CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 3, 2005 Shoreline Conference Center
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 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Hansen, who presided.
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 Fimia, who arrived shortly thereafter.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve Burkett, City Manager, reported on the formation of a business advisory group for Aurora Corridor Phase II and on improvements made to Paramount Park as a part the Public Works Department’s team-building event. He reported on the progress of the Aurora Corridor Project, noting that crews are working on installation of water treatment devices, catch basins, underground conduit, and utility vaults. He commented on the rapid response to a broken gas line on 15th Avenue NE as part of the North City Project. Additionally, the contractor mailed cards to the business owners apologizing for the service interruption. Public Works crews also cleaned out sediment and blackberry bushes and established a primary drainage route to open the drainage flows from Boeing Creek at Darnell Park.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Stan Terry, Shoreline, commended the Council on their decision to reduce the gambling tax on card rooms. He approved of Mayor Hansen’s questioning of the Council pertaining to the acceptance of campaign donations. He believed if casinos are making large contributions to either councilmembers or candidates for City Council, the contributions should be scrutinized. Therefore, he concluded, Council members and Council candidates should review the source of campaign contributions and act responsibly.
(b) Bronston Kenney, Shoreline, refuted the assertions in campaign literature that Councilmember Chang’s business is “crime-ridden.” He explained that the vast majority of police calls to the Quest Inn were for traffic stops and routine business checks, and it is unclear whether the police calls were actually at the business or in the general vicinity. The Police Department website crime maps, he asserted, do not show any particular concentration of crime near the Quest Inn. It was his belief that Mr. Burkett’s call reports were designed to be unfavorable to Mr. Chang while providing no real information. He contended that Mr. Burkett has not provided the information the Council requested, and he is unconcerned about Mr. McGlashan’s unfair use of City statistics. He said Mr. Burkett has not issued a repudiation or qualification as to what conclusions are supported by his reports.
(c) Cindy Ryu, Shoreline, President of the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce, invited the community to a Chamber-sponsored candidate forum on October 6 at the Shoreline Conference Center. The Chamber will also be hosting its Annual Auction and Dinner on October 15th at the Shoreline Community College. The money raised at the auction goes directly to the Dollars for Scholars program. She reported that this year the Dollars for Scholars awarded $14,750 in scholarships to sixteen Sherwood and Shorecrest High School Seniors, ranging from $500 to $2,000 each. Thusfar, she said, the Chamber of Commerce has provided 47 scholarships in the first three years of the Dollars for Scholars program.
(d) Beverly Meln, Shoreline, stated the Blue Heron Reserve is a critical, sensitive area with wetlands, a stream, steep slopes, and evidence of past erosion. Over 300 trees over the past three and a half years have been cut down, severely pruned, or coppiced in this area and the three Reserves that drain through Blue Heron. All of the City permits granted were for one small area at a time. She emphasized the importance of considering all the “piecemeal” cutting on adjacent lots because of the impact it has on the reserve as a whole. She displayed a map of the Reserves and Innis Arden and described the cutting that has been taking place. She urged the Council to factor the cutting on abutting residential lots into its critical areas ordinance, enlarge the buffer zone and enforce it, and increase the standards for hazardous trees. She also urged the City to perform inspections after projects are completed.
(e) Dan Mann, Shoreline, responded to comments made last week about the Aurora Improvement Council (AIC). He assured the Council that there is no undue control by any one group that comprises the AIC. The AIC represents dozens of legitimate businesses in Shoreline who are concerned about getting their voice heard in Shoreline city government. The AIC was formed to facilitate a rational, respectful process for merchants to express their concerns to the City. When candidates receive money from the AIC, he explained, they are receiving money from a broad spectrum of Shoreline businesses. He believed that comments directed against individuals or organizations from people who speak at the podium are inappropriate, and speakers need to be respectful of other residents and the Council.
(f) Dan Thwing, Shoreline, concurred with Mr. Mann’s comments and said he would like to see Councilmembers finish their responses and be able to talk without interruptions. Accusations, he concluded, do not need to happen, noting that the Council should continue working towards positive results in the City.
