should be allocated.
Kirk
McKinley, Aurora Corridor Project Manager, noted that the funding came in three
different bienniums: $25,000 in 2003-05; $7.9 million
in 2005-07; and $2.1 million in 2007-09.
He said it would have been very difficult to spend all this funding in
Phase 1.
Mr.
Burkett affirmed for Councilmember Ransom that the motion is not authorization
to spend, but authorization to include $7.5 million for Phase 2 in the
CIP. This funding would ultimately be
appropriated through the annual budget process. Responding to Councilmember Chang, Mr. Burkett
said the state funding requires that Phase 2 be completed by a specified
time.
Mr.
McKinley explained that this motion responds to the state’s request for prior
notice so that it can coordinate its budget with various agency requests. He said staff would return to Council in late
March and early April to outline approximate timelines for all stages of Phase
2. The current CIP projects Phase 2
construction beginning in 2007 or 2008.
Councilmember
Chang questioned the feasibility of starting Phase 2 in 2007 or 2008. He also wondered if the $10 million is the
maximum amount the City could get from the state. Mr. Burkett said it is the maximum under this
particular increase in the gas tax. However,
the City has identified $34 million in potential grants for Phase 2.
Councilmember
Ransom noted the potential of obtaining additional funding from other sources,
including a local gas tax considered by King, Pierce, and Snohomish
counties. He said the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) recently submitted a request to the state
legislature for a 15-cent gas tax.
Councilmember
Fimia wondered how prescriptive the agreement is, noting that Council did not
have the opportunity to see it. Mr.
McKinley said the project is described in fairly general terms, similar to what
was included in the pre-design studies.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
7-0.
(b) (7e) Motion to authorize the City
Manager to execute a supplement in the amount of $533,603.23 to the existing Design Services Contract with CH2M
Hill for design services during construction (SDC) for the construction phase
of the Aurora Corridor Improvement Project, (N 145th - N 165th
Streets) and Interurban Trail Pedestrian Bridges projects
Councilmember Gustafson moved to approve the
supplemental contract with Ch2M Hill.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion.
Councilmember
Ransom said many people thought that the word “supplement” meant that an
additional $533,000 was being requested for the project.
Mr.
McKinley clarified that the contract is a supplement because it involves
providing design services during the construction phase of the Aurora
Project. He said this supplement is consistent
with the original scope of work and is already included in the construction line
item. He further explained that this
would allow the City to retain Ch2M Hill to respond to issues as they come up
during the construction process.
Mr.
Burkett said this required expense has been anticipated and planned for from
the beginning.
There
was further discussion of design costs to date.
Councilmember
Fimia understood that a project team is necessary but she was concerned about
the high cost of the contract. She
pointed out that it is not necessary to act on this contract tonight. She asked Mr. Haines if it could be approved
later when the final design comes back to Council.
Mr.
Burkett responded that Council has expressed a desire that the project move
along on schedule.
Councilmember
Fimia noted that she was asking questions of the Public Works Director, to
which Mr. Burkett responded that as the City Manager he is authorized to speak
for any of his employees and he can determine if he needs additional
information from Mr. Haines to answer Councilmember Fimia’s
question.
Councilmember
Fimia noted that the Council has not received a copy of the two contracts. She recommended postponing approval since
they will not really be needed until after the bidding process.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
5-2, with Councilmembers Chang and Fimia dissenting.
(c) (7f) Motion to authorize the City
Manager to execute Local Agency Agreements, Supplements and a Master Agreement
with the
Department of Transportation and the Federal
Transit Administration to obligate $525,361 of STP-U grant funds and $1,475,518
of FTA grant funds for the Aurora Corridor Project—Phase II
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to execute these
agreements. Councilmember Grace seconded
the motion.
Councilmember
Fimia asked about the Environmental Impact Statement for Phase 1 and Phase
2. She said the City argued in court
that there was no Phase 2 project, and therefore no EIS was required for the
whole project.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen noted that a discussion of Phase 2 environmental issues is
scheduled for March 28.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
7-0.
(d) (7g) Motion to authorize the City
Manager to execute a Construction Management Contract with Harris & Associates
for an amount not to exceed $1,651,110 for the Aurora Corridor (N 145th
– N 165th Streets) and Interurban Trail Pedestrian Bridge Projects
Councilmember
Gustafson moved to authorize the Harris contract. Councilmem-ber
Grace seconded the motion.
Councilmember Chang asked how the Shoreline
project compares with other road projects, such as
Mr. Burkett noted that other cities have had
similar contracts and that the amount is within the industry standard of 10% of
the construction project cost.
Councilmember Ransom asked for clarification
about the construction management costs for the Aurora Corridor versus the
Interurban Trail bridges.
Mr. McKinley clarified that the $1.3 million is
for construction management services for the Aurora Corridor Project (N 145-N 165),
and the $350,000 is for the construction management services for the Interurban
Trail bridges. The bridges have their
own separate funding sources, although the City proposes that they be bid and
awarded as one package.
A
vote was taken on the motion, which carried 6-1, with Councilmember Fimia
dissenting.
(e) (7h)
Motion to delay construction of the
Councilmember Gustafson
moved to delay the construction.
Councilmember Grace seconded the motion.
Mr.
Haines explained the staff recommendation to delay this project because the
community has brought forward some additional items to be included in the
scope. Furthermore, several other construction
projects are scheduled this year, and
Councilmember
Ransom summarized that the delay is to provide an improved project and to
relieve some anticipated congestion.
A vote was taken on the
motion, which carried 7-0.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(a) City
Hall Feasibility Assessment Review
Mr.
Burkett reiterated that the due diligence period has been extended for another
45 days.
Concluding,
Mr. Olander explained that the 45 day extension is needed to resolve a number
of outstanding issues related to the joint development agreement. He said after these are resolved, the Council
will be provided with a complete report upon which it can base its
decision.
Mayor
Hansen called for public comment.
(a)
(b)
Tom Dunnihoo, Shoreline, felt the feasibility
study did not adequately address the problems of parking and space
allocation. He suggested there would not
be enough room to accommodate City Hall, YMCA, housing, and a park. He also suggested that storm runoff would be
a problem. He said the study does not
adequately consider the historical conditions of the site, and that the project
would end up costing more money than the City anticipates.
(c)
Peter Henry, Shoreline, expressed sympathy for the residents of the
trailer park who would be forced from their homes as a result of developing the
There
was discussion of the source of water flowing into
Councilmember
Ransom wondered why there would be year-round water running in that pipe.
Mr.
Olander said the files indicate the County blocked off or capped the old line
in 1981 and installed a new line, so no water should be flowing through the old
line.
Jesus
Sanchez, Public Works Operations Manager, suggested that some water could be
flowing from the Park ‘n Ride lot through the old line as a result of
groundwater upwellings, but this would be fairly
insignificant amounts. He said staff has
not observed 24-hour flows, but it has observed periodic flows even when it is
not raining. He said this can be
understood when comparing what is happening today to conditions prior to the
1980s. He said the water captured from
the Park ‘n Ride converges with flows originating from other points north and
south. During heavy stormwater
flows, the force of the water in the pipe is significantly strong. He said any daylighting
of the pipe would result in considerable erosion to the buffer, since the water
is flowing at a tremendous force.
Councilmember
Ransom asked about proximity of the soil boring tests to the lake.
Mr.
Sanchez said two test bores were on the southeast corner of the site, and two
were on the northeast corner closest to the lake but not within the
buffer. He said the two tests closest
to the lake were noted as having groundwater seepage, but is not considered traditional
groundwater. Mr. Olander concurred that
the seepage is not groundwater, but water that has seeped through the strata and
made its way into the test pits.
Councilmember
Fimia felt staff’s description of the area was not consistent with the plaque
at the Park ‘n Ride, which indicates there was a small lake or pond there
originally. She felt there were still
unresolved issues related to water quality and quantity. She also requested additional information on the
potential partnership between the City and the YMCA, noting that she would like
to both projects considered individually.
She also suggested that one of the test bores was not conducted on the
proposed site.
Councilmember
Ransom asked staff to provide additional information regarding the arrangement
between the property owners and the mobile home residents. He understood that the residents were to
receive compensation for their trailers, but it appears they are not getting
the resources they need to move.
Responding
to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Burkett noted that the current property owners
have planned for the past two or three years to develop the mobile home park
for another use. That was the plan
before the City decided to enter into an agreement to buy the property.
Councilmember
Gustafson asked Mr. Burkett to respond to the assertion that the City Hall
project has proceeded in secret.
Mr.
Burkett noted that the purchase of real estate is one of the few exceptions to
the open public meetings law. He said there
would not be much sense in negotiating for property if the public is aware of
the City’s strategy or the maximum amount it is willing to pay.
Mr.
Olander noted that consideration of the purchase and sale agreement and the
90-day feasibility study was done in open public meetings, which included
opportunities for public comment.
Mayor
Hansen pointed out that there is no final agreement at this point, only the
possibility of an agreement.
MEETING EXTENSION
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to extend the meeting
until
(b) Comprehensive
Plan and master plans for Transportation, Surface Water, and Parks, Recreation
and Open Space
Mayor Hansen called for
public comment.
(a) Virginia
Paulsen, Shoreline, said she would rather see the $11 million in the City Hall
budget allocated on maintenance and upgrades to City parks. She noted that the Parks, Recreation and Open
Space Master Plan proposes an extensive list of projects in the coming years,
and she does not want the City to issue bonds to pay for such projects. She said the City should take care of the “customary
and usual kinds of services that cities provide to their residents,” including
fully funded parks.
(b) Janet
Way, Shoreline, representing the Sno-King Environmental Council and the Thornton
Creek Legal Defense Fund, noted that the City Council has the obligation as
elected officials to review the Comprehensive Plan amendments and not simply
rely on Planning Commission recommendations.
She said while she has the utmost respect for the Planning Commission’s
hard work and sincerity, it is up to the Council to analyze the issues based on
their merits.
(c) George
Mauer, Shoreline, asserted that the City has not followed the requirements for
updating its Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Land Use Policy LU7. He said the City Manager did not notify the
Council that he would not be able to meet the requirements, and the Council
never amended the existing Comprehensive Plan to delete them. He said these amendment requirements are
meaningless if they can be voided by administrative fiat. In the current process, the Council has
failed to meet the requirement of government accountability, the most critical
element of the Growth Management Act.
(d) Tom Dunnihoo, Shoreline, said despite numerous discussions on
the Comprehensive Plan goals of providing safe streets, the City has never been
responsive to traffic issues. He
commented on the inadequacy of the
(e) Peter
Henry, Shoreline, commented on the composition of the Planning Commission, noting
that all but one represents the development community. He said although Planning Commission members
are well-qualified and their recommendation should be seriously considered, the
Council represents all the citizens of Shoreline and should insist on its own analysis and
judgment when making its final decision.
He did not see the similarity between any of amendments grouped in
section F of the staff memo, and urged the Council to examine all the
amendments thoroughly and vigorously.
(f) Brian
Derdowski,
(g) David
Fagerstrom, Shoreline, said Council passed the cottage housing moratorium because
a neighborhood meeting was improperly noticed, thereby violating due
process. He said the notification
process must be supervised by the City to ensure that neighbors are
notified. He urged the Council to adopt
cottage housing quality standards to protect consumers, and recommended that the
term “design review” be more carefully defined to include citizen input. He also preferred a standard for the
allocation and frequency of cottage housing developments, which he
characterized as “social engineering housing,” and suggested the City consider allocating
them via a lottery process. He supported
protections in Land Use policy LU24 to ensure that quality standards are high
and so “these experiments are not allowed to run amok.”
Mayor Hansen proposed that
Council consider the Comprehensive Plan policies by category, as outlined in
the February 25 staff memorandum. He said
the Council could entertain a motion to adopt a given category, at which time Councilmembers
could remove items for further debate. Councilmember
Ransom objected strongly to this approach.
There was considerable discussion
of the process and what was entailed in the motion.
Councilmember Ransom felt the
Council should analyze each item individually because it is easy to miss items
by considering them in a large block. He felt this would be putting the burden
on Councilmembers to think of all the items they wish to pull now rather than
considering each item individually. He
also felt the people who have concerns about trees are not being fairly
considered under the proposed method.
Mayor Hansen reiterated that Councilmembers
have the opportunity to remove any items from the block that can be discussed
later.
Councilmember Gustafson felt
it would be positive to get a consensus on tree issues from both sides of the
debate before passing any tree-related amendments.
Councilmember Ransom was
skeptical that such a discussion would ever happen, noting that the real issues
would likely be postponed for another year.
Councilmember Fimia noted
that separating the amendments into technical and substantive changes would
have expedited the review process, but staff rejected this approach. She said the amendments are organized in a
very intimidating way that emphasizes the negative consequences of failing to
follow the Planning Commission recommendations.
She emphasized the need to implement a different process next year, noting
that the burden should be on staff and the Planning Commission to justify
amendments. She pointed out that the
second revised matrix did not include public comments. She disagreed with staff’s interpretation of
Land Use policy LU7, noting that there would not be so many amendments if that
policy were followed. She agreed that
there are many recommendations she supports, but she does not support the
current motion on trees. She said Councilmember
Chang has not had an opportunity to review the staff memorandum in detail.
Councilmember Grace said he
did not want to postpone the debate on trees and signs just to avoid dealing
with difficult issues. He agreed with
the current process if it provides a timeline for addressing these issues with
the stakeholders in a timely way and if it allows Councilmembers to pull items
for later discussion. He said he is
prepared to propose specific items for amendment.
Councilmember Gustafson
concurred, noting that he agrees with the recommendations for Categories A and
B, but he would also like a timeline so that the issues are addressed
relatively soon.
Mr. Burkett said the Council
cannot avoid the tree issue because it will return relatively soon through the
Planning Commission as the critical areas ordinance.
Councilmember Fimia
emphasized that the document has been through a long process, and now it is up
to the Council to deliberate these policies.
She said the Comprehensive Plan leads the discussion on the critical
areas ordinance, not the other way around.
She strongly recommended that
Council address these policies now because the Comprehen-sive
Plan can only be changed once each year.
After further discussion
about the process, Mr. Burkett explained the function of the Comprehensive
Plan, which is to provide general policy direction. He clarified that the Development Code is
where the Council debates the specific judgments and policy decisions that are
adopted as the law of the City. He
reiterated that the proposed policy is consistent with proposed changes to the
critical areas ordinance. He said the
sign code is another issue that cannot be resolved simply through the
Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Ransom agreed
with Councilmember Grace’s recommendation to deliberate on the tree and sign
issues relatively soon rather than waiting until the next cycle.
Mayor Hansen recommended that
the Council deliberate the issues now since the update is already two months
beyond the deadline.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said the
purpose of tonight’s action is to give staff clear direction on how to write
the Comprehensive Plan so it can be brought back for adoption. He
wondered if the City intends to respond to Innis Arden Club’s formal request
for a meeting prior to adopting policies related to trees. He suggested that a meeting be scheduled
within the next week, in the same manner in which the meeting with Sno-King
Environmental Council was arranged.
A vote was taken on the motion to retain the existing
policies related to trees and trees in critical areas without further amendment
until various interested groups have had an opportunity to meet and work
towards language that is agreeable to both sides; and to docket the following
proposed amendments for the 2005-2006 Annual Review: EN 15, EN 21, EN 22, EN 23, EN 24 and EN 48. It carried 4-3, with Councilmembers Chang,
Fimia, and Ransom dissenting.
Mr. Burkett said staff recommends
the City engage a mediator as part of the critical areas ordinance review in
order to reach some kind of agreement on the issues of tree and view
preservation.
With regard to Category B (signs), Councilmember
Ransom moved the amendments proposed by the Shoreline Merchants
Association. Councilmember Chang
seconded the motion.
After a brief discussion on
procedure, Councilmember Fimia moved to divide the question
to take one amendment at a time.
Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 4-3, with Mayor
Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
The amendments were voted
upon as follows:
10. ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________