CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang,
Fimia, Grace, and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmember Gustafson
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor
Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll
call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of
Councilmember Gustafson.
Upon motion by Councilmember
Grace, seconded by Deputy Mayor Jepsen and carried 6-0, Councilmember Gustafson
was excused.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Steve Burkett
commented that over 10,000 people attended the Celebrate Shoreline event this
year. The City’s booth gave away
t-shirts commemorating the “
Deputy City Manager Bob
Olander announced that Mr. Burkett was the recipient of the WCMA Award for
Excellence for City Managers and Administrators in cities with populations over
5,000. He was selected for his
leadership and initiation of programs to improve employee satisfaction,
including the adoption a communications training program and updating the City
Recognition Program. Mr. Olander
commented that employees feel valued and recognize the City’s mission under Mr.
Burkett’s leadership.
The City Council
congratulated Mr. Burkett on his recognition by the WCMA and thanked him for
the job he is doing.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Bronston
Kenney, Shoreline, refuted claims made in a campaign flyer that there were over
700 police calls in the last six years at Councilmember Chang’s business. He
said the calls amount to only 2.25 calls per week, and most were related to
community policing, warrant servicing, civil process, traffic accidents,
traffic stops, recovery of stolen vehicles, and service calls. He said many of the calls are not directly
attributable to the motel. Furthermore,
there is no specific allegation that Councilmember Chang was involved directly
or indirectly in any illegal activity.
He pointed out that different police reports have included contradictory
information over the years and he intends to determine how the reports were
compiled, noting that Police Chief Burtt refuses to discuss the issue with
him. He felt the police department
should exercise caution in producing reports directly related to elected
officials. Finally, he noted that the
crime maps show no concentrated criminal activity near Councilmember Chang’s
motel.
(b) Arnie
Moreno, Shorewood High School Girl’s Tennis Coach, thanked the City Council for
the proclamation honoring the team on July 11, 2005. He explained he was unable to attend the meeting
and wanted to personally thank the City for this recognition.
(c) Gretchen
Atkinson, Shoreline, expressed her belief that this year’s Celebrate Shoreline
parade was the best yet, noting she has participated in all eleven City
parades. She commended the construction
contractor for getting the parade route ready, adding that North City is
starting to look great.
At
7:51 p.m., Councilmember Fimia left the meeting. At 7:55 p.m., Councilmember Fimia returned to
the meeting.
Councilmember
Ransom said the March 11, 2003 memorandum from former Police Chief Pentony
indicates that fifty-one businesses had two or more calls for felony and
misdemeanor crimes from 1998 to 2002, but the Quest Motel is not on this
list.
Councilmember
Fimia requested a copy of the April 21st memorandum which cites the
700 phone call occurrences and a copy of the March 11, 2003 memorandum. She asked for the specific locations where
criminal activity is occurring and wanted to know why the data is inconsistent.
Mr.
Burkett clarified that the number of calls originated from the newspaper
report, citing the difficulty of responding to the news media allegations. He said staff would provide all the
memorandums to the Council, and that the City’s role is to remain neutral. The documents were provided to a Council
candidate through the public disclosure process and the request was submitted
by a councilmember. If a candidate
requests information, that information will automatically be provided to all
the candidates. Mr. Burkett clarified if
the City receives a request for all the police reports for the last five years
for a particular address, the request will be filled because it is public
information. He stated he would like
Council direction on whether or not to provide the information to the Council
as a whole and, if so, in what format.
Councilmember
Ransom said the reports imply that enforcement actions are taking place at only
one address. He clarified that the crime
statistics include a variety of infractions, including traffic and bicycle
citations.
Councilmember
Chang requested clarification of the documents regarding the crime reports as
soon as possible. On another topic, he
said North City businesses along the Celebrate Shoreline parade route have
requested the parade be held at a later time, since it affects their business
revenue for the entire day. He also
asked that North City project manager John Vicente communicate with 15th
Avenue businesses on ways the City can support them.
Councilmember
Fimia emphasized the need to receive all the data related to the allegations
against Councilmember Chang.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen concurred with the request for all source documents related to
this issue so all Councilmembers can speak from the same documents.
Mr.
Burkett stated that staff would review the various source documents and
determine whether the police reports are related to an actual address or to the
general vicinity. If there are
inconsistencies in the reports, City staff will attempt to resolve them. He did not feel it appropriate for staff to
research this information unless the Council directs him to do so.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Ransom moved
approval of the agenda with the revision to move Consent Item 7(e) to Action
Item 9(b). Councilmember Fimia seconded
the motion, which carried 6-0, and the revised agenda was approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved approval of the
consent calendar. Councilmember Ransom
seconded the motion and the following items were approved unanimously:
Minutes of Special
Meeting of July 18, 2005
Minutes of Regular
Meeting of
Approval of expenses
and payroll as of August 11,
2005 in the amount of
$3,563,211.30
Motion to authorize
the City Manager to Execute the Commute Trip Reduction Interlocal Agreement
with
Motion to authorize
the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Interagency for Outdoor
Recreation (IAC) to Obligate Grant Funds for the Interurban Trail North Central
Section
8.
ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC
HEARING
(a)
Public hearing to
receive citizens comments on
proposed amendments to the Code Enforcement
Program; and
Ordinance
No. 391 amending regulations defining
public
nuisances and enforcement procedures in Title 10,
Title
13, Title 15, and Title 20 of the Shoreline Municipal
Code
Tim Stewart, Planning and
Development Services Director, explained that the proposed amendments are the
result of a year-long process by a team composed of Planning and Development
Services, Community and Intergovernmental Relations, Customer Response Team,
City Attorney, and the City Manager’s Office.
Community input came from seven meetings with the Council of
Neighborhoods, the Echo Lake, North City, and Ridgecrest neighborhoods, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council.
On July 7th, the Planning Commission conducted its public
hearing and forwarded its recommendation to the Council. The recommendation, he stated, is to adopt
the City staff proposed amendment addressing problems for vehicles, traffic
utilities, and the Development Code. It
was also recommended not to adopt the property management standards for
interior property maintenance.
Kristie Anderson, Code
Enforcement Officer, outlined the three types of code enforcement priorities:
1) urgent priorities, which are imminent threats to public health, safety and
the environment; 2) important priorities, which are violations of permit
conditions or mitigation; and 3) routine priorities, which are the minor
accumulation of junk or land use violations with minimal impact. She introduced the International Property
Maintenance Code (IPMC) which was created by the International Code Council
(ICC) and is comprised of the Uniform Building Code and the Dangerous Building
Code. The IPMC establishes minimum
standards for the exterior of property and the interior and exterior of
structures. She stated the proposed
amendments would not change the administration or the appeals process, but all
IPMC regulations pertaining to the interior of the structures would be
deleted. Ms. Anderson presented slides
containing examples of Code enforcement violations in the City.
Councilmember Fimia inquired
if the proposed amendments contained provisions for assisting property owners
with home repair.
Ms. Anderson outlined the new
requirements relating to exterior standards, such as window coverings, siding,
and gutters. The new amendments would
also provide the City with a process for abating nuisances. Mr. Stewart added that abatement of rodent
infestation would be the responsibility of homeowners under the new provisions.
Councilmember Fimia expressed
her preference that code enforcement actions be viewed objectively, not
subjectively. She said the main purpose
of code enforcement is to ensure safety and health standards are met, not to
beautify neighborhoods.
Ms. Anderson said
deteriorating properties was a major concern among those who attended the
public meetings. She said residents are
concerned about the quality of the neighborhoods and what the Council can do to
fix the problem.