(g) Elaine Phelps, Shoreline, stated she was upset with the City’s Hearing Examiner process. She said she had a pre-conference hearing and the appeal was dismissed during the conference. The reason for the meeting, she stated, was to clarify the issues related to her appeal. However, at the pre-conference the Hearing Examiner made a decision before all the information was submitted. The Reserves in Innis Arden are all connected, and tree cutting anywhere disturbs the entire Reserve. The Hearing Examiner did not receive any information on cumulative impact. She urged the Council to look into the system because it is broken and it needs repair to avoid this kind of contentiousness.
(h) Dale Wright, Shoreline, commented on the process used to evaluate whether or not the Council listens to the residents. He asserted that the Aurora Corridor Plan is the example he would like to use. He said the Aurora Corridor Plan was a result of a five-year public process where the views in the community were heard and seriously considered through discussion. Consensus was achieved by the community which resulted in the goals and plan for the reconfiguration of Aurora Avenue. The Council accepted the community consensus, adopted the community’s plan, and has worked diligently to implement it. In contrast, opponents of the plan delayed the project by a minimum of two years, resulting in a minimum cost of $5 million to the City. He said opponents of the Aurora Corridor Project include the Shoreline Merchants Association, Maggie Fimia, Marilyn Chase, Walt Hagen, John Chang, Cindy Ryu, and George Mauer.
(i) Janet Way, Shoreline, commented on two issues: cumulative impacts and unintended consequences. She pointed out that residents of the North City, Ridgecrest, and Briarcrest neighborhoods are very anxious about the North City Project due to the impacts of construction and the overwhelming traffic increases. On another topic, she concluded that runoff and flooding from tree cutting will cause downstream damage to the Puget Sound. She urged the Council take responsibility for its actions.
(j) Fran Lilliness, Shoreline, urged the opposition to the Aurora Corridor Project to observe Federal Way’s improvements to Highway 99. On another topic, she said that Innis Arden is a covenanted, mutual-easement community and views are to be preserved. Innis Arden, she continued, was platted parallel to the sound to maximize and afford the most views. One can still have beautiful trees at roof height, she said, as enforced in Innis Arden. She noted that the roads have a greater impact on drainage than homes, because roads separate these Reserves from the continuous flow down to the Sound. She said prior speakers have absolutely no views and have not paid the premium prices for their homes.
Mr. Burkett responded to Mr. Kenney’s assertions, noting that supporting or opposing candidates would be a serious violation of the code of ethics for the International City Management Association. Additionally, he said it would be stupid to do that since he works for all of the Council members. He emphasized that he does not conduct independent research of the crime data, noting the reports passed on to the Council at the request of the Council came directly from the King County Sheriff’s Office Records Management System. He said those reports are available to anyone who wants to review, analyze, or as Mr. Kenney did, interpret the data. He concluded it is not his job to analyze or interpret the reports.
Councilmember Fimia stated the Council has asked for clarification of the reports because they are not internally consistent. There are three different reports that have different numbers with no context to them. She said Mr. Wright is entitled to his opinion, but there was not many facts in his statements. She clarified that people are not opposed to the Aurora Corridor Project, but they are opposed to its scope. She noted that because we don’t agree on how to do it doesn’t mean we don’t want to see it done.
Councilmember Chang stated his business has been the target of the public, and he would like to meet with the City Manager to resolve this issue. He stressed that he has been in the Enterprise several times receiving praise for his efforts by police chiefs. The Motel Trespass Program is now widely used throughout King County and needs to be used the way it was intended. He noted that Mr. Wright has not spoken to businesses, experts, and the Planning Director as he has about the Aurora Corridor project. He concurred with Mr. Mann’s comments that this is not the forum to be making false statements about the AIC.
Councilmember Ransom noted that a Shoreline Enterprise article of September 30, 2003 described how the Motel Trespass Program has successfully decreased crime at all motels in Shoreline.
