CITY
OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE
COMMUNITY FORUM
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Richmond Highlands
Recreation Center
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fimia, Grace, and Ransom
PRESENT IN AUDIENCE: Councilmember Chang
ABSENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m.
Councilmember Grace reviewed the purpose of the public forum.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
·
posting
of a development sign on the property;
·
highlighting
any variances needed in the development;
·
newspaper
advertising in a local paper such as the Richmond Beach Community News or the
Shoreline Enterprise;
·
limitation
on the Director’s authority so that the City Council does not lose control of
the Code Enforcement process; and
· elimination of the fee for filing an appeal.
(c) Ralph
Keuler, Shoreline, said he thought the City Council has done a good job of listening to citizens and
providing feedback. He said that
Council has provided tremendous opportunities to communicate, including email,
voice mail, letters, and participation at meetings. He felt the concern about
not being heard is overblown and that most of the complaints are coming from
people with a narrow agenda whose real issue may be that they simply disagree
with the Council's decisions. He felt
the public process at Council meetings is being abused by individuals looking
for a way to create publicity for their views, and he gave the example of a
person bringing the same question regarding the budget to Council three times,
each time being responded to in detail by staff showing that the speaker's
allegation was incorrect.
To improve the process, Mr.
Keuler suggested posting on the Website the outcome of Council meetings showing
Council votes on agenda items immediately afterwards and allowing the public
access on the website to any supporting documentation and maps that were
presented at the meeting. He concluded
that abuse of public comment is wasting people's time and good will. He said that overall the public process is
good, such as the Open House for the 3rd Ave. NW Drainage Project.
Councilmember Ransom noted
that in 2003, 50% of public comments at Shoreline Council Meetings were made by
ten individuals.
(d) Walt
Hagen, Shoreline, began his comments by saying that “citizens do not have a
reason to lie.” He was not certain that
any changes to the public process would address the underlying philosophical
differences between the Council and those speaking out. He said the Council is led by the staff,
which is made up of “working folks who have no particular allegiance to
anything except their personal benefits.”
He said the long-time incumbents on the City Council have preconceived
concepts of what is good for the City and its citizens, so it won’t matter how
long or how often citizens are allowed to speak. He felt that decisions are made before the public gets
involved. He stated that he voted for
Shoreline to be incorporated in order to have control over what happens in the
City. He noted that Council eliminated
citizen committees. He said that staff
relies on consultants, and Council relies on staff, when what is required is a
strong Council. He said that staff are
only "building their resumes" and that Council needs to "keep them
in control" because they will want to increase budgets and salaries. He said that staff are not dedicated to the
City.
(e) Jeff
Lewis, Shoreline, spoke on behalf of the Shoreline Bank and thanked the City
for its excellent customer service, extending his gratitude and congratulations
to the City administration. He gave an
example of a need to work with Seattle City Light with regard to the building
of the new bank headquarters and said staff was responsive in helping. He advised that the City should continue to
work with Seattle City Light as plans are finalized for undergrounding
utilities in Shoreline. He concluded
that in addition to soliciting public input at Council meetings and hearings,
it is important to focus on day-to-day service and fostering good will between
the City and businesses.
(f) Edie
Loyer Nelson, Shoreline, gave examples of several things she felt were working
well in the public participation process:
1) staff response to a problem on her private road in the Parkwood neighborhood,
in which staff facilitated communication and decision-making among neighbors;
2) citizen participation in developing the City's human services plan and
annual funding recommendations; 3) neighborhood meetings such as the Richmond
Beach Community Council and the Council of Neighborhoods input to the City
Council; 4) videotaping of Council meetings; and 5) responses to e-mails she
has written to Council. She felt there
is adequate opportunity for input at Council meetings and, in fact, some people
abuse this. She said because of the
confrontational tone of some comments, perhaps they should not be
televised. She concluded there are many
avenues for input and increasing them will not change the amount or quality of
the feedback.
(g) Lois Cairns,
Shoreline, advised Councilmembers that they should show respect for one another
and that currently their body language gives away that they do not always have
this.
(h) Dennis
Lee, Shoreline, focused on the update of the Comprehensive Plan, expressing the
view that many people have lost hope of influencing the process. He described the development of the
neighborhood subarea plans in the first Comprehensive Plan process, noting they
were supposed to allow neighbors to control growth through concurrency
requirements to improve the infrastructure.
He mentioned a development on 145th Street that he felt
should not have been approved because of traffic and safety issues, for which
they should have taken a second look at the Comprehensive Plan. He said that people throw up their hands and
feel like there is a conspiracy when decisions like this are made.
Continuing, Mr. Lee used the
example of the master planning process for the 1st Avenue NE
Transfer Station as a master plan that went smoothly, involving the City and
residents and protecting Thornton Creek.
He contrasted this to Fircrest master planning, for which residents were
given a lot of "homework" to do, only to find later that the planning
had been abruptly cancelled by the
State. He said that the City said
nothing about the cancellation, and that situations like this create a vacuum
of information, and that this is what is scary to people. He said these public forums were a good
step and more are needed.
Mr. Lee suggested moving
forward with the master plans but postponing the Comprehensive Plan update
until a thorough review of the core beliefs can be accomplished through a new
process. He mentioned Concerned
Citizens for Shoreline, a group working to educate citizens in the public process,
and he said that education helps people participate. He reiterated that people do not want to get involved because
they do not think it will make a difference.
He noted that body language at Council meetings shows people
"digging in their heels" and not being open, making him not want to
attend. He said he wants to see
cooperation but fears this will only come about through the electoral
process. He also expressed concern that
if the "other side takes over" that the tone will continue to be
contentious, and he hoped that people would instead begin working together.
(i) Crystal
Crum, Shoreline, felt Fircrest should be retained as a residential center. She also thanked the City for the wheelchair
detectors that have been installed to assist those in wheelchairs in crossing
the street. She said Shoreline is a
model for other cities in this regard.
(j) Marylyn
W. Hawkins, Shoreline, said she wants to trust her elected officials. She also wants to receive a response to, and
analysis of, the issues she raises. She
said the City’s business should be transparent, and noted that Council retreats
are not transparent.
(k) Naomi
Hardy, Shoreline, concurred with Mr. Lee.
She provided background on the difference her neighborhood made in the
redevelopment of the Recreation Center.
She felt that there has been a change in the ability of the public to
provide input. She noted that citizens
need information to participate and people learn by seeing or by hearing. Having Council packets and information on
the website addresses the former and televising the Council meetings the
latter. She emphasized that citizens
have a lot of expertise, particularly about projects in their neighborhood. She concluded that citizens should be able
to comment after staff presentations at Council meetings. She gave an example of a mistake in a staff
report that she was able to point out at a past meeting. She said that Council should seek input from
neighborhoods.
(l) David
Bannister, Shoreline, stated that his interactions with staff and the
Councilmembers have been good. He said
he believes staff is doing a good job and provides the necessary information
for Councilmembers to make decisions.
He said he understood that the Council needs to rely on staff, and he
felt that staff have been very helpful when invited to present at Council of
Neighborhoods meetings. He said the only concern he's seen has been to do with
development issues. He felt the City has done more than is required to gather
public input. He gave kudos to the City
staff and said he believes that staff are trying to do what's best for the City
and not just working for their personal ambitions.
(m) Rick
Stephens, Shoreline, spoke for the Shoreline Merchants Association, which he
said represented over 100 businesses in Shoreline. He brought up a box full of documents related to the Aurora
Corridor Project, which he said exemplified a lack of public process. He opposed Council’s action in removing
public comment on action items and said that the evening Council took this
action, all the speakers on the topic opposed it. He emphasized that Council should remember that freedom of speech
is an important part of our democratic process.
Turning to the Aurora
Corridor issue, Mr. Stephens said that the Shoreline Merchants Association has
an alternative plan for Aurora’s redevelopment developed by engineers. This plan was brought to the City Council
and Councilmembers Chang and Ransom supported allowing the SMA to present it to
Council, but the majority of the Council
voted it down. He asserted the
widespread opposition to the project as proposed and disputed that City’s
assertion that the overwhelming majority want the City plan. He said that 95% of responses from the
City's open houses were opposed to the design.
Continuing, Mr. Stephens
explained the process by which the environmental documents related to the
project were adopted, saying that the public controversy was not represented in
the City's submission. He read from several City documents that he said
revealed the City's lack of recognition of opposition to the project. He also commented on the lack of
availability of the discipline reports during the beginning of the public
comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. He quoted a State
of Washington document that says that public involvement is the backbone of
access management projects, and he said the City did not invite people to help
solve the problem. It did not bring the
plan to the Corridor businesses. He
commented on the make-up of the advisory task force that brought forward the
recommendations, saying the business community was not well represented.
(n) Cindy
Ryu, Shoreline, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to comment. She advised that a special effort should
always be made to mail the agenda to those effected by any items on it. This notice would allow the public to make
the decision about whether they wish to attend the meeting. She felt that multiple modes of making
information public should be used. She
said the public process should be transparent, public, complete and
honest. She emphasized the importance
of advance notice on upcoming items and suggested that agendas be publicized
sooner than they currently are, because staff and consultants have weeks or
even months to prepare their reports.
She felt that this advanced notice would give the public time to
research topics and provide helpful and appropriate input. She also supported allowing public comment
at City Council meetings after staff presentations or before a vote.
Continuing, Ms. Ryu said
those who serve on advisory boards, task forces, and the Council of
Neighborhood should represent the views of their neighbors even if they
personally disagree with them. Fairness
is achieved by diverse and inclusive representation on neighborhood councils,
boards, and the Planning Commission.
She concluded by contrasting the amount of money spent on the North City
Improvement Project, which she said will benefit only a few, to the amount that
is spent on human services, which directly helps many people. She felt there should be more equitable
distribution of spending.
(o) Bill
Meyer, Shoreline, described his background and said he has been active in City
affairs since 1991. He concurred with the
point raised by Ms. Cairns regarding the Council’s body language at Council
meetings. Then he provided background
on the Aurora Corridor Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. He said that the majority report of the
CPAC, of which he was co-chair, was not brought forward to the Planning
Commission. Instead a “watered down”
staff version was presented. He felt
his input has been ignored from that time on. He agreed with Ms. Ryu's comments
that for potentially controversial issues, the interested public needs to
receive the information early enough, and that the Council should respond to
input. He felt the important thing is
for the City to be able to show the logic of its position to those who do not
agree with it.
Mr. Meyer had further
comments on the problems with the Aurora project, including a lack of
definition of property lines, the potential use of eminent domain, and the need
to talk with both business owners as well as with property owners. He concluded with comments regarding
Ordinance No. 31, which restricted types of businesses along Aurora and which
established building standards and regulations. He said that Council would not take responsibility for Ordinance
31 which contained problems. That ordinance was replaced by Ordinance No. 128,
which changed some of the requirements.
He said that he had asked for an opportunity to make a periodic review
of the ordinance, but that it had not occurred. He advised Council to look into what occurred during these
changes.
(p) Daniel Mann,
Shoreline, commented that it is difficult to listen to customers who tell you
things you do not wish to hear. In
business you must listen to these things, but the City can stay in business
even if it doesn’t listen. He said
there has been an erosion of public input and public involvement ever since the
Council committees were abolished. With
regard to the Aurora Corridor, he said the fact is that staff ignored those who
disagreed with the plan. He said you
need to have respect when you choose to disagree and explain why you
disagree. He also commented on the
Aurora CPAC (he was also a co-chair) and said staff did not allow the Council
to hear the report, because it disagreed with what the Planning Department
wanted. He said when the new advisory
committee for the Corridor development was formed, they were not even shown the
work and report of the former group. He
concluded that this process erodes citizens’ belief in the City’s willingness
to listen, and over time people will stop wanting to help. He said citizens want to make Shoreline a
better place and he thanked the Council for being willing to reflect on how
“we’ve come to this impasse."
(s) Richard Johnsen, Shoreline, suggested
that things have gotten to the point that the City should budget so that
Council can have its own staff. He said
he did not think staff currently looks out for the best interests of the
citizens. He supported the
re-instatement of Council-citizen committees, where there were three
Councilmembers for each committee and one Councilmember was the committee head,
and citizens could attend as they wished and interact on a more informal basis
with Councilmembers. He said that the
City Manager at the time cut the funding for a minute-writer for those meetings
and the meetings came to an end.
Mr. Johnsen commented on the cottage housing
project on SE 183rd and Ashworth, a lot with an attractive house and
large maple trees, and said he does not think cottage housing fits in with the
neighborhood, made up of 1950s and '60s single family homes. He said he thought the City had committed to
reviewing the cottage housing regulations.
Councilmember Ransom commented that Council
gave sole authority to the Planning Director to approve cottage housing
projects. He said that Council did
review cottage housing and chose to allow them to continue, and that he was the
only Councilmember who opposed this action.
Mr. Johnsen then said that we should go back
to the beginning and consider why Shoreline become a City and try to save what
we have now. He concluded criticizing
new developments that are out of character with the City.
(t) Joe Ripley, Shoreline, commented it
does not make sense to cut down on public comment, and that this change and the
recent Councilmember appointment process angered him. He felt the fact that the City is a monopoly is part of the
problem and noted that where we are today has an historical background. He said that for all votes taken, each
Councilmember should have to post a written explanation of their action on the
City Website. He said Shoreline does
not have government “for the
people.” He concurred with an earlier
speaker that Council agendas should be available further in advance. He suggested having e-mail distribution
lists for various topics so that citizens could be informed of items of
interest. He said that Council is in
the difficult position of having to be the citizens' watchdogs of "those
scoundrels at City Hall who do not listen, are arrogant as can be, who have no
flexibility or human compassion."
He used an example of his church remodeling project that he said started
out costing $5,000 and ended up costing $17,000. He said there should be a way for Council to make employees
listen.
(u) Maryn Wynne, Shoreline, said she became
involved with the public process during the Council vacancy process. She felt that citizens were treated disrespectfully
and as though their opinions didn't count
at that time. She said the
neighborhood she lives in does not have Neighborhood Council meetings so she
does not have that venue for involvement.
She said over time the citizen process has become shorter and
shorter. She said she appreciated the
current forum, but disputed what she saw as the Shoreline Enterprise’s characterization of people who do not agree
with the City’s position as "crazy people" or “rabble rousers” whose
hobby it is to attend Council meetings.
She said people take time to express their views because they care about
their City. She said the City has an
opportunity to make Shoreline a wonderful community and she thanked the Council
for the opportunity to speak.
(v) Larry Owens, Shoreline, commented on how
vital public input is to the democratic process. He asked what steps the Council will take after the forums. He said citizens need to be involved from
the very beginning and they want to be part of the process on specific issues,
rather than after staff, consultants, and Council, have made a decision. He felt citizens should be allowed to
provide input at all points during the Council meeting. The people who speak have taken the time to
inform themselves about a topic, often have expertise, and it is insulting to
dismiss their views in deference to “experts” (staff and consultants). He said that the City doesn't have adequate
staff but it does have citizens who can help.
At noon there was Council consensus to extend the meeting until all those present who wished to speak had had an opportunity to do so.
(w) Jim DiPeso, Shoreline and Echo Park
resident, commented that as a former newspaper reporter he has dealt with a
good number of elected bodies and he has never seen a group that limited public
comment as Shoreline did and did not allow input on agenda items. He said removal of this opportunity sends
the message that citizen input is not welcome.
This results in a loss of trust in the City Council. He said staff are competent people but they
do not have all the answers, and citizens have a lot of knowledge they can
share. If the price to pay is longer
meetings, it is worth it to receive better input, show people that the City trusts
what they have to say, and ultimately come up with better solutions to
problems.
(x) Kenneth Meyer, Seattle, said he became
involved in City of Shoreline issues because of the Aurora Corridor
project. He advised Councilmembers
present to get the word out to other Councilmembers that citizens would like to
see more public comment. He felt that if time is the issue, then Council should
prioritize allowing comment before Council votes on each issue. He said that he recognized that there are
some gratuitously abrasive comments made at meetings, which may discourage
Council. He said people are strident because they feel frustrated that they are
not getting anyone’s attention, i.e., no one is listening or cooperating with
them. He said that if there were a different attitude perhaps meetings could be
more amicable. He said he feels that
Shoreline has tried to isolate itself from the difficult parts of being an
urban society and leaves Seattle to deal with the challenges, while taking
advantage of benefits being part of a metropolitan area provides. He said he is impressed with the
Councilmembers' resumes, but urged Council to take a broader view of
Shoreline’s role in the greater Puget Sound region and not just "taking
the goodness and leaving the badness" for other jurisdictions to deal
with.
(y) Rick Stephens, Shoreline, thanked
Council for the opportunity to continue
his comments regarding the Aurora Corridor Project. He commented that support documentation provided by the Shoreline
Merchants Association on the DEIS was removed by staff and was not included in
the final document, and that it was not available in the public library. He
said he had to provide these comments to the Federal Highway Administration
himself. He said SMA is only trying to
be part of the process and help improve the project in both time and
costs. He read from a letter from
Planning Director Tim Stewart regarding combining the Environmental Impact
Statement and Environmental Assessment to comply with both NEPA and SEPA. He also quoted comments from Washington State
Department of Transportation staff to the Federal Highway Administration,
characterizing the City’s approach of trying to meet both SEPA and NEPA
requirements in one document as "unusual" and "sending a mixed
message to the public," because an EIS is generally used when impacts are
substantial and an EA when there is very little environmental impact. He quoted a Federal Highway Administration
official as saying that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) "should
not be used unless there is a very good reason to do so," and Mr. Stephens
stated that the City "has not provided a good reason to do so." He emphasized his belief that the entire
process had been set up to keep the citizens and businesses out. He concluded that the SMA wants to improve transportation
on the Corridor, not slow it down, and improve safety. SMA wants a project that is responsible and
economical. He said the City missed the
opportunity to have built the entire three miles of the project at once under
the SMA plan.
Mr. Hagen, a previous speaker, concluded by
saying the Council has said the public process on the Aurora Corridor project
was great but the City was meeting the letter, not the spirit of the law.
Councilmember Grace thanked those who attended and noted that the public comments on this topic would be compiled and considered at the next Council Retreat.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing no further attendees
who wished to make public comment, the meeting was adjourned at 12:22 p.m.
________________________
Sharon
Mattioli, City Clerk