CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Ransom, Deputy Mayor Fimia, Councilmembers Hansen,
Gustafson, McGlashan, Ryu, and Way
ABSENT: None
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2.
FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Ransom led the flag
salute. Upon roll call by the City
Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Bob Olander, Interim City
Manager, reported that the bridge foundations and gridwork for the Aurora
Corridor bridges are being constructed.
He added that the City has been enhancing the Neighborhood Traffic
Safety Program (NTSP) and new stop bars and speed limit signs in neighborhoods
have been placed in City problem areas.
There will be a grant writing workshop for non-profit organizations on
February 28, at the
4.
REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Mayor Ransom noted that the applications for
the Library Board and Planning Commission vacancies will be accepted until
Mayor Ransom read the guidelines for the
public comment period.
5.
PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Chris
Eggen, Shoreline, stated that the Aurora Corridor is a point of contention in
the City and people view small businesses along the corridor as “ugly.” However,
they are owned by people who are just trying to make a living. The vision, he said, should be about projects
that benefit more than one group of people. He stated that there should be more input from
residents in City decision-making.
(b)
Troy Arms, Everett, speaking
on behalf of the Waste Management/Allied Garbage Company, said the company is
not responding to employees concerns. Many
employees have environmental concerns relating to garbage trucks leaking
hydraulic fluid, oil, and antifreeze. He
highlighted that the equipment is old and the daily routes the trucks have to
manage are overwhelming. Employees are working
a lot of overtime, and part-time employees are working nearly full-time hours
and are not getting benefits.
(c)
Bob Barta, Shoreline, said
the Council of Neighborhoods Program was created in the City in 1996. However, there was no Council existing in Highland
Terrace until 1997. The Highland Terrace
Association, along with the City, has worked to improve traffic safety. He urged residents to get involved with the
City’s neighborhood associations to get issues resolved. He thanked Joyce Nichols and Susan Will for
the “Currents” publication and said it is a great newsletter. He suggested that the City conduct town
meetings.
(d)
Bronston Kenney,
Shoreline, said the land use policy in the City should not be determined by
developers. He said he opposes the
developer-driven push for cottage housing.
He also felt the majority of the City opposes cottage housing. He said there is opposition on Innis Arden,
Progress Shoreline, and the
(e)
Jerome Lyons, Duvall, also
commented on concerns related to Waste Management/Allied Garbage Company. He said out-of-pocket medical expenses for
employees have greatly increased and salary increases have not kept pace with
healthcare costs. He pointed out that
illness is a direct result of their jobs.
He also pointed out that most of the employees work more than 40 hours
per week, and the route sizes have increased.
He said employees are forced to work overtime, and the company
desperately needs to hire more drivers to spread out the workload. He outlined that Waste Management is the
country’s largest collections firm, with an 8.6% increase in revenue in
2005. Lastly, there is a lack of fleet
maintenance due to understaffing.
(f)
Tom Herriman,
(g)
Scott Blair, Shoreline,
president of the Richmond Little League, urged the Council to put the bond
issue on the ballot as soon as possible.
He said upgrading and repairing the parks will bring in more baseball
and softball tournaments into Shoreline.
This, in turn, brings in people to put more money into the economy. Ball players will stay in our local hotels
and eat in our local restaurants. He
concluded that the City has a great baseball program which draws quality
players and athletes.
(h)
Jim Leigh, Shoreline,
expressed his support for the current Council.
He said it needs to work together and urged them to provide legal
support for Ransom, Way, Fimia, and Chang.
He felt that past Councilmembers conducted meetings in the same manner
that the accused Councilmembers have done.
He said in the City’s first ten years, there were children being killed
by cars and the Council did nothing. In
the past seven years, the City did nothing to improve pedestrian safety, but
spent $5 million for
(i)
Rick Stephens,
Shoreline, noted that staff has recommended funding legal defense. He urged the Council to approve legal defense
unanimously based on the staff recommendation.
Kelly Stephens, he said, is a wonderful person and resident. He urged residents to watch the U.S. Women’s Olympic
Hockey Team. He noted that construction
of a new sidewalk and crosswalk in front of the Highland Ice Arena on
6.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Deputy Mayor Fimia wished to
remove the January 3, 2006 City Council minutes from the consent agenda for
further consideration. Councilmember Ryu
wished to remove Consent Agenda Item 7(c), making it Action Item 9(b).
Upon motion by Councilmember Hansen, seconded by Councilmember
Gustafson and carried 7-0, the agenda was approved as amended.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Deputy Mayor
Fimia moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the
following consent items were approved:
Minutes of Special Meeting of
Minutes
of Workshop of
Minutes
of Housing Workshop of
Minutes
of Regular Meeting of
Approval of expenses and payroll as of
Motion to Authorize the
Motion to authorize the
Motion to authorize the
Ordinance No. 411, amending interim controls on the Removal
of Hazardous Trees
8.
ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING
(a)
Public hearing to receive citizens’ comments regarding: 1) any
public comment, written or oral, received at or after the October 24, 2005 City
Council hearing relating to proposed amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance
set forth in Ordinance No. 398; and 2) proposed amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance
posted on the City’s website pursuant to the notice dated January 25, 2006
Joe
Tovar, Planning and Development Services Manager, explained the scope of the
item. He noted the Council questions
that were received and addressed by City staff over the past couple days were
not posted to the website.
Mayor
Ransom opened the public hearing.
1)
Bob Barta, Shoreline, is concerned about the critical areas in
Shoreline. He said when trees are
removed, trees need to be replaced. He
inquired what is being done about the critical areas around Central Market. He said there are fewer and fewer animals in
the wooded areas of Shoreline.
2)
Cheryl Gruwell, Shoreline, discussed an article that was written about
her and her daughter who rescued a Blue Heron in Boeing Creek.
3)
Randy Bannecker,
4)
Vicki Westberg, Shoreline, supported the amendments to the Critical
Areas Ordinance (CAO) as proposed by
5)
Rob Garwood, Shoreline, said piped streams are not critical areas. In 2005, he pointed out, the Council adopted
the Surface Water Master Plan (SWMP) that removed the buffers on piped streams. He said this further hinders Public Works
from dealing with surface water flooding issues.
6)
Michelle McFadden, Shoreline, representing Patti and Timothy Crawford,
supported
7)
Nancy Rust, Shoreline, supported
8)
Susan O’Donnell, Shoreline, favored the protection of stream buffers in
Shoreline. This minimizes the influences
from reaching the streams, she added.
She felt it would be easier to protect the areas now rather than having
to recreate them in the future. She
supported
9)
Elaine Phelps, Shoreline, said Shoreline residents know and appreciate
the community-wide benefits that flow from a well-maintained environment. Any exemptions to regulations must be only
for public benefit, she stated. She
added that all other exemptions outside that purpose should be eliminated. She supported the amendments of
10)
Eric Lindahl, Shoreline, said the amendments from
11)
Peter Henry, Shoreline, commended the Council and City staff in
crafting the amendments for the CAO. He
agreed with the amendments of
12)
Yuigi Shoda,
13)
David Freidman, Shoreline, supported the amendments by
14)
Gene Maddox, Shoreline, said the
15)
Matt Loper, Seattle, biology professor at
Councilmember Gustafson
moved to close the public hearing on the Critical Areas Ordinance. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Gustafson said there have been
several public hearings with some new amendments discussed which have been refined. He suggested that the Council conclude the
CAO discussion for this meeting and continue the discussion at the next
meeting.
Councilmember Gustafson responded that if the
public hearing was closed the Council would only take into consideration the
documents and public comment they have already heard, so no further public
comment would be allowed.
Mr. Tovar responded that the permanent
development regulations governing vegetation and tree cutting will be addressed
before the Planning Commission in March and to the Council shortly
thereafter. If residents have concerns,
they can bring them to the Council or the staff during that process. Closing this issue to public comment does not
affect the vegetation or tree cutting decision-making process.
A vote was
taken on the motion, which carried 7-0.
Councilmember
McGlashan moved to postpone deliberation on the Critical Areas Ordinance to the
end of the meeting or until the next City Council Regular Meeting. Deputy Mayor
Fimia seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
(j)
Ken Cottingham, Shoreline, said the residents want a seven-member Council
that works together, so he supports providing legal defense for Councilmembers.
(k)
Sherry Winston-Tracy, Shoreline, asked the Council to adopt the Parks
and Recreation Bond for the May ballot this year. She said she is a board member of the Parks,
Recreation, & Cultural Services (PRCS) Board and the Richmond Little
League. She said the bond serves the
best interest of the community and the residents will lose a chance to preserve
open space if it is not approved now.
She felt approve this bond issue is common sense decision for voters.
(l)
Elaine Phelps, Shoreline, said there is an abundant amount of files
concerning Innis Arden at the
(m)
Eric Lindahl, Shoreline, favored providing legal defense for the Councilmembers
named in King et al vs. Fimia et al. He
said it would set a bad precedence if it was not approved.
Councilmember McGlashan
inquired if the Highland Terrace neighborhood program website was being done by
the members of their council.
