Showing posts with label city council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label city council. Show all posts

Agenda for Shoreline council meeting July 25, 2022

Thursday, July 21, 2022


The agenda for the July 25, 2022, 7pm Shoreline City Council Regular meeting includes one Action Item and two Study Items.

Action Item 8(a) Appointment of Pro and Con Committee Members for City of Shoreline Proposition 1, Maintenance and Operations Levy for Public Safety and Community Services

Presented by Eric Bratton, Communications Program Manager

No action is required by the City Council for the following Study Items:

Study Item 9(a) Discussion of the Update of the Wastewater Rate Study Project and Policy

Presented by Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director and Randy Witt, Public Works Director

Staff will present an update and status on the wastewater rate study following the questions and guidance received at the April 4 Council meeting. Staff are seeking Council input and direction to inform the wastewater rate study in advance of preparation of the 2023-2024 biennial budget later this year.


Study Item 9(b) Discussion of Ordinance No. 970 – Amending the 2021-2022 Biennial Budget (Ordinance No. 954)

Presented by Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director

Staff have identified operating programs and capital projects that require additional budget allocation, as well as changes to position classifications on the salary table. These needs were not known or were in development in February 2022 at the time the 2021-2022 budget amendment review was conducted and the budget amendment modification was adopted by the City Council through Ordinance No. 954.

Information about attending or commenting here. The meeting will be hybrid, both in person at City Hall and on Zoom.


--Pam Cross



Read more...

Agenda for Shoreline council meeting July 18, 2022

Friday, July 15, 2022


Shoreline City Council regular meeting on Monday, July 18, 2022 at 7pm is in hybrid format - in person at the Council Chamber · Shoreline City Hall, 17500 Midvale Ave N, Shoreline WA 98133 and online on Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/95015006341 253-215-8782 - Webinar ID: 950 1500 6341

The agenda for the July 18, 2022 Shoreline City Council meeting includes one Action item and two Study items:

Action Item 8(a) Action on Resolution No. 492 – Providing for the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City of Shoreline at an Election to be Held on November 8, 2022, a Proposition Authorizing the City to Increase its Regular Property Tax Levy Above the Limit Established in RCW 84.55.010 to Fund Public Safety and Community Services

The staff report will be presented by Christina Arcidy, Management Analyst

The City Council directed staff to bring forward a Resolution to place a levy lid lift replacement on the November 8 General Election ballot, which was discussed in detail at the June 13 Council meeting. Council is scheduled to take action on the proposed Resolution.

Study item 9(a) Discussion of the Transportation Element and Transportation Master Plan Updates: Draft Project Prioritization

The staff report will be presented by Nora Daley-Peng, Senior Transportation Planner

The City of Shoreline is currently updating its Transportation Element (TE) and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to better serve the community’s current and future transportation needs. This is the seventh in a series of briefings to Council.

The TE/TMP supports all forms of travel – by foot, bicycle, skateboard, scooter, stroller, wheelchair, transit, motorcycle, automobile, etc. With the upcoming arrival of light rail transit, new and higher frequency bus service, new pedestrian/bicycle connections, and land use changes and growth, the TE and TMP updates provide an opportunity to further align transportation vision, goals, objectives, and policies with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

Staff will provide Council with a refresher on the Vision and Goals and a briefing on what we heard from the public during Outreach Series 3, the preliminary data-driven project prioritization process, and the draft TE/TMP project list.

Study Item 9(b) Discussion of Potential Westminster Park Design Process
Sponsored by Councilmembers Ramsdell and Roberts

The staff report will be presented by Nick Borer, Parks Fleet and Facilities Manager

The land purchased for Westminster Park had uninhabitable homes that have been demolished. The park has been cleared and graded as part of the demolition, and is being scheduled for periodic maintenance.

The request from Councilmembers Ramsdell and Roberts is for Council to reprioritize the order of projects in order to move the design and development of Westminster Park to 2022 or 2023 rather than the currently scheduled 2024 timeframe. This Westminster Triangle neighborhood does not have any developed parks and there are concerns about children playing in the streets so close to two arterials (145th and Westminster Way).

--Pam Cross



Read more...

Notes from Shoreline Council meeting June 27, 2022

Sunday, July 3, 2022

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council 
Regular Meeting
June 27, 2022

Notes by Pam Cross

Tonight’s Regular meeting was conducted in a hybrid manner with both in-person and virtual options to attend and participate.

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Mayor Scully.

Flag Salute and Roll Call

All Councilmembers were present. Councilmembers McConnell, Mork, and Roberts attended remotely.

Proclamation
I, Keith Scully, Mayor of the City of Shoreline, on behalf of the Shoreline City Council, do hereby proclaim do hereby proclaim the month of July 2022 as
  • PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES MONTH in the City of Shoreline.
This provides an opportunity to celebrate the value of Shoreline’s parks, recreation programs, and cultural services, and to honor the community partners and programs that enrich the lives of Shoreline residents in many ways.

The Mayor honored Shoreline resident Heidi Shepherd.
Shoreline Area News reported in the June 15, 2022 edition:
“King County Councilmember Rod Dembowski on Tuesday awarded Heidi Shepherd with the Martin Luther King Medal of Distinguished Service, an award that recognizes individuals whose work has answered the question asked by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ‘What are you doing for others?’”

Approval of the Agenda
Agenda approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry
Presented by John Norris, Assistant City Manager

A Reminder 

  • To report offenders call the police non-emergency number 206-296-3311
  • Only in the event of a fire or other emergency call 911.
Something for everyone with lunchtime and evening entertainment


Evening concerts start July 13
 

Shoreline Walks


Public Reminders

July 4th Holiday Schedule


Meetings


Council Reports

Deputy Mayor Robertson attended the Regional Transit Committee where they voted unanimously in favor of zero youth fares. The goal is to make this effective September 1.

Councilmember Ramsdell reported that City staff met with residents from Westminster Triangle to provide an update about the park in that area.

Mayor Scully announced that Representative Jayapal sponsored an appropriations request for financing of the non-motorized bridge across. She suggested $2.5M. $4M was approved.

Public Comment
Each speaker was allowed 3 minutes. Both in-person and remote attendees have an opportunity to speak. There were 78 written comments at the time this report was prepared, the majority referenced Action Item 8(a).

Neighborhood Meeting
  • Courtney Ewing, Shoreline
  • Tom McCormick, Shoreline
Tree Retention in MUR-70’ Action Item 8(a)
  • Rebecca Jones, Seattle
  • Nancy Morris, Shoreline
  • Kathleen Russell, Shoreline, Tree Preservation Code Team
  • Sarah Gangane, Shoreline
  • Derek Blackwell, Shoreline
Retain 2% fee for Parks 8(a)
  • Tom McCormick, Shoreline
Approval of the Consent Calendar.
The Consent Calendar was approved unanimously.

Action Item 8 (a) Action on Ordinance No. 968 – Amending Chapters 20.30, 20.40, and 20.50 of the Shoreline Municipal Code to Modify Regulations for Development Within the MUR-70’ Zoning District.

Presentation by Andrew Bauer, Planning Manager, Planning and Community Development

The City’s light rail station subarea plans for the 185th and 145th Station subareas were adopted in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The plans call for the subareas surrounding the future light rail stations to transform into compact transit-oriented communities with a range of housing types, open space, and services. The plans are generally performing as anticipated through the first 6+ years since adoption.

This was last discussed by the Council at the June 6, 2022 meeting. The Council has proposed the following Amendments in order to obtain maximum building height:

Proposed Council Amendment #1– SMC 20.30.297(C)(3) - Additional requirements for neighborhood meetings:
This amendment calls for signs announcing the meeting, online open house/website in addition to the in-person meeting, and a meeting summary posted on the City’s website. 
  • Staff is neutral regarding this amendment.

Proposed Council Amendment #2 - SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(b)(2) & SMC 20.50.250(C)
Additional requirement for exceeding the base height when not qualifying for other height bonus:
These proposed Council amendments would provide more clarity for the ground floor commercial requirement and would be similar to existing standards that already apply to the North City and Ridgecrest neighborhoods. 
  • Staff recommends approval of this amendment.

Proposed Council Amendment #3 - SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(c)
This proposed Council amendment would provide more clarity to the requirement for open spaces and would allow a portion of the already required Public Places and Multifamily Open Space be open and accessible to the public.
  • Staff recommends approval of this amendment.

Proposed Council Amendments #4a & #4b - SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(d)
These proposed Council amendments address the funding of parks, open space, art, or other recreational opportunities.
  • Staff does not recommend approval of 4(a) as it will add additional development costs for applicants as the 2% contribution was originally in place prior to the City’s Park Impact Fee program.
  • Staff recommends approval of 4(b) as it provides more clarity to the intent of the regulations related to ongoing maintenance and an in-cash equivalent contribution. “The contribution shall take the form of either on-site installation of exterior artwork or placemaking amenities, reviewed by the City, or an equivalent cash donation to the City’s one percent for Arts program. All on-site works must include a plan for future maintenance and cleaning schedule where appropriate.”
Proposed Council Amendment #5 – SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(e)
This proposed Council amendment would provide more certainty with regard to the extent, or value, of which an improvement would need to be. The amendment also takes into consideration a high contribution in an instance where all off-street parking is eliminated. 
  • Staff recommends the Council-proposed amendment be approved, with the exception that the reference to elimination of parking be removed. 
  • Staff does not recommend off street parking requirements be removed (see amendment #8 below).
Proposed Council Amendment #6 – SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(f)
This proposed Council amendment would require buildings above the base allowable height in the MUR-70’ zone to achieve green certification, matching Tier 3 of the City’s Deep Green Incentive Program (DGIP). 
  • Staff recommends approval.
Proposed Council Amendment #7 – SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(g)
This proposed Council amendment would retain the existing requirement to purchase transfer of development rights (TDR) credits as a condition of obtaining maximum height.
  • Staff does not recommend approval.
Proposed Council Amendments #8a & #8b - SMC 20.50.400.C
These proposed Council amendments would change incentives for reductions in parking.
  • Staff is neutral on #8a – “Parking reductions of up to 50 percent may be approved for new residential, mixed-use, and commercial development” in the MUR-70’ zone. 
  • Staff does not recommend approval of #8b – “Parking reductions of up to 100 percent may be approved for new residential, mixed-use, and commercial development in the MUR-70’ zone containing 100 dwelling units or more, or 10,000 gross square feet of commercial floor area or more.”

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to approve Ordinance 968 Main Motion

Note: the existing Code as shown in attachment A to the staff report:

(12) Base height in the MUR-70 zone may be increased up to 80 feet when at least 10 percent of the significant trees on site are retained and up to 90 feet when at least 20 percent of the significant trees on site are retained.

Have we seen any significant effects of 10-20% tree retention in terms of environmental impact?
  • Reply: Don’t think I can answer that. It’s a complex question. A lot has changed in the last couple of years - much more development activity. We’re continuing to monitor and assess environmental impacts.
We’ve seen many comments about the requirement of 10% for trees. Can you describe City’s position on this?
  • Reply: This incentive is not proposed to be changed in any substantive manner. We included this in the staff report in order to be transparent by listing existing incentives.

Motion and second to modify Amendment #1 - Neighborhood meeting to add noticing and public comment requirements for proposed developments in the MUR-70’ zone seeking the maximum 140’ height.

I think transparency is really important and for the neighbors to have reasonable access to know what is going on in their area. I don’t think the current rules provide that. I also think the report from that meeting should be easily and readily available for the public to see.

Motion and second to amend the Modify Notification to residents within 1,000’ instead of 500’.

These large developments affect more than just immediate neighbors.

There is no distance mentioned in the Amendment to the Neighborhood Meeting.
  • Reply Miss Ainsworth-Taylor, Acting City Attorney: The distance is mentioned within Title 20 in the section about public noticing. It would be in 20.30.120(C)1.
Staff has modified the motion to include a reference to this.

VOTE.
Passes unanimously
.

VOTE on motion to amend neighborhood meeting (as amended)
Passes unanimously



Motion and second to approve Council Amendment #2. Ground floor commercial

At one point we removed the requirement for ground floor commercial thinking it would happen anyway. But it didn’t work out. The down side is we end up with vacant storefront spaces. But as the neighborhood develops, the owners will lower the rent for the spaces until they attract businesses. And then the neighborhood will develop as we envisioned.

VOTE
Passes unanimously


Motion and second to approve Council Amendment #3. Open space

Current proposal does not have a percentage of open space. This amendment adds it.

VOTE
Passes unanimously


Motion and second to approve Council Amendment #4B Funding Parks

This provides clarity on how contributions for the arts are made and also allows for and requires a maintenance plan.

I’m not in support. We are far short of the standard for open space. We need more parks.

I’m confused. Are these ideas (4A and 4B) mutually exclusive?
  • Reply: Yes, they are. 4A maintains 2% contribution; 4B reduces it to 1%.
  • We are discussing 4B now. So if you support 4A, you would have to oppose 4B. Or make a substitute motion.

Motion and second to modify the Planning Commission’s recommendation for SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(d) by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with a new SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(d) as shown on Page 10 of tonight’s Staff Report. (This replaces 4B with 4A)

Community well-being and the availability of parks has been studied and there is a correlation between the community sense of well-being and the quantity, quality and proximity of neighborhood public parks. The most significant variable was quantity.

What is our expectation of developers? What and why should they make additional contributions for additional height? What is the goal? We need more housing but if we add too many additional costs, we’re not going to get development here. So I am opposed. But I do support parks and open space and agree with their significance.

Motion to amend the substitute motion to include 4B.
Is there a second?


Could you clarify what this is doing? (Several Councilmembers state that they are confused.)

  • Reply by Mayor Scully: the original motion was 4B. The next motion was to replace 4B with 4A. This motion is to add 4B to replace portions of the language on 4A.
Motion is withdrawn.

This motion requests that we maintain current regulations. Not add an additional fee. And not a reduction from 2% to 1%.

Over the past 3 years, have we been collecting both park impact fees and an additional 2% from developers?
  • Reply: Yes. There is an important distinction The park impact fees apply to all residential development in MUR-70’. The 2% has not yet been collected because it applies only to those projects subject to the development agreement and we haven’t had any in the MUR-70’ zone.

Then I will be voting for 4A and opposed to 4B because I agree we’ve been asking too much from the developers. I agree because parks help prevent heat islands.

These fees are for new parks and new park structures for the additional residents added to our City. Not for maintenance or improvements to existing parks. When going from 100’ to 140’, that is 14 more floors of residential which will put people right next to light rail, so we’re not building out in the suburbs or the forests. But it only works if the City is livable and without more parks, we won’t be able to keep it livable.

VOTE
Passes 4-3.

DM Robertson, CM Roberts and CM McConnell opposed.

That last vote was essentially replacing 4A with 4B. This motion is the exact same thing, voting for or against 4B.

No additional discussion.

VOTE
Passes 4-3.

DM Robertson, CM Roberts and CM McConnell opposed.

OK. We are now back to our main motion. Any additional discussion?

