CITY OF SHORELINE

 

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING

 

Monday, April 18, 2005                                                                                                          

Shoreline Conference Center

6:30 p.m.  Mt. Rainier Room

 

 

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 6:34 p.m. by Deputy Mayor Jepsen, who presided in the absence of Mayor Hansen.

 

2.         FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute.  Upon roll call by the Deputy City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exceptions of Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Fimia.

 

Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember Ransom and carried 5 – 0, Mayor Hansen was excused.  Mayor Hansen arrived shortly thereafter.

 

3.         CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

 

Steve Burkett, City Manager, reported on the following items:

 

  • public workshop on code enforcement priorities
  • conceptual plans for a public park at the Metro wastewater pump station in Richmond Beach
  • “April Pool’s Day” project involving water safety in the Parks Department
  • City activities scheduled for Earth Day
  • installation of City gateway on NE 175th Street

 

Mr. Burkett responded to Council questions regarding the construction project on Interstate 5, noting that the state is building an additional freeway lane from NE 175th Street to NE 205th Street.

 

 

4.         COUNCIL REPORTS: none

 

5.         PUBLIC COMMENT 

 

            (a)        Janet Way, Shoreline, speaking on behalf of the Sno-King Environmental Council (SKEC) and the Paramount Park Neighborhood Group (PPNG), outlined several projects planned for Earth Day, including planting native plants and trees in parks located in Shoreline, Edmonds, and Lake Forest Park.  She said this is a cooperative effort by SKEC, PPNG, Shoreline Chamber of Commerce, Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation, Shoreline Parks’ Department, Edmonds Park’s Department, and Sky Nursery.  

 

            (b)        Virginia Paulsen, Shoreline, felt the City should seriously consider practical solutions to the crises created by unlimited growth and dependence on oil.  She urged the Council to view the video “End of Sururbia” and to consider developing the local economy in a way that anticipates problems before they occur.  She felt that citizens could help address the crisis through animal husbandry and by growing their own food.

 

6.         WORKSHOP ITEMS

 

(a)                Update on Human Services Program

 

Rob Beem, Human Services Manager, reviewed the Shoreline Human Services Program’s accomplishments for 2004 and opportunities for 2005.  He addressed the City’s overall strategy for increasing Shoreline resident’s access to services, the impact of the City’s use of $309,647 for the support agencies’ service delivery to Shoreline residents, and the City’s role in identifying and addressing emerging issues including hunger and cultural diversity.  He noted that Human Services added Minor Home Repair as a new program for 2005 and undertook expansion of family support programs.  He explained that the City’s role in Human Services is to use its resources of funding and staff time to support activities that increase residents’ access to human services.  The City engages agencies and other partners such as the Shoreline Public Schools, Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Senior Center, United Way of King County, and Public Health and Safety Network, to enhance the system of services in Shoreline.

 

Continuing, Mr. Beem commented on potential changes in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding and the process to allocate Human Services funding for 2006.  A key element of the City’s funding, the CDBG is expected to decline over the next three years.  Currently, the Consortium which operates the CDBG in King County is being reformed.  Pending future decisions on the structure of the Consortium, the City will accept applications for capital projects to be funded in 2006.  He anticipated a $25,000 reduction, or 10-20% in CDBG funds if current assumptions hold true.  He concluded that there would be a little less money (approximately $220,000) but a more narrow focus on how the block grant is used around the county. 

 

Councilmember Fimia arrived at 7:12 p.m.

 

Responding to Mayor Hansen, Mr. Beem noted that the available reserves in the Major Home Repair program represent about 1.5 years of activity, not including the loan balance.

 

Mayor Hansen commented that the Major Home Repair Program is a revolving fund that is replenished with loan repayments.  He expressed interest in studying how the cities of Kent and Auburn administer their funds to see if their approach might make sense for Shoreline. 

 

Mayor Hansen called for public comment.

 

            (a)        Janet Way, Shoreline, expressed support for the home repair program, noting that it can help the disabled or low-income residents maintain their properties without forcing the City to resort to code enforcement measures. 

 

Councilmember Gustafson commended Mr. Beem for his leadership, interest, and work on the Joint Recommendations Committee, and on efforts to partner with schools on teen programs.  He encouraged the City to include the school district in the hunger relief effort since the schools often sponsor food drives.  Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Beem said he would provide further information on home day care providers in Shoreline.

 

Councilmember Ransom noted the apparent discrepancy between the oral presentation, where Mr. Beem suggested a possible 20 percent cut in CDBG funding, and the staff report, which suggests up to 40 percent reductions.  

 

Mr. Beem said the most reliable information to-date predicts between 10-20 percent reductions.  He clarified that even if the block grant is appropriated at current funding level, they are other budget pressures that will reduce the amount that is available. 

 

Councilmember Ransom expressed concern that even successful programs such as minor home repair could be reduced.   He pointed out that the City only contributes 1% of its total budget to Human Services, so many citizens could find themselves in trouble if state and federal funding is reduced.

 

Councilmember Fimia suggested that the creation of a Human Services master plan be a topic of discussion at the upcoming Council Retreat.  She felt Shoreline should have a document that indicates the City’s level of commitment to human services, as well as associated indicators and performance measures.  She emphasized the importance of having an up-to-date needs analysis to understand the specific needs and trends.   

 

Councilmember Chang commented on the benefit of engaging in dialogue, especially with minority communities, as a way to reduce human service needs in the future.  He pointed out that preventing human service needs is the best policy to adopt in an atmosphere of declining revenues.

Councilmember Grace wondered if there had been any discussion among northend cities about addressing affordable housing on a regional basis.

 

Mr. Beem noted that A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) advocates for affordable housing for various cities, including Kenmore, but it is not willing to extend its operations to Shoreline.  He explained the City’s efforts to market Shoreline to Seattle-based non-profit housing developers, pointing out that there have been successful projects in Shoreline.  

 

Councilmember Ransom commented that Senators Murray and Cantwell as well as Representatives Inslee, Larsen, McDermott, McMorris and Reichert were very supportive of the City’s lobbying efforts regarding CDBG funding.

 

Councilmember Fimia noted that the Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI), Latch, and other programs are just waiting for opportunities to partner with the City on affordable housing.  She said “it is just a matter contacting these folks and putting some money on table.” 

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen said there are a number of non-profit organizations that are actively seeking opportunities for acquisition, preservation, and new development in Shoreline.  He said Seattle-based groups are very interested in working with neighborhoods to make sure the process goes smoothly and that everyone clearly understands what is being proposed. 

 

            (b)        Capital Improvement Plan Update

 

Jill Marilley, City Engineer, provided a brief status report of current CIP projects, including Aurora Corridor Project Phase I (N 145th Street to N 165th Street), Aurora Avenue N and N 185th Street, Interurban Trail, Interurban Trail Pedestrian Bridge, North City, and the 3rd Avenue NW Drainage Improvements.  She noted the City is now advertising for bids for construction of the Aurora Corridor Phase I.  The Interurban Trail Pedestrian Bridge is being advertised as part of Aurora Corridor Phase I.  City staff is working with the North City Business District and meeting with businesses and property owners in North City to ensure that communication is optimized.  The 3rd Avenue NW Drainage Project is on schedule, and the City plans to commence its street overlay and slurry seal programs in June, 2005.  Upcoming projects in the general capital fund include master plans for Ronald Bog Park, Cromwell Park, and Richmond Beach Saltwater Park. 

 

Mayor Hansen called for public comment.

 

            (a)        Janet Way, Shoreline, expressed concern about the effect of the project on Aurora businesses and urged the City to be mindful of business needs during construction.  Referring to the project bidding materials, she noted that the types of plants used for landscaping will determine the quality of the stormwater system, noting that English ivy is on the noxious weed list.  She encouraged the City to use a creative and state-of-the-art approach to natural drainage systems in order to increase stormwater quality.  She also urged the City to increase the proportion of coniferous trees to deciduous trees, which will allow more water retention and infiltration. 

 

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Haines noted that the white-marked areas of pavement in the central portion of the City are targeted for a variety of repair work before the final overlay is installed.

 

Councilmember Ransom enumerated the issues he would like further discussion on at the Council Retreat:  the Seattle Public Utility property adjacent to Hamlin Park; the four-acre “convent” property housing a 55,000 square-foot building; and the Southwoods property at NE 150th Street and 25th Avenue NE.   He commented on the apparent narrowness of the Interurban Trail segment running from Aurora Avenue to Midvale Avenue N on N 185th Street, and wondered if it would be consistent with the rest of the Interurban Trail.  He said it would be a mistake to build a very narrow concrete sidewalk.  He also considered it unreasonable to require developers to remove the businesses at their own expense to make room for the Interurban Trail.   He said the City should pay for the demolition and then take whatever legal actions may be necessary to collect from the businesses that fail to remove their buildings.   

 

Mr. Burkett clarified that the City is not requiring developers to remove the buildings.  On the contrary, developers are anxious to clear the area for the Interurban Trail, and some have entered into agreements with leaseholders to provide this service.  He said the long-term strategy is to request that building owners comply with their lease agreements and remove the buildings upon lease expiration.  Otherwise, the City may have to remove the buildings and take legal action to recoup its costs.  He maintained that building removal is the responsibility of the property owners, not the City.  He also pointed out that the width of the Interurban Trail along N 185th Street is 10 feet, which is wider than a standard City sidewalk.

 

Mr. McKinley said the total future width of that trail section will be about 15 feet, which includes a 4-5 foot buffer zone.  He said this segment will serve as a dual purpose pedestrian path and bicycle trail. 

 

Councilmember Grace asked what specific resources the North City project would have on a day-to-day basis.  Ms. Marilley said the project will have at least one staff person on-site during the day when the project is active.  An office location has been secured along the North City frontage, and customers can also access staff on their cellular phones and through the City’s 24-hour phone line.  

 

Councilmember Gustafson asked for clarification of the potential improvements to N 185th Street.  He also wondered how the City’s infrastructure performed during the last heavy rainstorm.

 

Mr. Haines clarified that there is interest in creating a right-turn opportunity on N 185th Street so drivers can access southbound Aurora Avenue.  Mr. Haines and Mayor Hansen affirmed that there have been no reports of flooding or related problems from people living in the NE 175th Street drainage area.  Mayor Hansen felt the City should explore the possibility of acquiring some of the vacant land on N 185th at Aurora Avenue to develop as a right turn lane.

 

Councilmember Fimia requested that staff provide more detailed information, including budget status reports and scheduling, at future capital improvement project updates.   She said a constituent expressed concern that the City might be obligated to relocate displaced businesses if it received any federal funds for the north central segment of the trail. 

 

Mr. Haines expressed his view that the City’s funding does not obligate it to relocate displaced businesses, although the City has used its resources to help them remain in Shoreline.

 

Councilmember Fimia requested the paperwork that supports this view, since this concern is shared by more than one constituent.  She felt the Council should explore the issue of relocation from a policy standpoint, emphasizing the importance of conveying that Shoreline is a “business-friendly city.”  She also felt that legal actions relating to building demolition issues should be addressed in executive session. 

 

Councilmember Ransom felt the City should consider a relocation policy that assists displaced businesses with “moving expenses.”  He pointed out that approximately 20 businesses are being affected by the Interurban Trail, and that the City previously agreed that between $5,000 and $10,000 could be made available to businesses for this purpose.  Councilmember Ransom and Councilmember Fimia requested that consideration of the City’s relocation policies be scheduled as an agenda item at a future meeting.

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen requested that all factual information, including lease agreements, be made available in order to have an effective discussion of the issue.  On another topic, he asked for clarification of the status of the I-5 pedestrian bridge project. 

 

Ms. Marilley explained that WSDOT is doing seismic upgrades to the support piers of the bridge, but it is not addressing any aesthetic features.  She said staff will continue to work with WSDOT and pursue opportunities to make aesthetic improvements to the bridge. 

