01/19/2010 City CouncilJanuary 19, 2010
At 6:15 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would meet in executive session
regarding pending claims and potential litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to
last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected
officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers Orvis, Fraley -
Monillas, Plunkett, Bernheim, Peterson and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder,
Attorney Stephanie Croll, Attorney Grant Weed, Washington Cities Insurance Authority Executive
Director Lewis Leigh, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:45 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced to the
public that an additional 30 minutes would be needed in executive session. The executive session
concluded at 7:11 p.m.
At 7:12 p.m., Councilmembers Orvis, Fraley- Monillas, Plunkett, Bernheim, Peterson and Wilson
interviewed Kristiana Johnson, a candidate for appointment to the Planning Board. The interview was
held in the Jury Meeting Room. Mayor Haakenson was also present for the interview.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:19 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
DJ Wilson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember (seated at 7:28 p.m.)
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic
Development Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 2010.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 1
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 2010.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #116197 THROUGH #116198 DATED DECEMBER
31, 2009 FOR $33,694.78, #116199 THROUGH #116394 DATED JANUARY 7, 2010 FOR
$981,810.50, AND #116395 THROUGH #116584 DATED JANUARY 14, 2010 FOR
$3,269,574.63. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #48989
THROUGH #49026 FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 16 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,
2009 FOR $834,922.88.
E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM THOR CHAMBERS
($268.28) AND BARBARA DEAN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
F. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT - AID UNITS CONTRACT.
G. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR USE OF PUBLIC SAFETY BOAT BETWEEN
EDMONDS, AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS NO. 27 AND NO. 1.
H. ORDINANCE NO. 3776 — ESTABLISHING SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
NO. 1 AS THE PROVIDER OF RESCUE OPERATIONS AT THE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT.
I. ORDINANCE NO. 3777 — AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 7.30.036, SEWER
SPECIAL CONNECTION DISTRICTS, TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION ECC 7.30.036(C)
ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL CONNECTION FEE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON
OR NEAR OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
J. RESOLUTION NO. 1220 - APPROVING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLANS FOR
THE 2010 PROCESS RELATING TO THE UPDATES OF UTILITY ELEMENTS IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE UPDATES WILL INCLUDE:
* 2010 COMPREHENSIVE STORM AND SURFACE WATER PLAN UPDATE
* 2010 COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN UPDATE
* 2010 SEWER PLAN INFILTRATION AND INFLOW STUDY WITH POLICY
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN
3. APPROVAL OF RULES FOR THE NOMINATION /ELECTION PROCESS TO FILL VACANT
CITY COUNCIL POSITION #4
City Clerk Sandy Chase read the rules for the nomination /election process that were used last year:
Nominations
Each Councilmember may nominate one candidate from the list of applicants by placing an "X" beside
the name of the applicant of his or her choice on the form supplied for that purpose by the City Clerk, and
by signing the nomination form. The City Clerk will announce and maintain a permanent record of the
nominations and of the Councilmember nominating each candidate.
The Election
Each Councilmember may vote for one candidate by placing an "X" beside the name of the candidate of
his or her choice on the ballot supplied for that purpose by the City Clerk, and by signing the ballot. The
City Clerk will announce and maintain a permanent record of each ballot and who voted for each
candidate.
A Deadlock
A deadlock occurs after each Councilmember votes the same way on three consecutive ballots. In the
event the City Council should deadlock, then previous nominations are declared null and void and the
Council may begin a new round of nominations.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 2
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE RULES FOR THE NOMINATION /ELECTION PROCESS TO FILL THE
COUNCIL VACANCY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
!� gal Ok 11Yu1910 1W01 1 W - 1NmeY- 11`(KI11J�[�1_f_IL�L:1�1:��[
Council President Bernheim explained although the rules did not address statements by Councilmembers,
Councilmembers were welcome to provide comment.
Councilmembers completed the first nomination ballot. Those nominated were: Lora Petso
(Councilmember Fraley- Monillas), Ron Wambolt (Councilmembers Wilson and Peterson), and Diane
Buckshnis (Council President Bernheim and Councilmembers Orvis and Plunkett).
Councilmember Peterson thanked everyone who applied and participated in the interview process. He
described a telephone call that he, the Mayor and other Councilmembers received from Norm Olson, the
late Councilmember Olson's husband, who relayed it was Ms. Olson's wish that Ron Wambolt fulfill the
remainder of her term. Councilmember Peterson enthusiastically nominated Ron Wambolt to fulfill her
wishes.
Vote No. 1 was taken. The results were: four votes for Diane Buckshnis (Councilmembers Orvis, Fraley -
Monillas and Plunkett and Council President Bernheim) and two votes for Ron Wambolt
(Councilmembers Peterson and Wilson). Diane Buckshnis was appointed to fill the vacant City Council
position #4.
Mayor Haakenson administered the oath of office to Ms. Buckshnis and Councilmember Buckshnis took
her seat on the dais.
5. COMBINED 2009 ANNUAL REPORTS FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING BOARD.
Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen. Clifton explained in June 2009, the
Council passed Ordinance No. 3735, which created an Economic Development Commission (EDC). The
EDC has been meeting at least once a month and has held special meetings with the Planning Board.
EDC Chair Frank Yamamoto introduced the members of the EDC: Kerry Ayers, Bruce Faires, Stacy
Gardea, Don Hall, Darrol Haug, Betty Larman, Beatrice O'Rourke, Evan Pierce, David Schaefer, Rich
Senderoff, Bill Vance, Rob VanTassell, Bruce Witenberg, Rebecca Wolfe, and Marianne Zagorski.
Mr. Yamamoto highlighted the challenge — a budget shortfall. Projected revenues will outpace revenues
and continue for the foreseeable future if nothing is done to improve revenue flow. The main goal is to
help alleviate this situation and seek solutions other than levies and increased property taxes. He
displayed a chart illustrating a $1.5 million deficit in 2013 which will increase to nearly $6.5 million in
2020 for an accumulative total of nearly $30 million if nothing is done and no additional revenues are
identified. He displayed a chart illustrating the tax increase per household, an accumulative increase of
approximately $1700 by 2020 to sustain existing services.
In April 2009, the City Council passed a resolution directing staff to create an ordinance that would create
a Citizens Economic Development Commission. In June 2009, the City Council passed the ordinance
creating the EDC. The EDC consists of 17 members appointed by the Mayor and by each
Councilmember. The EDC's charges include: determine new strategies for economic development,
identify new sources of revenue, review and consider strategies for improving commercial viability and
develop tourism. The EDC also incorporated the four goals contained within the existing Economic
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 3
Development Plan: foster a healthy business community, revitalize the business districts, diversify the
tax base and strengthen the quality of life.
The EDC began by defining economic development: improve economic well being and quality of life by
developing and implementing programs, processes and ideas. The members of the EDC agree there is no
magic solution; a combination of ideas will be required to be successful. The key is to implement and act
now on those ideas because without additional revenue, there is no successful economic development or
consistent quality of life.
He displayed a list of items that impact citizens' quality of life such as clean and green environment,
efficient public safety services, vibrant and diverse business climate, well managed roads and public
transportation, adequate sidewalks, libraries, cultural amenities, responsible development and redevelop-
ment and quality schools, noting there were many others. Citizens' quality of life is threatened by:
• Fear of change, lack of flexibility
• Unaware of competition at local, state and national level
• Failure to plan for the future
• Ignoring past history
Mr. Yamamoto described the EDC's process to date: Three joint meetings were held with the Planning
Board that included presentations from Snohomish County EDC, Port of Edmonds and three local cities
of Bothell, Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood. From those presentations, the prevalent message was that
in order for economic development to succeed, strong and steady leadership from the City Council is
required along with alignment of goals and visions among all including citizens. Another important fact
is that Edmonds is 96% built out. The City must be creative in the use of existing land and structures and
acknowledge that future development will be primarily in the form of redevelopment.
He enumerated the EDC's proposed action items:
• Act now!
• Find a way for the City's Economic Development Director position to devote full time to
economic development activities.
• Create a strategic plan that will focus on economic development and requires accountability.
• Initiate neighborhood business /residential center plans for Westgate and Five Corners and allow
for rezoning to attract new businesses and residences and avoid delays for developers.
• Evaluate the Harbor Square plan and support the process to start redevelopment with public
involvement.
• Initiate and fund marketing plan for City -owned fiber optic network.
• Appoint two Councilmembers to the EDC, not the two members currently on the City Council
economic development committee in an effort to gather additional viewpoints as well as involve
more Councilmembers in economic development.
• The Council respond to the EDC's proposed ideas and future direction by the EDC's next
meeting on February 17.
Mr. Yamamoto concluded the EDC was a very diverse group of citizens from a variety of backgrounds
and with a variety of views who are concerned about the future of Edmonds' financial situation and
growth. He urged the Council to develop a strategic plan that extends past the current Council terms that
can be sustained and be viable into the future. In the short six months the EDC has been in existence,
they have been able to get 17 people to agree on this list of recommendations. He urged the seven
Councilmembers to agree to move forward. Every day the City fails to act costs Edmonds dollars as well
as keeps the City from growing into the community it needs to be. Pointing out neighboring communities
are continuing to grow and prosper, he urged the council to act now and not have the EDC be another
study that sits on a shelf collecting dust. The Council has an opportunity to have a positive impact on the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 4
community and now is the time. He reiterated the EDC looked forward to hearing from the Council at
their February 17 meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett asked for clarification on the proposed action item, "initiate neighborhood
business center plans," pointing out some work had been done with regard to Five Corners, Hwy. 99 and
Firdale Village. Mr. Yamamoto explained the intent was to be prepared for the creation of mixed use
areas and to allow developers to do so quickly. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the EDC planned
to make recommendations with regard to how to make the process quicker. Mr. Yamamoto answered that
could be part of the upcoming process.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the proposed action item, "evaluate Harbor Square plan and
support," questioning how the Council could support development when Council may be involved in a
quasi judicial process related to that development in the future. Mr. Yamamoto responded the EDC was
supportive of redevelopment of Harbor Square, not necessarily a particular concept.
With regard to deficit spending and the statement that annual revenues will fall below expenses in 2013
and a negative ending cash balance in 2013, Councilmember Wilson pointed out the City's annual
revenue was less than annual expenditures beginning in 2011. The Fire District 1 contract allowed those
levels to be maintained through 2010. Beginning in 2011, the City will begin spending down its reserves
to fund existing operations. The City will essentially be "bankrupt" in 2013 because it will run out of
reserves at that point. He cautioned the Council could not wait until 2013 and needed to act soon. The
City has adopted the industry standard of maintaining approximately a 1.5% or 2 -month annual cash
ending balance or approximately $5 million. He summarized the City was already in a tough spot.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the candor of the EDC meetings. Mr. Yamamoto answered the
EDC was doing very well. His report and the narrative illustrated that via a combined effort, 17 people
with different views and backgrounds were able to reach a unanimous decision with regard to the
proposed action items.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commended the 17 members of the EDC for developing a product with
goals and future suggestions. She asked the date and time of the EDC's next meeting. Mr. Yamamoto
responded it was February 17 at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmember Buckshnis commended the work done by the EDC. Observing the narrative report
referred to branding, she asked whether the intent was for the full -time Economic Development Director
to address branding. Mr. Yamamoto answered that would be one of the tasks for that position.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the EDC had developed any ideas with regard to branding the City.
Mr. Yamamoto answered no that could be a future action item.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the proposed action item to evaluate the Harbor Square plan and
support the process to start redevelopment to further Edmonds' green initiatives and asked with regard to
the Antique Mall and Skippers properties, how incentives could be offered to redevelop those sites to
encourage thriving businesses. He commented it was unlikely building heights would be increased in that
area because there were not enough votes on the Council. Mr. Yamamoto suggested doing things smarter
and doing more with what the City has. He suggested the City focus on improving the process for
developers which has been done by Bothell, Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood. Without those
improvements, developers will simply go elsewhere.
Councilmember Wilson commented because the fiber optics extend to the ferry, it would make sense for
redevelopment of that area to include fiber optics. He anticipated that would require a voter - approved
funding source. If building heights were not increased, redevelopment of that area may not pencil for a
developer. He asked what amenities the City could offer as incentives for development such as a park
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 5
which would also require voter - approved funding. He asked whether the public or the EDC was open to
considering a voter - approved bond to fund either an extension of the fiber optics or property acquisition
for a park. Mr. Yamamoto responded the EDC has not discussed that in detail. Councilmember Wilson
asked if Mr. Yamamoto, as a downtown merchant and Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association
Chair; felt the citizens of Edmonds could support a bond or levy. Mr. Yamamoto stated he did not know.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Yamamoto explained a further discussion regarding the EDC's efforts
was scheduled on the Council's retreat agenda. He suggested that would be an opportunity for a more in-
depth discussion.
Councilmember Peterson echoed the commendations for the work done by the EDC.
Planning Board Chair Michael Bowman recalled the formation of an EDC and consideration of economic
development by the Planning Board began with a discussion with Councilmember Wilson at the levy
committee when he suggested consideration also be given to alternatives to raising taxes. He thanked the
17 members of the EDC and the 7 Planning Board Members, 24 people with extremely varied
backgrounds, personalities and interests who were able to begin with a blank slate and do great things in a
short period of time. He asked the Council to do the same, commenting some Councilmembers have
"painted themselves into a corner over the years." He encouraged the Council to be open to change
because it was important to the City.
Mr. Bowman explained for several months prior to beginning this process, the Planning Board gathered
data regarding the hurdles facing the City, why new businesses were not coming to Edmonds, why
businesses were leaving, etc. He urged the Council to provide direction regarding what they wanted,
what was important to them, what they opposed, etc. before the EDC and Planning Board moved forward.
He commented on issues that were confusing to the Planning Board. For example the Council voted to
lower the building heights in the BDl zone. However, the Council may not be aware that the primary
difficulty with attracting new businesses to Edmonds is the building stock is not appropriate for their
needs; it's old, not the right size and costs too much to bring it up to their needs. At the same time
Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, Mill Creek, Bothell and Lynnwood are taking steps to change their cities,
rebranding and developing the kind of retail space that a retailer wants.
Mr. Bowman explained his wife, their partners and he opened a second C`est 1a Vie store at the Landing
in Renton in November. That new location was turnkey and cost them far less to open than the store in
Edmonds. That trend is accelerating and more and more retail space is available due to the economy and
other cities' development of new retail space. He commented recently several retailers in Edmonds have
contacted them to inquire about their broker and real estate attorney, indicating they are considering
moving. He summarized the challenge was not only bringing in new businesses but retaining the existing
businesses. He commented some Councilmembers had never been in their store or talked to them about
their business. As an example, if the Council supported tourism, he pointed out the need for another hotel
and suggested the Council identify a preferred location.
Mr. Bowman stated he resigned from the EDC because he was given a director position with Renton's Art
& Cultural Commission which has a 50- member Steering Committee. He commented although Renton
had been the butt of jokes for many years, they were moving forward aggressively. He described their
effort to site a 7 -foot "Salman" sculpture (a salmon wearing a business suit) designed and constructed for
them by an artist friend in Edmonds. After measuring the sculpture, staff determined it could not be sited
on the sidewalk and stated a further process would be required. He was not interested in participating in
another Edmonds process and instead presented the drawing to Renton's EDC who presented it to the
Council where it was approved. He summarized the Edmonds City Council's reputation was combative,
not cohesive and not pro- business. He relayed a comment from a consultant for Renton's Arts and
Cultural Commission who has worked in Edmonds who said "Edmonds is about no."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 6
Mr. Bowman concluded the EDC and the Planning Board needed the Council's support and direction. He
suggested a joint meeting where they could ask the Council specific questions and get direction from the
Council regarding whether they backed the economic development initiative and whether they were
interested in moving the City forward economically.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas agreed some Councilmembers had not visited businesses but was certain
that would change. She pointed out Edmonds was more than the downtown corridor and there was more
than one hotel in Edmonds. Mr. Bowman pointed out most people thought of Edmonds as the downtown.
core. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas recommended looking at the City as a whole.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out five Councilmembers were serving their first term and may be less
encumbered by the past. He assured no one on the Council was anti - business although he understood that
may be the perception. He summarized the Council and the community was unsure "how to get there,"
acknowledging it would take the effort of citizens and may require the citizens to lead the Council.
Councilmember Wilson asked Mr. Bowman how the Antique Mall, Skippers and Harbor Square
properties could be redeveloped within existing height limits. Mr. Bowman responded the Council
gathered data from the EDC, Planning Board and citizens but as leaders they needed to establish the
direction even if it was unpopular. As an example, he cited the light rail system in Portland that was
fiercely opposed initially but is now extremely popular and expanding. That was the result of the City
Council moving forward even though it was unpopular. The Planning Board makes recommendations to
the Council that were right for the City and all citizens but it was the Council who took the heat for the
final decision. He urged the Council to think about what was the best for the whole City even if a
decision negatively impacted a few citizens. He reiterated his suggestion for a joint meeting of the
Planning Board, EDC and the Council. With regard to how to redevelop the waterfront properties, Mr.
Bowman anticipated it would be impossible to draft a plan that would satisfy all Councilmembers.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the list of proposed action items, noting some such as appointing two
Councilmembers to the EDC and creating a strategic plan that focuses on economic development could
easily be accomplished. Others such as evaluate the Harbor Square plan would be more difficult. He was
interested in implementing the EDC's recommendations but needed further detail on some items. He
agreed with the suggestion for a joint meeting structured around a series of policy statements regarding
Harbor Square, fiber optics, neighborhood centers, Stevens Hospital, etc.
Councilmember Bucksbnis thanked Mr. Bowman for his candor. As a former resident of the Portland
area, she agreed light rail has regenerated the southeast area. She pointed out the building stock at Old
Mill Town was changed but still remained vacant. The Council needs to address, 1) what was done
wrong that those spaces remained vacant, 2) development outside the bowl area, 3) branding and 4) how
to get retailers to be open on Sundays. Mr. Bowman agreed it was not just one issue, they were all
connected. For example retailers need restaurants and the restaurants need retailers.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his thanks to the EDC and the Planning Board for their great work,
commenting it was amazing for 24 people to reach consensus. He encouraged the citizens of Edmonds to
read the 2009 Annual Report from the EDC and Planning Board which addresses the future of the City.
He emphasized the only way to effect change was for all citizens to get involved. He summarized if the
City did not do something, it was going down a bad road.
6. DISCUSSION ABOUT MEMBERSHIP OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
Councilmember Wilson commented the ordinance that created the Economic Development Commission
(EDC) was silent with regard to new Councilmembers. He commented on the possibility of the EDC
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 7
doing their work and then the Council not approving it due to a disconnect because the representatives
appointed by former Councilmembers did not reflect the views of new Councilmembers. He suggested
the Council appoint new members and/or reappoint existing members to ensure the EDC represented the
Council's views.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas was concerned that making appointments at this point in the process
could affect consistency within the group. She asked if there were a point at which the membership
would be final. Councilmember Wilson agreed there should not be a constant change in the membership.
He anticipated this would be the only time changes could be made because no new Councilmembers
would be elected for two years. He planned to reappoint David Schaefer and in the next agenda item
appoint Mary Monfort to replace Michael Bowman who has resigned. This was an opportunity for all
Councilmembers to confirm their selections and for Councilmembers Fraley- Monillas and Buckshnis to
ensure their representative reflected their views.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas pointed out if she appointed two new members, they would replace two
involved members and disrupt the process. Councilmember Wilson commented if she and the
Councilmember she replaced had different viewpoints, that disruption would occur sooner or later, sooner
if she appointed new representatives or later if the representatives appointed by Councilmember Wambolt
did not represent her views on economic development.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this Commission had a two -year duration and had been working
together for six months. She anticipated making a change at this point would disrupt their cohesiveness.
She declined to make any new appointments.
The Council took no action on this item.
7. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF MARY MONFORT TO THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF MARY MONFORT TO THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. PUBLIC HEARING TO RENAME KAIREZ DRIVE TO VISTA DEL MAR DRIVE.
City Engineer Rob English explained last year the Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association made a
request to change Kairez Drive to Vista Del Mar Drive. He displayed a map of the area, identifying
Kairez Drive which is located off Olympic View Drive near Talbot Road and the 12 properties addressed
on Kairez Drive.
On December 15, 2009, the Council passed a resolution scheduling tonight's public hearing on the
proposed street name change. At the conclusion of this public hearing, the Council has the option of
directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to proceed with the street name change and to place
the ordinance on a future Consent Agenda for approval.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR THE JANUARY 26,
2010 CONSENT AGENDA TO CHANGE KAIREZ DRIVE TO VISTA DEL MAR DRIVE.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 8
9. DISCUSSION REGARDING HOMELESS SHELTERS AND CONSIDERATION OF
ORDINANCES EXCLUDING EMERGENCY SHELTERS RUN BY RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS FROM THE STATE BUILDING CODE AND ADOPTING PROCEDURES
FOR THE PERMITTING OF "TENT CITY" HOMELESS SHELTERS IN CONJUNCTION
WITH A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Council previously adopted a resolution directing staff to be as
flexible as possible in its approach to emergency shelters for the homeless and indigent. The Council
passed an ordinance under Chapter 19.27 RCW that provides the maximum flexibility under the State
Building Code for emergency /indigent housing. He referred to his memo that outlines staff's dilemma;
the difficulty meeting the criteria of "no threat" to human life. Unlike many other cities where churches
are new buildings, the majority of Edmonds churches are older, legal nonconforming uses that do not
have sprinkler systems. Under the State Building Code, transient accommodations are required to have
sprinkler systems including crisis centers.
The direction provided to him by the Council was to be as flexible as possible; he prepared an ordinance
to exclude emergency shelters for the homeless operated by churches. The ordinance would exclude them
as a class from the State Building Code and in place of the sprinkler requirement, impose alternatives
such as maintaining a fire watch, requiring smoke alarms, prohibiting smoking and maintaining clear
emergency exits within the State's prescribed exiting laws. Emergency is defined as very inclement
weather where the temperature is less than 33 degrees for four hours as forecast by the National Weather
Service. Churches must also be otherwise legally nonconforming. The proposed ordinance provides for
what the local churches requested and what the Council resolution directed.
He explained many of the principles addressed in his memo would also apply to church- operated year -
round, indigent housing such as a tent city. Regional advocates for the homeless have suggested the City
may want to expand its exemption. In recent litigation where cities have opposed tent cities, the cities
have lost. As a result, a structure for regulating while not permitting tent cities has been developed. He
provided a copy of such an ordinance for the Council's review and suggested this topic be scheduled on a
future agenda.
Mike Smith, Acting Fire Marshal, Fire District 1, commented he had been in discussions with Eileen.
Hansen, the pastor at Trinity Lutheran for approximately a year regarding implementation of emergency
shelters within the Edmonds city limits. He also reviewed this topic with fire marshals in surrounding
jurisdictions and a set of guidelines was developed that include a requirement for automatic fire sprinklers
in the shelter area. The City's Building Official and he also discussed the topic and developed guidelines
which included the sprinkler requirement.
In spring 2009 the Council passed Ordinance 3730 that allows churches to apply for a compliance permit
which has a list of submittal requirements that include floor plans, entrances and exits, corridors,
hallways, direction of door swing, emergency and exit lights, fire alarms, smoke detectors, and if the
building has any active fire sprinklers. To date, the City has not received any compliance permit
applications. He anticipated this was likely due to his not wanting to approve permits for facilities that
did not have fire sprinklers. He acknowledged some surrounding jurisdictions have allowed cold weather
shelters in churches without fire sprinklers. He requested an opportunity to review a compliance permit
application for a church within the city limits. He did not support the Council adopting an ordinance that
did not require fire sprinklers in churches operating cold weather shelters. He preferred to retain the
existing ordinance, allow staff to review an application and determine whether alternatives could be
developed. If that did not work, it may be necessary for the Council to pass an ordinance eliminating the
sprinkler requirement.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 9
Councilmember Orvis asked if a fire sprinkler system could just be installed in the portion of the church
used for the shelter. Fire Marshal Smith answered it must be installed throughout the building.
Councilmember Orvis asked the cost of installing a fire sprinkler system. Fire Marshal Smith estimated
the cost of a sprinkler system for a commercial building at $3.50 - $5.00 /square foot.
Public Comment
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, offered to provide a report regarding the number of churches operating
homeless shelters. He commented Lynnwood's City Hall is used as a last resort cold weather shelter.
Next, he referred to a House Bill that would allow Ports to shelter the homeless.
Rob VanTassell, Edmonds, explained he was the Director of Housing for Catholic Community Services,
the largest provider of affordable housing in Washington. State. One of the projects he recently worked on
was in the church basement of Sacred Heart parish in Seattle. He was experienced in getting building
codes and Fire Department codes to work with the church's needs and offered to assist with that effort in
Edmonds. They have also worked with parishes in Western Washington who have hosted Tent City.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether it was possible for a church to self - install a fire sprinkler. Mr.
VanTassell did not recommend that approach, commenting many churches have members who were
qualified to install fire sprinkler systems who may be willing to do so on a cost- reduced basis.
Dorothy Sacks, Edmonds, explained for the past eight months she had been volunteering for Neighbors
in Need at Trinity Lutheran Church in Lynnwood. Neighbors in Need not only provides breakfast but
also bus tickets, shower vouchers, food bank, etc. When doing intake, she noticed many of the people are
from Edmonds; some are from Seattle and Everett. She recalled first becoming aware of the homeless
when returning from living overseas in 1991; the problem has continued to get worse. She urged cities to
do something constructive to eliminate the problem of homelessness. Because one never knew what was
in their future, it was in everyone's best interest to provide housing for the homeless.
David Thorpe, Edmonds, appreciated the Council addressing this issue in a proactive manner. He posed
several questions, 1) why are churches required to install fire sprinklers when they already hold services
for hundreds of people without sprinklers, 2) will the Hearing Examiner hold a public hearing regarding
siting a tent city, 3) which City staff members would be the contacts with regard to tent city, 4) and do
churches have the ability to do background checks for tent city residents. He summarized he wanted
further information from the City with regard to the steps to be taken prior to siting a tent city.
Charlotte Lawson, Emergency Cold Weather System, Trinity Lutheran Church, Lynnwood,
pointed out at every military installation in the world where there is one tent, a fire watch system is
implemented. A two- person team is trained to stay awake all night holding fire extinguishers. Soldiers in
the Fire Department at Fort Lewis have offered to train volunteers to provide fire watch services. She
summarized installing fire sprinklers in churches was not financially feasible. Their goal was preventing
the homeless from dying from the cold; they obviously did not want people to die in a fire.
Phil Lovell, Edmonds, commented a definite need had been identified in the City. The City can be
flexible and bend the rules to allow churches to operate an emergency cold weather shelter. He assured
churches without fire sprinkler systems that hold services are fully compliant with the law because the
code at the time the church was built did not require fire sprinkler systems. The proposal was for
equivalency, if the letter of the code could not be met, there were means and methods to assure the safety
of the use such as via a fire watch. With 38 years experience in commercial construction and a registered
professional civil engineer, he acknowledged major developments created an environmental impact but
the City could begin a negotiation process to produce tradeoffs which may require changes to the
Comprehensive Plan and development code.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 10
Rev. Eileen Hanson, Trinity Lutheran Church, Lynnwood, and Jeremiah Center at Five Corners,
referred to her discussions with Fire Marshal Smith and their mutual concern with the health and safety of
their shelter guests. They had not applied for a permit because the City Building Department has
recommended they talk with the Fire Marshal before applying for a permit and Fire Marshal Smith has
made it clear he would not approve the permit unless the building has a full sprinkler system. She relayed
the cost of installing a fire sprinkler system at the Jeremiah Center was estimated at $30,000 - $50,000,
making it cost prohibitive for an emergency cold weather shelter. She was inspired and encouraged by
the Council's consideration of the proposed ordinance because it ensured equivalency for the common
goal of health and safety.
Dave Gilbertson, Lynnwood, thanked City Attorney Scott Snyder for developing the ordinance and
Councilmember Wilson for pursuing the matter. He pointed out this was not an issue solely for Edmonds
but for cities throughout the nation. He referred to an email from Reverend Jean Kim that cited the need
to move forward on this issue as a collective body in South Snohomish County and as a nation. He cited
examples of why people become homeless including illness, lack of health insurance, job layoff,
foreclosure, etc. He pointed out many of the homeless are Vietnam veterans and questioned what type of
nation abandoned its veterans after they had served their country. He provided two quotes from Martin
Luther King, Jr., "An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his
individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity" and `Every man must decide whether he
will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness; this is the
judgment. Life's most persistent and urgent question is, what are you doing for others."
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed public comment.
In response to Mr. Thorpe's question why services could be held in a church without sprinkler systems,
Mr. Snyder explained a change in use imposes new requirements under the Building Code. The
underlying question, why its more dangerous to have eight people sleep for eight hours versus 1000
people in a building for an hour and half with open candles, is the heart of the constitutional issue. As the
materials he provided state, the State's Supreme Court has been very clear. The State's Constitution is
broader and provides greater protections than federal law in this area. The City has the obligation to use
the least restrictive means of achieving its compelling interest, it cannot be uncompromising and rigid,
and in reviewing what the City has done, they need to searchingly examine the interest and determine
whether the interest and alternatives considered for the protections and enforcement are articulated.
Constitutionally in Washington State, the care of the homeless is a recognized part of religion and as such
the City must find a way to accommodate it. Staff provided an ordinance to address the emergency
situation. With regard to the Fire Marshal's concerns, he commented the evidence was in favor of
addressing a temporary emergency shelter. He acknowledged a $30,000 - $50,000 investment to install
fire sprinklers may be appropriate for converting a building to a permanent homeless shelter. He
reiterated his suggestion for the Council to schedule consideration of a tent city ordinance this spring.
Councilmember Wilson commented the ordinance did not specifically address temporary emergency
shelters and he was concerned it could apply to a permanent situation. Mr. Snyder referred to Section
19.00.040(1) that defines emergency as the housing of indigent and homeless persons when the ambient
temperature is forecast to be below 33 degrees for a four hour, overnight period or when wind chill or
violent storms or other inclement conditions present a direct threat to the lives of homeless and other
indigents. His intent in drafting the ordinance was to address the type of temporary emergency shelters
that local churches seek to operate. Councilmember Wilson referred to the next sentence, "Such danger
could include, but is not limited to, the threat presented by carbon monoxide poisoning for persons
attempting to take shelter in cars or other vehicles with the motor running paragraph," which would
appear to suggest an emergency situation would exist when the temperatures were below 33 degrees or
when one was living in a vehicle. Mr. Snyder advised if the Council felt that sentence would allow a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 11
permanent homeless shelter, it could be deleted. The intent of that sentence was to identify dangers
associated with living outside as well as seeking shelter in inappropriate settings.
Councilmember Wilson recalled there was discussion of a limit of 14 days in order to define temporary.
Mr. Snyder answered the duration of temperatures below 33 degrees would determine the length of time
the shelter was operated. He used "as forecast by the National Weather Service" to allow churches to
plan ahead rather than watching the thermometer.
For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Snyder explained the compliance permit would be applied for ahead of
time; a church would apply once and have an annual review. Enforcement would then be a discretionary
matter by the Building Official and Fire Marshal.
In light of the Fire Marshal's concerns, Councilmember Wilson supported utilizing volunteers such as
Mr. VanTassell to review the City's ordinances but to err on the side of protecting the homeless from
weather rather than from fire particularly with alternatives to fire sprinklers.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE A, ORDINANCE NO. 3778, AMENDING
THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 19.00 TO ADD A NEW SECTION 19.00.040, EXCLUSION OF
CHURCHES PROVIDING EMERGENCY HOUSING FOR THE INDIGENT FROM CERTAIN
REQUIREMENTS.
Councilmember Wilson summarized this was good policy and reflected the resolution the Council
unanimously approved. He commended Rev. Hansen, Kerry St. Clair Ayers and others for their
assistance.
Councilmember Peterson looked forward to the discussion of emergency shelters such as tent city, noting
this was an important step for the Council to take.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
REGARDING AMENDMENT OF ECDC 20.110.040(F) OF THE CITY'S CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
PROCEDURES RELATING TO CONTINUING FINES AND VIOLATIONS IN ORDER TO
CONFORM TO POST V. TACOMA
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained on October 15, 2009, the Washington Supreme Court held that the
City of Tacoma civil enforcement procedures violated constitutional due process protections. The ruling
was based on a continuing fine provision; once a person was found to be in violation, fines would
continue to accrue. A number of the defects cited by the Court in Post v. Tacoma are not applicable to the
City's enforcement procedures. However, the City's procedures do provide for the continuation of daily
fines without specifying an appeal process. The ordinance should be clarified that such fines may
continue to accrue and be addressed only after additional notice of civil violation and opportunity for
appeal.
Mr. Snyder advised he provided the Council his response to questions posed by Council President
Bernheim as well as corrected a word in the ordinance (replacing "explanation" in Section 1 of the
ordinance with "expiration."
Councilmember Orvis understood there was a right to appeal a code enforcement action to a Hearing
Examiner. Mr. Snyder explained the civil enforcement process had two steps, first the Notice to Correct.
The Notice to Correct could be issued by various officials with various appeal routes depending on
whether it is a building code, zoning code or nuisance provision. Once a Notice to Correct is issued, if
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 12
not complied with or appealed, the second step is a Notice of Violation. The Notice of Violation can be
appealed to the violations Hearing Examiner. Section F provides for after the Hearing Examiner has
made her determination, fines continue to accrue. For example there are pending actions in Edmonds
where people have accrued thousands of dollars in fines. The Supreme Court held that the person
accruing the fines must be given another opportunity to appeal if they correct the situation.
The interim ordinance, 1) provides a clear cut off and a new notice and opportunity so that fines do not
continue to accrue and 2) offers two alternatives for the current violators — dismiss the matter entirely or
give notice and an opportunity to appeal.
Councilmember Orvis provided an example: if he built a garage 50 feet tall, was cited and refused to
remove it and was assessed fines. The interim ordinance would provide another opportunity regarding the
fines. If the person is found to be in violation, the interim ordinance would require staff to return to the
Hearing Examiner, giving new notice to the person every time a new fine was imposed and providing a
new appeal opportunity.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented there was nothing wrong with this section of the code. In fact the
code enforcement section of the City's website was one of the most informative. The ordinance is very
good and outlines a three step process, an Order to Correct and following an administrative hearing if the
order is not followed, staff has the opportunity to issue a Notice of Violation. The person is not obligated
to appeal until the Notice of Violation is issued. He expressed concern that his email to the Council
regarding this subject was ignored. He questioned why there was a continued misrepresentation of the
facts. He was suspect of interim ordinances and was concerned that interim ordinances were being
pushed through without public comment and very little information. He questioned the applicability of
Tacoma's code to Edmonds, pointing out Tacoma has an administrative hearing prior to the Notice of
Violation. He urged the Council not to adopt the proposed interim ordinance before reviewing what other
cities were doing and gathering additional information.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, was uncertain whether the City's code was ambiguous or whether the staff did not
understand its code. He suggested more attention be paid to this issue instead of a quick fix to the
monetary penalty portion of the code. As someone familiar with the code enforcement process, he
commented on the difficulties associated with that process and how much of it could be avoided if the
City offered an administrative hearing to allow citizens to identify errors made by the City prior to the
enforcement process or if the City worked with citizens in an effort to correct problems before monetary
penalties were imposed. He urged the Council to ascertain that the standard due process requirements of
the State and federal constitution were being met by the City's code. He urged the Council to have the
City Attorney review property rights, civil enforcement actions, etc. He cited from Post v. Tacoma, "it is
sufficient to hold that where local jurisdictions issue infractions, there must be some express procedure
available by which citizens may bring errors to the attention of their government and thereby guard
against the erroneous depravation of their interests." Edmonds is supposed to have an express procedure
for citizens to bring errors to the attention of the City; there is supposed to be an administrative hearing
but for some reason it is overlooked. The City claims an administrative hearing is represented by an
appeal to a Hearing Examiner. However, requiring a citizen to pay to appeal a prejudged guilty verdict,
the Notice of Civil Violation, does not qualify as an administrative hearing. He displayed a thick
document prepared by the City for his appeal, commenting that did not represent an express procedure
where he could point out errors made by the City. He urged the Council not to pass the ordinance until
they reviewed the entire matter. He suggested the City establish an independent committee to review the
code enforcement process and to use his situation as a case study.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 13
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented it appeared the issue of violators not paying their fines had been
ongoing for quite some time and he questioned why the City had not collected on those debts. He
referred to the Locke case, and agreed with Mr. Snyder's suggestion to simply dismiss the case. He felt it
was appropriate for staff to refile violations. Although Mr. Tupper discovered these errors, he doubted he
would sue the City. He anticipated Mr. Tupper brought this to the City's attention to allow staff to correct
the situation. He questioned the need for an interim ordinance, citing the lack of an emergency.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, recalled a fence violation that was appealed to the Hearing Examiner who
reversed staffs decision. He suggested the appeal fee be refunded to a person who won their appeal.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Council President Bernheim inquired about an expedited schedule to process this ordinance via the
normal procedure. Mr. Snyder estimated review by the Planning Board would take approximately 2%2
months.
With regard to the emergency, Mr. Snyder explained the City's ordinance was violating the due process
rights of six people by providing for continuing violations.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich's comment that Mr. Tupper raised this issue, Mr. Snyder clarified the
Washington State Supreme Court ruled on the matter on October 15, 2009. He agreed with Mr. Tupper
that interim ordinances were usually suspect and should be carefully considered. Due to the sensitivity of
this issue, the ordinance was drafted to address only the continuing fines. He provided a copy of the
proposed interim ordinance to Mr. Reidy's attorney via email last week and instead of the usual interim
ordinance process that provides for a public hearing within 60 days, the public hearing was held tonight
because it was suspect.
He agreed with Mr. Reidy's suggestion to review the code enforcement process and to use the process
that was followed for Mr. Reidy as a case study. The packet Mr. Reidy displayed was from the Notice of
Civil Violation, not the latter ordinance. To Mr. Rutledge's point, anyone who appealed and won was
refunded their appeal fee. He summarized the interim ordinance was intended to correct a clear
unconstitutional provision of the City's ordinance that arose in October 2009 and this was the first
opportunity the Council had to review it. He considered the violation of a citizen's due process rights to
be an emergency.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich's comments about Mr. Locke, Mr. Snyder explained that matter is in Superior
Court. With regard to the fence issue Mr. Rutledge mentioned, staff is waiting for the expiration of the 21
day LUPA appeal period.
For Councilmember Fraley- Monillas, Mr. Snyder explained under the current ordinance, once a violation
is determined, penalties accrue daily forever. He recommended this be amended to provide for periodic
notice and opportunity to appeal. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas inquired about the correlation between
administrative hearings and the Reidy- Thuesen situation. Mr. Snyder was uncertain what correlation
there was. Mr. Reidy has not been adjudged to be in violation by the Hearing Examiner and no fines are
accruing.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about Mr. Reidy's suggestion to form an independent body to review the
City's code enforcement process and use his situation as a case study. Mr. Snyder suggested the Planning
Board would be the appropriate body to review the City's code enforcement procedures. One area that
needed to be addressed was the three different appeal processes depending on which City official issued
the Notice to Correct.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 14
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the liability posed to the City. Mr. Snyder answered the liability
was a lawsuit because the City was violating their rights. He explained most of the people in violation
were not paying the fine because their homes were in foreclosure. If the Supreme Court says a person has
a due process right to a hearing and there cannot be continuing fines, the City needed to obey their ruling.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how long the six people had been in violation. Mr. Snyder answered
some as short as six months, others as long as four years. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why this
change was being proposed now. Mr. Snyder answered it was due to the Supreme Court's October 15,
2009 ruling.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
APPROVE INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3779 AS AMENDED, AMENDING ECDC 20.110.040(F)
OF THE CITY'S CIVIL ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES RELATING TO CONTINUING FINES
AND VIOLATIONS IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO POST V. TACOMA.
Councilmember Orvis observed the continual accrual of fines violated due process rights and there should
be a process for a review.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed the interim ordinance was appropriate to address the issue of due
process. He agreed with the suggestion for the Planning Board to review the code enforcement
procedures.
Council President Bernheim advised he would not support the interim ordinance as it would only take a
few months for a thorough review of the entire situation. He pointed out the City would of course not
continue to impose the unconstitutional fines, thus this only applied to future violators. The only people
who would potentially sue the City would be those that the City pursued payment of the unconstitutional
fines. He did not anticipate any exposure to the City since the City would not continue to impose the
unconstitutional fees. He preferred to refer the matter to the Planning Board for an expedited hearing and
in the meantime voluntarily refrain from imposing the unconstitutional fines.
Mr. Snyder pointed out the City turned the collection of fines to a debt collection agency that has been
actively pursuing them. One of the reasons he wanted the Council to pass the interim ordinance was so he
could ask for them back from the debt collection agency. Council President Bernheim asked why the City
could not simply direct the collection agency to cease collection efforts. Mr. Snyder assured he had
contacted the collection agency to ask them to discontinue actively pursuing the debt. Council President
Bernheim concluded that was not a reason to vote in favor of the interim ordinance.
MOTION CARRIED (4 -2 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBER
WILSON VOTING NO AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
IL INTERIM ORDINANCE ADOPTING A PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION
ACQUISITION AND ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC PROJECTS BY THE HEARING
EXAMINER AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN COMPLIANCE IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
P. 2, EFFECT.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this interim ordinance was in response to a complaint made by Mr.
Tupper. In the 1980s the City's Comprehensive Plan was part of the zoning code and contained a number
of procedures. In the 1990s when the GMA was passed, the structure for review and approval of public
projects and a variety of other processes changed dramatically and this code provision was taken out and
placed in the City's Comprehensive Plan. That left a procedural requirement in the Comprehensive Plan
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 15
but nothing in the ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan is not self - enforcing and there needs to be
provisions in the code so that the City's ordinances conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
The City could change the Comprehensive Plan or the ordinance; the Comprehensive Plan can only be
amended once a year; ordinances can be amended at any time. The interim ordinance is intended to true
up the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance until they can be reviewed as part of this
year's Comprehensive Plan process. The ordinance attempts to mirror the language in the
Comprehensive Plan provision and provides for an expedited review of all the public processes that were
in the Capital Facilities Plan and the Transportation Improvement Plan. He noted there may be an
appropriate role for Hearing Examiner or Council review of some projects. For example, the
Comprehensive Plan does not designate specific properties for purchase for parks. The Hearing Examiner
or Council may want to review that for Comprehensive Plan compliance.
Council President Bernheim inquired how long it would take for the Planning Board to review this using
the usual process. Mr. Snyder answered 2 -4 months.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
ADOPT INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3780, ADOPTING A PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF
CONSTRUCTION, ACQUISITION AND ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC PROJECTS BY THE
HEARING EXAMINER AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, P. 2, EFFECT.
Council President Bernheim commented he was not opposed to truing up the code but did not view this as
an emergency since this situation has existed for quite some time. He preferred to expeditiously send this
to the Planning Board for a deliberative review rather than adopt an interim ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the intent of the interim ordinance was for the City to pay Ogden
Murphy Wallace to make the changes rather than sending it to the Planning Board for recommendation.
Mr. Snyder responded he would draft the ordinance either way. Even if the Council acted tonight, a
series of public processes would follow. A public hearing would be held within the next 60 days on this
amendment. The interim ordinance expires in six months and the Comprehensive Plan process takes a
year; therefore, the Council will be required to consider it again in July. The Comprehensive Plan process
will also include a series of public hearings before the Planning Board and Council. The risk was
someone filing an appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB).
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked what prompted this. Mr. Snyder answered Mr. Tupper filed a
code enforcement complaint naming Mayor Haakenson, Mr. Bowman, Mr. Chave and himself, stating
that they were not complying with the Comprehensive Plan. An outside attorney reviewed his complaint
and staff agreed the Comprehensive Plan and code needed to be trued up. The provision he cited is so
broad that every public project needs to be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner for compliance. He
suggested when the Council reviewed fees this year, they may need to be adjusted to cover those costs.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas clarified the ordinance resolved Mr. Tupper's issue. Mr. Snyder
answered Mr. Tupper was correct, there was nothing in the zoning code to implement a Comprehensive
Plan provision.
Council President Bernheim clarified if anyone were to sue the City for failing to comply with this
procedure, they would have an inventory of transactions that have occurred over the past 5 -10 years. This
fix would only true up future transactions and not cure past failures to comply. Mr. Snyder agreed the
passage of time would. The only person in a position to take advantage of it was Mr. Thuesen in his
appeal of the street vacation with respect to Mr. Reidy. The action would be an allegation to the GMHB
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 16
that the City's zoning code was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore is out of
compliance with GMA. The remedy would be the GMHB would order the City to pass an ordinance like
the proposed ordinance.
MOTION CARRIED (5 -1 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM VOTING NO AND
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
12. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to the next agenda item and suggested more information be included on the
agenda so that citizens were aware it was in regard to marijuana. He supported the proposal but
suggested the agenda item more accurately reflect the topic of discussion. Next, he recalled urging the
Council approximately a year ago to ban plastic bags. He relayed many visitors to their store express
their appreciation to Edmonds for banning plastic bags and for caring about the environment. He
suggested the City take the additional step to ban Styrofoam. He acknowledged Styrofoam could not be
completely banned because there were certain applications for which there was no substitute.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, recalled the City held development meetings on Hwy. 99 in the past. He
pointed out the hotels on Hwy. 99 generate hotel /motel tax. Next he reported on the Stevens Hospital
meeting with Swedish, noting that Mayor Haakenson attended that meeting.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, advised he submitted a public documents request on November 24, 2009 for
grant applications and awards for money claimed in 2009. To date he has not received that information.
He inquired again and was told staff needed another two weeks. He concluded it was obvious every time
he approached the City with any issue, there was a policy to ignore him. He recalled a previous public
documents request was lost in spam mail. He expressed concern that his identity had been disclosed with
regard to the previous agenda item, noting he selected the box that stated do not disclose his identity. He
clarified he did not file a complaint; he filed a request for code enforcement. He was also frustrated by
his inability to schedule a meeting with a City employee and that he never received a response. He
invited anyone else who had been ignored by the City to contact him at 425- 778 -9465.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, questioned why one of the interim ordinances on the agenda included a
public hearing and the other did not. He questioned whether the Council understood the Comprehensive
Plan and suggested the Council review the Comprehensive Plan at their retreat. Next, he questioned
whether the City could get a credit for the fees paid to the Hearing Examiner in months where there were
no cases for her to review. With regard to amending the Comprehensive Plan once a year, he pointed out
the Comprehensive Plan could also be amended at any time on an emergency basis.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, reiterated his recommendation for the City to review the code enforcement
procedures and the appeal process and make improvements that would benefit the City and its citizens.
He raised this issue tonight because it was logical to consider all the procedures. He reiterated his offer to
share his experience with a reviewing body. With regard to the appeal packet he displayed in his earlier
comments and Mr. Snyder's comment that it related to his appeal of the Notice of Civil Violation, he
explained he was strongly encouraged to pursue an appeal of an Order to Correct by the next day. He was
guided down a Board of Appeals process that had nothing to do with a code enforcement action,
expended a great deal of money, time and effort and the City developed the packet he displayed, wasting
a great deal of private and taxpayer money on a process that made no sense. He urged the Council to
make improvements to the code enforcement procedures.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 17
i fCf_ ZY1ZY3:h117_�►I f�1►f 7►/ 1 �1►YylY1Ztl Y 11'A we] 3 C3•d f►[
Council President Bernheim explained when the Council approved its lobbying priorities at the January 5
meeting, he offered to present an additional priority. His proposal was to instruct the lobbyist to support
state legislative efforts (Senate Bill 5615 and House Bill 1117) to change marijuana possession by adults
from an expensive jail -time misdemeanor to a low -cost fine- paying infraction in an effort to free up
diminishing law enforcement resources for more pressing priorities.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO ADD ITEM 12 TO THE LOBBYING PRIORITIES, PUBLIC SAFETY, IN
ORDER TO BETTER REALLOCATE LIMITED LOCAL AND STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT
RESOURCES, EDMONDS SUPPORTS PASSAGE OF SB 5615 AND HB 1117 REDUCING
ADULT MARIJ[JANA POSSESSION FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO A CIVIL INFRACTION.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY- MONILLAS, ORVIS, PETERSON AND BUCKSHNIS IN
FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND WILSON OPPOSED.
Council President Bernheim asked whether this language could be communicated to the City's Lobbyist
Mike Doubleday as a House Committee would be voting on this tomorrow. Mayor Haakenson advised
Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton would do so. Councilmember
Wilson suggested Council President Bernheim also email the nine Edmonds legislators.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reported he attended last night's Stevens Hospital Board meeting regarding the
contract with Swedish Hospital. Representatives for the doctors and union spoke in favor of the
partnership and no citizens spoke in opposition to the partnership. Stevens Hospital is moving forward
with the partnership and anticipates the process will be concluded by July /August. The hospital will have
a new name and he was hopeful Edmonds would be included in the name.
Mayor Haakenson welcomed Councilmember Buckshnis and invited her to visit his office any time.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Bernheim thanked the City for broadcasting the Martin Luther King, Jr. video,
"Montgomery to Memphis" on Monday. He regretted that technical difficulties had affected the sound
quality.
Council President Bernheim announced a meeting on January 28 at Trinity Place Apartments in
Lynnwood for anyone interested in participating in the annual count the homeless effort in Snohomish
County. He advised the subject of a Styrofoam ban was scheduled on the City Council retreat agenda as
well as a discussion of the intricacies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Plunkett congratulated Councilmember Buckshnis and welcomed her to the Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone for their support and hoped not to let anyone down.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented a lot of great people applied for the Council position. She
received numerous emails from citizens about their favorite applicant.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 18
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported she participated in a homeless march and rally in Olympia that
emphasized the increase in the number of homeless since the economy has worsened and pointing out that
many of the homeless in shelters are not the stereotypical homeless person. She encouraged the public to
support shelters in the City and throughout the area.
Councilmember Peterson congratulated Councilmember Buckshnis. He thanked the members of the
public who spoke tonight regarding homelessness, pointing out it was one of the most important issues
the Council would address. He invited the public to reflect on the horrific images from Haiti,
summarizing homelessness was a local, national and world issue.
Councilmember Orvis welcomed Councilmember Buckshnis.
16. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 19