[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6208305,"mediaKeyId","3749041-e417d6a25656e170174456713f45b68a","parentId",3749041,"title","Kenmore to expand photo-enforcement with mobile cameras; council approves intermittent deployments but delays site list","audioSeconds",3385,"startMs",7418000,"endMs",10803000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749041-e417d6a25656e170174456713f45b68a&start=7418&end=10803","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749041-e417d6a25656e170174456713f45b68a/thumbnail_7418000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6208305/Kenmore/King-County/Washington/Kenmore-to-expand-photo-enforcement-with-mobile-cameras-council-approves-intermittent-deployments-but-delays-site-list","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208305-b1c8ba380d66637347a524850a1df442/orig.mp4?Expires=1771108957&Signature=i7yWUweO5qEIHYo40gmheJqcsX~TqfkWKb9CRVg1t8Y4xEjSNnStL~ONEUHUCDHBHn-IuroSmduLKJkhEqhSZFl~xXedVmqJYPqg2q9USg11McturAUGp3eHOWMrZoEYHbgopScrEgHr2vmPy~GWrb5jW3hK-wleCV4zQ7CQck8VkqaL2uaMXbfa3ktaNzZB1Ij5Sng6I-so7lOJOlX-6Xn97IkVx7UlfhQOCurNnXOosYxDAMJfcU6B3EEfaup7dKKhPBanpVCeu7DfgnTjQVW4vmQCJK8YrBmCtRNP4pQiXCbDOlyBmhaPa1ZtmYWmozujl22tG17KWZUQ6GiyTw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Kenmore, Washington","date","2025-06-11T00:17:22.107Z","article","Kenmore staff recommended expanding the city’s automated photo-enforcement (CAPE) program on Monday, proposing a mix of fixed and transportable camera deployments, a 30-minute limit on repeat infractions, and use of program revenue for sidewalks and safety projects. The council approved intermittent (transportable) camera use but postponed approval of the full site list to June 23 for further staff prioritization.

Traffic engineer Tobin Benagold summarized two years of program data, saying the city has observed large mean-speed reductions where CAPE operates. Benagold told the council that school-zone enforcement reduced mean speed from about 36 miles per hour to 16 miles per hour in active school zones and that citywide regulatory enforcement had reduced mean speeds in 30-mph zones from roughly 37 mph to about 25 mph. He framed the program’s goal as crash- and fatality-risk reduction and described a complementary approach that pairs engineering and enforcement.

Key safety and fiscal points presented by staff

- Reported safety effects: Benagold said the school-zone mean-speed reduction “reduces our risk of fatal crash by 95 percent” and a regulatory-speed mean reduction from 37 to 25 mph reduces crash risk and “our risk of fatal crashes by nearly 3 quarters.” He emphasized the preventive role of school-zone enforcement.
- Violation and revenue trends: ticket volumes fell quickly after warning periods; staff use a long-term projected violation rate of 0.2% to plan sustainable program revenue. Benagold said the program’s financial plan assumes a long-term violation rate of 0.2% and would be at risk to meet financial sustainability targets if violations fell below about 0.16%.
- Costs: staff reported approximate fixed camera costs of about $57,000 per camera per year and variable per-violation costs roughly in the range of $20 per paid citation.
- Program investments: CAPE revenue has funded sidewalks, school-zone upgrades, pavement management and other safety projects; Benagold outlined projects and proposed continued investment in capital and maintenance items.
- Equity measures: staff proposed a 30-minute “limited infraction window” to prevent a single trip from creating multiple fines if a driver crosses several enforcement sites in a short span; they also proposed extensive warning periods and outreach.

Council actions and outcome

- Motion 1: Council voted 5–2 to approve the use of intermittent (transportable) enforcement cameras and the program policy changes described by staff, including the limited infraction window. According to the roll call in the meeting transcript, Council members voting in favor cited the program’s safety record and the 60‑day warning period that precedes active enforcement. Two council members voted no, citing concerns about camera-based enforcement generally and surveillance.
- Motion 2: The council tabled a separate motion asking approval of the specific recommended sites and asked staff to return a prioritized list and schedule; council agreed to revisit the site list at the June 23 meeting.

Why this matters: the CAPE program is intended to reduce speeds and severe crashes, fund further safety upgrades, and reallocate public-safety spending. Staff presented data showing large speed reductions and lower crash risk in camera zones; council and public discussion focused on staffing and court processing capacity, outreach and geographic equity of enforcement sites.

Clarifying details and next steps

- Staff will prepare a prioritized rollout schedule and clarify staffing/court-review impacts for the June 23 meeting.
- Council asked staff to preserve the proposed 60-day warning period for new sites, provide a public dashboard showing active camera locations and to include CAPE in outreach events.

Speakers (key)

- Tobin Benagold — Traffic engineer, City of Kenmore (staff presenter)
- Chief Moen — referenced by staff (not present)
- Multiple council members questioned program staffing and priorities; Deputy Mayor O’Kane and Councilor Culver voiced concerns about surveillance or staff capacity during the discussion.

Authorities and constraints

- Washington state photo enforcement statutes and RCW provisions were cited by staff to explain where cameras may be placed and numerical limits when sites are more than a mile from schools (statutory constraints limit cameras outside school-mile buffers). Referenced_by: Tobin Benagold.

Actions recorded

- Motion approved: authorize intermittent (transportable) CAPE deployments and program policy changes including a 30-minute limited-infraction window (vote: 5–2; yes votes: Council members Shrubnick, Marshall, Lutzes, Sassen and Mayor Herbig; no votes: Council member Culver and Deputy Mayor O’Kane; clerk roll call in the transcript supports the 5–2 outcome).
- Motion tabled: approval of the recommended site list postponed to the June 23 council meeting (unanimous motion to table to June 23, 2025).

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion: staff presented data on speed reductions, crash risk and program finances; council raised questions about police review workload, court capacity and outreach.
- Direction: council approved the program changes and asked staff to return with a prioritized, phased site list and staffing/court workload analysis.
- Decision: approval to use intermittent enforcement cameras and to implement the limited-infraction window; site implementation schedule deferred.

Searchable tags

[\"CAPE\",\"photo enforcement\",\"speed enforcement\",\"transportable cameras\",\"Kenmore traffic\"]

Provenance (transcript excerpts)

- topicintro: {\"block_id\":\"block_7418\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":90,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"Hi. Good evening, mayor and council. Thanks for staying up late with me. I'm, very excited to talk to you about this. I think we have some some great opportunities here, to build out our photo enforcement program...\"}

- topfinish: {\"block_id\":\"block_13658\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":85,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"Opposed? Okay. The motion to table, to the 20 third is passed unanimously, which I think also by default, means that we can have the conversation about the motion at the 20 third also. Okay. Then we don't need a motion to do that because it is not a live motion yet.\"}

Ending

Council approved the staff-recommended policy changes enabling intermittent enforcement cameras, including a 30-minute limit on repeat infractions and strong warning- and outreach-periods, but postponed final site approvals to give staff time to provide a prioritized rollout and staffing/court-impact analysis for the June 23 meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Regular Meeting - Jun 09 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Staff recommended expanding the city’s automated photo enforcement (CAPE) program using transportable cameras to improve safety, limit multiple fines via a 30-minute infraction window, and fund safety projects; council approved intermittent enforcement but tabled a final site list until June 23.","taxTitle","Kenmore, King County, Washington","taxId",70669,"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},6208310,"Kenmore holds public hearing on middle-housing zoning, ADU changes and 10% inclusionary proposal; councilasked for clarifications",4405,2485000,6890000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749041-e417d6a25656e170174456713f45b68a&start=2485&end=6890","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749041-e417d6a25656e170174456713f45b68a/thumbnail_2485000.jpg","/articles/6208310/Kenmore/King-County/Washington/Kenmore-holds-public-hearing-on-middle-housing-zoning-ADU-changes-and-10-inclusionary-proposal-councilasked-for-clarifications","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208310-db141d9f305c7b52fe00b45b93a03166/orig.mp4?Expires=1771108957&Signature=KdV6~Nn~bdFJPfRSWLRvkzBv0e7P8SsT8W~42sc8hMd0w7L16waatGsg6b8TY232ebg9uMrdB80EO-IJsZrP7Uet3Qm3R0kCdVtuahndEpTBfg1GX6um5TB6OgKvKR0KPiUfnVqUI2DGLC-ffkoOcjlHJXNUfC-nuATekTbjP6fct1CvOv6Ne3ovQwsoOdPxOnHnYWjpy3rFA~a2nptzZlP74-SN9uEkEnFdcL0VRy6TYvn~eCIVN3XTJjldf~~rI62qhqLTTV4SRx0I0PrC7~ds-uRaxUcAZaLsnxhHg8HCxJREC2tvN2Eeg6NZwdAsG7gfY~1hmzUl4nYsI9LUbw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kenmore staff told the City Council on Monday they are proposing amendments to allow middle housing types in single-family zones, update accessory-dwelling-unit rules and add an inclusionary-housing requirement for the R4 and R6 zones, and then opened a public hearing on the package.

Todd Hall, Kenmore principal planner, said the 2023 Washington law requires cities to allow middle housing and that Kenmore chose to plan to meet tier-2 standards because its population is near the 25,000 threshold. Hall and consultants from Kimberly Horne and ARCH outlined proposed changes affecting duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, cottage housing and ADUs; the presentation also described a proposed 10% inclusionary requirement for projects in R4 and R6 zones, with affordability set at 80% AMI for ownership units and 50% AMI for rentals.

Why this matters: the state’s middle-housing law requires local implementation; Kenmore’s choices—density calculations, unit-size exemptions and whether to apply inclusionary requirements—will affect how many new units appear where, which households can afford them, and the city’s compliance with the June 30 state deadline.

Staff presentation and key elements

- Middle-housing types proposed: duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, stacked flats and cottage housing; staff noted Planning Commission recommended inclusion of fourplexes and excluded five- and six‑plex prototypes.
- Unit-density approach: a baseline of 2 units per lot with allowances for 4 units per lot near major transit corridors (e.g., the 522 corridor) or for projects that provide an affordable unit.
- ADU rules summarized (House Bill 1337): allow up to two ADUs on a single-family lot; remove owner-occupancy requirement; cities cannot regulate ADUs under 1,000 sq ft; ADUs may be counted toward unit-density standards.
- Inclusionary proposal: all residential developments in R4 and R6 would provide at least 10% of units as affordable (ownership at 80% AMI or rental at 50% AMI); units smaller than 1,750 sq ft would be excluded from the unit count for the inclusionary calculation; developments under 10 units may pay a fee in lieu; the proposed affordability requirement would be delayed to take effect Jan. 1, 2026.

Public comment and council questions

Speakers at the hearing urged both urgency and caution. Christina Schiefer (Kenmore resident) said middle housing “alone is not gonna solve our affordability crisis” and urged larger-scale apartment development in the downtown core. Randy Bannaker, on behalf of the Seattle-King County Realtors, urged focus on supply and cautioned that inclusionary requirements could raise market-rate costs and make small projects infeasible. Several residents and advocates supported inclusionary requirements but asked for stronger focus on lower AMI bands.

Council members asked detailed, technical questions about the proposal. Council member Shrevnick confirmed the Planning Commission recommended seven middle-housing types including fourplexes. Council member Culver and others pressed staff on the inclusionary exemption threshold (1,750 sq ft) and how the 10% requirement would be applied to projects mixing small and larger units: Mike Stanger of ARCH explained that units below 1,750 sq ft are excluded when calculating the denominator for the 10% requirement and that projects with fewer than 10 units would be expected to pay a fee in lieu if a fractional requirement resulted.

Next steps

- The council held the public hearing and closed it at the meeting’s end; staff said they will answer remaining questions and bring an ordinance back for adoption on June 23.
- Hall reminded the council that if Kenmore does not adopt a local ordinance by the state’s June 30 deadline, the model ordinance for tier‑3 cities would automatically take effect on July 1.

Speakers relevant to this item

- Todd Hall — Principal Planner, City of Kenmore (staff presenter)
- Mike Stanger — Senior planner, ARCH (Regional Coalition for Housing)
- Kimberly Horne / Nick Chen — consultants to the city (presenters)
- Christina Schiefer — Kenmore resident (public commenter)
- Randy Bannaker — representative, Seattle-King County Realtors (Bellevue)
- Jeffrey Pooley, David Dorian, Stacy Valenzuela and others — public commenters

Authorities and code references cited

- Washington State middle-housing legislation (2023); referenced_by: Todd Hall
- House Bill 1337 (ADU legislation); referenced_by: Todd Hall
- Proposed Kenmore Municipal Code amendments to Chapter 18.77 (affordable housing); referenced_by: staff

Actions recorded

- Action: Public hearing opened and closed; no ordinance adopted at this meeting. Outcome: hearing closed; staff directed to return final ordinance for council consideration on June 23, 2025.

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion: substantive policy choices, technical clarifications and public testimony on trade-offs between housing supply and affordability requirements.
- Direction: staff to revise and return final ordinance language and additional analysis, including fee-in-lieu rates and technical clarifications on unit counting and exemptions.
- Decision: none at this meeting; adoption scheduled for June 23, 2025 unless the council changes the calendar.

Clarifying details captured from testimony and council questions

- Inclusionary requirement proposed: 10% of total units (ownership units at 80% AMI; rental units at 50% AMI).
- Exemption: units under 1,750 sq ft excluded from the denominator for inclusionary calculations; staff said the bullet describing unit thresholds had a typographical error in the slide deck and corrected it during the presentation.
- Effective date: proposed to be delayed until Jan. 1, 2026; if council does not act by June 30, state model ordinance for tier-3 cities would take effect July 1.
- Density: default 2 units per lot, with up to 4 units per lot allowed near major transit stops or when an affordable unit is provided.

Searchable tags

[\"middle housing\",\"ADU\",\"inclusionary zoning\",\"Kenmore Municipal Code\",\"R4\",\"R6\",\"House Bill 1337\"]

Provenance (transcript excerpts)

- topicintro: {\"block_id\":\"block_4085\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":120,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"Right. Good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, council members. I'm pleased to be here with you again tonight... an overview for the proposed middle housing ADUs and inclusionary zoning amendments.\"}

- topfinish: {\"block_id\":\"block_6858\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":65,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"With that, the public hearing is closed. Thank you very much. I appreciate, all the work that's gone into this, and we'll see you in a couple weeks.\"}

Ending

Staff will return with a final ordinance and any technical corrections requested by council; if the council does not adopt a local ordinance by the June 30 state deadline, the state model ordinance will take effect July 1. The council and public discussion emphasized trade-offs between accelerating housing supply and ensuring affordability, and asked staff for clearer economic analyses and fee-in-lieu rates before adoption.","Staff presented proposed middle-housing and ADU code changes required by state law and a 10% inclusionary requirement for developments in R4 and R6; public hearing produced questions about unit-size exemptions, fee-in-lieu details and timing ahead of the June 30 state deadline.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6208315,"Residents and advocates tell Kenmore council immigrant neighbor faces sustained racial harassment; mayor requests staff follow-up",2767,633000,3400000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749041-e417d6a25656e170174456713f45b68a&start=633&end=3400","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749041-e417d6a25656e170174456713f45b68a/thumbnail_633000.jpg","/articles/6208315/Kenmore/King-County/Washington/Residents-and-advocates-tell-Kenmore-council-immigrant-neighbor-faces-sustained-racial-harassment-mayor-requests-staff-follow-up","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208315-7205161d594786a55df0c0d3431713e9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771108957&Signature=oTdtmCiwvw9ZPqhI2sLGyRxoh377se-xsohZXXk8l-N4dx5zPzvFhoJQOyIqJdLgHy75k4m6O3PxfQ7zsf-psQrXL-P3JwKOWj19p4lm6TtX5RrpO6B-naWBOGBetFlG0YaablSnKQHNC-aqzyrKO4KyQivdL4uT8785~T3piHaPRwYp7sEoRHZf4IFJgcUHvW03opp13StnvexA~qpUAfdvwSoQRLLLPooGUJevvVRUj4~4miFje6tcDjU6LRXuYY3rxQQEd7ih68nK~wTCUkRegRIO24qinf6GXXOZ3xw9jnLqZh6ikGZtnoupLm7a1UYaD8MvmC4JuEo1EZN~kA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Multiple community members and legal advocates told the Kenmore City Council on Monday that an immigrant resident has experienced years of harassment by nearby neighbors and gaps in protection from the courts and local police.

The testimony centered on a resident identified in council proceedings as Jen Jin. Joyce Shuey, a corporate attorney who said she volunteers on racial-discrimination cases, told the council, “Zen, who you just heard from, is 1 of my clients.” Shuey described her client as an immigrant with limited English who, she said, “cannot live in Kenmore anymore because of what they have encountered.”

The accounts included allegations that a nearby couple used racist language and intimidation, that a former police officer was involved, and that court and police responses had not protected the resident. Deborah Feyander, an attorney who said she works for the City of Seattle, said she witnessed a protective order issued against the resident but described the court outcome as “reverse of reality and devoid of truth,” and called the episode an example of “institutional racism.” Dr. Jamie Cho said the harassment “has resulted in over 14 court hearings” and urged the council to seek institutional accountability.

City staff and neighbors gave specific examples and context. Jen Jin told the council (through translation assistance) she had received a 10-year protection order and described repeated incidents, including neighbors allegedly disabling a door alarm and making intimidating gestures. Mia Niu, who identified herself as working with the Chinese Information and Service Center, said she had witnessed a Kenmore officer respond to a call by saying, “Maybe Jen should learn to speak better English,” which Niu described as harmful and diminishing the protection order’s intent.

Why this matters: witnesses and advocates described a pattern of alleged harassment, repeated court filings, and a protection order they say has not been consistently enforced—issues the council can address through policy review and staff follow-up. Several speakers urged the council to examine interactions between residents, homeowners associations, property managers and police, and to consider steps to ensure vulnerable residents receive consistent protection.

Council response and next steps

Mayor Nigel Herbig told speakers he would direct staff to follow up. At the conclusion of the public-comment block, the mayor said, “staff will be following up with you,” and later reiterated that staff would connect with the resident to “have a deeper conversation about that situation.” The transcript shows no formal council action or ordinance resulting from the testimony at the meeting; the mayor’s statement constituted an explicit direction to staff.

What speakers asked for

- Community advocates asked the council to examine whether local systems—police response, HOA practices and court procedures—are protecting vulnerable residents. Joyce Shuey urged the council to \"look closely at what's happening, including with your police force.\"
- Witnesses requested staff assistance and ongoing follow-up with the resident and emphasized the need for the council to consider systemic remedies rather than single-case fixes.

Clarifying details and evidence cited in testimony

- A protective order described by witnesses as a 10-year protection order was said to be in effect for the resident.
- Dr. Jamie Cho said the situation had led to “over 14 court hearings.”
- Witnesses said Kenmore police responses sometimes involved multiple patrol cars (one speaker said three squad cars arrived for a call) and that language barriers delayed or complicated responses.

Speakers (as identified in the meeting)

- Jen Jin — Resident (public commenter; translation assisted)
- Joyce Shuey — Corporate attorney (volunteer on racial-discrimination cases)
- Deborah Feyander — Attorney (identified as working for the City of Seattle)
- Dr. Jamie Cho — Physician / community member (Bellevue resident)
- Mia Niu — Anti-bias/anti-hate team, Chinese Information and Service Center (Seattle)
- Annie Garrett — Community advocate (Seattle resident)
- Reyna Doanley — Retired college president (Bellevue resident)
- Karen Smith — Former HOA president (caller living in Texas; formerly local)
- Stacy Valenzuela — Kenmore resident

Authorities referenced in testimony

- Court-issued protection order (referenced by multiple speakers as a 10-year protection order); referenced_by: [\"Jen Jin\",\"Joyce Shuey\",\"Dr. Jamie Cho\",\"Mia Niu\"]

Actions recorded

- Direction: Staff follow-up with the resident (mover: Mayor Nigel Herbig; outcome: staff will follow up; notes: no ordinance or formal investigation was initiated during the meeting).

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion only: multiple public-comment speakers described allegations of harassment, court filings and police responses. These were public comments and not council deliberations on an ordinance or formal investigation.
- Direction/assignment: the mayor instructed staff to follow up with the resident and to engage further with the situation.
- Formal action: none taken at the meeting; no vote or formal inquiry was initiated.

Community relevance

- Geographies: Kenmore city neighborhoods (public comment identified condominium complex and nearby blocks).
- Impact groups: immigrant residents, Asian American residents, residents with limited English proficiency.

Searchable tags

[\"racial harassment\",\"Kenmore Police\",\"protection order\",\"immigrant residents\",\"HOA\",\"public comment\"]

Provenance (transcript excerpts)

- topicintro: {\"block_id\":\"block_633\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":85,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"I will go ahead and assist our speaker, Jen Jin, at the podium, and then we'll proceed with the rest of the list.\"}

- topfinish: {\"block_id\":\"block_3364\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":80,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"1, I do wanna actually ask that staff follow-up with, miss Zinn and and that we have a deeper conversation about that situation. So staff will be following up with you.\"}

Ending

Public speakers urged the council to act beyond individual casework—asking the city to review police response, HOA practices and court outcomes they said left a vulnerable resident exposed. The mayor directed staff to follow up with the resident; council members and staff indicated they would continue to engage outside the meeting but no formal investigation or ordinance was adopted at this session.","Multiple residents and legal advocates testified that an immigrant Kenmore resident has experienced persistent harassment, alleged racialized threats and inconsistent police responses; the mayor directed staff to follow up with the resident.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Kenmore to expand photo-enforcement with mobile cameras; council approves intermittent deployments but delays site list

Kenmore holds public hearing on middle-housing zoning, ADU changes and 10% inclusionary proposal; councilasked for clarifications

Residents and advocates tell Kenmore council immigrant neighbor faces sustained racial harassment; mayor requests staff follow-up