Loading...
05/20/2003 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES May 20, 2003 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a legal matter, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tern Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Pro Tem Richard Marin, Council President Pro Tern Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Al Compaan, Assistant Chief of Police Jim Larson, Acting Admin. Serv. Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 'Change to COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO genda ADD AN ITEM TO THE AGENDA FOLLOWING THE CONSENT AGENDA, REGARDING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Plunkett requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Petso requested Item K be removed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve /6/03 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 6, 2003. Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #62520 THROUGH #62695 FOR THE WEEK OF Approve MAY 5, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $439,121.25. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS laim #62706 THROUGH #62847 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 12, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF becks $421,165.34. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 1 as onitors (D) GAS MONITORS EQUIPMENT PURCHASE. ater- ont Park (F) REPORT ON QUOTES FOR WATERFRONT PARK BENCHES AND AUTHORIZATION enches TO PURCHASE FROM ARCHITECREATION ($36,468.43, INCLUDING SALES TAX). 001 aterline (G) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 2001 WATERLINE Replace - REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. ent F r#3453 3 (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3453 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY Day -care DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) SECTIONS 16.2.010(D), 16.30.030(D), 16.62.010(A)(5) acilities AND 21.20.010, DAY -CARE FACILITY, ALL IN ORDER TO BRING THE CITY'S RESTRICTIONS REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DAY -CARES IN LINE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW AND TO EXPAND DAY -CARE TO ange in Ehning d #3454 INCLUDE DAY -CARE FOR THE DISABLED AND ELDERLY. — ive (I) ORDINANCE NO. 3454 APPROVING A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR CERTAIN REAL omers PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE FIVE CORNERS FIRE STATION SITE ire Station FROM PUBLIC (P) TO MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.4). (APPLICANT: CITY OF EDMONDS / FILE NO R -02 -238) Ord #3455 Six Year IP (J) ORDINANCE NO. 3455 ADOPTING A SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2008. Res #1042 Initiate (L) RESOLUTION NO. 1042 INITIATING REVIEW OF VACATION OF THE EASTERN Vacation HALF OF THE NORTH 120 FEET OF 7TH AVENUE SOUTH, SOUTH OF FIR STREET f Part of AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING. 7th Ave. S. tulblic (M) PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF PUBLIC WORKS WEEK, MAY 18 — 24, 2003 orks eek Item E: Reuort on the General Fund and Other Selected Funds Financial Position for the Quarter Endine March 2003. Report on Councilmember Plunkett requested a brief explanation regarding differences between the budget and he actual in property tax (31 % less than anticipated). Acting Administrative Services Director Jim Larson General Fund answered the City typically collects 100% of the budgeted property tax by year end although the month - to -month distribution may vary. He anticipated by the end of May, the actual would be in line with the budget. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the difference between budget and actual for Street & Curb Permits (90% over budget) and Plat Inspection (45% over budget). Mr. Larson answered those fees were driven by development which was notoriously inconsistent from year -to -year. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the difference between budget and actual for Long Term Leases (30% less than anticipated). Mr. Larson answered he was uncertain of the reason for this difference. He advised the difference between budget and actual for Utility Tax was assumed to be due to the mild winter and was being monitored by staff. Councilmember Plunkett commended staff, noting revenues exceeded projections by 3% ($96,000) at this point. Although some jurisdictions continue to have less revenue than anticipated, Councilmember Plunkett pointed out Edmonds has received more revenue than projected. With regard to expenditures, Councilmember Plunkett noted the City's expenditures were less than budgeted by $130,000. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 2 (E) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 2003. Item K• Proposed Ordinance Amending the Provisions of ECDC 19.00.060(B) to Provide for Interpretations, Appeals and Alternative Material Review by a Building Code Board of Review, Excepting the Provisions of Chapter 19.05 from Said Review, and Enacting a New Chapter 10.15 Building Board of Appeals Councilmember Petso noted this item was the establishment of a Board of Appeals comprised of individuals in the building industry to make decisions on building code issues. She reiterated her concern that there was an inherent conflict of interest, which may result in members setting precedent for their own future projects. Further, there were public safety implications as the Board would decide on technical issues such as the number of fire exits or whether material was sufficiently flame retardant. She recalled at the public hearing, testimony was provided that indicated in the past some interpretations had cost developers a lot of money, commenting it may be necessary to pay that extra money if it were necessary to provide adequate emergency exits or adequate flameproof material. She indicated she would vote against the establishment of a Board of Appeals to make decisions on such issues. E 2a. Matter Before the Growth Manage- ment Hearings oard COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: (K) ORDINANCE NO. 3456 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 19.00.060(B) TO PROVIDE FOR INTERPRETATIONS, APPEALS AND ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL REVIEW BY A BUILDING CODE BOARD OF REVIEW, EXCEPTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER 19.05 FROM SAID REVIEW, AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 10.15 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS. ACTION TAKEN FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE SESSION ON A LEGAL MATTER COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, THAT THE CITY INTERVENE IN THE ACTION BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY BEFORE THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Updated 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE Capital PLAN TO INCLUDE THE UPDATED CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN FOR EDMONDS SCHOOL Facilities DISTRICT #15 Plan for schoolds Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the City has typically adopted the School District's Capital District Facilities Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Edmonds School District representatives were present to review their plan. Brett Carlstad, Director of Property Management, Edmonds School District, presented the Edmonds School District's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) 2002 -2007, an update of the previous plan that was currently included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed changes made in the CFP: • Updated student enrollment figures to reflect current enrollment and projected enrollment in the planning horizon of six years and the long range planning horizon of 20 years. • Revalidated student generation rates, the number of students on average yielded from a single family residential dwelling or multifamily residential dwelling. • Acknowledgement and identification of renovation of a number of new schools and placement of educational programs, including location, year of construction, square footage, and educational program placement with yielded capacity for those sites. • Addition of an explicit section that identifies minimum levels of service Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 3 f I Mark Johnson, Edmonds School District, explained the CFP was a forecast of future needs for capital facilities owned and operated by the Edmonds School District, an inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the district showing the locations and capacities of facilities, a description of the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities, and a six -year plan for financing capital facilities when/if necessary. He explained the intent of the CFP was to describe in detail what structures existed in the Edmonds School District and forecast student enrollment. Mr. Johnson described methodologies for forecasting student enrollment, 1) examining current enrollment, adjusting for historical grade level growth or attrition, considering demographic trends, and projecting future district enrollment based on these elements with adjustment based on prevailing student generation rates for single family and multifamily housing developments in the district (methodology used by the Edmonds School District), 2) a weighted cohort survival methodology to project enrollment for grades 1 -12 while using linear regressionary analysis of actual kindergarten enrollment over the previous six years (methodology used by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), and 3) apply a fixed proportion of 14.69% students to general population ratio. Mr. Johnson displayed graphs illustrating OSPI's student population forecast, the Edmonds School District's enrollment forecast, and Snohomish County student population forecast using the fixed proportion methodology. He noted that due to changing demographics, Snohomish County's student population forecast varied from OSPI and Edmonds School District's forecasts. Mr. Johnson advised that the 2002 -2007 update of the CFP included elements not in previous CFP's including an indication of overall trend of decreasing enrollment on the active six year as well as the long range 20 year planning horizons, recognizes the impact of I -728 (reduction in classroom sizes from K -3), recognizes and accounts for new school construction and all educational programming placements. Mr. Johnson reviewed the timeline for the creation of the CFP included revision of the previous CFP during 2001 -2002 with the guidance of Snohomish County Office of Planning and Development Services, circulation of the draft CFP in May 2002 to all jurisdictions in the Edmonds School District (Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Lynnwood, and Edmonds), and approval of the final draft CFP by the Edmonds School District Board of Directors in August 2002. Also in August 2002, the Snohomish County Council reviewed and approved the CFP, the final CFP was circulated to all jurisdictions in the Edmonds School District, and it was posted to the District's website. In April 2003, the CFP was presented to the Edmonds Planning Board and presented to the Edmonds City Council in May 2003. Councilmember Petso inquired where the new Scriber Lake High School referenced in the CFP would be located. Mr. Johnson answered the CFP was drafted prior to the School District bond. The proposed location for a new Scriber Lake High School, assuming the next bond passed, would be in close proximity to Cedar Valley Elementary. Councilmember Petso inquired about plans in the CFP for the Esperance School property. Mr. Johnson answered the District was currently in the process of demolishing that structure and rendering the site a grassy field. He explained that the long term objectives for the site were uncertain; currently there are no definite plans for that site. Councilmember Petso clarified there was nothing in the proposed CFP that would bind the City to a particular development on the Esperance School site. Mr. Carlstad responded the CFP acknowledges the facility exists and the number of classrooms it had; but the CFP was already out -of -date. With funding and a more clearly developed vision, the frontrunner concept would be to build an early childhood center at that site, to serve the District's early childhood center needs. He noted this was not currently a funded project and was in the concept discussion phase. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 4 Councilmember Petso inquired about plans in the CFP for the former. Woodway Elementary and Edmonds - Woodway High School sites and what impact the CFP would have on those plans. Mr. Carlstad answered those sites were acknowledged in the plan as existing sites owned by the District with their classroom inventory. At old Woodway Elementary, the old outdoor activity shelter would be demolished; the remainder of the site would remain in its current state. The District currently has no intent to reoccupy that site. Regarding the former Woodway High School, the CFP acknowledges the existence of the site as a high school facility because that was the last permanently placed program at that site. With the passage of the bond (which failed), plans were to use the site as a transition high school site while Lynnwood High School was rebuilt. The Cyber School has been located at that campus on an interim basis although not fully occupying that campus. Plans are to continue that program in that location although not as a permanent location. Councilmember Petso inquired whether the CFP included any changes in facilities currently being used as parks such as the Civic Playfields or playfield improvements at old Woodway Elementary. Mr. Carlstad answered the CFP acknowledged properties owned, leased or rented by the School District for educational programs and support services — developed and undeveloped educational and support programs. He noted the CFP acknowledges that the School District owns the Civic Playfields and may footnote the long term lease with the City. He noted there were also School District -City relationships at old Woodway Elementary, Edmonds Elementary School, and Madrona. He assured those would not be lost or impaired via adoption of the proposed CFP. Councilmember Petso observed the CFP defined the old Woodway High School site as a high school; she inquired whether this had any implications for the City's rights or positions under conforming use provisions. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered the Comprehensive Plan was a general guide; the Zoning Code must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted further review of the City's P (Public) zone would be necessary. Councilmember Petso recalled the property was zoned residential which would not allow a high school. She asked whether by adopting the CFP which acknowledged the site as a high school, would that be inconsistent with the zoning. Mr. Snyder answered no because nonconforming use provisions permit continuation of a facility. For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Carlstad advised a new Scriber Lake High School would be built near the new Cedar Valley Elementary. Councilmember Wilson asked where the Scriber Lake High School program was currently located. Mr. Carlstad answered it was located at the old Cedar Valley Elementary School site. The new Cedar Valley Elementary School was built on the former Scriber Lake High School site. When the Cedar Valley school population moved to the new school and modest renovations were made to the old Cedar Valley Elementary School, the Scriber Lake program was moved to that site on Cedar Valley Road. He summarized the new Cedar Valley Elementary K -8 School and Scriber Lake High School would be on the same parcel. With regard to student enrollment forecasts, Councilmember Wilson observed the forecast in the next biennium budget reflected a decline of approximately 500 students. Mr. Carlstad answered a decline of approximately 500 students was anticipated for the next school year. He explained enrollment this year was lower than projections which were already pessimistic. The District continues to trend enrollment downward. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the loss of student population was uniform throughout the District. Mr. Carlstad answered it was surprisingly uniform. He indicated they have been told other school districts in this ring of suburban growth were experiencing similar anomalies although there is growth in outlying districts. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 5 Councilmember Wilson asked,whether the District would consolidate students and close some facilities to more efficiently utilize resources. Mr. Carlstad indicated that was a policy decision best addressed by the School Board. He agreed if the downward trend continued, consolidation would be a financial reality that must be considered. He noted the District was in its third year of budget cuts; adjustments to next year's budget total $3 million and they have been told this trend will continue for at least another three years. He noted that although school closure had not been discussed, if the loss of student enrollment and loss of State and federal funding continued, it would need to be considered. Mayor Pro Tem Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Pro Tern Earling closed the public participation portion of this item. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE DISTRICT'S CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AS PART OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Storm- 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE STORMWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN water ompre- Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene explained the 2003 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan was divided into ensive Plan ten chapters. The introduction and purposes sections of the Plan address issues such as: control erosion, managing water quality and quantity, protecting the environment, protecting property and the right -of- way from erosion and flooding, and outlining state and federal laws with which the City must comply and identifying projects and actions to meet these objectives. Mr. Fiene summarized the regulatory requirements included the Growth Management Act, Comprehensive Planning and Critical Areas, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Phase II, and Endangered Species Act. He advised Section 1 identified the two flow patterns within Edmonds. Section 2 addressed implementation of the 1991 Plan including the enactment of the 1995 Stormwater Management Ordinance. In response to the requirement to modify regulations to comply with Federal and State requirements; Public Works has accomplished over 130 work orders since 1991 in an effort to identify local problems and greater than 200 feet of storm pipe has been designed and installed during that time period. A storm utility was established to fund the capital, operations and maintenance programs; and the Discovery Program responds to requirements for education and public involvement. Mr. Fiene explained the backbone of the Plan were basin studies conducted throughout the City to identify and anticipate any problems. Mr. Fiene explained Section 3 addresses Stormwater Management for new development and redevelopment; staff recommends review of the State Manual and determining how it applies to Edmonds as well as adopting the manual and revising the ordinance. Section 4 addresses Illicit Discharge Detection and Customer Response; staff recommends developing an Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program (IDDEP) Plan, revise the City's ordinance, and eventually hire one employee to address illicit discharge detection and customer response and other NPDES permit requirements beginning in 2005. Mr. Fiene explained the NPDES Permit was submitted in March 2003; the permit requirements and condition are expected late next year. Mr. Fiene explained Section 5 addresses operations and maintenance; staff recommends hiring two additional employees to maintain the system on the required one year cycle (system currently being maintained on an 18 month cycle). Mr. Fiene explained Section 6 addressed public involvement and education; staff recommendation is to continue with the current program which meets State requirements. Section 7 addresses environmental Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 6 concern and fisheries resource; staff recommendation is to develop a letter to residents explaining the regulations regarding critical area buffers and holding a public meeting to discuss issues and concerns. Section 8 addresses hydrologic and hydraulic analysis; staff recommendation is to update hydrologic information to include improvements made subsequent to the basin study analysis. Section 9 addresses problem identification and the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Fiene displayed the six year CIP for Fund 412, noting for each problem identified, there is a corresponding capital improvement project description. Mr. Fiene displayed and described a timeline for the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, including an overview of the Plan presented to the Planning Board on January 22, 2003, presentation of the Plan to the Community Services/Development Services Committee on January 28, Planning Board public hearing held on March 5, submittal of the NPDES Phase H permit application on March 6, and public hearing before the City Council tonight. Staff's recommendation is City Council approval of the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for an amendment to the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the annual Comprehensive Plan update. Councilmember Petso referred to the staff recommendation to hire an additional employee to undertake the IDDEP efforts and asked whether that was required or could it be handled by other staff. Mr. Fiene answered it would be in response to federal regulations and in response to the additional permit condition anticipated from the NPDES Phase II permit conditions. Councilmember Petso referred to the additional two employees recommended to be hired in 2008 and 2009, inquiring whether it was required that those employees be hired or was it in response to increasing the inspection schedule to once a year rather than once every 18 months. Mr. Fiene answered that although there was no requirement to hire employees, the additional staff would be necessary to comply with the increase in the inspection schedule. Councilmember Petso commented in the meantime, the City could identify efficiencies or alternate methods of inspection/maintenance of the system. Mr. Fiene agreed that was a possibility. Councilmember Petso referred to a proposed Perrinville Creek project, inquiring what projects required 1% for Arts. Mr. Fiene answered any new infrastructure qualified for 1% for Arts. Councilmember Petso observed that a $1.2 million project that installed a pipe under 76`" would require $12,000 in art. City Engineer Dave Gebert explained the 1% for Arts applied to the construction portion of the project and only the portion of the funding that was City funds (not including grant funds). He explained the I% for Arts could be used in a number of ways such as installing art related to the project or placing the moneys in a fund for purchase and maintenance of art in the City. Councilmember Petso asked whether the City could negotiate with Lynnwood to provide a portion of the funding as the watershed in the Perrinville Creek area included portions of Lynnwood. Mr. Fiene pointed out the Plan reflected the intent for Lynnwood to contribute 50 %. Councilmember Orvis asked whether there was any conflict of interest for him as one of the projects was in front of his residence. Mr. Snyder answered the Appearance of Fairness doctrine did not apply to legislative issues. Council President Pro Tern Marin opened the public participation portion of this item. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled 10+ years ago, a great deal was done to improve water quality in streams via providing bypass systems. He noted the requirements now appeared to be getting "out of hand" and he recommended the City begin challenging the requirements. He expressed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 7 concern with health issues created by open detention facilities by proving opportunity for mosquitoes and the West Nile virus. Mike Pattison, Snohomish County County /Camano Association of Realtors, 3201 Broadway, Ste. E, Everett, advised he wanted to be a party of record in this matter. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Pro Tem Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing and remanded to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE STORMWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE UTILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. Councilmember Petso referred to the public comment regarding storm detention facilities as a haven for mosquitoes and encouraged staff to ensure the City did not require drainage facilities that became public health hazards. Council President Pro Tem Marin, the Council representative on the Snohomish County Health District Board, advised he has raised the issue of open detention ponds with the Health Board and learned they provide opportunity for natural predators to control mosquitoes. Mayor Pro Tem Earling explained he participated in a small lot survey in Snohomish County recently and where there was considerable discussion regarding covering versus not covering detention facilities. He requested staff provide information regarding Council President Pro Tem Marin's understanding regarding natural predators and the cost of covering versus not covering detention facilities. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Southwest 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SOUTHWEST EDMONDS BASIN STUDY Edmonds Basin Study Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene explained all areas in the City had been studied via basin plans; the Southwest Edmonds Basin, annexed in December 1995, was the only remaining area to be studied. He displayed a map illustrating the watersheds, identifying the Southwest Edmonds Basin. He explained the study was an opportunity to gather citizen feedback regarding drainage in the area, develop a map and summary of the existing drainage system, identify storm drain problems, recommend improvements for the area, and prepare a formal report for adoption by the Council for ongoing use in implementation of the recommendations. Mr. Fiene described public involvement which included flyers mailed to all citizens in the basin area and two public meetings. He advised that 16 problems were identified and the consultant working with staff identified solutions, primarily infiltration systems. He noted there were few areas in Edmonds where infiltration was an appropriate solution due to soil conditions, but the soils in this area make infiltration a viable solution. Mr. Fiene explained capital planning projects were prioritized and scheduled over the next six years based on the magnitude of the problem, frequency of occurrence, and potential damage exposure. Staff's recommendation is that the Council approve the Southwest Basin Study and direct the City Attorney to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 8 prepare an ordinance for an amendment to the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the annual Comprehensive Plan update. Mayor Pro Tem Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Pro Tem Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE SOUTHWEST BASIN STUDY DRAINAGE PLAN AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE UTILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. Sign Code 1 7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN CODE Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was a continuation of Council deliberation on proposed sign code amendments. He described options available to the Council: (A) adopt the ordinance without additional staff direction; (B) adopt the enhanced ordinance in Exhibit 2 which implements Option 1 for nonconforming signs — includes direction to staff to suspend action on signs made nonconforming until the Planning Board reviews the nonconforming use provisions for signs; or (C) adopt the basic ordinance in Exhibit 1 plus the interim zoning ordinance in Exhibit 3 which enacts a moratorium on enforcement and implements Option 2 for nonconforming signs. He noted the third option would adopt an interim zoning ordinance that requires the Planning Board to study the issue and, within six months, establish specific regulations for signs that become nonconforming under the proposed amendments. Mr. Chave emphasized the provisions of the sign ordinance were the same in each option, only the non - conforming provisions varied. Councilmember Wilson referred to the non - conforming provision in Section 17.40.045, paragraphs B and C on page 65, noting this appeared to be an incredibly high threshold, allowing repair or reconstruction of a sign to between 51% and 80% of its replacement cost in any one year. He asked whether there were any other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound region with such high thresholds. Mr. Chave answered staff did not survey other jurisdictions. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the staff was currently using 50% as the threshold; 80% was an amount that would be typical for an insurance company to pay in the event of destruction. Councilmember Wilson noted he did not recall any other jurisdiction establishing a non - conforming sign standard at 80 %. Mr. Chave answered many jurisdictions do not have nonconforming provisions, and require a new sign meet the existing code. He noted the Planning Board's review of the nonconforming standards may result in significant revisions to the City's nonconforming provisions as they date back to the early 1980s. Council President Pro Tem Marin asked staff's preference over Option B versus Option C. Mr. Chave answered staff feels there are few incidents where the current nonconforming provisions would not enable a sign to be reconstructed. Staff would be most comfortable with Option B as it was the simplest approach but could also find Option C satisfactory. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 9 Councilmember Petso observed when this issue was first discussed, the goal was to make it easier and quicker for a business to obtain a sign. Unfortunately that was done via an attempt to define what signs were attractive in different areas of the City and the result was making virtually all signs nonconforming. She noted that although this had been addressed for some businesses, many signs would still become nonconforming under the ordinance. The simpler alternative may have been to establish a matrix with the statement that a sign erected in compliance with the matrix would be approved and anything else, whether over 14 feet, a pole sign, etc. required a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review Board, etc. She noted if that had been done, this discussion would not be required as fewer signs would be nonconforming. She suggested consideration be given to that approach. Councilmember Orvis inquired whether a proposed amendment to real estate signs could be incorporated into the ordinance. Mr. Snyder recommended another public hearing be scheduled if such amendments were proposed because amendment to that section had not been discussed at a public hearing or been the subject of the Planning Board's recommendation. He clarified any substantive change to a section would require another public hearing. Councilmember Dawson disagreed with Councilmember Petso that the proposed ordinance would result in a majority of signs in the City being nonconforming. She noted there were few types of signs that would be outright not permitted, primarily pole signs and sandwich board signs, most other signs were allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. Councilmember Petso suggested proceeding with the alternate approach which focused on a matrix that would allow the expedited procedure and did not result in any nonconforming signs. She noted there were a large number of pole signs in the downtown, Westgate, Neighborhood Business Zones, some of which would be approved upon design review. She noted there were also a number of box cabinet signs in the downtown area that would become nonconforming with this action. Although it was not a majority of the signs that would become nonconforming, it was more signs than she was comfortable with. She suggested not adopting an ordinance this evening but have staff return with an alternate approach and public hearing that would not make any signs nonconforming as well as include the proposed real estate sign amendments. Observing there were issues with nonconforming that had not had public testimony and that a public hearing had not been held on the proposed real estate sign amendments, Councilmember Plunkett suggested scheduling a public hearing and adding Councilmember Petso's suggestion as another option. Mayor Pro Tem Earling recommended the final outcome be Council review and not returning the amendments to the Planning Board. Mr. Snyder suggested Councilmembers make their amendments to the ordinance and if the amendments passed, another public hearing could be scheduled. If the amendments did not pass, the Council could continue deliberating on the proposed options. Councilmember Wilson commented he favored Option B and a public hearing to allow further discussion of proposed amendments. Councilmember Orvis favored Option C and holding a public hearing at the Council level. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENTS HE PROPOSED TO SECTION 20.60.065 WHICH ADD ONE SENTENCE TO SECTION 3, ADD A NEW SECTION 5, AND CHANGE ONE ELEMENT OF C. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 10 Councilmember Dawson recalled the original intent was to do a more in -depth review of the sign code in the future and this amendment was intended to streamline the process. Mr. Chave agreed the intent was to streamline the process, recalling the matrix was developed to provide standards for a decision. Councilmember Dawson noted the matrix was not intended to be "set in stone" and would be reviewed again in the future. She asked when the more in -depth review would occur. Mr. Chave answered Development Services Director Duane Bowman has embarked on a rewrite of the development code; his highest priorities are nonconforming uses and the process chapters. If the Council directs, signs could be reviewed next. He anticipated review of the sign code could be completed by the end of 2004. He anticipated a lengthy process due to the need to seek input from the public, the Chamber of Commerce, businesses, etc. He preferred that process occur at the Planning Board level rather than the City Council. Mr. Snyder commented Council President Pro Tem Marin's proposed amendment that established a limitation per intersection and limitation on days would not cause any problem. However, the Court of Appeals has struck down a Seattle ordinance that prohibited the attachment of signs to utility poles which was currently on appeal to the State Supreme Court. Although he did not anticipate a problem with traffic control devices, public structures, fences, rocks, trees or shrubs, the utility portion and street light portions have been held to be public forums. Therefore, he had reservations about enacting that provision until the State Supreme Court had made a ruling. Council President Pro Tem Marin suggested revising the amendment accordingly. He explained the intent of his proposed amendments was to eliminate some of the sign misuse. Mayor Pro Tem Earling observed Mr. Snyder's recommendation was to strike telephone, utility pole and street light from Council President Pro Tem Marin's amendment. Council President Pro Tem Marin accepted this as a friendly amendment to his motion. Councilmember Orvis noted campaign signs could not mounted on telephone poles; if the State Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals finding, other sign types would have to be allowed on telephone poles. Mr. Snyder agreed, explaining the Court of Appeals case was a commercial sign mounted on a utility pole. Councilmember Petso asked whether the motion was to set a public hearing on changes to the sign ordinance or only on Council President Pro Tem Marin's proposed amendments. Mr. Snyder responded his interpretation was to make the amendments proposed by Council President Pro Tem Marin to the ordinance and bring the entire ordinance back to the Council for a public hearing. Councilmember Petso asked that the motion also include her proposed changes to allow public comment on her suggested approach. She clarified her approach was to, rather than make signs nonconforming and making changes to the height limits, make the streamlined process available to signs that conform with the current matrix and allow those who want to deviate to follow a less streamlined process such as Conditional Use Permit or Design review for approval of such signs. Councilmember Wilson asked whether Councilmember Petso was directing staff to provide criteria for consideration in the Conditional Use Permit process or the Design Review process, commenting there were no existing criteria in the ordinance. Councilmember Petso answered there was some criterion in the ordinance; staff would likely need to add criterion or have signs reviewed by the Design Review Board, whatever the current process was for signs over 14 feet. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 11 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO INCLUDE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SIGNS MADE NONCONFORMING WITH THIS ACTION AND MAKE THE STREAMLINED PROCEDURE AVAILABLE ONLY TO THOSE SIGNS THAT CONFORM WITH THE MATRIX AND THE HEIGHT LIMITS BUT HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR PEOPLE TO APPLY FOR SIGNS THAT DO NOT CONFORM WITH THE MATRIX OR HEIGHT LIMIT. Councilmember Petso clarified her intent would be that a process would be established that did not make signs nonconforming; if one wanted the expedited process, they must conform to the matrix and height limit and if one wished to do anything else, they could proceed through a less streamlined process. Councilmember Dawson commented Councilmember Petso's proposal had already had a public hearing as there had already been public testimony on the matrix. If the intent was an entirely new process, it should be returned to the Planning Board for review. She did not favor having public comment on the proposal again as adequate public comment had been allowed and the Council needed to complete the amendment. She indicated she would vote against the proposed motion. Councilmember Wilson agreed, noting the intent was to bring the proposed amendment to a conclusion rather than open it to further delay and discussion. He noted Councilmember Petso's proposal was a substantive change that could be considered when the sign code was reviewed in its entirety. He indicated he would vote against Councilmember Petso's motion and supported limiting the scope of the Council's discussion at the public hearing rather than broaden it. MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS IN FAVOR; MAYOR PRO TEM EARLING, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN, AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON, WILSON, AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. Mayor Pro Tem Earling scheduled the public hearing for June 10 prior to Council Committee meetings. 8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MAY 13 2003 Public Public Safety Committee Safety Committee Councilmember Dawson advised the Committee was provided an update on Fire Station 16, a report that indicated the project was on- schedule and on- budget. She briefly reported on the status of various components of the project, advising that substantial completion was anticipated by mid - August and completion of the project on budget by mid - September. The Committee then was provided an update on a gas monitors equipment purchase which was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. The Committee then discussed firefighter /paramedic training and were advised the best way to increase the number of firefighter /paramedics was to train current firefighters to the paramedic level at Harborview Medical Center rather than hiring firefighter /paramedics from other organizations. She advised the Fire Department currently had eight firefighter /paramedics and wanted to train four new firefighter /paramedics. F mmunity Community Service/Development Services Committee ervices� Council President Pro Tem Marin advised the Committee discussed survey requirements for certain evelop- nc I permit applications. Staff's research revealed that legal issues could result for landowners if a Fmccs transaction had not been professionally surveyed. The committee then discussed permitted uses in commercial and business zone districts. No action was taken on either of the items the Committee discussed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 12 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tern Earling had no report. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Excused bsence COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN FROM THE MAY 6 COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MARIN ABSTAINING. Councilmember Orvis reported the Downtown Parking report was being finalized and would be presented to the Council in June. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. G H 4sb , MA YOR �w.�oGt... �• �.- Kerc.a.� SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 20, 2003 Page 13 1 Revised May 19, 2002 at Noon AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. MAY 20, 2003 6:45 p.m. - EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER* * The Executive Session will be held in the Jury Meeting Room. 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent. Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2003. (C) Approval of claim checks #62520 through #62695 for the week of May 5, 2003, in the amount of $439,121.25. Approval of claim checks #62706 through #62847 for the week of May 12, 2003, in the amount of $421,165.34. (D) Gas monitors equipment purchase. (E) Report on the General Fund and other selected funds financial position for the quarter ending March 2003. (F) Report on quotes for waterfront park benches and authorization to purchase from Architecreation ($36,468.43, including sales tax). (G) Report on final construction costs for the 2001 Waterline Replacement Program and Council acceptance of project. (H) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Sections 16.20.010(D), 16.30.030(D), 16.62.010(A)(5) and 21.20.010, Day -Care Facility, all in order to bring the City's restrictions regarding the establishment of day -cares in line with the requirements of state law and to expand day -care to include day -care for the disabled and elderly. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA May 20, 2003 Page 2 of 2 (1) Proposed Ordinance approving a change in zoning for certain real property commonly known as the Five Corners Fire Station Site from Public (P) to Multi - Family Residential (RM -2.4). (Applicant: City of Edmonds / File No. R -02 -238). (J) Proposed Ordinance adopting a Six -Year Capital Improvement Plan for the years 2003 through 2008. (K) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of ECDC 19.00.060(B) to provide for interpretations, appeals and alternative material review by a Building Code Board of Review, excepting the provisions of Chapter 19.05 from said review, and enacting a new Chapter 10.15 Building Board of Appeals. (L) Proposed Resolution initiating review of vacation of the eastern half of the north 120 feet of 7 t Avenue South, south of Fir Street and setting a public hearing. (M) Proclamation in recognition of Public Works Week, May 18 - 24, 2003. 3. (20 Min.) Public Hearing on an amendment to the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan to include the updated Capital Facilities Plan for Edmonds School District #15. 4. (30 Min.) Public Hearing on the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. 5. (15 Min.) Public Hearing on the Southwest Edmonds Basin Study. 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 7. (15 Min.) Council consideration of ordinances adopting amendments to the sign code. 8. (10 Min.) Report on the City Council Committee Meetings of May 13, 2003. 9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Min.) Council Comments 0 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.