 

            (c)        Update on Aurora Project 165th Street to 205th Street Strategy and Scope

 

Kirk McKinley, Aurora Corridor Project Manager, outlined the proposed process and general schedule for the Aurora N 165th to N 205th project.  Staff is proposing to begin pre-environmental, pre-design and public outreach over the next nine months culminating in a recommended environmental process in early 2006.  Construction of improvements within the remaining two mile section would be dependent on availability of funding and Council direction.  Staff proposes entering into a contract with CH2M Hill to provide support and analysis over the next nine months, and will return to Council on May 9 requesting authorization to enter into a contract to perform these services.  The proposed process, entitled “Public Outreach and Pre-Environmental” (POP), is estimated to cost between $325,000 and $400,000.  The work will be funded through the Federal Surface Transportation Program and matched with City funds.  Staff intends to review the POP process with the Council and the public to determine if the outreach and information development is appropriate. 

 

Continuing, Mr. McKinley displayed the major steps in the process in a flow chart format.  He said that continuously involving the public and business and property owners is important in ensuring support for the project and in designing and constructing a project that will move traffic and people safely and efficiently, and will provide incentives for property owners and businesses to improve and expand.  He clarified that federal agencies and the State will determine the specific environmental process -- either a Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE), or an Environmental Assessment (EA).  He said federal agencies have stressed that controversies over design standards are not valid reasons to increase the level of environmental documentation.  He stated that staff will return in May requesting authorization for the City Manager to enter into a contract with CH2M Hill for this process if Council concurs with the proposal.  He concluded by outlining potential funding sources for future phases of the project. 

 

Mr. Burkett said the proposed approach is designed to make the process more effective and efficient.  He noted that the Aurora Corridor Phase 1 project has been a 7-year process that has been unnecessarily expensive, so the public involvement/support issue should help improve the overall process.  

 

Bob Olander, Deputy City Manager, noted that the City will be much farther along in the next phases by doing this work “up front.”  He said what some people might consider minor design details are very important issues for property owners, many of whom have legitimate concerns about how the project will affect their properties.  The purpose of the proposed process is to conduct a concerted outreach and try to allay these concerns. 

 

Mr. Haines emphasized that timing will be a critical factor because the schedule will affect property owners who might be contemplating redevelopment or lease issues.  He felt the proposed process would provide property owners with answers to many unresolved issues.  He pointed out that the next phases of the project do not involve road alignments that depart much from the general alignment of the corridor.

 

Mayor Hansen called for public comment.

 

            (a)        Peter Henry, Shoreline, identified problems with the public outreach process, noting that the first open house is scheduled to occur after the City Council authorizes the contract.  He expressed concern with the proposal that CH2M Hill be the contractor for both the public input process and the design, noting the potential for them to “push their own agenda.”  He said he would like the City to avoid committing itself to a huge amount of money for a project that costs too much and displaces too many people and businesses. He expressed concern about the lack of right-of-way width in future phases of the project, noting that businesses will be forced to give up their frontage property.  He urged the Council to serve the interests of the residents, taxpayers and business owners who are in Shoreline for the long term. 

 

            (b)        Caralee Cook, Shoreline, expressed support for the Council’s vision for the Aurora corridor.  She felt the proposed improvements would allow pedestrians to walk Aurora Avenue in safety.  She commented that members of the developmentally disabled community have difficulty accessing medical services on Aurora Avenue.  She said projects like these are one of the reasons that Shoreline became a city.  

 

Councilmember Grace expressed support for the POP process, emphasizing the importance of continuing to learn from past experience and improve the process. 

 

Councilmember Fimia expressed concern about CH2M Hill being the sole source contract for the POP process and the design work.  She wondered if City policy allows for such a contract.

 

Mr. Haines said state law prohibits the City from accepting bids for engineering or architectural services, but it can ask for proposals.  He said the policies allow sole source contracts if the circumstances justify the sole source.  He assured the Council that the project is driven by the City Council and state requirements, not the consultant.  He said the consultant’s role is to provide expertise and generate a finished product on schedule.  He said the proposed contractor brings expertise and experience from many other Highway 99 projects in King County. 

 

Councilmember Fimia felt it would be advisable to have policies that restrict contractors from being awarded contracts for pre-design or environmental assessment as well as the construction contract.  Otherwise, there could be a potential conflict of interest.  She pointed out that this has been a problem in King County.

 

Mr. Burkett said the City has spent a lot of time considering alternatives for saving money and improving the process.  He commented on CH2M Hill’s experience with Shoreline’s project as well as other Aurora corridor projects in King County.  He felt that CH2M Hill is genuinely interested in getting the job done in a timely fashion.  He said the disadvantage of contracting with another firm is that “we start from ground zero with another firm that’s not familiar with all the issues and unique situations here.” 

 

Councilmember Fimia recommended a format for the open house process in order to facilitate dialogue between the stakeholders.  She felt the open house should include a general presentation by staff followed by a question and answer period in order to get full audience participation.  She felt this would provide an opportunity for public reaction and interaction rather than having input being filtered by staff.

 

On another topic, Councilmember Fimia said she would like to see documentation from Sound Transit regarding their level of commitment to bus service in Shoreline.  She said without a substantial commitment to enhanced bus service, it is difficult to justify a transit lane on Aurora Avenue. 

 

Mr. Burkett felt that enhanced bus service would not be possible without the transit lane.   Councilmember Fimia noted there are many ways to enhance transit service that do not require building an additional lane.  Mr. Haines pointed out that the proposed transit lane serves the additional purpose of creating safer access to adjacent businesses.

 

Deputy Mayor Jepsen reminded the Council that the purpose of this discussion is to consider the POP process.  He expressed support for moving forward with the proposed process.

 

Councilmember Chang noted that many property owners are still concerned about how the project itself might impact them, noting his hope that the property and business owners in Phase I would not be used as “guinea pigs.”  He questioned various aspects of the project, including the location of left-turn lanes, the effectiveness of u-turns, and the lack of adequate right-of-way width in Aurora Corridor Phase III.   He questioned the process which “awarded” some property owners with left turn access but denied others.   He pointed out that Shoreline will be one of very few cities that allow u-turn movements.   He agreed that a sole source contract with CH2M Hill might present a problem.  He also questioned whether the City could adequately fund the next two phases of the project.

 

Councilmember Gustafson requested information on how the role of the Economic Development Coordinator would be expanded with respect to the Aurora project.

 

Councilmember Ransom emphasized the importance of “checks and balances,” expressing concern that CH2M Hill seems to be in control of many parts of the process.  He was also concerned about the lack of adequate right-of-way width in Phase III, noting that the Council must eventually discuss “who’s going to get a hit and why.”

 

RECESS

 

At 9:29 p.m. Mayor Hansen called for a five minute recess.  The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m.

 

(d)         Continued update of the 2004 Comprehensive Plans and Master plans for Transportation, Surface Water and Parks,

Recreation and Open Space

 

Council began its review of the discussion items on the “blue sheet” distributed by staff.

 

#154 (EN59) Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to accept the staff recommended language as follows: “Streams shall not be filled or permanently altered except for:  habitat restoration; water quality restoration; flood protection; correction to bank erosion; road crossings when alternative routes are not feasible; or private driveway crossings when it is the only means of access.  Alterations, other than habitat improvements, should only occur when it is the only means feasible and should be the minimum necessary.  Any alteration to a stream should result in a net improvement to habitat and restoration of natural channel migration patterns should be encouraged, where feasible.  In cases where stream alternation is consistent with this policy, channel stabilization techniques shall generally be preferred over culverting.”  Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.  After brief discussion, there was Council consensus to postpone action on the motion until the end of the meeting.

 

#26 (LUIII)Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendation.  Councilmember Grace seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. 

 

#211 (LU27)—Councilmember Ransom moved to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation, substituting the phrase “residential areas of 6 dwelling units per acre and up” with “medium density areas of R-8 to R-12 per acre and up.”  Councilmember Chang seconded the motion.  Councilmember Ransom pointed out that many people object to the cottage housing concept in low density residential areas.  Councilmembers then discussed the proposed timeline for reviewing the cottage housing ordinance and debated the merits of making this change before the public process is completed. 

 

After Councilmember Fimia made a motion to amend and then withdrew it, Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved a substitute motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation, striking “of six dwelling units per acre and up.”   Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. 

 

#315 (T55) — Councilmember Grace moved to retain the existing policy, adding “and where feasible, use SEPA to provide traffic mitigation for systemwide impacts.”  Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.

 

MEETING EXTENSION

 

At 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Fimia moved to extend the meeting to 10:15 p.m.  Councilmember Grace seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

 

Returning to Item # 154 (EN59), Councilmember Fimia accepted Deputy Mayor Jepsen’s suggestion to strike the words “filled or...”  A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7-0. 

 

#450-454 (CF3, CF4, CF8, CF9, CF10, CF10.1) — Councilmember Fimia moved to retain the existing policies.  Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.  Councilmember Fimia contended that the exisitng policies are important because they contain specific language relating to levels of service for capital improvements.  She said these policies provide guidance to the development regulations and maintain the policy direction to ensure that new facilities have adequate service levels.

 

Mayor Hansen had mixed feelings about retaining these policies, noting that the Planning Commission recommended deleting them because they are addressed elsewhere.

 

Mr. Stewart said many of the recommended deletions were the result of tasks that had been completed since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998.  He noted that some items, such as annexation, no longer apply. 

 

Andrea Spencer, Senior Planner, said the Planning Commission’s rationale for deleting these items was because the service providers, such as Ronald Wastewater District, already have service level standards.

 

Councilmember Fimia emphasized the fact that this is ongoing policy direction that supports the Development Code.  Even though some aspects of these policies might be addressed in the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan must provide the policy direction to it. 

 

Mr. Stewart encouraged the Council to examine the revised capital facilities element to understand how the policies are coordinated and integrated. 

 

A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 4-3, with Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.

 

#455 (CF11)—Upon motion by Councilmember Fimia, seconded by Councilmember Gustafson and carried 7 – 0, the Council adopted the Planning Commission recommendation. 

 

MEETING EXTENSION

 

At 10:15 p.m. Councilmember Fimia moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m.  Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

 

#369 (U23) —Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to delete this item.  Councilmember Grace seconded the motion.

Mr. Stewart explained that this item was recommended for deletion because solid waste facilities are included in the definition of essential public facilities, which is addressed in item # 82 (Goal EPF I).  A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7 – 0.

 

#191 (H3) — Councilmember Ransom moved to reconsider and adopt the Panning Commission recommendation, inserting “if consistent with policy LU24” at the end of the policy.  Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion.  The Council discussed whether this policy should refer to another policy for consistency purposes.  Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt this change was not needed, since policies should not generally refer to other policies within the same document.  A vote was taken on the motion, which failed 2-5, with Councilmembers Ransom and Grace voting in the affirmative.

 

#118 (ENII) — Councilmember Fimia moved to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation, inserting “Conserve soil resources and...” at the beginning of the policy.  Councilmember Chang seconded the motion.   Councilmember Fimia said the intent of this change is to highlight the issue of soil erosion.  A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7 – 0.

 

#204 (H14) — Councilmember Ransom moved to reconsider this policy, recommending that it be changed to the following:  “Density bonuses may be provided for developments that provide housing priced to accommodate households with incomes below 80% of the mean in order to provide affordable housing.”  This motion died for lack of a second.

 

#179 (EN62) — Councilmember Fimia moved to reconsider this policy and insert “ground and...” before “surface water.”  Councilmember Chang seconded the motion, which carried 5-2, with Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.

 

7.         ADJOURNMENT

 

At 10:30 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.

 

 

 

_________________________

Scott Passey, Deputy City Clerk