Loading...
05/05/2009 City CouncilMay 5, 2009 At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would be meeting in executive session regarding labor negotiation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers Wambolt, Orvis, Olson, Bernheim, and Plunkett. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 6:48 p.m. The regular 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 Ron Wambolt, Council President Pro Tern Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT D. J. Wilson, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager 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 requested a Proclamation in Honor of National Day of Prayer be added as Consent Agenda Item I, and a Proclamation in Honor of National Police Week be added as Agenda Item 4A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #111328 THROUGH #111458 FOR APRIL 30, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $271,087.18. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 1 D. CONFIRMATION OF NEWLY APPOINTED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONER. E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JOSH BAUMAN ($228.96). F. AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR CONSORTIUM FOR NEGOTIATION OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISING. G. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED APRIL 21, 2009 FOR THE 76TH AVENUE WEST /75TH PLACE WEST WALKWAY AND 162ND STREET SW PARK PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PRECISION EARTHWORKS, INC. ($1,634,667.54). H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC FOR PERFORMING A STUDY OF THE CITY'S SEWER SYSTEM INFILTRATION AND INFLOW (I /I). L PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER, MAY 7, 2009. 3. RECOGNITION OF RETIRING PORT OF EDMONDS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CHRIS KEUSS AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ROBERT McCHESNEY. Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation in honor of Chris Keuss Day on May 15, 2009, recognizing Mr. Keuss for his service as the Executive Director to the Port of Edmonds since 2002 and the Deputy Director from 1997 to 2001. Mr. Keuss thanked the Mayor, Council, staff and Edmonds residents for their support of the Port and the assistance they provided to him. He noted many of his accomplishments would not have been possible without that support. He thanked the staff for the assistance they provided to him and the Port staff over the years. On behalf of the five Port Commissioners, Commissioner Fred Gough thanked Mr. Keuss for the integrity he brought to the Edmonds community and the excellent job he has done. He pointed out Mr. Keuss has five bosses, the five Port Commissioners, and he had done a great job communicating to the Commissioners including meeting with Commissioners individually in an effort to reach consensus. As the Council Liaison to the Port for the past 3'/2 years, Council President Pro Tem Wambolt attested to the accolades in the proclamation regarding Mr. Keuss' service and dedication. 4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE BIG READ MONTH MAY 2009. Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation in honor of the Big Read Month, May 2009, and presented it to Edmonds Managing Librarian Leslie Caplan. The "Maltese Falcon," by Dashiell Hammet was selected as the book to read for this community -wide reading project. Ms. Caplan encouraged everyone to visit the library and enjoy a book discussion. 4A. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL POLICE WEEK, MAY 10-16,2009. Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation in honor of National Police Week, May 10 -16, 2009 and asked citizens to join him in saluting the service of the law enforcement officers in the community and in communities across the nation as well as honoring the brave men and women who made the ultimate Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 2 sacrifice and were killed in the line of duty while protecting and safeguarding our democracy. He presented the Proclamation to Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless. Assistance Chief Lawless thanked the Council for the Proclamation, commenting the week of May 10 -16 was very important to law enforcement, particularly May 15, Peace Officers Memorial Day. He relayed while attending the National FBI Academy recently he participated in a rededication of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. 5. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF ARTS EDUCATION MONTH. MAY 2009. Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation in honor of Arts Education Month, May 2009 and presented it to Pam Harold, Edmonds Arts Commission; Laurie Piper, Edmonds School District Arts Program; and Darlene McLellan, Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation. Ms. Piper thanked the City, the Edmonds Arts Commission, the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation and the numerous other arts organizations who faithfully support arts education in the schools. She encouraged everyone to attend the Edmonds Arts Festival on June 19 -21 at the Frances Anderson Center. 6. EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION 2008 ANNUAL REVIEW AND PRESENTATION OF 2009 SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS. Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin explained the Edmonds City Council established the Arts Commission 35 years ago, one of only about 5,000 in the country. National research indicates communities actively engaged in cultural planning grow their cultural assets threes times as much as communities who do not have a cultural plan. Edmonds has had a cultural plan for the past 15 years. Edmonds Arts Commission Chair Greg Banasek introduced Commission members Rich Bader, Pam Harold, Joanne Otness, Mary Monfort, Todd Timmcke, Samantha Saether, and Mary Moford. He also recognized Kris Gillespie, Cultural Services Assistant. Mr. Banasek provided highlights of their 2008 accomplishments, including completing the update of the Community Cultural plan; record attendance at the Write on the Sound Writer's Conference that generated over $25,000; and free summer concerts in the park funded by generous contributions from local businesses, Lynnwood Honda and Acura of Lynnwood. Several successful partnerships included Zing Go the Strings with Edmonds Center for the Arts; the Artist in Residence program in local schools; Best Book I Ever Read Poster Contest with the Friends of the Edmonds Library; exhibits by regional artists in the Library and Frances Anderson Center; the Japanese Cultural Fair at with the Sister City Commission; and the Everybody Reads Photo Contest with the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation. Mr. Banasek read from a recent Arts and the Economy study released by the National Governors Association regarding the importance of art and culture to states' economies and the direct economic benefit they provide to states and communities, creating jobs, attracting investment, generating tax revenues and stimulating local economies through tourism and consumer purchases. Research by Americans for the Arts found non profit organizations and their audiences generate $166.2 million in economic activity every year. The recent Creative Industries Report shows 161 arts related businesses exist in Edmonds that employ 505 people, not including individual artists. Arts Commissioner Todd Timmcke announced the 2009 scholarship recipients: Andrew Leonard, Elizabeth Melnikas, Ingrid Porter and Eric Jellison. He explained each year the Arts Commission awards scholarships in performing and literary arts to talented students who show promising careers in the arts. He reported that Eric Jellison plays the trumpet and plans a career in the arts. Andrew Leonard is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 3 pursuing studies in musical theater. Elizabeth Melnikas is a talented musician who plays the flute and the saxophone and plans a performing and teaching career in the arts. And, Ingrid Porter is a dancer with a promising career in the art of dance. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT LEVY PROPOSAL AND DRAFT RESOLUTION REGARDING 2009 PROPERTY TAX LEVY. Mayor Haakenson explained the draft levy proposal and resolution were developed by Council President Wilson and neither staff nor the Council had the opportunity to provide input yet. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, asked whether the funds from the levy would be sufficient for the future. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reiterated his concern with specifying certain uses for the levy funds because residents would expect the funds be used for those purposes; however, staff had the ability to transfer money via Interfund Transfers that was only approved by the Council after the fact. He recommended changing the process to require Council approval of Interfund Transfers before they occurred. In response to Mr. Rutledge's question whether this was the final levy, Council President Pro Tern Wambolt answered this would be the last levy until the next one, anticipating this would not be the Last levy in the City's history. If the levy passed, he was hopeful there would be enough revenue growth during those years and that the legislature would allow cities to raise property taxes by an amount greater than I %. In response to Mr. Hertrich's comments, Council President Pro Tern Wambolt pointed out if the levy passed, none of the City's services would be enhanced and there would be additional cuts if the levy did not pass. The levy was required to maintain the status quo with the exception of the cuts made by Mayor Haakenson in March. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20 RELATING TO ESTABLISHING PERMIT TYPES PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, CONSISTENCY WITH SEPA, OPEN RECORD HEARING PROCEDURES CLOSED RECORD APPEALS AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was the second public hearing on amendments to Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code; the first hearing was held in March. He explained this was part of the overall code rewrite; the objectives of the code rewrite were to, 1) provide clear standards for permit processing, 2) reduce potential for legal liability, and 3) address the Hearing Examiner's procedural concerns. He identified the major proposed changes: • Establishing permit types. • Creating tables that identify the different permit types and decision - making processes. • Submission requirements and procedures. • Change public notice requirements and procedures to require the permit applicant to provide the notice. • Establishing SEPA consistency regulations. • Establishing open and closed record hearing procedures. • Creating a new section regarding Development Agreements. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 4 With regard to the format, Title 20 will be reformatted to place the process and procedures section at the start of the chapter with a subsection for specific permit review criteria. The process and procedures section will have the following seven subsections: • Chapter 20.01 — Types of development project permit types • Chapter 20.02 — Type I -IV development project permit applications • Chapter 20.03 — Public notice requirements • Chapter 20.04 — Consistency with development regulations and SEPA • Chapter 20.06 —Open record public hearings • Chapter 20.07 — Closed record appeals • Chapter 20.08 — Development Agreements He reviewed a matrix in Chapter 20.01 that identified the permit type and decision process. He reviewed a second matrix that identified the procedures for Type I — V permits that addressed recommendation, final decision, notice of application, open record public hearing or open record appeal of a final decision, closed record review and judicial appeal. Mr. Chave reviewed the public notice requirement in Chapter 20.03, explaining the biggest change in this section was the requirement for the applicant /appellant to provide all public notice. Staff will prepare the notice and give it to the permit applicant/appellant to post and mail. The code contains requirements regarding when and where notice must be provided. Failure to provide proper notice will result in beginning the process again. He noted this change would also reduce administrative costs to the City. Mr. Chave explained Chapter 20.04 requires consistency with development regulations and SEPA. This chapter codifies what staff already does in preparing staff reports and adds planned actions which are not currently addressed in the code. Chapter 20.06, Open Record Public Hearings, establishes clear procedures for conducting open record hearings, addresses the issues raised by the Hearing Examiner regarding processing reconsideration requests, and establishes the burden of proof. Chapter 20.07, Closed Record Appeals, establishes procedures for closed record appeals, establishes a consolidated appeals process, and establishes standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Mr. Chave recalled former Development Services Director Duane Bowman identified five areas where the Council would no longer be involved in appeals under the proposed regulations: 1) appeals of Conditional Use Permits 2) variances, 3) preliminary plat/major amendments to a plat, 4) shoreline substantial development variance permits and 4) appeals of Draft EIS or SEPA decisions. Mr. Chave explained Chapter 20.08, Development Agreements, is a new section that addresses development agreements, establishes the processing procedures, and establishes an appeal process. Mr. Chave identified the following reasons for having the Council involved in quasi judicial decisions: 1. Council is representative. 2. Council is elected. 3. Highest local authority. 4. Can better monitor and understand interaction between policy and decision. 5. Cost to go to court. Mr. Chave identified the following reasons for not having the Council involved in quasi judicial decisions: 1. Very limited latitude in quasi judicial matters. 2. Restricts ability to discuss with citizens. 3. Freedom to get involved in public design. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 5 4. Quasi judicial decisions must be decided professionally not legislatively. 5. Liability 6. Political process best for legislative matters. 7. Intermediate step — still have ability for court appeal. Mr. Chave clarified under the proposed ordinance, the Council retains the ability for a quasi judicial appeal on major ADB projects. He recommended the City regularly update the code rather than waiting for a major code rewrite such as was occurring now. With regard to shoreline appeals, he clarified the Council did not currently make a decision, they only ruled on the appeal. The final decision was made by the Shoreline Hearings Board. With regard to substantial development permits, the decision was made at the Hearing Examiner level but it was reviewed by the State. With regard to CUPs, preliminary plat decisions, the Council would be removed from the appeal process. However, in his experience, attorneys were usually involved at the appeal level under the current process. Councilmember Plunkett noted another significant change was in a closed record appeal, the applicant, appellant and parties of records must submit materials in writing. Mr. Chave explained the code currently allowed parties to make argument based on the record at the closed record appeal but they were not allowed to introduce new factual information. Under the proposed rules, verbal argument would not be allowed and argument was confined to written statements. He explained with verbal argument, it was virtually impossible during a hearing to determine whether or not information was new. However, having the information provided in writing would allow a determination to be made whether the information was part of the record and not new information that could potentially prejudice the appeal hearing. Councilmember Plunkett asked who would redact the written statements submitted for a closed record appeal and if the information were redacted, how would the Council be informed. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered he disliked interrupting speakers during a closed record appeal when it appeared their commentary was outside the record. He envisioned it would be up to the other party to object to anything in the written materials submitted for the closed record appeal; staff and he would prefer not to redact any materials. He summarized staff would review the materials submitted but it would be up to a party to object if they believed information was being injected into the record. Councilmember Plunkett anticipated the Council would then receive two or more opinions on what materials should be redacted, from the applicant and appellant and possibly other parties of record. Mr. Snyder envisioned a rule would be established to allow written objection to anything in the record and the Council would make an initial determination before beginning its deliberations to dispose of any procedural objections. Mr. Snyder commented this would also provide a discussion on the record and an indication regarding what material was considered. Councilmember Bernheim asked how the Hearing Examiner was selected and appointed. Mayor Haakenson advised Council representatives participated in the interview process; Council President Pro Tern Wambolt and Councilmember Orvis participated in the interview and selection of the current Hearing Examiner. Mr. Chave summarized the Council's involvement was via the interview process and approving the Hearing Examiner's contract. Councilmember Bernheim referred to the five decisions the Council would no longer participate in, CUP, general variances and sign permit variances, preliminary plats, shoreline development and draft EIS and asked what discretion there was in approving /denying an appeal. Mr. Chave answered the rules were quite strict; there were specific criteria in the code with regard to variances and the Hearing Examiner has been very strict about applying them. CUPs also have specific criteria. Shoreline permits, whether a shoreline substantial development permit or a variance, must comply with the Shoreline Master Program which is the reason the State retains authority over the shoreline pen-nits. Local jurisdictions when Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 6 enacting and enforcing a Shoreline Master Program are acting as the State's agent. Preliminary plat is a ministerial decision, applying the criteria, and there is very little discretion. With regard to SEPA, Mr. Chave clarified it was not a decision on an EIS but a threshold determination, whether additional study was needed. It was often difficult to explain to the public that if they were interested in the project, they needed to participate in the hearing about the project because design issues, etc. were not environmental impacts that would be addressed by SEPA. He summarized SEPA was a very technical analysis and did not lend itself to discretionary decision. Mr. Snyder commented the difficulty was applying the Substantial and Competent Evidence Doctrine. He acknowledged the process was inherently skewed in favor of the developer who will retain experts and give a series of expert opinions or address facts in the record. The difficulty for citizens was they often raised questions but seldom provided evidence. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether it was possible for the Council and Hearing Examiner to reach different conclusions when reviewing the same record. Mr. Snyder agreed decisions were often close. He noted Washington Cities Insurance Authority's (WCIA) concern about liability was based on their experience with City Councils being susceptible to argument to make something right. Councilmember Orvis referred to Councilmembers being personally liable, noting in the Spokane case the Council injected themselves into a ministerial decision, they were acting outside what State law allowed and their attorney advised them not to. He summarized for a Councilmember to be personally liable they would have to do something really unwise. Council President Pro Tem Wambolt pointed out the list of reasons why to have the Council involved in quasi judicial decision - making and why not to have the Council involved, Exhibit 5, was added since the March 17 hearing. All the other information was the same. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would take comment tonight and deliberate on May 19. He opened the public participation portion of the public hearing John Reed, Edmonds, a member of the Planning Board, advised the Planning Board held 7 meetings on revisions to Chapter 20 from mid -2007 to March 2008. He was opposed to some of the proposed changes, pointing out citizens directly affected by land use decisions began the process at a disadvantage because staff and developers understand the process. Citizens do not understand the process and often come into the process late and are not aware how to proceed. He pointed out many issues are discussed and decided by the Planning Board with little or no public input because citizens know they can present their case to the Council. He requested the Council make two changes to Chapter 20, 1) restore the Council's role as quasi judicial authority from which they were proposed to be removed, and 2) restore verbal argument to the quasi judicial appeal process; Councilmembers needed to hear citizens' emotions. The Planning Board spent 10 months and 7 meetings developing the proposed amendment; the Council should take the necessary time before taking action on these important changes. He urged the Council to increase citizens' opportunity for land use participation as well as increase the Council's role in these decisions. He disagreed with the Council effectively telling citizens if they disagreed with something happening next door, their only option was to hire an attorney and go to court; many could not afford to do so and would not take that step. He urged the Council before voting on these changes to explain to the citizen why they were voting in the manner they did. Dr. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, commented it was ironic while Americans were demanding more oversight and transparency in government, the Council was considering this legislation. He recalled his earlier comments regarding how the Council would provide checks and balances regarding land use issues when they would no longer be the highest decision maker. He disagreed that the Council did not have an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 7 oversight responsibility, pointing out the U.S. Congress was a legislative branch that had oversight responsibility. He disagreed with staff's indication that Council would have more oversight via the ability to discuss citizens concerns on specific projects because they will not be involved in quasi judicial hearings. He pointed out the difficulty for citizens to keep abreast of issues before Council as well as before the Hearing Examiner and assumed even the Council may not be aware of permits before the Hearing Examiner. He understood quasi judicial cases were challenging for the Council because they must follow the law, pointing out true leaders accept the responsibility of explaining the requirements to constituents. He questioned how Councilmembers could position themselves as environmental proponents while voting to reduce public oversight and transparency over shoreline substantial development and shoreline variances. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, commented the first time she spoke regarding Chapter 20 was in regard to the lack of transparency to the public when they were not provided the matrixes. She received the matrixes 10 days later and found them very insightful, illustrating that the Council would be removed from decisions on substantial shoreline variances. She stressed the Council should be responsible for hearing citizens and responsible for reviewing development on the Edmonds shoreline. Betty Larman, Edmonds, recalled her appeal of a building permit to the Council on which the Council agreed. She thanked Council President Pro Tem Wambolt for removing this item from the Consent Agenda. She expressed concern with how quickly four Councilmembers passed the amendment, commenting they had reneged their responsibility by agreeing to allow the Hearing Examiner to hear appeals. She disputed the argument that the Hearing Examiner was more knowledgeable, pointing out several decisions have been lost on appeal. She observed staff wanted the Council to remove themselves from difficult decisions which she viewed as weakening the City as it did not allow citizens to have their voice heard without going to court. She urged the Council to uphold citizens' rights to come to their elected representatives and for the Council to hear, not read, their comments regarding important issues. She summarized the Council should be the final authority on all appeals and urged the Council to reject the ordinance as written. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented when he was on the Council, he considered it the highest honor to act as a judge in quasi judicial matters. Removing the Council from that role diminishes their ability to represent the community. He referred to the matrixes and suggested adding descriptions about the permit types and who was responsible for each decision. He asserted by removing themselves from final authority on final plats, the Council was in violation of its responsibility. He urged the Council to take as much time as the Planning Board to review and make a decision on the proposed amendments. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he attends many Planning Board, Architectural Design Board and Hearing Examiner meetings. He pointed out at Hearing Examiner meetings, the Hearing Examiner will often ask for comments in writing to ensure clarity. He asked City Attorney Scott Snyder to comment on the lengthy Burnstead court case. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing In response to Mr. Rutledge's comment, Mr. Snyder responded the Burnstead appeal was very atypical in the length of time, the level of briefing, and the number of hours and was hopefully an anomaly. He commented the belief that having the Council in the process would affect appeals one way or another was erroneous. Whether a citizen or developer, it was likely a close decision would be appealed and the LUPA process was typically fairly quick. He did not anticipate having the Council involved in the process would change the number of appeals that occurred. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 8 9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS George Murray, Edmonds, commented last week's meeting included many articulate comments on both sides of the issue of banning plastic bags. Although few citizens were able to provide similar comment on the amendments to Chapter 20 because it was such a complex subject, he was glad a few citizens had researched the issue and provided comment. Next, he pointed out the Port Commission does a good job of reaching consensus of opinion. He planned to begin attending Port meetings. He noted consensus was the act of consenting as well as the consensus process. For example, Congress requires a 60 vote margin to avoid trampling the minority. He urged the Council to take the time necessary to get amendments to Chapter 20 right. Betty Larman, Edmonds, questioned why the Council was spending so much time discussing a ban on plastic bags, if it was because it was election season and camera time was important to promote oneself. She pointed out there was no ordinance for consideration and no definition of plastic bags and a myriad of uses for plastic bags to be considered. She agreed pollution was reprehensive and unacceptable but felt banning plastic bags was not the answer. She preferred education rather than legislation that would be nearly impossible to implement and control. She suggested if stores charged a fee for plastic bags as they do in Europe's large markets, customers would remember to bring their own bags /baskets. She urged the Council to stop wasting time discussing a plastic bag ban and use their time to brainstorm ways to make the City thrive and become solvent again, the most pressing and important issue facing the Council. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, provided the Council a history regarding pool studies, the first in 1994 while Laura Hall was Mayor, the second in 2001 while Barbara Fahey was Mayor and now the third in 2009. He urged the City to finalize the pool issue. Next, he pointed out State law allowed the City to make a mid -year budget adjustment. He also indicated his plans to comment at the May 19 meeting regarding the plastic bag ban on behalf of the food bank. He urged the City to reach a compromise. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the revisions to Chapter 20, particularly the change in public notice, asserting the public was better served by staff continuing to provide notice, pointing out the increased fees could be used to cover the cost. He suggested Chapter 20 be revised to allow email exchange of information rather than only mail. He referred to the decision matrix in Chapter 20, pointing out decisions staff could make include boundary line adjustments, minor amendments to PRDs, SEPA determinations, sign permits, administrative variances and accessory dwellings. The action type matrix indicates there is an opportunity for judicial appeal of staff decisions; however, there was no notice of application so the public was not aware an application had been submitted and a decision made. He summarized in staff decisions the public was left out. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, Director, Edmonds Arts Festival, announced the Edmonds Arts Festival was recently named Best in the West by King 5 TV. She announced the India: Land of Many Colors patrons preview event on June 18 and the Arts Festival on June 19 -21. With regard to plastic bags, as a regulatory consultant to Lithuania and Kazakhstan for several years, she found if people were given a choice, they always felt good about it. Rather than ban plastic bags, she suggested people be given a choice and /or charged 5 cents per bag. 1.0. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Pro Tem Wambolt pointed out several people questioned why the Council was rushing to adopt the revisions to Chapter 20 and urging the Council to also take up to 13 months to make a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 9 decision. However, he noted most felt even though the Planning Board took 13 months to provide their recommendation, their decision was incorrect. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2009 Page 10