CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 19, 2021 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 Deputy City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
4. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
John Norris, Assistant City Manager, provided an update on COVID-19 and reported on various City meetings, projects, and events.
5. COUNCIL REPORTS
Deputy Mayor Scully said he attended a meeting of the Lake Ballinger Watershed Forum Alliance and learned that a 70 pound beaver was recently trapped and relocated.
Councilmember McConnell reported that she and Councilmember Roberts attended National League of Cities (NLC) remote meetings this summer. She said NLC is working hard to improve infrastructure but securing funding takes time. She expressed pride in the collaboration between cities that she sees occurring.
Mayor Hall proclaimed September 2021 as National Recovery Month in Shoreline.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Jackie Kurle, Shoreline resident, encouraged ongoing oversight of the Enhanced Shelter as it nears full capacity.
Kathleen Russell, Shoreline resident, spoke on behalf of Save Shoreline Trees. She expressed concern about significant tree removal scheduled on 5th Avenue Northeast and asked if the new sidewalk program is being initiated with transparency of government and if the options offered by resident feedback were considered.
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) Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 21, 2021
Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 28, 2021
8. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Appointment of Pro and Con Committee Members for City of Shoreline Proposition 1: General Obligation Bonds for Parks, Improvements and Park Land Acquisitions
Eric Bratton, Communications Program Manager, delivered the staff presentation. He explained that one of the Council responsibilities in preparation for adding the Bond Measure to the November General Election Ballot is appointing a Pro and Con Committee to write statements in support of, or in opposition to, the Ballot Measure, which will be included in the Voters’ Pamphlet. Mr. Bratton said Council can appoint up to three people for each Committee and described the application process. He said three applications were received for the Pro Committee and one for the Con Committee and summarized the next steps and timeline for the process.
Mr. Bratton said the applicants for the PRO committee are Brian Branagan, Katie Schielke, and Mary Ellen Stone; and the applicant for the CON Committee is Joseph Smith.
Councilmember Robertson moved to appoint Brian Branagan, Katie Schielke, and Mary Ellen Stone to the PRO Committee for Proposition 1. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Roberts.
Councilmember Robertson expressed confidence in the ability of the nominees.
Councilmember McGlashan moved to amend the motion to include the appointment of Joseph Smith to the CON Committee. The motion was seconded by Councilmember McConnell and passed unanimously, 7-0.
The main motion as amended passed unanimously, 7-0.
(b) Action on Ordinance No. 937 - Amending the Shoreline Municipal Code to Add Chapter 10.22 Street Racing
Julie Ainsworth-Taylor, Assistant City Attorney, delivered the staff presentation. Ms. Ainsworth-Taylor stated that street racing has increased regionally, and nation-wide, over the past year, and listed its negative consequences. She stated that the proposed regulations, which are similar to those being adopted regionally in other cities, include components for both street racers and the spectators, and listed the specifics of the regulations. She displayed a map of the corridors proposed to be designated as Stay Out of Areas of Racing (SOAR) and explained the rationale behind this selection.
Ms. Ainsworth-Taylor displayed a list of the questions posed by Council and responded to each one as follows:
· Should more than 3 corridors be designated? Ms. Ainsworth-Taylor said if additional areas to be included were identified, the regulations could be amended, but a citywide SOAR designation would not fit with the design of the program.
· Will SOAR Orders be effective? Ms. Ainsworth-Taylor reviewed the concerns expressed and said the SOAR Orders are a tool that the Court can impose, but she does not know how often they are used.
· Do Police have authority over both public and private property? Ms. Ainsworth-Taylor said the regulations cover both types of property.
· Will including impoundment have unintended consequences for non-violating owners of vehicles? Ms. Ainsworth-Taylor stated that based on King County Sheriff Office’s policies for impoundment, the City does not think so, and added that the judge will have discretion in case-by-case determinations.
· Does proposed SMC 10.22.30(G) have a drafting error? Ms. Ainsworth-Taylor confirmed that there was a drafting error, which has been corrected.
Ms. Ainsworth-Taylor concluded that staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 937.
Deputy Mayor confirmed that the SOAR Orders would give the Police the authority to impound a vehicle.
Councilmember McGlashan moved adoption of Ordinance No. 937, Amending the Shoreline Municipal Code to Add Chapter 10.22 Street Racing. The motion was seconded by Councilmember McConnell.
Councilmember McGlashan said the previous meeting involved a robust discussion and he is comfortable with Ordinance as presented.
Councilmember Roberts moved to strike 10.22.050 – Designation of No Racing Zones and 10.22.060 - Stay Out of Areas of Racing Orders. The motion was seconded by Deputy Mayor Scully.
Councilmember Roberts said he has civil liberty concerns. He feels the important part of the Ordinance is prohibiting street racing and spectating, but SOAR Orders are unnecessary and ineffective.
Deputy Mayor Scully read a section of the staff report that states “As staff noted, many jurisdictions are utilizing SOAR Orders successfully, or more successfully than those cities without the ability to seek such orders” and asked for clarification on how ‘successful’ was determined, which jurisdictions were consulted, and what their response was. Ms. Ainsworth-Taylor said Shoreline Police was the liaison between other jurisdictions and worked primarily with the South King County area. She added that almost every City in Pierce County has adopted street racing regulations that include the SOAR provision but because the regulations are new, as is the rise in street racing, there is not a lot of data on the success of the Orders yet. Deputy Mayor Scully asked if there was any more information on the successes referenced in the staff report. Margaret King, City Attorney, said the statement was based on what was relayed by the King County Sheriff after they had talked to Police Departments about the observed reductions in street racing. She emphasized that cities are being asked to pass similar provisions so there can be consistent treatment regionally. Deputy Mayor Scully said this is no different than Stay Out of Drug Areas (SODA) and Stay Out of Areas of Prostitution (SOAP) Orders, that seems like a good idea but is not an effective law enforcement tool. He described the Order process and explained his concerns with the restrictions. He said the street racing will be stopped by arrests, not by a ‘gotcha’. He said that although he supports the Ordinance, if the SOAR Orders remain part of it, he will not support it.
Councilmember McGlashan said he does not believe that a lot of the racers in Shoreline are Shoreline residents, and the SOAR Orders could act as a deterrent to keep residents from participating in street racing. Criminal activity needs to have consequences.
Councilmember Robertson asked how long a SOAR Order is attached to the individual. Ms. Ainsworth-Taylor said it would be up to the judge’s discretion.
Mayor Hall said his understanding of who the participants are aligns with Councilmember McGlashan’s observation and reflected on past racing occurrences in Shoreline. He said laws are established in order to reduce bad behavior that affects quality of life for others, and most people abide by the laws. He recognized that SOAR Orders can only be ordered by a judge and would be a helpful deterrent to give the prosecuting attorney and the judge the option to apply them. He is impressed with the success of the regional cooperation in South King County and said collaborating with other government agencies will help put an end to this around the region. He prefers the Ordinance as presented by staff.
Councilmember Roberts asked if the SOAR Orders are only for repeat offenders, and Ms. Ainsworth-Taylor described the intent of the discretionary provision and gave examples of how the Orders might be applied. Councilmember Roberts expressed concern with the amount of discretion associated with issuing SOAR Orders.
The motion to amend failed, 3-4, with Deputy Mayor Scully and Councilmembers Roberts and Robertson voting in the affirmative.
The main motion passed, 5-2, with Deputy Mayor Scully and Councilmember Roberts voting in opposition.
9. STUDY ITEMS
(a) Discussion of Ordinance No. 934 - Amending Development Code Chapter 20.30 to Add Procedures for Subdivision Vacations and Resolution No. 481 - Adopting a Fee for Subdivision Vacations
Cate Lee, Senior Planner, delivered the staff presentation. Ms. Lee described the process and purpose of subdivisions, explaining that a plat is the document that officially shows that division of land. Plat alterations have been in the Shoreline Development Code since 2019, and an alteration allows one or more aspects of the plat document to be changed. She said a subdivision vacation is when the entire subdivision or portion of subdivision is returned to the pre-subdivided conditions. Ms. Lee said there are instances in which it makes sense to return a subdivision to its presubdivision state so it can be redeveloped. She reviewed the proposed subdivision vacation process and outlined the review done by the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Roberts asked what conditions are required to be eligible to submit for a subdivision vacation and Ms. Lee responded that the requirement is that all property owners would need to make the request and described the value of required neighborhood meetings in such situations.
It was agreed that Ordinance No. 934 would return as a Consent Item.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 7:59 p.m., Mayor Hall declared the meeting adjourned.
/s/Allison Taylor, Deputy City Clerk