CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Monday, January 10, 2000

7:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Grossman, Gustafson, Lee, Montgomery and Ransom

ABSENT: Mayor Jepsen

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Deputy Mayor Hansen, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Deputy Mayor Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of Mayor Jepsen.

Upon motion by Councilmember Montgomery, seconded by Councilmember Lee and unanimously carried, Mayor Jepsen was excused.

3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER

City Manager Robert Deis reported on the following: 1) an expected 10,000 to 20,000 visitors on January 23rd at the Carmelite Monastery to view the relics of St. Therese; 2) status of upgrade of Chambers Cable service; 3) resignation of Ted Bradshaw from the Planning Commission as of March 31st and process for filling that and other vacancies; and 4) legal challenge of Initiative 695 by the cities of Lakewood, Bainbridge Island and Bremerton. He said Shoreline was asked if it was willing to participate in the litigation or assist in funding. He reported that Mayor Jepsen had said he was not interested in doing either.

Councilmembers commented as follows: Councilmember Montgomery concurred with Mayor Jepsen; Councilmember Grossman said he was uncomfortable proactively opposing the solid public vote in favor of the initiative; pointing out that the State Attorney General has already ruled on this issue, Councilmember Lee doubted the success of the effort; Councilmember Gustafson said he would like to read the materials before forming an opinion; Councilmember Ransom concurred that he would like to be more informed before expressing an opinion (he noted that although State voters supported I-695 by 60 percent, Shoreline voters only supported it by 40 percent); and Deputy Mayor Hansen expressed opposition to joining in the suit. He then summarized the majority opinion of the Council against City involvement.

Public Works Director Bill Conner distributed the City’s Snow Removal Plan. He pointed out that in addition to King County’s three blades for snow removal in Shoreline, the City now has three blades of its own that can be accessed in emergencies.

Moving on, Deputy Mayor Hansen presented Councilmember Montgomery with a plaque acknowledging her service as Deputy Mayor in 1998/1999.

4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

(a) Report from the Library Board

Susanna Johnson, Chair of the Shoreline Library Board, presented information regarding the King County Library System (KCLS) and activities in the Shoreline and Richmond Beach libraries. She reviewed last year’s Library Board goals and thanked the City for its allocation of funds for library programming. Then she outlined this year’s goals, one of which is to continue to monitor progress on the new Richmond Beach library. She concluded by thanking Councilmember Ransom for attending Library Board meetings and by introducing Evelyn Phillips, Yoshiko Saheki and Michael Derrick, Library Board members present in the audience.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Dennis Lee, 14547 26th Avenue NE, commented that Shoreline citizens did not support the "tax revolt" reflected by I-695. He cautioned against looking for tax dollars from places that could degrade the neighborhoods. Then he distributed a copy of the Briarcrest neighborhood newsletter.

(b) Layne Kleinart, 2135 NW 198th Street, speaking on behalf of the Richmond Beach Underground Wiring Committee, invited Councilmembers to a meeting at City Hall on Friday, January 21, to brainstorm possibilities for partnerships and funding options to achieve underground wiring in Richmond Beach. She asked that this project be added to the 2000 work plan.

(c) George Mauer, 1430 NW 191st Street, objected to the concrete benches that have been installed along the trail in Richmond Beach Saltwater Park and asked that they be changed to be like all of the other benches in the park.

(d) LaNita Wacker, 19839 8th Avenue NW, opposed use of the word "informant" in the key informant process described last week in relation to the Municipal Services Strategic Plan. She supported seeking input from the community but opposed calling individuals "informants" because of other connotations of that word.

Councilmember Gustafson reported that the City received the "Community Partnership Award" for 1999 from the Arts Council.

Mr. Deis explained that the concrete benches in the park were part of the original design approved by Council. The intent was to provide benches that were lower and that would fit into the contour of the land as much as possible. He said this was a very sensitive project, and the design was built around balancing the desires of the neighbors and providing improvements for trail users.

Councilmember Gustafson noted that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee is scheduled to review the master plans for all the parks in order to develop a vision of how they should look. Mr. Deis added that the Parks Director is working on developing standards for the various kinds of parks.

6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Councilmember Lee moved to approve the agenda. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion. Councilmember Gustafson moved to place item 9(a) on the consent calendar. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. A vote was taken on the motion to approve the agenda as amended, which carried 6 - 0.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember Lee moved to approve the consent calendar, as amended. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 6-0, and the following items were approved:

Minutes of Special Meeting of December 6, 1999
Minutes of Dinner Meeting of December 13, 1999
Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 13, 1999

Approval of expenses and payroll as of December 30, 1999 in the amount of $2,524,583.09

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with the North Rehabilitation Facility for 2000 landscape maintenance to support the Roads and Surface Water programs in an amount not to exceed $80,000

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement for provision of publications writing, editing, design and production services for City publications with Susan Will, d/b/a Will Design and Publications in an amount not to exceed $35,000

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an Interlocal Agreement with King County Roads and Transportation Division not to exceed the amount of $550,000 to complete the overlay projects listed in the 2000 Overlay Program; and to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with a private vendor not to exceed $150,000 for slurry sealing work to complete the alternative methods projects listed in the 2000 Overlay Program

8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS

(a) Public hearing to consider citizens’ comments on proposed City regulations governing card rooms in the City of Shoreline

Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, explained the differences between the staff recommendation (Ordinance No. 223-A), which implements Option 4 as originally directed by the Council, and the Planning Commission recommendation (Ordinance No. 223-B), which implements Option 3. He emphasized that Option 4, which prohibits new gaming establishments, focuses on the number of establishments and not the number of tables within the establishments. He noted that the Planning Commission vote to forward Option 3, which would allow new establishments in Shoreline, was very close—5-4.

Mr. Stewart clarified that Option 4 allows existing card rooms as preexisting non-conforming uses. It allows expansion through the special use permit process. He added that both ordinances add additional parking requirements. Mr. Stewart concluded that Council could amend either ordinance to make it more constrained or more liberal.

Turning to issues raised by Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stewart explained that under Shoreline’s regulations, a non-conforming use may continue. This is a fairly liberal interpretation of non-conformity but means that financing should not be made more difficult. Second, existing applications are regulated by the rules in effect at the time the application was submitted. Finally, he mentioned Councilmember Ransom’s clarification of a statement in the staff report that went to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Ransom pointed out there are four social card rooms in Shoreline and three mini-casinos.

Finally, Mr. Stewart noted that Council has information regarding citizen phone calls to the City, most of which supported Option 4.

Deputy Mayor Hansen opened the public hearing.

(1) Ted Bradshaw, 14722 22nd Avenue NE, said gambling comes to the community promising to add tax revenue and jobs, but instead brings community problems, displaced local businesses, and low paying jobs. He referred to the record on the gambling issue, noting many of the articles support the idea that gambling is a detriment to the community. He concluded that the social costs of gambling offset tax revenues from it.

(2) Larry Bingham, 313 NE 185th Street, emphasized that this is not a tax revenue issue. He said Shoreline is known for its community and family values, which are based on principles of freedom that protect and strengthen the family. He asserted that the activities of vice are based on the principles of slavery and oppose these values. He urged Council to protect families by adopting Option 5.

(3) Dennis Lee, 14547 26th Avenue NE, noted that he personally would support Option 5, but he could understood why Option 4 was proposed. He had a question about whether an existing business could be sold. He cautioned Council that any expansion will have neighborhood impacts.

(4) Jim Mackey, The Highlands, supported Option 4. He said this is an opportunity to move away from what the City has been to a premier city that will attract quality businesses. He urged Council to reaffirm its decision of last summer.

(5) Nat Penrose, The Highlands, said the Highlands chose to join Shoreline as a new community because it was felt that a smaller city could pursue family values. He asserted that the expansion of gambling will not enhance the quality of the neighborhoods. He urged the City to encourage neighborhood residents to improve neighborhoods. He supported Option 4 or Option 5.

(6) Clayton Gillett, 20241 20th Avenue NW, supported Option 5, but he recognized that Council has some responsibility to the owners who have invested in the community. He suggested amending Option 4 to prohibit expansion.

(7) Dan Royal, 19210 Densmore Avenue N, said Shoreline should be a place to raise families and feel safe. He reported that he had been effected by the gambling addiction of a friend. He also supported Option 4 with no expansion.

(8) Clark Elster, 1720 NE. 177th Street, supported Option 5 based on his experience as a police officer. He said gambling can have a pernicious influence on the political process and provide a way to "wash dirty money." He agreed with previous speakers that Option 4 is the only practical option. He favored the addition of a prohibition of expansion.

(9) Bob Tull represented several local licensed card rooms. He urged Council to carefully consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He asserted that Option 4 will make the expansion of a restaurant, or other types of non-gaming expansion, difficult. He distributed information from the Planning Commission record, and he referred to a November study by the Washington Research Council of the unique card room industry in the state. He said the problems of the "old days" have been remedied. The new card room industry is creating good paying jobs and is not causing the law enforcement problems of the past. He said many Planning Commissioners stated a preference for Option 4 without onerous restrictions on expansion.

(10) Bob Brennan, President of the Recreational Gaming Association, 17618 SE 102nd Street, Renton, stated that dealers in casinos make much more than the average wage and have full benefits. He referred to surveys which show that card rooms do not negatively impact local law enforcement. He said card rooms have very sophisticated surveillance equipment and do not pose prostitution and drug problems. He noted that employees spend their money in the community, as do the card rooms themselves. He concluded that the demand for mini-casinos has been met. He estimated that only ten more mini-casinos will open. He supported Option 3 or Option 4.

(11) Joe Phillips, 20090 10th Avenue NW, said card rooms create "social slums." He supported Option 5 or, "at worst," Option 4.

(12) Bill Bear, 2541 NE 165th Street, also supported Option 5. He noted that gambling has historically been perceived as negative. He asked Council to consider why. Second, he asked if economic benefits to the City mean economic benefits to the residents. He asserted that gambling has a negative impact.

(13) Sal Leoni, representing the Seattle Cascade Drum and Bugle Corps, said Option 4, as currently written, would mean the end of the Seattle Cascade Drum and Bugle Corps. The 40-year-old organization supports a local flag team and a nationally touring drum and bugle corps each year. He said these activities require approximately $240,000 in annual funding, the majority of which comes from the Cascade Bingo Hall. He reported declining revenues, which resulted last year in a $70,000 deficit compared to expenses. He said the flag program was cancelled this year and, if the trend continues, this will be the last year of the drum and bugle corps.

Mr. Leoni said most people do not wish to control non-profit activities. However, the ordinance affects non-profits because the only commercially feasible way that a non-profit can operate a mini-casino, and thus compete with other mini-casinos, is to share space with a for-profit company. He said the Board of Directors of Cascade Bingo formed a for-profit company, Cascade Food Service. All the profits will go back to the non-profit to support the youth activities. He described the filing of the application and the impact of the moratorium. He asked Council to allow the group to continue this process regardless of the ordinance it passes. He said the bingo hall in Mountlake Terrace recently announced that it will share its location with a for-profit company.

(14) Paul Savage, 19233 Ashworth Avenue N, said he had just attended a board of review for an Eagle Scout, who commented that it is important for citizens to be involved in opposing gambling. He pointed out that business people know the risks of doing business and hire lobbyists to advocate for their interests. He said citizens must rely on staff and the City Council. He urged Council not to look for funding from gambling or to wait for a crisis before determining that "enough is enough."

(15) Richard Johnsen, 16730 Meridian Avenue, opposed City reliance on gambling, but he questioned what businesses could be recruited to replace gaming establishments. He suggested a limit to the amount of money a person could gamble in Shoreline. He said the City should allow new establishments, subject to strict restrictions. He suggested combining Options 3 and 4.

(16) LaNita Wacker, 19839 8th Avenue NW, commented that she was aware of the social affects of gambling from personal experience. However, she noted that the prohibition of new businesses allows a monopoly. She supported Option 1 and allowing the law of supply and demand to work.

(17) Michael Preston, 702 Lakeside Avenue S, representing Goldie’s Casino, confirmed that Option 5 would lead to a lawsuit because of vested rights. He supported Option 4, but he was sympathetic to the Drum and Bugle Corps. He said the Council has a responsibility to do what it said it would do: allow gaming in some form. He said people are worried about the expansion of gambling, but the market will only bear so many card rooms or casinos; those that are run efficiently will survive, providing a good tax base and good jobs. He said the industry will self police and try to be a good citizen in the community. He asserted that existing businesses should be allowed to expand.

Upon motion by Councilmember Montgomery, seconded by Councilmember Ransom and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed.

Ordinance No. 223-A regulating commercial eating and/or
drinking establishments with social card rooms and amending
Sections 18.06, 18.08, 18.18 and 18.32 of the Shoreline Zoning Code

or

Ordinance No. 223-B regulating commercial eating and/or
drinking establishments with social card rooms as a special use
permit in the Regional Business, Office, and Industrial Zones
with increasing parking requirements, and amending Sections
18.06, 18.08, 18.18 and 18.32 of the Shoreline Zoning Code

Mr. Stewart explained the criteria for special use permits, including neighborhood compatibility and traffic.

Turning to the Cascade Bingo situation, Mr. Stewart clarified that the City accepted the improvements to the facility on the basis that these were for a non-profit booster club. He said neither of the two ordinances tonight would allow a card room at the bingo hall location. He provided wording that would amend Option 3 to permit card rooms in the Neighborhood Business (NB) zone. However, he cautioned that there are other NB zones in the City where card rooms would then be allowed.

Mr. Stewart said Option 4 currently allows the expansion of the number of tables at a facility or the amount of floor space. Such an expansion would require a special use permit. However, Option 4 could be further tightened to prevent such expansions.

Councilmember Grossman commented that an expansion of any building, no matter the use, must go through the building permit process, which sets parameters on the expansion. Mr. Stewart responded that building permits do not receive the degree of scrutiny given to special use permits.

Councilmember Ransom said the requirement for a special use permit severely limits the ability of the business to expand. He pointed out that Commissioners were almost evenly divided during the Planning Commission deliberations on whether the designation of gaming establishments as non-conforming would severely limit their ability to function.

Mr. Stewart said the same special use permit that is required for a new facility under Option 3 is required for expansion of an existing facility under Option 4.

Acknowledging that he is a board member of Cascade Bingo, Councilmember Ransom said he will participate in the discussion. He noted that the State Supreme Court heard a case in which members of the Mountlake Terrace City Council were members of a non-profit board. He said the court ruled there was no conflict of interest in the members acting on a proposal regarding the organization because it was a non-profit.

Continuing, Councilmember Ransom said Cascade Bingo submitted an application. Mr. Stewart clarified that the City has not issued the permit pending a response to 43 conditions identified by staff. Councilmember Ransom said the concept of Cascade Food Services was to run a restaurant and gambling activities other than bingo. He asked if there were grandfathered rights because the application had been filed prior to the March 22nd moratorium. He said that the Gambling Commission and the City of Mountlake Terrace have approved Seattle Junior Hockey to lease space for a mini-casino in their facility. He said Mr. Leoni seeks the right to do the same thing in Shoreline. Council-member Ransom asserted that this is a reasonable request because Cascade Food Services applied for a Level 1 card room before the moratorium.

Mr. Stewart responded that the organization submitted the application after the first moratorium took effect.

Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained that a moratorium was in place prior to March 22 and that Cascade Food Services is not vested because it did not have for-profit gaming or a vested building permit in place prior to the moratorium.

Mr. Stewart added that staff accepted the permit application based on the express assurance that it concerned the non-profit, not the for-profit.

Councilmember Ransom asked if the area in which Cascade Bingo is located could be upgraded from Neighborhood Business. Mr. Stewart explained that Option 3 does not allow establishments in NB zones because card rooms in neighborhoods would be more intrusive than the current proposal to limit them to Regional Business, Office and Industrial zones.

Councilmember Lee commented that there are many variables to consider in this decision. However, the vision of the citizens for Aurora and the Comprehensive Plan show what people want. She preferred Option 4.

Councilmember Lee moved approval of Ordinance No. 223-A. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion.

Councilmember Montgomery moved the following amendment:

New language to 18.32.909: Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the expansion of a nonconforming card room, as that term is defined in SMC 18.06.173, as now in effect or as may be subsequently amended, shall be prohibited subject to the approval and issuance of a Special Use Permit and not a conditional use permit, pursuant to SMC 16.40 and SMC 18.44.050. Expansion of a noncon-forming card room means to increase the gross square footage of the structure(s) licensed for gambling activity or to increase the number of gaming tables over the number of tables for which application was pending before the Washington State Gambling Commission as of March 22, 1999.

Councilmember Lee seconded the motion.

Councilmember Grossman spoke against the amendment, because it prohibits the expansion of parts of gaming establishments to which people have no objections. He said it makes no sense to support Option 4, and to allow some gaming establishments, but then to prohibit expansion of the parts of the businesses that people do not oppose.

9. MEETING EXTENSION

At 10:00 p.m., Councilmember Montgomery moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 4 - 2, with Councilmembers Lee and Montgomery dissenting.

Mr. Stewart pointed out that the amendment would not prohibit maintenance on the buildings, simply expansion.

Councilmember Lee commented that these establishments do not make any money from their restaurants, so there would be no incentive to expand.

Noting that the majority of citizens prefer Option 5, Councilmember Montgomery supported the amendment as a compromise. She emphasized that she supported the option, as amended, to respond to the fairness issue of businesses already invested in the City, not out of a desire for tax revenues.

Councilmember Ransom disagreed that a majority of citizens would like to see no gambling. He pointed out that the Planning Commission supported Option 3. The Elway survey, in which those for and against gambling were evenly split, showed that 80 percent of the respondents felt gambling was an individual choice and should not be proscribed. In the Eastside Neighborhood Forum, 52 percent supported Option 3. He estimated that only 25 percent of the public supports Option 5.

Councilmember Ransom concurred with Councilmember Grossman’s comments. He reminded Council that the Gambling Commission has jurisdiction over the number of card tables. He asserted that the City could be putting itself at risk because it does not have the authority to regulate the number of tables, as proposed in the amendment.

Councilmember Lee commented that some businesses have indicated a reluctance to locate next to a casino. She said this decision should be viewed from an economic development perspective and in terms of what the citizens support. She supported Option 4, with the amendment, as a good compromise.

A vote was taken on the amendment, which failed 2 - 4, with Councilmembers Lee and Montgomery voting in the affirmative.

Councilmember Gustafson noted the absence of the Mayor. He supported Option 4, but he said he needed time to understand the two variations. He asserted that another week would not make much difference and that the Mayor should receive newly presented information.

Councilmember Gustafson moved to postpone action on Ordinance No. 223-A until the next regular meeting when all members are present. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.

Mr. Sievers noted that the moratorium expires on January 26 and that an ordinance passed on January 24th would not be effective at that time. He said Council could act at a special meeting next week if it wished. Councilmember Gustafson amended his motion to that affect.

Deputy Mayor Hansen commented that Mayor Jepsen expressed in a voice mail that he supported Ordinance No. 223-A as it stands.

Councilmember Grossman noted that he had come to a decision and that Mayor Jepsen had indicated a level of comfort with the decision being made in his absence.

Councilmember Ransom stated that he had anticipated the presentation of more reading material. He did not think the presence of the Mayor would change the outcome of the vote. He said he had read the 28 studies. He commented that most of them resembled journal articles, not professional studies.

Deputy Mayor Hansen commented that this is a Council decision that does not depend on any one person. He felt Mayor Jepsen’s position is clear.

A vote was taken on the motion to postpone until next week, which failed 1 - 5, with Councilmember Gustafson voting in the affirmative.

Councilmember Gustafson said he was sympathetic to Cascade Bingo and asked if that issue could be explored further. Mr. Sievers responded that this is a very complex issue both locally and for the Gambling Commission. However, Council could always ask staff to develop an amendment. Mr. Deis noted the domino effects on other NB zones.

Councilmember Ransom wished to determine whether there was support on the Council to pursue some option for Cascade Bingo to have the Level 1 card room.

Councilmember Grossman felt it would be inappropriate to set policy on a case-by-case basis. He said it would be different to look at the issue of card rooms in NB zones, but he did not think Council should make a decision on a specific application. Councilmember Lee concurred.

Deputy Mayor Hansen commented that there are variance procedures in Shoreline and that Council could give staff direction. However, he did not wish to do this in connection with the vote on this ordinance.

A vote was taken on motion, which carried 5 - 1,with Councilmember Ransom dissenting, and Ordinance No. 223-A (now denoted Ordinance No. 223 for the record) was passed.

10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Sal Leoni, Cascade Drum and Bugle Corps, suggested amending Option 4 so that anyone filling an application by the March 22nd date would be grandfathered, which would apply only to Cascade Food Service. He noted Cascade Bingo is an existing business, which Option 4 was designed to protect. He suggested allowing Level 1 card rooms to expand from Level 1 to Level 2. He asked the Council to direct staff to work with Cascade Bingo to craft such legislation.

(b) Bob Tull, asked about amending the ordinance to allow for expansion of the non-gambling aspects of the business without going through the SUP process.

(c) Larry Bingham, 313 NE 185th, commented that Council’s action tonight infers that legitimate businesses and the vice industry are on equal footing. He warned that tonight’s action will have consequences down the road.

(d) Richard Johnsen, 16730 Meridian Ave. N., reiterated his advice that Council should have merged both options in order to "have the best of everything." He hoped that tonight’s action would not close the door completely on gambling.

11. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:28 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen adjourned the meeting.

 

 

__________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk