Loading...
06/04/2002 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES June 4, 2002 Following a Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m. for the City Council to meet with a candidate for the Planning Board and a candidate for the Sister City Commission, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Richard Marin, Councilmember APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Brian McIntosh, Asst. Parks/Recreation, Director Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner Zach Lell, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO Change to ADD A PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF RELAY FOR LIFE DAYS TO THE CONSENT Benda AGENDA AS ITEM H AND ADD CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF DR. CONSUELO KINAHAN TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION TO AGENDA ITEM #3. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR APPROVAL'OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve s/28/02 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2002 pprove (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #55830 THROUGH #55915 FOR THE WEEK OF P]aim MAY 27, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $96,144.17 Checks Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 1 Bond ataf (D) BOND CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE mts tment (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED ON MAY 28, 2002 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A HEAT it Heat EXCHANGER AT THE TREATMENT PLANT AND AWARD TO INDUSTRIAL Exchan er RESOURCES, INC. FOR THE AMOUNT OF $44,235.18, INCLUDING SALES TAX actor (F) APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS VACTOR StationCanopy STATION CANOPY PROJECT TO INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION ($13,093.31, INCLUDING SALES TAX) 74 Pl. W. Slope (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 74TH PLACE WEST SLOPE Stabilization STABILIZATION PROJECT Relay for Life Days (H) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF RELAY FOR LIFE DAYS Council President Earling introduced Tim Kim, a senior at Kings High School, who has been his job shadow during the past week. Confirm 3. CONFIRMATION OF PLANNING BOARD CANDIDATE JANICE FREEMAN AND SISTER Planning. CITY COMMISSION CANDIDATE DR. CONSUELO KINAHAN Board and Sister City COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, Commission Members FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT OF JANICE FREEMAN TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND DR. CONSUELO HINAHAN TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PROPOSED RESOLUTION COMMENDING BILL TOSKEY. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ns# 1026 PORT OF EDMONDS Commending Bill Toskey, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, Port of Edmonds FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1026 COMMENDING PORT OF EDMONDS Executive EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BILL TOSKEY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Director Council President Earling explained Bill Toskey has been the Port of Edmonds Executive Director for eight years and during that time has worked closely with the City. Council President Earling read the resolution recognizing Mr. Toskey as an important leader in the community. Mr. Toskey encouraged the Council, the Port, and the new Executive Director Chris Keuss to continue the City and Port's working relationship. He offered to assist as a citizen volunteer. a anding 5. PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR OUTSTANDING WASTEWATER astewer atTREATMENT PLANT AWARD BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF reatment ECOLOGY Plant Award Kevin Fitzpatrick, Section Manager, Ecologies Northwest Regional Office, introduced Amy Jankowiak, Compliance Officer for Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants in the Northwest Region. Mr. Fitzpatrick presented the Wastewater Treatment Plant Award by the Washington State Department of Ecology to the City for its exemplary compliance record in 2001. He noted this was the fourth time in the past five years that the City merited this award. Mr. Fitzpatrick read from a letter that accompanied the award, expressing appreciation for the team effort that goes into compliance, from daily operation and maintenance to the engineering and administrative Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 2 support that is required to successfully comply with the terms and conditions of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. He noted it was a great accomplishment to operate a wastewater treatment plant in top running order 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. He summarized this recognition was highly deserved considering the significant contributions to and responsibilities for protecting the health and safety of the public, local streams, rivers and Puget Sound. Mr. Fitzpatrick presented the award to Mayor Haakenson who presented the award to Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager Steve Koho and Lead Operator Rod Sebers. Mayor Haakenson noted Plant Supervisor Chris Sheridan was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Mr. Koho accepted the award on behalf of the employees of the treatment plant who oversee equipment operation, analysis and maintenance. Mayor Haakenson read a letter from the Department of Ecology that stated, "We are very happy to inform you that the Washington State Department of Ecology is recognizing the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant with a 2001 `Outstanding Wastewater Treatment Plant' award. Out of approximately 300 wastewater treatment plants, yours is one of 26 that achieved 100 percent compliance with their discharge permits in 2001." Mayor Haakenson emphasized out of 300 treatment plants, which include plants in King County, none of the 26 that achieved 100 percent compliance with their discharge permits were in King County. Appeal of 6. CLOSED RECORD MEETING — APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO Hearing DENY AN APPEAL OF A STAFF CODE INTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITI6N OF A Examiner Decision HEDGE. THE "HEDGE" IS LOCATED AT 7529 — 172ND STREET SW AND IS ZONED SINGLE (Fawcett/ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -20). APPELLANTS: JOHN AND PATRICIA FAWCETT Dadvaragah) (ANTHONY DADVARAGAH, REPRESENTATIVE) / FILE NO. AP -02-95 AND AP -02-7 File Nos. rn02-95 d AP -02-7 Mayor Haakenson explained that because this was a closed record appeal, no new information could be provided; the Council must make its decision based on the record provided and only parties of record would be allowed to speak. City Attorney Zach Lell confirmed this was a quasi-judicial closed record appeal. Mayor Haakenson asked whether any Councilmembers had any conflict of interest or ex -parte communication to; disclose. There were no disclosures made by any Councilmember. Due to the possibility of his being required to break a tie vote, Mayor Haakenson disclosed he was on site with a staff member when the original complaint regarding the hedge was received. He asked whether there were any challenges to his or any Councilmember's participation. There were no challenges voiced. Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers would participate in the closed record meeting. I Mayor Haakenson described the procedures for conducting the closed record meeting, all 1Iotting 10 minutes for staff's presentation, 20 minutes for the Fawcett's representative, Mr. Hawes, and 3 minutes for each party of record to speak. Senior Planner Meg Gruwell advised she told the property owner where the vegetation is located that he would be allowed 10 minutes to speak. This was acceptable to the Council. I i Ms. Gruwell explained this matter began with a land use complaint that the vegetation in the neighbor's yard was blocking their view, constituted a hedge, and should be maintained at 6 feet. She explained when staff reviews the site of a complaint, the staff considers the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 21.40.020, the definition of a hedge, which states "a fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs or low trees." She noted there was not a definition of low trees in the ECDC. If it is determined there is a hedge, staff considers the fence chapter which states unless a variance is first Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes ,June 4, 2002 Page 3 obtained, no fence or hedge shall be more than 6 feet in height as measured from the top of the fence to the lowest original grade. She noted these were the only sections of ECDC that were applicable. Ms. Gruwell explained staff visited the site to look at the vegetation alleged to be causing a view obstruction and determined it did not qualify as a hedge. That decision was appealed to the Hearing Examiner who held a public hearing. Two parties of record spoke at the Hearing Examiner's hearing, the individual who complained about the hedge and the individual who owns the vegetation (Mr. Kurosaka). At the Hearing Examiner's hearing, Mr. Kurosaka submitted materials describing the vegetation including a plant list. She noted the plant list indicates many of the trees are what would be considered tall growing trees and some would be considered grasses such as bamboo, which is a giant grass. The Hearing Examiner reviewed the materials, testimony, code sections and past decisions. Past decisions included a Hearing Examiner review in 1989 of three rows of shore pines, which a neighbor alleged was a hedge and should be trimmed to 6 feet. The Hearing Examiner's decision at that time determined the shore pine was not a low growing tree and was not considered a hedge. Since that time, staff has looked to that decision and not considered tall growing trees as a hedge and not requiring them to be trimmed to 6 feet. Ms. Gruwell recalled a closed record meeting the Council conducted in 2001 (Walter and Elena Lee) who complained about a neighbor with a row of evergreen trees along the property line that blocked their view. In that instance, both the Hearing Examiner and the City Council upheld staff's decision that the evergreen trees were not low growing and could not be considered a hedge and were not required to be trimmed to 6 feet. Ms. Gruwell explained in the Fawcett/Dadvaragah appeal, the Hearing Examiner determined only the line of pyramidalis along the boundary was a hedge and must be maintained at 6 feet; however, the remainder of the vegetation caused the view blockage and trimming the pyramidalis did not address the complainant's issue. The Hearing Examiner upheld the staff's decision based on past precedence and the City's code. Staff recommends the Council deny the appeal and affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision. James Hawes, attorney for John and Patricia Fawcett, noted in the distant past, the only issue with fences was whether they were sturdy and tall enough to confine livestock. He noted the purpose of fences has changed with the advent of an urban society and higher density. This was a question that has been decided repeatedly in the Edmonds jurisdiction as well as the larger jurisdiction of Division 1 Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Washington. He cited court cases where the Division 1 Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Washington considered the purpose of statutes when restricting the use of private property to determine whether they were restrictive and have indicated the importance of the purpose of the statute. Mr. Hawes referred to the Lakes at Mercer Island Homeowners Association case in the Division 1 Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Washington, in which a party planted a row of 55 pyramidalis, a 6 - foot fence on the lot line and a row of 12 Douglas fir trees. He noted these cases treat a private homeowner's association covenant or City ordinance the same. Quoting from the court case, Mr. Hawes said the covenant defined landscaping indicating fences, walls or shrubs were permitted to delineate the lot lines of each lot subject to Architectural Control Committee approval and no fence shall be over 6 feet in height. The court considered the purpose of the landscaping and fencing covenant and previous cases where the court determined a fence which obstructed the view of neighbors was a building as contemplated in the setback restrictions. Mr. Hawes described the vegetation as a 100 -foot long, 20 -feet high wall of vegetation, noting all that could be controlled, according to the Hearing Examiner, were the pyramidalis. He pointed out there were Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 4 actually three rows of vegetation that were so closely grouped that they were intertwined so as to make a solid wall of vegetation. He questioned the inability to restrict height of the trees and the bamboo and whether this reflected the purpose of the statute to let in light, view, and air and not unduly burden neighbors with the use of one's property. It was their position that Mr. Kurosaka had purposely planted a thick row of vegetation to the extent that a determination could not be made where a particular type of plant began or stopped, it was one solid mass. He noted the findings in the earlier Hearing Examiner or staff decision was that this could not be considered a hedge because there were varieties of trees.; Mr. Hawes cited another court case that indicated the purpose of fences, walls and shrubs was to delineate a boundary and that it was inconceivable that the developer had any intent to allow a row of trees immediately adjacent to the property line without any control. He stressed the importance of considering the purpose of the statute. Mr. Hawes indicated a strict interpretation of stare decisis was not prior decisions of the Hearing Examiner but court case law that was applicable and had precedent. He referred to the prior decision cited by the Hearing Examiner that was issued in 1989, noting the Hearing Examiner did not have benefit of State Supreme Court decisions for guidance on how to interpret this issue. He explained a decision would be arbitrary and capricious if the Hearing Examiner continued to follow a faulty procedure in the face of new evidence and rulings. Mr. Hawes concluded this was a wall of vegetation that was not done accidentally, noting it was impossible to walk through this "wall." He commented in order to trim the pyramidalis, it was necessary to enter the Fawcett's property as they could not go through the "wall." Mr. Hawes noted a portion of the property tax dollars generated by this property were on the characterization that this was view property, making it more valuable. If his client and others lost their views, there would be no choice but to litigate for the loss of view either on a case-by-case basis or class action. Mr. Hawes questioned the findings that because plantings were not in a row, they did not qualify as a hedge. He noted regardless of whether plantings were staggered, they could be planted in a row along a boundary line as has occurred in this instance. He noted it was not necessary for the plantings to be of the same type to constitute a hedge. He referred to a series of seven laurels that were approximately 30 feet wide and over 20 feet high that staff indicated was not enough to constitute a hedge. These plants were contiguous without break and intertwined with 70 feet of pyramidalis, evergreens, and bamboo. He noted that for many, the term "laurel" was synonymous with the term "hedge." Mr. Hawes concluded the vegetation was a border, a barrier that delineated the property line and was a fence. He encouraged the Council to visit the site. He requested the Council make a determination consistent with Washington State Supreme Court and Appellate Court decisions that a vegetative mass such as this qualifies as a fence and should be reduced by City code to not higher than 6 feet. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Mr. Hawes was suggesting that based on the precedence established by the Mercer Island case that Edmonds must protect the views of residents. Mr. Hawes answered one of the purposes of the fence height was air, light and view and therefore it was proper to define the code restrictions that promote those purposes. Therefore, to the extent someone has a property right such as a view, the code was designed to protect it. Mr. Hawes referred to a code enforcement case in the Town of Clyde Hill. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the case placed a burden on the City to protect the westerly views from properties located 3-4 streets to the east. Mr. Hawes noted there must be a complaint. I Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 5 Councilmember Plunkett assumed if there were a complaint, based on this precedence, would the City be required to restrict the height of trees to protect views? Mr. Hawes commented on the difference of specimen trees that are left during development versus a series of trees planted on a boundary line that became a fence and an obstruction. He noted the code was directed toward a fence line or boundary delineator and would be enforceable. He acknowledged if a tree were not on a boundary line, it would be a different situation. Councilmember Wilson questioned whether Mr. Hawes would reach the same conclusion if a property owner planted a dense row of trees on half of the rear property line and a dense row of trees on half of the front property line. Mr. Hawes noted there was a point where common sense prevailed. When one was forced to look up 25 feet at the edge of a property and could not walk through because it was a solid mass, it represented an effective barrier that constituted a wall or fence. He noted if the plantings were staggered so that the boundary was opened up, that would constitute something different. Councilmember Wilson noted the subjective nature of Mr. Hawes argument, pointing out there was no definition regarding "staggering." Mr. Hawes referred to the Town of Clyde Hill action where the property owner claimed not to know 12 trees in a row would constitute a wall or fence versus plantings (page 52 of the record). It was determined Mr. Hawes was reading from the full court record versus the summary provided in the record. Mr. Lell advised the arguments the Council could consider in a closed record appeal were those made at lower proceedings and it was not permissible to present new facts. Councilmember Wilson noted the cases cited by Mr. Hawes were covenant cases, which did not supercede local land use regulations. Regarding the Clyde Hill case, their regulation prohibited naturally grown fences exceeding 8 feet in height, it did not define whether it was shrubs or trees, only naturally growing vegetation. He summarized this was very different than the definition in the Edmonds Code, a dense row of shrubs or low trees. Councilmember Wilson preferred Mr. Hawes' citations refer to something more related to Edmonds' regulations. Councilmember Wilson noted the definition of a fence in the Edmonds code was a dense row. Mr. Hawes commented a row as a straight line was not necessarily the only interpretation; staggered, offset plantings roughly parallel to the boundary line, particularly as dense as these plantings were, could also constitute a row. Councilmember Wilson asked Mr. Hawes to refer to the section of the ECDC that referred to protection of views. Mr. Hawes assumed there was an intent and purpose in the code to promote the public good and that forms the basis and rationale for the code. He was uncertain whether the ECDC specifically cited view and light or whether that could be reasonably inferred. He noted there would be no other purpose for a fence height but to ensure one neighbor did not impose on another. Councilmember Orvis noted the record referred to the book by Sunset used to determine whether a plant was a shrub or tree and asked whether the City's ordinance required use of that book. Mr. Lell answered to his knowledge it was not. Ms. Gruwell said the ordinance did not require use of the Sunset book, it was a reference used to define shrubs. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the definitions in the Clyde Hill and Mercer Island cases were entirely different than the definition of a hedge in the ECDC. Mr. Hawes agreed. Councilmember Dawson noted neither of those cases defined a hedge as a fence or a row of low trees or bushes; specifically the word "low" was not mentioned. Mr. Hawes agreed that was unique to the City of Edmonds. Councilmember Dawson stated the Clyde Hill case had no bearing on the issue before the Council as it was a criminal case making it a crime to have a naturally growing fence above 8 feet tall. She said a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 6 naturally growing fence and hedge were very different. Mr. Hawes said a violation of the City's code was also a misdemeanor and therefore the cases were parallel. Councilmember Dawson pointed out in the Clyde Hill case it was unquestionable that there was a naturally growing fence as defined by their ordinance versus Edmonds ordinance, which addresses low growing trees. Mr. Hawes agreed there were differences but he was uncertain whether they were significant differences. He noted without a definition in the ECDC, the strict, literal definition must be used. Councilmember Dawson referred to the Mercer Island case, noting this was extraordinarily different than the Edmonds issue as it addressed a covenant rather than an ordinance. She stressed the difference between how a covenant is interpreted versus how an ordinance is interpreted. When interpreting a covenant, one does not give the literal definition, but seeks to accomplish the purpose of the covenant. However, when considering an ordinance, the plain meaning of words must be used. She noted this was a major difference and therefore the Mercer Island case was not an appropriate comparison. Councilmember Dawson asked whether a 20 -foot tall tree was a low tree. Mr. Hawes referred to the height of laurel hedges along Olympic View Drive. Mr. Lell pointed out that information was not in the record. Mr. Hawes noted many laurel hedges were in excess of 6 feet and questioned whether that made them less a shrub and more a tree. Councilmember Dawson advised the ordinance did not address low trees. If it cannot be determined whether a 20 -foot tall tree was a low tree, restrictions could not be enforced as it would be :arbitrary. When in doubt, the City must side with the person with the vegetation on their property. Mr. Hawes argued not making an interpretation made any part of a statue superfluous or meaningless. Councilmember Dawson stated the word "low" would be superfluous if any tree were governed by the statute. Mayor Haakenson asked whether any effort was made by the Fawcetts to work with the Kurosakas to identify a solution to this problem. Mr. Hawes answered over the course of a couple of years, hey have not been able to reach agreement. He indicated he was representing only the Fawcetts in this matter. Anthony Dadvaragah, a representative for John and Patricia Fawcett, advised he has lived on the property for over 16 years (off and on) and was familiar with the planting that has taken place. There were three rows of vegetation, a thick green structure consisting of pyramidalis, bamboo and evergreen that are intertwined and cannot be separated. He reiterated when the pyramidalis was trimmed, they came onto their property without permission as they could not access the pyramidalis from their side due to their intertwined nature. He questioned Councilmember Dawson's defense of the City's ordinance, and expressed frustration with the ambiguity in the ordinance. This was three rows of vegetation that constituted a fence/hedge/wall. The row was 70 feet high, 20-25 feet high, and 20 feet deep consisting of intertwined pyramidalis, bamboo and evergreen as well as seven laurel plants that were 20-25 feet tall, 10-15 feet wide, and 30 feet long. The Hearing Examiner indicated the number of laurel was not significant enough to constitute a row. He reiterated the problem was with vegetation on property lines; in both the Mercer Island and the Clyde Hill cases, the issue was vegetation along property lines. He concluded the loss of property value from the loss of view may make the cost of litigation worthwhile. Matthew Cruz, attorney for the Kurosakas (owners of the subject property located at 7529 172nd Street SW), requested the Council uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision affirming the staff decision that the vegetation found on the Kurosakas property did not constitute a hedge or fence under ECDC. He explained the ECDC imposed a height restriction of 6 feet on fences or hedges (reference ECDC 17.30.000C) that states no fence or hedge shall be more than 6 feet in height. He referred to the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 7 definition of a hedge as a fence in ECDC 21.40.020 as a fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs or low trees. He stated the vegetation along the Kurosaka property did not constitute a fence or hedge because (1) it was not exclusively on the boundary but exceeded 20 feet in depth and the pyramidalis, found to be along the property line, was required by the Hearing Examiner's decision to be trimmed to 6 feet, and (2) the vegetation was not planted in a row; there was no linear pattern to the planting. He acknowledged it was planted densely and, as it has matured, the plants had encroached on one another. Mr. Cruz said the vegetation, Douglas fir, Hemlock pine, giant grass (bamboo) did not constitute shrubs or low growing trees. He referred to the plant inventory list submitted with Mr. Kurosaka's materials to the Hearing Examiner, explaining the nature of the vegetation, the way it was planted, and the location of the vegetation did not fit the plain meaning of a hedge or fence, therefore, there should be no requirement that it be trimmed to 6 feet. He noted staff visited the site and came to that conclusion as did the Hearing Examiner. He recommended the Council reach the same conclusion based on the materials in the record. Regarding whether the City should be in the business of regulating views, Mr. Cruz commented views were subjective — what one considers a view was not a view to another. Trees and vegetation may constitute a view to one, and cutting down the vegetation to see beyond may constitute a view to another. He noted that although it could be argued that current code should be clarified, he suggested the balance struck in the code not be changed and parties should be left to regulate views themselves. He noted parties had the ability to enter into agreements to limit, protect views. It would be highly burdensome to determine what everyone considered a view and it would be difficult to enforce given the subjective nature of views. He concluded the balance struck in the current ordinance was appropriate; the current ordinance left view protection to parties rather than staff or the Council. Regarding following the precedent that was established with the 1989 case, Mr. Cruz noted that case involved shore pines with a mature height of 30 feet. With regard to the 2001 Lee case, a row of cedar trees were determined not to be a row of low trees and therefore did not fit the definition of low trees in ECDC. He recommended the Council follow the Hearing Examiner's affirmation of staff's decision and determine the vegetation on the Kurosaka property did not fit within the current definition or interpretation of ECDC regarding shrubs or low trees and, as a result, the vegetation should not be required to be trimmed to 6 feet. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Cruz explained the Council's choices were 1) if the Council found difficulty with the current code, it could modify/clarify/amend/redraft the current code, or 2) follow the precedent dating back to 1989 and more recent decisions. If the Council deviated from the precedent, the previous interpretation of the code, it would be an arbitrary and capricious decision and may invite the litigation referred to by Mr. Hawes. Mr. Cruz questioned Mr. Dadvaragah's capacity to represent the Fawcett's as he was not appearing as a land use architect in this matter and was merely a tenant on the Fawcett property. He requested the Council consider striking his comments. Mayor Haakenson noted Mr. Dadvaragah was a party of record in these proceedings and had the ability to speak. Mr. Cruz disagreed noting Mr. Dadvaragah appeared as the representative of the Fawcetts. Mr. Cruz requested the Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision, and uphold the staff decision by finding the vegetation on the Kurosaka property did not fit the definition of a hedge under the current ECDC and deny the Fawcett appeal. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 8 Councilmember Petso referred to page 7 of the packet (verbatim transcript of Planning Board April 18, 2002 minutes) regarding whether staff had asked the Planning Board and Council Committee to make a change in the code and Ms. Gruwell's comment that there had been no direction from Council to do so right now. Councilmember Petso referred to page 42 of the packet (Council minutes of November 20, 2001), noting four Councilmembers expressed concern with the legislative deficiencies of this !section of the Code. Councilmember Petso asked what direction from Council would be necessary for staff to consider this section of the Code. Ms. Gruwell indicated a motion from the Council would provide direction to staff. Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Hawes' comment that in the City's findings, different types of shrubs could not constitute a hedge. She asked whether that was part of the findings. Ms. Gruwell noted there were laurel shrubs and photinia as well as pyramidalis on the border. When she visited the site, it appeared to be a clump of photinia and a separate clump of laurel and did not appear to be a line but a clump. She agreed it was tall and perhaps overgrown but it did not appear to be a line ora row. She advised a hedge could be different plant materials if they were planted in a continuous row. Councilmember Petso asked if she voted to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision, would she be endorsing the concept that a hedge must be all one plant material. Ms. Gruwell answered the definition did not refer to plant materials, only a dense row of shrubs or low trees. Councilmember Petso clarified that if in the future the Council reviewed a hedge comprised of varied materials, it could be considered a hedge. Ms. Gruwell agreed. Councilmember Petso referred to the discussion that a hedge must be a single file, straight, planted row and asked if that was defined in the code or if a common sense definition was used. She asked when a thick row became not a hedge under the City's code and whether there was a history of cases addressing that issue. Ms. Gruwell answered the 1989 case was three rows of shore pines. She recommended referring to the dictionary definition of a row, noting a row was a straight, single line. Councilmember Petso clarified no determination had been made regarding what constituted a row, whether it was single file or a thick row. Ms. Gruwell agreed. Councilmember Petso asked whether any section in the City's statute that was applicable to this decision included a purpose provision to protect air, light and views. Ms. Gruwell answered the fence and hedge sections did not list a purpose, only the residential zone or general purposes sections would have a purpose provision. Councilmember Plunkett commented the row reference would be irrelevant for non -low (tall) trees as they were trees and not a fence under the City's code. Ms. Gruwell agreed. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the fact that the trees may be intertwining was also irrelevant. Ms. Gruwell agreed.) Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the City had a responsibility between two private property owners to protect property values. Mr. Lell answered no, that was a private matter between property owners. The City had a responsibility to enforce its code. Councilmember Wilson asked if the City's current ordinance were found to be vague, unenforceable or unconstitutional, would the City be prohibited from enforcing it. Mr. Lell answered it would depend on the extent of the court's order; the court could strike it down as it applied which would prohibit the City from enforcing it against a specific party. If the court invalidated the ordinance, the Citywould be prohibited from enforcing it against any party. j Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 9 Councilmember Wilson agreed the ordinance needed to be addressed but that it was not appropriate during a quasi-judicial proceeding to draft a revision. He referred to the 1989 decision where shore pines with a mature height of 20-30 feet were determined not to be a low tree, yet the record defines a pyramidalis with a mature height of 60 feet as a low tree. He noted this was one of the problems with the current ordinance and the reason it should be reviewed. Councilmember Dawson asked if the reason pyramidalis fell under the definition was because it was a shrub and shrubs must be trimmed to 6 feet in height. Ms. Gruwell explained there were many varieties of pyramidalis with varying mature heights. Councilmember Dawson noted shrubs were covered by the ordinance but tall trees were not. Ms. Gruwell answered she too was surprised to learn a laurel was considered a tree. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation and action. Councilmember Plunkett agreed it was not appropriate to rewrite code during a quasi-judicial hearing. He recalled at least two Councilmembers have expressed concern with this interpretation in the past. He invited Councilmembers to consider this section of the code at the Community Services/Development Services Committee. He summarized the Hearing Examiner interpreted the code correctly based on the precedent established. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, THAT THE COUNCIL DENY THE APPEAL AND AFFIRM THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF APRIL 29, 2002, A DECISION DENYING THE ORIGINAL APPEAL. Councilmember Dawson explained she was not defending the ordinance, commenting it was ridiculous that a bush or shrub of any height was governed by the code but a tree was only governed if it was low growing. It was her understanding the Council has considered regulating trees in the past but has never done so. She suggested the Council again consider whether to regulate trees. She noted there were situations where a clump of tall growing trees could create a barrier that was as blocking as a row of densely planted shrubs. The plain language of the current ordinance did not address tall growing trees which the trees were in this situation. She stated the Hearing Examiner's decision was correct and whether the ordinance needed revision was a separate issue that was not before the Council today. Council President Earling indicated he would support the motion, acknowledging this portion of the code may need further consideration. He expressed concern that in situations like this, neighbors could not work things out themselves. He urged the parties to reach a compromise. Councilmember Wilson noted he would also support the motion as there was nothing in the record to support overturning the Hearing Examiner's decision. However, he agreed there may be a problem with the code that needs to be addressed. He advised the Community Services/Development Services Committee would be considering the agenda for the remainder of the year and would consider this as a topic for further discussion. Councilmember Petso explained she would support the motion with great reluctance because the Council was in a position of enforcing a somewhat illogical ordinance. She expressed frustration with an ordinance that regulated shrubs to a height of 6 feet but a tall tree could not be regulated regardless of the impact on others. Councilmember Orvis advised he would not support the motion but did not want his vote to be construed as opposition to clarifying the ordinance. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 10 MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS VOTING NO. Mayor Haakenson pointed out this was a policy issue and staff would welcome the Community Services/Development Services Committee considering this ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT AN AMENDMENT TO THE FENCES AND HEDGES ORDINANCE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THIS AND OTHER ISSUES THAT THEY IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL DISCRETION KNOW EXIST IN CONNECTION WITH THIS ORDINANCE AND THAT STAFF BRING A REVISED ORDINANCE OF SOME KIND TO THE PLANNING BOARD WITHIN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS. Councilmember Dawson indicated she would not support the motion as this action would be premature and she preferred the Council have an opportunity for further discussion rather than staff drafting an ordinance. Council President Earling agreed with Councilmember Dawson, recalling 1989 and prior when the community tried to address this issue. He noted the idea of blocking views had always been a troublesome task for the Council and City to undertake. He preferred a dialogue between Council and staff to identify issues rather than directing staff to draft a code amendment. Councilmember Petso recalled there had been agreement in November that something should be done, yet nothing has been done and continuing to do nothing was not acceptable to her. She clarified she was not suggesting how the ordinance would be revised other than making the ordinance not as ambiguous as the Council has found it to be the last two times the Council has considered it. Mayor Haakenson pointed out this was a policy issue and it would be beneficial to have it reviewed by the Community Services/Development Services Committee to provide staff direction. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Plunkett asked the Community Services/Development Services Committee to address this issue. Councilmember Wilson advised he would be happy to place the issue on the Community Services/Development Services Committee agenda and diligently move forward toward a solution and provide direction to staff to proceed to the Planning Board. Mayor Haakenson suggested Councilmembers provide their thoughts to the Community Services/Development Services Committee Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Council President Earling commented this was a volatile issue as some want the trees to grow as high as possible and others would clear cut the city. To ensure the Community Services/Development Services Committee had an opportunity to review prior efforts, Council President Earling asked Development Services Director Duane Bowman to share the record with the Committee. He urged Councilmembers to review the materials Mr. Bowman would provide. Citizens 7. REPORT ON THE CITIZENS COMMISSION ON SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS Commission n Salaries of Elected Kevin Clarke, Chair of the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials, explained the Officials Citizens Commission was given the charge in 1999 to create seven positions to study the salaries of elected officials. He described the makeup of the Commission (one member appointed by the Mayor, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 11 two members appointed by the Council, and four members appointed by other Commissioners) whose terms vary from 2-4 years. He introduced the members of the Commission and described their backgrounds — James Braun (Council appointment), Ellen Ernst (Commission appointment), John Quast (Mayor's appointment to replace Don Bakken), James Underhill (Commission appointment), Ralph Larson (Council appointment), and William Brougher (Commission appointment). Mr. Clarke provided a presentation that included a history of salary increases for the Mayor from 1988 ($46,000 annually) through 2000 ($84,000 annually). The City Council salaries include a base salary of $350 per month plus $50 per meeting attended up to a certain number, and the Council President receives an additional compensation for the additional responsibilities. The presentation included a comparison of Mayor's salaries in the region. Mr. Clarke pointed out Councilmembers had not received a pay increase since 1990. Mr. Clarke noted the Citizens Commission also considered the political process. By law only the Council can vote on their salaries and the Mayor's salary. In 1999, the previous Council established the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials as an independent body to study salaries of elected officials in an attempt to remove the political process from compensation. He urged Councilmembers to separate themselves from the seat they occupied, and look at the office based on the job responsibilities. Mr. Clarke explained the Commission reviewed the Mayor's extensive job responsibilities, comparing them with the responsibility of a City Manager and found the Mayor had the same responsibilities as a City Manager and a part-time Mayor combined. He noted the Councilmembers had extensive responsibilities on the committees on which they serve and spend hours reviewing Council packets prior to Council meetings. Mr. Clark displayed and reviewed a comparison of the Mayor's salary to other supervisory positions in the City. The Mayor's salary was fourteenth from the highest salary in the City, three administrative directors earned more than the Mayor. He said the public expressed concern with this during public testimony, both from a practical management standpoint but also a human relations standpoint. He reviewed a comparison of the salaries of City Managers, Mayors or CEOs in 11 cities of similar population and General Fund. He noted the average of the 11 cities reflected a salary of $97,000. Mr. Clark described how the 11 cities were selected, cities located in the Puget Sound area with populations 50% above and below the population of Edmonds and General Fund 50% above and below the General Fund of Edmonds. The Commission recommended this model (an average of statistical data) be utilized to achieve a consistent pattern of compensation for the Mayor and eliminate the political process. Mr. Clark reviewed the recommendations of the Commission: (1) Mayor's salary be increased to $97,000 per year and the current benefit package remain; the Council's base pay be increased to $600 per month, health benefits remain the same, and Councilmembers continue to receive compensation for meetings and the Council President receive the additional compensation; (2) Mayor's salary to be reviewed annually, adjusting the salary at the start of each budget year and the review process based on the average of City Manager and Mayor's salaries indicated in the statistical database; and (3) Based on public comment regarding campaign finance and the barrier for individuals to run for these positions, establish an ad hoc committee, possibly of members from the Citizens Commission. The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 12 committee would study the issue of what it costs to run for elected office and make recommendations to the Council by yearend so that this issue could be addressed prior to the next budget cycle. Mr. Clarke reviewed comments provided at the public hearings that supported an annual review to avoid the Mayor's salary being a political hot button, not foregoing the opportunity to get a good mayor in the future by underpaying the position and not attracting the best candidates, showing the Council and Mayor that the citizens value them, offering a competitive salary would attract strong candidates, and supporting a mechanism for salary increases. Mr. Clarke noted over 99% of the respondents indicated the Mayor and Council needed a raise and that they were doing a good job. Mr. Clarke noted a conversation with a Councilmember revealed they were concerned about voting on their own salary and did not want the public to get the wrong opinion. Mr. Clarke pointed out many of the City's mayors have been Councilmembers. He commented it was unfair for a potential candidate to reserve raising the mayor's salary due to the fear it would be used as a political whipping point when he/she ran for mayor. He noted the Commission was unable to enact its recommendations but hoped the Council would feel strongly about the Commission's recommendations. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the Citizen Commission's recommendation to establish an ad hoc committee appointed by the City Council to identify obstacles that may hinder a citizen from running for office and that the ad hoc committee be directed to prepare recommendations on measures which can provide assistance for campaigns. Mr. Clarke commented the question was raised why a citizen would run for office when it cost more to run for the office than they were paid for the office. He remarked the Council needed to be compensated fairly for what they gave to the City and possibly the Commission could develop ideas regarding campaign costs. Councilmember Plunkett asked what "providing assistance" meant. Mr. Clarke clarified the intent was not necessarily monetary, only that the Commission be allowed to study the issue and determine whether there were ways to make it less costly to run for public office. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Commission's intent was to study how much a person could spend, how they could spend it, ultimately regulating free speech. Mr. Clarke answered the Commission wanted to look at all issues and opportunities. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the Commission's recommendation that stated provide assistance such as campaign financing. Mr. Clarke answered that may be one of the issues, but that would be determined via additional study by the Commission. Council President Earling said an additional issue for the Commission to consider was why more citizens were not willing to serve on the Council. Mr. Clarke agreed the intent was for the study to be as broad as possible. Council President Earling recommended the Commission review potential barriers that citizens may encounter when running for public office. Council President Earling summarized the issues were, 1) forming an ad hoc committee using members of the Commission, 2) drafting an ordinance establishing a process for reviewing the Mayor's salary, and 3) identifying a future date for the Council to consider this as a discussion item. He offered to schedule this item on the extended agenda for discussion in July or August. Mr. Clarke explained the Commission recommended the Mayor's salary be increased in June and that the Mayor's salary be reviewed annually. i Councilmember Petso pointed out neither the data presented nor the public comment evaluated the fact that some of the directors who were paid more than the Mayor were 20-30 year experienced employees, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 13 whereas the Mayor's term was limited to eight years. She questioned whether this longevity/experience was considered in the Commission's deliberations. Mr. Clarke advised the Commissioners recognized the difference between a City Manager and elected Mayor and the maximum two-year term in the City, and the fact that the Mayor would not benefit from a salary schedule. He explained the Commission first studied salary schedules for Directors, Mayors, City Councils, and City Managers throughout the state, followed by a subset identifying Directors that made more than the City Manager or Mayor. He noted in most cities the salary for the Mayor and City Manager were above all Directors' salaries other than the Fire Chief or Police Chief. Mayor Haakenson clarified there were no term limits in Edmonds for the Mayor. Councilmember Petso pointed out the cities used in the Mayor's Salary Increase History comparison differed from the cities used to compare salaries of Mayors, City Managers and Council. Mr. Clarke explained the Mayor's salary increase history was only to illustrate patterns of salary increases. The cities chosen to compare the salaries of Mayors, City Manager and Council were selected based on location in Puget Sound, population and General Fund. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Earling commented the Council could give the Mayor a raise and have it begin immediately or whenever the Council chose. However, if the Council approved a raise for Councilmembers, the increase would not take effect until after the next election cycle had taken place. Mr. Clark agreed, emphasizing the Council would not be voting on their own salary. He recalled a previous Commission recommended changing the timing of this report so that it did not occur during an election year. Council President Earling suggested 1) asking the City Attorney to develop a draft ordinance for Council consideration at the first meeting in July and 2) ask the Citizens Commission to form an ad hoc committee to address the questions regarding seeking candidates for election. Councilmember Dawson recommended accepting public comment prior to making a decision. She was concerned that the Commission compared City Manager and Mayors, not just Mayors. Mr. Clarke pointed out City Manager did not have the responsibilities that the Mayor had of being both the Mayor and City Manager. He noted the hours and responsibilities were very different for Mayors and City Managers. Councilmember Dawson expressed concern if the Mayor's salary was raised to $97,000, there would be only one city on the list that had a higher Mayor's salary. Mr. Clarke pointed out the political process of the Mayor's salary was being addressed by several cities. Councilmember Dawson pointed out it may be that all Mayor's salaries are lagging behind, but the current Mayor's salary was close to the median of other Mayor's salaries in the area. Mr. Clarke answered the Commission did not conduct that analysis. Councilmember Dawson stressed Councilmembers did not serve because of the money. Mr. Clarke commented the common person should be able to serve on the Council. Councilmember Dawson commented the Mayor's current salary was not punitive, and although it may not be as much as the average City Manager made, it was well above the median household income in the City. Mr. Clarke commented that was not used as a measurement. Councilmember Dawson noted if a City Manager was not paid enough, he/she may go elsewhere, but a Mayor could not easily leave to be a mayor elsewhere. She supported establishing a basis for increasing the Mayor's salary. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 14 Councilmember Plunkett thanked the Commission for doing a great job. He was supportive of the first two recommendations (increase Mayor and Council salaries and establish a procedure for reviewing the Mayor's salary on an annual basis) but with regard to the third recommendation (identify barriers to running for office), he suggested identifying obstacles that may hinder citizens from running for public office. Mr. Clarke requested the Council provide input at the public hearings. Councilmember Wilson agreed it was a difficult task to determine how to compensate a Mayor. He said the method developed was sound and would be beneficial to the City. He thanked the Commission for their work and suggested the public hearing not be held the week of 40' of July. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A DRAFT ORDINANCE RESPONDING TO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE (SEPARATE MOTION), AND ASK THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 3" TUESDAY IN JULY WHEN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, THAT THE CITIZENS COMMISSION ON SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS BE ASKED TO CONTINUE IN THE ROLE OF IDENTIFYING AND REVIEWING POTENTIAL BARRIERS CITIZENS MAY ENCOUNTER WHEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS rightwater Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, advised the newspaper indicated the Brightwater EIS was out and comments were due by the end of the month. He urged the public to submit comments and attend public meetings scheduled in .Lake Forest Park, the Floral Center, and in Bothell. Mayor Haakenson advised the meeting at the Floral Arts Center was scheduled for June 10 from 5:00 — 8:00 p.m. Mr. Hertrich pointed out the City had an assistant to the mayor, a position the City did not use to have. Mayor Haakenson clarified the City did not have an assistant to the mayor; Stephen Clifton was the Community Services Director who replaced the former director Paul Mar. Mr. Hertrich then commented it was not appropriate for the Commission to get involved with candidate elections. He questioned the motives of the Commission to study this issue further. He summarized the hindrance to running for office was money. With regard to fences and heights, the Council needed to ask staff what was the purpose and philosophy of a fence height restriction. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson explained earlier this year, the Parks and Recreation Department made a commitment Parks and to work with the Edmonds School District on an enrichment and recreational experience for elementary Recreation school children b providing activities on earl release days. He noted Activities Coordinator Renee Department Y p g Y Y Ward McRae was accepting an award tonight at the Edmonds School District Board meeting. He explained the program fulfilled a need for families and helped build developmental assets for youth. He hoped the School District would continue the program next year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 15 Mayor Haakenson invited the public to visit the Edmonds Bakery for anti-Brightwater cookies. Mayor Haakenson expressed dismay with the innuendo that the Mayor had an assistant, clarifying Mayor Fahey and Mayor Hall had a Community Services Director, Paul Mar. When Mr. Mar left the City, Stephen Clifton was hired to replace him in the same job description. He emphasized there was not an assistant to the mayor, had not been one and there would not be one while he was in office. He urged the public to put that issue to rest. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Citizens Councilmember Petso thanked the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials, pointing out Commission their intent was not to overreach, impair free speech, or looking for more things to do, but address n Salaries f Elected concerns we eg with the that had been during the Commission's review. She was process een ra Officials appreciative of their efforts. Tanned Councilmember Petso requested an item be referred to the Community Services Committee, a proposed Residential amendment to the PRD ordinance based on the unique situation of large lot residential neighborhoods Develop- ment RS 12 and RS20 zones). Her amendment would be to add requirements to the PRD clustered housing ent � � q g Ordinance developments in large lot residential neighborhoods for visual separation from surrounding large lot residential uses and an attempt to ensure the traffic was directed in a large PRD toward a collector or arterial street. Councilmember Plunkett did not want it misunderstood that the Citizens Commission intent was to impinge on free speech. His concern was that as a result of regulating finances in campaigns, there may be unintended consequences. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2002 Page 16 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 51'' Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. JUNE 412002 6:50 p.m. - Interview with Planning Board Candidate Janice Freeman 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flag Salute 3. (D) Approval of Agenda Consent Agenda Items Roll Call Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 28, 2002 Approval of claim checks #55830 through #55915 for the week of May 27, 2002, in the amount of $96,144.17 Bond Capital Projects Update (E) Report on bids opened on May 28, 2002 for the installation of a Heat Exchanger at the Treatment Plant and award to Industrial Resources, Inc. for the amount of $44,235.18, including sales tax (F) Approval of Change Order No. 1 for the Public Works Vactor Station Canopy Project to Interwest Construction ($13,093.31, including sales tax) (G) Authorization to call for bids for the 74th Place West Slope Stabilization Project (5 Min.) Confirmation of Planning Board Candidate Janice Freeman 4. (5 Min.) Proposed Resolution Commending Bill Toskey, Executive Director of the Port of Edmonds 5. (10 Min.) Presentation to the City of Edmonds for Outstanding Wastewater Treatment Plant award by the Washington State Department of Ecology Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. 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 AT&T Cable, Channel 21. CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JUNE 4, 2002 y Page 2 of 2-, 6. (60 min.) Closed Record Meeting - Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny an appeal of a staff Code interpretation of the definition of hedge. The "hedge" is located at 7529 - 172nd Street SW and is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS - 20). Appellants: John and Patricia Fawcett (Anthony Dadvaragah, Representative) / File No. AP -02-95 and AP -02-7* *This meeting is a closed record review of the Hearing Examiner's decision. Only parties of record may speak on this matter. 7. (15 min.) Report from the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials 8. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 9. (5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. 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 AT&T Cable, Channel 21.