CITY
OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 12, 2004
Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia,
Grace, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: none
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Hansen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll call
by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Steve Burkett, City Manager,
reported that the conversion of the “roving eyes” project to
pedestrian-activated lights at 165th/ 170th Streets and
Aurora Avenue has been completed.
Councilmember
Ransom reported that the Library Board will have four open positions that need
to be filled before March 31, 2004.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Bill
Meyer, Shoreline, said he is deeply troubled by the Council’s responses last
week regarding the lack of television coverage of the Council appointment
process. He said “civil disobedience”
is not a valid reason to cancel the meeting broadcast. He felt the election process of the Mayor
and Deputy Mayor was equally disturbing, and he characterized the process as a
“railroad.” He distributed a handout
and urged the new Council to rebuild its credibility and repair the damage it
has caused.
(b) Chris
Kuehn, Shoreline, urged the Council to direct the Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services Board to study the possibility of establishing a canine
off-leash area in a Shoreline park. He
noted that he advocated for this idea as a member of the Citizens Bond Advisory
Committee (BAC). He gave survey
statistics showing that Shoreline residents indicate a need for this kind of
facility in Shoreline. He described the
many benefits associated with dog parks, noting that several other
jurisdictions have established successful off-leash parks.
(c) Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, referred to the staff report regarding “Legislative Priorities
for 2004” and said many of the stated goals suggest that Shoreline seeks all
possible avenues for funding, bonding, and taxing authority. She asked why Shoreline seems to be trying
to increase taxes when citizens supported and passed initiatives that limit
increased taxation. She asked why the
City is seeking more funding sources for the Aurora Corridor project, given
that the first mile is funded and the City stated in Superior Court that “there
is no project” regarding the second mile.
She asked how likely it is to receive State funds when a shortfall of
$1.1 billion is predicted for the 2005-2007 biennial budget.
(d) Janet
Way, Shoreline, commented favorably on the staff report recommending that the
City appeal the Brightwater Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). She said appealing the FEIS on the grounds
of protecting homes, streams, wetlands and critical areas is a welcome change
in Shoreline policy. She urged the
Council to consider the use of “best available science” as it reviews changes
to the Comprehensive Plan and Stream Inventory. She expressed support for using the remaining property at
Fircrest for mixed use that will provide for the greatest benefit to the
overall community.
(e) Larry
Owens, Shoreline, likened the City Council’s decision not to broadcast the
Council appointment process to censorship of public comment that he had
observed many years ago in the former Soviet Union. He said that the Mayor should not decide what citizens should see
or hear. He said censorship attacks the
foundation of a free society and shows disrespect for liberty, justice and
American values.
(f) Richard
Johnsen, Shoreline, noted that Quality Food Center (QFC) at Midvale and N 185th
Street intends to close January 31, 2004.
He felt the City or the property manager should try to do something to
ensure that valuable community services such as the post office will continue
at that location. He felt the lack of
access to mail services, groceries, and the pharmacy could have an appreciable
human service impact on the community.
Mayor
Hansen supported Mr. Kuehn’s desire to approach the PRCS Board with the
off-leash park proposal.
Councilmember
Ransom concurred, noting that the BAC discussed the costs and requirements of
such a project.
Responding
to Councilmember Fimia, Mr. Kuehn said the BAC estimate for a dog park was
$75,000 (reduced from $150,000), and that Hamlin Park and Boeing Creek Park
were considered preferred sites.
Councilmember
Fimia noted that people used to walk dogs along the Interurban Trail before it
was paved. She agreed that a dog park
might be warranted in Shoreline due to the loss of this habitat. She also suggested that the Council consider
reserving at least one position on City boards for youth 18-25 years old.
Councilmember
Chang said he supports a citizen request that either the City or METRO install
a garbage receptacle at NE 155th Street and Aurora Avenue, a
frequently littered area. He also supported
the idea of providing canine waste bags at the garbage receptacles along the
Interurban Trail.
Responding
to Mr. Meyer’s comments, Deputy Mayor Jepsen clarified that he did not consult
exclusively with Mayor Hansen about whether or not to televise the Saturday
Council candidate interviews. He said
he polled Councilmembers at the Friday meeting and a decision was made at that
time not to televise the interviews.
Councilmember
Ransom questioned Harley O’Neill, the owner of the building in which QFC is
located. Mr. O’Neill commented on the
notice he had received that QFC was vacating the building and whether the post
office would be continued at that location.
He said he would pursue this issue and keep the Council informed.
5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion by Councilmember
Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember Ransom and unanimously carried, the agenda
was approved.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson,
seconded by Councilmember Grace and unanimously carried, the following consent
calendar items were approved:
Minutes of Dinner
Meeting of November 24, 2003
Minutes of Regular
Meeting of November 24, 2003
Minutes of Special
Meeting of December 1, 2003
Minutes of Adjourned Special Meeting of December 15,
2003 and Special Meeting of December 19, 2003
Minutes of Special Meeting of December 20, 2003
Approval of
expenses and payroll as of December 26, 2003 in the amount of $2,748,524.08
Councilmember Chang commented
that although the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 19 accurately
reflect what he said at that time, he wished to correct the record to note that
he had not read the memo referred to during the discussion on that day. He did not agree that he had declined the
four options presented to him in Nashville regarding review of the Council
applicant packet.
7. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Motion
that Council continue to appeal the Brightwater Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) and submit a Statement of Appeal
Tim
Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, said that although the
Brightwater FEIS is very complete, there are still outstanding issues because a
few impacts are not fully described or mitigated that have direct effects on
the environment and residents of Shoreline.
Therefore, staff recommends appealing the FEIS. He said the appeal fee is $250 and it should
cost less than $5,000 in staff time to process the appeal.
Rachael
Markle, Planning Manager, reviewed the items of concern and the proposed
remedies for each, which are summarized as follows:
·
Although
the FEIS states that there is only a very small chance of needing to construct
Portals 23, 27 and 7, the City believes these portals should be removed from
consideration entirely, especially Portal 23.
Potential harm includes displacement of homes and businesses and
potential degradation of critical areas including streams, wetlands and steep
slopes. The remedy is to definitively
determine that Portals 23, 27 and 7 are not needed and remove them from the
project.
·
The
City requests that unneeded portions of portal sites be transferred to the City
for redevelopment as mitigation for construction impacts such as noise,
increased traffic, and incompatible land use changes.
·
The
FEIS refers to the impacts of construction on residents and businesses. King County responds that the specific
mitigation measures will be worked out during the permitting phase. However, Shoreline does not have
jurisdiction over permitting at Portal 19 because it is in Snohomish
County. Therefore, Shoreline is not
guaranteed input during the permitting phase due to lack of jurisdiction,
despite the fact that the majority of the impacts are on Shoreline residents,
the environment and the City’s infrastructure.
The remedy is to specifically identify Shoreline as an effected
jurisdiction that will be consulted as part of the permitting phase for Portal
19 for the purposes of developing specific mitigation.
·
The
City requested a dock be built at the proposed outfall site for the purpose of
barging materials in and spoils out.
The FEIS does not confirm the construction of a dock to mitigate traffic
impacts due to onshore construction of Portal 19 and the tunnel. The City is very concerned about the impacts
on the residential and commercial areas adjacent to the construction
route. Although the County has proposed
some mitigation measures to reduce the impacts, the City is still concerned
about such impacts. The remedy is to
procure use of the existing Texaco/Chevron dock or construct a new dock to
transport materials, equipment and spoils by barge.
·
As
mitigation for short and long term impacts associated with construction and
operation of the outfall, Shoreline requested the development of public access
to the beach and/or an interpretative nature component. The City’s request for
public beach access is not directly addressed in the response and the County
states that the identified locations are not feasible for construction. The remedy is to procure and construct
public access to the beach from Point Wells, the King County Pump Station in
Richmond Beach or another location in Shoreline yet to be identified.
·
Many
of Shoreline’s transportation concerns are being delayed for consideration
until the Transportation Management Plan is created. The FEIS states that all affected jurisdictions will be involved
in the development of the TMP during the permitting process. The risk is that the City will not be given
ample opportunity or status in the development of the TMP because it is not the
permitting authority for construction of Portal 19. The remedy is to request King County to be more specific in
defining “affected” jurisdictions.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to
continue the appeal of the Brightwater FEIS and submit a Statement of Appeal
based on the impacts and remedies sought as identified in the staff report or
as augmented by Council. Councilmember
Gustafson seconded the motion.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen pointed out that although it has been a relatively good process,
the FEIS does not address some critical issues for Shoreline. He said even though Shoreline is not
considered a permitting authority, it needs to be recognized as a
participant.
Councilmember
Grace expressed support for the appeal process. He pointed out that ambiguities relating to the number of portals
as well as other issues still need clarification. He noted that appealing the FEIS is the only way to resolve
issues of jurisdiction. He said even
though the City may not succeed on the dock/barge issue, the appeal could
result in additional mitigation for transportation impacts.
Councilmember
Gustafson agreed with the appeal, noting that while the process has been good,
he still has concerns relating to odor control and neighborhood impacts. He also wanted assurance that the outflow
will not have detrimental environmental impacts on the shoreline.
Councilmember
Ransom concurred that the FEIS was too vague about the number of portals that
may be required. He agreed that the
appeal gives the City a better chance of having significant influence on mitigation.
Councilmember
Fimia explained that mitigation is usually an attempt to lessen the adverse
impacts of a particular action. She
questioned how the remedy “transference of property” would help reduce the
impacts of noise, dust, and increased traffic volumes.
Ms.
Markle clarified that the FEIS adequately addressed dust control and noise, so
the staff report did not include those issues.
She explained that although transference of property does not directly
correspond to community impacts, unused property could be redeveloped by the
City to benefit the neighborhoods affected by construction.
Mayor
Hansen emphasized the need for resolving the jurisdictional question so that
Shoreline can have standing in the TMP.
Councilmember
Chang was glad that staff is interested in Shoreline’s environmental
interests. He wondered how long the
appeal process might take, and if the costs estimates were accurate.
Mr.
Stewart replied that the stated costs are the City’s best estimate, although
additional resources could be needed if additional issues surface. In that case, staff would return to Council
for direction.
Councilmember
Chang asked if the City plans to collaborate with other jurisdictions on shared
issues.
Mr.
Stewart explained that most of Shoreline’s issues are unique to Shoreline,
although staff is willing to work with other cities if common issues
arise.
Mayor
Hansen suggested that the appeal process would maintain the City’s options and
act as an “insurance policy” for unexpected issues that may arise in the
future.
Gunars
Sreibers, King County’s Conveyance Manager for the Brightwater Project, told
Council that he did not think any of the issues raised tonight could not be
resolved between the two parties.
A vote was taken on the
motion to continue the appeal and submit a Statement of Appeal, which carried
7-0.
(b) Motion
to adopt the City of Shoreline’s 2004 Legislative Priorities
Staff
proposes that the City focus its legislative efforts on the following high
priority areas for the 2004 session:
·
Support
funding for the City’s Capital Improvement Projects including the Aurora
Corridor and Interurban Trail projects.
·
Support
protection of existing revenue sources and legislation approving additional
options for local governments to replace these revenues.
·
Oppose
new unfunded mandates and program responsibilities.
[At the end of the meeting,
there was Council consensus to bring back for discussion on January 26,
Councilmember Ransom’s proposal to support the efforts of Chambers of Commerce
and other non-profit organizations to remove legislative barriers so that these
organizations can combine to offer insurance and other benefits to their
combined memberships.]
Deputy Mayor Jepsen
suggested saying “supports administration of
state and federal clean water regulations based on best available science . .
.” Councilmember Fimia accepted this
friendly amendment and a vote taken on the motion carried 7 – 0.
Councilmember Fimia moved to
amend the Water Resources item to say “support best available science-based
regional planning . . .” Councilmember
Gustafson seconded the motion. Again,
Deputy Mayor Jepsen suggested “Supports regional planning based on best
available science . . .” Councilmember
Fimia accepted this friendly amendment.
A vote taken on the motion carried 7 – 0.
Councilmember Fimia moved to
amend Fircrest #2 to say “supports and would help facilitate proposals to allow
City, citizens, and other major stakeholders participation in redevelopment of
the Fircrest campus.” Councilmember
Ransom seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen suggested it not be limited to
“citizens,” so Councilmember Fimia changed “citizens” to “residents.” He also said this changes the meaning
because it sounds as if the City, citizens and other major stakeholders are
going to do the redevelopment.
Councilmember Ransom suggested adding “planning process” after
“redevelopment.” Mayor Hansen objected
to the word “would” and Councilmember Fimia changed this to “could.”
A vote was taken on the
motion, which carried unanimously, and this item was changed to read “Supports
and could help facilitate proposals to allow the City, residents, and other
major stakeholders participation in the redevelopment planning process of the
Fircrest Campus.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At
9:32 p.m. Mayor Hansen said Council would recess into executive session for
thirty minutes to discuss litigation.
MEETING
EXTENSION
At
10:00 p.m. Mayor Hansen announced that the Council had extended the meeting and
the executive session for fifteen minutes.
At 10:14 p.m. the executive session concluded and the regular meeting
reconvened.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:15 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk