CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF STUDY SESSION

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 6:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Mayor Ryu, Councilmember Eggen, Councilmember Hansen, Councilmember McConnell, Councilmember McGlashan, and Councilmember Way.

ABSENT: Deputy Mayor Scott

1.	CALL TO ORDER

At 6:37 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Mayor Ryu, who presided.

2.	FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Mayor Ryu led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exception of Deputy Mayor Scott and Councilmember Hansen.

Councilmember McGlashan moved to excuse Deputy Mayor Scott. Councilmember Eggen seconded the motion, which carried 5-0 and Deputy Mayor Scott was excused.

3.	CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS

Bob Olander, City Manager, provided reports and updates on various City meetings, projects, and events. He stated that the National Night Out and Celebrate Shoreline events were well attended and very successful. He also stated there was a public art dedication in the north end of Echo Lake Park.

Councilmember Way said she attended an Association of Washington Cities (AWC) committee meeting concerning priorities for the next legislative session. Topics discussed at that meeting included land use, climate change, governance, storm water, and best available sciences. She said she is interested in the stormwater decision made by the Pollution Control Hearings Board in Phase 1 cities; the conclusion was that more low impact development is needed.

Mayor Ryu announced that she serves on the Suburban Cities Association (SCA) Budget Group and they are working on recommendation for the SCA Board. She noted that there are three subarea groups for transportation component in King County and she will update the Council as the results come up. She recognized Representative Maralyn Chase and Kenmore Mayor David Baker in the audience.

Councilmember Hansen arrived at 6:45 p.m.

4.	COMMUNITY PRESENTATION

(a) 20^th Avenue Neighbors - "Right Size Homes"

Dwight Gibb introduced Jeff Johnson who surveyed 673 homes in the 20^th Avenue neighborhood using Zillow.com. He also introduced Tim Franie. He felt that “right sized” homes are needed in the City to preserve neighborhood character. He reviewed statistics on home sizes and concluded that larger homes detract from the streetscape, lower the quality of life, affect the environment, and increase taxes. He discussed the City’s current single-family home regulations and highlighted that they are proposing a 45% floor area ratio with a 28-foot height limit on new homes built in Shoreline. He noted that floor area ratio legislation is already policy in Kirkland and Mercer Island. Additionally, he said Bellevue is currently working on their legislation and Seattle will begin limiting home sizes this fall.

Councilmember Way asked what legislation has been adopted in other cities and what the reaction has been of the residents.

Mr. Johnson stated that Bellevue is looking at this, along with 32 different cities. He said he has a general sense that residents are relieved someone is addressing this, and the simpler it is the happier people are with it. He pointed out that Mercer Island has been doing it for four years. He noted that cities in California that have adopted this legislation haven’t been able to quantify any reduction in tax revenue because the home values have been based on location.

Councilmember Eggen asked what maximum impervious surface requirements are being required by cities. He questioned if cities require more area to be put into yards or plantings. Mr. Johnson responded that cities require homeowners to keep shadows at a certain angle and limit the total impervious surface.

Councilmember McConnell asked how many two-bedroom homes there are in the City. She wondered what would happen on lots that are less than 7,200 square feet. Mr. Johnson replied that if the square footage is approved prior to development on existing lots, the cities have implemented some exceptions and allowed the floor area ratio to be higher.

Mr. Franie said he moved into his home a year ago and it was remodeled to include three bedrooms. He noted that he could have easily doubled the house size and remained within the city regulations in Palo Alto. He noted that the quality of homes started to increase, which caused a proportionate increase in home values.

Mayor Ryu wondered if it is more important to reduce the impact on lots and reduce impervious surface or have a shorter home with more floor area. Mr. Johnson responded that his general sense tells him that communities prefer having more of the lot left for trees, setbacks, and open space. He said this is why design review is needed.

Councilmember McGlashan agreed that some homes look “out of place” in the City. However, he has heard that large homes are less popular now and asked if there were any statistics to support that. He asked if Mr. Johnson and Mr. Franie supported other housing options like cottage housing. Mr. Johnson replied that there are some cities that have different floor area ratios in place based on the area and what kinds of existing buildings are there.

Councilmember McGlashan stated that the proposal doesn’t necessarily involve changing the lot coverage, so the major issue is height. Mr. Gibbs concurred, adding that this isn’t trying to address trees and shrubs directly.

Councilmember Hansen questioned how the group decided which homes to include and which homes to exclude in this study. Mr. Johnson stated they just decided to use all of the homes from Saltwater Park to Woodway, and to the west of 20^th Avenue NW. Mr. Gibbs added that they only surveyed homes on 7,200 square foot lots.

5.	GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

a) David Baker, Mayor, City of Kenmore, commented that there are issues that affect both of our cities and thanked the Council for their regional involvement.

b) Lisa Haines, on behalf of the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Senior Center, discussed the Senior Center programs and that participants experience better overall health and wellness. She added that the Center offers tax help so seniors can get their stimulus payments.

c) Les Nelson, Shoreline, said he looked through the environmental impact statement (EIS) in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He noted that it has a floor area ratio of 50%, which is close to the proposal of the 20^th Avenue Neighbors. He said anything exceeding that exceeds what the EIS contemplated and it seems developers try to “fill the box” and fill apartments. He felt that the developers always want to maximize the quantity and the question should ask if the “boxes” are the right size. He cautioned that the City needs to be careful about height limits.

d) Dwight Gibb, Shoreline, asked why this room is being used for this meeting. He noted that it isn’t a good room for the public because they can't see the screen. He felt the Mt. Rainier Room was a better suited location for Council meetings.

e) Mary Weaver, Shoreline, commented that most people don’t know where the local food bank is. She pointed out that it is located at the Aurora Square, 15809 Westminster Way N. It is called Hopelink and is located next to Marshalls, just north of Sears on the lower level.

6.	STUDY ITEMS

(a) Update of 2007- 2008 Council Goal No. 8: Fircrest Master Plan

Rachael Markle, Assistant Planning and Development Services Director, stated that the purpose of this item is to provide an update on the Fircrest Master Plan. She introduced Edwin Valbert, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), Construction Coordinator who is the project manager of the Fircrest School in Shoreline and the Rainier School in Buckley. She also introduced Betsy Geller, Planner with AHBL, Inc. and the project lead. She highlighted that the proposed amendments to City’s comprehensive plan may not clearly address whether a Master Planned Area can include new uses. She noted that the City staff is asking for direction on how the Council envisioned addressing new uses that have been identified to be master planned.

Mr. Valbert said his goal is to give a brief update on the Fircrest School Master Plan and present feedback on the master plan language. He said the project has been broken down into two phases and Phase 1 is completed. He announced that Fircrest School will remain in operation and it won’t reduce size or change its population base. He stated that the Department of Health (Health Laboratory) was required to do master planning, too. DSHS, he explained, started Phase 1 which was defining excess and to put a plan in place on what uses could be put in place in those excess facilities. He pointed out that Phase 1 included two open houses. He thanked the City for their web page and the hybrid map located on the City's webpage. He said Phase 1 included working on planning on housing in the north portion, civic use facilities, a swimming pool, and retail, commercial, and residential in the south end. The East area, he displayed, includes multiple types of housing and public access trails. He said the plan will attempt to daylight a part of Hamlin Creek. He said that based on public input and economic research the economics have driven this toward residential development with limited retail. He noted that the Legislature demonstrated their support by funding Phase 2. Phase 1 was a conceptual look and Phase 2, which is underway, will include development and design standards, he said. He displayed the hybrid map and denoted which agencies owned which portions of property on Fircrest.

Councilmember Way asked if the consultants have considered a system including swales, raingardens, and ponds. She added that it could be a more varied scene than just a trench. Ms. Markle replied that the team is looking at many low impact development techniques.

Mr. Valbert noted that the goal is to come to Shoreline in January with the master plan permit. He added that the master plan should meet Shoreline Council goals 5, 6, 7, and 8. He stated that DSHS is hoping that the master plan language doesn't prohibit the City’s effort in developing the hybrid model.

Mr. Olander commented that the City staff has heard that the Council and the community want to consider a variety of uses in the master plan process to include government offices, retail, various forms of housing, and sustainability.

Mayor Ryu called for public comment.

a) Kristin Ellison-Oslin, Lake Forest Park, said she is the Chaplain at Fircrest and is excited about a lot of the plan, but has some concerns. She stated that Fircrest is one of the top 10 organizations of its type in the nation. She pointed out that working with small groups in the school is more desirable because it allows for the development of relationships with staff, etc. She noted that the plan includes the destruction of six buildings and construction of an LEED building which she felt isn’t likely to be the best stewardship of resources. She expressed concern and explained that the fragile, inadaptable people who reside at Fircrest will have to live in construction zone.

b) Maria Walsh, on behalf of Friends of Fircrest (FOF), said they have concerns about extending the property. She provided the Council with the FOF position statement. She pointed out on a vicinity map that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Housing (DOH), and Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) all own property on the site. She inquired why the original plans showed that there were 35.5 excess acres of property and suddenly there are 43 acres. She said the only way to have 43 acres of land is if the Y buildings are destroyed first. She noted that the DNR land is managed by a trust and it should be up to them to decide what happens to it. She asserted that excess property cannot be created by replacing buildings used by the Fircrest population. She felt that relocating the Y buildings on the east side of the campus will cause mixed use housing problems. She said they are proposing the relocation of mixed use, comprehensive housing to the southeast portion of the campus with a direct feed to NE 150^th Street.

c) Laethan Wene, Shoreline, said it is important to have the disabled be a part of the Fircrest Master Plan, the community, and to participate in the meetings.

d) Jim Hardman, Seattle, communicated that he is the guardian for twenty-four Fircrest residents and there was no public input regarding the hybrid plan. He said the community didn’t know about the hybrid plan until it was delivered to the legislature in January. He commented that the Y buildings are an important part of the campus and they are homes for fragile people who cannot speak for themselves. Furthermore, moving them is not in their best interest. He said this may also run afoul of federal regulations. He added that the Fircrest superintendent and staff do not support removal of the Y buildings. Additionally, personality issues prevent the residents at Fircrest from living together and it is important to separate them as needed.

e) Dennis Lee, Shoreline, stated that the legislature has been tasked with looking at this from a high altitude and get this going. He said because they were planning on master planning the surplus area, there is a property line running through the park which has caused confusion. He stated that there hasn’t been any master plan. He communicated that it looks like the City hired consultants to get a master plan started and he is concerned “the cart is before the horse.” He stated that process is important. Finally, he said a large citizen's advisory committee needs to be established with clear, well-defined goals. He expressed his discontent about four buildings on N. 145^th Street and 15^th Avenue N that have been vacant for 10 years, and there are developers wanting the City to give tax breaks for affordable housing.

f) Betti Linn Krisik Brown, Shoreline, commented that the Briarcrest and Ridgecrest neighborhoods, which surround Fircrest, would like to have a better sense of what's going on. She commented that the South Woods Preservation Group saved South Woods and they need to work with the neighborhoods so everyone can communicate. She invited the City of Shoreline to an interfaith worship service at the Fircrest Chapel as an opportunity for citizens to become familiar with the campus and its residents.

g) Wendy DiPeso, Shoreline, said she is neutral about the hybrid plan. She said the removal of the Y buildings and the use of state land for high end development does not seem appropriate. She said it would be better to have low-income housing on leased, state-owned land. She felt the expansion of the health laboratory should not occur before the master plan is completed. Additionally, she felt there needs to be another public meeting before the master plan is approved.

h) Jim Walsh, Mountlake Terrace, summarized that the whole community is behind a different approach to the hybrid plan.

Mr. Olander commented that there have been no decisions regarding the Y buildings.

Mr. Valbert highlighted that the property made the “jump” to 43 acres based on Councilmember Way's comment regarding “thinking outside the box” when it comes to the creek. He noted that they had to meet the legislative request to master plan excess property and educate legislature about other opportunities for the better operation of Fircrest School. With that, the hybrid map was the suggested path to move with respect to developing the master plan and the legislature supported it. He said there is no current funding to replace or move the Y buildings. However, he explained that there are funds to study the efficiency of the Y buildings. He noted that the Y buildings are six buildings built in the 1960's to support a young, mobile population. The buildings are dormitory-style and aren’t efficient in terms of deliveries because trucks have to go to all six buildings. He concluded and said they are asking the legislature for funding to study if there is a more cost-effective and efficient way to house Fircrest residents.

Mr. Olander recommended discussing the public process issue. He confirmed that when the plans are refined there would be at least two more open houses to get public input on draft plans. He asked what the process would be after an application is received by the City.

Ms. Markle replied that the application would go through a quasi-judicial process. Specifically, notice would go out to persons residing within 500 feet, signs would be posted, the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing, and then it would go to the Council for a decision.

Mr. Olander highlighted that the City would go beyond the minimum notice requirements because of the importance of this item.

Mayor Ryu thanked Representative Maralyn Chase, Frank Chopp, and former Deputy Mayor Fimia for their involvement in this issue.

Councilmember Hansen asked if there were any previous opportunities for the public to comment on the hybrid plan. He highlighted that the speakers felt they haven't had an opportunity to give input.

Mr. Valbert replied that he felt they have had an opportunity for input. He said there have been two open houses and they have developed about three to four different scenarios, maps, and uses. He said they were explained to people and people gave their feedback at recorded meetings where their opinions and issues were captured and saved electronically. He added that the hybrid plan came from that feedback, open houses, and the legislative directive. He said it is true that the actual hybrid map was not shown at open houses, but everything on it was on other maps. He noted that there will be at least two more open houses.

Councilmember Hansen wanted to know how many people attended the two open houses. Ms. Geller estimated that there were about seventy-five people at the first one and slightly less at the second one. Mr. Valbert stated that there were over 200 comments emailed to the City that were added to the record.

Councilmember Eggen said he is confused about the master planning process and asked how Mr. Valbert envisions public input will be used in the two additional meetings towards the final plan. He questioned if a citizen committee would be formed. Mr. Valbert replied that they would listen, take comments, and make any appropriate changes if needed. He stated that these meetings would focus on density and refinements. Ms. Geller added that the second open house will also give residents an opportunity to comment about the SEPA checklist.

Councilmember Eggen expressed concerned about the current residents of Fircrest and the fact that it needs to continue serving developmentally disabled residents. Mr. Valbert replied that the mission of DSHS is to serve people and vulnerable populations and improve their lives. He said they are trying to define what the Fircrest campus is and to know clearly where its boundaries are.

Councilmember Way believed that the legislature would want a report on the hybrid plan and asked how the City master plan process could begin before giving the report. Mr. Valbert replied that the legislature required him to report back in December 2010 and the advisory committee meets frequently and he briefs them. He noted that the advisory committee, which has a meeting in November, is his tool to continually communicate and work on this with Representative Chase, Representative Kagi, Senator Fairley, and all the staff at the Office of Financial Management.

Councilmember Way communicated that she is confused with the language concerning new uses or alternatives in the staff report. Ms. Markle explained that this simply refers to uses that aren’t currently occurring on the campus such as new housing, commercial, and non-profit. Mr. Olander added that a planned area is an alternative way to accomplish the same thing, but the City staff wanted to come to Council to verify that the Council is open to new uses above what is on Fircrest campus.

Mayor Ryu stated she has reservations about new uses at Fircrest.

RECESS

At 8:46 p.m., Mayor Ryu called for a five minute recess. Mayor Ryu reconvened the meeting at 8:58 p.m.

Councilmember Way reviewed the current uses at Fircrest and asked how the Department of Health’s ten-year expansion plan fits into the City’s concept for the site. She wondered how the City can make a decision to move forward without certainty about the health laboratory’s plans. Mr. Valbert replied that the DOH is under a legislative mandate and they have also been told to work on their master plan. He added that when it is ready he will ensure it is reflected in the City’s map. He stated that the State has the responsibility to bring back a solution that works.

Councilmember Way stated that the City and the agencies have plenty of time to work on this and she doesn’t see the urgency. She wondered how the City can put forward a master plan permit without knowing what will be on the site. Mr. Valbert replied when the DSHS turns in a master plan permit, it will be comprehensive and accurate and include the DOH plans. However, if DOH isn’t as far along in their efforts to give accurate information, then DSHS would have to delay their application to the City of Shoreline.

Mr. Olander said it would probably need to be two separate applications, and the City would need to know their intent so there aren’t any conflicts.

Councilmember McConnell appreciated this and noted that it is going to be a continual, open conversation with the community. She expressed concern about the fragile population at Fircrest. She said that the end result will be a compromise, and the community will need to accept that compromise. She encouraged the public to be involved.

Mr. Olander noted that this is intended to be an update and suggested that Council submit any additional questions and he will forward them to Mr. Valbert.

Mayor Ryu questioned why the Y buildings are planned for demolition. Mr. Valbert commented that the Y building issue was not driven by the ownership and there is no financial obligation there. He said there are significant elevation changes on the site and they would like to get the developmentally disabled population down on same elevation as the dining facilities and other places they need to go. He noted that the Y building property is almost invisible from 15^th Avenue N., and any new housing, if constructed on the site, would be invisible to surrounding neighborhood because of the trees and way it would be situated.

Mayor Ryu noted that the City will be going into a visioning process in October and she is sure Fircrest will come up. She commented that the southwest corner at 15^th Avenue N and N 150^th Street, going south, has a very short, narrow strip of commercial property, and there needs to be some sort of economic development there. She added that it is the perfect place to have multi-use. Mr. Valbert pointed out that the southwest corner is designated as “Area 3” on the map and it is proposed to be a mixed use retail commercial corridor.

Mayor Ryu questioned what would happen if the health laboratory isn’t there. Ms. Geller highlighted that the market study showed some market for retail, but not a lot. She stated that housing was the biggest market use.

Mayor Ryu inquired if the drive to have the Y buildings demolished would diminish if housing units are built. Ms. Geller replied that the demolition would be put off to a later phase of the project. Mr. Valbert reiterated that there isn’t any request to do anything with the Y buildings. He said the only funding request is for studying how the Y buildings can provide other services to the campus. He felt that the Y buildings will be there for the next six to ten years.

Councilmember Way asked if there was funding for anything else at the Fircrest campus. Mr. Valbert responded that there was not.

Councilmember Way reiterated that there is no funding until the capital budget committee approves the project. She asked if any of the proposed developments are compatible with the campus and with families connected to the developmentally disabled residents of Fircrest. She also inquired if the DNR properties will be sold or leased. Mr. Valbert requested that those and all other questions be submitted to him and he would have the responses posted on the Fircrest website.

Councilmember Way questioned why the scoping was not done for an environmental impact statement (EIS). Ms. Markle responded that the City doesn’t feel that the impacts are significant at this time. However, she pointed out that there will be critical areas study and the creek daylighting will involve an expanded SEPA checklist.

Mr. Olander added that the EIS is normally done when a construction building permit is issued. He added that the impacts can be reasonably mitigated. He pointed out that the impacts can either be adverse or beneficial, and he believed that there would be more beneficial impacts on this project then adverse ones.

Councilmember Way asked if there was a hydrology report being done. Ms. Markle responded that there will be a drainage technical report. Councilmember Way suggested that the drainage report be done prior to the decision on where the creek is going to go because the low point is not at the toe of the slope; it’s actually over in the middle where the housing is. Additionally, she felt that liquefaction should be a consideration and that the chapel be considered for historic landmark status.

Councilmember Eggen wondered if the Council should direct staff that the master planning permit may be modified to clarify that the City will accept changes in use rather than expansions in use. Mr. Olander replied that the Council can postpone discussion on that until September 2.

(b) Neighborhoods Program Update

Nora Smith, Neighborhoods Coordinator, and Rob Beem, Human Services Manager, provided an update on the City's current neighborhoods program.

Ms. Smith gave a brief background of the neighborhoods program, noting that there are ten active neighborhoods. She stated that the City staff provides assistance to the neighborhood groups through helping with reactivations, training, communications planning, and the mini-grant program. She reviewed several activities in the City to include different celebrations, clean-ups, night-out events, and ice cream socials. She commented that the City has taken a leadership role in creating a neighborhood coordinators network, which meets quarterly. This group, she stated, learns best practices and provides training/assistance on issues of inclusion, diversity, and succession. She concluded that strong communities start with one-on-one relationships.

Mayor Ryu called for public comment.

a) Bill Bear, Shoreline, stated that Councilmembers represent the entire City and the role of the neighborhood associations is to represent the specific interests in each neighborhood. He felt that two-way communication is needed and that currently the Council of Neighborhoods doesn’t have that mandate. He suggested that the Council of Neighborhoods should be able to not just receive information, but to communicate their concerns back to the City Council.

Councilmember McGlashan commented that he has attended many neighborhood night out events and said Londa Jacques from the Ballinger Neighborhood Association deserves congratulations for a great job.

Councilmember Hansen thanked Ms. Smith for a great report. He stated the programs have improved since the neighborhood program was initiated in 1996. He added that the banners along Aurora Avenue are really nice. He commented on a story he heard on the radio about neighborhood traffic issues in Seattle and is pleased Shoreline has a great Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program.

Councilmember Eggen commended Ms. Smith for the report and her work. He said there was a concern in the past that some neighborhood groups had lost members. However, he asked about representation and if there is some requirement for a certain level of participation that represents a democratic constitution within a neighborhood. He added that he was surprised that North City has to reactivate as a group because he thought they were active.

Ms. Smith noted that the bylaws spell out some parameters for being recognized as an active neighborhood association. These parameters include having a formal organization with written documents, meeting at least once a year, and having an annual election of officers. She added that there aren’t any clear parameters on what happens if some of these aspects are not followed. She said the City has been trying to provide assistance, sponsor meetings, and have a providing assistance approach to keep the groups going. She clarified that the North City Business Association is active, but there hasn’t been any residential representation.

Councilmember Way said she is glad to see the Ballinger neighborhood active. She said they are also looking at doing a pea patch, and the City could help with that. She commented that she is interested in old historic neighborhoods and would love to see the City develop its histories. She noted that there needs to be more social services for individual neighbors and assistance for the senior center. The City needs to find more ways for people to access help services.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 10:00 p.m., Councilmember Eggen moved to extend the meeting for one hour. Mayor Ryu seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.

Mayor Ryu appreciated the work done by Ms. Smith and this division. She wondered if it was possible to ask neighbors to look out for graffiti.

Mr. Olander replied that there has been some success lately in curbing graffiti and there have been arrests of several major “taggers” in Shoreline. He referred to the police services briefing and said the City has put out ads with rewards under “Crimestoppers” and have had responses to them. However, he said this work is done on a constant basis and residents need to be informed that they can be the “eyes and ears” of the community.

(c) Proposed Amendments to the Development Code

Mr. Olander introduced Rachael Markle, Assistant Planning and Development Services Director and Miranda Redinger, Planner.

Ms. Redinger read the staff report and stated that this is the first batch of housekeeping amendments for 2008. These amendments, she explained, are clarifications which are done to prevent confusion, redundancy, and to remain current with updated legal mandates and local policy changes. She said the Planning Commission had a study session and public hearing and recommended these amendments by a vote of 6-0. She explained each of the amendments.

Mayor Ryu called for public comment. There was no one wishing to provide comment on this item.

Councilmember Hansen asked for clarification on the proposed amendment in 20.70.030. Ms. Redinger confirmed that this amendment reverted back to the original recommendation from the City staff. She added that it doesn’t lower the building thresholds. Mr. Olander stated that this makes the process easier for small businesses to adhere to because they won’t be able to afford to make all of these required improvements if the amendment is kept as-is. Councilmember Hansen suggested clarifying that the 4,000 square foot size relates to existing structures only.

Councilmember Eggen referred to Section 20.30.450, item C. He commented that the revised regulations are very difficult to read and it portrays a sense that the Council doesn't decide short plats. He felt that a final formal plat isn't a long plat when the City Council is involved. He inquired about utilizing “title” to a section of the Code. Mr. Sievers suggesting using the term “formal plat” instead of “long plat.” He also pointed out that “title” refers to Title 20, the City’s entire development code. He highlighted that all plats have to meet all the development standards and the term should be capitalized.

Councilmember Way referred to the critical areas discussion at the Planning Commission meeting on page 42 of the minutes. She highlighted that Commissioner Pyle made it clear that the City wants certified and qualified wetland scientists.

Ms. Redinger added that a small works roster will be developed to get a larger pool of trusted consulting firms.

Councilmember Way expressed concerns with the junk vehicles issue.

Mayor Ryu noted that some residents have lived in Shoreline prior to it being a City and view their properties as their “kingdoms.” She suggested the City be more proactive rather than lenient when it comes to junk vehicles.

Mr. Olander highlighted that this issue also involves compliance with state law. Ms. Redinger confirmed that it is primarily a state law and it walks the fine line between property rights and the greater good. Mr. Olander added that Code Enforcement flexibly works with the residents.

Mayor Ryu expressed her appreciation with Section 20.20.014, but felt there is a high concentration of group homes in certain neighborhoods in the City.

7.	ADJOURNMENT

At 10:45 p.m., Mayor Ryu declared the meeting adjourned.

__________________________________

Scott Passey, CMC

City Clerk