Notes from Shoreline City Council meeting November 23, 2020

Thursday, November 26, 2020

Shoreline City Council Meeting
November 23, 2020

Notes by Pam Cross

The meeting was held remotely using the Zoom platform.

Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.

All Councilmembers were present.

Report of the City Manager, Debbi Tarry

COVID-19 Update

A reminder of the Governor’s new statewide restrictions in effect through December 14.

Case counts in King County continue to grow. Since last week the average over the past 14 days has grown to 321 new cases per 100,000 residents. Remember that the target is 25 per 100,000.

Hospitalizations in King County are also growing and for the first time have passed the target goal of less than 80% occupied.

In Shoreline our average new cases has increased to 16 from 14 per day in just this past week. We have had 231 new cases in the past two weeks. Hospitalizations have also increased. 

In partnership with the School District and Shoreline FD, we handed out 500 masks at our mask distribution event on Saturday.

  Councilmember Roberts distributing free masks

Shoreline Celebrates with Food

Even if we aren’t able to enjoy holiday gatherings together right now, we can still cook our favorite fall and winter meals. Spread some joy this season by sharing a recipe and exploring the recipes your neighbors have shared.

Send recipes to neighborhood coordinator Constance Perenyi at and include a picture if you have one.

Public Reminders

City will be closed for business on Thursday and Friday November 26-27 for the Thanksgiving Holiday.

Council Reports (all meetings were attended virtually)

Councilmember McGlashan attended the Tri-Regional Transportation Forum meeting. They reviewed the legislative agenda and discovered that the 148th bridge was not on the agenda. They were able to get it added.

Councilmembers Roberts and McConnell attended the meeting of the National League of Cities Summit. Tacoma Mayor Victoria Woodards was elected as Second Vice President, so she will be in line to become president in two years. This is the first person from Washington since about 1980.

Councilmember McConnell attended the Asian Municipal Organization group and the Transportation Forum.

Councilmember McConnell apologized for words she spoke at last week’s meeting on racial equity. She stated her words were poorly chosen, missed her intent, and were hurtful to Shoreline BLM and others who provided input and feedback on Resolution 467 declaring the City’s commitment to building an anti-racist community.

Deputy Mayor Scully attended the salmon recovery WRIA meeting. There’s never good news about salmon. Unfortunately. There were higher than expected chinook at the Ballard Locks but chinook at the spawning grounds were lower than usual. They are investigating the reason.

On the All Home Board: the Coordinating Board that he is a member of will cease to exist as it begins to turn it over to the new Regional Board.

Mayor Hall. Next week is the annual general meeting of the Sound Cities Association (SCA).

There are several things on the agenda including no increase in membership dues. The By-Laws are also being updated. But an issue came up that concerns him:

After hearing from the business community, particularly restaurants, the SCA Board sent a letter on behalf of all member cities to Governor Inslee stating they want the Governor to reconsider his COVID restrictions and to provide more support for the restaurant industry. Only a handful of cities was consulted (Shoreline was not). It was signed by the Mayor of Kent. The mayors got a copy after it was delivered. Subsequently, the Mayor wrote our own letter to the Governor stating that the SCA letter did not apply to all 38 member cities in King County, and that in Shoreline we follow the science and support the public health experts attempt to keep our communities safe.

The SCA Public Issues Committee reviews and evaluates policy positions and recommends to the Board what, if any, action should be taken.This process takes two months but a simple amendment of the bylaws would allow the Board to move more quickly when necessary by requiring that any future statements that go out from SCA, that are not presented to the board by the Public Issues Committee (PIC), are copied to all cities before they are delivered.

Any feedback?

SCA is basically a trade group. They’re not a government. It’s never an emergency. And we don’t want other cities speaking on behalf of Shoreline.

Maybe there should there be a timeframe for the cities to respond. Even that could take a while. It’s more likely to pass without a timeline.

The general meeting is next week. We will share our proposed wording with Deanna Dawson, the Executive Director of the Sound Cities Association. She can then share with the other cities and maybe other cities will want it too.

Public Comment

Jackie Kurle, Shoreline, spoke against the enhanced shelter
Nancy Morris, Shoreline, spoke against the enhanced shelter
Nancy Pfeil, Shoreline, spoke against the enhanced shelter

Approval of the Agenda

Approval of the Agenda adopted by unanimous consent.

Approval of the Consent Calendar

The Consent Calendar approved unanimously by roll call vote.

Action Item 8(a) Authorizing the City Manager to Sign the Memorandum of Agreement for the Operation of an Enhanced Shelter Within the City of Shoreline with King County and Lake City Partners (LCP)

Colleen Kelly, Recreation, Cultural and Community Services Director

At the November 16 Council meeting two changes were made to the Interlocal Agreement between King County and the City of Shoreline.

  1. It was changed from an Interlocal Agreement to a 3-party memorandum of agreement KingCo, LCP, Shoreline
  2. King County will not be automatically billed for excess police calls due to the number of calls for service at the shelter exceeding an agreed upon threshold. Instead the County “will work with the City to reduce calls below the threshold level.”

Amended introductory language was changed relating to the MOA, insurance and indemnification provisions were included, and the term of the MOA will run through June 2023 with extensions available.


Motion and second to approve signing the MOA

The Nuisance Ordinance was included in the MOA. It refers to a certain number of calls based on single family residence or multifamily. How does this code apply to a shelter?

Reply: we discussed this provision as multi-family which resulted in a threshold of 24 nuisance calls within a 180-day period

Shouldn’t this be clarified? Couldn’t someone later disagree with it? Shouldn’t the language be precise? There could be a change in staff who doesn’t believe a shelter is multifamily occupancy.

Reply: defers to Margaret King, City Attorney

Councilmember question continues: the MOA refers to the Nuisance Ordinance. When you go to the ordinance, it refers to single family and multi-family. But could KingCo say the shelter isn’t multifamily and obviously not single family, so this ordinance is not applicable?

King: I think it meets the definition of multifamily with shelter use.

How do we define multifamily? Generally we’re talking about apartments or things like that.

King: I believe that by including in the Agreement that the parties have an understanding that that’s how it’s going to be treated and so they’ve added additional agreement that that is the proper analysis for us to follow. And I think they would be hard pressed to be able to then back away from that understanding since this is a separate contractual agreement. I don’t think there’s a need to clarify. Not concerned about it at this point.


Multifamily dwellings are separate housing units contained within one building or several buildings within one complex. Multifamily dwellings may have units located above other units. Apartments and mixed-use buildings with apartments are considered multifamily dwellings. (Ord. 767 § 1 (Exh. A), 2017; Ord. 631 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2012; Ord. 299 § 1, 2002).

A dwelling unit is defined as: Residential living facility, used, intended or designed to provide physically segregated complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation facilities. A dwelling unit is to be distinguished from lodging, such as hotel/motel or dormitory. (Ord. 391 § 4, 2005; Ord. 299 § 1, 2002).

A homeless shelter is defined as: A facility operated within a building to provide short-term, temporary or transitional housing for individuals or families who are otherwise homeless and have no immediate living options available to them. Such facilities may provide support services, food, and other services as an accessory use. (Ord. 850 § 1 (Exh. A), 2019).

How would you respond to the concerns about the effect on neighborhood? The Agreement addresses a lot of things, but how does this Agreement address the off-site concerns?

Reply: it doesn’t specifically address those concerns and it’s hard to draft a document that can do that. I think we have a commitment in the Good Neighbor Plan and in conversations with LCP. People complain about parks but it’s difficult to have any entity take responsibility for a community problem. How can we tell if the problems are exacerbated by the shelter or not? It’s in the best interest of LCP to mitigate its presence in the community.

What is the plan for someone who leaves? Either choosing to leave or asked to leave.

Reply: they are free to leave. If asked to leave, LCP will work with them to make a plan for where they go next.

Will the City or other shelter operators be informed if someone is asked to leave? What is the plan if they have no place else to go?

Reply: not part of this discussion beyond what she just said.

This shelter is just a part of the whole picture. We can’t be telling people they can’t stay in the parks unless there’s someplace else for them to go. Now there is someplace for them to go. We will also need more enforcement in our parks. We will develop an approach to say now that you have someplace to go, you have to get your tent out of the park. LCP will be more in the position of providing an observation and report function. LCP is responsible for within their 4 walls and the City is responsible for what goes on in the community.

What was the source for developing the Good Neighbor Plan?

Reply: based on LCP suggestions with a couple of additions

How did the local neighborhood and parks planned walks come about?

Reply: because of concerns that were brought up about other areas, LCP wanted to plan to walk around their property for clean up. The Good Neighbor Plan goes beyond that by stopping by parks and Town Center. They will ask their residents not to congregate, or to move back to shelter, or reach out to other people to consider living in the shelter.

Will they be walking around at night? U-Haul employees were worried about overnight campers.

Reply: We didn’t talk at that level of detail. This would require a citywide approach utilizing our police and outreach staff. This needs to be built out. We can’t make LCP responsible for all homeless in the City. LCP would work as a partner, but not the lead.

Neighborhood concern is not what is happening inside the four walls. They and we are concerned about the neighborhood. We will have to continue to work on the Good Neighbor agreement to make it stronger and make sure it works effectively for the neighborhood.

The MOA provides clear authority for the City to determine if a nuisance exists, and if it can’t be abated by the steps proposed, to require that the shelter use be discontinued.

Wording from the MOA

“The City has a Chronic Nuisance Property Ordinance (SMC 9.30) which outlines specific conditions that constitute public nuisance activities. King County and Lake City Partners understand and agree that should the Enhanced Shelter be determined a chronic nuisance property as set out in that Chapter, the City may take action to abate the nuisance pursuant to SMC 9.30.050, provided that reasonable notice is given in accordance with this Agreement. King County and Lake City Partners agree that abatement may specifically include the ability to order that the Enhanced Shelter use be discontinued if the City reasonably determines that steps to cure the nuisance will not be sufficient to adequately protect health and safety. If Lake City Partners or King County fail to address any written demand by the City to correct a violation within the cure time stated in the demand, which shall not be more than 45 days or less than 10 days, the City may order the Enhanced Shelter use be discontinued until such violations(s) are corrected.”


Passes 7-0

Action Item 8(b) Adoption of Ordinance No. 909 – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Annual Docket Amendments to the Shoreline Comprehensive Plan

Steven Szafran, AICP, Senior Planner, gave the presentation

  1. Amend Table 6.6 of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan to acquire park and open space between Dayton Avenue and Interstate 5 and between 145th and 165th Streets.
  2. Amend the Point Wells Subarea Plan to be consistent with Interlocal Agreement between City of Shoreline and Town of Woodway.
Proposed additional amendment to modify land use policy from 44 units per“gross” acre to “net” acres which would result in lower density.

To amend transportation policy adding traffic restrictions


Motion and second to approve 909

Motion and second to modify the planning commission’s recommendation by amending land use policy from 44 units per “gross“ acre to “net” acre

VOTE to modify from gross to net acres

Passes 7-0

Motion and second to amend transportation policy adding traffic restrictions.


Passes 7-0

VOTE on main motion Ordinance 909 as amended

Passes 7-0

Study Item 9(a) Discussing Ordinance No. 907 - Amending Development Code Sections 20.20, 20.30, 20.40, 20.50, and 20.80 for Policy Amendments

The Planning Commission held study sessions to discuss the proposed amendments and give staff direction on the amendments on July 2 and August 20, 2020. The Commission then held the required public hearing on October 1, 2020.

Steven Szafran, AICP, Senior Planner, continued with this presentation

Amendments are collected throughout the year. There were administrative and clarifying amendments that were discussed on November 9. Tonight’s discussion is covering the proposed policy amendments. There was a very brief summary of the 21 amendments.

Next step bring to Council for adoption on Dec 7


Amendment 18

Regarding tree replacement exemption: Why would we require some people to have a fee in lieu, and allow others to have the replacement number reduced?

Reply: I can’t think of an example right now. I will look into it.

I would like that removed. It isn’t fair that some have to pay it and others don’t.

What if it said reduction and fee in lieu? Would that fix it?

How does that fit with the proposed amendments from Save Shoreline Trees?

Reply: Save Shoreline Trees is still submitting amendments. Those amendments come back to the planning commission and Council in 2021 so we haven’t analyzed those amendments yet.

Could we have a simple comparison just specifically on Amendment 18 so we can compare it to what Save Shoreline Trees is proposing?

Reply: yes we can prepare that for you.

Regarding shelters, what is the purpose of “such as” language. Why is it there? Is meant to be limiting?

Reply: it’s just an example. The wording is not meant to be limiting.

If we don’t do anything with Amendment 16, will it go as part of the Housing Action Plan?

Reply: the planning commission thinks it should be studied as part of the Housing Action Plan. It might become part of the Housing Toolkit but it wouldn’t become part of the housing code. It should be analyzed.

Then should it be removed from this batch of amendments?

Reply: yes it needs more study and public input

What does section E do with slopes created by previous grading? The slope still exists regardless of how it got there.

Reply: we would rely on the geotechnical work for the previous grading, so the slope owner coming in who wants to do an addition by that slope isn’t so burdened.

But what about slopes that developed historically. They wouldn’t meet current seismic code, so how does going back to the previous reports really makes sense for new development?

Reply: the staff report provides the complete wording that states a current review by a qualified professional is still required. But I will bring someone who is more familiar with administering the part of the code to answer your questions at the next meeting.

Study Item 9(b) Discussion of Ordinance No. 912 - Authorizing Assumption of the Ronald Wastewater District and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute and File the Joint Petition of Dissolution of the Ronald Wastewater District

John Norris, Assistant City Manager, gave the presentation

Ordinance 912 sets a formal assumption date of April 30, 2021. It also confers upon the City Manager the authority to jointly with Ronald Wastewater District petition for dissolution of the District. Finally, it directs continued orderly transition of governance.

Councilmembers Roberts and McConnell were thanked for their work on the coordination committee.


Councilmembers are pleased with the results from all of the hard work put in by everyone involved.

What came of the early conversations about RWD representatives remaining after the assumption?

Reply: there is still opportunity in what we call the Wastewater Utility Advisory Committee. When this first came up we were talking about an assumption in 2017. The City has now operated this utility for almost 4 years. So we’ve gained a lot of experience. And a lot has changed. But this is still an open issue and has recently been discussed.

Coming back on consent on December 7, 2020.

Meeting adjourned.


Post a Comment

We encourage the thoughtful sharing of information and ideas. We expect comments to be civil and respectful, with no personal attacks or offensive language. We reserve the right to delete any comment.
Facebook: Shoreline Area News
Twitter: @ShorelineArea
Daily Email edition (don't forget to respond to the email)

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by 2009

Back to TOP