Continuing her presentation,
Ms. Anderson stated the current Code does not have any prohibition against
graffiti. However, the IPMC does provide
a means to deal with people who refuse to remove it. Furthermore, the IPMC outlines the minimum
standards for exterior property maintenance and it addresses deteriorating
exterior conditions. The Planning
Commission recommended no Code amendments to address minimum housing
standards. She said if interior standards
are not adopted there would be no local regulation of interior structures, pest
control, lights and ventilation, plumbing and sanitation systems, mechanical
and electrical systems, and fire safety.
Mr. Stewart stated the
Planning Commission’s recommendation to monitor the level and severity of
interior violations to see if this is a problem requiring attention in the
future.
Continuing, Ms. Anderson
discussed junk and/or abandoned vehicles and vehicles used for human habitation
located on the public right-of-way. The
proposed Code amendments in Title 10, Parking, prohibit the reparking of a
vehicle to avoid a time limit and prohibits utilizing a vehicle for habitation
on a City street. Additionally, the
junk/abandoned vehicle portion the law is rewritten to prohibit the parking of
an unlicensed or unregistered vehicle on a public street. In addition, there is now a provision stating
the junk/abandoned vehicle can be removed by the police.
Councilmember Fimia asks how
the enforcement of this amendment would be executed.
She also asked for
clarification on the number of registered vehicles that are allowed on private
property.
Ms. Anderson responded that
the vehicle would have to be licensed or show operability. She stated this type of Code enforcement
would help control the problem, but not eradicate it. The current Code allows six vehicles on
private property, but this excludes recreational vehicles (RVs) boats, and
trailers. She clarified that the
proposed amendment would allow a total of six vehicles per property, including
RVs, boats, and trailers. Another
problem is generated when vehicles are parked partially on the right-of-way and
partially on private property. The
proposed Code amendment would add the term “wholly or partially” to Section
20.50.410(b) to clarify this issue.
Ms. Anderson noted the
community did not confirm that weed control, signage, or animals present major
code enforcement concerns in Shoreline, therefore, provisions related to these
items were not included in the amendments.
However, the proposed amendment requires that refuse be removed at least
every two weeks from residential properties.
Based on the “dot exercise” that identified community priorities, the
most important issues included deteriorating properties, removal of garbage,
junk vehicles stored on private property, and vehicles that are inhabited in
the right-of-way. Lower priority issues
included mowing and cutting of weeds, keeping of animals, enforcement of sign
regulations, and the maintenance of planting strips.
Mr. Stewart added that the
Code Enforcement Program is based on a voluntary compliance model that responds
to complaints. In other words, if a
complaint is received, City staff will work with the violator to educate,
inform, and request voluntary compliance.
As a result, the City resolves 90% to 95% of Code enforcement cases by
voluntary compliance. In those cases
where compliance does not occur, the City moves to carry out a more rigorous
enforcement mode. If compliance still
does not occur, then the final step involves imposing fines or taking legal
action. He concluded that the Code
enforcement revisions are targeted at the 5% cases that the City is
unsuccessful in obtaining voluntary compliance.
Mayor Hansen opened the
public hearing.
(a) Janet Way, Shoreline, agreed that weed
abatement is complex and difficult to enforce.
She inquired whether or not there is a provision in the junk/abandoned
vehicle language for a collector of vehicles and “shade tree” mechanics. Ms. Way also inquired about the definition of
refuse. She questioned how the City
would fund, manage resources, and staff these issues if the amended Code were
adopted by the Council.
Upon motion by Councilmember Grace, seconded by
Councilmember Chang and carried 6-0, the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Grace moved to adopt Ordinance
391. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the
motion.
Councilmember Ransom voiced
concerns with vehicle regulations. He
felt the City is being too restrictive and is imposing more standards than are
necessary or being required by other communities.
Councilmember Chang
questioned whether or not vehicles under carports or garages are included in
the six vehicle restriction.
Additionally, he asked whether or not passage of this proposed Code
amendment would adversely affect someone who collected vehicles or had large
families. He wishes to further discuss
this item at the next Council meeting.
Ms. Anderson responded by
stating only vehicles parked outside are counted in the restriction. She said this provision may affect a person
who collects vehicles or has large families.
However, this is complaint-based, and vehicles that are used on a
regular basis would not be cited.
Councilmember Grace agreed
with the approach of the Planning Commission.
The parking strip issue, he said, should be discussed further because it
is an obstruction or harms the overall character of the neighborhood. He inquired as to what type of structure
would be acceptable for vehicle repair.
Ms. Anderson responded that
the type of structure depends on the activity.
Activities such as painting and sandblasting must be done in a fully
enclosed area. Tarps are considered temporary
structures, which must be obtained by permit and expire after six months.
Councilmember Grace concurred
that the complaint-driven process is a judicious and reasonable approach. He asked about tenant rights as they pertain
to interior housing standards.
Ms. Anderson responded that
current tenants are referred to the Landlord Tenant Act, which involves civil
action between a landlord and a tenant.
This process may or may not assist them in solving their particular
issue. Under the Landlord Tenant Act, if
a City inspection is requested, the City is required to focus only on the
specific item the tenant has identified.
Councilmember Grace
appreciated the effort by the City staff and the community. He wished to see some action and corrections
beginning to take place in the City.
Councilmember Fimia
appreciated City staff’s work and the public process done on this project. She said the proposed process is deliberate
and inclusive, yet imposing the standards will be difficult. The existing Code is not objective enough and
language on property values and beautification need to be avoided. She stated she disagreed with the Planning
Commission and would like the interior maintenance language added to the Code
amendments because they involve safety, health, and welfare. She also felt there should be language in the
Code that outlines the current administrative process.
Mr. Stewart responded that
once these Code enforcement amendments are adopted the administrative rules
will be updated and made consistent with the current proposal.
Councilmember Fimia stated
she would like to see the administrative rules written into the Code instead of
having them as separate document. She
agreed with the Code revision to add the RVs, boats, and trailers to the total
number of vehicles (six) allowed on a given property. She questioned what the standard was in other
cities.
Ms. Anderson replied that the
maximum number of vehicles that can be parked outside a given residential
property in Seattle is three. Seattle’s
code language states that any vehicle that had to be registered by the State is
considered a vehicle. Everett lowered
its maximum number to four, but it is not known if this includes RVs, boats,
and trailers.
Councilmember Fimia said she
supports the six vehicle standard, however, for some lot sizes it may be too
many. At some point, the language should
be refined to correlate with the lot size.
She believed the fines were too low for environmental violations. However, she said the City should collect the
fines and put them in a dedicated fund to help businesses and homeowners remove
graffiti and assist citizens with other issues.
She asked whether or not a fund similar to this currently exists.
Mr. Stewart stated there is
an existing Code abatement fund which the City subsidizes with the General
Fund. At present there is $100,000 in
available funds for abatement.
Councilmember Fimia proposed
that the City put the monies from the fines into that fund.
Ms. Anderson stated the block
grant assists seniors and low income residents.
The City does not presently have a fund for graffiti removal.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen thanked
City staff and the Planning Commission for their efforts. He recommended this action go forward. He felt the City should still address the
planting strips issue. Additionally, he
said the definition of garbage needs to be revised and commercial properties
should be added to the amended Code language.
He agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation to monitor the
interior maintenance problem in the future and report on it at a later
date.
Ms. Anderson stated there are
no complaints on record concerning commercial garbage. Additionally, the language referring to
commercial garbage in the current City Code does not allow for adequate
enforcement.
Councilmember Fimia stated
she would like to see the minimal interior standards language added to the Code
amendments. She questioned if the
situations shown in the slide presentation currently exist in the City.
Ms. Anderson stated the City
currently does not monitor housing standards, so it has not commented or taken
action on the situations in the presentation.
Councilmember Fimia suggested
the Council postpone action for two weeks to allow staff to return with a
recommendation on adding interior maintenance standards. With that additional language, she concluded,
she would gladly support the amendments.
Councilmember Chang
concurred.
Mr. Burkett described the
difficulty of gaining access into a home and involving the City in legal
disputes between tenant and landlord. He
recommended that staff monitor the issue and report back to Council at a later
time.
Mayor Hansen was supportive
of passing this ordinance tonight. He
read a letter from Councilmember Gustafson which stated his support for
Ordinance No. 391.
Councilmember Grace suggested
the Council move ahead with the proposed ordinance. He wondered about the impacts of including
interior maintenance standards in terms of staff time and landlord/tenant law
conflicts.
Councilmember Ransom
suggested amending the definition of unauthorized vehicle. He felt the City should allow residents a
certain amount of time to register an unregistered vehicle.
Noting that the enforcement
program is complaint-driven, Deputy Mayor Jepsen stated the police are not
going to look for unregistered vehicles on private property.
Ms. Anderson said that state
law requires the City to follow a process before removing a vehicle from
private property.
Councilmember Chang stated
this item should be discussed and voted upon at the next Council meeting.
Councilmember Ransom read the
amended code language prohibiting moving a vehicle to a nearby location to
avoid a posted time limit. He felt this
law could be difficult to enforce and too rigid if people park near their place
of employment and have to move their vehicle one block away as required by the
code.
Mayor Hansen stated business
owners would object to vehicles being moved into parking spaces. This would inhibit customers from being able
to park in close proximity to the businesses.
Councilmember Ransom asked
for clarification of the phrase “no inoperative vehicle should be parked, kept,
or stored on any exterior premises.”
This, he stated, seems to preclude parking a vehicle in an open carport
while someone works on it.
Mr. Stewart stated if the
carport is open to the air, weather, and visible from the street, then it would
probably be considered open.
Councilmember Ransom stated
that the current Code allows for eight unrelated adults to reside in a
single-family home and allows for six vehicles at that home. He supported maintaining these limits.
Councilmember Fimia outlined
her amendments to the Interior Structures section of the IPMC.
MEETING EXTENSION
Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting
until 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Chang seconded the motion, which
carried 6-0.
Councilmember Chang moved to postpone action on
Ordinance No. 391 until September 12, 2005.
Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.
Mayor Hansen directed staff
to return with language on the interior structures. Since the Planning Commission has removed
this language, it would be helpful if the Planning Commission Chair could
explain the Commission’s rationale for removing it. Once that is done, he said, the Council would
like to hear if City staff concurs with the revisions. If not, staff should be ready with
recommendations.
Councilmember Fimia also
requested language for an additional motion to add the administrative language
to the Code.
9.
ACTION ITEMS: OTHER
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a)
Process for Cottage
Housing Review
Mr. Burkett noted that
Councilmember Fimia requested the Council consider a different review process
for Cottage Housing. The staff report
outlined the process to date. The staff
recommendation is to keep utilizing the same review process as adopted by the
City Council in January 2005.
Mayor Hansen called for
public comment.
(a) Bronston
Kenney, Shoreline, asserted that the opposition against cottage housing is
overwhelming, and that there is no compelling need for cottage housing in
Shoreline. He asked what problem cottage
housing is supposed to solve, and whether it is the best or unique solution to
the supposed problem. He concluded there
is no way to avoid the density element in the zoning code when designing a
cottage housing development.
Councilmember Fimia moved to adopt the revised
timeline and process for the Cottage Housing Ordinance as outlined in
Attachment B of the staff report. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Councilmember Fimia stated
her intent was to have the Council discuss this item and decide whether or not
to revise the Cottage Housing review process.
She said the City staff revisions were a starting point and the Council
should lay out a process. She said the
public is not engaged in this at a level where they feel they have any real
input. The newly revised process is to
recap everything the Council has learned, summarize all the public comments, do
an objective analysis of the issues, hold a less formal joint City Council and
Planning Commission public meeting, and form a Cottage Housing Workgroup
consisting of ten to twelve volunteers which would include representatives from
the Planning Commission and the City Council.
The Cottage Housing Workgroup would then return to the Council with
recommendations. In turn, the City
Council would hold a workshop to review the recommendations and incorporate
them into a final draft to be heard by the Planning Commission or City Council
for adoption. She felt this would
provide a predictable process for the City staff, the Council, and the public
to follow.
The Council then discussed
elements of Councilmember Fimia’s proposal.
Mr. Stewart said that while
most of the issues have been addressed, the appraisal issue is problematic, as
is the issue of status of existing sales.
He noted the Planning Commission has Cottage Housing on its agenda for
September 1, and City staff expects a recommendation by September 15.
Councilmember Fimia felt the
appraisals could be handled through sampling, so every single property would
not require an appraisal. She maintained
that an analysis must be done to make legislative decisions, and the public
needs to be informed and involved.
Otherwise, it is a waste of the Planning Commission and the Council’s
time.
Councilmember Chang supported
Councilmember Fimia’s proposal and stated that “the key players need to get
involved.”
Councilmember Grace voiced
his support for a joint open workshop as long as it occurs after the Planning
Commission recommendation.
Mayor Hansen stated he does
not support this proposal. He felt the
Planning Commission should conduct their meeting on September 15th,
make their recommendation to the Council, and then Council should work to adopt
it.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
Mr. Burkett asked Council to
clarify its proposal for a joint workshop.
Councilmember Fimia stated
the meeting would have to be a Council-sponsored event with the Planning
Commission invited in a joint meeting supported by City staff.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt the
revised timeline and process for the Cottage Housing Ordinance, which failed
3-3, with Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, and Councilmember Grace
dissenting.
Councilmember Grace moved to hold a joint
workshop of the Planning Commission and the City Council after the Planning
Commission recommendations are received on a date to be determined. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion,
which carried 6-0.
(a)
Motion to authorize
the City Manager to execute a
construction change order in an amount not to
exceed
$40,000 with Paul Brothers, Inc. to complete
the South
Central and North B Interurban Trail
Segments.
Councilmember Fimia said it
is disconcerting that the City did not anticipate unsuitable soils in the
estimates for this project. She pointed
out that the City has already used the 10% contingency funds of $134,000, and
is now requesting $40,000 additionally for unsuitable soils. The total budget of this project now is $1.7
million. She said she did not support
this change order, pointing out that staff has asked for change orders multiple
times.
Jill Marilley, City Engineer,
explained that unsuitable soils cannot always be predicted without spending a
significant amount of money on geotechnical excavations. The contract included an estimated amount of
unsuitable soils, and this was made a bid item.
She said while the exact amount was not predicted correctly, the City
ensured it was included in the contract so it did not have to overpay. She commented that the south central section
had the greatest concentration of unsuitable soils. There were a number of property owners who
reopened negotiations about what local improvements the City could make, and
monies were spent during the construction phase on vegetation, driveway aprons,
and a stairway on 166th for better neighborhood access. If the extras were not done, there would be
no need for the change order. The
unsuitable soils, the extra rock, and the delays by City Light caused the
overruns. She concluded that the specifications
do allow for this and it is a negotiated item.
Mayor Hansen stated that the
City could have done soil sampling and test drilling, but if it was done the
City still would have had to pay for that work and still pay to address the
unsuitable soils issue. He supported
this change order.
Councilmember Ransom moved to authorize the City
Manager to execute a construction change order in an amount not to exceed
$40,000 with Paul Brothers, Inc. to complete the South Central and North B
Interurban Trail Segments. Councilmember Grace seconded the motion, which
carried 5-1, with Councilmember Fimia dissenting.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At
/S/ Scott Passey, CMC, City Clerk