CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, November 23, 1998
7:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmembers Gustafson, King, Hansen, Lee and Ransom
ABSENT: None
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Robert Deis, City Manager, briefed Council on a meeting with State Senator Darlene Fairley regarding capital project issues and on an upcoming meeting about youth services.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
(a) Library Board
Mary Jo Heller, Library Board Chair, reported on Library Board activities, including: the board’s 1998-99 goals; a letter to US Senator Patty Murray regarding Internet usage and intellectual freedom; review of the King County Library System 1999 budget; meetings with the Kirkland Library Board; and attendance at various regional meetings on library issues. Ms. Heller concluded that the Richmond Beach Library Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is now available. After reviewing some of the information in the DEIS, she said the Library Board has gone on record supporting the Richmond Beach Community Park site, and she asked the City Council to do the same.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
(a) George Mauer, 1430 NW 191st Street, commended Ms. Heller’s leadership on the Library Board. He then represented the Friends of Richmond Beach Saltwater Park Bluff Trail in opposition to the City’s recommendation to lower the trail. He said the public is overwhelmingly opposed to lowering the trail. He described actions by King County that resulted in less parkland for public use and those by residents of the bluff to reduce their property taxes because of their proximity to the trail. He questioned the staff recommendation to compensate these property owners, and he argued against the claims for privacy and the request for mitigation. He asked the Council not to accept the staff recommendation and to support his group’s proposal.
(b) Paula Scher, 902 NW 165th Place, questioned the siting of the Shoreview Park ball field, saying Shoreline is rapidly losing undeveloped land. She asked Council to break free from an aged master park plan, to think creatively about Shoreview Park and to develop a community environmental park.
(c) Larry Scher, 902 NW 165th Place, explained why people voted to incorporate. He identified the park system, in general, and Shoreview Park in particular, as a forum for realizing these hopes and dreams. Noting all great cities set aside tracts of land for the enjoyment of their citizens, he urged preservation of Shoreview Park.
(d) Rhoda Vanderburg, 2103 NW 201st Street, opposed the development of more play areas at Shoreview Park at the expense of the natural environment.
(e) David Edwards, 821 NW 165th Street, opposed ball field development. He supported the preservation of Shoreview Park, and he supported the Richmond Beach Library.
(f) Valaree Becker, 809 NW 165th Street, opposed the ball fields in Shoreview Park because of the uniqueness of the park and the availability of alternatives at private and public schools. She pointed out that the population of Shoreline is aging and that Shoreview Park is a place where older residents can visit and enjoy the natural environment.
(g) Jerry Becker, 809 NW 165th Street, referred to his dentistry practice in commenting that Council consulted a specialist, who advised that Shoreview Park should be left alone. He challenged Council to listen to the specialist, abide by the standard of care, and preserve this natural area.
(h) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N., referred to the land-use map in the Comprehensive Plan for Stone Avenue N between 175th Street and 185th Street, which shows Mixed Use on the west side of the street. He identified one of the primary goals of the Comprehensive Plan as compatibility of development with its surrounding environment. He said the proposed plan fails to meet this goal and makes a direct assault on a well-established single-family neighborhood. He added that his neighborhood reached an agreement with the Planning Department to accept duplex development on the east side of the street, if the west side remained duplex. He asked Council for this change to the plan.
(i) Elizabeth Poehlman, 622 NW 163rd Street, noted that one of the fastest growing recreational activities in the country is bird watching. She asked Council to preserve the natural habitat in Shoreview Park.
(j) Judy Griesel, 648 NW 163rd Street, opposed the proposed location for the new ball field in Shoreview Park. She asserted that development at this site will disturb wildlife habitat.
(k) Pam Johnson, 16220 Meridian Avenue N, explained the changes that have occurred in her neighborhood and the value of Shoreview Park. She said people like herself need a quiet place to walk. She advocated an interpretive center and improved trails, so that Shoreview Park could serve a majority of people all year long instead of a few people during only part of the year.
(l) Helen Maronek, 15234 Greenwood Avenue N, supported the preservation of Shoreview Park in order to preserve wildlife habitat. She said a passive interpretive recreation area could serve many citizens.
(m) Lois Maronek, 15234 Greenwood Avenue N, asserted that other areas in Shoreline could be used for ball fields and that Shoreline Park is a wonder which should be preserved.
(n) Ed Newbold, 4972 17th Avenue S, said the City does not have the moral right to destroy the habitat at Shoreview Park and noted the species of birds to be seen there.
(o) Paul Poehlman, 622 NW 163rd Street, supported the preservation of the natural area in Shoreview Park. He outlined the passive recreational activities that the area provides. Noting the Comprehensive Plan does not address the growing popularity of passive recreational activities such as bird watching, he asked Council to change its direction regarding Shoreview Park.
(p) Sandra Sledd, 908 NW 165th Place, asked Council to reconsider the destruction of wildlife habitat and the expenditure of $2 million to develop the ball field and other amenities at Shoreview Park. She questioned the expenditure of so much money to change something that is already in a very nice state.
(q) Alan Sledd, 908 NW 165th Place, said he loves Shoreview Park, and he enjoys it every day. He commented that he and his school friends think it would be unwise to eliminate the part of the park that provides habitat to many important bird species. He suggested that the City upgrade St. Luke’s field.
(r) Xola Sielicki, 19210 15th Avenue NW, said parks like Shoreview Park help to reduce the violence and rage found in our culture. She asked the Council to reconsider its decision.
(s) Alisan Giesy, 8900 NE 136th Street, Kirkland, spoke as the Shorewood High School environmental science teacher. She said she and some of her students, who were in the audience, oppose the creation of a ball field in an area designated environmentally sensitive in the Shoreview Park EIS. Noting the birds and animals that live at the site, she asserted that such bio-diversity in an urban area should be preserved.
(t) Jennifer McLaughlin, 16023 Wallingford Avenue N, spoke as co-chair of Student Action for the Environment (SAFE) at Shorewood High School. She advised Council of planting activities by her group at Shoreview Park. She asserted the availability of other ball fields.
(u) Donald Norman, 2112 NW 199th Street, spoke as a professional wildlife biologist. He described another project in which a great deal of time and money was spent instead of seeking a compromise. He said actions at the proposed site for the ball field at Shoreview Park can be challenged on wildlife-related issues.
(v) Don McVay, 2555 2nd Avenue W, spoke as a science instructor at Shoreline Community College. He said Shoreview Park provides students of the community college with an excellent laboratory in which to learn about the complexities of the environment. He advised that he has taught approximately 10,000 students, most of whom have used the area proposed for the new ball field. He noted that most of the other biology instructors at Shoreline Community College use the area with their students as well. The area is also accessible to students with disabilities.
(w) Becky Shultis, 528 N 181st Street, a junior at Shorewood High School, a member of SAFE, and a student in Ms. Geisy's environmental science class, read from The Lorax by Dr. Seuss. She said people need places to go where they can relax and enjoy nature.
(x) Jessica Buck, 1429 NW 195th Street, a junior at Shorewood High School, a member of SAFE, and a student in Ms. Geisy’s environmental science class, asserted the importance of Shoreview Park to students. She said the site of the proposed ball field is the most environmentally-sensitive part of the park. She advocated that the City develop the ball field in another park or in another part of Shoreview Park.
(y) Cassandra Howe, 1425 NW 195th Street, supported the construction of a safe, constructive, fun place for kids. She opposed the development of the ball field at Shoreview Park. She acknowledged the possibility of a shortage of ball fields in Shoreline for little league players, but asserted that parks such as Shoreview Park are even more rare.
(z) Carrie Miles, 17827 Wallingford Avenue N, quoted from a National Geographic article about the decline in the population of nesting songbirds in Washington State that has resulted from increased development. She noted increased development in Shoreline during the last few years. She asserted that Shoreline cannot afford to lose the "small but vital piece of nature" in Shoreview Park.
(aa) Ryan Sweet, 16129 Evanston Avenue N, read a letter from the Seattle Audubon Society in which Board Member Chuck Lennox expressed concern about the proposed ball field development at Shoreview Park.
(bb) Robert Goiney, 829 NW 165th Place, advocated that Council rescind its decision to develop a ball field in the western area of Shoreview Park. He questioned the fiscal responsibility of Council, noting that the estimated cost to develop the ball field represents 33 percent of 1999 CIP expenditures.
(cc) Michael Dossett, 930 233rd Place SW, Bothell, said the site of the proposed new ball field at Shoreview Park is one of the most sensitive wildlife habitats in Shoreline. He reported that he has seen over 65 species of birds in this area of the park over the past five months. He asserted that construction of the ball field will adversely effect bird life in the park and have other far-reaching effects.
(dd) Jo Anne Laz, 911 NW 165th Place, expressed surprise that four Council-members supported the expenditure of $2 million to build one ball field in the most environmentally-sensitive area of Shoreview Park. She said the City could build a field to Little League standards at St. Luke’s School for approximately $400,000. She asserted that restrictions on use of Shoreline School District ball fields artificially limits the supply of ball fields in Shoreline. She urged Council to reconsider its decision.
(ee) Wendy Atmore, 16340 Interlake Avenue N, commented that she visits Shoreview Park at least once a day at various times of the day and that the existing ball field is very rarely in use.
(ff) Carol Doig, 17277 15th Avenue NW, asserted that a ball field at the site in the west part of Shoreview Park is inappropriate. She said this area is significant as a place of learning and as an important fragment of the natural environment. She advocated the development of ball fields at centrally-located sites with good road access and where such development will upgrade property.
(gg) Ray Pelley, 1000 NW 164th Street, presented a petition, signed by 430 residents, opposing the development of ball fields at Shoreview Park and supporting the use of the park as a natural interpretive area. Using documents from the consulting firm of Draggoo and Associates, he counted 20 "skinned ball fields" in Shoreline. He said this exceeds by ten the federal standard of one ball field for every 7,500 community residents, and it exceeds by eight the County recommendation of one ball field for every 5,000 community residents. He acknowledged that some of these fields are on school district property. He advocated mutual-use agreements to make these fields available for Little League use. He counted eight ball fields with permanent backstops and unskinned infields and ten sites with portable backstops and unskinned infields. He asserted the City should upgrade these fields before spending money on new construction and damaging the few natural areas remaining in Shoreline. He noted the willingness of St. Luke’s parish to discuss a mutual-use agreement with the City in exchange for monetary support to renovate its ball field.
(hh) Robert Phelps, 17238 10th Avenue NW, raised the issue of noise for residents on 10th NW, where the homes are on a slope, creating a natural amphitheater pointing at the park. He felt the rationale presented at the workshop for choosing site two was cynical and based on the idea that two ball fields are inevitable at Shoreview Park, so the City should take site two because it will become increasingly valuable.
(ii) Charles Sledd, 908 NW 165th Place, as a former Los Angeles County resident, commented that there are very few places like Shoreview Park left in Los Angeles County. He advocated the preservation of passive recreation and environmentally-sensitive habitat over the development of another ball field in Shoreline.
(jj) Ann Winskie, 726 6th Avenue S, Edmonds, preferred the development of a ball field at the site near the tennis courts in Shoreview Park and reiterated testimony from the Council workshop on October 5 concerning the diversity of plants and wildlife at the site west of the parking lot. She noted estimated construction costs of 200,000 less at the site near the tennis courts.
(kk) Chrys Bertolotto, 18219 Third Ave. NE, expressed her dismay at the Council’s decision about placement of the ball field. She also supported passive recreation uses at Shoreview Park. She opposed spending $2 million on a ball field and concluded that habitat takes many years to restore.
(ll) Eden Trevor, 6131 93rd Pl. SW, appreciated the Little League’s need for a ball field, but felt the natural area at Shoreview Park should be protected.
(mm) Matt Loper, Shoreline Community College, instructor, explained the unique qualities of the Shoreview Park habitat, calling attention to the grant that the City and the college are implementing using this habitat. He emphasized the importance of this habitat to citizens in Shoreline and the greater Seattle area.
(nn) Mary Leonard, 17841 6th Ave. NW, spoke as a Little League mom but an opponent of the ball field at Shoreview Park. She asked that Council reconsider its decision.
(oo) Sue Minger, 19522 8th Ave. NW, talked about the children and adults she has taken to Shoreview Park for instruction about birds and habitat. She said it is an environmental teaching resource that must be protected.
(pp) Denise Minger, 19522 8th Ave. NW, spoke as an eleven-year old about observations of wildlife and birds she has made at Shoreview Park.
(qq) David Minger, 19522 8th Ave. NW, spoke of his use of the park to recover from surgery. Noting that team sports are only one part of recreation, he said passive recreation and the protection of habitat are important. He said if this piece of wilderness is destroyed, it can never be regained.
(rr) Janet Way, 940 NE 147th, mentioned the park in her neighborhood and the efforts to preserve it. She said the neighbors of Shoreview Park have a right to have their natural environment preserved as well. She said the City should do its best not to destroy any of its valuable habitat.
(ss) Jo Momcilonch, 926 NW 165th Pl., also opposed the ball fields at Shoreview Park. She said she only favors actions that support life. The Shoreview Park project will have a negative impact on the wildlife in the park, wetlands, Boeing Creek, birds, school children, and Innis Arden Way. She said she would support an interpretive center and asked the Council to leave Shoreview Park in its natural state.
(tt) Doug Rooke, 826 NW 165th Pl., opposed the ball fields because the project would destroy the habitat of birds, mammals and insects. He said Shoreline is lucky to have such an environmentally diverse park and stressed the use of the park for envirnomental education.
(uu) Linnea Rooke, 826 NW 165th Pl. questioned spending so much money to destroy beautiful habitat. She said wildlife is important and it our duty to take care of it.
(vv) Donna Rooke, 826 NW 165th Pl., asked if the City plans to turn Shoreview Park into a sports complex with multiple fields and facilities. She said the best use of the community’s natural and financial resources would be to consider refurbishing existing fields, such as at St. Luke’s School or the Aldercrest Annex. She supported the benefits of team sports but said it is not necessary to destroy Shoreview Park.
(ww) Sherry Hill, 19523 22nd Pl., spoke regarding Item 7(f), the Lead Agency Agreement for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Richmond Beach Library project. She commented on a twenty month delay since the Hearing Examiner’s decision on this matter, with the result of the loss of one of the best alternative sites to a pending sale. She noted the comment period coincides with the holiday season and the hearing on the DEIS coincides with the visit of the Christmas Ship to Richmond Beach Saltwater Park. She said the best interests of the citizens have not been served by having King County be the lead agency on this project.
(xx) Richard Johnsen, 16730 Meridian Ave. N., said tonight’s testimony has convinced him that the City Council should turn Shoreview Park into a passive park.
(yy) LaNita Wacker, 19839 8th Ave. NW, said people need space and opportunity to recreate and she has worked all her life to preserve the environment. She said she supports baseball fields because teenagers need activity but asked Council to consider a compromise location.
RECESS
At 9:30 p.m. Mayor Jepsen declared a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:43 p.m.
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember King moved to approve the agenda. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Deputy Mayor Montgomery moved to approve the consent calendar. Council-member Gustafson seconded the motion, which unanimously carried, and the following items were adopted:
Minutes of Workshop Meeting of November 2, 1998
Approval of expenses and payroll as of November 13, 1998 in the amount of $ 736,815.29
Motion to authorize the expenditure of $1,880 in 1998 Mini-Grant Funds for the Ridgecrest Neighborhood Association to plant trees in the Ridgecrest neighborhood
Ordinance No. 181 granting a franchise to Rabanco Companies to operate in certain annexed areas, in accordance with RCW 35A.14.900
Motion to adopt the Proposed 1999 Statement of Legislative Priorities
Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an Interlocal Agree-ment with King County and the King County Rural Library District to allow King County to act as the lead agency for the preparation of the draft and final Environmental Impact Statement for the replacement of a library serving the Richmond Beach Community
Motion to pass Ordinance No. 180 adopting by reference the King County Comprehensive Plan and Title 20 of the King County Code for Annexation Area A-3 in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement between King County and the City of Shoreline relating to processing of building permits and land use applications and to authorize the City Manager to enter into an amended interlocal agreement consistent with the terms of the ordinance
MEETING EXTENSION
At 9:50 p.m., Councilmember Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Deputy Mayor Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
8. ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) Public hearing to consider citizens’ comments regarding the 1999 property tax levy
Ordinance No. 183 levying the general taxes for the City of Shoreline in King County for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1999, on all property both real and personal, in said City which is subject to taxation for the purpose of paying sufficient revenue to conduct City business for the ensuing year as required by law
Joe Meneghini, Finance Director, reviewed the staff report. Staff distributed, and Mr. Meneghini discussed, a handout concerning the revision in the increase in assessed value (AV) projected for 1999 from 7.8 percent to 8.5 percent. This will result in an increase in revenue of $422,225 over 1998. Staff distributed a Substitute Ordinance No. 183, revised to reflect these changes.
Mr. Meneghini went on to explain that the property tax rate levied by the Shoreline Fire District will decrease next year from $1.50 per $1,000 AV to $1.47 per $1,000 AV. Ordinance No. 183, as it appears in the Council packet, provides for a 1999 property tax levy "at the rate of $3.60 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation, less the applicable levy rates of the Fire Protection District and the Library District." Given the decrease in the 1999 property tax levy for the fire district, this wording would result in $.03 increase in the City property tax levy, for a total rate of $1.63 per $1,000 AV.
Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing.
(1) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193rd Street, asserted that the citizens of Shoreline want to know what the City will spend the money on before they agree to give it to the City. He compared the proposed increase to "stealing from the public." He said the City is "going behind (the public’s) back" to get the additional revenue.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Councilmember Hansen moved that Council close the public hearing. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Lee questioned the impact of the vote by the King County Council to increase property taxes by 3.7 percent on the proposal before the City Council. Mr. Meneghini advised that the County is a separate taxing jurisdiction. Mr. Deis said the action by the City Council is independent of actions by the County.
Councilmember Ransom pointed out that Ordinance No. 183 would maintain the combined property tax rate of the City, the Shoreline Fire District and the library district of $3.60 per $1,000 AV. He said the only change results from a reappraisal which, in turn, results in a slight increase in property taxes. He stressed that the property tax rate will remain the same. He supported the retention of increased revenues resulting from the reappraisal for capital project needs. He mentioned that the City developed a list of over 40 capital projects for the next five years with a total cost of approximately $40 million.
Councilmember Hansen moved that Council adopt Ordinance No. 183. Council-member Lee seconded the motion.
Councilmember Hansen reviewed the wording of Section 3 of Ordinance No. 183 on page 47 of the Council packet. He noted that the City of Shoreline does not assess all of the different taxes assessed by other city jurisdictions. Therefore, he supported the retention of the increased revenues resulting from the 8.5 percent projected increase in AV. He said Council has tried to avoid increasing taxes, and he still maintains that position. He recommended the revision of the combined property tax rate of the City, the fire district and the library district to $3.57 per $1,000 AV. He pointed out that this will result in a net property tax rate for the City of $1.60. He noted that this is the property tax rate the City has always levied. He asserted that a combined property tax rate of $3.60 per $1,000 AV allows the City to adopt a tax increase, which he does not support.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Meneghini advised that staff prepared a Substitute Ordinance No. 183 to specify a City property tax rate of $1.60 per $1,000 AV as proposed by Councilmember Hansen. In addition, this version reflects the revised increase in AV projected for 1999 of 8.5 percent.
Councilmember Hansen offered to withdraw his motion if Councilmember Lee withdrew her second.
Councilmember Lee requested a clarification. She asserted her understanding that, based on a City property tax rate of $1.60 per $1,000 AV, the revised increase in the projected AV will result in $36,744 more revenue to the City than that resulting from the increase in AV the County previously projected. Mr. Meneghini agreed.
Councilmember Lee went on to question the consequences of a City property tax rate of $1.63 per $1,000 AV. Councilmember Hansen advised that this property tax rate, combined with the revised increase in the project AV, will result in a total increase in City property tax revenues in 1999 of $526,766. He noted that this is $141,285 more than the increase that Council considered at its workshop on November 12. (That increase was based on a City property tax rate of $1.60 per $1,000 AV and the County’s previous projection of an AV increase of 7.8 percent.)
Councilmember Gustafson agreed with Councilmember Hansen that the City should maintain its property tax rate at $1.60 per $1,000 AV.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mayor Jepsen clarified that Council is voting on the original Ordinance No. 183, which results in a City property tax rate of $1.63 per $1,000 AV. He noted that Section 1 of the original Ordinance No. 183 misstates the assessed value.
In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Deis explained the two changes that have occurred since the Council workshop on November 12 relevant to Shoreline property taxes. First, the County revised its projection of the increase in AV from 7.8 percent to 8.5 percent. He said the City can receive an additional $36,744 as a result of this revision. Second, the fire district levied its property tax. The fire district property tax rate decreased from $1.50 to $1.47 per $1,000 AV. He noted that this has left $.03 per $1,000 AV available within the combined property tax rate of $3.60 per $1,000 AV. He said Council may elect to collect this $.03 per $1,000 AV, without affecting Shoreline property owners, or Council may ignore the combined property tax rate and maintain its current property tax rate of $1.60 per $1,000 AV.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 183, which failed 2-5, with Deputy Mayor Montgomery and Councilmember Lee voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember Hansen moved that Council adopt Substitute Ordinance No. 183. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Mr. Meneghini noted that staff has revised the first sentence of Section 3 in Substitute Ordinance No. 183 to read: "There shall be and hereby is levied on all real, personal, and utility property in the City of Shoreline, in King County, current taxes for the year commencing January 1, 1999, a levy at the rate of $1.60 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation."
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Substitute Ordinance No. 183 levying the general taxes for the City of Shoreline in King Country for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1999, on all property both real and personal, in said City which is subject to taxation for the purpose of paying sufficient revenue to conduct City business for the ensuing year as required by law. The motion carried 7-0 and Substitute Ordinance No. 183 was adopted.
(b) Public hearing to consider citizens’ comments regarding the proposed 1999 budget
Ordinance No. 184 adopting the annual budget of the City of Shoreline for the year 1999
Mr. Meneghini reviewed the staff report. He noted that the amount of additional revenue from the increase in the City’s AV will reflect the action taken by Council under item 8 (a).
Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing.
(1) Tom Abeln, 180th Block of 7th Avenue NE, said was impressed by the number of citizens in attendance. He stressed the importance of this participation. He complimented Council for the careful oversight of taxpayer money it demonstrated in debating the Shoreline Arts Council request for increased funding during the workshop on November 12.
(2) Robbie Rohr, Executive Director, Center for Human Services (CHS), 17018 15th Avenue NE, represented the CHS Board of Directors. She thanked Council for its support of CHS in the 1999 budget. She requested that Council allow approximately $7,000 of the funding proposed for CHS to be used for family counseling. She explained that this would enable CHS to provide counseling services to the working poor, who are primarily single parents with school-aged children.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Councilmember Gustafson moved that Council close the public hearing. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Lee moved to adopt Substitute Ordinance No. 184. Deputy Mayor Montgomery seconded the motion.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Meneghini confirmed that Substitute Ordinance No. 184 reflects the changes resulting from Council adoption of Substitute Ordinance No. 183.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Deis said the request by CHS can be most appropriately handled at the staff level.
Councilmember Gustafson expressed his support of the 1999 budget. He requested information from staff during the coming year concerning: 1) the impact of Referendum 49 on the City; and 2) the costs of continuing to lease space for City operations versus those of borrowing money to build a City Hall. Mr. Deis identified two short-term results of the passage of Referendum 49: 1) the allocation of more Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) revenue to the sales tax equalization fund; and 2) a small increase in the allocation to the Criminal Justice Fund. He noted that Shoreline’s share of the sales tax equalization fund will decrease as more cities incorporate, regardless of whether the amount of the fund increases. He mentioned discussions in Olympia about reducing or eliminating MVET. He noted that MVET revenues account for over $2 million of the City’s General Fund.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Substitute Ordinance No. 184 adopting the annual budget of the City of Shoreline for the year 1999. The motion carried 7-0, and Substitute Ordinance No. 184 was adopted.
(c) Public hearing to consider citizens’ comments regarding an extension of Ordinance No. 166, which imposed a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for and issuance of land use, building and development permits for adult retail uses
Ordinance No. 179 extending the moratorium on the acceptance of applications for and issuance of land use, building and development permits for adult retail uses
Bruce Disend, City Attorney, reviewed the staff report.
Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing.
(1) Clark Elster, 1720 NE 177th Street, commented that he lives two blocks from an adult retail store. He expressed strong support for the extension of the moratorium.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Deputy Mayor Montgomery moved that Council close the public hearing. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Hansen to adopt Ordinance No. 179. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion.
Responding to Councilmember Ransom’s question about how the City will accumulate appropriate data to show the effects of adult retail uses, Mr. Disend discussed the information that staff already has. He said that several jurisdictions have joined together to draft a model ordinance regulating these businesses and to bring a court action in order to obtain a judicial determination on the validity of the ordinance. He noted his intent to schedule a meeting with Council in executive session to discuss this potential litigation.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 179 extending the moratorium on the acceptance of applications for and issuance of land use, building and development permits for adult retail uses. The motion carried 7-0, and Ordinance No. 179 was adopted.
(d) Public hearing to consider citizens’ comments regarding Ordinance No. 170, which imposed a moratorium for six months on the filing, acceptance or approval of any application for the subdivision of land within R-4 and R-6 zones which would result in the creation of any lot which contains less than 7,200 square feet in area
Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, noted that Shoreline has a contentious history in dealing with minimum lots sizes. He reviewed this history, and he noted the recommendation of the Planning Commission that Shoreline’s minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet be increased to 7,200 square feet. Ordinance No. 170 declared a moratorium on all lots between 5,000 and 7,200 square feet. A public hearing is required within 60 days of declaring such a moratorium.
Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing.
(1) Clark Elster, 1720 NE 177th Street, favored the moratorium because the 7,200-square-foot lot size is consistent with the planning effort of the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Patricia Peckol, 19144 8th Avenue NW, spoke on behalf of Growth Management Shoreline, a grassroots movement for citizen participation in the management of growth in Shoreline. She thanked Council for implementing the moratorium and advocated that it remain in effect until some thoughtful planning can be done on behalf of growth.
(3) Felicia Schwindt, 2209 NE 177th Street, said Shoreline has already added approximately one-third of the additional units required under the Growth Management Act. She said the environment has been threatened and citizen safety jeopardized due to development of 5,000-square-foot lot short plats. She urged the Council to retain the moratorium until the new codes, and perhaps design review boards, have been put in place.
(4) Linda Hart, 2123 NE 177th Street, supported the extension of the moratorium until the Comprehensive Plan is in place. She said a lapse in the moratorium would result in a rash of short plats that would be detrimental to surrounding areas. She said the Comprehensive Plan must be fair, flexible and wise.
(5) Isabel Geraghty, 19634 10th Terrace NW, said that citizens cannot live with lots smaller than 7,200 square feet. She opposed the type of development that has occurred in Shoreline during the last three years.
(6) Brenda Warren, 19807 10th Avenue NW, favored the moratorium. She was disturbed by the number of lots in a development near her home. She said this type of development will change the single-family neighborhood.
(7) LaNita Wacker, 19839 8th Avenue NW, said the City has promised its citizens surety of quality of environment and promised the brokers and developers surety also. Noting constant change is very distressing, she emphasized the City needs a Comprehensive Plan and protective ordinances in place so that everyone knows the rules for playing the game. She favored the moratorium with the admonition that the Comprehensive Plan and protective ordinances must be in place.
(8) Richard Johnsen, 16730 Meridian Avenue N, favored the extension of the moratorium. He referred to a development on 160th Street in which one lot was divided into three. He questioned how this was approved when it is out of character with the neighborhood.
(9) Virginia Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, supported the moratorium and asked Council to persevere to discuss the Comprehensive Plan.
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Montgomery, seconded by Councilmember Lee and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed. No further Council action was necessary and Ordinance No. 170 remained in effect.
AGENDA INTERRUPTION
Councilmember Hansen moved to take Item 9 (b) next, followed by 8 (e), with a Council decision about Item 9 (a) at that point. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 6-1, with Deputy Mayor Montgomery dissenting.
9. OTHER ACTION ITEMS: ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(b) Motion to approve revised program guidelines for the Mini-Grant program
Joyce Nichols, Community and Government Relations Manager, said the mini-grant program guidelines have been slightly revised to make them more responsive to the neighborhood associations. This was done by: addressing ambiguities and lack of clarity in the application process; changing the timelines to reflect the school calendar, which the neighborhoods follow; eliminating the provision for the carryover of funds; and including audit procedures to ensure accountability. She concluded by thanking those who worked on the revisions.
Councilmember Hansen moved to approve the revised program guidelines for the Mini-Grant program. Councilmember King seconded the motion.
Councilmember King acknowledged the importance of accountability, but she asked staff to keep in mind that the grants are administered by volunteers. She said she did not wish to strip their enthusiasm in an effort to be efficient.
Ms. Nichols agreed and said staff will offer a workshop for the neighborhoods early in 1999 to help them understand the procedures.
A vote was taken on the motion to approve revised program guidelines for the Mini-Grant program, which carried 7 - 0.
8. ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARINGS
(e) Closed record appeal hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the application of Charles and Barbara Dohner for a preliminary long subdivision (File #1997-02453)
Noting the lateness of the hour, and upon advice by Mr. Disend, Mayor Jepsen announced the consensus of Council to postpone this item.
9. OTHER ACTION ITEMS: ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Ordinance No. 178 adopting a Comprehensive Plan (including a Capital Improvement Program and a Parks, Open Space and Recreation Services Plan), adopting a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Plan, adopting Findings and Conclusions in Support Thereof, repealing Chapter 16.05 of the Shoreline Municipal Code and Amending Chapter 16.15 of the Shoreline Municipal Code
Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, said that at the conclusion of the public hearing on November 9, staff was directed to look at a major map revision in the area of Stone Avenue and Midvale Avenue between N 153rd Street and N 157th Street. He advised that staff recommends a change in this area from single family medium density to a low density designation. In addition, staff recommends a change in Transportation Policy T-20 regarding the potential rail station at Richmond Beach, to support a study of the potential site rather than its development. He pointed out that the findings of fact should be changed to reflect the correct adoption date for the plan.
Mr. Stewart concluded that staff is not recommending the amendment suggested by Mr. Mann earlier in the evening regarding Stone Avenue between 175th Street and 185th Street.
Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.
(1) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, expressed the concerns of residents on Stone Avenue that their neighborhood is a sensitive area that acts as buffer between the commercial areas on Midvale Avenue and the core of the Meridian Park neighbor-hood. He pointed out that the only current commercial operation is on the corner of 185th and Stone Avenue. He advised that residents want the neighborhood to stay residential and that a change to Mixed Use will undermine residents’ attempts to upgrade their property. He concluded that the Mixed Use designation is for neighborhoods in transition, which does not describe his neighborhood.
(2) Don Leach, 1323 N. 178th, supported Mr. Mann’s comments and questioned the impetus for making this part of Stone Avenue a business street rather than a residential street. He said this is a poor location for businesses.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 11:00 p.m., Councilmember Hansen moved to extend the meeting to 11:20 p.m. Deputy Mayor Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried 5-2, with Councilmembers Gustafson and Lee dissenting.
Councilmember Lee moved to adopt the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion. Councilmember Lee later clarified the motion to include Ordinance No. 178 and the amendments contained on Exhibit A.4 and Exhibit A.5 (Attachments A and B).
Councilmember Ransom wished to address the concerns of residents on Stone Avenue between 145th Street and, approximately, 148th Street. He expressed his understanding that these residents want the area to remain single family low density.
Mr. Deis said one or two people spoke about this area at a previous workshop, but the testimony at the public hearing was about the area to the north.
Councilmember Ransom moved to amend the land use map along Stone Avenue and Midvale Avenue from 145th Street to 155th Street to make the area residential low density. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom said the purpose of his amendment is to provide consistency for all the residents on the east side of Aurora Avenue. He asserted that if one area is left as it is, the same should be done in other areas.
Mr. Stewart noted that only one comment was received in support of this change.
A vote was taken on the amendment, which failed 1-6, with Councilmember Ransom voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ransom moved to amend the land use map for Stone Avenue between 175th Street and 185th Street to have the east side of the street remain single family low density. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Hansen said Mr. Mann did not ask for a single family designation on the east side of Stone Avenue. He requested the amendment of the Mixed Use designation on the west side of the street to single family medium density.
Mr. Stewart explained that the Mixed Use designation will allow residential uses to continue and that this will provide a better transition to the medium density residential area across the street.
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed 1-6, with Councilmember Ransom voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ransom moved to amend policy CD 17 to say that billboard amortization will be included in the Aurora Pre-Design Study. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom stated his opinion that billboards should be allowed on Aurora Avenue. He said the study by the Pre-Design Committee will allow discussion by both business and neighborhood representatives. He noted that only he and Deputy Mayor Montgomery commented on this issue when it came up during the workshop.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 11:20 p.m., Councilmember Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 11:40 p.m. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried 5-2, with Deputy Mayor Montgomery and Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.
Mayor Jepsen commented that he and other Councilmembers made their preferences known on this issue during the discussion of signage.
A vote was taken on the motion, which failed 1-6, with Councilmember Ransom voting in the affirmative.
To allow Council to express it views on the matter, Councilmember Hansen moved to amend the land use plan to change the designation on the west side of Stone Avenue between 175th Street and 185th Street from Mixed Use to R-2 medium density. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Mayor Jepsen asserted that the definitions of Mixed Use and R-2 are very similar. Mr. Stewart clarified that Mixed Use would allow some office and commercial use.
Councilmember Hansen noted that Mixed Use is a softening from the original proposal for commercial in this area.
A vote was taken on the amendment, which failed 2-5, with Councilmembers Gustafson and Ransom voting in the affirmative.
A vote was taken on the main motion to approve the Comprehensive Plan by adopting Ordinance No. 178 and Attachments A & B, which carried 7-0.
10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: None
11. ADJOURNMENT
At 11:32 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
_______________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk