Loading...
06/15/2004 City Council1 June 15, 2004 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Michael Plunkett, Council. President (arrived 7:10 p.m.) Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Jeff Wilson, Councilmember (arrived 7:05 p.m.) COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT Deanna Dawson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Mark Correira, Training and Safety Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Acting Parks & Recreation Dir. Jennifer Gerend, Econ. Development Director Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.) The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DUNE 8, 2004. (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #71702 THROUGH #71906 FOR THE WEEK OF J[JNE 7, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $230,91.8.33. (D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF AGENTS — INSTITUTING THE HELPING HANDS PROGRAM. (E) AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE STREET VACATION OF A PORTION OF UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 174TH STREET SW. F,dmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page I (F) ORDINANCE NO.3505 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 2.35.030 VACATIONS, 2.35.040 COMPENSATING TIME AND 2.35.090 CONFLICT IN ORDER TO BETTER COORDINATE BENEFITS WITH THE ANNUAL SALARY ORDINANCE AND CHANGING JOB TITLES. Introduction of Economic Development Director Mayor Haakenson introduced Jennifer Gerend, the City's Economic Development Director. 3. UPDATE BY FACE ON THE CITY COUNCIL'S PROPOSED PARTIAL FUNDING OF AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. Ellen Gauthier, FACE Representative, expressed FACE's appreciation for the City's ongoing support of the Fine Arts Center of Edmonds. She explained the FACE project had benefited from a group of people committed to an artists -in -action facility in Edmonds. However, it was clear that the milestones established in the existing Port lease were unattainable and therefore, the FACE Board of Directors initiated tennination of the land lease with the Port. Also as a result, FACE would not be utilizing the funds the City recently appropriated for an economic impact analysis. She noted there had been requests to delay fundraising efforts until the end of the year to allow the PFD to complete their fundraising efforts and FACE was now in a position to honor that request. Ms. Gauthier explained the Executive Committee was beginning a three month review process of the existing FACE organization to determine the long-term feasibility of the project and, at the end of the three month period, the FACE Board planned to share their findings with the Edmonds community and outline future plans and goals. She assured FACE would continue to keep the City posted on the progress of the organization and invited the Council to email the Executive Committee with any questions at infoLq�supporttace.org or contact any member directly. Councilmember Marin commented he was saddened that FACE was not proceeding and hoped the concept could be kept alive. Ms. Gauthier responded it was their intent to continue but it was in the best interest of all to take time to reevaluate and reorganize. Councilmember Moore agreed FACE was a wonderful concept and she congratulated the Board for making the necessary difficult decisions. Mayor Haakenson advised the funds appropriated for the economic impact analysis had not been. expended. 4. FIRST READING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, GRANTING OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OPERATE, REPLACE AND REPAIR A WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained several weeks ago staff received final negotiating parameters from the Council for the franchise with Olympic View Water and Sewer District. Using those parameters and with the assistance of City Attorney Scott Snyder, a franchise agreement was developed which the Olympic View Water and Sewer District approved last week along with the Interlocal Agreement. He explained State law required two readings on a franchise ordinance prior to adoption. The franchise agreement established the terms and conditions for Olympic View operating in the City's rights -of -way and established the utility tax for Olympic View customers within the City limits. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 2 5. EDMONDS FIRE SAFETY FOUNDATION GIFTS AND GRANTS PRESENTATION Fire Chief Tom Tomberg introduced Mark Correira, Training and Safety Chief, and described Mr. Correira's background. Chief Tomberg remarked the Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation had been an extraordinary resource to the Edmonds Fire Department, thus an extraordinary resource to the City and citizens. He explained the Foundation was founded in 1996, a non-profit group of community volunteers. He recognized several members of the Foundation in the audience. He explained foundation members volunteered their time to educate Edmonds citizens about fire and life safety issues and raised funds to provide fire personnel with tools, equipment and training. Due to their involvement in charitable and educational causes, Edmonds firefighters were able to deliver the very best in EMS, fire suppression, rescue and extrication, hazardous materials, marine and disaster response. Chief Tomberg enumerated the Foundations accomplishments including their annual two-day garage sale (this year on July 16 & 17 in the 600 block of Daley Street), support of Fire Prevention Week activities in October, providing and distributing safety reminders, sending letters to local newspaper editors about a variety of fire and life safety issues, distributing bumper stickers reminding drivers to move to the right for sirens and lights, writing the Fire Sirens column for the local newspaper, support of the IAFF Union Local 1828 Holiday Basket Program, support of EMS levies, serving refreshments at a variety of Fire Department ceremonies and support of the 41h of July Waterball Competition. Chief Tomberg recognized the Foundation for the extraordinary amount of money they have raised in the local community to purchase the Argus Thermal Imaging Camera and later the Bullard Thermal Imaging Camera. The Foundation produced fire and life safety public education materials, purchased Surface Water Rescue Exposure Suits, provided smoke detectors for distribution throughout the community, acquired emergency lights and sirens for the bicycle team, purchased AMKUS Heavy Rescue Tools, purchased a heavy-duty sewing machine to repair Fire Department emergency equipment, purchasd voice amplification units for Self -Contained Breathing Apparatus face masks, purchasd a SOG Para Tool (multi -function specialty knife worn in a belt case) for every member through a grant from Allstate Insurance, and acquired a 1938.Ford Fire Engine that previously served the City of Edmonds. He described other areas the Foundation is involved in including repainting and refurbishing the reserve aid unit, supporting first aid and CPR classes, and providing stations 17 and 20 with mounting brackets, TVs and VCRs for training. Fire Chief Tomberg referred to the Foundation's latest accomplishment, the Helping Hands Program, which authorizes Firefighters to spend donated funds to help solve a related need discovered while responding to a call. He provided examples of how the Helping Hands Program could be used such as providing gas for stranded motorists, a space heater for an elderly resident, plywood to replace a door or window, materials to build a handrail and ramp for a wheelchair bound resident, replacement of a coat for a person who stopped at a medical emergency or rendered aid at a motor vehicle accident, carpet cleaning following a medical incident, or clothes cleaning after a fire. Fire Chief Tomberg explained the Foundation's plans for the future were the same as for the past and present — to continue to work closely with the Edmonds Fire Department and pursue activities that were in the best interest of fire safety and fire prevention. He announced the upcoming Centennial Celebration in recognition of 100 years of uninterrupted service by the Edmonds Fire Department to the citizens of Edmonds on Saturday, September 18 from 1:00 to 3:30 p.m. at the South County Senior Center and invited all to attend. He announced the delivery of a 224 page book celebrating the Edmonds Fire Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 3 Department, the City and the rich history of the community that would be on sale at the Edmonds Bookstore and other locations throughout the City. Fire Chief Tomberg expressed the Fire Department's appreciation to the Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation and the Foundation's appreciation to all who have donated funds to enhance the medical emergency and firefighting efforts of the Edmonds Fire Department. On behalf of the Edmonds Fire Department, Chief Tomberg presented a bouquet of roses to Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation President Maureen Barnard. She described activities planned for the Centennial Celebration including a display of antique fire engines, the Trolley Days Band, walking tour of significant sites in the City, and a quilt raffle. She described her husband's and her research for the book, acknowledging Fay Bartells and Nancy Duncan -Cashman for their assistance with the book. She read from the January 1904 handwritten Council minutes regarding the formation of a volunteer Fire Department on January 13, 1904 and from later minutes regarding Fire Department activities. Councilmember Marin commented on his experience participating in Fire Department training fires, noting the importance of the voice amplification system and the thermal imaging camera. He expressed his thanks to the Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation for providing those tools. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY PARK ACCESS AND CIRCULATION STUDY Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith recalled the Council held a work session on the City Park Access and Circulation Study at their May 25 meeting. Mr. Smith described the existing City Park access across from Erben, noting approximately 450 vehicles entered the park per day, approximately 30-50 of those during the peak hour (4:00 — 5:00 p.m.). Mr. Smith reviewed study objectives and goals which included efficient site access and circulation, vehicular and pedestrian safety, impacts to trees and vegetation, additional on -street parking and identifying the safest alternative. Mr. Smith explained the scope of the analysis included reviewing existing studies; developing alternatives and options; identifying a variety of evaluation criteria based on transportation, site design and urban design; evaluating and ranking alternatives/options and providing recommendations and documentation. He described public meetings and one-on-one meetings with a number of citizens. He summarized public comments including saving the trees, minimizing paving/drainage costs, keeping the roadway one way for safety, the Fire Department's desire for two access points, keeping the design simple, doing visitor/driver education/reeducation and sign appropriately if changes are made, negative and positive aspects of the maintenance facility traffic, the need for ADA accessibility, and leave it the way it is. Sherman Goong, Project Manager, Perteet Engineering, explained their initial tasks were to develop alternatives for City Park access that included access location variation and addressed community concerns, access and circulation efficiency, maintenance facility and operations, provided flexibility for park improvements, and minimized costs. He explained Perteet developed four primary alternatives with three options on each for a total of 12 concepts — the existing one-way circulation, Erben Drive alternative, reverse circulation, and access variations to Pine Street. He reviewed the alternatives and sub -options: A-1 — existing one way, A-2 & A-3 — variable access to Pine Street; B-1 Erben Drive (two-way traffic) as depicted in the Master Plan, B-2 & B-3 — variable access to Pine Street; C-1 — reverse traffic flow (one-way) with vehicles entering via the existing outbound driveway and exiting at Erben Drive, C-2 & C-3 — variable access to Pine Street; and D-1 — Pine Street as a primary access utilizing existing access points. Mr. Goong described the evaluation process which included reviewing the concepts/criteria with City staff, ranking the options based on set criteria, and reviewing and considering public input. He explained Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 4 they established three options for detailed analysis with regard to sight distance review, level of service calculation, drainage calculations, cost estimates, vegetation impacts and parking supply. The findings and recommendations are documented in the report. Following the evaluation process, options were narrowed to Option A-1 (existing circulation), Option C-1 (reverse flow in existing roadway) and Option A-3/C-3 (Pine Street access). Mr. Goong reviewed advantages of the existing circulation (Option A-1) — minimal cost, potential for parking improvements, provided good access to maintenance facility, no need to educate the public regarding entry/exit of the park. Disadvantages of the existing circulation include the impacts on the housing to the north as a result of vehicles queuing to exit the park, multiple approaches at the exit intersection, and the circulation pattern requires drivers to bypass secondary parking to reach the primary parking lot and re -circulate if the primary parking lot is full. Mr. Goong reviewed advantages of reverse circulation (Option C-1) — elimination of one of the approaches at the existing exit, eliminating queuing at the north driveway, efficiency for parking access, exit location opposite a minor use street, improved sight distance. Disadvantages include implementation costs, reduced visibility at the maintenance entrance, reduced visibility due to vegetation, and reduced visibility due to vehicles parked on the west side of the street at the exit. He recommended eliminating I- 2 parking spaces to gain the necessary sight distance to exit safely. He explained Option A-3/C-3 were variations on the previous options with a separate access to the maintenance facility from Pine Street. Mr. Goong relayed Perteet's recommendation to implement Option C-1 for the following reasons: reduces vehicle driveway conflicts at the current exit driveway, improves circulation efficiency and connectivity, retains narrow roadway, has minimal tree and vegetation impacts, addresses community concerns, and has minimal implementation costs. Mr. Goong described other considerations in the study including the safety objectives of the study, the validity of the City Park Master Plan, site design cost estimates, benefit to the park via City presence with maintenance facility, and a recommendation to conduct a maintenance facility feasibility study. Parks Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay pointed out the reverse direction reduced sight visibility, endangering children who routinely are on the roadway, thus visibility was better with the existing traffic pattern. He noted tree removal would also be required to implement that option. He commended Perteet Engineering on the study they conducted that included the development of several options. He explained the options were narrowed to the existing circulation (A-1) or reverse circulation (C-1). After further study, he explained it was discovered reversing the circulation would make it difficult for vehicles to see pedestrians, cyclists, joggers, etc. where the lower south parking lot began to the entrance of the maintenance building. He relayed that after driving and walking the site, Traffic Engineer Darrell. Smith and Acting Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh agreed with his findings and supported maintaining the existing circulation. Mr. Lindsay identified areas of reduced visibility if the circulation pattern were reversed in the park. He also described difficulty for trucks to navigate the turn into the maintenance facility if the circulation pattern were reversed and limited visibility if a truck were required to back up. He noted children routinely play on the City Park access drive and stressed the need for safety in the park. He summarized that reversing the circulation would reduce safety and neither he nor the Park staff supported reversing the circulation of the road within City Park. Mr. Smith explained there were approximately 50 paved parking stalls and paving the currently unpaved southern parking lot could accommodate 40 parking spaces. He identified areas where parking could be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 5 provided along the roadway, noting the advantage was the addition of as many as 31 parking spaces, the disadvantage would be vehicles entering traffic from the parking spaces. Mr. Smith referred to implementation costs described in the study including paving wider shoulders on the drive to gain a 16-foot surface to allow emergency access in the event a vehicle were stalled on the drive. He noted Perteet agreed there were other ways to maintain 16-18 feet of access, saving $100,000 in implementation costs. Maintaining the existing circulation pattern would not have any implementation costs other than routine maintenance. Reversing the one-way circulation would have associated costs, approximately $60,000 - $100,000 although the costs could be significantly lower. He explained parking improvements and required drainage improvements would be $200,000 - $300,000, nearly half for drainage improvements. Mr. Smith relayed Perteet Engineering's recommendation to implement the reverse one-way circulation and Parks recommendation to maintain the existing circulation pattern. He noted both one-way circulation patterns were detennined to be safer than the two-way traffic proposed in the Master Plan. He recommended the two-way traffic option be eliminated from the Master Plan. Mr. Smith summarized Engineering recommended continuing the existing one-way traffic circulation in City Park due to the demonstrated safety over a long period of time. He noted staff s research was unable to identify any accidents in the park over the past 13 years; there had been one accident at the access point. He noted reduced access circulation costs could be dedicated to improving the unpaved southern parking lot. Mr. Smith recommended amending the City Park Master Plan to reflect the decision to retain the existing one-way circulation. He advised Council approval would be sought prior to final design of paving the southern parking lot. Mayor Haakenson noted the City Park Access and Circulation Study had been ongoing for years, but he did not recall it was ever about parking. He recommended staff and the Council focus only on access and circulation and bring parking back to the Council as a separate agenda item in the future. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Audrey Ries, 434 3rd S #203C, Edmonds, (resident of the condominium complex to the north), expressed concern that children on bicycles and skateboards enter the park via the exit because it was wider. She noted cars exiting the park face four-way traffic; with the reverse circulation, vehicles would only face two-way traffic. She questioned why the City spent $30,000 on a study if nothing was going to be done to revise the circulation pattern. She questioned staff s indication that the reverse circulation would cost $60,000 - $100,000. Ron Wambolt, 504 6th Avenue S, Edmonds, supported the recommendation to retain the existing one- way traffic circulation. He noted the previous speaker addressed the potential for problems at the four- way intersection but he had not seen any difficulty there. He stated that although the condominium residents do not like the traffic from the park, the park existed prior to the condominiums. He also asked why the City expended funds on a consultant when City staff has demonstrated their ability to do such a study. He urged the Council to accept the recommendation of the experts who worked in the park. Dale Hoggins, 51.0 4`h Avenue S, Edmonds, recommended Option A-1, retaining the existing traffic circulation and improving pedestrian access at the existing exit and entrance such as a sidewalk or walkway for the first 20 feet. He recommended limiting parking inside the park for vehicles that use more than one parking space such as vehicles with trailers, motorhomes, etc. He recommended no changes to the on -street parking on 3rd, 4th, Howell Way or Erben Drive. He also suggested pedestrian improvements on the south side of Howell Way between the 3rd Avenue exit and the alley. His priorities Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 6 would be to improve pedestrian access at the current entrance/exit and to retain park maintenance facilities within the park. Lucien Schmit, 545 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, pointed out the current one-way circulation was known to be safe. Preserving and improving the current one-way traffic was the best, low cost solution. He noted reversing the flow would create a problem with 12 foot offsets at Erben and Howell. He concurred with City staff s recommendation to amend the City Park Master Plan to replace the originally proposed two- way access drive with the existing one-way circulation pattern. Roger Oliver, 1031 2"d Avenue S, Edmonds, suggested Councilmembers exit via the entrance at City Park, pointing out the position of a vehicle at that location did not allow the driver to see up 3rd Avenue. He pointed out the existing exit had unobstructed visibility to the north and recommended the existing one-way traffic circulation be retained. Carol Hahn, 1031 2°d Avenue S, Edmonds, recommended retaining the existing one-way traffic circulation in City Park. She recalled the late Mrs. Olsen who testified regarding City Park, stating it has worked all this time, why are you trying to make it bad? Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recommended the Council revise the Master Plan in accordance with whatever option they chose to avoid this issue being raised again in the future. He recalled a consultant was hired due to opposition to revising the Master Plan to eliminate the proposed two-way circulation. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Moore expressed dismay that the City had expended funds on a study in view of the common sense nature of this issue. She noted a right -turn only exit was an option that was never considered. Councilmember Wilson referred to a comment by Mr. Smith at the May 25 meeting that Option A-1 was safer than Option C-1. Mr. Smith related the existing circulation pattern has been demonstrated to be safe as there have been no accidents over the past several years with this circulation pattern. Mr. Smith agreed there were sight issues associated with the reverse circulation with children playing on the southern drive. He acknowledged that although children were not supposed to play in the street or on drives, they did and it could be expected that they would continue to do so. With regard to the difficulty for large trucks to enter the park maintenance facility and the need to back into the drive, he noted the safety issue that would be created would necessitate the removal of several large trees. Councilmember Wilson recalled Mr. Goong indicated one of the benefits of Option C-1 was elimination of the queuing that occurred at the current exit. He inquired whether reversing the flow of traffic would increase the speed of traffic entering the park due to the lack of impediments until vehicles reached the parking area and whether Perteet believed the increased speed would create an unsafe condition. Mr. Goong responded vehicles entering the park would presumably travel the same speed at the existing entrance or entering in the opposite direction. He did not conclude that vehicle speeds would be increased by entering on the opposite side of the park. Councilmember Wilson pointed out if vehicles entered at the current exit, there was a wider asphalt surface and no impediments such as a vehicle backing out into the drive lane, therefore, there was no reason for vehicles to slow. Mr. Goong agreed drivers were more likely to travel faster on wider roadways; however, there was also increased visibility on the wider section of the roadway. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 7 Councilmember Wilson inquired why staff s recommendation differed from the consultant's recommendation. Mr. Goong answered in his opinion, Option C-1 resolved more of the community concerns raised in previous meetings and improved circulation efficiency. The difference between the recommendations was due to staffs concern with large trucks accessing the maintenance facility and limited visibility for the trucks when backing out of the facility. He questioned how the large trucks exited the maintenance facility without backing up now. Mr. Smith answered both options were very good. His determination that the existing condition, Option. A-1, was slightly safer was made after carefully analyzing the alternatives. He reiterated the history of the existing configuration that had worked well in the past. Councilmember Wilson questioned what prevented drivers from exiting the southern parking lot and driving in the opposite direction to reenter the parking lot rather than leaving the park and reentering. Mr. Goong agreed channelization to make that a more difficult maneuver could be considered. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. In response to why a consultant was hired to study this issue, Mayor Haakenson pointed out there was a different Mayor, different Parks & Recreation Director, different City Council and the City was in a different financial condition when the consultant was hired to conduct the study. He noted the consultant was in an awkward position and staff was courageously standing up for their convictions. Councilmember Marin expressed his appreciation for the consultant's methodical process, noting Perteet was a reputable consultant the City has used for other projects as well. He noted there were advantages to both A-1 and C-1. Given that the City may not have $60,000 - $100,000 necessary to implement C-1, he questioned whether Perteet would recommended against Option A-1 . Mr. Goong did not disagree with the Council considering Option A-1. Councilmember Orvis asked Mr. Goong to describe the community concerns that were met via Option C- 1. Mr. Goong responded his understanding was the two-way roadway in the Master Plan was proposed to address the concerns of the condominium residents on the north. He noted the Council later learned the two-way option created some specific impacts to the community adjacent to the entrance. In an effort to eliminate the impacts of noise and exhaust from vehicles exiting the park, the simplest, least costly solution was to avoid the traffic queuing in that area to exit the park. He stated the impact to the condominium residents to the north was increased on high use days. Councilmember Orvis noted the reverse circulation pattern resulted in queuing that was not located adjacent to homes. Councilmember Olson noted in her discussion with condominium residents, vehicles line up and wait for children and then accelerate out of the park resulting in noise and exhaust fumes. Because the solutions were fairly close, she would support retaining the existing circulation. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE OPTION A -I, TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING ONE-WAY TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN CITY PARK, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TWO-WAY ROAD WOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF THE MASTER PLAN. Council President Plunkett commended Perteet Engineering for their study. He recalled there was a time when the residents on the north side of the park could not be in the same room as the residents to the south of the park and there did not appear to be a solution that would satisfy either. He recalled the consultant was asked to consider a broad range of community issues and their proposal to reverse the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 8 circulation appeared to provide some relief to both groups. Subsequently the consultant has been trumped by public safety, engineering and parks maintenance staff. He noted it was compelling when staff indicated the existing situation was safer. He expressed his support for the motion based on the issue of public safety. Councilmember Wilson voiced his support for the motion, expressing his appreciation for Perteet Engineering's efforts. He noted the consultant's study put to rest the issue of two-way versus one-way, the flashpoint of the original discussions and the impetus for the study. He noted the practical experience of staff as well as the lack of accident history was more compelling than the snapshot the consultant provided via their study. He noted habits with regard to the direction of the traffic flow may be difficult to break and he did not want the number of accidents to increase while park visitors learned a new route. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. �:7 �i Z�1:71-iL�1►i�L9[K�71 Y I�i[1�►`�Y�.'/ II Yau i�:y � 17-1[Zy:� �[1� : 1[H »1i►� 111 r �XY1�� Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the City's code enforcement action was frozen. via direction from the Council on December 16, 2003, along with a request that staff negotiate a walk- away deal with Mr. Locke. Mr. Bowman recalled staff reported to the Council regarding their negotiations on March 23 and requested an additional 90 days to continue negotiations. Mr. Bowman explained staff met with Mr. Locke on May 27 and a list of the necessary requirements by the City to reach agreement was provided to him. He noted if Mr. Locke complied with the City's requests, the City would waive the accumulated fines related to the building permit. He reported staff had reached an impasse as Mr. Locke was not amenable to staff s requests. He referred to Mr. Locke's email regarding his inability to comply with staff s requests due to his concern with the impact to the value of his property with regard to one driveway and the requirement by WSDOT to reinstall the limited access fence as well as drainage issues. Mr. Bowman provided a brief history of the situation. He displayed a map of the area, identifying the configuration of Pine Street in 1960 prior to WSDOT beginning to acquire right-of-way for SR 104 for access to the ferry. He displayed a map illustrating the State's efforts to establish SR 104 in 1969 when there were two parcels at the corner of Pine Street and SR 104, owned by Marion Locke and Lillian Kelly. He noted the Kelly property was significantly impacted and a huge portion was purchased by the State for right -of. --way. He displayed a 1978 map illustrating the Kelly property incorporated into the Locke property. He identified the location of the Locke driveway at that time, noting the State permitted another driveway 14 feet in width near the service cabinet. Mr. Bowman displayed a 2001 map, identifying the Frymark property, the former Marion Locke property, and Syd Locke's existing residence and a garage/office building and a circular drive with the permitted access driveway next to the service cabinet. Mr. Bowman provided a chronology of staff s contact with Mr. Locke, explaining in August 1995 Mr. Locke submitted a permit application for a new garage with an office/storage/hobby room at 110 Pine Street. In May 1996 Mr. Locke's permit was issued and was valid for one year provided that one inspection was performed, otherwise the permit would expire in 180 days. The pen -nit was due to expire on May 8, 1997. On April 24, 1997, Mr. Locke submitted a permit application to renew his garage permit and a permit was issued. The permit again would expire in one year (May 8, 1998) provided one inspection was performed based on the original permit issued date. On March 25, 1998, Mr. Locke submitted a permit application to complete the garage work. The ECDC at that time did not allow for permits to be renewed a second time, requiring him to apply for a new permit and pay new permit fees. A Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 9 new permit #98-178 was issued on March 25, 1998 with the permit expiring in one year provided one inspection was performed. The permit was allowed to run with the original issuance date due to expire on May 8, 1999. On May 3, 1999, Mr. Locke submitted a permit application to complete the garage permit work. Permit #99-0241 was issued that would expire on May 8, 2000 provided one inspection was performed. A City letter was sent to Mr. Locke regarding permit #98-178 which expired six months after issuance because no inspections were performed. Permit #99-0241 was thereby rescinded and Mr. Locke was required to reapply for a new permit and pay new fees. On July 12, 1999, Mr. Locke submitted a new permit application in response to the City's letter. No inspections were performed on the garage since August 21, 1997; the building official added a permit condition that the owner must call for a height inspection; once that inspection was performed, the pen -nit would be extended for one year following the date of issuance. Permit #99-0415 was issued on July 12, 1999 with a new expiration date of July 12, 2000. On July 10, 2000, Mr. Locke submitted a permit application to renew Permit #99-0415 and Permit #200-547 was issued. The permit expires one year from issuance provided one inspection is performed, expiring July 10, 2001. The Locke garage permit #200-547 expired 180 days after issuance (January 11, 2001) because no inspections were performed. On February 22, 2001, Mr. Locke submitted a new permit application to complete the garage. Engineering had outstanding issues and could not approve the permit. On August 22, 2002, the Locke permit application was administratively extended by the Building Official for an additional 180 days; no further extensions were permitted to the application and the application was due to expire on February 22, 2003. On February 22, 2003, the Locke permit expired and enforcement action commenced. Mr. Bowman requested Mr. Locke apply for a new building permit to finalize the building, explaining the impasse was related to Mr. Locke's strong opinion that his property would be devaluated by the limited access which was purchased by the State originally from Mr. Locke's mother in the early 1970's. Because the parties were too far apart, Mr. Bowman recommended the City restart accumulation and assessment of fines effective immediately and turn the matter over to collections if the fines accumulated to date are not paid by June 30, 2004. Mayor Haakenson recalled in December 2003, Council action separated the two issues. Mr. Bowman explained the right-of-way was deeded back to the State for enforcement of their limited access. Therefore the issues associated with the access, fence, etc. were the responsibility of WSDOT. Mayor Haakenson recalled that in December 2003, the Council directed staff to negotiate with Mr. Locke during the next 180 days in an effort to reach a compromise. He recalled staff was unsuccessful after three months and Council provided staff another 90 days to negotiate with Mr. Locke. Mr. Bowman noted staff was at the same point with Mr. Locke now that they were several months previously. Council President Plunkett referred to the 2001 map, noting the western driveway should not exist. Mr. Bowman agreed. Council President Plunkett asked whether the driveway was constructed by Mr. Locke without permission. Mr. Bowman answered the driveway was included in one of the permit applications to the City. Council President Plunkett noted the City issued a permit for the driveway. Mr. Bowman agreed it was included in the permit Mr. Locke obtained. He noted the driveway was paved and inspected; the State then informed the City the driveway must be removed as the City had no authority to approve it. Council President Plunkett noted Mr. Locke's assertion was that since the City approved it, he had a permitted driveway. Mr. Bowman agreed the City approved the driveway but did not have the authority because it was a limited access right-of-way. Councilmember Marin noted Mr. Locke did not currently have a permit and the last time he came before the Council he said he was close to agreement with WSDOT. He questioned whether that was the reason Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 10 the Council extended the time for staff to negotiate with Mr. Locke. Mr. Bowman recalled staff reported in March that the State was holding fast to their requirement that the western driveway be closed and the fence that was demolished by Mr. Locke be replaced. His remaining limited access driveway was the eastern -most driveway east of the service cabinet. He noted the State did not object to Mr. Locke connecting to their drainage but needed to review his drainage calculations. Councilmember Marin asked whether the City was precluded from issuing a new pen -nit until Mr. Locke resolved his issues with WSDOT. Mr. Bowman answered Mr. Locke could apply for a permit and legalize the structure for consistency with City Code. The issues associated with the western driveway are between WSDOT and Mr. Locke. If WSDOT authorized the access, Mr. Locke could retain the driveway. The driveway would not be authorized as part of the permit because the State has indicated they would not approve the driveway. Were Mr. Locke to present proof that the State accepted the driveway, staff could work with him. Councilmember Marin asked whether Mr. Locke could apply for a new permit to complete his garage and the City could issue that permit. Mr. Bowman agreed, explaining Mr. Locke's revised plot plan had the access out the east driveway. Councilmember Marin noted it was now up to Mr. Locke with regard to completing the building as well as his dispute with WSDOT. Mr. Bowman agreed. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the Council froze the fines in December so the Council needed to take some action with regard to the fines. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained that because Mr. Locke has previously filed a claim against the City and was alleging diminution in value, he did not recommend the Council and staff work out the legalities of his claim in an open Council session. The City is a member of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) and he has previously advised the Council what he believed the case was worth. If the Council wanted a neutral opinion, the Council may want to request a pre -litigation review from WCIA and they could advise the City what the claim was worth. He noted Mayor Haakenson was responsible for the enforcement action and the reason the fines were frozen at the Council's request was in an effort to settle Mr. Locke's outstanding claims via a walk -away agreement. He advised it was time to unlink the two issues and proceed with enforcement action and defend the claim. Councilmember Orvis commented his understanding was that the City could not issue a permit until the State agreed and the State would not agree until the driveway was eliminated. Mr. Bowman disagreed, explaining the City would be issuing a permit consistent with the Code. For example, if Mr. Locke submitted a plot plan indicating his access was out the east driveway, the City could approve that. The City could not approve access via the west driveway and if that were submitted on a plot plan, the City would deny that access point absent any authorization from the State. Mr. Bowman explained staff attempted to work with Mr. Locke and identify the issues that must be addressed to complete the building permit (Exhibit 1) including a true and accurate plot plan showing consistency with the Code. He noted if Mr. Locke proposed something that included the west driveway, the City could not approve that unless WSDOT provided authorization. He noted WSDOT has indicated thus far they are not willing to authorize the western driveway. Mr. Bowman noted the reinstallation of the fence was not a City requirement and was an issue between Mr. Locke and WSDOT. Councilmember Orvis asked what concessions the City offered in negotiations with. Syd Locke. Mr. Bowman answered the only thing the City offered was the minimum requirements to streamline the building permit process. Councilmember Orvis asked why Mr. Locke needed to resubmit. Mr. Bowman answered a new building permit had always been a requirement as Mr. Locke did not currently have a valid permit for the building. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page I I Mr. Snyder explained the City enforced the State Building Code. The State Building Code contains expiration dates and requires resubmittal, a provision in effect in every city in the State. Mayor Haakenson requested staff enumerate the number of building permits Mr. Locke has had that have expired according to State law. Mr. Bowman answered six. Mayor Haakenson noted the resubmittal would be the seventh building permit, noting Mr. Locke obviously understood the requirement to resubmit as he had done it several times in the past. Responding to Council President Plunkett's question, Mr. Bowman answered Mr. Locke was required to have a building permit for the building; anyone who constructed a building of that size in Edmonds was required to have a building permit. Council President Plunkett questioned whether the building was occupied. Mr. Bowman answered staff had not entered the building so they were unaware what was done inside the building. Council President Plunkett observed that regardless of whether or not the building was occupied, the fact that the structure was this far along meant it required a permit. Mr. Bowman reiterated Mr. Locke must have a building permit for that structure. Council President Plunkett asked whether the Council could reduce the fines. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council's authority was linked to a Settlement Agreement; the Mayor was the enforcement agent via Mr. Bowman. With regard to concessions the City offered, Mr. Snyder referred to the City's willingness to waive the fines as part of a resolution package which was rejected by Mr. Locke. Councilmember Wilson commented he was flabbergasted the City was having this conversation. He questioned whether Mr. Locke fully disclosed any encumbrances or restrictions on his property when he submitted his building permit. Mr. Bowman answered it was difficult to determine as there had been so many different plot plans submitted. He acknowledged at one point the City authorized the driveway which they should not have done. Councilmember Wilson asked whether Mr. Locke submitted a title report with his building permit. Mr. Bowman answered no. Councilmember Wilson asked whether staff required a title report with building permits to determine encumbrances. Mr. Bowman answered no. Councilmember Wilson noted staff relied on applicants to provide true and faithful information on the application. Mr. Bowman agreed. Councilmember Wilson inquired how the encumbrances/restrictions on the property were acquired by the State. Mr. Bowman answered the State purchased the property from Mr. Locke's mother. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether Mr. Locke purchased the property from his mother. Mr. Bowman answered he did not know. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Code required Mr. Locke to have two driveway accesses to the lot to provide access to the accessory structure. Mr. Bowman answered no. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Code required anyone to have two driveway access points. Mr. Bowman answered no. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the reason the recent building permits had expired on the accessory structure was because Mr. Locke has insisted on linking the issue of access, a State controlled issue, with the building permit issue. Mr. Bowman answered the recent building permit expirations have been linked to the second driveway. Councilmember Wilson noted the City enforced the Uniform Building Code (UBC) due to life safety requirements to ensure buildings were constructed properly. Mr. Snyder added that there were life safety factors included in the inspection requirements; other issues were addressed as well. Councilmember Wilson noted one of the functions of a building permit was to ensure buildings were safe. Mr. Bowman agreed. F,dmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 12 Councilmember Wilson noted the options appeared to be either have the building permits issued and the building finaled to ensure it complied with the UBC or have the building removed because it was in violation and was an uninhabitable building. He inquired whether the City was required to have an uninhabitable building removed for safety reasons. Mr. Snyder answered there was a variety of remedies available that the City has not pursued. Councilmember Wilson noted this issue could be resolved if Mr. Locke applied for the required building permit, requested inspection and the building could be finaled per the building permit requirements and an occupancy permit issued for the structure. He concluded there was no issue with access as far as the building permit was concerned. Mr. Bowman noted if Mr. Locke included the west driveway as part of his plot plan submittal, the City would deny the ability to use the driveway unless WSDOT approved it. Mr. Bowman pointed out if Mr. Locke proposed to introduce his stormwater drainage into the State system, he would need to have WSDOT approval with regard to the calculations. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the amount of staff and attorney time spent attempting to resolve this issue. Mr. Bowman was unable to answer, noting the record extended back to 1995. He commented he had spent a great deal of time on the issue since December 2003. He summarized the City's position was they had been trying to work with Mr. Locke to finalize the building permit and then allow him to work out the fence and driveway issues with WSDOT at a later date. Councilmember Moore questioned the amount of effort that had been expended to work with Mr. Locke. She asked the amount of the fines had they not been frozen by the Council. Mr. Bowman answered the fine was $100 per day since they were frozen on December 16, 2003. Councilmember Moore noted staff had been attempting to resolve this and had never red tagged the building. Mr. Bowman agreed staff had been attempting to work with Mr. Locke to resolve the issue. Councilmember Moore concluded there was no other option than what staff recommended; the issues were clearly divided. She recommended proceeding with the staff recommendation to continue the fines. She questioned why Mr. Locke was receiving special treatment. Mayor Haakenson requested Mr. Bowman explain how the existing fines were incurred. Mr. Bowman explained the fines began accumulating when Mr. Locke failed to act on his building permit when it expired in 2003. The fines were frozen at $27,600 in December when discussion began regarding deeding the right-of-way back to WSDOT. Mr. Snyder noted that Mr. Locke, as with any citizen on whom an enforcement action was brought, had a right of appeal to the Hearing Examiner. The fines did not begin to accrue until after Mr. Locke failed to bring an appeal, thus the reason Mr. Bowman has recommended referring the matter to collection. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the solution was simple — if Mr. Locke renewed his permit for the seventh time with access through his existing driveway on the east side, finish the building, call for a building inspection and finalize his building, the City would be done with this project although the fines were another issue. Responding to Council. President Plunkett, Mr. Bowman explained the direction provided to staff in December by the Council was to negotiate a walk -away deal. For staff, a walk -away deal would be for Mr. Locke to obtain a building permit and the City would walk away from the fines. Mr. Bowman advised that staff asked Mr. Locke to sign a complete, written and legally binding release of all claims Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 13 against the city related to the second westerly driveway, WSDOT fence, permit approvals and service cabinet, etc. Council President Plunkett inquired whether there was any other response from Mr. Locke to staff s walk- away offer other than his email. Mr. Bowman answered at staffs meeting with Mr. Locke on May 27, 2004, staff presented their proposal and Mr. Locke indicated he could not agree to the walk -away agreement because of the issue of devaluation of his property by having only one 14-foot wide access on the east of his property. Councilmember Marin inquired about red tagging the accessory building. Mr. Snyder explained normally when buildings were red tagged, all inhabitable structures on the site were red tagged. He noted this was one reason the City had not utilized that method. Mr. Bowman answered staff did not plan to red tag Mr. Locke's home as it was fully permitted. Councilmember Marin noted the City could red tag the accessory building. Mr. Bowman noted that could be done although that had essentially been done via the Notice of Violation. Mr. Snyder noted the City could red tag all habitable structures on the property, and as part of a collection and abatement action, tear down the structure and tax bill the property. Because Mr. Locke failed to appeal the City's order, those were legal although not reasonable possibilities. Councilmember Marin inquired how long a pre -litigation review would take. Mr. Snyder answered 2-3 weeks. Councilmember Marin supported that option and continuing the freeze on the fines until that review could be accomplished. Mr. Snyder noted the amount of the fines would likely be negotiated in the future regardless of whether they were frozen or continued. Council President Plunkett inquired about the purpose of the pre -litigation review. Mr. Snyder recommended a neutral professional from the WCIA provide a pre -litigation review to value the claim. Council President Plunkett asked whether that would be done on the premise that the Council felt there has been some devalue and the City had some responsibility. Mr. Snyder answered the first question was what the City had done to incur liability and the second question was what that liability was worth. His suggestion for a pre -litigation review would assist in determining whether the fines were offset by the value of Mr. Locke's claim. Councilmember Marin supported the pre -litigation review as he doubted Mr. Locke had much of a case. In response to Councilmember Moore's question regarding the amount of the fines, Mayor Haakenson advised at the end of December, the fines had accumulated to $27,600; the City has been willing to walk away from the addition $18,000 in fines that would have accrued since December. He noted a two week delay was $1400. Councilmember Wilson noted requesting an independent review did not indicate the Council believed there had been a diminution in value; it was only seeking a legal opinion to verify information. Mr. Snyder agreed, explaining the City was a member of WCIA and via that contract, the City was prohibited from inhibiting the ability to defend the claim. One of the issues was balancing the worth of the claim and whether the Council should be involved in its resolution. He noted normally actions such as the one before the Council did not come to the Council as they were enforcement issues. This matter was before the Council due to the desire to negotiate a walk -way solution whereby the City waived enforcement action and Mr. Locke waived his claim. Staff has been unable to resolve the claim; the main issue appears to be Mr. Locke's refusal to waive his claims against the City. If not for that fact, the issue could be resolved because the remaining issues were of minor importance. He reiterated that in order to value the claim, WCIA should be involved and it should be done outside public session. F,dmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 14 Councilmember Moore asked whether the City's special treatment of this one citizen set a precedent and made the City liable if someone else were not provided special treatment. Mr. Snyder answered selective enforcement could be a claim but it typically was alleged when the City did not enforce City ordinances. This was the only situation he was aware of when the City had not taken action to resolve a building permit issue; dozens of building permit issues arise each year which are typically handled at a staff level. Councilmember Orvis asked how often it occurred that ten years after a permit was issued a citizen was forced to remove something they believed was permitted. Mr. Bowman agreed it was rare. Mr. Snyder answered it had not occurred in his 20 year history with the City nor had he seen a situation go on for ten years. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO RESTART ACCUMULATION AND ASSESSMENT OF FINES EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND TURN THE MATTER OVER TO COLLECTIONS IF THE FINES ACCUMULATED TO DATE ARE NOT PAID BY JUNE 30, 2004. Councilmember Orvis explained many people obtain a building permit to make sure everything is right and to provide protection against the City asking for changes later. As he learned more about the permit process, he noted a permit provided nearly zero protection from future City actions for the individual who received a permit. He explained the courts consider the permit process solely to ensure the public obeys the laws; if the City catches someone after they get the permit, the person still has to make the improvement. He noted sometimes it was impossible for people to know what they were to obey. In this instance, the improper driveway did not violate an ordinance, it violated a third -party agreement the City had with WSDOT; the City was specifically charged with protecting that right-of-way in the deed and staff forgot about it. As a result, a citizen, Mr. Locke, obtained a permit for his improvement only to be required to remove it ten years after the investment had been made. Councilmember Orvis noted if he were in that position, he would also be upset. He questioned what the City's permit system meant to a citizen. He alleged now it did not mean anything and he believed those laws should be changed so that if a citizen obtained a permit, it would protect the citizen. If a citizen obtained information from the City, the City should assist the citizen if that information later was determined to be inaccurate. Councilmember Orvis commented he had strong feelings about this issue and his goal was to protect all citizens from a similar situation. He summarized he was offended that a permit meant nothing to a citizen. Council President Plunkett pointed out that insofar as the City failed to comply with its agreement with WSDOT and insofar as the City issued a permit, he was not able to support the proposed motion. He concluded the City had some obligation because this was not a normal situation. He found staff s offer a good way to resolve the issue and was disappointed that Mr. Locke could not be more helpful in resolving the issue. He indicated he could support the motion if the intent was not to increase the fines. Councilmember Marin advised he would also not support the motion as he was not amenable to unfreezing the fines and preferred to have a pre -litigation claim review. He encouraged Mr. Locke to take the initiative and realize the two issues were not connected. Councilmember Wilson spoke in favor of the motion, stating his disagreement with Councilmember Orvis' comments. Councilmember Wilson pointed out $27,600 in fines took nine months to accumulate and most people would contact the City to request the building be approved while they had a valid building permit rather than allow the fines to accumulate. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 15 importance of personal accountability. As the property owner, Mr. Locke had the responsibility to conduct due diligence when he purchased the property and could have easily learned via a title report that there was an encumbrance that prohibited the driveway. Councilmember Wilson noted the City could via its building permit process require title reports and surveys costing applicants thousands of additional dollars in unneeded costs. He noted the City had chosen not to do that because most of the time the information the applicant provided was true and accurate with regard to restrictions and encumbrances. He acknowledged staff may have erred when they made that decision but they did not require a title report to ascertain information that Mr. Locke should have known. He observed there was a third party agreement between the City and WSDOT, but the other party to that agreement was the property owner who sold those rights to the public, obtained public funds, by restricting their property then and in the future. He stressed the public already paid for the rights once to restrict access to the property. He disagreed with Mr. Locke's claim that the property was devalued, pointing out he never had the right to the additional access because that right was sold. He pointed out City permits were worthwhile because they ensured buildings were safe and inhabitable. He noted staff must rely on information they receive in the process; if they don't receive accurate information, it would be difficult to provide an accurate response. Councilmember Wilson commented an additional 180 days have been spent on this issue and nothing has been accomplished. He did not favor waiting an additional two weeks and urged the Council to seek a timely resolution. Mayor Haakenson referred to Councilmember Marin's indication that he preferred to review the pre - litigation information and asked what he planned to do with that information. Councilmember Marin answered he did not believe there would be much there; once Mr. Locke learned he did not have much of a case, he might be more amenable to considering the City's offer. Mayor Haakenson inquired whether the pre -litigation review information would be available to Mr. Locke. Mr. Snyder answered it would not. Councilmember Marin asked whether the City could advise Mr. Locke of the outcome of the pre - litigation review. Mr. Snyder commented if the City obtained the answer Councilmember Marin expected, it would not damage the City's position to inform Mr. Locke. If the answer was not what the Councilliked, the Council could not inform Mr. Locke without violating WCIA. Councilmember Marin commented the answers provided via the pre -litigation review would determine whether he could support the motion to unfreeze the fines. Mayor Haakenson suggested the date in the motion be changed to restart accumulation of fines effective upon receipt of the pre -litigation review and turn the matter over to collections if the fines were not paid by July 14. Mayor Haakenson inquired about the process for what appeared to be a 3-3 vote. Mr. Snyder advised the Mayor may exercise a tie -breaking vote as this was not an ordinance, franchise or appropriation of money. Council President Plunkett suggested another option would be a motion that froze the $27,000 in fines and send the matter to collections if not paid by July 30, 2004 or a satisfactory agreement reached between the City and Mr. Locke. Informing Mr. Locke that the matter was being referred to collections may be more helpful than the pre -litigation review. Mayor Haakenson commented staff has tried to negotiate with Mr. Locke. He pointed out nothing has happened in the additional six months and each time staff attempts to negotiate with Mr. Locke, he does not return emails or telephone calls and then suggests something at the last minute which was what Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 16 occurred this time on June 3 at 3:00 p.m. He emphasized another 30 day delay would not make a difference. If the Council wanted to make fines an effective deterrent for Mr. Locke, he recommended they be effective June 30 and Mr. Bowman could meet with Mr. Locke in the meantime if Mr. Locke chose. He emphasized staff was interested in negotiating with Mr. Locke but if that was not done by June 30, the fines should be referred to collections. Council President Plunkett suggested his motion could include a statement that if resolution were reached before June 30, that would substitute for taking the matter to collections. Mayor Haakenson clarified Council President Plunkett's suggestion was that the City restart collection of fines effective June 30 and turn the matter over to collections if the fines were not paid by June 30 unless Mr. Locke reached agreement with staff before then. Council President Plunkett preferred the fines remain frozen until June 30 if a satisfactory agreement could not be reached. Councilmember Moore indicated she was not amenable to that change to her motion. She explained the intent of her motion was to remove the Council from the matter and turn it back to City administration where it should be handled. Mayor Haakenson clarified the fines would go to collections on June 30 but they began accumulating again tomorrow. If this matter were resolved in the next couple of weeks, Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Council had the ability to negotiate the fines and/or withdraw the matter from collections. Mr. Snyder answered the City could withdraw a matter from collections at any time under its contract with the collection agency and the Council had full authority to reduce, waive or otherwise compromise the fine. Mayor Haakenson noted he has negotiated fines with citizens on building projects for five years and none have come before the Council. Councilmember Wilson noted if the Council took this action, there was a high likelihood that the amount of the fines would be negotiated. Councilmember Olson commented when people wanted to work something out, they usually did. If this had dragged on this long it was because Mr. Locke did not want to work it out. She agreed that the Council needed to remove itself from this matter. Mayor Haakenson reiterated that resolution was as simple as Mr. Locke coming in to renew his permit for the seventh time with access through his property to his existing easterly driveway, finishing the building, and contacting the building inspector to inspect the building and provide an occupancy permit. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3) MAYOR HAAKENSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, OLSON AND WILSON IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND MARIN OPPOSED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO EXTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Oliver, 1031 2°d Avenue S, Edmonds, extended kudos to the City's Parks Department, noting many larger cities envy Edmonds' Parks Department. He commended the City's Street Department for their recent sidewalk repair, noting the staff was professional and economical with their time. He commended the City's ongoing partnership and cooperation with the arts community. He then expressed concern that he was unable to travel from the lower level to the upper level of Old Mill Town in his Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 17 wheelchair due to the lack of curb cuts from the south entrance from Maple Street. He urged the Council to install the necessary curb cuts. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented on the City's policy regarding employees participating in hazardous activities in which they were not trained or employed to do. He questioned whether there was full training, whether Labor & Industries had rules regarding activities and who could perform those activities, whether there was an insurance policy that covered activities conducted by employees who were not trained for the job, whether the City had liability for claims for injury or death of the person participating or the public. He recalled the role of volunteer firefighters in the City was decreased due to the increased State requirements for training. Mr. Hertrich concluded his comments were directed to Councilmember Marin's indication that he was allowed to participate in firefighting activities. Mr. Hertrich questioned whether Councilmember Marin met the training requirements, whether a liability release form was required, etc. He recommended the City establish a policy to address untrained or non -certified employees performing public duties. i! :. ' �771 I[�7�C�111.11'�K�111►[�111[K� ll U � IiCZ�7�1111►1 ��:�[►IIIIZ! Finance Committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee reviewed the In -Lieu Parking Program Fund and the Employee Parking Permit Fund; ordinances making changes to those two programs will be presented to the Council shortly. The issue of how to spend the funds was referred to the Public Safety Committee. The Committee then discussed exempt personnel benefit clean-up which was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. The Committee also discussed the office supply bid; the local vendor was not the lowest responder to the request for proposal. The committee requested the current contract be extended and further information provided at the next meeting. The Committee was also provided a report on 2004 sales tax revenue. Councilmember Marin noted the Committee also recommended the Disability Parking Plan be presented to the Public Safety Committee possibly using In -Lieu Parking Program Funds for those improvements. Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee discussed the draft Traffic Impact Fee ordinance; the committee requested additional review and discussion by Engineering, the Finance Director and the City Attorney with regard to adjusting the rates on an annual basis. Staff will present the draft ordinance to the Council in July. Next, the Committee discussed the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan; the Committee recommended forwarding the draft to the City Council on June 22 for a public hearing. The third item the Committee discussed was planned residential development (PRD) variances based on a concern regarding the process and how it was perceived by the public. He noted discussion on this topic was limited due to the Council meeting that evening and staff will return the item to the Committee for further discussion in July. The final item the Committee discussed was cottage housing. He explained there were some conflicts in the current code with regard to cottage housing and the concept may need to be incorporated into PRD ordinances. The Committee directed staff to schedule this item at a Council work session in July or August. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson announced that Tuesday, June 22 was the continued hearing on the Point Edwards Settlement Agreement. Public comment will be accepted only on the results of the peer review recommendations and any possible modifications the Council may request to the proposed Settlement Agreement. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 18 1 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS trak's Councilmember Marin reported on the ceremony commemorating 75 years of continuous rail passenger pire 1, service that the Empire Builder has provided. He displayed the framed poster that the Amtrak ilder 75 niversary representative presented to the City to commemorate the anniversary. He noted it was a great ceremony and many citizens attended. Councilmember Wilson agreed the ceremony commemorating 75 years of continuous rail passenger service was a fun event; a number of citizens had fond memories of the City's history and its relationship with the railroad. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 19 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. JUNE 15, 2004 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flag Salute nf, 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (13) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2004. (C) Approval of claim checks #71702 through #71906 for the week of June 7, 2004, in the amount of $230,918.33. (D) Authorization for Mayor to sign the Agreement Regarding Appointment of Agents - Instituting the Helping Hands Program. (E) Authorization to initiate street vacation of a portion of unopened right-of-way for 174th Street SW. (F) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of ECC 2.35.030 Vacations, 2.35.040 Compensating Time and 2.35.090 Conflict in order to better coordinate benefits with the annual salary ordinance and changing job titles. 3. (10 Min.) Update by FACE on the City Council's proposed partial funding of an economic analysis. 4. ( 5 Min.) First Reading: Proposed Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, granting Olympic View Water and Sewer District a Non -Exclusive Franchise to construct, maintain, operate, replace and repair a water and sanitary sewer system within public rights -of -way of the City of Edmonds, Washington, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. S. (20 Min.) Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation Gifts and Grants Presentation. 6. (30 Min.) Public Hearing on the City Park Access and Circulation Study. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA U June 15, 2004 Page 2 of 2 7. (10 Min.) Report on negotiations with Mr. Syd Locke on building permit issues. 8. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 9. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of June 8, 2004. 10. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 11. (15 Min.) Council Comments Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.