Loading...
08/04/2009 City CouncilAugust 4, 2009 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 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 Rob English, City Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #113199 THROUGH #113289 DATED JULY 30, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $109,256.22. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM RUTH HAYES- ARISTA ($9,089.75). 3. NAMING OF NEW PARK IN EDMONDS. Mayor Haakenson recalled the following motion was made and votes taken at the July 28 meeting: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO NAME THE PARK HICKMAN PARK. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TIED (3 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND PETERSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT AND BERNHEIM OPPOSED. With Council President Wilson present, the following vote was taken on the motion: UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, OLSON AND PETERSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT AND BERNHEIM OPPOSED. 4. AIRING INTERVIEWS OF CANDIDATES IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AUGUST 18, 2009 PRIMARY ON CITY OF EDMONDS GOVERNMENT CHANNEL. Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained candidates running for Edmonds City Council positions 2 and 3 recently participated in candidate interviews hosted by Edmonds Community College with interviews conducted by former Councilmembers Dick Van Hollenbeke and Mauri Moore. Although sponsors intended to air the interviews on the education channel, when Edmonds Community College staff recognized the length of the programs, they contacted the City last week to ask whether the city could air the interview on the City Government Channel. Staff contacted the City Attorney's office and began working with Mauri Moore and Dan Dutsen, Edmonds Community College, to ensure proper procedures were followed in processing this request and in order to move the issue forward as soon as possible. He also contacted Council President Pro Tem Wambolt who approved adding the item on tonight's City Council agenda. If the Council supports airing the candidate interviews, staff will work to program the interviews around the scheduled City Council meetings beginning Wednesday, August 5. Mr. Clifton relayed comments that the City had injected itself into Edmonds City Council positions 2 and 3 candidate interview process and may be trying to impede airing the interviews. He pointed out the City was contacted with a request to air the candidate interviews on the City's Government Channel after the interviews were conducted at a non -City facility. The sponsors of the candidate interviews cannot make a commitment to use the City Government Channel without first submitting a request to the City as it is not a public access channel and City staff must conduct due diligence before airing the interviews. In an effort to determine whether the interviews were conducted on an even playing field, he posed the following questions to Mauri Moore and Dan Dutsen, Visual Communication Specialist, Edmonds Community College. • Were all candidates asked the same questions? Answer: yes. • For each question asked, was each candidate given the same amount of time to respond? Answer: yes, with an official timer monitoring their response. • Did each candidate have the ability to offer opening remarks? Were they given the same amount of time to respond? Answer: yes. • Did candidates receive questions in advance of the interview? Answer: no. • Was editing involved or were any responses specifically edited? Answer: no. Neither the Council's adopted rules regarding the City Government Channel nor its restrictions on campaign use of public facilities specifically address this type of issue. According to the City Attorney, given the responses to the above questions, the interviews could be considered neutral in scope and a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 2 policy decision whether to air the interviews on the Government Channel could be made by the City Council. Staff reviewed the interviews on July 31 to ensure all candidates were asked the same questions, given the same amount of time to respond and offered the same opportunity for introductory or closing remarks. After consulting with the City Attorney's office, staff also requested and received signed releases from Council candidates to air the interviews on Channel 21. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out Channel 21 was not an open public forum. Under Washington law there were a variety of public forums to which everyone had access such as rights -of -way; anyone could place a sign in the City's rights -of -way. The City and City Council have been careful in the past to restrict the use of Channel 21. The reason for content - neutral rules is to prevent converting a limited public forum to an open public forum. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE AIRING OF THE CANDIDATE FORUMS CONDUCTED BY THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE ON CHANNEL 21. Councilmember Plunkett thanked staff and Mr. Snyder for doing due diligence before the interviews were aired. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN UPDATE OF THE 2002 TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THE AMENDMENTS IN THE PROPOSED 2009 TRANSPORTATION PLAN WOULD: (1) USE A FUTURE PLANNING YEAR OF 2025 INSTEAD OF 2022. (2) BASE CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON UPDATED CITYWIDE TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL AND UPDATED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ON STATE ROUTES. (3) INCORPORATE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF SAFETY STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BETWEEN 2002 AND 2009. (4) GIVE STRONGER EMPHASIS TO NON - MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. THE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED CONSISTS OF ABOUT 25% OF PLANNED COSTS INSTEAD OF ABOUT 5% IN THE 2002 PLAN. (5) UTILIZE COST PROJECTIONS REFLECTING HIGHER PER UNIT PRICES TO REFLECT TRENDS AND PROJECT COSTS. (6) ADJUST REFERENCES TO THE EDMONDS CROSSING MULTI -MODAL PLAN. NO CITY EXPENDITURES ARE PROPOSED BUT THE ITEM IS RETAINED AS A LONG -TERM PROJECT. (7) UPDATE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, INCREASING THE FEE FROM $764 PER TRIP TO $1,040 PER TRIP. (8) ADD A TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM AND ADA RAMP TRANSITION PLAN AS ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS. Jennifer Barnes, ICF Jones & Stokes, explained minor changes were made to the Transportation. Plan since the July 21 presentation to the Council to incorporate agency feedback. She explained concurrency is the state law that requires transportation be adequate to support planned land use and adequacy is measured by the locally adopted level of service (LOS) standards. The three categories of roads in the Plan are City streets for which the City sets the standards; state highways of statewide significance and highways of regional significance which are not subject to concurrency but local jurisdictions must analyze the affect of land use on their facilities. She reviewed changes made to the Plan: Incorporated WSDOT feedback on LOS standards for state routes which affected concurrency analysis and conclusions • SR 104: LOS D instead of LOS E ■ No resulting changes to results or recommendations • SR 524: LOS E instead of LOS D • Caspers /91h Avenue concurrency triggered in 2025 instead of 2015 • Revised impact fee: $1040 /trip (instead of $1,071 /trip) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 3 Project changes decreased overall costs by approximately $2.6 million o Decreased overlay costs by approximately $3.2 million to reflect 25 -year lifecycle for local streets instead of 20 -year o Three TIP projects added approximately $626,000 Ms. Barnes reviewed the cost of the draft Plan, explaining the total cost was $1.03,046,300 for 2010 . through 2025 (current dollars). She displayed a chart illustrating breakdown of costs, approximately' /4 in non - motorized projects, t/4 for preservation and maintenance and t/ in roadway projects. She provided a comparison of cost ($103,046,300) versus revenue ($40,710,931) and the projected shortfall of $62,335,369. She noted the revised revenue reflects the reduction in the impact fee. The projected revenue would fund approximately 23% of the Plan. Approximately $16 million would be "left on the table" due to the unavailability of City matching funds. She displayed a summary of example funding scenarios illustrating what projects could be funded via the current funding level, and with an additional $20, $40, $60 and $80 TBD vehicle license fee. She relayed staff's recommendation to approve the plan following a second public hearing with a recommendation to begin investigation in 2010 of additional TDB funding. Funding levels and projects to be funded would be developed as part of the total funding package. She advised the Transportation Plan would be adopted as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan update this fall. City Attorney Scott Snyder observed a number of changes were made to the Plan including to the concurrency requirements and the transportation impact fee. Changes to the concurrency requirements require published notice of the changes. Staff agreed to proceed with tonight's public hearing and republish notice of the hearing in two weeks prior to a final decision by the Council. He requested the Council provide direction to staff tonight regarding any additional changes to ensure any substantive charges were published in that notice. Councilmember Plunkett asked if a TBD fee could be placed on the ballot that included a range of amounts. Mr. Snyder responded it would be difficult to meet election requirements regarding ballot titles with a multiple choice fee. Given the sensitivity of the issue, he recommended the Council select a specific amount. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the change in the overlay cycle from 20 years to 25, inquiring how 25 years was selected and whether an overlay standard was used. Ms. Barnes responded upon reflection, 25 years appeared to be more realistic for local roads. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there was a state standard for local roads. Public Works Director Noel Miller answered there was not a state standard, there was an industry standard of what could be expected from an overlay. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Lora Petso, Edmonds, suggested more than a two week delay to allow the Council time to review the written comments she submitted. In addition to improperly noticing the hearing, she pointed out the Transportation Plan was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan particularly in regard to growth projections and the City did not have proper procedures in place for Comprehensive Plan amendments. She recommended the Council not increase the $20 TBD fee and not authorize a "raid" of REST funds. She requested the Council review the Plan for changes in project priorities, noting the top priority in this Plan, $4 million to construct a road from 228th /Hwy. 99 to 76th, was not in the prior Plan. The Walkway Plan also assigns a high priority to Olympic Avenue between Main and 196th although there is an existing sidewalk on the entire east side. She questioned the scoring on the matrix, for example a walkway on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 4 Meadowdale Beach road had the same potential pedestrian traffic as a walkway on Pine Street from SR104 to 9th, an area with much greater population density, two parks and a transit stop. Ms. Petso pointed out the proposed Plan also omits policies requiring new developments to construct adequate transportation facilities. For example, the existing plan recommends avoiding long dead -end streets and cul -de -sacs and if avoidance is not possible, they cannot be longer than 600 feet. The proposed Plan also omits requirements that new development comply with the Transportation Plan, construct sidewalks in areas with sufficient pedestrian traffic, and that sidewalk design take into account the function and amount of pedestrian traffic. She requested the Plan also address future development at Firdale Village and Pt. Wells, pointing out traffic traveling north from Pt. Wells would use SRI 04. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, questioned the use of concurrency to classify streets, anticipating streets with a higher level of service classification would receive the most money. Next, he asked which direction of the intersection of Puget Drive and 88th was LOS E, noting the Plan suggests the LOS be changed to A in 2025, a level of service that he anticipated would be very difficult to achieve. He also questioned which direction of the Caspers /9th intersection was LOS E, noting the Plan suggests improving it to LOS B. He referred to plans for signals on 9th Avenue, questioning if those were actually required. He recommended using safety standards to determine where intersection improvements should be made. He referred to the collision history in the Plan, noting none of the intersections on 91h Avenue were identified for traffic signals. He recommended the Council allow additional time for review before approving the Plan. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, pointed out the Transportation Plan did not address the project proposed at 220th & Hwy. 99. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett requested staff provide written responses to the questions posed by Ms. Petso and Mr. Hertrich prior to the next public hearing. Ms. Barnes responded that could be done. In response to a question posed by Ms. Petso, Ms. Barnes explained the policy review and update was an extensive process that included several meetings with the City's Transportation Committee. The purpose of a Transportation Plan is to identify the City's long term vision for transportation. During the policy review, policies were identified in the Plan that were actually standards and if they were covered by standards in the code, they were removed from the Transportation Plan. Standards that were not adequately addressed in the code, primarily with regard to sidewalks, were retained in the Plan. In the future staff will ensure standards in the Plan are addressed in the development code. She noted many of the wording changes were attempts to be more specific and remove the subjective wording. For example rather than encourage sidewalks where there are a lot of pedestrians, encourage sidewalks where there are connections to schools or parks. With regard to LOS standards, Ms. Barnes explained state law requires concurrency be analyzed according to the City's adopted standards. Although there were minor changes to state highways, there was not a change in the concurrency review. With regard to improvements, the lowest level improvement needed to solve the identified problem was recommended. A traffic signal often completely solved a problem, increasing an intersection with a LOS F to LOS A. Also in response to Ms. Petso, Ms. Barnes assured the Transportation Plan reflected the City's planned growth. They coordinated with planning staff to ensure the modeling reflected the City's growth targets as defined in the City's adopted land use plan through 2025. However, only what was adopted in plans could be analyzed. Therefore, although development was being considered at Pt. Wells, it was not yet Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 5 adopted. There has been a proposal by an applicant for Pt. Wells and an EIS conducted but no action has been taken by the County Council to approve a change in the land use designation and therefore should not be considered in the transportation analysis. If the County Council approves a change in the land use designation, it would be appropriate to reflect that in the Plan during the next update. At this time the burden was on the County to demonstrate how a change in the land use affected the City's plan versus the City's burden to speculate the effects. In response to Ms. Petso, Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss advised the 228th Street Southwest Corridor Improvement project was ranked as the number one project in the Hwy. 99 Study. The title of the project in the Hwy. 99 study was SR99 /76th intersection improvement. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the Plan reclassified any local residential streets to arterials. Ms. Barnes referred to a list of recommended street upgrades /downgrades in the Plan on pages 3 -6 and 3 -7. The criteria used in making those recommendations are listed on pages 3 -5 and 3 -6. In order for the recommendation to become a reality, the City must apply to the federal government to have the designation of those streets changed. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Ms. Petso's recommendation not to raid the REST fund, recalling the Council adopted a policy a few years ago to use REST funds over $750,000 for transportation. He noted there would be no opportunity to use REST funds for transportation this year as the City only expected to collect approximately $400,000 in REST. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the existing Plan contained a policy discouraging 600 -foot cul- de -sacs. If there was, he questioned the reason for that policy and why it was being abandoned. Ms. Barnes responded the decision to remove that was not a judgment regarding the length of cul -de -sacs; it was whether the Transportation Plan, a policy document, was the appropriate place to identify that. She agreed they would need to investigate whether the City's standards addressed cul -de -sac length. Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the reason for limiting the length of cul -de -sacs. Mr. Miller advised staff would address that in their written responses. Councilmember Bernheim asked staff to research whether there were any pending development plans that included cut -de -sacs longer than 600 feet. Councilmember Bernheim asked the process for adding a newly identified transportation project to the Plan. Ms. Barnes responded for a large project, the City would need to amend the Transportation Plan which is the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. State law allows the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan annually. For smaller projects, inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Plan and availability of funding may be sufficient and a revision to the Transportation Plan may not be required. Mr. Snyder explained typically Comprehensive Plan changes must be docketed, in the event of an emergency or unforeseen opportunity, the Council could act more quickly. With regard to Pt. Wells, Council President Wilson pointed out the County has held several hearings and planned to take action in the near future, prior to final adoption of the City's Transportation Plan. If the County Council made their decision regarding Pt. Wells in October and the City Council passed the Comprehensive Plan in December, the document would not reflect that decision. Ms. Barnes explained the proposed amendment to the County's land use plan was part of their annual docket process. The environmental work that has been done and the County's process has been in regard to the applicant's request to change the land use designation from heavy industrial to urban center; it was not a site development proposal. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 6 Council President Wilson commented the County Council was close to making a decision to change the land use designation to urban center which could have as many as 3500 dwelling units. Ms. Barnes explained if the designation were approved, further environmental review would be required. She disclosed ICF Jones & Stokes did the EIS for that project. The EIS analyzed the proposed land use designation change which includes making assumptions regarding alternatives which was the basis for the 3500 dwelling units. The applicant has not yet proposed what would be developed on the site. Approval of a change in the land use designation does not automatically result in 3500 dwelling units; the action was only a change in the designation. Mr. Snyder referred to the application for a contract rezone that the City has received for another site; the first step in that process is a similar environmental assessment. He relayed staff's plans for an update in 2011 . would be an appropriate time to utilize the environmental information for the Pt. Wells project and the Sunset application should it proceed. Council President Wilson acknowledged there was a lengthy process ahead, but if the City knew the County was interested in fostering development at Pt. Wells, he questioned whether the Transportation Plan would include some visioning of the impacts of development on that site. Mr. Snyder commented on the importance of concurrency designations on the costs of development. The EIS will analyze various alternatives as well as a no action alternative and estimate the number of vehicle trips generated by those alternatives. He reiterated the Transportation Plan could be amended each year during the Comprehensive Plan process. At this point in the process there was not any hard information to develop a record to justify future impacts. Council President Wilson requested staff keep the Council informed with regard to the County's action on Pt. Wells. Council President Wilson asked if the City would receive any mitigation for impacts on the State highway. Ms. Barnes stated if the County approves a change in designation, they will be required to coordinate with all affected jurisdictions during the environmental process for the site proposal including Shoreline, Edmonds and Woodway. The City will receive mitigation for projects on the City's streets. Council President Wilson asked if the City would be limited in the receipt of mitigation funds if the Comprehensive Plan did not identify projects to address the impacts. Ms. Barnes stated what defined appropriate mitigation was the City's adopted LOS standards and WSDOT's standards as well as policies. The City's Transportation Plan identifies how it will meet concurrency through 2025; if a development was proposed that will impact the City's ability to meet concurrency, it was the obligation of the applicant to mitigate those impacts. Mr. Snyder advised the next critical step would be the comment period on the EIS. Mayor Haakenson noted in order to reach SR104 from Pt. Wells, people would drive through Shoreline and Woodway. If there were funds available for traffic impacts on SR104, he asked whether the City or the State would receive those funds since SR104 is a state highway. Ms. Barnes answered WSDOT would be part of the negotiations with the applicant. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2010 -2015) AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss explained RCW 35.77.01.0 and 36.81.121 require that each city update and adopt their TIP prior to adoption of the budget. The TIP must contain all regionally significant projects that a city plans to undertake in the next six years. A copy of the adopted TIP will be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 7 submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation and the Puget Sound Regional Council. The data is used to create a statewide TIP database. The first three years of the TIP are required to be financially constrained. The last three years of the TIP, however, are not. Most funding agencies require projects to be identified on the TIP to be eligible for grants. The project list as well as each project's cost estimate have been updated based on the 2009 Transportation Plan update. He explained approval and adoption of the TIP did not constitute Council approval of the proposed projects, the Council would have additional opportunities to review the projects such as during the update of the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, when staff presents the draft CIP for adoption, during the budget summation, when staff requests authorization to call for bids or when bids are accepted. Mr. Hauss explained the 2009 Transportation Plan update was used to develop the 2010 -2015 TIP. It identified all future transportation projects, updated project costs and potential review. Due to a shortfall in transportation funding, the TIP includes new revenue from the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) beginning in year 2013. Staff will begin investigating this revenue source in 2010. The proposal is an increase of $40 to the current $20 vehicle license fee authorized by the TBD earlier this year. He noted any increase above the current $20 vehicle license fee would require voter approval. Unsecured grants (federal and state) were also programmed as a major source of revenue for many TIP projects. He reviewed scheduled projects identified in the TIP for 2010 -2012: 1. Interurban Trail • Project Description: Install missing interurban link between. Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline • Status: Design phase scheduled to be complete by Spring 2010 and construction begins summer 2010 • Funding: Estimated total construction cost (secured) $1.53 million (State funding $471,000, federal funding $750,000, Fund 132 $314,000) 2 228th Street SW Corridor Improvements • Project Description: Restrict southbound left turn from Hwy. 99 onto 76th Ave. W, install traffic signal at the intersection of Hwy. 99 at 228th St. SW to enable safe left turn, create additional safe pedestrian crossing on Hwy. 99 between 238th and 224th. Recommended by the Hwy. 99 Traffic Safety and Circulation Study (2006). • Status: 30% design phase complete in 2010, design phase completion requires additional grant funding. Right -of -Way acquisition will also be necessary. • Funding Estimated Total Construction Cost: $3.5 million 3. 226th St SW Walkwaoject • Project Description: Install sidewalk on 226th St. SW between SR -104 and 105th Pl. W. Recommended project from 2002 Walkway Plan. • Status: Design phase begin in August 2009, construction phase spring 2010. Recently included in PSRC Transportation Improvement Plan. • Funding: Secured Federal Safety Grant: $185,000 ($35,000 for design and $150,000 for construction) 3. 196th g 88th Intersection Improvements • Project Description: Install traffic signal. Alternate solution: restricting northbound & southbound movements to right -turn only. • Status: Design phase programmed for 2012 (pending grant). • Funding: Unsecured grant, local traffic impact fees and TBD Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 8 4. Transportation Plan Update (2011) • Project Description: An updated Plan required in 2011 under the Growth Management Act (GMA). Update needed to support new adopted land use plan that same year. Amount of work depends on amount changes in land use plan. • Funding: Local Funds of $30,000 5. Other Transportation Projects • Annual street overlays (utility overlays only) • Pedestrian countdown signal for all pedestrian heads (with manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices compliance date of December 2013). • Bike route signage He relayed staff's recommendation to approve the Six -Year TIP and adopt the Six -Year TIP resolution. Councilmember Wambolt referred to the traffic light at 196th & 88th recalling last year the Council was told a signal was not possible because it did not meet the warrants. Mr. Hauss agreed before a traffic signal could be installed, the intersection must meet the warrants. The project also included an alternate solution. Observing the transportation situation may evolve over the next five years, Councilmember Bernheim . inquired about the process to include a new transportation - related project valued at $10,000 - $25,000 in the TIP. Mr. Hauss answered it could be included if the Transportation Plan were updated as part of the Comprehensive Plan update and when the TIP was amended each year. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the TIP was updated annually and was required to be completed by the end of July. It was also required to be consistent with the Transportation Plan element. He asked whether delaying approval of the TIP would jeopardize any grants. City Engineer Rob English answered it would not. Councilmember Orvis asked why the 80th from 188th to Olympic View Drive project was moved to 2015 from 2012 rather than to 2013. Mr. Hauss answered placing the projects in 2013 resulted in a negative ending cash balance. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the revenue from a potential land sale at that location was included as a funding source. Mr. Hauss answered it was not. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Council did not endorse the alternate solution for 196tH & 88th Mr. Hauss answered the alternate solution, right turn only for northbound only, was included in the modeling and did not meet the City's concurrency standards. The primary defect of that intersection was southbound on 88th which was the reason southbound right turn only was added. Ms. Barnes explained this was an intersection of two functionally classified roads, a collector and a minor arterial, and was subject to the City's adopted LOS standards. Because it was a 2 -way stop control intersection, if the delay was more than 50 seconds in either direction during the PM peak, it was a violation of concurrency. To be compliant with concurrency, some improvement needs to occur at that intersection. The interim solution was proposed due to the issue with WSDOT and the signal warrants. The City also had the option of exempting that location from concurrency. The options are to address concurrency as the standards are adopted or change the standards. If there was a policy decision not to make any improvement, she recommended amending the City's standards to exempt that location from concurrency in the Transportation Plan. Councilmember Plunkett anticipated the Council would need to study the intersection again before amending the standard. He recalled the Council made a decision to do nothing with regard to that intersection and he did not recall during the previous presentation that the Council was required to take some action to meet concurrency. He asked the impact of not meeting concurrency at that intersection. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 9 Ms. Barnes answered the City would be out of compliance with GMA which can affect the ability to secure project funding. Ms. Barnes explained concurrency requires a solution be implemented for improvement within six years of identification of the problem or a change in policy that exempts that intersection. Ms. Barnes advised staff should continue to monitor the intersection as traffic volumes increase to determine whether it met warrants. The plan assumes the higher cost improvement, a traffic signal; the alternative is a lower cost solution that could bring the intersection into compliance if the warrants were not met in the next six years. She explained this intersection was not identified or analyzed in the last Plan; because of discussions that have occurred, staff requested it be added to the analysis for the Transportation Plan update. Councilmember Plunkett asked if there were other low cost alternatives. Due to significant concerns with pedestrians crossing Puget Drive, Mr. Hauss recalled the only other low cost alternative was installing a crosswalk. However, the topography makes it difficult to meet the required sight distance. Councilmember Plunkett asked what happened if the City received a grant for a project the Council did not endorse. Mr. Hauss advised it was an unsecured grant; staff had not applied for a grant. Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the most expensive alternative for that intersection was a roundabout. Council President Wilson recalled the Council last discussed the intersection in December 2007. He asked if the intersection met the warrants in 2008 and whether staff was monitoring the intersection in 2009. Mr. Hauss advised it was not monitored in 2008 but the results of the modeling indicate it should be monitored in the future. Council President Wilson asked whether staff could research the number of accidents that occurred at the intersection in 2008. Mr. Hauss explained the warrants considered accident data as well as volumes. Staff could research the number of accidents at the intersection. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Lora Petso, Edmonds, asked that her earlier written and oral comments apply to this agenda item. She questioned the consultant's comment that the policy decisions were made by the Transportation Committee, relaying that a member of the Committee informed her many of the policy changes were not discussed by the Committee. She reiterated compliance with the Comprehensive Plan should not be removed from the Comprehensive Plan particularly if the standards were not addressed in the regulations. With regard to cul -de -sac length, she advised of a graphic in the plan described access and mobility of road types and indicated the cul -de -sac was the least effective road. With regard to a pending application, she pointed out the Burnstead project appeared to have a long dead -end road. She expressed concern that a decision regarding whether to address Pt. Wells in the Transportation Plan was determined by someone who was hired by the developer to "push the EIS and the project through at the minimum cost to the developer." She recommended that portion of the plan be written by someone else or at least peer - reviewed. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, echoed Ms. Petso's concerns. She recommended the Council consider whether the cost of the upgrades increased pedestrian safety. For example, there was already a blinking crossing light at Walnut & 9th Avenue South, yet the Plan proposed installing a signal at a cost of $875,000. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, objected to installing a roundabout or a traffic signal at 196th & 88th and recommended the intersection be revised to improve sight distance. He expressed concern with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 10 increasing the vehicle license fee by $40 and pointed out none of the high cost improvements addressed intersections with high accident rates such as 220th & Hwy. 99 (90 accidents in 3 years), 244Th & Hwy. 99 (70 accidents), 2121h & Hwy. 99 (55 accidents), or 76th & Hwy. 99 (54 accidents). He suggested eliminating the traffic signals on 9th, the roundabout at Five Corners and $1 million for the 4th Avenue Corridor would eliminate the need to increase the vehicle license fee. He recommended improvements be considered for the intersections with the highest number of accidents and doing more overlays. He expressed concern that no improvements were proposed for SR104 although traffic volumes have increased due to ferry and train users. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised the situation at SRI 04 and Paradise Lane was a problem. He suggested WSDOT and the City purchase the old Safeway site for a parking lot. He relayed at a recent Hearing Examiner meeting, a request was made for a traffic signal at 238"'. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Council President Wilson asked Ms. Barnes if she did any work on behalf of the Pt. Wells developer. Ms. Barnes responded ICF Jones & Stokes was hired by the County to prepare the EIS for the proposed land use designation; they have no vested interest in the outcome of the County's decision. Council President Wilson asked whether she worked on the EIS. Ms. Barnes answered she did. Councilmember Wambolt asked staff to explain the necessity to meet warrants before a traffic signal could be installed. Mr. Hauss explained the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices identifies warrants that must be met for a traffic signal. If a signal was installed at an intersection that did not meet the warrants, there was liability for the City in the event an accident occurred. Councilmember Wambolt observed the warrants also must be met for a 4 -way stop. Mr. Snyder advised the legal term was negligence per se, installing a traffic device that did not meet the warrants was negligence per se and the City could be liable for injuries at such an intersection. With regard to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding increasing the vehicle license fee, Mr. Snyder advised any increase would require a vote of the people. Ms. Barnes acknowledged the two signals recommended on 9th Avenue at Walnut and Main were controversial. She offered to provide pros and cons of the non - signal solutions (widening the intersections) they analyzed for those locations. Mayor Haakenson observed at 9th & Walnut, the issue was not pedestrians but significant traffic delays at the intersection. Ms. Barnes agreed, explaining the City's standards were determined by the PM peak hour and analysis was done based on the PM peak. It was possible conditions were better during off -peak times. At a stop - controlled intersection, a 50- second delay was defined by the Highway Capacity Manual as a LOS F. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule another public hearing on September 1 following the Transportation Plan on the agenda. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the Council's decision to delay the levy and urged the Council to fully fund the Senior Center and Yost Pool next year. He commented on the legal costs associated with plastic bags and questioned whether the budget included funds for enforcement. Observing the Council had not taken any action with regard to economic development, he suggested funds in the budget to advertise Edmonds businesses be reallocated to Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton to attract businesses to downtown. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 11 George Murray, Edmonds, asked whether the 2008 expense results were available. Recalling the Council asked Fire Chief Tom Tomberg few questions following his presentation on Fire District 1, he urged the Council to ask questions to ensure the proposal worked for the Fire Department and citizens of Edmonds. Next he asked whether the Council would provide the Mayor guidance on the 2010 portion of the budget. For example, in 2009 gas was budgeted at $6.20 - $6.90 /gallon and that had not been revised. He asked whether the City could enter into a contract to hold the price of gas at $2.80, whether the City wanted to use biofuel, and whether there are driving techniques /patterns that could reduce gas use. He referred to the building at 523 Alder and asked whether anything was being done to make it easier for citizens to recognize and contest such designs. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, suggested putting the sale of the Fire Department on the ballot to allow citizens to provide their opinion on the matter. She anticipated the public would not be provided sufficient information otherwise. She questioned why Mukilteo and Lynnwood rejected Fire District 1's offer to provide fire service. She remarked the fire stations proposed to be sold to Fire District 1 were built within the last five years and were state -of -the -art. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, asked whether a citizen could challenge a Councilmember's participation in the decision regarding whether to televise the candidate interviews on Channel 21. Mayor Haakenson commented one Councilmember was not responsible for the plastic bag ordinance; a Council majority passed the plastic bag ordinance. With regard to economic development, the Council tasked staff with forming an Economic Development Commission which has been formed and has held their first meeting. Councilmember Wambolt commented the Planning Board was also focused on economic development. With regard to the Fire District 1 proposal, Mayor Haakenson explained Fire Chief Tomberg's presentation on July 7 was a brief update; the Council authorized staff several months ago to begin negotiations with Fire District 1 for contract services. He recalled at the time of the update, Fire Chief Tomberg assured the Council there would be much more information forthcoming. Mayor Haakenson advised he would provide the Council a presentation regarding the Fire District I proposal in late August/early September and he was certain the Council would hold several public hearings. In response to his request, Councilmembers have forwarded him questions regarding the Fire District 1 proposal to ensure all questions are addressed. With regard to Mukilteo and Lynnwood, Mayor Haakenson explained Mukilteo was in the midst of an annexation fight with Fire District 1 and of course would not accept fire service from them. The same was true for Lynnwood. He advised not comparing Mukilteo and Lynnwood to Edmonds' situation regarding Fire District 1, as it was a completely different set of circumstances. Mayor Haakenson explained in a biennial budget, typically budget adjustments were made in the September- November period for the following year's budget. With regard to the City's fire stations, Mayor Haakenson commented they were not built in the past five years; only one fire station was built in the past five years. Prior to that, the last station was built 10 years ago and the one before that, 25 years ago. He offered to locate the 2008 expenses for Mr. Murray, advising the City did not currently have a Finance Director. Councilmember Wambolt advised the exit interview with the State Auditor was scheduled for tomorrow and he expected the 2008 expenses would be available shortly thereafter. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 12 With regard to Fire District 1, Council President Wilson agreed Council would spend a great amount of time discussing that issue. Originally it was anticipated Mayor Haakenson would make a presentation to the Council tonight but planned to take more time to review the proposal as there was no reason to rush it. With regard to economic development, Council President Wilson advised the Economic Development Commission and Planning Board were discussing economic development which will culminate in November/December with the Commission, the Planning Board and the Council developing a specific plan of action for 2010. In response to Mr. Rutledge's question, Mr. Snyder explained there were only two situations where a Councilmember's vote could be challenged: 1) when the Council was acting as a quasi judicial body and were subject to bias or Appearance of Fairness challenges, and 2) during a legislative item, if Councilmembers had a conflict of interest under State law — a financial interest in the outcome. Mr. Snyder referred to the comment that legal costs associated with the plastic bag ordinance was approximately $4,000, noting that was similar to the amount of staff time spent on the short term rental ordinance. 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE RAISING AND KEEPING OF CHICKENS. Councilmember Bernheim explained the reason he requested this be scheduled on the agenda was to inform the audience that this issue would be presented to the Council soon and he encouraged any interested citizens to make their opinions known. He explained last October he drafted, without any consultation with the City Attorney, an ordinance that would repeal the current ban on keeping of poultry by citizens and allow up to a maximum of three female fowl per single family residence. His proposal was based on Seattle's ordinance that allowed hens in addition to other pets. He commented on staff's reference to past efforts to ban poultry, noting very little in the past records discloses any objection by residents to the possession of hens. He recalled there were objections voiced at a public hearing to large chicken operations. The Police Department was consulted regarding his proposal and concluded no additional rules or regulations would be necessary if hens were legalized; the existing ordinances would address any potential nuisances. The Planning Board has discussed this issue on three occasions. He suggested the Planning Board hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the Council. Councilmember Bemheim encouraged the audience to voice their support or opposition to his proposal. The Seattle ordinance allows a larger number of hens on larger lots; his proposal would allow a maximum of three female fowl on single family lots. He clarified his proposal to allow a maximum of three female fowl would allow guinea hens, ducks, etc. He referred to a New York Times article, noting other areas of the country were allowing hens. Council President Wilson asked whether Councilmember Bernheim's ordinance would allow more than three hens on a larger lot. Councilmember Bernheim answered his proposal was a maximum of three. Councilmember Orvis observed the City allowed a total of five cats and dogs and suggested hens be included in the five maximum animals in an effort to limit the number of animals generating waste. Councilmember Bernheim agreed that could be discussed, noting hen waste was resusable. He noted the limit of five animals did not apply to interior pets. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 13 9. REVIEW OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESSES. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained that during a recent Growth Management Board appeal, one of the issues raised was the city's public participation program. Every city must have a public participation program; the City Code addresses Comprehensive Plan changes and code amendments but is silent regarding the public participation in Comprehensive Plan amendments and updates. For example, although the City could prove how the Council developed a Park Plan, there was no written policy. This resolution outlines the process used in the past, either via staff or a consultant. The resolution recognizes the Council may approve different processes for different types of Comprehensive Plan updates or amendments. The intent is to identify a process and announce that process prior to Comprehensive Plan changes. Councilmember Bernheim commented the process was currently governed by Title 20 which states the Comprehensive Plan shall be proposed by the end of the year and heard at public hearings by the Planning Board and City Council. He questioned why the current language in Title 20 was not sufficient. Mr. Snyder responded the GMA and WAC identify a model public participation program. There is nothing wrong with the City's existing program with regard to Council or staff - generated amendments; however, for Comprehensive Plan updates such as the Parks Plan where there was extensive public participation, there was no written process. He summarized this process was intended for broader, citizen -based efforts such as the update to the Park Plan. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the Parks Plan process could have been error free if handled differently within the existing code. Mr. Snyder answered no, explaining the problem that arose was the Council approved an extensive public participation program via approval of a consultant agreement. When a citizen asked to see the City's public participation program, nothing had been adopted by the Council other than the Title 20 provisions which do not address this pre - process. In addition, having a process allows the City to provide it to citizens inquiring how they can participate. It was intended to be a resource guide to citizens who want to be involved. For Councilmember Bernheim, Mr. Snyder advised the resolution contained all the suggested provisions of the WAC. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION NO. 1203 ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESSES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. REVIEW AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE BY REPEAL OF CHAPTER 4.74 COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENTS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. City Attorney Scott Snyder recalled in the process of cleaning up the code, City Clerk Sandy Chase brought this provision to his attention. He noted this provision was clearly facially invalid and would not withstand judicial challenge. Staff is also in the process of reviewing the City's adult entertainment provisions to ensure they are up -to -date. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3750 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE BY REPEAL OF CHAPTER 4.74, COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENTS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 14 Mr. Snyder further explained this code provision required the City Clerk ask an applicant for a business license that was not a family - oriented business to justify themselves. There were not standards or definitions; everyone has the right to conduct a business and the fact that the business may not be family - oriented had no legal bearing on someone's right to conduct their business, particularly when family - orientation was not defined. IU ��TI IT[�]`►[N: � � 1 r, :1�i.11� = [�Iify /1!!! Mayor Haakenson announced the free document shredding event on August 15 from 9:00 to 12:00 in the south parking lot of the Edmonds - Woodway High School at 212th & 76th Avenue. Edmonds and Woodway residents are invited to bring up to five boxes of paper documents. The City is also collecting canned food at the shredding event. Council President Wilson asked when the auditor needed to be informed if the Council planned to have a measure on the February ballot. Council President Wilson next referred to questions posed by Councilmember Bernheim via email about wiring the Council Chambers for internet access. He asked whether the Council was interested in pursuing purchase and installation of a wireless router via the Council Contingency Fund. He noted if the Council were able to access the internet, staff would not need to print paper packets for the Council. He estimated the cost to purchase and install a wireless router at $1000. Councilmember Wambolt recalled there were no longer any Council Contingency Funds. Council President Wilson responded a resolution was proposed that would have returned the Council Contingency Fund so the General Fund; however, that resolution failed. Council President Wilson asked Mayor Haakenson to request his staff research the cost to purchase and install a secure wireless router. Mayor Haakenson remarked it was ironic the Council omitted his technology requests from the levy but now wanted a wireless router. Council President Wilson clarified his request was for staff to investigate the cost to provide a secure wireless internet access in Council Chambers and wireless internet access for the public. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised for the February 2, 2010 special election, the resolution due date was December 11. Council President Wilson commented since the majority Council opinion was to postpone the levy, he assumed the majority would return with a date for the levy in the future. He explained the reason the vote on the levy was scheduled on last week's agenda was due to a question that arose whether there would be enough time to override the Mayor's veto if he chose to veto. Councilmember Peterson questioned whether a piecemeal approach to technology in the Council Chambers was appropriate or whether funds should be included in the levy for a more comprehensive approach. Council President Wilson advised the money that would be saved by not printing paper packets would offset the cost of a router in a short amount of time. Councilmember Peterson advised he planned to view his packet online and would ask staff not to print him a paper packet. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 15 Councilmember Bernheim pointed out hardware was already installed at the dais to allow Councilmembers to display material on the screen from their seats. He requested staff also research what would be necessary to complete that hardware installation. Councilmember Bernheim displayed four photographs of the building at 523 Alder illustrating the building had a flat roof at about the 29 foot level which was not in accordance with the code. He pointed out the building was not constructed in accordance with the submitted plans. The plans that were submitted include a roof with a reverse peak in order to achieve the 4:12 peak and the flat area was recessed inside the building. After the Council's discussion, the City's Building Inspector evaluated the building but apparently did not notice this violation. He recalled this zone states maximum height 25 feet with a footnote that allows an additional 5 feet for a roof built with a certain pitch. Councilmember Bernheim referred to comments at the June 23 meeting that this builder knows the code, commenting being over confident was a dangerous attitude; questions about a building should always be approached skeptically and with an open mind. He requested the Council be kept informed regarding how this situation would be remedied and ensuring that the building complied with the code. He asked what penalty was imposed when a builder submitted plans for approval by the City and intentionally did not follow the plans. Councilmember Bernheim reminded views could be blocked; the only protection was for regulations to be followed. He acknowledged if constructed legally, this building would likely have still blocked views. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 4, 2009 Page 16