CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Annual Strategic Planning Workshop
Friday, March 5 and Saturday, March 6, 2021
Via Zoom Video Conference
March 5, 2021 – 1:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Hall, Deputy Mayor Scully, Councilmembers Chang, McConnell, McGlashan, Roberts, and Robertson
ABSENT: None
STAFF: Debbie Tarry, City Manager; John Norris, Assistant City Manager; Randy Witt, Public Works Director; Margaret King, City Attorney; Don Moritz, Human Resources Director; Rachael Markle, Planning and Community Development Director; Sara Lane, Administrative Services Director; Colleen Kelley, Recreation, Cultural and Community Services Director; Shawn Ledford, Shoreline Police Chief; Nate Daum, Economic Development Program Manager; and Pollie McCloskey, City Council Executive Assistant
GUESTS: Allegra Calder, Principal, BERK Consulting, Workshop Facilitator
At 1:02 p.m., the Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Hall. Mayor Hall turned over the meeting to Allegra Calder, the workshop facilitator, to review the agenda and conduct introductions. Mayor Hall then provided a statement about the purpose of the Workshop.
Council then discussed the 2020 City Accomplishments. Assistant City Manager John Norris provided a brief overview of the City’s accomplishments, with a specific focus on the COVID-19 pandemic response. Other key accomplishments were also noted from Councilmembers and staff.
Council then discussed their proposed 2021-2023 City Council Goals and Action Steps. City Manager Debbie Tarry provided an overview of the staff-proposed Council Goals and Action Step changes. Council discussed the potential for adding an Action Step regarding police services under City Council Goal #5 but wanted to discuss adding an Action Step in the future following the Police Services discussion, which was scheduled for the second day of the Workshop. Mayor Hall also proposed to add an Action Step under Council Goal #1 regarding reviewing the development regulations for the MUR-70 zone. Councilmember Roberts proposed to add an Action Step focused on implementation of the federal COVID-19 relief funding that the City would likely receive if federal legislation is adopted. Staff stated that they would develop these proposed amendments to bring back to Council for additional review at a regular Council meeting following the Workshop.
The Council then discussed private and right-of-way tree regulations in Shoreline. Ms. Tarry provided an overview of the materials in the Workshop packet, and Rachael Markle, Director of Planning and Community Development, and Randy Witt, Director of Public Works, provided additional information from the materials. Staff also noted that generally, more trees are planted than removed in the City, and the last tree canopy analysis showed overall tree canopy growth in Shoreline.
Deputy Mayor Scully stated that he appreciates the balance that the Code makes between development potential and environmental protection in its private tree regulations, but he has some concerns with R-4 and R-6 regulations and would like to require more tree preservation in these zones when redevelopment occurs. He also stated that he would like the Street Tree List to be reviewed, as he is concerned that the trees listed may not provide enough environmental value to the community.
Mayor Hall stated that he would like more data on this topic, such as the different age classes of known trees, tree species information, and whether there really is a loss of mature trees occurring in the City. Councilmember Robertson asked about right-of-way trees and sidewalk construction, and what the options are for preserving more trees. Mr. Witt answered that the frontage improvement options identified in the Council Workshop materials are the common ways trees are preserved when new frontage improvements are required.
Councilmember Chang asked if the City’s Engineering Development Manual (EDM) gives staff enough flexibility when looking at frontage options to preserve trees, and Mr. Witt responded that there is flexibility provided in the Manual. Councilmember Roberts stated that he supports providing more clarity in the EDM, such as through illustrations, to clearly articulate the City’s intent regarding flexibility for frontage improvements. Councilmember McGlashan stated that he would like to look at every development project to determine how to save the most trees as possible.
Councilmember Robertson supported the suggestion of staff looking at the tree regulations in the R-4 and R-6 zones. She also supported increasing fines and penalties for tree removal violators, increasing interactions with developers regarding frontage improvements options and flexibility, and prioritizing the Street Tree List based on environmental functions.
Councilmember Roberts stated that staff may want to look at the EDM with regard to the requirements for sidewalk width and provide flexibility to allow more narrow sidewalks for tree preservation. Mayor Hall generally agreed with the majority of Councilmembers that the City should continue to try to make the City’s private tree regulations better if possible. Deputy Mayor Scully stated that he would want the tree regulation analysis in the R-4 and R-6 zones to accompany the proposed private tree regulation amendments that the Planning Commission is currently reviewing as part of the 2021 Batch Development Code amendments. He also stated that he would support delay of the tree code amendments in the Batch to also review tree regulations in the R-4 and R-6 zones.
Ms. Tarry then summarized the discussion by stating that staff will review the EDM as part of a future update to review the flexibility it provides for frontage improvements relative to tree retention and will continue the review of the Batch Development Code amendments regarding tree regulations. She noted she would keep Council apprised if staff needs more time to review R-4 and R-6 zones tree regulations. Ms. Tarry said staff will also look at increased inspections and violation fine amounts for development sites with tree impacts, which may increase the cost of permitting and development.
Following this discussion, the Council discussed post-pandemic public engagement and government service provision. Councilmember Chang opened the discussion by stating that virtual Council meetings have been very helpful during the pandemic, but she wants to go back to in-person meetings once it is safe to do so while keeping the increased public engagement virtual meetings have provided. Mayor Hall agreed and stated he is deeply committed to keeping the community safe, so he wants to ensure members of the public attending future public meetings are vaccinated. Deputy Mayor Scully stated that he would like to continue to offer remote options for public engagement in perpetuity. He also stated that he is cautious about re-opening in the near term and doesn’t want to check the vaccination status of public meeting attendees.
Councilmember Roberts stated that in addition to wanting both in-person and remote options for public engagement at Council meetings, he would also like both options for Board and Commission meetings, other public meetings, and neighborhood development meetings. Councilmember Roberts also felt that when the Center for Disease Control changes their guidelines regarding social distancing being six feet, it may dictate when in-person Council meetings can occur, as the spacing at the Council dais does not allow for six feet of separation.
Ms. Tarry commented that virtual participation at public meetings has worked well during the pandemic, and that the City is planning to not hold any large events in the community through August 2021. Councilmember Robertson also stated that she is not in a rush to go back to in-person Council meetings and that a good threshold for when this should occur is when everyone in the community is able to be vaccinated. Councilmember McGlashan agreed with comments from his fellow Councilmembers and Councilmember McConnell agreed as well, and also added that she appreciates in-person interactions at Council meetings. Councilmember Roberts stated that he feels it would be fine for staff to present agenda items remotely at future Council meetings even if Council conducts the meeting in person, which Mayor Hall agreed with.
Councilmember Robertson then asked if the Council would be willing to bring back dinner meetings in a virtual format, and Councilmember Roberts stated he likes unstructured dinner meeting time. Mayor Hall recommended that Council dinner meetings continue to be put on hold until Council can be in-person again, but he reiterated the importance of intergovernmental meetings, which are often conducted at Council dinner meetings, and exploring if there was a way to continue to have those types of meetings even if dinner was not involved.
The first day of the Strategic Planning Workshop was adjourned at 4:20 pm.
March 6, 2021 – 9:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Hall, Deputy Mayor Scully, Councilmembers Chang, McConnell, McGlashan, Roberts, and Robertson
ABSENT: None
STAFF: Debbie Tarry, City Manager; John Norris, Assistant City Manager; Shawn Ledford, Police Chief, Christina Arcidy, CMO Management Analyst
GUESTS: Allegra Calder, Principal, BERK Consulting, Workshop Facilitator
At 9:01 a.m., the second day of the Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Hall. Mayor Hall turned over the meeting to Allegra Calder, the workshop facilitator, who in turn introduced City Manager Debbie Tarry to introduce the Police Services discussion. Additional comments were also provided by Christina Arcidy, CMO Management Analyst, prior to the Council discussion.
Councilmember McGlashan opened the discussion with a question about the former neighborhood police storefronts, and whether those services provided at the police storefronts are still being provided. Chief Shawn Ledford responded that services are still being provided in a different way. Councilmember McGlashan then asked about unarmed civilian response and whether there is liability with that concept, as he is concerned with this approach.
Councilmember Chang stated that she was interested in learning more about the CAHOOTS program from Eugene, OR, and whether they were a separate entity or part of the police department. Deputy Mayor Scully stated that he is interested in a co-responder model, including the expansion of RADAR, but would like it much broader in scope, and that he is generally supportive of the CAHOOTS model. He said a primary question will be how to pay for a program expansion such as this and that he doesn’t want to reduce the number of police officers to support the expansion of RADAR or implementation of a program similar to CAHOOTS. He expressed that even if there was no recommendation regarding funding for program expansion, he would like staff to continue to explore it.
Councilmember Roberts asked how the CAHOOTS and RADAR programs operate. Chief Ledford responded regarding RADAR stating that only one of the four Mental Health Navigator positions are currently filled, and that the current Navigator has regular shifts in Shoreline on Fridays, although they are available to support Shoreline incidents on other days as well. Chief Ledford explained that the challenge with RADAR is that it is not a ‘24-7’ model. Ms. Tarry stated that RADAR has built a foundation for an expanded model, but if the Council wanted two Navigator positions on ‘24-7’ coverage, it would require 12 FTEs to provide this coverage, which would be very expensive. Some Councilmembers commented that they would want to wait and see how a fully-staffed RADAR program works and how much success it could achieve prior to expanding RADAR or moving to a CAHOOTS-type responder model. Mayor Hall stated that he was not inclined to support a levy lid lift to fund a new responder model.
Deputy Mayor Scully stated that he doesn’t want to worry about funding at this point or to be constrained by how the RADAR program operates when looking at a larger co-responder model. He also stated that he was surprised by the background check process for the RADAR Navigators and that the process was a potential barrier to filling the positions. Councilmember Robertson stated that she was also interested in a co-responder model, and that the goal should be to reduce the burden on current police officers and maximize the RADAR program. Councilmember Roberts asked how the rules around the RADAR program may limit its effectiveness and questioned whether the City should be looking at a program outside of a police structure. Councilmember McConnell shared her concerns with the background check process for hiring Navigators and stated that it is impossible to assess how the RADAR program is working with the level of vacancies in the program.
Councilmember Chang asked whether it would make sense to have a co-responder model be a County or regional program, not just a City program, and Deputy Mayor Scully stated that if co-responder program was structured this way, that response times could go up. Deputy Mayor Scully also stated that the City should be pursuing the proposals in the Workshop materials regarding the criminal justice and court system. Mayor Hall stated that when Community Court was set up, it was a big step forward and that he is looking forward to Community Court coming back in person at the close of the pandemic.
Ms. Tarry stated that staff will work on an additional proposed Action Step under Council Goal #5 that would explore future development of a co-responder model, maximize the RADAR program, and continue to look at strategies to support alternatives in the criminal justice and court system.
The Council then moved to a discussion on the various policy issues identified in their Workshop materials packet, which began with a discussion of the Shoreline Farmer’s Market. Councilmembers were supportive of staff’s recommendation outlined in the Workshop materials and concurred that the Farmer’s Market should be working to become a self-sustaining non-profit. Some Councilmembers also supported closing off City right-of-way for a future market location while Shoreline Place is not available.
The Council then discussed the potential for an earlier effective date of Phase 3 zoning of the 185th Street Station Subarea. Councilmember Chang stated that she was in support of keeping the timing for Phase 3 as is, and other Councilmembers agreed with this. Councilmember McGlashan stated that he would be willing to push up the effective date of Phase 3, but not right away, and agreed that more information would be helpful to make this decision. He stated that he would like an additional review of the Station Subarea in 2024 when the light rail station opens. Mayor Hall, Deputy Mayor Scully, and Councilmembers McConnell, Roberts, and Robertson all agreed that a review of the light rail station subareas every four to five years is appropriate. Councilmember Roberts stated that even after Phase 3 zoning is effective, continued review of development in the 185th Station Subarea is important. Mayor Hall suggested that a year after the 185th Station opens, which will be 2025, would be a good time for the next review. Mayor Hall also provided some comments on reviewing the MUR-70 development regulations, specifically regarding the allowance for Development Agreements in the Code. Staff noted that Council is scheduled to discuss this at a regular Council meeting in April.
The Council next discussed the possibility of a program to encourage residential conversion of oil heat and a policy to prohibit the use of natural gas in new construction. Councilmember Robertson asked whether the City could approach the City of Seattle about partnering in their oil heat conversion program and Deputy Mayor Scully asked whether the City could support the marketing of other types of oil heat conversion programs. He also provided his support of a prohibition on natural gas in new construction, but not for kitchen appliances. Councilmember Chang was supportive of staff’s recommendation to not move forward on an oil heat conversion program but had mixed feelings on a prohibition on natural gas in new construction, especially for cooking. Mayor Hall stated his support for the staff recommendation and suggested that staff reach out to the City of Seattle and others in the industry to promote heat pump oil conversion programs. Mayor Hall also said he would like to understand where oil tanks are located in the City and if many are in the station areas, as the issue may resolve itself through future redevelopment in these areas. He stated he is supportive of a prohibition on natural gas in residential construction for both heating and cooking but is comfortable with an exemption for commercial cooking in new construction. Councilmember Roberts stated that the City should work with the City of Seattle in future utility franchises to make sure the City has the same access to energy and other programs as utility ratepayers in the City of Seattle. He also supports a full prohibition on natural gas in new construction. Councilmember McGlashan stated that he agreed with Councilmember Chang’s comments, and that he has some concerns about natural gas regulation, especially for cooking. Councilmember McConnell stated that she was supportive of staff recommendation on the oil heat conversion program but was concerned about the natural gas prohibition. Staff stated that they would begin work on exploring a regulation to prohibit natural gas in new construction but would provide options for how the regulation is structured for Council’s consideration.
The Council then discussed the possibility of establishing a City arts commission. Councilmember Robertson stated that she supports the staff recommendation but would also like the City to consider moving the Public Art Coordinator to a full-time role. Councilmember Roberts stated that he would like to move froward with an arts commission, and potentially add ‘cultural services’ from the current Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services/Tree Board to an arts commission. Deputy Mayor Scully stated that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services/Tree Board’s scope is broad, and that provides the Board an opportunity to balance various priorities. He and other members of the Council expressed concern about “single-issue” boards, and that they would be interested in the exploration of dividing the current Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services/Tree Board into two separate boards. The first being a Recreation, Cultural and Community Services Board, with focus on recreation, arts and culture and potentially human services; and the second being a Parks and Tree Board, with a focus on physical park and open space and publicly owned trees. Councilmember McConnell voiced her support for a stand-alone arts commission, while Mayor Hall said he was not supportive of one, adding that he doesn’t think the City is chronically underfunding the arts. Councilmember McGlashan also doesn’t support a stand-alone arts commission. Councilmember Chang was also concerned about the role and cost of an arts commission. Councilmember Robertson stated that she would support analyzing the scope of the current Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services/Tree Board and would support a future staff recommendation on this. The majority of the Council were generally supportive of the staff recommendation to continue to review this question as part of the Public Art Plan update.
The Council then discussed providing compensation for resident members of City boards, commissions, and advisory committees. A slight majority of Councilmembers supported base stipends for all members of boards and commissions, with $25-$50 per meeting suggested as a possible stipend amount. Some additional Councilmembers supported providing needs-based stipends, but concerns were voiced with how it would work and over privacy issues related to collecting financial need information. Some Councilmembers stated their preference to offer a base stipend and allow people to “opt out”, as opposed to “opt in” based on need. Staff stated that they would review if needs-based documentation or personal financial information provided by a board or commission member would be exempt from disclosure if requested under the Public Records Act. All Councilmembers stated that they support trying to increase racial and other diversity on boards and commissions regardless of compensation provided.
Finally, the Council discussed adding Juneteenth (June 19th) as an Official City Holiday. A slight majority of Councilmembers were opposed to adding Juneteenth as a paid City holiday; however, if the State adopts it as a State holiday Councilmember McGlashan stated he would be interested in revisiting this policy question. Staff stated that they would continue to track this at the State and regional level.
Following the review of the Council policy issues, the Council briefly discussed Police accountability and provided direction to further discuss this topic at a forthcoming regular City Council meeting.
Council wrapped up the Special Meeting with their reflections on the Strategic Planning Workshop. The Special Meeting was adjourned at 12:20 pm.
/s/Jessica Simulcik Smith, City Clerk