CITY
OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 5, 2004
Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia,
Grace, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: none
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor
Jepsen called the meeting to order.
(a)
Swearing
In Ceremony by Judge Richard Eadie
Judge
Richard Eadie quoted Judge J.T. Ronald, a resident of this area who was a long-time
judge and the Mayor of Seattle in 1892.
He noted that Judge Ronald wrote about the difficulties of being a City
Councilmember in his memoirs. Then
Judge Eadie swore in the following Councilmembers:
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll
call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
(a)
Election
of Mayor and Deputy Mayor
Sharon
Mattioli, City Clerk, conducted the election of the Mayor. Ms. Mattioli opened nominations. Mayor Jepsen nominated Ronald Hansen. Councilmember Chang nominated Robert
Ransom. Seeing no further nominations, Ms.
Mattioli closed the nominations. Mayor
Jepsen, and Councilmembers Grace, Gustafson and Hansen voted for Ronald Hansen
and he was declared Mayor for a two-year term concluding in December 2006.
Mayor
Hansen opened nominations for Deputy Mayor.
Councilmember Gustafson nominated Scott Jepsen. Councilmember Fimia nominated Robert
Ransom. Seeing no further nominations,
Mayor Hansen declared the nominations closed.
Mayor Hansen and Councilmembers Grace, Gustafson and Jepsen voted for
Scott Jepsen and he was declared Deputy Mayor for a two-year term concluding in
December 2006.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Steve
Burkett, City Manager, reported that the effort to convert the Washington State
Department of Transportation “roving eyes” pilot project to pedestrian-activated
lights is almost complete.
Paul
Haines, Public Works Director, said the work at 170th Street and
Aurora Avenue was completed and work at 165th Street and Aurora
Avenue is scheduled for completion tomorrow, weather permitting.
He
also explained the preparations made by the City for the snow storm expected
tomorrow. He described the sanding
priorities for the City’s streets and other activities to prepare for snow/ice
control and potential flooding. He
noted that citizens can report problems to the City’s 24-hour hotline, and that
emergency preparedness information is available on the City’s website.
Councilmember
Gustafson asked staff to check with the school district to ensure that road
clearing is coordinated with emergency bus routes.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember
Gustafson reported that the recommendations regarding salmon recovery by the
Water Resource Inventory Area 8 will be finalized in the coming months.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen noted a Sister Cities Association meeting on January 15. It will be a planning meeting for the
Boryeong visit in the spring.
Councilmember
Ransom commented on the need to fill some vacancies in various regional
committees. He said he would be willing
to accept appointment to any of those committees. Mr. Burkett said this topic will be discussed next week.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Janet
Way, Shoreline, noted that she and her neighbors were disappointed with the
lack of television coverage of the Council appointment process. She said many people still do not know the
outcome. She emphasized that many
people watch the government access channel every week.
(b) Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, also commented on the lack of TV coverage during the appointment
process. She said democracy only works
when citizens are kept informed on the issues.
She noted that the whole Council did not vote to cancel the TV
broadcast, but that Mayor Jepsen decided on his own. She asked his reasons.
She concluded by asking current Mayor Hansen if it is important to keep
citizens informed, and if he plans on “blacking out” any Council meetings in
the next two years.
(c) Pat
Murray, Shoreline, followed up on his request at a previous Council meeting to
extend public comment to allow individual speakers to complete their
remarks. He requested that
Councilmembers respond to speaker’s comments while they are still at the
podium. He also asked that a uniformed
armed security person always be in uniform at Council meetings.
(d) Dennis
Lee, Shoreline, proposed that Council create a forum wherein the public can
talk about process issues (as opposed to individual projects) in order to
improve communication. He suggested
that a new Councilmember’s experience in mediation may prove useful in
improving communication between the Council and the public. He suggested that in the future the entire
Council respond to public comments instead of only the Mayor.
(e) Ginger
Botham, Shoreline, commented that people were disappointed the Councilmember
selection process was not televised.
She called attention to a potential appearance of fairness issue
relating to a current Critical Areas Reasonable Use Permit application. She asked if it is appropriate for a member
of the Planning Commission to represent a party before the Hearing
Examiner.
(f) Richard
Johnsen, Shoreline, commented that the newly painted lines along 15th
Avenue NE are not consistent from block to block. Regarding the Robinson Water Tower, he said that structure should
be preserved at all costs, despite King County’s analysis of the building. He said the City cannot rely on King County
to preserve its history. He asked that
he be allowed to comment on agenda item 6(c) relating to dance hall
regulations.
Responding
to Mr. Lee, Mayor Hansen said the issue of Council’s response to public
comments is a matter of style. He said
he will allow Councilmembers to respond to whatever comments they wish.
Councilmember
Ransom was disappointed the Council interviews were not videotaped, noting it
would have been one of the most highly-watched sessions in City history. He complimented Councilmember Grace on his
performance in the interview and said the public could have benefited from
seeing all six candidates. He felt that
having a uniformed police officer at Council meetings is not necessary because
the police chief is present at all meetings and is a well-known figure in the
community. He felt that if a relatively
unknown officer is at the meeting instead of the police chief, then perhaps
that person should be in uniform.
Responding
to Mr. Johnsen, Councilmember Gustafson felt the striping of 15th
Avenue NE was done in accordance with the North City Business District Plan,
although there are some inconsistencies due to left-turn lanes.
Paul
Haines, Public Works Director, acknowledged Mr. Johnsen’s observation, noting
that lane widths are not consistent over the entire length of the corridor due
to bus stops. He explained that the travel
lanes narrow at bus stops to eliminate confusion about whether vehicles can
pass stopped buses.
Councilmember
Fimia noted that the majority of comments seem to focus on a lack of or change
in process. She suggested that the
Council schedule time to get at the core of these concerns so it can move
forward in a constructive way. She
noted that ignoring these concerns, which have been expressed by numerous
people, will only make things worse.
She said the public might have been more forgiving if the entire Council
made the decision in open session not to televise the Council proceedings.
Councilmember
Ransom thanked the Shoreline Enterprise
for the very clear article that explained the Councilmember selection process.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen commented that there was Council concurrence not to televise the
interview session on Saturday.
Mayor
Hansen said he agreed with the decision not to broadcast the interviews due to
threats of civil disobedience expressed in circulating e-mail correspondence. He said he has no intention of televising
meetings preceded by such threats.
Responding
to Ms. Botham, he said generally speaking, a person on a council or commission
would not be able to represent someone to that same group.
Responding
to Ms. Ryu, he said it is important that citizens are kept informed. He also said he does not plan on “blacking
out” any more Council meetings, although circumstances will always determine
what is done in the future.
Councilmember
Fimia clarified that Ms. Botham’s issue relates to the fact that a Planning
Commissioner, Marlin Gabbert, is representing the applicant on an issue before
the Hearing Examiner.
Ian
Sievers, City Attorney, said the City has examined the assertion and could not
find any conflict of interest or appearance of fairness issue. He said the issue will not be part of the
Critical Areas Reasonable Use Permit Hearing on January 21st because
the application involves legislation that preceded Mr. Gabbert’s activity in
the recent amendments to the Critical Areas procedures. He said Council is welcome to read the
City’s memos that have been prepared on this issue.
Responding
to Mr. Lee’s comments, Councilmember Grace said it is critically important that
the Council agrees on its own established process and how members communicate
with each other and with the public. He
suggested that these topics could be discussed at the upcoming Council Retreat
on January 16. Acknowledging the
widely-differing opinions on communication, he said he would like to have a
common understanding of the Council’s and the public’s expectations.
RECESS
At
7:35 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared a recess.
The meeting reconvened at 7:45 p.m.
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Review
of Options for the Robinson Water Tower located at the intersection of NW 195th
Street and 3rd Avenue NW
Tim Stewart, Planning and
Development Services Director, and Jeff Thomas, Senior Planner, reviewed the
options for the tower, which was declared a hazardous structure in November
2000. They explained that an
architectural firm provided a feasibility analysis for a
preservation/restoration option, as well as a reconstruction option for the
tower. The findings and conclusions for
each of these options, as well as a demolition option and a no action option,
are summarized as follows:
·
Preservation/Restoration
Option – This option is not feasible. The existing tower has deteriorated
beyond salvage. Significant labor and
material cost would be required to make exact determinations for the preservation/restoration
of individual pieces of the existing tower.
Because of this very detailed work, a cost estimate was not
prepared. However, it appears that this
option may cost up to twice as much as the reconstruction option, with
historical specifications and new materials.
·
Reconstruction
Option – This option is feasible and includes demolition of the existing tower
and using new materials to reconstruct the tower either at the current site or
at an unidentified location.
Reconstructing the tower at the current site presents both safe parking
and access issues for the general public.
Reconstructing the tower at another location removes it from the
historical neighborhood context. The cost estimate for this option, as detailed
in the final report, is approximately $117,000, without any additional cost of
land.
·
Demolition
Option – This option would result in the demolition of the existing tower and
relieve the risk of maintaining a hazardous structure. Prior to demolition, a
detailed architectural inventory and photographic record of the existing tower
may be created for use in any future reconstruction effort. A specific cost estimate has not been
prepared for this option; however the final report allocated approximately
$17,000 in the cost of the reconstruction option for demolition.
·
No
Action – This option would leave the existing tower in its current state -
exposed to the weather elements and rapidly deteriorating. Both the City of Shoreline and the private
property owner would be continuing the risk of maintaining a hazardous
structure.
Staff recommends that the
City move forward with the demolition option without any cost allocation plan,
as the private property owner has already incurred significant expense in
removing a Seattle City Light power line.
Responding
to Councilmember Fimia, Mr. Stewart surmised that most of the wood on the
structure is rotted and beyond salvage.
He noted that a detailed inventory of the structure would enable the
City to reconstruct it in the future.
Councilmember
Fimia asked if the $17,000 demolition estimate would cover all aspects of tower
removal and grading. Mr. Stewart said
if Council moves forward with the demolition option, the City would issue a
detailed bid specification which would identify the final condition of the
site.
Councilmember
Fimia suggested that the demolition alternative consider the possibility of
having a non-profit corporation or other volunteer group help with the salvage
and/or rebuild effort.
Councilmember
Grace wondered if the architectural inventory would be an addition to the
demolition cost. He felt there was
already a fairly detailed historical record of the structure.
Mr.
Thomas said the architect did not include a detailed bid of the preservation/
restoration
option because of the time and additional expense of evaluating individual
pieces. He said the architectural
inventory is based on existing information, including historical documents and
photographs.
Councilmember
Fimia suggested the City could conduct community outreach to determine if there
are volunteers who are willing to help with inventory/restoration in order to
save on demolition costs.
Mr.
Stewart reiterated that the reconstruction option is always available to the
City at a future time.
Councilmember
Ransom pointed out that the Shoreline Historical Museum agreed that the
preservation/restoration options were not feasible and that the tower was not
eligible to be designated as a landmark.
He wondered if the water district is partly responsible for the
structure, and whether it could share the costs of demolition.
Mr.
Stewart noted that two-thirds of the land the tower sits on is public
right-of-way owned by the City. He said
the City has not researched the potential liability of prior owners.
Councilmember
Gustafson expressed support for immediate demolition based on the proximity of
the hazardous structure to Einstein Middle School and the input from the
Shoreline Historical Society. He
concurred that architectural records could be preserved for possible
reconstruction at some future point.
Councilmember
Chang expressed concern about the building’s condition and whether the
community has been alerted it is a hazardous structure.
Mr.
Stewart said although the tower is locked and presumably not accessible, there
is always the possibility of partial or total collapse in heavy wind or with a
sizeable snow load. He said although
the building official did not deem the building an immediate danger, it is a
problem that should not be ignored for long.
Councilmember
Chang agreed with the suggestion to let volunteers participate in a
salvage/restoration effort if it would not be considered a public safety risk.
Councilmember
Grace supported demolition as the only feasible option, noting the tower can
still be preserved through photographs and documentation.
Mayor
Hansen concurred, noting that maintaining a hazardous structure is a legal
liability for the City. He wished to
ensure that the adjacent property owner concurs with the City’s decision.
There
was consensus to pursue the demolition option and work with others to see if
there is any way to salvage at least parts of the structure. Councilmembers also discussed the
possibility of considering preservation for a similar structure in Richmond
Beach. It was noted that the City has
no control over this structure since it is wholly located on private property.
Mr.
Burkett said staff will return with a report on a demolition option that will
include the estimated costs and feasibility of salvaging any parts from the
existing structure.
With
Council consensus, item 6(c) was taken next.
(b) Adoption
of new Specialty Business Licensing Regulations and repeal of Ordinance No. 34
·
The City Council has
never reviewed the specialty licensing provisions or made a determination about
which licenses should be continued and which should be eliminated.
·
Eliminating some of
the specialty licenses will have a minimal impact on the City’s revenue
stream. Furthermore, Council has
generally taken the position in the past that business licenses are not to be
viewed as a method of generating revenue.
Responding
to Councilmember Fimia, Ms. Mattioli clarified that only for-profit businesses
would be required to have a specialty license to hold public youth dances.
Councilmember
Fimia asked if the costs to monitor such activities were the rationale for
requiring for-profit entities to get a license. Ms. Mattioli said the primary reason is to monitor those
activities that pose a greater public safety risk. She also clarified that the proposed definition of a massage
therapist is a “state-licensed massage therapist.”
Responding
to Councilmember Fimia, Chief Turner explained that pawnbrokers and secondhand
dealers are considered a higher public safety risk because of the potential of
dealing in stolen merchandise.
Councilmember
Fimia felt that exempting used book stores to the exclusion of other similar
businesses could be problematic and inconsistent. She suggested that the list of businesses for secondhand
licensing be narrowed down to include only those that are considered a high
risk for stolen merchandise.
Ms.
Mattioli said the proposed exemption for use book stores was to allow a
business like “Half Price Books” to locate in Shoreline. She said Half Price Books indicated they
could not locate in Shoreline under the current regulations.
Councilmember
Ransom commented on the need for Shoreline to specify its own licensing
requirements. He agreed that licensing
requirements should only apply to solicitations by for-profit organizations. He expressed concern that King County does
not provide adequate taxicab service in Shoreline, noting that reduced bus
service and other factors limit transportation options for Shoreline
residents. He commented on the limited
number of cabs dispatched to Shoreline and on the unduly long response
times. He felt the City should look
into options for improving cab service in the City.
Councilmember
Fimia felt the issue of taxicab service could possibly be addressed by the
Suburban Cities Association.
Councilmember
Grace supported the continuance of King County as the licensing authority for
taxicabs due to the complex and time-consuming nature of the work. He pointed out the possibility of using King
County’s response time records to determine the quality of Shoreline’s taxicab
service.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen asked if the City regulates the activities of itinerant merchants
who often sell goods on Shoreline street corners. Ms. Mattioli said neither City nor county code addresses that
type of retail activity. Deputy Mayor Jepsen
wondered if the City should take a role in regulating their activities.
Councilmember
Ransom said collecting taxes from these mobile merchants and other
uncertainties about sales tax revenue are all the more reason to consider a
general business registration policy for the City. He said such a policy would allow the City to maintain a current
inventory of the number and type of businesses. He felt the Chamber of Commerce could also benefit from this
information. He suggested that the
administration of the program could be self-supporting through registration
fees.
Councilmember
Chang expressed support for the proposed changes as explained by staff. He said the main objective is for the police
department to keep track of any public safety risks.
Councilmember
Gustafson concurred. He suggested that
itinerant businesses and registration policy could be discussed at the upcoming
Council retreat.
Councilmember
Fimia requested that staff look into past records to determine if there is a
legitimate public safety risk with non-profit organizations that operate
secondhand stores (such as Deseret and Children’s Hospital). Absent any legitimate safety risk, she would
recommend that they be exempt from licensing.
Councilmember
Fimia suggested that the public be given an opportunity to respond to the
proposal before the Council takes action.
It was noted that the public has an opportunity to comment on agenda
items at the beginning of regular meetings.
Additionally, Councilmembers can pull any item off the consent calendar
for discussion.
(c) Draft
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Chief Turner introduced Bob
Freitag from the University of Washington Institute for Hazard Mitigation. The City contracted with the University of
Washington Institute for Hazard Mitigation to prepare the Hazard Mitigation
Plan. The scope of work includes
developing all elements of the plan, coordinating efforts with City
stakeholders and key agencies, and submitting the plan to the State/FEMA.
Mr. Freitag introduced Rebecca
Spinks, who provided a presentation of the Draft Hazard Mitigation Plan. She explained the plan’s methodology, the
City’s three primary hazards (earthquakes, landslides and flooding), and
potential mitigation strategies. It was
emphasized that local governments are required to have their hazard mitigation
plans approved and adopted by November 1, 2004 in order to receive hazard
mitigation grants.
Mr. Freitag explained that
the goal of the Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify and recommend projects that
would eliminate, minimize, or mitigate the vulnerability of the City to the
impacts of future disasters. He also
emphasized the importance that FEMA places on community input and involvement
in the plan. Staff has conducted
outreach to residents to seek their input on the draft plan. When completed, the plan will guide the
efforts of agencies as they seek funding, authority or other resources
necessary for implementation of the mitigation initiatives. Staff will incorporate public and Council
input into the final plan, which is targeted for Council approval July 2004.
Mayor Hansen reiterated that without this plan, the City will not be eligible for FEMA grants in the future.
Chief Turner noted that the Shoreline School District is also working with the University of Washington to complete their plan.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen pointed
out that some storage facilities, including the state health laboratory, seem
to be missing from the list of Tier II reporters for hazardous materials.
Chief Turner said the state
health lab was excluded from the list, although the City is aware of its
hazardous material inventory. Deputy
Mayor Jepsen also asked staff to find out if there are other retailers that
store large quantities of fertilizer, propane, and other chemicals.
Ms. Spinks said information
on the state health lab can be provided to Councilmembers. She noted that fuel stations are not listed
as Tier 2 reporters, although it may be advisable to add gas stations to the
vulnerability report.
Councilmember Fimia pointed
out the existence of a large fuel storage facility bordering Shoreline on N 145th
Street. She assumed that the City would
coordinate with other jurisdictions if hazard lie in close proximity.
Chief Turner clarified that
the Hazard Mitigation Plan is a coordinated effort between the City, school
district, and other agencies. She added
that other agencies are either developing their own plan or contracting with
consultants. She said Shoreline opted
to do its own process utilizing the University of Washington because it could
not meet King County’s timeline.
Councilmember Fimia
acknowledged Bob Phelps as a member of the development team and thanked
citizens and staff for their efforts.
Councilmember Grace asked
about the mitigation process after Tier II facilities are identified.
Mr. Freitag said that
although the City has not reached the mitigation phase, actions have been taken
to reduce risks in other areas. For
example, training programs and ordinances have already encouraged the
separation of chemicals, the use of equipment that limits movement, and
retrofitting buildings for earthquakes.
Mayor Hansen noted that
businesses often evaluate their risks and take independent action to prepare
for emergencies. Mr. Burkett commented
that fire departments often know what kind of hazardous materials to expect
before they arrive on a scene.
Councilmember Grace
emphasized the importance of conveying this information to the public after the
plan is finalized.
Councilmember Gustafson
asked if there has been any thought about using Channel 21 for live emergency
broadcasts in the future.
Chief Turner indicated that
the City would like to use every mode of communication available to get
information to the public. Mr. Burkett
noted that the City already uses Channel 21 for emergency information. Councilmember Gustafson emphasized the need
to include the possibility of live broadcasts in the overall plan.
Mr. Freitag said the overall
plan will consider things that can be done to mitigate potential communication
problems.
Councilmember Chang
emphasized the importance of including the Planning and Development Services
Department in the overall plan so that people who plan to build in flood,
landslide, or earthquake hazard areas can be made aware of the dangers and are
prepared. It was noted that the
department has been part of the plan development team.
Councilmember Ransom
commented on the apparent lack of severe weather information listed for the
period 1950-1993. He further
questioned the reference to three tornadoes in the early weather history, since
tornadoes are unknown here. He wondered
if they could have been high wind cyclones.
Mr. Freitag said he would double check the severe weather data, which is
based on FEMA and National Weather Service information.
Councilmember Fimia asked
what the City will be responsible for in terms of mitigation costs compared
with other jurisdictions.
Mr. Freitag said the City
will only be responsible for those projects that are identified in this plan
with an accompanying cost-benefit analysis.
He emphasized that individual items for which the City applies for
funding must be included in such a plan and also must have a positive
cost-benefit ratio.
Mayor Hansen said that
Council looks forward to seeing the final report.
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Elaine
Phelps, Shoreline, said it is a type of censorship to suspend the broadcast of
a public meeting on the chance that someone might disrupt it. She said if there was a threat of civil
disobedience, then police can be made aware of the threat and preparations can
be made to address it if it happens. She noted that there were no disruptions
at the meetings of December 19 and 20.
She asserted that the Council prevented Shoreline citizens from seeing a
very important public process. She
asked the Council to rethink what it means to suspend access to public meetings
because of some supposed threat.
(b) Richard
Johnsen, Shoreline, wondered why the Robinson Water Tower was built on a
portion of public right-of-way. He
reiterated that King County has not done much to preserve Shoreline’s history,
and that Shoreline must take the lead in its own historical preservation. He asked whether the City has contacted the
National Historical Trust for Preservation or Trust for Public Lands on the
water tower issue. On another topic, he
wondered if dance groups that perform at rented halls would be required to get
a City license even if they are already covered under the license of another
organization.
Councilmember
Ransom pointed out that the County does not seek out old buildings for
historical preservation unless someone nominates them for the review
process.
3. ADJOURNMENT
At
9:50 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk