Loading...
08/16/2010 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES August 16, 2010 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council Chambers, 250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Cooper, Mayor Steve Bernheim, Council President D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Carl Nelson, CIO Michael Clugston, Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 2010. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #120458 THROUGH #120565 DATED AUGUST 3, 2010, AND #120566 THROUGH #120747 DATED AUGUST 12, 2010 FOR $308,787.55. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #49608 THROUGH #49686 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 16 THROUGH JULY 31, 2010 FOR $651,659.19. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 2010. E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY PURCHASE CONTRACT WITH THE ALDERWOOD WATER AND WASTEWATER DISTRICT. F. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR FOOTBALL GAME SECURITY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 1 G. ORDINANCE NO. 3805 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 20.60.025 RELATING TO TOTAL MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, SUBSECTION A, BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL ZONE TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL WINDOW SIGNAGE AND ADDRESS MULTI - TENANT SITES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. H. RESOLUTION NO. 1232 THANKING GRAHAM MARMION FOR HIS SERVICE AS A STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE. ITEM D: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY ( SNOCOM). Councilmember Petso expressed concern with approving this item when it had not been reviewed by a Council Committee, she had no background information and she was uncertain who the Council's SNOCOM representative was or what staff member to contact with concerns. If this action needed to be taken tonight, she would abstain from the vote. She preferred the decision be delayed 1 -2 weeks. Mayor Cooper advised Councilmember Wilson is the Council's representative on SNOCOM and Police Chief Al Compaan is the City's other representative. Councilmember Wilson explained Fire District 1 (FDl) was previously a Board Member on SNOCOM, the 911 call center for Southwest Snohomish County. The SNOCOM Board essentially agreed and he and Chief Compaan support their returning to the Board as a voting member. As there were plans for other amendments to the Interlocal Agreement, he questioned whether this amendment needed to be approved now or could be approved along with other amendments. In response to Councilmember Petso, Councilmember Wilson advised the decision could be delayed a week and offered to discuss any concerns with her. He advised January 1, 2011 was the deadline for making this decision. Council President Bernheim inquired about the pros and cons of FD1 returning as a member of the SNOCOM Board when the Board was a consortium of cities. Councilmember Wilson explained the Council may not have previously been apprised of the value that SNOCOM provides. He suggested Debbie Grady, Executive Director, SNOCOM, respond to Council President Bernheim's questions. Ms. Grady explained SNOCOM is the Southwest Snohomish County Communications Agency, the 911 center that serves public safety agencies in Southwest Snohomish County which includes FD1 as a contract member. She explained FD1 was previously a voting Board member of SNOCOM; they had two seats on the Board at that time. In 2003/2004 issues arose related to personalities and equipment and they gave SNOCOM notice and left to join the other communications center, SNOPAC. They were at SNOPAC for a short time and returned to SNOCOM as a contract agency without a vote on the Board. They have been a contract user since 2004; the contract has been extended a couple times. FD1 has asked several times to return as a voting Board member. The contract expires December 2010. FDl currently contributes 15% of the SNOCOM assessment/operating budget, the equivalent of $500,000. She is in the process of preparing the 2011 budget with the assumption that FD1 will continue to contribute to the assessment. If FD1 does not contribute, their portion of the assessment will be distributed to other user agencies including the City of Edmonds. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 2 Ms. Grady explained the benefit of having FD1 as a voting Board member is they would share risk and liability with SNOCOM and other user agencies which they do not currently do as a contract agency. FD has agreed to participate in cost sharing of police service related items in the operating budget which they did not do as a contract agency. They would return as a voting member with only one vote at this time; the contract would have a two -year withdrawal period. At the last SNOCOM Board meeting, the Board voted 9 -1 to recommend the Interlocal Agreement be presented to Councils for approval. The current Interlocal Agreement requires all user member agencies to unanimously pass any amendment to the Interlocal Agreement. There are plans to make additional modifications to the Interlocal Agreement, but that is a separate issue that will be presented first quarter 2011. Councilmember Buckshnis observed all the member agencies must approve FD1 returning as a voting Board member. Ms. Grady agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether any other cities had approved the amendment to the Interlocal Agreement to allow FDl to return as a voting Board member. Ms. Grady answered Woodway and Lynnwood have approved the amendment. The issue is on an upcoming Council agenda in Mukilteo and Mountlake Terrace and she was not aware of any concerns with approving the amendment. Councilmember Petso reiterated her preference for further discussion with Councilmember Wilson. She referred to merger discussions between Fire District 1 and Fire District 7 and asked whether that would be a problem or beneficial to SNOCOM. Ms. Grady answered it would beneficial to member agencies because the assessment formula would be recalculated to include additional population, assessed value and calls for service. As a result the Fire District's assessment would increase to approximately 21% or another $120,000, thereby slightly decreasing other member agencies' assessment. Councilmember Petso referred to the 9 -1 vote by the SNOCOM Board and asked about the concerns of the dissenting member. Councilmember Wilson recalled the dissenting vote was cast by one of Lynnwood's two members; their concern was not being affiliated with FD and having been sued by FDl regarding annexation and boundary issues. The concern was whether FD1 could fully represent the Lynnwood community. Apparently the concerns of that member have been addressed as the Interlocal Agreement was approved by Lynnwood. Mayor Cooper clarified FD1 was already paying for service. This amendment simply allows them to have a vote on the SNOCOM Board. Ms. Grady agreed, explaining FDl was currently a contract agency. It was the consensus of the Council to postpone Council action on this item until the next Council meeting. 3. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE TO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE GRAHAM MARMION. Council President Bernheim read a resolution thanking Graham Marmion for his service as Student Representative September 2009 — April 2010 and presented him a plaque in recognition of his service. Student Representative Marmion thanked the Council for the experience. He plans to attend Western Washington University, obtain a Political Science Degree, and run for Edmonds City Council. 4. SUSTAINABLE WORKS PRESENTATION Kelly Stickney, Outreach and Marketing Manager, Sustainable Works, explained Sustainable Works was formed by a group, Sound Alliance, who wanted to develop a program with three goals: 1) lower energy bills for Washington residents, 2) reduce overall carbon emissions, and 3) create quality jobs. This Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 3 group sought funding and was one of seven groups in Washington State to receive funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Out of $10 million, their organization received $4 million to help residents of Washington do energy efficiency improvements to their homes. Sustainable Works is a non - profit; they recently received an additional $135,000 from Snohomish County to help subsidize audits in Snohomish County. They target moderate income households but the program is open to all income levels. Residents earning under 60% of state median income are referred to the Snohomish County weatherization program where they can receive a multitude of free services. They work primarily with homeowners and renters with landlord approvals. In the year since their program received the stimulus funds, they have done 91 audits in the South Perry neighborhood of Spokane and 44 full energy retrofits in approximately a six by six block area. They have signed up 130 residents for energy audits in northwest Spokane. In the Wedgewood - Ravenna neighborhood of Seattle, they also targeted a six by six block neighborhood and were able to do energy audits on 129 homes and 50 full energy retrofits. They recently signed up 231 residents to receive an energy audit in Federal Way. After receiving the additional funds from Snohomish County, Sustainable Works decided to move their project to Edmonds and Lynnwood. Their target goal is energy audits on 300 homes. This would result in a reduction of carbon emissions in both cities by a combined 300,800 pounds, save residents $30,080 annually in energy bills and create 15 new jobs. Energy audits typically cost $300 -$600; Sustainable Works offers an audit for $95. The funds received from Snohomish County allow Sustainable Works to provide audits free of charge for individuals earning between 60 -80% of state median income. Their program has four steps: 1.. Pre -audit to ensure there is a need for energy savings 2. Energy audit that takes approximately 3 -4 hours 3. Consultation by an employee of Sustainable Works that identifies improvements that save the homeowner the most energy for the least amount of money 4. Retrofit Sustainable Works offers a multitude of incentives with regard to the retrofit due to the stimulus funds they received. Incentives vary depending on the type of work but usually cover 20 -40% of the project costs. Sustainable Works also manages the entire project for the homeowner. Sustainable Works is able to provide cost effective energy retrofits that help resident save money and afford projects via bulk neighborhood pricing. This allows Sustainable Works to negotiate good prices for a number of projects in an area. Sustainable Works has also partnered with PSE and SnoPUD to access their utility incentives. This saves the homeowner from applying for those incentives. They also guide homeowners in federal grants and tax credits and accessing a low interest loan program. The goal of the program is for everyone who participates to have their energy savings equal their monthly investment. Their focus is on deep energy retrofit such as air sealing, insulation, duct sealing, heating, hot water and windows. She noted windows are often one of the most expensive ways to save the least amount of energy. All retrofit installers are journeymen and apprentices are used on 20% of projects to ensure new jobs are being created and that the stimulus money is used to stimulate jobs in green industry. All audits are also conducted by journeymen. Contractors must pay prevailing wages and benefits, must go through their application process and must have apprenticeship programs. They currently work with contractors from Snohomish County and encourage local contractors to apply to participate in the program. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 4 A kick off event will be held the last week of September and they plan to partner with Sustainable Edmonds at the Farmers Market. She offered to speak at workplaces and community organizations. She encouraged the City to help spread the word to residents of Edmonds. Residents can learn more about the program and sign up for an audit by visiting their website at www.sustainableworks.com or calling their office at 206 -575 -2252. Councilmember Buckshnis invited Ms. Stickney to make a presentation at the Senior Center. 5. PUBLIC HEARING TO EXTEND INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3787 AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 ECDC RELATING TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW CLOSED RECORD ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD DECISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE OVERLAP OF PERIMETER BUFFERS AND SETBACK FOR EXTERIOR LOT LINES. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the interim ordinance does not expire until October. The ordinance needs to be extended to allow the Planning Board to complete its work. A portion of the interim ordinance, amendment to the appeal procedures in Title 20, will be presented in Agenda Item 7. The Planning Board has not yet completed their review of the perimeter setbacks issue. Although she preferred to make this a permanent ordinance tonight, Councilmember Petso recognized that was not possible as it must be reviewed and a recommendation provided by the Planning Board. She asked if there was a mechanism for indicating to the Planning Board that the Council prefers they undertake the issue of the perimeter buffer separately rather than do it as part of the code rewrite related to the PRD and subdivision ordinance. Mr. Chave suggested adding language to the interim ordinance that provides direction to the Planning Board. The Planning Board is currently working on that issue in the context of revising the entire chapter of subdivision/PRD regulations. Even if the perimeter buffer issue is separated from the review of the subdivision ordinance, SEPA and a 60 day review by the State will be required which will require an extension of the interim ordinance. Councilmember Petso asked if another public hearing would be required if the issue of the perimeter buffer was separated from the code rewrite regarding subdivisions. City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified even if the issue was separated, SEPA and State review will require extending the interim ordinance. Councilmember Petso anticipated if the Planning Board undertook the issue of perimeter buffers separately they could complete that review more quickly than if it were bundled with the subdivision/PRD rewrite. Mr. Snyder summarized it could be unbundled and reviewed slightly faster if that was the Council's direction. Mr. Chave suggested the Council minutes reflect that it was the consensus of the Council for the Planning Board to review that issue separately. The Planning Board currently plans to include it in the overall rewrite. Councilmember Petso commented the ordinance was provided separately from the Council packet. She questioned if the ordinance was included in the packet available to the public. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised copies were available this evening; it was not available online. Councilmember Petso asked whether another public hearing would be required. Mr. Snyder answered this public hearing is on an extension of an ordinance that has previously been approved. The Council could have the public hearing before or after the interim ordinance was extended. He suggested scheduling the extension of the interim ordinance on a future Consent Agenda. Councilmember Wilson commented he could generally agree with Councilmember Petso's concerns. He suggested the Council adopt a resolution after the interim ordinance was approved. It was his Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 5 understanding that the City's existing PRD ordinance does not reflect the original intent of State law that identifies PRDs as a model for conserving unique environmental assets. In practice the City's PRD ordinance has been used to fit round pegs into square holes. For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Chave explained the intent was to integrate PRD provisions into the subdivision code so that they are consistent and part of a single development process. PRDs are an alternate form of subdivision; there is little to be gained via a PRD that could not be accomplished via a standard subdivision process, a distinction without a real benefit. The intent was to merge the two into a single set of smart code regulations. One - size - fits -all development regulations do not work well and it is preferable to incorporate changes in development that occur over time into the regulations rather than amending the code each time a new form of development arises. Councilmember Petso explained she considered the perimeter buffer a high priority because in a PRD where the perimeter buffer overlays the setback, the perimeter buffer is eliminated. If the perimeter buffer is reinstated via deed restrictions that prevent the use of backyards, homeowners have the natural expectation they can use their backyard. She anticipated that combining PRD and subdivision regulations into a single code provision would be a much more complicated discussion. Councilmember Petso clarified her concern was the interim ordinance would continue to be renewed if the two issues were not separated. If the issues were separated the perimeter buffer issue could be resolved and the Planning Board could address the more complex issue of combining the PRD and subdivision regulations when they had time. Councilmember Wilson suggested adopting the extension of the interim ordinance and bringing back the more complex issue for a more complete discussion at a future Council meeting. Councilmember Petso reiterated that would be an incredibly difficult effort, the reason she preferred the perimeter buffer issue be considered separately by the Planning Board. Council President Bernheim asked why the six month period had not been sufficient to address the matter and why the Council could not adopt the perimeter setback tonight. Mr. Snyder answered the perimeter setback could not be adopted as a permanent ordinance without a Planning Board recommendation. If the Council extends an interim ordinance, an essential consideration is the Planning Board's work plan. He suggested staff provide the Council the Planning Board's calendar and agendas illustrating that their review was progressing. Mr. Chave suggested the Council extend the interim ordinance sometime in the next month, giving the Planning Board an additional six months, and ask the Planning Board to make a separate recommendation on the perimeter buffer if they are unable to complete their work on the PRD /subdivision code in that time. Mr. Snyder suggested staff provide the Planning Board's calendar and agenda when extension of the interim ordinance is scheduled on the Council Consent Agenda. Council President Bernheim preferred to adopt the perimeter buffer as a permanent ordinance. Councilmember Wilson recognized the importance of the perimeter buffer issue to the Council, pointing out staff and the Planning Board intend to eliminate the PRD ordinance and to incorporate the provisions into the subdivision code. Mr. Chave anticipated a perimeter buffer in the subdivision code would take a different form; it would not look the same as it does in the PRD regulations. Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern with combining the PRD regulations in the subdivision ordinance as the PRD regulations provide protection for a neighborhood that a normal subdivision does not. He objected to extending the ordinance to combine the PRD and subdivision regulations. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 6 preferred to adopt the regulations related to the perimeter buffer and the appeal to the Council. The Planning Board could then take as long as they wanted to combine the PRD and subdivision regulations. Don Hall, Edmonds, encouraged Councilmembers, particularly Councilmember Wilson, to speak louder. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO EXTEND INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3787, AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 ECDC RELATING TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW CLOSED RECORD ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD DECISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE OVERLAP OF PERIMETER BUFFERS AND SETBACK FOR EXTERIOR LOT LINES. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO REQUEST THE PLANNING BOARD TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO ENABLE THE CITY COUNCIL TO PASS THE INTERIM PERIMETER SETBACK ORDINANCE WITHIN 45 DAYS. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council pass the ordinance first and then make a motion directing the Planning Board to unbundle and consider the perimeter setback issue separately and direct staff to prepare SEPA regarding that issue. Council President Bernheim asked if there was any less strength to the interim ordinance by extending it. Mr. Snyder answered the best protection would be to schedule it on a future Consent Agenda with a Staff Report and Planning Board work plan and calendar. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM WITHDREW HIS AMENDMENT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECOND. THE VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REQUEST THE PLANNING BOARD UNBUNDLE THE ISSUES AND BRING TO THE COUNCIL FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION THE SEPARATE AND DISCREET ISSUE OF A PERIMETER BUFFER AS IDENTIFIED IN THE INTERIM ORDINANCE. Councilmember Wilson commented he did not understand the reasons for incorporating the PRD ordinance in the subdivision code. He preferred in the next 2 -3 weeks that issue be returned to the Council for further discussion. He did not support the proposed motion as it did not address his fundamental question, why the PRD ordinance was being combined with the subdivision ordinance or whether that was the Council's desire. Councilmember Petso was uncertain whether the Council wanted separate ordinances or a combined ordinance and Mr. Hertrich has twice expressed his preference for retaining the PRD ordinance as it currently exists. Rather than a perpetual interim ordinance, she preferred to separate the perimeter buffer issue and Council appeal of PRDs from the effort to combine the PRD and subdivision ordinance, a much more difficult and lengthy process. Council President Bernheim recalled the intent of the interim ordinance was to remove the loophole that allows PRDs to use the perimeter buffer as the setback. If a PRD is developed in the next 3 -4 months that tries to utilize that loophole, the result would be undesirable. He was less concerned with the rewrite of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 7 the subdivision code and wanted to ensure a future PRD was not able to use the perimeter buffer as their setback. Mr. Snyder clarified the Council had already addressed the loophole via the interim ordinance. He suggested adding to the motion a request for staff and the Planning Board to provide a calendar and work plan. He clarified a PRD submitted in the next six months could not take advantage of that loophole. Council President Bernheim responded he did not want the Planning Board to provide their work plan; he wanted to direct them to act in an expedited manner to return to the Council without delay with the necessary steps to take action on the perimeter buffer. MOTION CARRIED (4 -1). 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented he enjoyed the Taste of Edmonds but feared the beer garden was creating a public nuisance and creating liability for the City and the Chamber. His understanding was that Washington State law prohibited a person who is obviously intoxicated from being served but that that was not observed at the Taste of Edmonds. When the Taste of Edmonds closes, several intoxicated individuals appear downtown, posing a danger to themselves and the public. He witnessed a highly intoxicated middle aged man who attempted to enter several establishments. The police were called and the man was later tazered and fell, injuring his head. The police responded quickly due to emphasis patrols in the area but the aid unit took a long time to arrive. 7. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED UPDATES TO LAND USE PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTERS 20.01 THROUGH 20.08, EXCLUDING 20.05, WHICH INCLUDE STAFF REASSUMING THE PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECT APPLICATIONS; REORGANIZING AND CLARIFYING PORTIONS OF TEXT; AND UPDATING THE PERMIT TYPE MATRIX IN ECDC 20.01.003.A. (FILE NO. AMD20100013) Planner Michael Clugston explained the Planning Board's recommended several updates to the Land Use Permit Administration procedures in Title 20. Following the Council's adoption of changes to the Land Use Permit Administration Procedures in June 2009, staff recognized several issues that required further refinement. Since June 2009 the Council passed two interim ordinances reintroducing Council review in closed record appeals. Those changes are included in the ordinance the Planning Board recommended to the Council. Other changes include staff reassuming public notice requirements for project permit applications. The changes adopted in June 2009 made applicants responsible for notification. In practice, staff found it took more time to help applicants with the process of notification than it had taken previously when staff was responsible for notification. Other changes include reorganizing and clarifying text to make it more user friendly. The permit matrix in ECDC 20.01.003 was updated to reflect the two interim ordinances passed by Council in January 2010 as well as other minor changes to clarify language in the permit table. Mr. Clugston explained the language passed in June 2009 included a 90- day time period for applicants to submit all required information as part of a complete application. There have been several instances when the 90 -day period does not provide enough flexibility for applicants and they have requested an extension of the 90 -day period. The code previously did not allow for an extension. The proposed ordinance adds the ability to request a 90 -day extension via a written request. The final change is a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) had been included as a Type III -B action in the permit matrix. A draft EIS is not a permit but a factual document and there are separate written hearing requirements found elsewhere in the ECDC and State regulations and it is not appropriate to include in the land use matrix. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 8 Mr. Clugston summarized the intent of the changes is to make the code easier to use and administer and return the permit types to the way they existed before the Council's June 2009 decision to reflect the interim ordinances the Council passed earlier this year. Observing no comment/questions from the Council, City Attorney Scott Snyder advised staff would put the proposal in ordinance form in preparation for a public hearing. Council President Bernheim observed there were a number of proposed changes, most of which are technical amendments. He agreed with scheduling the ordinance for a public hearing. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a public hearing. 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD FRANCHISE AND POTENTIAL COOPERATION ON FIBER INSTALLATION. Mayor Cooper reported staff and he along with the City Attorney met with Snohomish County PUD management and an engineer. He recognized Chris Heimgartner, Snohomish County PUD, in the audience. The intent of this item was to brief the Council on those discussions and seek direction. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Citizens Technology Advisory Committee plans to provide a presentation to the Council next week regarding fiber optics. Snohomish County PUD is in the process of stringing fiber optic cable throughout Snohomish County as part of their Smart grid. Some of their installations in Edmonds are in areas where the City would like to install fiber as well. The PUD made an offer following their meeting to cooperate in the contracting process to allow the installation of City fiber in areas where the City planned to make that investment. He requested feedback from the Council regarding whether they wanted staff to proceed with obtaining estimates and present it to the Council as a contract on a future agenda. In the course of this discussion, staff discovered the only electricity franchise the City has granted expired in 1967. The issue has come up from time to time but there is no new money involved, only the cost of negotiation. The City and PUD have treated the expired franchise as though it were an existing franchise. Existing public utilities with franchises have access to the City's expedited permit review procedures. In negotiating franchises with Comcast and Verizon, profit - making organizations, the City sought concessions, payment or access as compensation. There is no executive session privilege for a public franchise. He sought the Council's input regarding a liaison or a mechanism for Council to advise the Mayor and staff during discussion with the PUD. CIO Carl Nelson explained the City had a design for a fiber optics network done a few years ago. He displayed a map illustrating the City's current fiber and where PUD is proposing to install fiber in Phase 2. The proposal is as PUD builds their network and their contractors is in the area, they will assist with expediting the City's placement of fiber on the poles along those routes. He identified PUD substations on the map; their ultimate plan is to interconnect all their substations with fiber. Snohomish County PUD has offered to assist the City with stringing fiber while they are in the area in order to get the best cost. Chris Heimgartner, Assistant General Manager, Snohomish PUD, explained he is in charge of all construction and engineering for the utility. They will have contractors in the area doing installation and via a single setup. There should be opportunities for cost savings compared to the City contracting separately for this work. The City's Public Works Director Phil Williams also requested consideration be given to antenna space to determine if there is an opportunity for the City to establish sites. Mr. Snyder commented the City's fiber effort includes establishing the City's own Smart grid for water meter reading. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 9 Mr. Nelson explained one of the studies conducted for the Economic Development Commission was to map the location of fiber compared to business licenses. He displayed a map of the City's existing fiber, commercial zoning, and the number of employees per business. He pointed out the Westgate area does not have fiber but one of the PUD substations is close enough that it fits the long term plans for fiber. The PUD project would fit well with the long term plan to provide City fiber in that area. He commented providing fiber in the Perrinville area would also be an asset. Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are not a lot of businesses in Perrinville and asked if there was a plan to provide fiber to residents. Mr. Nelson answered the intent was only to provide fiber to businesses. Fiber would provide an opportunity for infrastructure in the Perrinville area at a low cost for meter reading. The Police Department and Public Works have also expressed interest in WiFi or wireless access in that area. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the cost and the number of fiber strands. Mr. Nelson answered staff is seeking direction from Council whether to consider the proposed cooperative effort that has been proposed and investigate the cost. The number of strands would result from that effort. Councilmember Petso asked about the type of infrastructure PUD is proposing and whether the City would need to add any poles /towers. Mr. Nelson answered his focus has been getting fiber from point A to B. The PUD does have a need for towers. Staff has studied placing two towers in the Edmonds area to wirelessly read water meters. Fiber needs to be strung to reach those towers. Fiber is already available at one of the proposed tower locations at Public Works; however, the other proposed location does not. Mr. Snyder recalled the Council referred neighborhood concerns regarding cellular towers to the Planning Board. The Planning Board has been reviewing and will be providing a recommendation to the Council in the near future. One of their recommendations is to encourage co- location to avoid multiple towers. This proposal is an example of two utilities cooperating to reduce the number of facilities. He advised towers were a future consideration; the current discussion was stringing the fiber to the substations in advance of towers. Councilmember Wilson recognized the benefits of a collaborative effort. He asked for clarification regarding the cost share; the City would pay 100% for the fiber, the cost sharing would be in the labor to string the fiber. Mr. Nelson answered it was a cost reduction. If a contractor is installing fiber for the PUD, his incremental cost to install the City's fiber is lower than if the City were to install the fiber via a separate project. Mr. Snyder clarified staff was seeking direction from the Council whether to pursue cost data. Councilmember Wilson summarized this was a good deal for the City. He remarked there has been frustration expressed that this line of service has been under - capitalized, that there has not been enough money to leverage this asset well. He welcomed any other opportunities for cooperation. He suggested consideration be given not only to the incremental cost to string lines where PUD was stringing lines but also the incremental cost to string City lines in the opposite direction. Mr. Nelson answered that will depend on the willingness of the contractor as well as the willingness of the Council to fund that cost. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO HAVE STAFF PREPARE A COST ESTIMATION THAT INCLUDES A BREAKDOWN OF FIBER COST AND INSTALLATION FOR COUNCIL REVIEW. Councilmember Wilson suggested the cost estimate include the cost of extending City lines in the area where the contractor may already be installing PUD lines. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 10 Mayor Cooper requested the Council authorize the City Attorney, staff and him to begin negotiations and return with proposals for Council consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis requested the cost estimate be as explanatory as possible. Mr. Snyder referred to the map Mr. Nelson provided that identified two clearly needed fiber runs. The City has not done any engineering study with regard to the location of towers for extending those lines and fiber optic cable is very expensive. Staff will attempt to provide some general estimates. 19 a DIVZ111 I D OWN 111 02 04 [171 I [INIE 1 \.7.71 DI )MV0 1163 104 [11&111• Mayor Cooper requested a Council liaison to work with staff and him as they proceed with discussions with PUD. Mr. Snyder referred to his letter to Snohomish County PUD General Counsel with a copy of the 1917 . franchise with Washington Coast Utilities and a copy of the expedited permit process. Staff for years has treated the Snohomish County PUD as though they are entitled to use the City's expedited permit process. He suggested not penalizing Snohomish County PUD for a 1967 oversight and to allow them to continue to utilize that process while negotiations proceed. This was acceptable to the Council. Should negotiations break down and the Council wishes to take a different position, Mr. Snyder advised he could discuss judicial remedies in Executive Session. The PUD has already expressed concern with potential delays; they have five permits pending related to this project. He commented it was in the City's as well as the PUD's best interest to ensure reasonable prompt review so that the contract is not delayed. Councilmember Petso asked whether there were issues related to towers pending before the Planning Board. Mr. Snyder clarified his comments were in regard to cell towers. PUD is not proposing to install any towers at this time. Their proposal is to put the infrastructure in place, fiber to substations, in advance of towers. The City already has regulations regarding towers; the Planning Board's recommendation encourages precisely what is proposed, co- location. 9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 10, 2010. Public Safetv Committee Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee discussed an Interlocal Agreement between the City and Edmonds School District for football game security which was approved as Item F on tonight's Consent Agenda. The Committee also discussed the requirement for residential fire sprinklers in new construction. Stakeholders in the process were invited to the meeting including labor, Fire Marshals, developers, economic development people, other jurisdictions that have required residential fire sprinklers, Master Builders Association, a local developer, a representative of the Realtors Association and a representative from the Fire Marshal's Association. An Edmonds developer, Michael Echelbarger, former president of the Master Builders Association, stated he does not support requiring residential fire sprinklers but could personally endorse the requirement for a fire sprinkler system in new homes 5,000 square feet and larger as long as Edmonds did not revisit the issue until the next Fire Code update in 2012. The Realtors Association and Master Builders were asked to determine whether their organizations could also endorse that. If all the groups could agree to that compromise, Edmonds would be the only community to get buy - in from all stakeholders. Other communities such as Mountlake Terrace have endorsed a 5,000 square foot threshold with opposition from the development community. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas expressed her concern with a 5,000 square foot threshold, referring to research conducted by Mayor Cooper that found only 3 homes have been constructed in Edmonds during Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 11 the past 3 years that met that threshold. She advocated a threshold of 3,000 square feet for new construction. Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported Council President Bernheim provided the Committee a comparison of Hearing Examiner hourly rates in other cities that range from $120 -$140. The City's Hearing Examiner contract expires at the end of 2010. The City currently pays a retainer fee of approximately $3,500 /month and often the Hearing Examiner has no hearings. This item will be forwarded to the Council for consideration. Next, Public Works Director Phil Williams provided a summary of the Alderwood Water Supply 45 year contract. This item was approved as Item E on tonight's Consent Agenda. Building Official Leonard Yarberry then presented two types of fees for murals. The Committee supports the design fee process and forwarded it to Council for consideration. Discussion and review of debt service in Funds 125 and 126 and revisions to the City's Water Leak Policy were postponed due to staff absence. Discussion of Mayor discretionary pay increases for vacant positions and discussion on unexpended wages and benefits were referred to the full City Council as Councilmember Petso was unable to attend the Finance Committee meeting. The Second Quarter Budget Update was also referred to the full Council as the Committee was unable to review it due to staff's absence. Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Petso reported the Committee discussed the formation of a Tree Board. A Tree Board could assist in the City being certified as a Tree City USA as well as serve as a resource. A draft ordinance will be forwarded to the full Council for consideration. The Committee also discussed removing the leashed -dog restriction in Hutt Park which will be forwarded to Council for consideration. The Committee then discussed possible green initiatives and zoning clarifications for downtown business zones. These included the following: • A 3 -foot building height incentive in exchange for LEED certification or other environmental considerations. This proposal will be discussed further in Council Committee before coming to the Council. • Reconciliation of the plans for the Arts Corridor on 4"' Avenue with the code requirements. This will be referred to the Planning Board. • Commercial depth requirement for businesses in the downtown core. The depth requirement currently varies by business district; staff is interested in greater consistency and ensuring the depth is sufficient to allow appropriate business use. The final item discussed by the Committee was a proposal by a resident to build a pathway in the Stn Avenue right-of-way between Walnut and Alder at his expense. The Committee decided not to proceed with the request to construct the proposed pathway. rci�il awel tI KAL13 /h/ 0101119 Mayor Cooper reported the auditor's exit interview will be conducted within the next week. Next, he thanked the Chamber, City employees and other volunteers for another successful Taste of Edmonds, commenting downtown Edmonds was very busy Friday and Saturday. Police Chief Compaan reported the event was successful and there were no incidents in the beer /wine garden. He was briefed by Chief Compaan regarding the incident relayed by Mr. Hertrich; Chief Compaan's description was slightly different than Mr. Hertrich's. He will request that the Police Department and Fire District 1 provide information from SNOCOM which will be forwarded to the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 12 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported the Council received another letter from Natalie Shippen asking which one project that is scheduled to be completed in 2029 -2031 will cost $26 million. Mayor Cooper answered the Washington State Department of Transportation and Washington State Ferries have responded that t is their commitment. It is not uncommon for WSDOT or WSF to not be specific about a project that is 20 years in the future. Mr. Clifton will provide a response to Ms. Shippen. If that issue is important to the Council, he suggested the City take a strong position when the legislative session begins in 2011. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas thanked the Chamber for inviting her to be a tasting judge at the Taste of Edmonds, a wonderful opportunity to interact with the vendors. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the Chamber for a successful Taste of Edmonds. Next, she provided an update on the 2010 Citizens Levy Committee's second meeting. In an effort to refine its strategies, the Commission divided themselves into subcommittees. Their next meeting is Thursday, August 26 from 5:30 to 7:30 in the Brackett Room of City Hall. Councilmember Plunkett has joined the Committee as a moderator and staff liaisons include Human Resources Director Debi Humann and Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton. Committee members are Barbara Chase, John Reed, Jessie Beyer, Bill Vance, Eve Wellington, Harry Gatjens, Darrol Haug and John Carlin. Public comment of 3 minutes is accepted at all meetings. At the August 9 meeting, the Committee broke down the Council direction into four areas, 1) augmenting the General Fund or levy, 2) review City departments and compare with other cities, capital targets of opportunity, levy or bond, bond refining or both and review compliance with policies especially the new financial policies. The Committee also formed four sub committees: • Committee on Expenditure Review will review weekly expenses, consultant fees and labor trends • Committee on Revenue Potential will consider bond refinancing, placing records requests on email, tourism such as pilot projects such as filmmaking incentives or parking kiosks at the Dog Park • Committee to Work on the Levy will do financial modeling, study General Fund movement and compliance with policies and procedures • Committee to Work on Capital Planning will consider Yost Pool, Senior Center, Civic Playfields and other capital projects The Committee learned the difference between General Fund reserve and emergency reserves; the Levy Committee will be considering General Fund reserves. The City also has an emergency reserve of $1,927,600 that is designated for catastrophic events; the Levy Committee will not be considering that fund. Citizens can help by being involved, talk with friends, provide their ideas, support staff, the Commission and City Council, and think about how much they are willing to spend for a levy. Councilmember Wilson recognized Councilmember Buckshnis' effort with regarding to the Citizens Levy Committee. Although he voted against the formation of the Committee, many of the principles the Committee were pursuing were important and valuable. He relayed concern that although the Levy Committee is reviewing weekly expenditures and considering placing Council emails on the website, none of the revenue options include placing a levy on the ballot. He was hopeful the Levy Committee would reach a decision by the December deadline to place an issue on the February ballot. Councilmember Buckshnis assured they were working on it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 13 Council President Bernheim thanked Councilmember Buckshnis for her efforts with the Levy Committee. He found the work being done by Councilmember Buckshnis and the Committee very valuable, bringing together a group of knowledgeable citizens to review information and provide their input. He looked forward to hearing about their progress. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 14