Councilmember Ransom said some residents allege that City employees are removing campaign signage. He said it is legal to place campaign signs in the right-of-way, and City staff should only remove those that are not in the right-of-way.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Gustafson moved to approve the agenda. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion. Item 7(d) was pulled and moved to Item 8(b). Deputy Mayor Jepsen pulled the minutes of August 22 for approval at the next regular meeting.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt the agenda with revisions, which carried unanimously.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Grace moved approval of the consent calendar. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion and the following items were approved unanimously:
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of August 22, 2005
Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 12, 2005
Approval of expenses and payroll as of September 15,
2005 in the amount of $1,900,257.84
Motion to approve $5,000 in Mini-Grant funds for the Richmond Beach Community Association
8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING
(a) Public hearing to receive citizen’s comments on the
proposed use of 2006 Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG); and
Motion to adopt the 2006 CDBG Plan and authorize the
City Manager to enter into agreements for implementing the
funded projects.
Mayor Hansen opened the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. and asked City staff to introduce the item.
Robert Beem, Human Services Manager, introduced the annual review of the recommendations for use of Federal Community Block Grant money. Each year the Council is required to adopt a plan. This year’s plan recommends the expenditure of $406,000 in Block Grant funding. This represents new funds the City would receive and loan repayments through the Home Repair Program. The funding recommendation follows a formula by King County and the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. He continued by outlining where the specific funds will be allocated in Human Services programs.
Seeing no one wishing to provide public comment, Mayor Hansen closed the public hearing.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to adopt the 2006 Community Development Block Grant Program in accordance with Attachment A and authorize the City Manager to enter into agreements for implementing the funded projects. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Chang moved to postpone this item until after the 2006 budget hearings. Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion. After it was determined that
capital expenditures are decided on an annual cycle, and these are the same activities that were funded last year, Councilmember Chang withdrew the motion.
Councilmember Fimia stated items like this should be scheduled much earlier for the public and the Council to comment and deliberate on. She continued by inquiring if the $114,000 allocation was going to either the Aurora or North City projects. Mr. Beem responded that it was a part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Sidewalk Repair and Replacement Program.
Councilmember Fimia supported the motion, but felt the Council should give more direction to the Citizen Advisory Committee on scope of services in the future. In turn, the committee can refine their process and present their decision to the Council so a final decision can be rendered.
Councilmember Grace inquired about the certainty of the 10% decrease from 2005.
Mr. Beem responded there are two versions of the Federal budget which outline a 6% or 7% reduction and the other is a 10% reduction as adopted by the House and the Senate. It is our estimated that 10% would be the minimum reduction.
Councilmember Grace asked how many planned curb ramps still need to be constructed, not including the 65-75 curb ramps planned for construction in the City. He also inquired about the Home Repair Program.
Mr. Beem stated that Public Works could provide the data on curb ramps. He explained that the Home Repair Program allows a homeowner to repair or improve major systems (i.e. roofs, heating systems, bathrooms) using low or zero-interest loans. This program is administered by King County staff in Shoreline. The Minor Home Repair Program is a new program administered by Senior Services of King County which provides handyman services at a rate of $10/hour plus the cost of materials. The City, through the Block Grant Program, pays the remainder of the contractor costs.
Councilmember Gustafson noted that in June of 2005 the City entered into a three-year interlocal agreement with King County.
Mr. Beem said there are three parts of the interlocal agreement. The first is the Major Home Repair Program, to which the City allocates 25% of the block grant money. The second is the Housing Stability Project, which provides emergency assistance such as rent and utilities for people who are facing eviction. The third is for capital project administration, which uses 2% of the funding for overall program administration.
Councilmember Gustafson asked whether or not the fund allocation for human services was at the same level it was last year. Mr. Beem responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Gustafson stated his support for the motion, noting that the City has benefited from a number of the programs and King County does a great job with it.
Mayor Hansen wondered if the Council should consider an amendment that any reduction in the program would be compensated by the City budget.
Councilmember Fimia questioned if King County’s cost for program administration was 2% or $40,658. Mr. Beem explained that the County’s cost for administering the capital projects is 2%, and the cost for overall program administration is 10%. Therefore, the total cost for the County to manage the block grant program is $48,000.
Councilmember Fimia expressed concerns with the amount the City is paying King County for administering this program.
Councilmember Grace replied these same percentages and costs to administer the program were approved by the Council in June 2005.
Mr. Burkett commented that the City will continue to challenge King County on how much it charges to administer these programs.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen pointed out that there are government limits on how much can be spent on administration, capital, and “soft dollars.”
Mr. Beem answered that the block grant has a public services spending ceiling of 15% of the total grant amount per month. The cap for planning and administrative spending is 20%.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt the 2006 Community Development Block Grant Program in accordance with Attachment A and authorize the City Manager to enter into agreements for implementing the funded project, which carried unanimously.
(b) Motion to accept the State of Washington proposal for
janitorial services and authorize the State of Washington
to execute a contract with Advantage Building Services for
the City’s 2006 janitorial services in the amount of $103,924.18.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to accept the State of Washington proposal for janitorial services and authorize the State of Washington to execute a contract with Advantage Building Services for the City’s 2006 janitorial services in the amount of $103,924.18. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom expressed concerns about the quality of service the City would receive if this bid is significantly lower than next lowest bidder. He asked how close this bid was to our current contract price.
Paul Haines, Public Works Director, explained that the current contract the City has is with the same contractor, and the current contract is $95,868.83. There is a 3% markup which is remitted to the State for winning the bid. The process to rate the bidders was confidential. He said City staff recommends approving the alternate bid because it will ensure a higher level of service.
Mayor Hansen inquired why the City is contracting through the State.
Mr. Burkett replied that the contractor identities are not known and there is a larger pool of contractors responding if you utilize the State.
Councilmember Fimia wondered if the winning bidder has a unionized labor shop.
Mr. Haines said there is no need to be unionized because it is a public works contract, however, the City is required to pay prevailing wage.
A vote was taken on the motion to accept the State of Washington proposal for janitorial services and authorize the State of Washington to execute a contract with Advantage Building Services for the City’s 2006 janitorial services in the amount of $103,924.18, which carried unanimously.
9. ACTION ITEMS: OTHERS ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Mediation of View Preservation Issues
Matt Torpey, Planner II, said there are two issues in the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) that will be brought to the Council in October which staff is proposing be taken out and mediated. The first item is the Critical Areas Stewardship plan, which would allow for the cutting of trees in the City as long as they would preserve wildlife habitat, groundwater protection, stormwater runoff prevention, and preserve soil stability. Under existing Code, cutting is allowed in slopes less than 40% through the State Environmental Policy Act and geotechnical engineering reports. This legislation will continue under the proposed CAO. The Planning Commission reviewed the stewardship plan and concluded that no amount of discussion would lead to consensus between the parties involved with trees and views in Innis Arden. The second item proposed for removal from the CAO is the definition of hazardous trees, because currently is it too broad and open to interpretation. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of a narrower version of the definition of hazardous trees, however, it felt that mediation would still be a better solution to resolve the issues. Funding for the mediation is available in the Comprehensive Plan/Master Plan Project Budget.
Bob Olander, Deputy City Manager, said the whole issue of cutting, trimming, or coppicing trees is very complex and the existing system does not work well. The City is under a State deadline to complete the CAO by December 1st, and this proposal would allow the rest of the CAO to move forward. This trees and critical areas issue is a citywide issue, so any resolution to this problem would have to apply to all of Shoreline. A structured, voluntary, non-binding mediation which would not affect private covenants would address amendments and proposed amendments to the CAO.
Councilmember Ransom questioned whether or not the parties had agreed to mediation already.
Mr. Olander responded there is no agreement to mediate at this time.
Councilmember Grace asked that speakers address the mediation question when they speak this evening.
Responding to Councilmember Fimia, Mr. Olander replied that the Planning Commission recommendation included a more restrictive definition of hazardous trees, and it deleted the City staff recommendation on the Vegetative Management Plan. Additionally, there was no change in the current code restricting the cutting of trees on a slope greater than 40%.
Councilmember Fimia felt that it was premature to discuss mediation prior to the Council being able to revise this legislation. She felt that the Council makes the decisions and they are elected to do that. She concluded there are several steps that haven’t been taken, including listening to both sides of the issue before passing legislation that hasn’t occurred yet.
Mr. Olander said he understood that the parties involved wanted to wait until an ordinance came to the Council before presenting their information at a public hearing.
There was Council consensus to allow previous speakers to address this item. Mayor Hansen called for public comment.
(a) John Hollinrake, Shoreline, said the primary issue in Innis Arden is view preservation, noting that he has spent $50,000 in legal fees to try to resolve disputes. He said he supports the mediation and the Critical Areas Stewardship Program. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the mediation.
(b) Alan Schmidt, Shoreline, voiced his appreciation for the Council’s effort to consider mediation. He favored mediation and the preservation of the views and the environment, and urged Council’s support.
(c) Beverly Meln, Shoreline, also supported mediation. She felt this issue has torn the community apart and has caused many residents to move. She asserted that the original covenants never included a view provision. She reported that in 1955 the lots were clear-cut, but the Reserves were not because they were too steep to cut. In 1985, she continued, the view amendment was added to the covenant.
(d) Elaine Phelps, Shoreline, pointed out that she served on the committee that came up with the Vegetation Management Plan, which she said was a compromise plan. However, the current tree cutters do not recognize this plan. Mr. Hollinrake, she asserted, has made many people in Innis Arden unhappy by cutting down trees. She said her philosophy is view maintenance, not view creation. She clarified that she speaks as a resident of Shoreline, not as a member of the Association for the Responsible Management (ARM) of Innis Arden. She felt mediation might succeed as long as it remains voluntary and non-binding. She noted that every time the City makes a decision on a critical area issue, someone appeals it. She said she appreciates the efforts of the City in proposing this solution.
(e) Janet Way, Shoreline, speaking for herself and on behalf of the Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund (TCLDF), explressed concern about the implications of mediation and how it might impact other areas of the City. She believed there are no other parties in the City that are aware of this issue. She said she would appreciate notification being sent to Thorton Creek Alliance (TCA), Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), the Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation, and other organizations that have legal standing or are parties of record on this issue. She requested an explanation of the mediation strategy parameters, the rules, and the binding status of any outcome to the CAO.
(f) Al Wagar, Shoreline, said as an Innis Arden boardmember that the Board supports the mediation process. He said mediation will provide the Council with politically and environmentally sound advice and research to consider before creating legislation. He felt there was a middle ground to this issue.
Mr. Burkett clarified the mediation is voluntary and non-binding to either party. Additionally, it is non-binding to the Council. The Council will make the final decision on this issue regardless of what comes out of the mediation. There may be an agreement which comes out of the mediation, but the Council can accept it, change it, or reject it.
Mr. Olander added there would be opportunity for recommendations to go to the Planning Commission process, then to the Council.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to direct City staff to start the mediation process as proposed by the Planning Commission and staff, to be funded by the Comprehensive Plan/Master Plan budget. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Grace said he favors mediation, but he is concerned how the City moves forward. The two major parties, he outlined, ARM and the Innis Arden Club, have not confirmed whether or not they wish to participate. If mediation is agreed to, the participants have to be the parties to the dispute, not just individuals. He clarified that if a settlement is reached, the settlement is a recommendation to the Council. The City needs to ensure the mediator is skilled in environmental mediation to reach a settlement and solve this contentious issue.
Mr. Olander stated the City will hopefully receive a formal agreement from the parties to participate in mediation.
Mayor Hansen added that even if the mediation does not result in a settlement, there will be alternatives to assist the Council with the issue.
Councilmember Ransom inquired whether paying for this mediation, as the City did with Shorewood Hills, would constitute a gift of public funds.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, responded that this issue was different from the Shorewood Hills situation. He specified that the litigation from that issue had named parties on each side, and the City was also a party of the litigation. The current situation, he outlined, represents another avenue for public participation in the legislative process.
Councilmember Gustafson supported the mediation, noting that the Council will make the final decision. He was hopeful that mediation would effect a positive outcome.
Councilmember Fimia said there must be some kind of resolution of this issue, but the City should not use public funds to mediate between two private entities. She pointed out there are two separate issues: 1) how to resolve the Innis Arden problems; and 2) the CAO and whether or not the Council will be amending the tree subject. She agreed the City should help mediate the problems, but it should not spend public money for the mediation. She felt it was not a good precedent to bring in a mediator on a civil-legal matter when it is the Council’s responsibility to listen to the parties and the tree issue in the CAO and make a decision. The Council should not abdicate the responsibility of revising the CAO to someone who is not elected. She felt if the motion passes, the decision from the mediator will be what is adopted in the CAO. She said that the Council should attempt to resolve this first and that mediation paid for by the parties should be considered only as an alterative.
Councilmember Chang concurred. He felt the City should spend money wisely and apply the settlement of this mediation to the entire City.
Councilmember Grace clarified that the mediator does not make a decision, rather, a settlement would come before the Council. At that time, the Council would decide whether to include all, none, or some of the settlement proposals in the CAO. He noted the impropriety of a Councilmember serving as a mediator in this process. He noted that people speak openly and candidly during mediations, and this will be a private forum for these parties to progress towards a decision.
Councilmember Chang stated the Council heard there was a compromise at one point in time, but it does not exist any longer. He felt there was a lack of City direction in this matter and the City has not established the proper rules. Once the CAO is in place and legislation is passed, this issue will go away. The Council, he said, needs to take a leadership role in this matter.
Councilmember Fimia said the Council has to decide what is right for Shoreline’s CAO, and the Council can figure out what is best through the legislative process. Taking this issue through mediation is a “backwards way” of making law, because the CAO needs to be removed from site-specific and vested interests. The CAO should be based on science, public comment, model legislation, best available science, and “what’s right for Shoreline.”
Deputy Mayor Jepsen pointed out that the stewardship plan and the hazardous tree definition are the only items that will be mediated, not the entire CAO. Referring to Ms. Phelps’ comment, he noted that the City’s decisions get appealed by both sides of the issue. Therefore, it is costing the City time and money. He expressed support for the motion.
Councilmember Chang inquired if City staff could return with mediation goals and rules to include whether or not both parties are going to participate. Then, he said, the cost could be determined. He felt there was too much uncertainty at this time.
Councilmember Fimia felt the results of this mediation will not protect the City from future appeals of our code or CAO. The Council should be considering and passing a defensible, solid CAO that is binding.
Mayor Hansen stated he is in favor of the parties getting together so they can come to a common resolution, which will save the City money in the long run.
Councilmember Ransom noted that one of the other related incidents was the Bluff Trial. He reminded the Council that a formal mediation was held to resolve this issue. Issues related to the CAO are definitely the Council’s responsibility; however, if it will resolve some of the issues between the parties and the City Attorney is in favor of it, then it is worth it.
Councilmember Fimia moved to amend the motion to require that the parties reimburse the City for mediation costs. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion. Councilmember Fimia was opposed to merging the CAO with the mediation decision, since the CAO is a separate decision and process. She said if the parties are responsible for reimbursing the City for mediation, they will be much more likely to abide by the results.
A vote was taken on the motion to require the parties to reimburse the City for mediation costs, which failed 1-6, with Councilmember Fimia voting in the affirmative.
A vote was taken on the main motion, which carried 5-2, with Councilmembers Chang and Fimia dissenting.
8. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:01 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_______________________
Scott Passey, CMC
City Clerk