CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 19, 2020 Held Remotely via Zoom
7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Hall, Deputy Mayor Scully, Councilmembers McConnell, McGlashan, Chang, Robertson, and Roberts
ABSENT: None.
1. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Mayor Hall who presided.
2. ROLL CALL
Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
John Norris, Assistant City Manager, provided COVID-19 updates and reports and information on various City meetings, projects and events.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
There were no Council reports.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Regarding tree retention and preservation:
Kathleen Russell, Shoreline resident and member of Save Shoreline Trees, shared an update on the trees that may be removed as part of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) office development project and urged the City to preserve mature trees.
Ann Bates, Shoreline resident, emphasized the importance of healthy mature trees, especially in light of the climate challenges ahead, and reminded Council of City actions taken to protect trees.
Rebecca Jones, Shoreline resident and member of Save Shoreline Trees, shared information on the important of trees and said the City needs to do better at maintaining and retaining large conifer trees, as well as planting new trees.
Janet Way, Shoreline resident and member of the Shoreline Preservation Society, spoke to the importance and value of the tree canopy. She said better solutions are needed and offered examples of areas that need improvement.
Regarding the proposed Enhanced Shelter at 16357 Aurora Avenue N:
Ed Jirsa, Shoreline resident, said his main concern is that there is nothing in writing that ensures that if the surrounding community is negatively impacted, the City would have the authority to take action to close the Shelter.
Joanne Godmintz, Shoreline resident, asked for information on the projected additional costs for emergency services connected to the Shelter and shared her opinions on the decision-making process thus far.
Margaret Willson, Shoreline resident, shared concerns raised by social media posts indicating that the decision on siting the Shelter will be made by tallying the comments received for and against the facility.
Nathan Pfeil, Shoreline resident, said he is an employee at a daycare near the proposed site. He is concerned this project is being rushed, and will be run by an inexperienced team. He shared information on the community impacts of a similar shelter and asked if the Council thinks they will have any control if the County owns the property.
Jackie Kurle, Shoreline resident, said until there is more evidence there will be no harm or that the benefits will outweigh the risks, a shelter at this site should be reconsidered.
Vinay Venkatesh, Shoreline resident, asked when Council would be answering the community’s questions, how the petition submitted against the proposal would be used, and for an example of a successful low-barrier shelter in a single-family neighborhood.
Sudeeptha Jothiprakash, Shoreline resident, said she has tried to bring facts and data to support her comments. She agreed that homelessness is a problem that must be addressed, but she questions the location, format, and decision-making process for the siting of a low-barrier shelter.
Nancy Pfeil, Shoreline resident, asked if the City’s emergency services can handle the addition of a high need population and maintain good response times. She expressed concern for the potential increase in drug availability and use in the neighborhood.
Diane Pfeil, Shoreline resident, said all her research points to a low-barrier facility having a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and suggested establishing smaller group homes throughout the community to meet this critical need.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Scully and seconded by Councilmember McGlashan and unanimously carried, 7-0, the following Consent Calendar items were approved:
(a) Approving Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 21, 2020
Approving Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 28, 2020
Approving Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 5, 2020
(b) Adopting Ordinance No. 905 - Authorizing a One-Year Extension to the Right-of-Way Franchise with Northwest Fiber LLC (dba Ziply) Originally Granted to Verizon Northwest Inc. (Ordinance 522) to Construct, Maintain, Operate, Replace, and Repair a Cable System Over, Along, Under, and Through Designated Public Rights-of-way in the City of Shoreline
(c) Adopting Ordinance No. 900 - Amending SMC 8.12 to Establish the Purpose of and Authorizing Guidelines for Use of the Veteran’s Recognition Plaza at City Hall
8. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Adopting Ordinance No. 901 - Amending Certain Sections of the Shoreline Development Code to Provide for Commercial Space on the Ground Floor of Multifamily Buildings
Steve Szafran, Senior Planner; and Cate Lee, Associate Planner, delivered the staff presentation. Mr. Szafran summarized the development of this Ordinance, which included Planning Commission study sessions, a public hearing, and Council discussion.
Mr. Szafran and Ms. Lee reviewed the amendments requested by Council for consideration, which include:
· Removal of the limitation on certain commercial uses being allowed in commercial spaces, which would also make the associated definitions unnecessary.
· Clarification that buildings subject to these standards are eligible for parking reductions.
· Clarification that any multifamily building amenity that is open to the general public will not be included in the maximum 25 percent lineal frontage limitation.
Ms. Lee said staff recommends that Council adopt the Development Code amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, and if Council wishes to amend the recommendations, she requested the proposed amendatory language be used.
Councilmember Chang moved adoption of Ordinance No. 901, amending certain sections of the Shoreline Development Code to provide for commercial space on the ground floor of multifamily buildings. The motion was seconded by Councilmember McConnell.
Councilmember Chang said she is excited to see the Ordinance move forward. She said it creates better alignment with the Commercial zoning regulations in other jurisdictions and she is hopeful for the success of this pilot area and future expansion to other areas of the City.
Councilmember Robertson echoed Councilmember Chang’s enthusiasm and expressed gratitude to the member of the community who brought the amendment forward; and to staff, the Planning Commission and the Council for recognizing the need.
Councilmember Roberts moved to modify the Planning Commission’s recommendation by adding a new sentence to proposed SMC 20.40.465(C) which reads: Buildings subject to these standards are also eligible for the parking reductions available in SMC 20.50.400. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Chang.
Councilmember Roberts said this amendment improves readability and helps clarify that the commercial parking spaces are also subject to the existing code. Ms. Lee confirmed that this amendment would just clarify that the buildings are eligible for the parking reduction.
The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Councilmember Roberts moved to modify the Planning Commission’s recommendation to add a sentence to proposed SMC 20.50.250(C)(3) which reads: Amenities, such as fitness centers that offer memberships to the general public, shall not be included in the maximum 25 percent lineal frontage limitation. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Chang.
The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Councilmember Roberts said he is torn about proposing an amendment to remove limitation on certain commercial uses being allowed in commercial spaces. He said in principle he supports it, but his real concern is that if the code were expanded to other areas it might have the unintentional effect of zoning out legal businesses which, while not ‘family friendly’, are services people want.
Councilmember Chang said she prefers the Planning Commission’s recommendation on eligible businesses, stating that it helps drive a vision for the North City and Ridgecrest business districts and since incentives are being given, the City should get back businesses that are desirable for the area.
Councilmember McConnell said she supports the Planning Commission’s recommendation and said the exclusions are valid when taking into consideration that the building will include residential units. She thanked Councilmember Roberts for his observations and amendment suggestions.
Councilmember McGlashan said he considered moving this amendment because he fears that filling retails spaces with the additional restrictions may be challenging for developers, and he does not want to see a bunch of empty storefronts. He said the Council needs to pay attention to the impacts that these limitations may have.
Councilmember Robertson clarified that the provisions would only apply to the new developments going into the portions of North City and Ridgecrest specified in the staff report.
Mayor Hall said he would have supported this change to the proposal and said the Council may wish to revisit this in the future.
Mayor Hall thanked the Planning Commission, staff, and the members of the public who initially brought this proposal forward.
The motion to adopt Ordinance No. 901 as recommended by the Planning Commission and as further amended by Council passed unanimously, 7-0.
9. STUDY ITEMS
(a) Discussing the 2021-2022 Proposed Biennial Budget – Department Presentations
Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director, opened the staff presentation and said all departments except for Public Works would be presenting tonight. She said it is important to remember that some across-the-board adjustments have been made to ensure a good base budget. She said the reorganization of the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Division has been incorporated into the Parks, Fleet, and Facilities and the Recreation, Cultural, and Community Services Departments and explained the format of the upcoming presentations. Ms. Lane emphasized that stewardship, innovation, and sustainability are core values of the City, which fosters the commitment to continuous improvement, and she shared some examples of ways this has been implemented.
Councilmember Roberts asked if the most recent Resident Satisfaction Survey results would be added into the Budget Book, as has been done in previous years. Ms. Lane said she would make sure the updated results were incorporated in all sections.
Ms. Lane reviewed the financial and staffing trends for each Department. She identified an error in a formula in the City Manager section and described where the corrected information could be found. She said some departments reflect significant COVID-19 costs, exceeding the budget.
City Council: Ms. Lane said there are no projected changes to expenditures or staffing.
City Manager’s Office: Mr. Norris listed the programs that make up the office and displayed a graph with the expenditures by program and described the proposed 2021-2022 budget and staffing changes. He said the budget changes include the Shoreline North/185th Pedestrian Bridge partnership commitment and staffing reductions to the Lynnwood Link Extension Light Rail project.
Human Resources: Mr. Norris reported that there are no changes to staffing or significant expenditure increases projected. He listed the proposed additional one-time costs for professional services for a compensation study and a collective bargaining successor contract.
City Attorney: Ms. Lane said there is minimal financial change to expenditures and no change to staffing. She noted the need to increase prosecution services to support Community Court.
Administrative Services/Citywide: Ms. Lane explained that the 2019-2020 Budget is significantly higher than projected as a result of budget reorganization in efforts to ensure the City could address the financial challenges of 2020. She continued that the 2021-2022 proposed budget and FTE increases are due to the shift of Parks operations into the Administrative Services Division. She displayed a graph of the budget distribution and listed the divisions within the Administrative Services Department. She said one-time budget change requests include 2022 Levy Lid Lift Engagement and Election costs and updates to the Permitting Cost Recovery Study, and she described the ongoing budget change requests from Information Technology for Public Records Request and Contract Management software. She shared examples of citywide, or non-program, expenses.
Recreation, Cultural, and Community Services: Ms. Lane said the expenditure comparison reflects the increase in budget and staffing that comes with the addition of Recreation and Cultural Services to the Community Services Department. Colleen Kelly, Recreation, Cultural and Community Services Director, described the emphasis of the newly reorganized department. She reviewed the services included and the breakdown of the expenditures by program. She explained that the pool closure is reflected in the revenue projections and emphasized that the 2021 projections assume that the City will move to Phase 4 of COVID-19 guidelines. She said the 2021-2022 budget changes include a one time request for the Climate Action Plan update, additional human services funding for a .5 FTE staffing increase, and noted that two vacant positions will be held open. She shared details on revenue allocations to other agencies in the form of human services grants.
Councilmember Roberts said he is excited about the idea of having a housing coordinator on staff and asked if the position would provide direct support to renters. Ms. Kelly said this person would be a contact for renters, but this position would help with management of the Multi-Family Tax Exemption and Inclusionary housing policies, in order to have more robust customer service for those programs. Councilmember Roberts asked if this position is anticipated to become full time within the medium-term, and Ms. Kelly said this will be evaluated.
Councilmember Roberts confirmed that while Council is approving funds for the Grants Administrator position, filling the position is on hold. Ms. Kelly explained that department staff will take more of a hands-on role with some of the grants management over the next year. Ms. Tarry said she intends to have the position’s budgeted dollars available in case contracted support is determined to be necessary.
Police: Ms. Lane said the budget reflects the projected increase in the Police Services contract, and that staffing will stay constant. Shawn Ledford, Police Chief, reviewed some program highlights, including RADAR (Response Awareness, De-escalation and Referral program), park patrols, and trainings. He shared data on the Police workload in different categories of response activity and said COVID-19 has possibly affected some trends. He displayed a graph of response times, which improved this year, and said the contributing factors were the decrease in on-views and traffic issues because of COVID-19.
Councilmember Chang asked when and with whom a discussion of how the City can add services to address calls that may need support beyond police response. Chief Ledford described the crisis response teams that currently assist the Police on those types of calls. He said Police are more than willing to discuss options, but he is not sure that there is an entity available 24/7 for response to mental health calls. Ms. Tarry added that identifying a solution is going to be a longer term process and described the steps staff is taking towards gathering information on policing services reform. She said the goal is to be able to provide Council initial feedback from community engagement processes at the Strategic Planning Workshop early next year. She said there will be continued evaluation of how mental health professionals are being used through the RADAR program.
Councilmember Roberts said he looks forward to conversations on different approaches to mental health response and to hearing the results of community conversations on policing issues. He asked for information on staffing levels over the past few years, and about financial impacts potential police reforms would have on cities, like the addition of body cameras. Chief Ledford said he thinks the contracted jurisdictions would share the costs of body cameras based on a percentage of FTEs that are equipped with them. Ms. Tarry said that the Sheriff’s Office requested full funding for body cameras in their 2021-2022 proposed budget, but that the request was denied. She added that a smaller pilot program for body cameras has been funded. If the program were to move forward, she said she anticipates that the allocation of the initial investment dollars would occur over time. Councilmember Roberts asked how a gap in funding for the School Resource Officer (SRO) would be handled if the school district cuts this expense, as is being considered. Ms. Tarry said the current SRO has accepted another position elsewhere, so if the school decides to continue with the SRO program, the City will need to find a replacement officer to fill that role.
Deputy Mayor Scully emphasized that Council has parallel interests for the Police Department in increasing accountability and augmenting availability. He said he is not interested in cutting the Police Budget, but he is interested in funding additional support services. He noted that he confirmed with the City Manager that the Budget can always be revisited at a later date.
Criminal Justice: Ms. Lane displayed the expenditure comparison and Christina Arcidy, Management Analyst; said the 2021-2022 budget reflects a 20% percent decrease of the adopted budget, primarily due to jail costs. She described the services included and listed the factors that influence costs. She described the City costs in conjunction with Community Court and reviewed the three booking facilities used for jail services. She said because of a change in judicial sentencing philosophies there has been a decline in jail usage over the past several years. She stated that last year the City decided to pay for fewer guaranteed beds at the SCORE Jail, which should have resulted in significant savings but COVID-19 has made it difficult to determine if this strategy is working, since jail usage overall is dramatically lower this year. She said in bed usage in the contracted jails will continue to be monitored and Community Court may divert individuals away from the jail process.
Planning and Community Development: Ms. Lane said there are no projected changes to expenditures and there is a slight decrease in FTEs. Rachael Markle, Planning and Community Development Director, listed the four divisions within the Department and said over 90 percent of the Department is devoted to the direct delivery of development permit related services and long-range planning. Ms. Markle said the decline in FTEs is due to the elimination of term limited positions and she described the one-time budget request for a Comprehensive Plan element update and the ongoing budget request for overtime funding associated with Building and Inspections and Permit Services. She stated that one-time revenue from the School District capital projects increased permitting revenues collected through 2017-2020 but the pandemic has affected permitting in 2020, with permit revenue estimated to be 40% less than what was originally projected for 2020. She concluded that additional impacts to revenue are anticipated through 2022.
Councilmember Roberts said he is glad to see the efficiency measures in the proposed budget and asked that comparison information from peer cities on permit issuance times be added to the Budget Matrix.
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Litigation – RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
At 9:02 p.m., Mayor Hall recessed into an Executive Session for a period of 30 minutes as authorized by RCW 42.30.110(l)(i) to discuss with legal counsel matters relating to agency enforcement actions or litigation. Staff attending the Executive Session included Debbie Tarry, City Manager; John Norris, Assistant City Manager; Margaret King, City Attorney; Rachael Markle, Planning and Community Development Director; and Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager. The Executive Session ended at 9:32 p.m.
11. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:32 p.m., Mayor Hall declared the meeting adjourned.
_____________________________
Jessica Simulcik Smith, City Clerk