Loading...
02/17/2009 City CouncilFebruary 17, 2009 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview a newly appointed Arts Commissioner, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Grace Guenther, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Finance Director Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Rob English, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Haakenson advised Item 10 had been removed from the agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Wilson requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, 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 FEBRUARY 3, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #109680 THROUGH #109832 FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT $433,651.34, AND #109833 THROUGH #109979 FOR FEBRUARY 12, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $349,040.66. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #47804 THROUGH #47846 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 16 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2009 FOR $855,341.02. D. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 1 E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR ON -CALL SURVEYING SERVICES. G. APPROVAL OF 2009 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR LOW FARE. H. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE. I. INTERFUND LOANS ESTABLISHED. J. PURCHASING POLICY UPDATE. K. RESOLUTION NO. 1192 AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. L. ORDINANCE NO. 3726 AMENDING CITY ADOPTED BUILDING CODES ECDC 19.00.005 RELATING TO REQUIRED PROGRESS INSPECTION FOR PERMIT RENEWAL. M. ORDINANCE NO. 3727 AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE TITLE 5 - ANTICIPATORY OFFENSES. ITEM F: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FOR DESIGN AND PERMITTING SUPPORT FOR THE TALBOT ROAD /PERRINVILLE CREEK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. At Council President Wilson's request, Mr. English reviewed the scope of work. He explained the first task was a drainage basin analysis that would identify peak runoff from the basin and define flow rates. The second task is to identify potential solutions to address the problem using the data gathered in task one. The consultant will provide several options which staff will review to determine an appropriate alternative. Council President Wilson emphasized this type of analysis, conducted by the consultant at a cost of $65,000, could no longer be conducted in -house due to reduced staff. He compared this consultant contract with the Lake Ballinger Watershed's $200,000 contract and asked why a contract for lower Perrinville Creek cost 1/3 the Lake Ballinger contract. It was his understanding a watershed study was done of the Perrinville Creek area in the past 5 -10 years. Public Works Director Noel Miller responded the City had the in -house capability but other projects such as Lake Ballinger consumed the Stormwater Engineer's time and required a consultant contract for other projects such as this. He explained this was a sub -basin to the main Perrinville Basin, drainage off Talbot Road and Fredrick Place that adjoin Perrinville Creek slightly upstream where Perrinville Creek goes out to Puget Sound and has not been studied previously. It was identified in the current drainage basin study as a project for the overall Perrinville Creek in the 1990s. Council President Wilson again questioned the cost as compared to the Lake Ballinger contract. Mr. Miller responded this contract would result in a design engineered project that could be put out for bid compared to the preliminary overview of issues in the Lake Ballinger study. He anticipated significant consultant fees for projects in Lake Ballinger. Council President Wilson asked whether additional in- house staff time would be available if this project were delayed a year. Mr. Miller answered WCIA has paid claims for flooding of private property; therefore, it should not be delayed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 2 City Attorney Scott Snyder commented 10 years ago this work could have been done by Public Works staff, the requirement for additional consultant work was the result of the Endangered Species Act and attention the federal government is giving to stormwater drainage. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNC.I.LMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. CONFIRMATION AND INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY APPOINTED ARTS COMMISSIONER. Council President Wilson recalled last year the Council agreed to interview the Mayor's appointments one week and confirm the appointment the following week; a review of the minutes revealed the intent was to follow that process for Planning Board and Architectural Design Board Members. If Councilmembers preferred, confirmation could be deferred to next week. Council President Wilson introduced Samantha Saether, the Mayor's appointment to the Arts Commission. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF SAMANTHA SAETHER TO THE ARTS COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Saether thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve and she looked forward to being involved. 1�119MRIX410 1I Is IDi3DiIR9[aW.1A17 as 1i.Y100a,&$]ILT4111►i 711kialm10 Evelyn Nicholson, owner of Sound Disposal, explained her business is an independent, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) regulated, family- operated business serving the downtown Edmonds area. She and her husband, Don, purchased the business from Ethel and Dick Sly in June 1977. Don previously worked for Apex, now Allied Waste, for over 23 years prior to purchasing Sound Disposal. Dick Sly operated two trucks in Edmonds as they did until the advent of recycling in 1989. They now have three routes, five full time employees and one part-time employee. Her two sons and daughter have worked for the business for many years. They offer garbage, co- mingled recycle and yardwaste. Recycling is taken to Seattle, yardwaste to a composting facility in Woodinville and garbage to the Snohomish County Solid Waste facility in Mountlake Terrace. In response to Snohomish County plans to raise their rates from $89 /ton to $1.05 /ton, an 18% increase, they applied to the WUTC for an adjustment in their rates of approximately 9.9% beginning March 1. The outcome of their request will not be known until WUTC completes an audit. If approved, their one can rate will increase approximately $0.35 -.040 /week and the 11/2 yard commercial container will increase approximately $1.65 - $20.00 /week. They are regulated by Snohomish County and the City and their tariff contains rules for themselves and their customers. Council President Wilson highlighted the fact that Sound Disposal was a local business that had been operating in the City for a number of years and whose owners also lived locally. Councilmember Bernheim commented he was a happy Sound Disposal customer. He inquired whether consideration would be given in the future to a lower rate for super small pickups to encourage citizens to further reduce waste. Ms. Nicholson responded they would consider his suggestion. Councilmember Peterson recalled when he first moved to Edmonds, one of his first interactions was with one of the sons working for Sound Disposal, an Edmonds moment with a very nice person. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 3 Councilmember Plunkett expressed his affection for the Nicholson family, noting in his 12 years on the Council he had never received a call from a citizen complaining about Sound Disposal's service. He thanked them for the excellent service they have provided over the years. Councilmember Wambolt commented Lynnwood Disposal also requested an increase for the same reasons. He pointed out residents did not have a choice regarding garbage providers; they were required to use the provider serving their area. Lynnwood Disposal's rates are considerably lower than Sound Disposal; for example Lynnwood Disposal's 1 -yard container is $58.52 /month and Sound Disposal's charge for the same container is $84.94 /month. Ms. Nicholson responded she would need to research this. Councilmember Wambolt relayed that WUTC's analysis determined Sound Disposal's costs are higher because they use two men per truck versus most every other disposal company that use only one. Ms. Nicholson commented their employees not only haul garbage but did other duties for the company. Councilmember Wambolt suggested Sound Disposal compare their rates to other garbage providers. Ms. Nicholson responded they were regulated by the State. Councilmember Plunkett commented because Sound Disposal is regulated by the State, the State would inform them if their prices were not appropriate. He asked whether two men on a truck were more efficient and more careful. Ms. Nicholson agreed, noting two men per truck completed the routes more quickly and reduced the need for additional trucks. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out WUTC analyzes only the company's costs, not whether they were in line with their competition. Mayor Haakenson commented he had never received a complaint about Sound Disposal but did receive complaints about the other garbage provider in the City during the snow storm. He recalled Sound Disposal worked weekends following the snow storm in an effort to catch up. He concluded Sound Disposal provided great service to their service area. 5. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL RETREAT. Council President Wilson reported the City Council held its annual retreat on February 6 & 7 in City Hall. The 12 -hour retreat produced a clear work plan for 2009. He noted in some years the Council retreats have not been as productive and as a citizen he watched with a degree of frustration when the Council appeared to focus on issues with little relevance to opportunities and challenges facing the City. That will not be the case in 2009. During the retreat Councilmembers were asked to identify the biggest opportunities and challenges in the year ahead. Putting the City on a stable financial footing was paramount among Councilmembers' concerns. The retreat included extensive discussion regarding the levy that will be on the November ballot. The Council developed a timeline for action for the November levy; the Council plans to create the most extensive, most engaging and most thorough vetting process ever implemented. It will include a Citizen Review Committee open to nearly all citizens, public hearings before the Council, and public open houses. Upon approval of the timeline, more details will be provided regarding the Citizen Review Committee to invite citizen participation. The Council also spent a considerable amount of time during the retreat on the history of economic development in the City including studies that had been conducted in the past and items from the studies that had and had not been implemented. There was general agreement among the Council, staff and the Mayor that there was no longer time to study how to develop the City economically and that the City cannot grow its way out of the current budget crisis fast enough. The City will continue to work on economic development and he plans to invite local business with unique Edmonds stories to share their stories with the Council and the community; Ms. Nicholson was the first of those stories. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 4 Council President Wilson invited other businesses with an Edmonds story to share them with the Council by contacting the Council Executive Assistant Jana Spellman via email pellnanL&ci.edmonds.wa.us. He planned to select 10 -15 businesses to highlight during the year. Although the City could not grow its way out of its financial challenges, they could make an effort to retain existing businesses. He emphasized the more Edmonds residents purchased from Edmonds residents, the lower their Edmonds taxes would be. This effort will serve as the community service portion of the agenda and where appropriate other community service organizations would be scheduled to make presentations. The Council will also seek to keep expenses in line in as creative and thoughtful ways as possible. To set an example to the citizens of Edmonds, the Council proposes to postpone the Mayor's July 1, 2009 pay increase. Although the policy of paying the Mayor at the 50th percentile of comparable cities was appropriate, it was not possible this year. He advised revised budget estimates result in an ending cash balance of $52,000, an amount that should be $3 -$5 million. The Council's second highest priority was innovation associated with sustainability. To that end, he requested Councilmember Peterson develop a process for a 2009 sustainability agenda which the Council reviewed at the retreat, low cost items the Council could implement to move the City forward. He planned to ask for the Council's approval of a resolution amending Ordinance 3685 with regard to the Mayor's salary increase, and a resolution affirming the Levy Timeline and Sustainability Agenda. He revised the levy timeline by removing reference to an outside levy committee. Councilmember Peterson commented on the importance of sustainability to economic development and to address the City's financial situation. He highlighted what the City has already done such as reducing their utility usage by 15 %. He reviewed the Sustainability Agenda developed at the retreat that outlines specific steps the Council commits to accomplishing in the 2009 calendar year: 1. Pass the Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Develop a comprehensive recycling plan for the City of Edmonds, both as a corporate actor and throughout the community. 3. Development of a green "branded" identity of Edmonds, and the marketing of Edmonds as a green destination. 4. Look at building codes as pertains to heat, insulation and energy efficiency. 5. Consider banning the use of plastic bags in Edmonds. 6. Become an "Agenda City" with Cascade Land Conservancy. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1193, AFFIRMING THE TIMELINE FOR THE 2009 LEVY ACTION AND THE SUSTAINABILITY AGENDA FOR 2009. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to reviewing expenses, Councilmember Wambolt explained the Council and staff have been considering how expenses can be reduced; 50% of the City's expenses are related to salaries. He recalled Councilmember Bernheim and he opposed the non - represented employees' COLA increase of 5.8 -6.2 %, not because the employees did not deserve the increase, but because it was not appropriate in the current economic climate. The Council ultimately approved the non - represented employee COLA increases by a 5 -2 vote. At the retreat he suggested requiring employees take days off without pay or accept a temporary reduction in their salary; however, this was not supported by a majority of the Council. Councilmember Wambolt recalled although he instigated the pay increase for Mayor Haakenson in 2008 and the upcoming increase in July 2009, he now supported delaying the Mayor's increase due to the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 5 worsening economy. He remarked during the Governor's race the State deficit was estimated to be $3.2 billion, by her election the deficit had increased to $5 billion and is now over $8 billion due to the worsening economy. The City's primary source of sales tax revenue is from car dealerships on Highway 99, which has significantly declined in the current economy. He concluded although the Council, Mayor and staff were looking at ways to reduce expenses, there were few opportunities available. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1194 DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3685, TO POSTPONE THE RAISE TO THE POSITION OF MAYOR EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2009, TO JANUARY 1, 2011. Council President Wilson referred to the wording in the resolution that the City Council adopted Ordinance 3685 in order to bring the mayor's salary in line with established city policy to pay employees at the L -5 standard, otherwise understood as the 50th percentile of wages of comparable cities, and that that policy continued to be the policy of the City of Edmonds. He advised the Mayor's current salary was $113,000. Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the legal issue that arose during previous discussions regarding the Mayor's salary. City Attorney Scott Snyder responded once the Mayor's salary was approved and implemented by the Council, it could not be reduced during the term of office but the effective date of future increases could delayed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Wilson invited interested citizens to apply to participate on the Citizen Review Committee related to the levy in November. Applicants need to be residents of the City and able to attend meetings on Monday March 23, March 30, April 6 and April 13 from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. Applications will be accepted until March 4 -5. Interested citizens were invited to contact Council Executive Assistant Jana Spellman via email at Spellmannci.edmonds.wa.us. He anticipated the Committee would be comprised of nearly everyone who applied. Councilmember Plunkett asked to be informed of everyone who applied. 6. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT SB 51.43, REGARDING EMS LEVIES IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. Council President Wilson explained SB 51.43 would allow jurisdictions an annual increase of up to 6% on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levies once approved by voters (not retroactively) in an effort to more securely maintain funding for EMS. This would prevent cities from repeatedly putting EMS levies before the voters; each election costs the City approximately $60,000. He clarified this would not apply to the EMS levy passed recently, only to EMS levies passed in the future. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1195. Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the text of the Senate Bill was not included in the Council packet. He asked whether support for the up to 6% increase would be part of the EMS levy approved by voters. Council President Wilson was uncertain, assuming it would be the way it had been done prior to I -747. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 6 Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for funding necessary public services but was uncomfortable with pre- approving an increase particularly in difficult economic times. Mayor Haakenson pointed out this would not impact the current EMS levy, only future voter - approved EMS levies. Councilmember Plunkett was unable to support the motion without an opportunity to review SB 5143 or HB 1318. Council President Wilson responded the first cutoff for legislative bills is this week and there was some question whether the bills would get out of committee. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out if the bill was passed by the Legislature it would give cities the opportunity to raise the EMS levy by up to 6 %, a vote would be required in the future. Councilmember Bernheim questioned who would determine the percentage of increase, whether it would be the City or the voters. He was supportive of the voters indicating they wanted their taxes to keep pace with inflation but was less enthusiastic with providing the City the opportunity to determine the amount of the increase. Councilmember Peterson expressed his support for SB 5143, commenting the voters would ultimately decide if they approved the language the next time the EMS levy was on the ballot. Council President Wilson clarified the only change was allowing an increase in the EMS levy from 1% to 6 %. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out the EMS levy, voted debt and the City's tax rate could not exceed the City's overall tax limit. Councilmember Orvis preferred the bill allow a 1 % per year increase rather than up to 6 %, recalling when Councils were allowed a 6% increase in property taxes, the annual increase was predominately 6% and led to the voters' approval of the 1% cap. He noted the Edmonds voters approved only one of Tim Eyman's anti -tax measures, the 2% cap on property taxes. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, OLSON, AND PETERSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, BERNHELM AND ORVIS OPPOSED. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ACCESSORY BUILDING REGULATIONS DEALING WITH THE DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS CLARIFYING WHEN THEY ARE ATTACHED; THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS• AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled the Council held a public hearing on January 20, 2009 and continued the hearing to allow the City Attorney and him to make revisions to the ordinance. He provided new language that would be added to the definition of an accessory building, "Any building attached by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar connection and otherwise separated by connection and otherwise separated by more than 10 feet from the main building more than 10 feet from the main building shall be considered to be an accessory building." He provided new language that would be inserted into the accessory building regulations, "For the purposes of this section, in order for an accessory building to be considered to be attached to and a part of the main building, the connecting structure must have a roof and must be constructed of similar materials to both the main building and the accessory building so that it appears to be a unified and consistently designed building." He provided language to be added to 16.20.050 Site development standards - Accessory buildings, "Garages or other accessory buildings attached by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar connection to the main building which results in a separation exceeding ten feet in length may not exceed the 15 -foot height limit. The separation shall be determined by the minimum distance between the outside walls of the main building and accessory building, exclusive of the connecting structure." He also provided a new Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 7 definition of hallway, "Hallway, as used in ECDC 16.020.050, 21.05.010 and 21.40.030(c) means a wholly enclosed building which primary purpose is the connection of one building or portion thereof to another. A building or portion thereof which connects one building to another and whose width is 60 percent or less of its length shall be presumed to be a hallway." He concluded the ordinance now addressed all the issues raised at the January 20 public hearing. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, suggested using common sense with regard to connecting buildings with a breezeway, hallway or other connector and assumed most people would think buildings connected in that manner were unattached and that the connector was constructed to provide weather protection for travel between the two buildings. He suggested it was more reasonable to determine whether buildings were attached or unattached by the shared linear distance of the common wall relative to the narrowest wall of the main structure. The current definition weakens the definition of an attached accessory building beyond what was likely intended whereas defining an attached accessory building by linear distance shared by a common wall strengthened the definition. Height requirements of an accessory building could be considered relative to the distance between the primary building and the adjacent properties rather than creating an exception based on a connector. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Senderoff that buildings must be attached by a common wall to be considered one structure. He disagreed with the proposed language, suggesting the City return to the requirement of a common wall to define attached structures. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3728. Council President Wilson explained the problem the ordinance was attempting to address was someone constructing a garage up to 25 feet connected to the residence via a hallway when they should only be allowed a 15 -foot accessory structure. The proposed definitions have been reviewed by the Community Services /Development Services Committee, Planning Board and City Council and are ready for final approval. Councilmember Plunkett agreed in concept with Mr. Senderoff, commenting he did not want the enemy of good to be perfect; to him perfect would be that structures have common foundations and adjoining walls and that the hallway concept not be accepted. However, unless a sufficient number of Councilmembers were opposed to the proposed language, he would support it because it was better than the existing language which clearly allowed someone to build an accessory structure over 15 feet. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REVISIONS TO ECDC 17.60Z PROPERTY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THINGS SUCH AS NOISE LIGHTING PARTICULATE MATTER OPEN STORAGE AND THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY INCLUDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. Mayor Haakenson explained he received several calls today indicating a gentleman had been in their neighborhood who informed them the new ordinance would not allow boat trailers to be parked in yards. Development Services Director Duane Bowman responded he would address boat trailers during his presentation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 8 Mr. Bowman explained this matter arose 3 -4 years ago as a result of the code rewrite and working with the Code Enforcement Officer to address the most commonly filed complaints by the public with regard to property performance standards and nuisance standards. The Council adopted revised nuisances last year and this is the last remaining issue in the original provision. Originally nuisances were in the same code section as property performance standards and the City Attorney recommended they be separated. This matter has been reviewed by the Planning Board and City Council. The Council held a public hearing in November 2008, and a follow -up work session was held on January 27, 2009 to address comments regarding the Planning Board's recommendation. At that time staff recommended the Council hold a public hearing to consider proposed changes discussed by the Council on January 27. The packet includes the Planning Board's original recommendation and the exhibit illustrating changes made to the property performance standards based on Council direction. Mr. Bowman reviewed revisions to Section 17.60.030 regarding lighting, `External lights shall be shielded, trained or directed in a manner which minimizes glare onto adjacent property or passing traffic. Arc welding, acetylene torch cutting or similar processes shall be performed so as not to be seen from any point beyond the outside of the property. Any lighting on a sports field or court shall be turned off by an automatically timed mechanism no later than 10:15 p.m. Field or court lighting fixtures shall minimize scattering of light beyond the field or court being illuminated." He identified language removed from the code regarding particulate matter and language that was added, "Emissions shall comply with the requirements of the state Department of Ecology (DOE) as set forth in Chapter 173 -400 WAC. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained state law preempts the City from adopting any other standard; the City can have no standard or comply with the requirements of DOE. Mr. Bowman highlighted changes to the language regarding open storage, vehicles in residential zones (no more than five motor vehicles shall be parked on a residential lot and each motor vehicle must be currently licensed and operable). He reviewed exemptions to the limit of five motor vehicles including if more than five licensed drivers reside at the same address, if vehicles are parked inside a lawfully permitted and constructed building or screened behind a 6 -foot high solid fence or vegetative barrier, temporary parking not to exceed 72 hours, apartments or other complex with approved building and parking plan, permitted construction areas or motorcycles /mopeds. With regard to recreational vehicles, the code allows no more than two recreational vehicles to be parked outside an approved enclosed structure anywhere on the property. Screening by a minimum 6 -foot high solid fence or vegetative barrier from the adjacent property is required. If the recreational vehicle cannot be stored as described in 17.60.040D or only in one side yard or the rear yard due to site constraints, the vehicle shall be parked off -site during extended times when not in use. He read the definition of recreational vehicle for purposes of the chapter, "Recreational vehicle means a vehicular -type unit primarily designed for recreational camping or travel use that has its own motive power or is mounted on or towed by another vehicle. The units include travel trailers, fifth -wheel trailers, folding camping trailers, truck campers, and motor homes." He noted boats were not included in this definition. Mr. Snyder relayed that definition was used by the Department of Licensing to license recreational vehicles; boat trailers were a different licensing category. Mayor Haakenson clarified neither boats or boat trailers were not included in this definition. Mr. Bowman explained recreational vehicles could be parked in the front yard in the driveway or improved parking surface adjacent or in the side yard or rear yard on an improved parking surface. With regard to open storage, Mr. Bowman displayed photographs of a code enforcement case where a resident collected a large number of bicycles in his back yard that he donated overseas. He pointed out if Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 9 the yard were screened by a minimum 6 -foot high solid fence or vegetative barrier, the open storage of bicycles would be allowed. He displayed a photograph taken from an elevated parking lot from which the backyard full of bicycles was visible. He also identified the neighboring residence from which the bicycles were visible. He suggested the Council reconsider the nuisance regulations that allow screening via a 6 -foot fence. He cautioned a junkyard could be defacto allowed if it were screened with a fence. Mr. Bowman recalled in previous discussions the Council questioned the definition of improved parking. In addition Councilmember Bemheim questioned whether the City wanted to encourage additional impervious surfaces by requiring a paved surface. He noted the requirement for an improved parking surface did not preclude pervious asphalt /concrete or grasscrete as a parking surface for vehicles. The Council could also decide to allow vehicles to be parked on the lawn. For the purposes of this chapter, improved parking surface means any parking surface that has been altered from a natural state with an approved construction material for the purpose of parking or storing vehicles, such as pavers, concrete, asphalt or gravel. He relayed the Planning Board's recommended provision to prohibiting habitation uses and exceptions to this provision, "No vehicle, recreation vehicle, or trailer shall be used for habitation within the boundaries of the City. Exceptions: a recreational vehicle that is originally designed and used as temporary living quarters, may be occupied on private residential property for a period not to exceed 14 days in any calendar year when the owner or user of the vehicle is a nonresident of the City visiting a resident. Any same recreational vehicle stored on the site after the 14 day temporary period shall be licensed to the site address with the State of Washington." Mr. Bowman reviewed staff's response to the questions submitted by Councilmember Bernheim: • A presumption clause in Section 17.60.010 that a resident was not complying with the code. Staff's response: this is standard language that shifts the testing burden to the property owner in instances of noise, electrical interference and vibration measurements area required as the City does not have the equipment or training to conduct those measurements. Councilmember Plunkett observed the standard language placed the burden on the property owner to prove his innocence. City Attorney Scott Snyder agreed it shifted the expense of testing to the property owner. He relayed an example of a complaint that staff determined was correct and issued an enforcement order. The City still must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence; if the City can make a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the property owner to provide expert testimony. Mr. Snyder concluded if the Council adopted technical standards, the choice was to fund an enforcement mechanism or require the property owner to show they were in compliance after the City presented prima facie evidence. He suggested if the Council wanted to eliminate this provision, they also eliminate any standards with regard to lumens, decibels, electrical interference, particulate matter and vibration or any other scientific measure. Mr. Bowman explained this arose primarily with regarding to noise issues; lighting complaints were typically resolved quickly. Mayor Haakenson asked the number of complaints the City received per year regarding lighting and noise. Mr. Bowman answered there were approximately 10 -15 lighting complaints; nearly all were resolved without proof of compliance. Noise was a more difficult issue. Change the minimum 6-foot fence in 17.60.030(H) to a minimum 5-foot fence. Staff's response: a permit is required for fences over 3 feet in height that are also within 10 feet of any street right -of- way or access easement or within 30 feet of a corner. The ordinance requires a minimum 6 -foot fence; a taller fence requires a structural analysis by an engineer. Council President Wilson inquired whether this could be problematic for a property owner with a fence slightly lower than 6 -feet. Mr. Bowman advised the Council could select a range from 5 -6 feet. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 10 Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the minimum 6 -foot fence in these standards to screen storage and the 6 -foot maximum height of fences in the zoning code would require a fence to be exactly 6 feet in height. Mr. Bowman answered the Council could select a height between 5 -6 feet in height. He pointed out a 30 -foot sight - distance triangle must be maintained on a corner lot. Change two recreational vehicles to three. Staff's response: the regulations only allow two to be stored outside an enclosed building; others can be stored in an enclosed building. Mayor Haakenson clarified it was up to the Council how many RVs they wanted to allow on a property. Mr. Bowman agreed, reiterating these revisions were in response to complaints from Edmonds residents. Vehicle storage may be temporary rather than permanent and requiring a paved surface may not be appropriate and residents should be allowed to park on lawns. Staff's response: this is a policy issue for the Council. Councilmember Orvis commented a resident could park an RV on gravel. Mr. Bowman advised a gravel parking surface in the front yard required a 20 -foot asphalt between the right -of -way and the gravel to keep gravel out of the roadway. Councilmember Plunkett questioned the City's interest in prohibiting parking on grass. Mr. Bowman . answered it was to prevent the appearance of damaged grass. He acknowledged it may be preferable not to add impervious surface and to allow property owners to decide where to park particularly in the side and rear yard. He suggested an improved parking surface in the front yard may be appropriate due to the appearance from the street. Mr. Snyder commented the genesis of this type of regulation was large rooming houses in college towns. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there were regulations that required grass in a front yard. Mr. Bowman answered there was not, the issue was how the Council wanted the community to look. Councilmember Plunkett concluded the City's only interest was aesthetics. Change "right -of -way" in I7.60.040(G) to "developed right -of -way" to allow people to park in the undeveloped right -of -way. Staff's response: this is a policy decision. Typically the City discourages use of the right -of -way for parking. Screening would require an encroachment permit. Delete Section I7.60.040(J) that prohibits locating a camper in the front yard except in the driveway as this appears to be a question of local taste over private property. Staff's response: It is a policy decision regarding how the Council wants the community to look. Why require RVs to be licensed in the State of Washington (I 7.60.060.A). Staff's response: this addressed the issue of RVs becoming illegal dwelling units. Mr. Bowman reiterated these regulations were proposed to address frequent citizen complaints. He emphasized staff enforced the code by complaint only; the City has one Code Enforcement Officer and he does not seek out violations. Council President Wilson asked how many complaints the City receives annually related to issues covered by these regulations. Mr. Bowman answered the City receives approximately 200 complaints per year on a wide variety of issues including these. He noted nuisance complaints would now be easier to address because the Council simply required it be screened by a 6 -foot solid fence or vegetated barrier. Council President Wilson commented often code enforcement staff becomes involved in neighborhood disputes. Mr. Bowman replied these regulations defined the rules which the Code Enforcement Officer would enforce. He commented most complaints are resolved rapidly, often as a result of neighbors talking to each other. Mr. Bowman reiterated the issue he raised regarding open storage. Mr. Snyder suggested if the Council did not want to enforce something, they simply inform staff such as technical standards that the City did not have the resources to enforce. He concluded it was better administratively to be able to tell a citizen the Council had decided not to regulate something rather than have a loose /vague standard. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 11 Council President Wilson asked if the language regarding a burden of defense was deleted, the Council would be identifying areas they did not intend to enforce. Mr. Snyder answered without a mechanism to fund analysis or shift the burden of proof, the City should not enforce technical standards such as particulate standards and vibration. Council President Wilson inquired about the cost to provide an enforcement mechanism. Mayor Haakenson suggested retaining the proposed language and request staff provide a report in 6 -12 months regarding how often it was used. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, advising the Council received correspondence from John Heighway with suggested language regarding lighting and from Ed Caspers who will also speak to the Council. Ed Caspers, Edmonds, commented he has had a motor home or trailer parked in his yard for 25 years with no complaint. He asked why the City cared whether he parked on grass or asphalt. He worked out of the county at times and may not be able to renew his vehicle tabs in a timely manner. Because he lives on a corner lot, a 6 -foot fence or vegetation is not practical due to visibility. He was unable to construct a garage on his property to accommodate his trailer and because his lot was on a corner, his entire yard was a front yard. In this economy, he questioned the City requiring residents to install a parking surface or construct a garage or 6 -foot fence. With regard to lighting, he did not want the floodlights he installed to combat vandalism to be removed. He questioned what constituted an approved container for oil, explaining when he changed his car's oil, he placed it in a 5- gallon jug that he took to a recycling bin. Dennis Rydquist, Edmonds, commented this was the first time he had heard about this ordinance. He understood the concern with aesthetics but objected to placing an unfair burden on homeowners particularly in this economy. He did not object to his neighbor's RV and urged the City to tread carefully on property rights and not place onerous rules on homeowners. Dave Page, Edmonds, viewed the proposed regulations as an encroachment on citizens' rights and an example of creeping control and urged the Council not to approve them. He provided a quote from an Australian economist who said the reason the United States was the richest county in the world was because the government started later than the governments of other countries on the policy of intervening on the private lives of its citizens. He concluded each year there were more laws, more regulation, and more control of citizens by government. He suggested most issues could be addressed by negotiation rather than regulations. If these regulations were passed, he anticipated the City would need to hire an additional Code Enforcement Officer. Mayor Haakenson assured the City would not be hiring another Code Enforcement Officer. Marc Petrella, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Page's comments, pointing out most complaints were resolved without additional regulations. He questioned how many complaints the City received regarding RVs that could not be resolved. He envisioned the Council was trying to fix something that was not broken and recommended the Council not approve the ordinance. Lynn Jackson, Edmonds, referred to staff's statement that there were approximately 200 complaints per year, recalling at an earlier Council meeting, of the total complaints received, 60 -70 were related to RVs. She noted 200 complaints represented less than .005% of the population of Edmonds and anticipated many of the 200 complaints were made by the same person, someone who was unhappy with their neighbor. She questioned the amount of time the Council had spent on developing these restrictive policies. She questioned the intent of a 6 -foot fence to screen an RV as most were 9 -11 feet tall and would not be concealed by a 6 -foot fence. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 12 Julie Owensby, Edmonds, expressed support for the regulations regarding the number of vehicles that can be parked on a residential lot. She described a situation in her cul -de -sac where a house across the street has eight cars parked in their yard and in the cul -de -sac. She pointed out numerous vehicles parked in a yard and on the street negatively affected the value of homes in the area. Colin Southcoat Want, Edmonds, pointed out the danger of unintended consequences of some of the provisions, particularly 17.60.040(D) that requires cars parked in the front yard to be on an impervious surface. He provided his situation as an example, two cars in the garage and their teenager's car parked on the grass behind a hedge. If they were required to install an impervious surface to park the car, they may be inclined to park in the street, particularly since the car parking on the grass is temporary. He pointed out there was no definition of improved parking surface such as the amount of gravel, whether strips for the tires were sufficient, etc. He questioned whether it would be preferable for cars to be parked on the street instead of on the grass. Julie Holt, Edmonds, expressed concern with the financial consequences this could have on her parents who have a number of vehicles. She pointed out a homeowner should be allowed to do what they want with their property and the neighbors should not care how many cars are parked in their driveway as long as no illegal activities are occurring on the property. She preferred neighbors work out issues between themselves. She concluded there may be residents who complain simply because they had too much time on their hands. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented his research found there were a lot of RVs in Edmonds, 3 -4 per block parked in driveways in Seaview and many of those homeowners were opposed to the proposed regulations. He thanked Councilmember Bemheim for his questions which addressed the underlying problem with this ordinance. He objected to the intrusion into private property rights and urged the City not to prohibit him from using his grass yard as he wishes. He compared these regulations to the regulations that were proposed regarding treehouses that pitted neighbor against neighbor. He agreed with limiting the number of RVs in the front yard to two but recommended not limiting the total number that could be stored on a property as RVs were more than motor homes. He recommended a fence height of 5 -6 feet rather than a strict 6 feet. He also objected to the requirement to store a camper top in the driveway, viewing that as over regulation. He recommended the Council work from Councilmember Bernheim's questions in revising the proposed regulations. Duane Farman, Edmonds, commented he had a slide- in /un- mounted camper and was uncertain whether it could only be stored in the driveway. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Snyder suggested striking "improved" from Section 17.60.040(D)(1). Mr. Bowman explained Mr. Farman had a paved driveway and a gravel area next to the driveway and his question was whether he could store his camper on the gravel. Mr. Bowman agreed that was reasonable and the ordinance would need to be revised to accommodate that situation. Mr. Bowman acknowledged when this effort began, the economy was better; however, regardless of the economy, the same issues exist. With regard to parking on grass, he noted the testimony seemed to support allowing residents to park on the grass; however, he urged the Council to consider the appearance of the front yard. With regard to Mr. Caspers' comments about his floodlights, Mr. Bowman relayed they must not be a problem because the City has not received any complaints. With regard to oil storage, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 13 storing oil in a sealed container was an appropriate container. Mr. Snyder referred to Section 17.60.040(D)(2)(b) that required containers of oil and fluids to be stored in an approved structure and in compliance with all health regulations and provisions of state and federal law. With regard to concerns expressed about property rights, Mr. Bowman explained these were policy decisions for the Council to determine the type of community they wanted. For example, the Council could strike all regulations regarding RVs. In response to the question about requiring a 6 -foot fence to screen an 11 -foot tall RV, he explained it was an aesthetic issue to provide some screening. He relayed that homeowners associations typically required RVs be stored behind a 6 -foot fence. Mayor Haakenson recalled the 6 -foot fence was not originally intended to screen RVs but nuisance items such as stacked wood, etc. Councilmember Wambolt asked how the average citizen learned the Council was discussing these regulations, commenting because citizens were not aware of the regulations, they assumed they were all new. Mr. Bowman explained many of the regulations had been in place for many years. The revisions addressed the total number of vehicles, RV storage and habitation in an RV. Councilmember Wambolt asked how much of the document was new. Mr. Snyder estimated 5 %. Councilmember Wambolt summarized residents had been regulated by it in the past but were not aware of it because there had not been any complaints. Mr. Bowman agreed enforcement was only by complaint. Mr. Snyder explained the City advertises and posts Planning Board and Council public hearings in excess of State statute requirements. Other than notifying all property owners with a registered RV or more than two cars, there was no practical way to ensure citizens were aware the Council was discussing this topic. Mr. Bowman explained he included common language in the newspaper public hearing notice to ensure the public was aware what performance standards were being discussed. Council President Wilson pointed out if the Council did not pass the ordinance, all the existing regulations regarding odor control, waste disposal, etc. would continue to be enforced. He recommended the Council at least pass the regulations regarding particulate matter. Mr. Snyder explained the provisions of 17.60.030(B) regarding lighting were added at Council suggestion and made the lighting provisions more rational. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE THAT REFLECTS THE COUNCIL DIRECTION. Councilmember Orvis commented he did not care what happened in the back or side yard, he found parking vehicles on the grass acceptable and he agreed with limiting the number of vehicles in the front yard. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO MODIFY THE ORDINANCE SO THAT IT IS OKAY TO PARK ON THE GRASS. Councilmember Olson did not want to regulate the surfaces on which people parked. Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the amendment because he did not favor requiring someone to pave their yard to in order to park in their yard. MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 14 COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CARS IN THE FRONT YARD TO FIVE AND THE NUMBER OF RVS TO TWO. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO REMOVE THE SCREENING REQUIREMENT FOR RVS ANYWHERE ON THE PROPERTY. Councilmember Orvis suggested the requirement for screening be based on the vehicle, pointing out a 6- foot fence would provide a significant screen for a car. He was amenable to lowering the required fence height to 5 �/z feet. Council President Wilson questioned whether the Council wanted to regulate RVs at all. He agreed with not having junk cars on lawns due to their impact on property values and regulating public safety issues. He was supportive of eliminating regulations regarding RVs. Councilmember Wambolt recalled the Beautify America Program started by Ladybird Johnson, recalling many yards before that effort were appalling. He envisioned not regulating the number of vehicles would be a regressive step. Councilmember Peterson commented the requirement for screening was questionable in this economy. However, having several vehicles parked in the yard could adversely affect real estate values in a neighborhood. He observed the Council passed an ordinance tonight restricting accessory buildings that most audience members were pleased with; that too was a restriction of property rights and prevented property owners from constructing a 30 -foot tall garage separate from their house. This ordinance was further regulation regarding the number of vehicles that could be parked in a yard, an aesthetic issue similar to accessory buildings. He encouraged residents to reduce the number of vehicles for environmental reasons. He concluded the Council must balance property rights with the rights of citizens as a whole. He agreed with limiting the number of cars in the front yard, observing if there were no limit on the number of cars in a backyard, would it constitute a junkyard. (u [ 71 Y [�]►C\1_\ 9 0 i f 17C���K�li1►[tl i11u 191u 13 �I:Z�I Z�I6Y�[�71 Y ►[!!►[�a COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AMEND THE HABITATION SECTION 17.60.050 TO READ FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 60 DAYS IN A CALENDAR YEAR. Council President Wilson advised the current language prohibited habitation in an RV for a period longer than 14 days in a calendar year. He recalled as a child his grandparents would stay in their RV for longer than 14 days when visiting his family. Councilmember Wambolt questioned why the City wanted to regulate the habitation period. Mayor Haakenson responded it would prevent people from living in an RV. Mr. Bowman responded there was currently no regulation regarding the time period an RV could be occupied; staff currently enforced it as an unpermitted dwelling unit if there was water and power to the vehicle. Staff could enforce a 60 day period. Councilmember Wambolt asked why occupying an RV for long periods of time was problematic. Mr. Snyder pointed out the extensive regulations the City adopted regarding accessory dwelling units. Councilmember Wambolt asked how staff would determine whether an RV had been occupied for 60 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 15 days. Mr. Bowman answered that information was often provided by the person filing the complaint or staff could establish the 60 day period. Councilmember Plunkett asked why the City cared about someone living in an RV. Mr. Snyder reiterated the City had adopted regulations regarding the number of unrelated individuals that can live at a site as well as circumstances under which a resident could have an accessory dwelling unit. The City should regulate habitation of an RV consistent with regulations of dwelling units. Councilmember Plunkett asked if this provision pertained to a vehicle on the street. Mr. Bowman answered no, as vehicles parked on the street must be moved every 72 hours. Council President Wilson commented there were also public safety concerns with someone living in an RV on a vacant property. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO CHANGE MINIMUM OF 6 FEET HIGH TO A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET HIGH IN 17.60.030(H) OPEN STORAGE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN RV USED FOR HABITATION TO BE LICENSED TO THE SITE ADDRESS WITHIN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. Councilmember Wambolt asked why that language was included. Mr. Bowman answered it was intended to address an out -of -state trailer parked on a site that was used as a dwelling unit. The 60 day habitation provision could now be used to address that situation. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bowman clarified two cars parked in a carport and five cars parked in the front yard would be allowed according to the Council's direction. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO ADD "IMPROVED" PRIOR TO "PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY" IN SECTION 17.60.040(G). Councilmember Bernheim commented the unimproved right -of -way was the property owner's property; the City only had an easement. Mr. Bowman explained in some situations the underlying ownership of the right -of -way belonged to the property owner and the City had an easement for street purposes, in other cases the City may own the right -of -way. Councilmember Bernheim clarified his intent was only the privately owned right -of -way. Councilmember Peterson asked whether this could be a problem for code enforcement. Mr. Bowman agreed it had the potential to be problematic as staff did not survey the location of the right -of -way. Councilmember Orvis suggested allowing the unimproved right -of -way to be used for parking may reduce damage to lawns. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 16 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, ORVIS, BERNHEIM AND PLUNKETT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT AND OLSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO STRIKE SECTION 17.60.040(J). Councilmember Bernheim explained by striking this section it would allow a canopy top to be located in the front yard and not require it be located in the driveway. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Anticipating the audience would depart following the conclusion of this item, Council. President Wilson . announced following the Council meeting, the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) will hold a public hearing on a proposed $20 vehicle license fee. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, congratulated the Council for approving a Sustainability Agenda. She announced Sustainable Edmonds' next meeting on Sunday, February 22, from 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. at the Port of Edmonds conference room, 336 Admiral Way. The focus of the meeting is planning for climate change impacts at Edmonds downtown coastal zone, accounting for future impacts of climate change on the City's planning process. The case study will focus on future sea level rise in relation to the off and on again debate over the past several years of the possible redevelopment of the downtown Edmonds coastal zone. The coastal zone is the area between Puget Sound and the western edge of downtown where land ranges from the beach to a height of only a few feet above sea level where the water tables are only a few feet below the surface in places. Lara Whitely Binder of the UW's Climate Impacts Group will present the scenario for rising sea -level in the 50 -75 year future. Following her presentation, Tim Trohimovich, land use /environmental planner, attorney, and Planning Director of Futurewise, will discuss ways in which the risk of future climate impacts can be factored into the Edmonds planning process. Judy Stead, Edmonds, explained she lived in a small rambler with a view of her neighbor's blue tarps, yet the City's portion of her real estate taxes increased $69.06. She referred to the Council's plans to ask the voters to approve a levy of $22 /month to sustain the basic elements of the City, pointing out basic elements were water, sewer, heat, electricity, safety and transportation. With the newly created TBD and plans to create a Regional Fire Authority, it appeared the City was shifting basic elements away from City responsibility. She questioned the need for a City government if there were centralized taxing districts /authorities to provide basic needs. She reminded the Council that nice -to -have projects such as Yost Pool, the Center for the Arts and the Senior Center were not basic elements and were not necessary for the survival of citizens. She questioned Councilmembers acting as Board Members of the TBD, envisioning a conflict of interest. She asked why another layer of bureaucracy to tax citizens was better for them, how it would save her money and be more efficient and provide basic elements, and how shifting the City's responsibilities for providing basic needs to other government entities benefited citizens. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 17 Merrilyn Alkire, Edmonds, explained during walks along Sunset Avenue with her dog she often needed to sit down due to health issues, yet was told she could not sit on a bench on Sunset Avenue because dogs were not allowed. It was her understanding the City prohibited dogs in parks because owners did not clean up after them; she compared this to banning people from parks because they might litter. She urged the Council to allow leashed dogs in City parks. She also suggested the park south of the ferry terminal be open to people walking their dogs. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, announced the Senior Center had a new director. He commented on the Council's lengthy discussion regarding performance standards, reiterating his thanks to Councilmember Bernheim for his questions. He recalled in the early 1930's when his father worked for the telephone company in the Gray's Harbor area, he worked half a day or 3 -4 days a week. He suggested this as a possibility for City staff. He recalled the Council authorized the Mayor's salary increase earlier this year but now had delayed the increase. He was glad the Council realized the City had a serious financial problem, commenting it had been created by years of leadership that did not realize money did not go on forever. Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, anticipated in the coming months there would be considerable discussion regarding the levy on the November ballot to fund city operations. He shared the response of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg when questioned about New York City's response to current financial challenges relative to those in the 1970s, "we're not going to make the mistake that was made in the 70's to stop policing the streets, stop cleaning the streets, stop cleaning graffiti off buildings, stop supporting cultural institutions, building parks, schools and all those things. We're going to continue those things. We may have to stretch some construction projects, ask people to do more with less, may not be able to have the frills or life at the edge but we're not going to walk away from our city; that's the prescription for disaster. When you do that your tax base leaves and the rest of this county as well as New York are going to have exactly the same decisions to make; the taxpayers are going to have to decide whether they want to have a future or not. If they don't want to have a future they're not going to have to pay as much now but if they want to leave a better world for their kids, they're going to have to pay the bills up front." Mr. Senderoff summarized Mayor Bloomberg's message was that the city government and the community bear the responsibility to ensure the services they value and depend on are continued and that they do not entirely neglect new growth opportunities. He commented it may be useful to remind each other of this message in the months ahead as discussions proceed and the levy vote approaches. Councilmember Wambolt asked why the Council banned dogs from the benches on Sunset Avenue. Mayor Haakenson recalled the Council placed strict restrictions on dogs in parks; Sunset Avenue is considered a park. 10. ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE TITLE 5 - CRIMINAL OFFENSES. This item was removed from the agenda. IL REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 10. 2009. Finance Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee reviewed proposed amendments to the Fee Resolution . which was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. Staff reviewed the Interfund Loan that had been established and this was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. Next staff reviewed the January 2009 Revenue and Expenditure reports, no action was required. Staff provided an overview of changes made to the April 2000 Purchasing Policy which was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. Staff described Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 18 the results of the Utility Rate Study; this item will be presented to the full Council as a public hearing. The final item discussed by the Committee was a sole source purchase to replace the sewer TV truck. Community Services /Development Services Committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee reviewed a proposed ordinance amending City adopted building code ECDC 19.00.005 relating to a required progress inspection for permit renewal. This was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. Public Safety Committee Councilmember Peterson reported the Committee reviewed an Interlocal Agreement with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for office space in the Public Safety Building which was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. The Committee was also informed that due to budget cuts, Snohomish County District Court will no longer prosecute gross misdemeanors and will refer them to Municipal Court. An ordinance amending Edmonds City Code Title 5 - Anticipatory Offenses - was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. Agenda item 10 which was removed addressed several other issues that the Committee requested be discussed again at their next meeting. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson referred to an article in the Enterprise that attributed a comment to him regarding the levy, "instead $4.5 million represents the cost of avoiding either dramatic city- changing cutbacks or bankruptcy." After receiving a call from King 5 news regarding the City being in bankruptcy, Mayor Haakenson clarified the City was not in bankruptcy and was not considering bankruptcy. His comment at the retreat was if the levy fails and the City failed to make budget cuts, it would essentially go bankrupt. He assured the City was not going bankrupt but was in dire financial straits and if the levy failed, budget cuts would be made. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Wilson invited anyone interested in participating on the Citizen Review Committee to contact Council Executive Assistant Jana Spellman via email at S ellman ci.edtnonds.wa.us. He requested participants be able to attend meetings on Monday March 23, March 30, April 6 and April 13 from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. To Ms. Stead's comments about the creation of a new bureaucracy, Council President Wilson assured no one wanted to create bureaucracy; however, an Eyman initiative several years ago dramatically reduced funds for transportation and prevented the City from continuing to provide the same service level although the City did more with less than any other like City. The City's property taxes are lower than similar cities and the City provides a broader range of services with fewer employees per capita. He recalled Ms. Stead recommended the City focus on need -to -have items rather than want -to -have, noting she included parks as a want -to -have. He pointed out that was the question, whether residents wanted Yost Pool and parks. He anticipated public hearings would be held in September and October on ordinances identifying cuts that would be required if the levy did not pass. Mayor Haakenson explained after realizing the Eyman initiative reduced transportation funding, the State Legislature created the ability to establish a TBD and the bureaucracy to collect those funds. Council President Wilson assured there was not a separate bureaucracy other than the Board and there was no separate staff. He explained the Regional Fire Authority (RTA) was still under consideration and if created, it would be because a better level of service could be provided for less money. If an RFA were formed, he anticipated City taxes would be lowered. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 19 Councilmember Peterson announced Council President Wilson and he were going to Olympia on Wednesday and Thursday to attend the Association of Washington Cities legislative conference and Environmental Lobby Day on Thursday along with members of Sustainable Edmonds. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 20