Motion and second to strike Council Amendment #5 – SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(e) Subarea improvements

I think we have expanded on what we had in our development agreements. I want to strike “the development shall provide subarea improvements such as utility infrastructure system improvements, off-site frontage improvements…or installation of amenities such as transit stop shelters, lighting, or way-finding signage”

In the development agreement, they got to choose 2 out of 6 options. Under the new code we are already requiring 2 items with only slight modifications, and adding more.

I’m concerned about the level of confusion that’s happening in today’s discussion. I propose we postpone further action on Ordinance 968 until the implications of the votes that have already been taken can be analyzed by staff with responding recommendations to Council on how to proceed.

  • Reply: We are probably talking about a meeting in August or potentially September
  • Reply John Norris: There is some space in the agenda planner in early August. This will take some time. August 8 or 15.
Motion and second to postpone to a August 8. pending a recommendation from staff

Please clarify what this does to what we’ve already discussed.
  • Reply Mayor Scully, with concurrence by the City Clerk Jessica Simulcik Smith: All previous votes remain effective, and we come back with no vote on the Main Motion, and the ability to move future amendments including Amendment 5 Subarea Improvements that was just proposed. So we will not take a vote on Amendment 5, but it will be the first item of business on August 8.
This has been a very dense meeting but I’m reluctant to put this off because this is our job. I think we can do this.

VOTE
Passes 4-3

Mayor Scully, CM Mork and CM Ramsdell dissenting.


Study Item 9(a) Discussion of Resolution No. 492 – Providing for the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City of Shoreline at an Election to be Held on November 8, 2022, a Proposition Authorizing the City to Increase its Regular Property Tax Levy Above the Limit Established in RCW 84.55.010 to Fund Public Safety and Community Services

Presentation by Christina Arcidy, Management Analyst, City Manager’s Office

Council last reviewed this topic on June 13, 2022. At that time, the Council directed staff to bring forward a proposal in July for consideration of replacement of the levy lid lift on the November 8, 2022, general election. The current one expires December 31, 2022.

If Council votes to not put this on the ballot, or if the voters do not support it in November (50% + 1 for approval) projection:


The City is required to operate a balanced budget so the shortfall would have to be made up by service reductions and/or use of the General Fund reserves.

Council had expressed interest in options 1 and 2:





DISCUSSION

I support Option 2. Although I like Option 1, there are other considerations such as the Parks Bond that passed, increased water rates and other impacts to residents that are yet to come. Option 1 would be wonderful and I hope we can find ways in the future to fund the things it could have provided.

I agree. We have the School District and the Fire Department and other organizations that are supported by residents’ property taxes.

What about increased values from the property assessors office?
  • Reply: I can’t really answer that. Historically the levy has been about 10% of the individual’s tax bill. The School District is around 20%.
  • Reply Sarah Lane: It is a complex issue. If property evaluations end up coming in higher than we anticipated in coming up with these figures, we could set our rate lower than the maximum rate. We target the amount we seek to collect, and that total amount is distributed to the taxpayers based on property valuation.
I think voters will be surprised when they receive their tax bills. Because our charts show $293 but that is only a fraction of the total property tax they will be seeing.

I understand that the applications for exemption or deferral of taxes available to some seniors and the disabled are backed up months and months.
  • Reply: Yes, but they will be backdating the effective date of the exemptions/deferrals.

The Levy Lid Lift funds basic operations. If we do zero, we start laying people off and start cutting programs. That’s because we increase at the cost of inflation. Since inflation makes the cost go up, revenue has to keep up.

MEETING ADJOURNED



Read more...

Agenda for Shoreline council meeting Monday June 27, 2022

Thursday, June 23, 2022

Shoreline Council regular meeting Monday, June 27, 2022, 7pm will be hybrid: in person in the Council Chamber · Shoreline City Hall, 17500 Midvale Ave N. or on Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/95015006341
Webinar ID: 950 1500 6341 - 253-215-8782

The agenda for the June 27, 2022 Shoreline City Council Regular meeting includes the following:

Action Item 8 (a) Action on Ordinance No. 968 – Amending Chapters 20.30, 20.40, and 20.50 of the Shoreline Municipal Code to Modify Regulations for Development Within the MUR-70’ Zoning District. Presentation by Andrew Bauer, Planning Manager, Planning and Community Development

The City’s light rail station subarea plans for the 185th and 145th Station subareas were adopted in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The plans call for the subareas surrounding the future light rail stations to transform into compact transit-oriented communities with a range of housing types, open space, and services. The plans are generally performing as anticipated through the first 6+ years since adoption.

This was last discussed by the Council at the June 6, 2022 meeting. The Council has proposed the following Amendments

Proposed Council Amendment #1– SMC 20.30.297(C)(3) - Additional requirements for neighborhood meetings:

This amendment calls for signs announcing the meeting, online open house/website in addition to the in-person meeting, and a meeting summary posted on the City’s website. Staff is neutral regarding this amendment.

Proposed Council Amendment #2 - SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(b)(2) & SMC 20.50.250(C)

Additional requirement for exceeding the base height when not qualifying for other height bonus:

These proposed Council amendments would provide more clarity for the ground floor commercial requirement and would be similar to existing standards that already apply to the North City and Ridgecrest neighborhoods. Staff recommends approval of this amendment.

Proposed Council Amendment #3 - SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(c)

This proposed Council amendment would provide more clarity to the requirement for open spaces and would allow a portion of the already required Public Places and Multifamily Open Space be open and accessible to the public. Staff recommends approval of this amendment.

Proposed Council Amendments #4a and #4b - SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(d)

These proposed Council amendments address the funding of parks, open space, art, or other recreational opportunities.

Staff does not recommend approval of 4(a) as it will add additional development costs for applicants as the two percent contribution was originally in place prior to the City’s Park Impact Fee program.

Staff recommends approval of 4(b) as it provides more clarity to the intent of the regulations related to ongoing maintenance and an in-cash equivalent contribution. “The contribution shall take the form of either on-site installation of exterior artwork or placemaking amenities, reviewed by the City, or an equivalent cash donation to the City’s one percent for Arts program. All on-site works must include a plan for future maintenance and cleaning schedule where appropriate.”

Proposed Council Amendment #5 – SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(e)

This proposed Council amendment would provide more certainty with regard to the extent, or value, of which an improvement would need to be. The amendment also takes into consideration a high contribution in an instance where all off-street parking is eliminated. Staff recommends the Council-proposed amendment be approved, with the exception that the reference to elimination of parking be removed. Staff does not recommend off street parking requirements be removed (see amendment #8 below).

Proposed Council Amendment #6 – SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(f)

This proposed Council amendment would require buildings above the base allowable height in the MUR-70’ zone to achieve green certification, matching Tier 3 of the City’s Deep Green Incentive Program (DGIP). Staff recommends approval.

Proposed Council Amendment #7 – SMC 20.50.020(A)(11)(g)

This proposed Council amendment would retain the existing requirement to purchase transfer of development rights (TDR) credits as a condition of obtaining maximum height. Staff does not recommend approval.

Proposed Council Amendments #8a and #8b - SMC 20.50.400.C

These proposed Council amendments would change incentives for reductions in parking.

#8a – “Parking reductions of up to 50 percent may be approved for new residential, mixed-use, and commercial development” in the MUR-70’ zone. Staff is neutral.

Staff does not recommend approval of #8b – “Parking reductions of up to 100 percent may be approved for new residential, mixed-use, and commercial development in the MUR-70’ zone containing 100 dwelling units or more, or 10,000 gross square feet of commercial floor area or more.”

Study Item 9(a) Discussion of Resolution No. 492 – Providing for the Submission to the Qualified Electors of the City of Shoreline at an Election to be Held on November 8, 2022, a Proposition Authorizing the City to Increase its Regular Property Tax Levy Above the Limit Established in RCW 84.55.010 to Fund Public Safety and Community Services

Presentation by Christina Arcidy, Management Analyst, City Manager’s Office

Council last reviewed this topic on June 13, 2022. At that time, the Council directed staff to bring forward a proposal in July for consideration of replacement of the levy lid lift on the November 8, 2022, general election. This resolution proposes to submit a ballot measure to the Shoreline voters that if, approved, would reset the City’s 2023 general property tax levy rate to $1.40 per $1,000 of assessed valuation and allows for annual levy increases up to the rate of inflation (Seattle Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers [CPI-U] ) for the years 2024-2028 and uses the 2028 levy amount to calculate subsequent levy limits. Several Councilmembers expressed interest in further consideration of resetting the levy rate at $1.49 which will also be discussed.

More information here

--Pam Cross



Read more...

Notes from Shoreline City Council meeting June 13, 2022

Friday, June 17, 2022

Reporter Pam Cross
Shoreline City Council 
Regular Meeting
June 13, 2022

Notes by Pam Cross

Tonight’s Regular meeting is conducted in a hybrid manner with both in-person and virtual options to attend and participate.

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Mayor Scully.

Flag Salute and Roll Call

All Councilmembers were present. CM Roberts, Mork, and McConnell attended remotely.

Proclamation
I, Keith Scully, Mayor of the City of Shoreline, on behalf of the Shoreline City Council, do hereby proclaim June 19, 2022 as JUNETEENTH in the City of Shoreline and encourage all people to celebrate and take action to achieve racial justice for all. Juneteenth is celebrated nationally as the end of chattel slavery.

Approval of the Agenda
Agenda approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry

Artists Myron Curry and Vincent Keele have painted a new mural on the wall of the Shoreline Secure Storage property on Midvale and N 178th St to celebrate Juneteenth.


Vandalized Interurban Trail repairs
 

Last week to have your voice heard by taking the Climate Action Plan Survey


Watch the weather forecast before you leave for Saturday’s Walk.


Public Reminders
The Planning Commission will hold a hybrid (remote/in-person) meeting on Thursday, June 16, at 7pm in the Council Chamber to discuss the Economic Development Forecast

The PRCS/Tree Board will hold a remote meeting (via Zoom) on Thursday, June 23 at 7pm

Shoreline City Hall will be closed on Monday, June 20 in recognition of the Juneteenth holiday.
There will be no Council meeting on June 20. The next Council meeting will be held on Monday, June 27, 2022.

Council Reports
Deputy Mayor Robertson attended the North King County Coalition on Homelessness meeting. There was a preview of the upcoming budget for the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA). They are planning to provide more severe weather assistance with another potential for a hot period this summer. The other thing under consideration is having the North KingCo cities provide the money they currently spend on homelessness to the Authority for administration of the funds. Current commitments will be honored and the cities will provide guidance. More information will follow as this idea is developed.

Mayor Scully stated that on the Consent Calendar, Council will be appointing the new youth members for the Parks and Tree Board. He want to take a minute to thank David Lin, who served two years on the parks board and was a great contributor.

Public Comment
Each speaker allowed 3 minutes. Both in-person and remote attendees have an opportunity to speak. There were 10 written comments at the time this report was prepared.

Regarding 8(a) Discussion on Tenant Protection Regulations
Randy Bannecker, Seattle-King County Realtors
MariLyn Yim, Seattle, Shoreline property owner
Will Toaspern, Community Policy Specialist at Solid Ground (a homelessness resource)

The Oaks Enhanced Shelter
Jackie Kurle, Shoreline

20th Ave NW Sidewalk Design
Kathleen Russell, Shoreline

Proposed Apartment on Linden Ave N
Derek Blackwell, Shoreline

Approval of the Consent Calendar.
The Consent Calendar was approved unanimously.

Study Item 8(a) Discussion on Tenant Protection Regulations

The staff report will be presented by Jim Hammond, Intergovernmental Program Manager.


This report will provide a broad overview of the current state of tenant protection at the state level and in communities around King County as a result of the end of tenant protections provided during the pandemic. This is a very early stage discussion that was requested by Council. It is not proposed legislation. And tonight’s discussion will not be complete because it is introductory for Council to discuss and determine whatever else might be desired.

Tenant advocates have proposed the following protections:Increased number of days notice for rent increases;
  • Cap on late fees;
  • Cap on move-in fees;
  • Right to a payment plan for up-front fees (deposit, first/last month’s rent);
  • Alteration of rent due date - important if paid monthly or on a fixed income because payments may not coincide with rent due date;
  • Barring discrimination due to immigrant status;
  • Barring requirement of a social security number (a background or credit check can be done using other information);
  • Barring some additional signatory requirements;
  • Banning abusive, deceptive, unfair practices;
  • Providing relocation assistance to low-income tenants in certain circumstances such as building condemned, owner sells or moves back into residence. Currently it is focusing on rent increased for low income renters;
  • Just cause eviction. State law does cover most of this but not all;
  • Rental registration and inspection in order to capture all rentals in a known jurisdiction;
  • Barring rent increases if property is in poor condition;
  • Right to live with family - cannot evict a dependent child;
  • Prohibiting criminal background checks.
These protections have been adopted in varying degrees by different local jurisdictions.

The City of Kenmore was brought up in public comment today. Kenmore is still considering several other protections. It is notable that in Kenmore, these are enforceable through a private right of action. That is, they are basically defenses to eviction that need to be brought by the tenant through legal action.


Again, this is intended to be an introduction to the topic organized around a model ordinance provided by tenant advocates. Other stakeholders, such as landlords, have not been contacted.

Does Council want us to study this further?

DISCUSSION

Unfortunately this subject didn’t make it on the agenda for the Council Retreat, when we, as a group, decide what the Work Plan is (actions and tasks that will be performed by staff).

Every time we have to add to the Work Plan it requires time and money for staff. So we do this very carefully and respectfully. We have to be mindful of our resources. Because there is so much here I feel uncomfortable adding this to our Work Plan for this year.

Yes, I would like us to spend more time. Ultimately I would like to see us answer some of these questions. I think the things that Kenmore has done align with my feelings on what is most important. And I also want us to have a robust stakeholder process. That will slow us down but we need to hear from both landlords and renters.

I agree both landlords and tenants should be listened to.

The ability to change the rent due date for people on a fixed income is important and should be looked at right away. These are all big questions. We need to provide some additional security for our renters, but not at the expense of single family housing and “mom and pop” landlords.

As an owner of rentals in Shoreline, I have learned the importance of feeling good about the renter. Although it’s not even in here, credit is the one saving grace for owners to fall back on to protect our investment. Not having that in there makes me very nervous. Seattle has seen a significant reduction in rental single family homes since they have implemented many of these things. Single family home rentals are more affordable than multi-family housing because they are older and smaller but meet the needs of people who really want to live in a home with some land around it and possibly a fenced yard. We need to prepare for unintended consequences if we implement some of these policy changes. We don’t want to take away the incentive for owners to offer these rentals.

Shoreline says we are an “all inclusive” city. We seek to do what is in the best interests of the majority. Some of these items are morally right and invest in a balanced and equitable city. Because these policies are not in place, some people can’t afford to live in Shoreline and move away. Some people who can actually afford to live here may never care for the city and won’t make any impact, volunteer, or even lift a finger when it comes to necessary things to be done with the city. We need to think this through. I think we need to move this ahead - even 2022 or 2024.

We don’t want “mom and pop” landlords selling and thereby reducing the inventory of affordable units here. But eviction moratoriums are over, and there has been a big spike in rents. I would like to discuss as part of Work Plan for 2022-2024.

This is a very complicated issue. I can see both sides having spent much of my life as a renter. What would come off the table in order to make time for this?
  • Reply: I’m just speaking theoretically. We want to know what Council thinks.
  • Reply Debbie Tarry: We wanted to know what the Council discussion would be tonight before talking about what would come off. We don’t have a Housing Office, as such, so we don’t have a specialist in this area. We would have to go back and see if there’s something else that could be put on hold. If there’s flexibility of when this would come back, then that would give us more leeway.
I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, importantly, the proposals do make a lot of sense. I hope that these will be addressed by the State Legislature. Tenants in Shoreline or Edmonds deserve the same protections as Seattle. City lines are not as important because you go where housing is affordable for you, where you have access to public transportation to your job, and other resources. If you don’t have children so a particular school district isn’t important, where you want to live is much broader than just one jurisdiction. When I was moving from the University District, Shoreline was just another city to me. The protections are important for Shoreline tenants at this moment but what we should be looking at is a statewide standard.

The problem I have with Kenmore’s approach is that it depends on the private right of action - how will lower income tenants afford an attorney? And, since fines and penalties are relatively smaller amounts, how many attorneys are going to take a case, do the research, and spend the time to seek a $1,000 remedy? I think the city has to do the enforcement. To go out and say to the landlord: you are violating an ordinance and here is a civil infraction. The city is the one to enforce legislation. And I think this a big piece of the picture. If the state enacts the laws, then the state is the enforcement agency. It’s hard for a city to do, especially one the size of Shoreline.

How many units are we talking about that are “mom and pop” landlords? We don’t have the data - at least I haven’t seen it. Without the data we are relying on anecdotal evidence. We need the data so we can address the actual problems instead of just what we’ve heard. This is not simple. If we exclude “mom and pop’s,” and say they represent 75% of available units, that’s a lot of people we’re not protecting.

There is a housing shortage in Shoreline and Seattle. But if we could just wave a magic wand and start building more housing, it’s not going to solve all of these challenges. Rent increases are affected by the amount of housing stock we have. I’m happy Shoreline is encouraging new housing throughout the City.

The Washington State Landlord-Tenant Law is pretty robust. Many of the things we’re discussing here are already in state law in some form. For example, if the property is defective or dangerous you are allowed to withhold rent. So we would kind of re-define that to “poor condition” so we’d have to come up with a definition of poor condition and add a separate condition which is no rent increase. That doesn’t get us any better off. The state adopted “just cause.” It might not be perfect but will get worked out with stakeholders. 60 day to 120 notice for rent increase doesn’t get us where we want to be. Regarding a family member’s right to live with family: if you have a family member that is a problem they wouldn’t be allowed to live on their own because of this bad behavior so you backdoor them in by having them live with a family member. I agree conceptually with everything but I’m not sure these details move the needle enough for me to modify our Work Plan. Also, I would like to see the just revised (last year or the year before) State Law operate a bit and see if we really have the emergency that I think people perceive that there is.

What I’ve heard so far, is that three Councilmembers would like to see this move forward and four prefer to schedule for next year’s retreat, where we can see a more robust staff report and then have a more robust discussion.

I think we should start accumulating the data now for the future discussion.

The size of a rent increase should determine the number of required days notice.

Currently landlords don’t have the rights that tenants have, and some tenants take advantage of their knowledge of the system. It takes at least two months to evict someone who has stopped paying rent. Even if I collected the 1st, last and deposit, I’m still not going to break even. Owners of single family rentals don’t raise rent by large amounts because we want to keep good renters. The rent will increase to market rate when tenants move out and new ones move in. There are programs that help people get the money to move (Hopelink, for example). Let’s not think of landlords as the bad guys.

Study Item 8(b) 10 Year Financial Sustainability Plan Update: Strategy #7 – Levy Lid Lift Renewal

The staff report will be presented by Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director.

Shoreline’s 10 year Financial Sustainability Plan was adopted in 2014. With that we established a 10 Year Financial Sustainability Model that allows us to project revenues and expenditures out for 10 years. One of the seven strategies in the Model is a Levy Lid Lift (LLL).

In November 2001, Washington State voters passed Initiative 747. This limited the increase in the City of Shoreline’s levy by the lesser of one percent or the percentage increase in the implicit price deflator (IPD), unless voters have approved LLL by a majority vote (50% plus 1).

A LLL can last up to 6 years. The rate can increase every year. The current one is due to expire in December 2022.


Should Council place the 2016 Levy Lid Lift on the ballot?

To answer this question, the City Manager engaged the Financial Sustainability Advisory Committee-2022 (FSAC-22) in early 2022. FSAC-22 met six times between March 10 and May 19. The results are, in part: 
  • The City Council should place a measure on the November 2022 ballot for a LLL
  • The LLL should seek to maintain the current level of City services.
  • Committee members had differences of opinion on if the LLL should expand services to address emerging issues;
  • The committee did not come to an agreement on a recommended first year Levy Lid Lift rate.
The operating budget 10-year forecast projects potential budget gaps to occur beginning in 2024 with a cumulative size totaling $22.937 million over the 10-year forecast period. These potential budget gaps will not materialize, of course, as the City of Shoreline is required by law to pass a balanced budget. So this would require that we find other sources of revenue or fill with fund balance or most likely reduce expenditures which means reduction of services.

Four options are provided in the staff report. Option 2 is the staff recommendation.


Option 2 – Add Regional Mobile Crisis Response Program to Serve North King County Cities, Partial Funding of Support Services to Maintain Operational Programs and Increased Park Maintenance Staff in Conjunction with New Park Properties to Maintain Level of Service.

This option increases the City’s investment in the Regional Mobile Crisis Response Program to Serve North King County Cities (current RADAR Program) to allow for 24/7 coverage in Shoreline, would fund approximately half of the needed support services staff, and will add one full time employee to maintain park maintenance level of service as new park properties are developed. 

It would not provide funding to maintain service levels in other areas such as code enforcement and recreation and would only fund a portion of the identified support service needs. The new tax rate for 2023 would be set at $1.39766, close to the same rate that was established in the first year of the 2016 levy lid lift, and the lid for the ensuing years would be “lifted” each year by a percentage increase tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).


DISCUSSION

The current Levy Lid Lift will expire. So on the above slide, “no action” would remove the old Lid Lift, so that taxes actually decrease?
  • Reply: Correct. The current one will expire at the end of the year and they would recalculate the rate which results in a decrease in our rate down to $1.02.
What is the current levy rate so we can compare what people are paying now to what we might be asking them to pay in the first year of the new levy lid lift?
  • Reply: It is $1.13 and we will add a column to this chart to show that.
Why don’t we use fund balance instead of the yearly increases?
  • Reply: It’s not sustainable.
People want to see improved public safety such as RADAR.

It’s up the the Council to determine what programs will be enhanced, rather than to state in the levy what the funds are for. That would tie the hands of future councils.
  • Reply: we are working with bond council now to make sure that doesn’t happen but we needed some way to lay out how to get to a rate. We will be careful creating the wording.
  • Reply Debbie Tarry: This is kind of like what you might see with a City Manager recommendation but we recognize that the final decision is for Council to determine. It’s just to provide some context for conversation.
How uncomfortable are you with option 1? We’re going to have growth around light rail in the next few years and we will need staff in order to handle the increased needs.
  • Reply: My biggest concern is voter acceptance and there is also a slightly higher risk should assessed valuations decrease.
  • Reply Debbie Tarry: I agree. There is a comfort level around the same rate. It’s important to remember it’s not just the rate, it’s the valuation of housing. Even going from the current rate to $1.40 is an increase in property taxes. Our projections are conservative but fairly telling of what the future would look like and hopefully there would be more budget flexibility.
We are coming out of the last 6-year period which was different from any other. We have always passed these.

I prefer Option 1 for the additional revenue for various needs.

What about people who see these increases as a hardship?
  • Reply: Senior, low income, the disabled can be included in the resolution permitting them to apply for an exemption. In the past, this has not resulted in a big decrease in tax revenue.
Does population growth have any impact on this?
  • Reply: Population growth that comes along with development is included in the forecast at a low level with the expectation that costs increase along with the population growth.
This will come back as a choice between options 1 and 2 on June 27.

Meeting adjourned.

NOTE: Confused about how a Levy Lid Lift works? Go the the following link. It’s from Shoreline, it’s current, and it uses simplified examples.





Read more...

Notes from Shoreline council meeting June 6, 2022

Friday, June 10, 2022

Pam Cross, reporter
Shoreline City Council Regular Meeting
June 6, 2022

Notes by Pam Cross

Prior to the 7pm regular meeting, Council held an in-person Special Meeting from 5:30pm to 6:45pm. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the City Manager recruitment process and candidate profile with Catherine Tuck Parish, Vice President at Raftelis. The City Council has engaged the services of Raftelis to assist the Council in the recruitment of a new City Manager.

Tonight’s Regular meeting was conducted in a hybrid manner with both in-person and virtual options to attend.

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Mayor Scully.

Flag Salute and Roll Call
All Councilmembers were present. CM McConnell and CM Mork attended via Zoom.

Proclamation
I, Keith Scully, Mayor of the City of Shoreline, on behalf of the Shoreline City Council, do hereby proclaim June 2022 as
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) PRIDE MONTH.
Through this proclamation, the City of Shoreline affirms its support and acceptance for children, adults, families, and allies of the LGBTQ community.

We have also proclaimed that June 2022 as RideTransit Month and that National Gun Violence Awareness Day took place on the first Friday of June, which was the 3rd.

Approval of the Agenda
Agenda approved by unanimous consent.

Report of the City Manager, Debbie Tarry
Presented by Ms. Tarry

As a show of solidarity, the Progress Pride Flag will fly at Shoreline City Hall for the month of June. And back by popular demand, volunteer fiber artists created colorful tree wraps.


78 years have passed since June 6, 1944 when more that 167,000 allied troops landed at Normandy, France to fight Nazi Germany. We want to acknowledge the veterans who gave their lives and those that continued to fight throughout World War II.


Have your voice heard by taking the Climate Action Plan Survey


The 145th Corridor is a major east-west route the connects South Shoreline and North Seattle neighborhoods to businesses, parks and services. Learn more at the virtual open house.


Be sure to watch the weather forecast before you leave for Saturday’s Walk.


The Shoreline Farmers Market opened for its 11th season last Saturday to a great crowd! Lot of booths and parking at its new location.


Public Reminders
None

Council Reports
CM Ramsdell met with members of the Stay Housed, Stay Healthy Coalition to find out more about the renter protections they are advocating for in Kenmore.

CM Pobee and CM McConnell attended the SeaShore Transportation Forum where they discussed the Lynnwood Link that should be open in 2024 and the E-Line’s lack of redundancy as a way to travel from Shoreline to Seattle.

CM Mork attended the Regional Water Quality meeting where they have been working on a Guiding Set of Principles that will go to the PIC Board (Public Issues Committee) of the Sound Cities Association.

Public Comment

Each speaker allowed 2 minutes. Both in-person and remote attendees have an opportunity to speak. There were 32 written comments at the time this report was prepared.

Action Item 8(a) Ordinance No. 967 – Authorizing the Use of Eminent Domain for Acquisition of Public Park Land
Richard King, Shoreline, VP Richmond Beach Preservation
Jack Malek, Shoreline
Joyce Taibleson, Shoreline
Bryan Chow, Shoreline
Peter Vitaliano, Shoreline, owner of property being discussed
Tom McCormick, Shoreline

Action Item 8(b) Ordinance No. 966 – Amending Shoreline Municipal Code – Deferred Underground Facilities
Jack Malek, Shoreline

Study Item 9(a) Discussion of ShoreLake Arts Funding
Nancy Malek, Shoreline

Study 9(b) Ordinance No. 968 Development within the MUR-70’ Zoning District
Kathleen Russell, Shoreline, Save Shoreline Trees

Gun Violence
Juliet Scarpa, Shoreline, Volunteer for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America

Planned Sidewalk for 20th Ave NW
Susanne Tsoming, Shoreline
Nancy Morris, Shoreline
Jonelle Kemmerling, Shoreline

Fircrest Property
Janet Way, Shoreline, Shoreline Preservation Society

Approval of the Consent Calendar.
The Consent Calendar was approved unanimously.

Action Item 8(a) Action on Ordinance No. 967 – Authorizing the Use of Eminent Domain for Acquisition of Certain Real Property identified as King County Tax Parcel No. 727810-0905 for Public Park Land

Presented by Julie Ainsworth-Taylor, Assistant City Attorney

CM McConnell, who has recused herself from discussions regarding this ordinance, has left the meeting.

Council last discussed this on May 23rd with the City Attorney following numerous public comments.


Staff recommends that Council adopt proposed Ordinance No. 967 authorizing the use of eminent domain for this property to expand the City’s park land providing access to the shoreline. Staff will continue to negotiate for a voluntary sale of the property and will return to Council if those negotiations fail prior to filing a petition of eminent domain in the King County Superior Court.

CBRE was retained to prepare a just compensation appraisal, which is difficult because this is tidelands. The appraised value of $110,000 is just a few thousand dollars more the King County Assessor’s appraised value of $107,000.

A title report has been ordered and a property survey will be performed if necessary.

The Railroad will not discuss providing a license for a pathway adjacent to the railroad right-of-way until the City has formalized plans for that pathway to access the property, or at least has a preliminary design.

DISCUSSION

Motion and second to approve Ordinance 967.

We have a responsibility to preserve beachfront access for the public.

This is difficult because I can see both sides of the issue. But I am concerned about public safety. Without legal access, people will go over the railroad tracks.

At this point, the property owner seems reluctant to negotiate. I don’t want to see a lot of resources being spent on this. This is not an urgent issue, when there are lots of other problems and lots of other issues that the City has and that we need to work on. Long term, it makes sense to look into it. I believe tidelands and beach access should belong to the public when it makes sense.

I think more transparency would have been appreciated because a lot of people complained about the lack of notice.

VOTE
Ordinance 967 passes unanimously 6-0 (CM McConnell recused)

Action Item 8(b) Adoption of Ordinance No. 966 – Amending Shoreline Municipal Code Chapter 13.20 to Add a New Section SMC 13.20.060 – Deferred Underground Facilities

Presented by John Norris, Assistant City Manager

Required undergrounding of the electrical utility in the 148th St light rail area has been delayed by Seattle City Light’s (SCL) 5th Avenue Duct Bank Project. In early 2021, SCL informed Sound Transit and the City that it was pushing back the timing of this replacement project as it does not have the capital funding to complete the Duct Bank Project in coordination with the light rail project timeline. SCL estimates a 2027-2030 timeline instead of 2024. As a result, temporary above-ground 3-phase power is required in order to continue with the light rail project as well as private development in the station area.

On May 23, 2022 Council discussed proposed Ordinance No. 966, which provides for a new Section 13.20.060 of the SMC which would allow interim overhead power within a limited area if certain conditions are met. Proposed Section 13.20.060 SMC, titled Deferred Underground Facilities, allows for overhead electrical facilities (utility poles, wires, etc.) on an interim basis if a property owner needing new overhead electricity enters into a Deferred Underground Facilities Agreement (DUFA) with the City. This proposed Code section also codifies requirements for SCL related to the interim overhead electrical facilities.


DISCUSSION

Was there positive feedback related to the timeline?
  • Reply: We continue to meet with SCL so the undergrounding project is now scheduled to be completed by 2027. We are also negotiating what we are calling an “umbrella agreement” with SCL which outlines all of the undergrounding projects and sets the stage for how we are going to partner and work together on these projects. We hope to have a written agreement later this year.
Motion and second to pass Ordinance 966.

One clarifying question regarding covering the operation of the buildings, as well as the construction. Can you comment on that?
  • Reply: This absolutely allows for operational power. The building can be operated/operational, tenants can move in etc and operational power will continue to be served overhead until the Duct Bank Project is complete.
VOTE
Ordinance 966 passes unanimously 7-0

Study Item 9(a) Discussion of ShoreLake Arts Funding Request in Support of an Artspace Market Study for Affordable Artist Housing/Space Project in Shoreline

Mayor Scully disclosed that his wife, Sarah Cohen, is on the Board of ShoreLake Arts.
Deputy Mayor Robertson disclosed that her husband, Darryl Miller, is also on the Board.

Debbie Tarry, City Manager, introduces presenters from ShoreLake Arts:
  • Quinn Elliott, Executive Director
  • Tracey Thorleifson, President of the Board of Directors

ShoreLake Arts engaged Artspace, the national leader in developing space for artists and arts organizations, to do a Preliminary Feasibility study on the potential for an Artspace-type project in Shoreline. The envisioned project would create both a permanent home for ShoreLake Arts and 40 to 75 units of affordable housing for artists. The current waitlist for affordable housing is 1,000 people long (the list is capped at 1,000). Artspace released the final Preliminary Feasibility Report in January 2022.

Artspace retains ownership of its buildings to ensure they remain dedicated to affordable artist housing in perpetuity. Most live/work units serve households earning at or below 60% of the area median income (AMI). 56% of residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher. 18% of residents consider themselves to have a disability and 42% identify as BIPOC. These numbers are higher than the national figures.

The final report found a demand for both an Arts Center to house community arts events and art education programming, affordable artist housing, and that the project should be in Shoreline.

The major findings of the 60+ page report* include:
  1. There’s consensus on the basic project concept.
  2. There are overlapping community goals that align with Artspace’s goals.
  3. There is a definite appetite for space to gather, to collaborate, to perform, and to create in Shoreline.
  4. The political interest and know-how exists in the community.
  5. Funding is going to be the biggest challenge, but there’s a clear path forward through Low Income Housing Tax Credits, other public sources, and philanthropy.
  6. There are site parcels that are large enough for the proposed concept, desirable to artists, and centrally located. These include Ridgecrest Bingo Hall, City Storage Courts, Fircrest, and the Shoreline Park 'n Ride. Further study is required to identify other sites since the first sites identified are usually not the location that is ultimately selected.
*View the Artspace report here

The next required step in the Artspace project includes a market study ($35,000) and project refinement workshop ($12,500). Artspace advised ShoreLake Arts to find funding to begin the Market Study by September 2022. ShoreLake Arts is requesting City funding of $20,000 to $25,000 to help fund the next steps.

DISCUSSION

Thank you for the presentation. It tells us how support for the arts is absolutely needed in the community. During the pandemic, the Arts Industry suffered the most because there were no performances, and artists did not have places to live and work. Your funding request is quite small - where is the rest of the funding coming from?
  • Reply: We will ask the City of Lake Forest Park, we have an individual donor who will deliver some, and we have a request into Amazon. It is unlikely County funds are available until the next round of funding (which will be a great deal more). There are grants that will be available later in the year. Once we’re further along in the process, funding from the State is available for the arts.
I am excited about this project, but I think we should wait until the normal budget cycle when we can look at it holistically with the funding of all the organizations.
  • Reply: We can wait until then if we have all of the other funding.
Why should we wait? I’m not sure I understand how this works (question from a new Councilmember).
  • Reply Julie Ainsworth-Taylor, Assistant City Attorney: City and Counties commonly provide grants for affordable housing and for other public purposes. So it’s defining whether the building of the Arts Society serves a public purpose, and how that benefits the public. But I don’t think this would necessarily be astray of that obligation.
We can’t just build a safe, utilitarian community that is battleship gray and expect it to thrive. It’s so important to have color and to enrich our community with art. I would love to see this project in Shoreline.

Should we return this on Consent?
I don’t think we have a full proposal before us. It is more of a general thought. It’s not a formal request.
  • Reply Debbie Tarry, City Manager: I was going to take the information that I heard tonight and, if I heard support, we would include this in a budget ordinance. We are currently scheduled for a budget ordinance in July. It would come to Council as a Discussion item.
Study Item 9(b) Discussion of Ordinance No. 968 – Amending Chapters 20.30, 20.40, and 20.50 of the Shoreline Municipal Code to Modify Regulations for Development Within the MUR-70’ Zoning District

Presentation by Andrew Bauer, Planning Manager

With several years having passed since City Council adoption of the two light rail station subarea plans and initial development code regulations, opportunities have been identified to refine the MUR-70 zone to better facilitate implementation of the plans. Stemming from the discussion at the October 25, 2021 joint meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission, the Planning Commission has continued work on Development Code amendments that would:
  • Establish provisions to reduce off-street parking requirements up to 50% for developments with 100+ dwelling units or 10,000+sf commercial space, and with approval of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The TDM would be a project specific plan where we look at ways to offset or minimize the overall parking demand on a development as a tool to minimize demand.
  • Revise the process and requirements by which development may achieve the maximum allowable building height of 140 feet by removing the requirement for a Development Agreement. This does not change the maximum height, but how you get to the maximum height.
There are some deleted requirements to achieve Maximum 140’ height:The Development Agreement is now optional.
  • LEED Gold is deleted since the Built Green 4-Star certification, which is roughly equivalent, is required.
  • The requirement that at least 90% of parking be within a structure is proposed to be removed.
  • Purchase of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Credits is proposed to be removed because we don’t have a program currently in place.
  • The requirement for the use of district energy or combined heat and power infrastructure is proposed to be removed because it is not feasible on an individual development basis.
This is not a comprehensive analysis of the changes. The purpose of these amendments is refining the MUR-70 Zone and maintaining the core elements of the subarea plan. It can be reviewed in the staff report.

DISCUSSION

There is a change in contribution to parks. The 2% has been reduced to 1%. That concerns me. Can you elaborate?
  • Reply: The existing requirement was adopted in 2015, prior to the adoption of Park Impact Fees in 2017. Park impact fees are now collected per development and are used to fund park acquisitions and improvements throughout the City. These fees are rather redundant.
Will this reduce the total amount for parks, or will it remain about the same?
  • Reply: We can follow up with some numbers but this provision is currently in the code for only those developments using the Development Agreement (DA) Process which is now optional. Since we haven’t had anyone use the DA process, we don’t have an real numbers right now.
You talked about a Neighborhood Meeting as part of this process. We have received a variety of complaints about these meetings from citizens who do not see that their voices are heard. Can you explain how that works? If someone complains at a neighborhood meeting, is the developer required to make any changes?
  • Reply: Generally the neighborhood meeting occurs prior to any formal building permit or development application being filed with the City. And the intent is to provide the opportunity for real input and real change. However, that’s not always going to be the case for everything. So the developer essentially notifies the neighborhood within 500’ of the development site. They then hold a neighborhood meeting at which point they present the proposed development and some of the specifics in terms of what they’re wanting to do. They gather any feedback or input from the people attending that meeting. And from there they provide a kind of written up summary of the neighborhood meeting and the feedback that they heard, and how they’re incorporating or not incorporating into the development proposal the feedback that they heard. Sometimes they are incorporated and sometimes they are not.
Let me restate my question. Under a development agreement, if there is a lot of neighborhood input, are there changes that are required? Or is the neighborhood meeting just a recording of issues?
  • Reply: The primary difference here is the development agreement as currently written is a legislative action so it’s ultimately the City Council’s decision to approve or not approve the development agreement. It’s also important there is a public hearing required prior to action on the development agreement. It’s a little more formal than a neighborhood meeting where you’re gathering public testimony on the proposal.
I appreciate that this question was raised by another Councilmember, but I don’t believe that I received a satisfactory answer. Let me ask it a different way: I am not sure that the neighborhood meeting meets the goal of the neighborhood. What is the goal here from the neighborhood meeting vs some other way that the neighborhood is actually going to be heard, and where their voices will be effectively making some changes, whether the developer wants to do it or has to do it?
  • Reply: I’m hearing concerns that there is a lack of accountability from hearing what the concerns or feedback or input is, and how or is it even incorporated into a development application. Is that the root of the concern here?
Yes. I’m trying to point out what the public’s concerns are.
  • Reply: That’s a big question and I don’t think I can answer that. What I can say though, is that this is following the neighborhood meeting process that we have in place. What it boils down to is are the decisional criteria in which a decision would be rendered on the overarching application. So that’s where we’d be looking at consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, policies, and development code standards.
So there’s enough in the codes to effectively protect the neighborhood from something that is out of line with their expectations? I’m satisfied that you absolutely cannot say for sure. But with what we have in place, it will suffice, more or less. And a good developer will probably take some of those suggestions if they can.

Note: From the City of Shoreline Planning and Community Development posted on shorelinewa.gov :

“The process for early development review begins with the pre-application meeting. The City meets with the applicant to discuss project feasibility. At this point the applicant is provided information on the City’s requirements, including the requirement for conducting the Neighborhood Meeting, the review process and timing.

"The purpose of the Neighborhood Meeting is to provide an opportunity for the applicant to inform the neighborhood about the project early in its planning stages and ensure that the applicant pursue early citizen participation. The idea is to give property owners in the area an opportunity to learn about the proposals that affect them and to try to identify concerns in the early stages of the application process. Accordingly, the issues identified at the meeting may be addressed by the applicant before preparing the formal plans for the application.”

If you want to go to 80’ of height, you have to leave 10% of the significant trees, correct?
  • Reply: Correct.
If you want to go to 90’, do you still need to leave the 10%? Or do you have a choice of either 20% or the Deep Green incentive?
  • Reply: You could do one of the options. You wouldn’t necessarily need to do both.
At 140’, you would not be required to have either leave significant trees or do the Deep Green incentive?
  • Reply: Correct.
So I am concerned that you pulled out of the 140’ anything above the Built Green 4-Star when we have the existential threat of climate change. We need to do something if we’re going to allow that extra height - there should be some environmentally more significant thing that’s part of it. This is my objection and I will oppose as written.

When I think of an MUR-70 project, it’s going to be 4 or 6+ lots. There aren’t going to be a lot of trees that they will be obligated to save, right?
  • Reply: Yes, it’s going to depend on the lot and so forth.
So the percentage might scare us but there might be only 3 trees on any one lot but located in the middle of a project so they’ll probably have to go. We need to try to save the perimeter trees if we can. So the percentage isn’t as meaningful to me.
  • Reply: Correct. It would be a percentage of the existing significant trees and also that provision is existing currently, and we’re not proposing that it change or be removed. We highlighted that in the report just to show the different ways in which someone could go above the 70’ base height.
One of our concerns in the past was how do we provide some kind of certainty to developers. They are coming in, looking at the code and trying to figure what they can build here in MUR-70 without having to get their lawyers involved to try to figure out what does this really mean. So this was a way to increase certainty for everybody.

Can you explain the process of the Administrative Design Review? How does that work and what is the expected timetable?
  • Reply: This is an administrative design decision, a director’s decision made at the staff level. It’s more streamlined than having a Public Hearing. The application comes first before any permit or development application. The main tool that we currently use is from the adopted design standards so this is an existing process that we use that developers are familiar with. There are minor things like the depth of the awning to facade modulation to materials or things of that nature. The timeline depends on the volume of applications and work in review at any given point in time. Generally I think it’s between 8-12 weeks from the application submission to the first review letter.
So we’re talking about 8-12 weeks to the first letter but this is before the actual development is submitted, correct? Then there’s another timeline. Correct?
  • Reply: correct.
So that might be another 8-12 weeks. Right?
  • Reply: That’s fair to say.
I think this makes sense, but my concern is that there’s no expectation in the code that the Administrative Review will be done within a certain timeframe. If the goal is to get projects in, and time equals money, then we’re building a process with an indeterminate time frame even before permits can be submitted. I’m concerned that there’s no expectation built in that this process will not take an indefinite amount of time.

Looking at the code 11c and 11e. 11e is regarding subarea improvements but there’s no reference to costs or anything. It just says the developer “shall provide these.” There’s no percentage or cap of costs, and it’s hard to see in the code that you’re going to provide these improvements. I mean these are good things but without a limit? Similarly with 11c, providing spaces to the public, but there’s no description or delineation of how much space. I don’t understand what we’re asking from a developer.

Why are we offering 50% parking reduction only for 100+ residential units or 10,000 square feet commercial space? Why isn’t this standardized for all in MUR-70? Why isn’t it good for all development there?
  • Reply: 50% reduction makes a bigger impact to the developer of a larger building. But we can look at other potential options.
What happens if this doesn’t work? If there’s a lot of spillover into surrounding streets? How do we enforce this?
  • Reply: It’s at the City’s request that the development would need to provide utilization data, and a check-in of how the plan is performing. At that point in time we could have more of a conversation with the development of how to possibly adapt and change some of what they’re doing.
Realistically, waiting for the City to request that plan - when are we actually going to do that? Overflow parking is a real concern of the neighborhoods when we talk about parking reductions.
  • Reply: The City’s Public Works Dept. has been collecting the on-street parking utilization in the station areas so that could be one mechanism to trigger that conversation.
I’d like to see something about vehicle loading zones so we don’t have delivery trucks double-parked, or worse yet, parked in bike lanes.

Could you provide a couple of examples of “ground floor amenities?”
  • Reply: Either a cafe or a restaurant, some types of non-profit office space, or community space that could be rented for a meeting.
Not just something for the building residents?
  • Reply: Correct.
What’s the advantage of taking TDR out? (Transfer of Development Rights)
  • Reply: Right now we’re in this kind of limbo area where we don’t have a formal program and so should someone want to do it before we adopt it, we wouldn’t be set up to utilize it.
Are we going to continue to develop that program and reinsert it at some point? I would like to see it remaining.
  • Reply: That’s an option or it could be sort of a standalone program.
Another thing: we’re not building around courtyards or places where people want to be. We’re building “hallways.” We’re not building things that look into each other - there’s something about current codes (not just in Shoreline) where it is efficient to build blocks but I think we should be building courtyards - I think that’s what people want; that’s what people need. I don’t think our code gets there. Of course, that’s not before us right now. But it’s not just about number of units - it’s about the quality and the quality of life in those units. I think we can do better.
  • Reply: We are trying to strike a balance with what’s currently in the code. We can look into all of these things.
Should this come back as an Action Item?
  • Reply Debbie Tarry: If so, Councilmembers need to submit any potential amendments by Friday, June 10.
This will come back as an Action Item on June 27.

Meeting adjourned.



Read more...
ShorelineAreaNews.com
Facebook: Shoreline Area News
Twitter: @ShorelineArea
Daily Email edition (don't forget to respond to the Follow.it email)

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP