[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6506939,"mediaKeyId","5528792-343d310fa93c387ecf35467cc1ce3329","parentId",5528792,"title","Shoreline council discusses ordinance to eliminate vehicle parking minimums citywide; staff and public support removal","audioSeconds",1178,"startMs",3241000,"endMs",4419000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5528792-343d310fa93c387ecf35467cc1ce3329&start=3241&end=4419","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5528792-343d310fa93c387ecf35467cc1ce3329/thumbnail_3241000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6506939/Shoreline/King-County/Washington/Shoreline-council-discusses-ordinance-to-eliminate-vehicle-parking-minimums-citywide-staff-and-public-support-removal","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6506939-f3f094a3090c1f32a43d20308ebcb157/orig.mp4?Expires=1771220749&Signature=iXDlFs0hcWUDDGFHOzODXxsM1s2jUUC5VqnhmKjktgH0Xi02jzMYXxDyVZH3IY-0BEKOfV8V0HBEnhup6RH1VZIvh~u2kJAvbv4-1lfI9rIUu6VaCyaPaEizqVewSU85XgJ8vORja9eispalvLhyuW3B9cWxVvcX7Q5XadIxWzxDAjL7rI9kJvTb3QnsYYyFsFGv5dr9zTWXLvxa4KAIXLPOTn3xZFOeoNGi4ICpF-lJKB0sF9GXnlYMivpKGrYFd2DdWHGwxUg7yANH5iCw0obDNHffZJg1Jnobg0D5cbfjESBkgIB0m0x9XQcoj43okb~BfXg-HmdPMSQI~1OKvw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Shoreline","date","2025-08-04T19:00:00Z","article","City planning staff presented Ordinance 1043 to the Shoreline City Council on Aug. 4, a proposed development‑code amendment package that would eliminate vehicle parking minimums citywide, tighten bicycle‑parking design standards and allow administrative flexibility for some departures.

Steve Safran and Elise Kime described the ordinance as implementing Land Use Policy 3.2 by removing numeric vehicle parking minimums while preserving design standards for parking that developers choose to provide. \"These development code amendments does not mean we are outlawing parking. Parking will still be allowed, if it is so desired,\" Safran said during the presentation.

Public comment at the meeting strongly supported immediate removal of parking minimums. Three residents — Matthew DeAngelis, Tom Lang and Gabrielle Sneed — each urged the council to eliminate minimums now. \"Removing parking minimums is planting a seed for those vibrant, walkable, communities that we want,\" Matthew DeAngelis said during his three‑minute public comment. DeAngelis, Tom Lang and Sneed told the council that eliminating minimums would not immediately remove existing parking and that changes unfold slowly as projects are built.

Proposed code changes and rationale: Planning staff outlined the principal components of the amendments:
- Strike vehicle parking minimum tables citywide and remove parking‑related decision criteria from permit paths such as conditional‑use permits.
- Retain design requirements (location, screening, lot landscaping) for any parking provided.
- Increase bicycle parking requirements and add design specifications for spacing, mounting and location; bicycle parking standards are not tied to vehicle parking supply.
- Allow administrative departures in limited circumstances to improve flexibility for both vehicle and bicycle standards.

Council discussion and clarification: Council members broadly expressed support while asking about implementation details. Ramsdell and Bridal Massey said they favor eliminating minimums and noted changes will not create immediate overnight shifts in parking. Council member Scully raised concerns about preserving the city's ability to limit on‑site vehicle volumes where properties are used improperly; staff said enforcement tools and existing limits (for example, a provision capping number of vehicles associated with a residence) remain in the code.

Council members also sought clarity about how the ordinance would affect older buildings. Safran said the new standards generally apply when a building triggers an improvement threshold (for example, a building permit for significant work), and that the city would not retrofit buildings without such a trigger. On loading‑zone requirements for residential vs. commercial uses, staff said they split previous mixed tables between commercial (still using floor area triggers) and residential/mixed‑use (now using dwelling‑unit counts). Staff and the planning commission chose a 60‑unit threshold for on‑site loading requirements after reviewing recent local examples and administrative considerations; staff said some loading needs are being met in public right‑of‑way improvements in recent projects.

Next steps and council direction: Planning commission recommended approval; this meeting served as a council discussion. Council member Scott asked that when the ordinance returns for a decision it include a short staff report and an opportunity for public comment during the regular public‑comment period. The council chair confirmed the executive session item was removed and the ordinance will be scheduled again; no formal council vote on Ordinance 1043 occurred on Aug. 4.

Ending: Supporters at the meeting emphasized climate and housing goals as the rationale for removing parking minimums; staff stressed that parking remains allowed and that the code focuses on design and flexibility. Council members asked staff to return with the ordinance and a concise staff report and to provide the public an opportunity to comment when the item is scheduled for action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Shoreline - City Council Regular Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Planning staff presented Ordinance 1043 on Aug. 4, a development‑code amendment package that would remove vehicle parking minimums citywide while retaining design standards and increasing bicycle‑parking requirements.","taxTitle","Shoreline, King County, Washington","taxId",5093,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6506944,"King County presents 2026 solid-waste rate proposal; Shoreline 32‑gal can to rise about $0.79/month",1906,1329000,3235000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5528792-343d310fa93c387ecf35467cc1ce3329&start=1329&end=3235","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5528792-343d310fa93c387ecf35467cc1ce3329/thumbnail_1329000.jpg","/articles/6506944/Shoreline/King-County/Washington/King-County-presents-2026-solid-waste-rate-proposal-Shoreline-32gal-can-to-rise-about-079month","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6506944-547d4095cc1ddc2f6b4885b2718c36c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771220749&Signature=crT61cYB9CPceLfaUYCWYpdAu6OyDZUQMsQer1dDV1fDvSM1XYwrQZLRAp98XeSIRPNdhJ-ZkAQ8b57d~hQ4~8xhL-VffbysjIapNavqxxC3rO1HZKmRU8TQAeoX3fUkRilgtw2nQLz57RHPAde2c-euoHZHxj09DpwC4EBAlRiLKUX3-kzv~0fRTu9oQiVr1ugbQVl66-IZR0BkrISnJ8nD2TZvPvHD-GPlHph6gqNGnWv2nIDbxfT962qaXYwm8SJsbKbuD6Jxio451sWjpQcLewhuFXyktjNzDOf5OpLMk8F8FwnkIfLpcBRh7VOJOHjxyTeAN0g2CCW7~iYhRw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","King County Solid Waste Division director Rebecca Singer and staff presented the division's 2026 rate proposal to the Shoreline City Council on Aug. 4, outlining drivers of higher costs and options the county will use in future rate work.

Singer introduced Dave Pierce, who described the division's revenue and expense picture and said the proposal is limited to 2026 with a separate 2027 rate review to follow. \"For a person having a 32‑gallon trash can, the estimated increase in their bill would be 79¢ a month,\" Pierce said, adding that systemwide the projected increase averages about 71¢ per month.

The presentation said disposal is the majority of division revenue and highlighted rising capital expenditures tied to Cedar Hills landfill work and other large projects. Pierce said capital spending grows in the forecast — for example, capital-related debt service rising toward 2031 — and pointed to development of Area 9 (a final cell at Cedar Hills) and the North Regional transfer station (\"NERs\") as key drivers.

Why it matters: council members pressed county staff on how the rate is calculated, how reserves influence rates and what the proposal means for recycling and yard‑waste service. Council member Pobbe asked for a brief explanation of the rate allocation model; Pierce described inputs including capital project forecasts, tonnage projections, personnel costs and a now‑depleted \"recession reserve\" the division used to limit year‑to‑year increases.

Key facts from the presentation: Dave Pierce and Rebecca Singer gave the following figures and program details during the Aug. 4 meeting:
- County revenue mix cited: about $125 million total commercial revenue with a $23 million fixed annual charge portion; other revenue categories include a $35 million contribution from collection fees and $5 million other revenue (figures cited by presenter).
- The fixed annual charge (a base fee for commercial haulers) began in 2024 and is intended to stabilize revenue as recycling increases reduce disposal tonnage.
- Yard‑waste collection represents a small share of revenue (presenter said ~1%) but a larger share of expenses; Pierce said yard‑waste rates in the proposal rise about 12.5% to better align revenues and costs.
- Pierce said the division's estimates currently put the likely closure horizon for Cedar Hills Area 9 near 2040, while also noting county leadership is exploring leaving some capacity in Area 9 for disaster debris if needed.
- The division said its landfill reserve target is large (presenter cited a figure near $350 million as the amount needed by landfill closure to meet post‑closure obligations) and that the recession reserve used to smooth rates is now zero.

Council concerns and staff responses: Council members asked about mixed‑waste processing, multifamily organics participation, and potential revenue sources. Council member Scully asked what \"mixed waste processing\" means; Singer replied it is sorting material from general waste loads to recover recyclables. Scully and others urged stronger multifamily organics participation and enforcement to increase diversion.

On new revenues and recent policy changes, council members asked whether landfill gas revenues and the recently passed RAP Act (referenced in the meeting) were included. Pierce said landfill gas and RAP Act effects were included conservatively in the 2026 proposal because rate work is developed far in advance; he said staff will incorporate stronger landfill‑gas revenue expectations and RAP Act impacts in subsequent rate work, which may reduce future increases.

Follow‑up and next steps: Pierce said the county is submitting a 2026 single‑year rate and will immediately return to develop a 2027 proposal, with an intent to resume two‑year rates afterward. Council members asked the Shoreline staff to follow up on lessons learned from past public education campaigns (for example, changes to plastic bag policy) and for the county to provide more detail on outreach and compliance strategies.

Ending: Council members thanked the presenters and emphasized local efforts (for example, Shoreline reuse programs at Celebrate Shoreline) to reduce landfill demand. The county left open the possibility that higher diversion and landfill gas revenues could reduce future rate pressures, but staff emphasized the immediate drivers for 2026 are capital projects and reserve rebuilding.","King County Solid Waste Division staff presented a one-year 2026 rate proposal to the Shoreline City Council on Aug. 4, citing rising capital costs and landfill management needs. For a household with a 32‑gallon trash can, the county estimated Shoreline customers would see about a $0.79 monthly increase; yard‑waste rates would rise more steeply.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Shoreline council discusses ordinance to eliminate vehicle parking minimums citywide; staff and public support removal

King County presents 2026 solid-waste rate proposal; Shoreline 32‑gal can to rise about $0.79/month