RECESS
At
10.
ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, AND MOTIONS
(a)
Ordinance No. 408, repealing the cottage housing regulations in the
Shoreline Development Code; or
Ordinance No. 409, amending land use regulations
allowing development of cottage housing; and amending Shoreline Municipal Code
20.30.060, 20.40.120, and 20.40.300
Mayor
Ransom pointed out that the public hearing on this issue has been closed.
Mr.
Tovar read a brief staff report and pointed out that staff was directed to
bring back legislation on Option 3 and Option 6 for Council consideration.
Paul
Cohen, Senior Planner, reported that Ordinance No. 409 would include
accommodations for a competitive selection process for proposals, an enhanced
design review process, and the best development standards the staff could put
together. All proposals will be moved
through established filters, and the final filter is the “failsafe” that any
proposal could be denied. The first step would be the competition
filter for a maximum of two projects a year, in which only one project could be
in a particular neighborhood. In this
filter, developers would meet with the City to set expectations, he said. The next filter would be to discuss the most
realistic proposals in a public meeting.
Next, he outlined, a design review board would conduct a public hearing
on the subject. At that meeting, design
standards and design review criteria would be introduced to move into the final
failsafe phase.
Mayor
Ransom called for public comment.
1)
George Mauer, Shoreline, expressed opposition to cottage housing. He said there is overwhelming opposition to
it in Shoreline. He urged the Council to
repeal cottage housing.
2)
Elaine Phelps, Shoreline, said the City needs to plan for higher
density, affordable housing. She said
cottage housing is high density and the City needs to allow for higher
densities where the facilities can support it.
She felt the City needed more low-income, affordable housing. She supported Ordinance No. 408 with a
proviso to “start from scratch” if cottage housing is accepted by the Council.
Councilmember Hansen moved
to approve Ordinance No. 408, repealing the cottage housing regulations in the
Shoreline Development Code. Councilmember Ryu seconded the motion.
Councilmember
Hansen stated he is not in favor of cottage housing.
Councilmember
Ryu stated she is a proponent of affordable housing but cottage housing is not
affordable. She said the residents want
laws that give them certainty and repealing this cottage housing code provides
that.
Councilmember
Gustafson supported the motion and said it has been controversial. He encouraged the Council to look at the
housing strategy in Shoreline.
Councilmember
McGlashan said he is opposed to the motion.
He said there is still a need for cottage housing in Shoreline. He doesn’t see an “overwhelming” opposition
to cottage housing. Additionally, he did
not believe that cottage housing decreases property values.
Deputy
Mayor Fimia supported the motion. She
added that this started out as a good goal to provide alternative, affordable, and
environmentally-sound housing. She said
allowing eight houses when the property is zoned for four is not right, and it
should not be considered again. She will
be offering a motion to start a comprehensive housing strategy in the future.
Mayor Ransom said this
process started eight years ago, and cottage housing was billed as affordable
housing but it is not. He said the main
issue seems to be the density bonus, or “cramming” high density development
into low density zones. He said cottage
housing is more appropriate for higher density zones, but builders and staff
have insisted that it cannot work in multi-family areas. He commented on the high level of opposition
to only 7 cottage housing developments in Shoreline. He asked Council to imagine the level of
opposition if 60 developments (350 units) were constructed, as staff has
proposed for meeting growth targets. He
said cottage housing was originally viewed as an ideal housing solution, but it
has not turned out to be ideal. He said
he supports the public sentiment on this and will vote for repealing cottage
housing.
A vote was taken on the
motion to adopt Ordinance No. 408, repealing the cottage housing code, which carried
6-1, with Councilmember McGlashan dissenting.
Deputy Mayor Fimia moved to
direct City staff to return with a draft work plan with a timeline, scope, and
potential stakeholders for a housing strategy for Shoreline by April 3, 2006. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Deputy
Mayor Fimia said the scope of a future comprehensive housing strategy should be
consistent with the adopted 2005 goals, strategies, and policies if adopted
before the 2006 items are complete.
Shoreline has a strong set of housing goals, she said, and a
comprehensive housing strategy processing plan would provide the Council and
the community with more detail of short and long-term needs, economic drivers,
community values, and goals.
MEETING
EXTENSION
At
Responding
to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Olander affirmed that it is feasible for staff to draft
a work plan by April 3.
Mayor
Ransom felt it would be worthwhile to obtain and review materials from previous
studies and utilize them for this project.
A vote was taken on the
motion, which carried 7-0.
(b) Motion to authorize the City Manager to Execute a Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement and Required Amendments with the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) and to execute a contract amendment for professional services with KPFF for design services of the N 172nd Street portion of the Dayton Avenue North at North 175th Street Retaining Wall Project in the amount not to exceed $13,365.00 plus contingency
Councilmember
Hansen moved to authorize the City Manager to Execute a Fuel Tax Grant
Distribution Agreement and Required Amendments with the Transportation
Improvement Board (TIB) and to execute a contract amendment for professional
services with KPFF for design services of the N 172nd Street portion
of the Dayton Avenue North at North 175th Street Retaining Wall
Project in the amount not to exceed $13,365.00 plus contingency. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ryu expressed concern
about visibility for traffic moving north on
Paul Haines, Public Works Director, clarified that this motion is to accept a grant and have design work done and have it included in the overall project. The project is broken down into three components; the sidewalk, the retaining wall, and the channelization needs at the Dayton/St. Luke’s intersection. He pointed out that when the design work is done, safety and sidewalk integration will be occurring at that site. Most comments, he noted, were received prior to the demonstration phase and now that it is complete the City is data gathering and taking in complaints and information to be summarized in a future staff report to the Council.
Mr. Olander added that this item will
be brought back to the Council for their final input at a future meeting.
Mr. Haines responded that channelization refers to providing specific safety zones for both vehicular traffic and pedestrians. It provides more predictable routes for the cars and the pedestrians to travel.
Councilmember Ryu appreciated Mr.
Haines’ report and input. She commented
that the residents prefer traffic being directed towards
A
vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7-0.
11.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(a)
Bond Issue
Mr.
Olander stated the Council referred the item back to the Bond Advisory
Committee (BAC) to include the purchase of the South Woods property which would
bring the bond total to $18,500,000.
This amount would mean $0.285 per $1,000 assessed value or an average of
$82.36 per year per home in Shoreline.
He thanked the BAC for their effort in putting this well-balanced bond
package together.
Councilmember Hansen moved
to direct City staff to proceed with the bond election in the amount of
$18,500,000 as recommended by the Bond Advisory Committee. Councilmember
Gustafson seconded the motion.
Mayor
Ransom called for public comment.
1)
Vicki Westberg, Shoreline, favored the proposal and said it was
balanced and contained a mix of active and passive parks. She said it provides geographical equality to
the City of
2)
Bill Clements, Shoreline, said, as
a member of the Parks Board and the Bond Advisory Committee (BAC), that the
bond package is a result of work that the BAC began three years ago. It will provide $6 million to improve
facilities. He emphasized the need to
bring in more volunteers, organize a campaign, and advertise the bond for its
approval. He asked informed citizens to
talk to their neighbors in support of this bond.
3)
Dennis Lee, Shoreline, appreciated that the bond issue is going out to
the voters. He said the citizens will
know exactly what the money is for.
4)
Rebecca Olson, Shoreline, supported the bond issue. She specifically said it was the “Save the
South Woods” project which drew her into this issue.
5)
Tanya DeMarsh-Dodson,
6)
Matt Loper,
MEETING
EXTENSION
At
7)
Eva Sledziewski, Shoreline, regretted that the City did not include
Reserve M in the bond issue, which consists of 21 acres of Innis Arden land that
is owned by the City. She said the area
is dangerous to people who utilize it because it is a high bluff with steep
slopes and no railings or steps. She
said it is urgent that something is done.
Mr.
Olander stated that Reserve M could be an eligible project to be addressed with
the $2.5 million in the trail corridors line item in the bond.
Mr.
Haines said this area was considered under the Transportation Master Plan for
linking transportation corridors in the future.
However, he said there is no design, just a proposed route.
Councilmember
McGlashan said there is no designation on where the parks money is going to
go. He also inquired who determines what
kinds of improvements happen in the parks.
Mr.
Deal said there will be meetings to solicit community input and determine what is
wanted in the parks. He added that input
will be received through the public process and the master site plan meetings.
Councilmember McGlashan inquired if money
left over from one specific project can be allocated to another project.
Mr. Sievers stated he is working on an
ordinance that will allow the Council to shift monies that are not utilized on
one project to another open space or capital project
Councilmember Gustafson thanked the BAC and
Mr. Deal for all the work in putting the bond package together. He believed this bond will allow the City to
leverage matching monies for grants.
This, he said, would allow the City to enhance those funds and either increase
the number of projects or reimburse the voters if all of the funding is not
needed.
Deputy Mayor Fimia thanked the BAC, the PRCS Board,
and staff for the work on the bond. She
also thanked them for the tour to determine what is needed in the City. She pointed out that this is the City’s first
bond, and hopefully not the last one.
Mayor Ransom said this has been a part of his
dream for ten years to expand and enhance the parks in Shoreline. He noted that parks provide a quality of life
and he is pleased with what this bond represents. He urged the Council and the residents to
pass this bond package.
Councilmember Ryu said she agreed with the
purchase of South Woods and the item that provides for a preliminary plan for a
dog park. She supported the bond and
appreciated all those who helped get it to the Council and to the vote.
A vote was
taken on the motion, which carried 7-0.
(b)
Motion Authorizing Legal Defense of King et al. v. Fimia et al
Scott Passey, City Clerk, pointed
out that he incorrectly stated that there was a motion on the table to approve
this item at the last Council meeting.
He clarified that a motion is in order to discuss this item. Councilmember Hansen inquired as to why the
amendment to the main motion is not considered as the main motion. Mr. Passey responded that Council could do so
if that is the consensus view.
Mayor Ransom inquired what
the amended motion was.
Mr. Sievers clarified that
the motion was to approve legal defense with the provision that defendants
would be required to reimburse the City for legal costs if they are found to
have knowingly, willfully, or intentionally violated the Open Public Meetings
Act.
Mayor Ransom inquired if
more public comment could be heard on this issue.
Mr. Sievers noted that there
was no additional information from the City staff and this is a continuation of
the Council deliberation on this item.
Deputy Mayor Fimia noted
that there was a sign up sheet prepared and put out for the public to
speak. Therefore, she concluded, the
public should be allowed to speak to the item.
Councilmember Ryu moved to
have the people who haven’t spoken on this item in the past a chance to comment
on it, seconded by
Mr. Passey commented that
although the Council already heard public comment on this item, providing a
sign-in sheet for this item created an expectation that people would be allowed
to speak. He suggested that those
persons who haven’t spoken on the issue be allowed to do so.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
Councilmember Hansen felt
the motion allowing further public comment to be out of order.
Mayor Ransom called for public comment.
1)
Rob Garwood, Shoreline, said the amendment puts the three voting
Councilmembers in an odd position. He
said there may be a conflict of interest.
He felt that providing defense is not a good way to spend government
funds.
2)
George Mauer, Shoreline, felt the lawsuit is an attempt to thwart the
will of the people of Shoreline. He said
the lawsuit results in a loss to everyone, will not prevail on its own merits,
and is being done for political purposes.
Mr. Sievers noted that the ordinance covers any
conflict of interest issues. He pointed
out that the Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC) affirmed that Councilmember
Ryu can vote on the issue since she is not a defendant or an affected member in
the lawsuit. Additionally, a Foster
& Pepper insurance attorney concluded that defense should be provided up
front, however, a reservation of rights with a cost reimbursement could be a
stipulation.
Councilmember
Gustafson moved to approve legal defense for defendants in King et al. v. Fimia
et al., as stated in the letter dated February 13, 2006, with the provisions of
paragraph 2 stipulating that defendants agree to reimburse the City for defense
costs if found to have knowingly, willfully, or intentionally violated the Open
Public Meetings Act. Councilmember
Hansen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Gustafson felt if people were liable
of knowingly, willfully, or intentionally violating the Open Public Meeting Act
then they would be obligated to repay the taxpayers of the City of
Councilmember Ryu agreed with the first part of the
motion because the decision is up to the legal process. The City won’t know the outcome of the legal process
until the judge decides. She felt that
if the defendants lose, they will have no option but to sue the City. This will be a lose-lose situation, she
said. She said she doesn’t support the
motion because of the extra cost to taxpayers. This is setting a bad precedent.
Mayor Ransom said there is a
Deputy Mayor Fimia agreed with providing legal
defense, but said the second part of the motion is different from the amendment
presented last week. She said there is a
provision that the defendants “have to agree to the terms,” which is coercive
language. She proposed that it read “if
the defendants are found to have violated the Open Public Meetings Act, they
would be required to pay the City back,” which would not be coercion. She strongly recommended the language be
changed.
Councilmember Gustafson stated that he added the
language so it would be binding and asked the City Attorney about revising it.
Mr. Sievers noted that the legal effect does not
change by revising the language or deleting the entire signature portion of the
document.
There was
Council consensus to delete the signature portion of the document.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
Councilmember McGlashan explained that this decision
is very difficult but he will support the motion to provide defense for the
Councilmembers with the proposed conditions.
A vote was
taken on the motion to approve legal defense as amended, which carried 3-0,
with Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen and McGlashan voting in the affirmative,
and Councilmember Ryu abstaining.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At
/S/