CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Shoreline
Room
PRESENT: Mayor Ransom, Deputy Mayor Fimia, Councilmembers Gustafson,
Hansen, McGlashan, Ryu, and Way
ABSENT: none
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
(a) Swearing
in Ceremony of New Council Members
Judge
Eadie prefaced the swearing in ceremony with some remarks on the value of
public service. He then swore in the
following Councilmembers:
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mr.
Passey led the flag salute. Upon roll
call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
(a) Election
of Mayor and Deputy Mayor
Mr.
Passey conducted the election of the Mayor by opening nominations.
Councilmember Hansen nominated Rich Gustafson.
Mayor
Ransom opened nominations for Deputy Mayor.
Councilmember McGlashan nominated Rich Gustafson. Councilmember Ryu nominated Maggie
Fimia. Seeing no further nominations,
Mayor Ransom declared the nominations closed.
Councilmembers McGlashan, Gustafson, and Hansen voted for Councilmember
Gustafson. Mayor Ransom and
RECESS
At
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Bob Olander, Deputy City
Manager, noted that the Council meeting could also be viewed in the Mount
Rainier Room via an audio/video feed. He
pointed out the addition of Ordinance No. 407 on tonight’s agenda.
Mayor Ransom recognized that
State Representative Marilyn Chase was in the audience. He then invited Dan Mann, Shoreline School
Board member, to provide public comment now because he will not be present
later in the meeting.
(a) Mr. Mann expressed
support for what he characterized as “dramatic changes” on the City Council,
noting that the new Council majority is an articulation of what government
should be. He felt that many citizens
have been marginalized, due, in part, to former City Manager
Councilmember Gustafson
noted that former Deputy Mayor Scott Jepsen was also in the audience. He commended him for his leadership and
service for the past ten years. He also
commended former Councilmember John Chang for his service to the City.
Mayor Ransom recognized
other public officials in the audience, including former Councilmember Kevin
Grossman, former Mayor Connie King, and former State Senator Donn
Charnley.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Nora
Kristjansson, Shoreline, remarked about her disbelief at the actions of four
Council members at recent meetings. She
commented that Seattle Magazine voted Shoreline as “
(b) Bob
Mascott, Shoreline, emphasized the need for the City to come together and resolve
its problems, describing recent Council action as “water under the
bridge.” He cautioned people against
making statements “designed to tear the City apart.” On another topic, he said the
(c) Chris
Eggen, Shoreline, said he was appalled at the behavior of the audience and some
Council members at the December 27 Council meeting. He said losing is a part of democracy, and
the former City Manager was partisan and part of the “old” Council
majority. He said “the people have
spoken” and encouraged people to work with the new Council.
(d) Fran
Lilliness, Shoreline, corrected her statement from last week in which she said
the former City Manager was “a home grown boy.”
She said Mr. Burkett was brought up in
(e) Dom
Amor, Shoreline, representing
(f) Stan
Terry, Shoreline, alleged that the Council “gang of four” violated the Open
Public Meetings Act because the full Council was not aware of the majority’s
plans to get rid of Mr. Burkett, and there was no opportunity for public
comment. He hoped this is not the manner
in which Council intends to operate in the future.
Councilmember
Fimia clarified for the record that there were no illegal meetings and that Mr.
Burkett resigned voluntarily. She
requested a history of other City Managers who either resigned or were fired.
Mayor
Ransom said that counsel assigned by the Washington Cities Insurance Authority
affirmed there was no violation of the Open Public Meetings Act.
Councilmember
Gustafson requested that Council allow all speakers to comment before the
Council comments in response.
(g) Bronston
Kenney, Shoreline, said there is only conjecture about “secret meetings” and
the actions of the December 12 meeting came as a result of the actions of the
“old guard.” On another topic, he said
cottage housing is opposed by Shoreline residents and the idea should be
abandoned since it has only benefited developers to the detriment of Shoreline
property owners.
(h) LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, said the oath of office means that Shoreline
(i) Paul
Herrick, Shoreline, said although the firing of the City Manager was a
personnel issue, the manner in which it was done was unethical and
undemocratic. He expressed support for a
recruitment process that is inclusive and open. He commented that Mr. Mauer has
no experience in municipal government and recruiting him would not constitute a
competitive, open process.
(j) Cindy
Neff, Shoreline, said the letter requesting WCIA assistance for the City
Manager’s resignation agreement was dated December 9, but other Council members
were not notified of it until December 12.
She asked why the Mayor did not contact other Councilmembers until
December 12, noting Mayor Ransom stated that “everything had to be completed in
one day.”
(k) Dan
Thwing, Shoreline, pointed out that the Council is entitled to make certain
decisions on behalf of the City, including the hiring and firing of the City
Manager.
(l) Steve
Gibbs, Shoreline, suggested there be a new tone in the City, one that protects
the Constitution and promotes impartiality.
He noted that municipal governments are really republics, and that
everyone is Shoreline favors more sidewalks.
(m) Larry
Owens, Shoreline, urged the Council to uphold democracy, work together, and
move forward. He also urged the City to
take a leadership position in the areas of renewable energy and sustainable
growth. He noted that Parkwood
Elementary will be the second public facility in Shoreline to install solar
power.
(n) Elaine
Phelps, Shoreline, noted that the resignation of the City Manager is a
personnel issue and is not usually a public process. She commented on that lack of diversity among
City staff and the City’s poor environmental record. She said the meeting of December 27 was “an
outpouring of partisan unhappiness” and that the Council should now move
forward with the City’s business.
(o) Bill
Clements, Shoreline, thanked Vicki Stiles and Ros Bird for their contributions
to Shoreline vis-à-vis the
(p) Matthew
Fairfax, Shoreline, noted that the personnel matter involving the City Manager
was not a full Council decision. He said
the Council now has the opportunity to model the behavior it requests of
others. He thanked former Council member
Scott Jepsen for his contributions to the City during his tenure.
(q) Larry
Wheaton, Shoreline, noted that the gambling industry creates City revenue and
jobs in the City. He commented on the
lack of support for gambling from the former City Manger and the past Council
majority. He said he is pleased with the
new Council and that the City will succeed if it works together.
(r) Jim
Jaquish, Shoreline, said recent actions of the Council are disappointing, but
he emphasized the need to work together and move forward. He urged the City not to waste money on City
Manager recruitment, noting that funding can always be used for sidewalks.
(s) Dwight
Stevens, Shoreline, outlined his long history of civic involvement in Shoreline
and said although the new majority has “dug a hole,” it is time to move forward
with the City’s business.
(t) Vicki
Westberg, Shoreline, congratulated the new member of the City Council and hoped
the new Council can work together and make progress.
(u) Bill
Meyer, Shoreline, urged the Council to try to understand their differences, use
time wisely and work together. He said
the City Manager issue was a politics issue, not a personnel issue, and that
politics are “dirty and clean.” He noted
that George Mauer’s name has been taken “through the mud.”
(v) Bernedette
Hart, Shoreline, said the past two Council meetings have been a “rude
awakening” and that recent actions have damaged Shoreline’s reputation. She
urged the Council to treat others with respect and use public money
wisely. She cautioned against “creating
jobs for friends” and that Shoreline needs an experienced consultant firm to
recruit for the
(w) Diana
Stephens,
(x) Raymond
Collins, Shoreline, noted that personnel matters are conducted in closed
meetings, and that the confusion regarding
(y) Julie
Huff,
(z) Kennie
Endelman, Shoreline, district director for Congressman Jay Inslee, announced
that Congressman Inslee’s new district office is located in E-800 of the
(aa) Bob Barta, Shoreline, said he has faith
that the Council will “do the right thing” and consider the health, safety and
welfare of Shoreline residents in its decisions. He said the City needs sidewalks to
“civilize” the City, and expressed support for the Economic Development
program. He urged the City to expand the
publication of its Currents” newsletter.
(bb) Les Nelson, Shoreline, said he is
encouraged by the new Council majority, noting that staff has been unresponsive
to citizen concerns. He said he objected
to the Aurora Corridor design but his concerns were not heeded. He said the new majority will control staff,
and now maybe staff will give citizens more respect.
(cc) Gretchen
Atkinson, Shoreline, expressed support for the contracts for the
(dd) Susan
Macek, Shoreline, said the proposed salary for George Mauer warrants extensive
research since he has no public experience and the contract is for a
sole-source appointment. She noted that
Initiative 900 provides for state-funded audit review.
(ee) David Townsend, Shoreline, urged the
Council to come together as a group and support measures intended to protect
children. He commented that development
and other agendas have taken priority over the interests of children, and he
urged the City to concentrate on its neglected infrastructure.
(ff) Joe Ripley, Shoreline, commented
favorably on the change in the City Council, noting that it is time to move
forward and work on City issues. He
commented on the inadequacy of the
(gg) Winslow Whitman, Shoreline, thanked the
Council for pedestrian-friendly facilities such as the Interurban Trail.
(hh) Walt Hagen, Shoreline, expressed
satisfaction with the new Council, noting his expectation that the City
government be forthright and citizen-driven.
He said City policies have demonstrated a lack of respect for neighborhoods
and a weakening of the Development Code.
He urged the Council to reconsider City projects that have negative
cumulative impacts, such as Aurora Corridor and
(ii) Dick
Lemmon, Shoreline, noted that Shoreline residents feared the prospect of
Shoreline’s annexation to
(jj) Tom Dunnihoo, Shoreline, congratulated
the new Council and urged it to enhance its emergency preparedness
programs. He noted the devastating
damage caused by natural disasters throughout the world and advised that the
City should further develop its programs and inventory its resources.
(kk)
Kevin Grossman, Shoreline, expressed concern that certain members of the
Council violated the Open Public Meetings Act in forcing the City Manager’s
resignation and proposing the appointment of George Mauer. He said this is not the democratic process
and that a lawsuit has been filed in King County Superior Court to ensure that
people are held responsible for their actions.
(ll) Jeanne Monger, Shoreline, said
Shoreline’s recognition as “
(mm) Pat Murray, Shoreline, commented that
complaints expressed at the December 12 Council meeting are evidence that
people have not been paying attention to ongoing issues in the City.
(nn) Ken Noreen, Shoreline, supported the Arts
Council and the
(oo) George Daher, Shoreline, expressed gratitude
for the new “light” on the Council, noting that citizens were not able to view
previous Council changes on Channel 21 because it was “blacked out.” He was confident the new Mayor would do a
good job.
(pp) Will
Knedlik, Shoreline, urged the Council to join other
cities such as
(qq) Peter Henry, Shoreline, expressed hope and
pride for the new Council, noting that the new Council will focus on critical
issues such as protecting open space and the environment. He thanked the Council for its unanimous vote
for purchasing the 3-acre “South Woods” parcel.
(rr) Tim Crawford, Shoreline, felt that any
performance audit in Shoreline should include the police department. He said inspectors are not “doing their jobs’
with regard to the Aurora Corridor project, and that past Council majorities
had ethical problems with regard to the Aegis project. He emphasized the need to “clean house.”
(ss) Patty
Crawford, Shoreline, said that past Councilmembers did not believe in a
citizen’s right to appeal, and people should not be accusing the new Council
majority. She advocated for replacing
the Council’s representative on the WRIA-8, emphasizing that the City should
not try to use WRIA-8 to undermine City streams and wetlands.
(tt) Kristin Ellison Oslin, Shoreline,
chaplain at
(uu)
(vv) Rick
Stephens, Shoreline property owner, said the City has limited public input in
the past by eliminating citizen advisory committees and public comment, but he
felt confident the new Council would listen to the public. He stated that
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
RECESS
At
8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Motion
to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract between the City of
Shoreline and the Shoreline Historical Museum in the amount of $63,525 to
provide Educational and heritage programs for citizens of Shoreline
Councilmember Hansen moved
to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract between the City of
Deputy
Mayor Fimia and Councilmembers Ryu and Gustafson concurred that Shoreline has a
rich history and the Museum programs should receive strong support by the
City.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
unanimously.
(b) Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract between the City of
Councilmember Hansen moved
to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract between the City of
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
unanimously.
(c) Appointment
of Interim City Manager
Mr. Passey clarified that
staff reviewed the audio tapes of the December 12 Council meeting and
discovered that the motion to appoint George Mauer as Interim City Manager was
not officially seconded. Therefore, a new
motion is in order.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to appoint Bob Olander
as
Deputy Mayor Fimia said when she moved to appoint Mr. Mauer
three weeks ago, it was with the intent of having Mr. Olander continue managing
City departments and having Mr. Mauer conduct a performance audit and recruit
for a permanent City Manager. She said since talking to staff, the public, and
other Council members, there was strong consensus that Mr. Olander would
continue to provide a high level of service as City Manager and so she is
moving to appoint him as Interim City Manager.
She said she would move to appoint Mr. Mauer to perform the additional
scope of work at a later time. She
expressed confidence in Mr. Olander’s abilities and encouraged him to apply for
the permanent City Manager position.
Councilmember Hansen moved to divide the
question in two parts: 1) appointing Bob Olander as
Withdrawing her original motion, Deputy Mayor
Fimia moved to appoint Bob Olander as
Mayor Ransom called for public comment.
(a) Raymond
Coffey, Shoreline, said he was appalled at the Council actions of December 12
and December 27 regarding the City Manager, asserting that a Council majority
already formed an opinion. He supported
appointing Mr. Olander and said the process should be open and allow for public
input.
(b) LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, felt the motions related to Interim City Manager and Deputy
City Manager should be considered separately.
She supported appointing Mr. Olander and advised that he should be
allowed to choose his own Deputy City Manager.
She felt this would ease the concerns of City staff and give confidence
to the public that the City is being managed by an expert administrator.
(c) Steve
Goldstein, Shoreline, said despite his disagreements with some members of the
Council, the Council should use this opportunity as a means of coming
together. He feared that the current
antipathy has the potential of turning into “complete disfunctionality.” He urged the Council to try to work together,
trust each other, and find common ground.
(d) Scott
Jepsen, Shoreline, said the employment agreement with Mr. Mauer and
Councilmember Ryu’s endorsement letter indicates that Council’s intent was to
hire George Mauer as Interim City Manager.
He expressed support for appointing Mr. Olander as Interim City Manager.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
7-0, and Bob Olander was appointed as
The Council then discussed
the timing of discussions on salary issues and whether they should be done in
open session or Executive Session. They
also wondered if adding such items to the agenda could violate public meeting
laws.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At
Councilmember Fimia moved to approve a 10
percent increase in the base salary of the
Councilmember Hansen felt
that a full compensation package for the Interim City Manager should be
considered in an Executive Session. He
also felt it was premature to discuss it now and inappropriate to just “toss a
number out.”
Mayor Ransom called for public comment.
(a) LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, felt it was not appropriate for Council to vote on this now
because Mr. Olander deserves a complete, negotiated package. She felt a 10% increase was “an insult’ and
urged the Council to table the motion and have an Executive Session at a later
time.
(b) Scott
Jepsen, Shoreline, concurred with the previous speaker. He considered it worthwhile to spend the time
to determine what fair compensation would be.
He also asked about the 10% increase in terms of a monetary value.
(c) Fran
Lilliness, Shoreline, said it is disrespectful to offer Mr. Olander a 10%
raise. She asked if the proposal is 10%
in all categories or 10% in salary alone.
Mayor Ransom clarified that a
10% adjustment would increase Mr. Olander’s annual salary from about $119,000
to $129,000. It was noted the proposal
is for an increase in base salary only.
This also matched what Mr. Burkett’s salary would have been with the
amount of his prior bonus plus cost of living adjustment for 2006. It was also the increase that Mr. Olander
requested.
Councilmember Gustafson
concurred that it would be better to negotiate a salary package in an executive
session. He indicated he would vote
against the motion.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
After further Council
discussion, a vote was taken on the motion, which carried 4-3,
with Councilmembers McGlashan, Gustafson and Hansen dissenting.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to amend the agenda to
consider item 8(e) (Ordinance No. 407) next.
Councilmember Ryu seconded the motion.
Councilmember Gustafson noted
that many people have signed up to speak on other agenda items. He felt the agenda should continue as
previously adopted. Councilmember
McGlashan concurred.
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed
3-4, with Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmembers Ryu and Way voting in the
affirmative.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved that the Council not
fill the
Mayor Ransom called for public comment.
(a) LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, spoke against the motion, insisting that Mr. Olander needs
an assistant in order to effectively conduct the business of the City. She said putting this item on the agenda with
no prior notice to the public is unconscionable and wrong.
(b) Rick
Stephens, spoke favorably of Mr. Olander and expressed confidence in his
capabilities and willingness to serve.
He said raising his salary is reasonable.
(c) Matthew
Fairfax, Shoreline, felt the proposed action was “putting the cart before the
horse.” He felt Mr. Olander would be
doing the jobs of two persons and would therefore be underpaid.
(d)
Elaine Phelps,
Shoreline, said Mr. Olander is capable of speaking for himself, and he has
stated he can do the job. She spoke
against the “partisan nonsense” she sensed surrounding this issue and urged
citizens to allow the Council to do the job it was elected to do.
Councilmember Gustafson felt
this item should be put on a future agenda for further analysis.
Councilmember Ryu supported
the motion, explaining that if the Deputy City Manager position is filled and
Mr. Olander decides not to become the permanent City Manager, his job will be
given away.
Councilmember Hansen opposed
the motion because he felt Mr. Olander, as Interim City Manager, should be able
to decide whether the job should be filled.
He said the Council should not “tie his hands” by passing a motion saying
he can’t fill the position.
Councilmember McGlashan
pointed out that the budget calls for three positions in the City Manager’s
office, so not filling the position will create increased workload. He suggested a friendly amendment to limit
the time frame to three weeks.
After further discussion and
upon Mr. Olander’s pledge that he would not fill the position without Council
approval, Deputy Mayor Fimia withdrew the motion.
(d) Contract
for Performance Assessment/Audit and City Manager Recruitment
Mayor Ransom explained that
consideration of this item would be divided into two parts: the scope of work
for the performance assessment/audit that will be discussed in public; and
personnel issues, including Mr. Mauer’s qualifications that will be discussed
in executive session.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to award a contract
with George Mauer to provide performance audit/assessment services.
Deputy Mayor Fimia commented
that she does not make this proposal lightly, and although this issue has been
controversial, she is extremely impressed with Mr. Mauer’s grasp of the issues
in Shoreline. She outlined Mr. Mauer’s
background and experience in organizational development and emphasized the need
to realign priorities in Shoreline. She
added that while she supports the bid process, there have been too many people
from outside the City giving Shoreline advice.
She commented that there have been many allegations and misinformation
surrounding this proposal. She felt Mr.
Mauer would do an excellent job and help bring the City together.
Mr. Mauer addressed the
proposal and outlined his philosophy on government, Shoreline’s valid
attributes, and performance evaluations.
He said while he did not seek this position, he was offered it and felt
as though he could make a contribution.
He clarified that the proposal is only for a 7-month engagement with a
base salary of $58,000. He addressed the
issue of government as a monopoly, explaining that cities must substitute openness
for competition, but if openness suffers, then the structure breaks down. He said the 4-3 vote of the City Council is a
structural problem that disenfranchises the minority and undermines goodwill,
but this can be mitigated if the City changes the way it governs.
Continuing, Mr. Mauer
questioned the credibility of the City’s performance measurement program,
noting that it contains redundancy and lacks definitions, targets, and relevant
performance measures. He advised that the
plan should provide more detail, and more alignment of goals should be made
between the Council, staff, and public.
He concluded that his methodology would include a three-phase process:
1) data collection; 2) feedback; and 3) an action planning process. He summarized that if Shoreline does not
change its structure and processes, the outcome will remain the same.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
Mayor Ransom called for public comment.
(a) Bob
Mascott, Shoreline, requested that the Council consider reinstating commissions
in an effort to find consensus on singular projects. He said even though there are now approved
state audits, the City might want to consider its own audit and prepare for
“something we know is coming.” He
advocated for street lighting for all Shoreline residents and noted there are
no sidewalks on the east side of
(b) Fran
Lilliness, Shoreline, said she would prefer saving taxpayer dollars by having
the state conduct performance audits.
(c) Rick
Stephens, Shoreline property owner, supported the proposal because it will get to
the root of the problems, solve them, and make the City better. He commented that the level of service (LOS)
for the Aurora Corridor is decreasing and the City has wasted millions of
dollars on the project.
(d) Stan
Terry, Shoreline, said he has known Mr. Mauer for many years and although he is
a thoughtful person, he should not be awarded this contract. He said the proposal not only amounts to
cronyism, but fraud, unnecessary waste and abuse. He said the City could get the same services
through an RFP, and the state can audit the City at no additional expense.
(e) LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, felt the issues should be separated and the City should hold
a public hearing to see if citizens want an audit. She said the City’s hiring process must
require the proper certifications and credentials of its candidates. She
wondered if the City could attract qualified candidates for City Manager under
the present scenario. She noted that
George Mauer lost the election, and 10% of the voters did not vote for either
candidate for Council position #7.
(f) Wendy
DiPeso, Shoreline, noted that the former Council majority did whatever it
wanted and the minority suffered, so the City must try to avoid the continued
discord. She emphasized the need for
conflict resolution and “getting the job done,” adding that Mr. Mauer has an
intimate understanding of the City’s problems.
(g) Mary Fox,
Shoreline, noted that 150 people signed a petition tonight against the new
Council majority and the process they followed.
She said they already support the contract, but the state can cover the
audit needs and an RFP can cover the City Manager recruitment.
(h) Bill
Clements, Shoreline, said Mr. Mauer is a failed political candidate who lacks
city government experience and the independence to conduct a valid audit
without bias. He added that audits must
follow the Government AAA (yellow book) and any work Mr. Mauer produces will be
useless.
(i) Elaine
Phelps, Shoreline, supported the motion and said Mr. Mauer is being considered
for a much-needed duty. She commented on
what she felt were “wild accusations” and “attacking for the purpose of
attacking,” adding that people need to be reasonable and not “sound like a
bunch of sheep.”
(j) Les
Nelson, Shoreline, noted that Mr. Mauer’s advantage is that he is not a public
employee.
(k) Marilyn
Torvik, Shoreline, concurred with Ms. Wacker’s remarks and urged the Council to
divide the two issues. She said there
should be a public discussion on why the Council feels an audit is needed.
(l) Tom
Berquist, Shoreline, urged the Council to use a competitive process. noting that Mr. Mauer’s closeness should be viewed as a
detriment. He emphasized the need for
objectivity and for someone who comes with “a clean slate.”
(m) Cheryl
Lee, Shoreline, encouraged the Council to think this proposal through and how
it aligns with the City’s goals. She
felt the proposal lacked a legitimate problem statement and she failed to see
the facts or evidence that would necessitate a performance evaluation.
(n) Scott
Jepsen, Shoreline, said the proposal lacks vision, and he did not hear Mr.
Mauer address his process or products.
He asked why dropping the City Manager scope of work only decreased the
proposal by $500 per month, and why the Council opposes getting the best
qualified candidate through an RFP process.
He said the proposal violates the City’s procurement policies.
(o) Amely
Rosenberg, Shoreline, said Deputy Mayor Fimia was quoted as saying that
“Shoreline voted for change,” but citizens did not vote for Mr. Mauer. She commented on the need for competition and
openness, not the concepts that Mr. Mauer is favoring.
(p) Raymond
Collins, Shoreline, asked when the state would get around to conducting an
audit.
Mayor Ransom responded that the
state needs to recruit and hire managers and staff and then provide training on
performance audits, with state department audits taking priority, so it could
take a couple years before a City performance audit could be done.
(q) Peter Henry,
Shoreline, urged a focus on the need for an audit rather than attacking Mr.
Mauer. He felt Mr. Mauer accurately
described how City business gets done; pointing out that he was involved in
Vision Shoreline. He said perhaps the
City does not need a technical audit, but it needs an audit nonetheless.
Councilmember McGlashan moved to table the
motion until the background check is complete.
Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
It was noted that the
background check has been completed, but the reference check has not. Councilmembers McGlashan and Gustafson felt
the City should not proceed until the reference check occurs.
Deputy Mayor Fimia felt there
have been many compelling arguments and it is important to feel comfortable
with the study. She hoped that the vote
would not be a 4-3 decision.
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed
3-4, with Councilmembers McGlashan, Gustafson, and Hansen voting in the
affirmative.
There was Council consensus to defer further deliberations
until later and dispose of 8(e) now.
(e) Ordinance
No. 407, adopting a Moratorium and Interim Controls pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220
prohibiting the cutting of trees in Critical Areas and prohibiting land
clearing or grading in Critical Areas, and declaring an emergency
Joe Tovar, Planning and
Development Services Director, provided the staff report and summarized that
this action would impose a moratorium on the cutting of hazardous trees in
Critical Areas. He concluded that the present
situation is untenable because it appears that there is ongoing tree cutting
that should not be occurring. He said a
public hearing on this matter will be scheduled for February 6, and that staff
will request further direction on what a permanent regulation should look like.
Mr. Olander felt there could
be some middle ground that protects the functions and values of trees while
also allowing tree trimming that enhances the canopy.
Mayor Ransom called for public comment.
(a) Fran
Lilliness, Shoreline, said she’s been very involved in the issue and the
moratorium ordinance came as a surprise to her.
She said it is wrong for the Council to prohibit people from having
views, explaining that views and trees can be preserved by planting roof-height
trees. She noted that increased property
values through view preservation translate into increased tax revenue for the
City.
(b) David
Fosmire, Shoreline, agreed that there should be some compromise. He noted that all of the provisions of
Ordinance No. 407 are currently being met, so it in unclear whether the
ordinance is necessary. He said tree
cutting in Innis Arden meets the hazardous tree definition, and every tree that
has been altered in Innis Arden is a result of a direct recommendation from a
certified arborist.
(c) Elaine
Phelps, Shoreline, urged the Council to enact the moratorium, noting that the
issue is not one of restoring views but of creating views that did not
previously exist. She said the Innis
Arden Board has prohibited members from getting second opinions from certified
arborists, and said the Board does not understand compromise. She said the current conditions do not allow
for compromise.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
4-3, with Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmembers Ryu and Way dissenting.
(d) LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, supported the moratorium and said the City cannot allow the
cutting hazardous trees without a permit.
She said the City “should not allow one twig to be removed without City
oversight.” She felt the City needs the
authority to stop the tree cutting machinery, since entire forests can be
decimated in a short period of time. She noted the benefits that forests
provide the community.
(e) Mike
Jacobs, Shoreline, representing the Innis Arden Club, said there is no illegal
cutting occurring in Innis Arden, and every tree that is cut is recommended by
a certified arborist. He said Innis
Arden Club is the steward of 58 acres of forest, and it has a responsibility to
remove unsafe or failing trees. He added
that tree cutting is not occurring in critical areas, and many statements made
about this matter are false.
(f) Pam
Smith, Shoreline, said
MEETING EXTENSION
At
(g) Eva
Sledziewski, Shoreline, describing the ordinance as a “pathetic document” that
she suspects some Councilmembers may not even have read. She described the hazardous conditions in the
Innis Arden Reserves and spoke about the liability that residents are exposed
to. She urged the Council to allow the
Innis Arden Club to manage its reserves.
(h) Pat
Murray, Shoreline, felt that many problems could be solved by employing a City
arborist who can determine whether trees are hazardous or not.
Mr. Olander said staff is not
alleging illegal cutting, but the current regulations are inadequate and the
City cannot adequately inspect conditions.
He said the moratorium is a temporary solution until a permanent one can
be decided.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to postpone action
on this item until January 9.
Councilmember McGlashan seconded the motion.
The Council then discussed
whether this item should be postponed for further deliberations or whether
action should be taken tonight.
Councilmembers Gustafson and McGlashan favored postponing in order to analyze the correspondence and get more
information from the public. Mayor
Ransom and Deputy Mayor Fimia emphasized the serious nature of this proposal
and the need to act upon it tonight.
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed
3-4, with Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen and McGlashan voting in the
affirmative.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to adopt Ordinance No.
407. Councilmember Ryu seconded the
motion.
Councilmember Hansen had mixed
feelings about the measure but agreed that the ordinance is difficult to
understand. He asked staff to clarify if
the ordinance suspends Section 20.50.310(A)(1) and
prevents cutting trees without City permission.
Mr. Tovar responded that the
measure only imposes a moratorium on cutting hazardous trees in critical areas,
which is currently exempt from City code.
Councilmember Gustafson felt
he needed more time to consider this proposal and possibly tour the sites in
question. He noted that this was added
to the agenda this evening so most people just found out about it. He did not consider it a “dire emergency.”
Mayor Ransom felt the
moratorium to be appropriate for this situation, since it permits further
opportunity for consideration. He
pointed out that the City has only issued emergency ordinances about four times
in the past ten years, so this is very rare. He stated he is deferring to staff by
supporting the emergency ordinance.
Mr. Olander clarified that
the City does not issue permits or variances for tree cutting in this
particular situation. The problem the
City is trying to address is the fact that cutting hazardous trees in critical
areas is currently exempt from the code.
He said the reason a moratorium is proposed without much notice is to
prevent the potential cutting of trees in anticipation of a moratorium.
Mr. Sievers noted that state
law upholds the process of having a hearing following adoption of the
moratorium ordinance; the findings can be adopted before the public
hearing. He explained that if Council
wishes, the emergency clause could be removed. This would mean that the
ordinance is effective five days after passage and publication rather than
taking effect immediately.
Responding to Councilmember
Hansen, Mr. Tovar affirmed that this is more restrictive than what is in the
present CAO. He clarified that this is
an interim measure.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt
Ordinance No. 407, which carried 4-3, with Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen,
and McGlashan dissenting.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to postpone action on
item 8(d) to the January 9 Council meeting.
Councilmember Ryu seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At
/S/