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