Loading...
08/25/2009 City CouncilAugust 25, 2009 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5`b 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 Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Ann Bullis, Building Official Bio Park, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #1.1361.5 THROUGH #113748 DATED AUGUST 20, 2009 FOR $1,408.875.15. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #48456 THROUGH #48523 FOR THE PAY PERIOD AUGUST I THROUGH AUGUST 15, 2009 FOR $893,257.73. C. APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, AUGUST 2009. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DALE WORRELL ($50,000.00). 3. PRESENTATION ON THE 2010 CENSUS Marcel Maddox, Partnership Specialist, Seattle Regional Census Center, explained the Seattle Regional Census Center covered northern California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington and Alaska. The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 1 census includes the decennial census that occurs once every ten years as well as ongoing surveys. The 2010 census will use a short form that contains only ten questions and take approximately ten minutes to complete. One of his responsibilities is to make presentations in Snohomish County describing the importance of the census and enlist cities' support. The tagline for this census is that it is easy, safe and important. The census is easy because there are only ten questions and takes only ten minutes to complete. The census is safe because all census employees take a lifetime confidentiality oath which prevents the sharing of any personal information. The census is important because $300 billion in federal funds are distributed each year based on census information and political representation changes after each census. For example, without a complete and accurate count, federal funds received by Edmonds may not represent the growth and change in demographics that have occurred over the past ten years. One aspect of the support the Census Bureau enlists from the City is a Complete Count Committee, a group of individuals who advocate and work in concert with the Bureau to ensure the City's concerns are addressed and who marshal the City's resources in support of census. He assured the resources were not necessarily monetary, most were low or no cost such as adding census messaging to websites and utility bills, posting census posters in public facilities, etc. Councilmember Plunkett commented the public could access names and other personal information for the 1920 and earlier censuses. He recalled after 70 years the information became public and associated with names. Mr. Maddox answered 72 years was deemed the lifetime confidentiality oath. He agreed the public could access census information from 72+ years ago. Councilmember Plunkett commented the ten questions were less than previous censuses. He asked how many questions were on the previous census questionnaire. Mr. Maddox answered he was unsure the exact number of questions, explaining much of the information regarding income, etc. would be captured via the American Community Survey, part of the ongoing surveys. The decennial census questionnaire will be sent to everyone; the American Community Survey which contains many more questions is sent to a smaller, random sample and the information extrapolated to cover the entire area. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the U. S. Congress directed the Census Bureau to allow extrapolation or has it been determined that each individual person must be counted. Mr. Maddox responded the Constitution mandates that every person, regardless of immigration status, criminal history, etc., be counted which has been done since 1790. Councilmember Plunkett recalled there was a great deal of undercounting because many people did not participate and consideration has been given to assuming the number of people who were not counted. Mr. Maddox explained another of his responsibilities was to work with community and faith -based organizations, schools, etc. to partner with groups and communities deemed in the past as hard to count. He advised further information was available from their data specialist who could also provide a presentation to the Council. Councilmember Plunkett concluded there had been discussion whether under - represented individuals should simply be extrapolated because they could not be counted. Councilmember Wambolt observed the census information indicated census questionnaires would be mailed to households by U.S. Mail in March 2010 and that many households would receive a replacement questionnaire in early April. Mr. Maddox explained address canvassing, people checking addresses to ensure households were correctly identified, was the first major operation. Rural addresses and/or post office boxes are also identified for in- person questionnaire delivery. If a questionnaire was mailed and a response was not received, a second questionnaire would be mailed. The public will be asked to mail their census questionnaire on or by Census Day April 1, 2010. If a questionnaire is not received, a census Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 2 worker will make an in- person visit in the next major operation, Non - Response Follow -Up. The next major operation will be Group Quarters in which groups of unrelated people live together such as residents of dorms, adult family homes, assisted living, military, etc. are counted. Mr. Maddox asked whether the Council wanted to form a Complete County Committee and if so, a liaison needed to be appointed. Mayor Haakenson answered City Clerk Sandy Chase would be the City's contact person. 4. PRESENTATION ON THE AQUATICS FEASIBILITY STUDY. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained the Aquatics Feasibility Study was commissioned to assist the City in determining the direction of its aquatic future due to the limited life expectancy of the current Yost Pool. He thanked the advisory team of citizens and staff, the consultants and the hundreds of citizens who pooled their expertise to produce the report. Keith Comes, NAIL Architecture, advised another member of the consultant team, Doug Whitaker, Water Technology, Inc., was unable to attend tonight's meeting. He reiterated Mr. McIntosh's thanks to the members of the Aquatics Feasibility Study Committee. He explained the study process included evaluation of the existing facility, site evaluation, market analysis, public process, project options and recommended options. Evaluation of Existing Facility • Yost Pool completing its 38th season • Costly maintenance issues • ADA accessibility issues • Antiquated mechanical systems • Aging pool house • Limited parking Aquatic Trends • Pools that appeal to youth of all ages - indoor /outdoor family aquatic centers • Competitive swimming and diving • Wellness & therapy • Zero depth • Spray play feature • Participatory climbable water play structures • Flow channel • Activity zone • Water slides Mr. Comes reviewed site options considered in the study: Yost Pool • Beautiful natural setting • Topography and trees • Easy access from neighborhoods • Expansion potential may be limited Former Woodway High School. • Adequate site area Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 3 • Displace current outdoor courts /fields • Requires partnership with Edmonds School District • Isolated from neighborhood • Not available at this time Harbor Square • Requires partnership with Harbor Square Athletic Club • Port of Edmonds supports idea • Urban location • Adequate site area • Cost may be reduced via partnership • Indoor pool at Harbor Square and outdoor pool at Yost Park Mr. Comes commented during the public process, they learned the physical attributes of a site were not necessarily the most important criteria•, there was a very strong opinion that a pool should remain at Yost Park and there was likely to be very strong opposition if the report did not recommend a pool at Yost Park. As a result most of the options considered have a pool remain at Yost Park. Ken Ballard, Ballard King Associates, described their market analysis that considered demographics, existing aquatic facilities and market opportunities. Their demographic assessment considered not only the City of Edmonds but two larger service areas beyond the boundaries of the City, to the north and south as well as to the east. He explained this was done because the size of the market area will vary depending on the type of facility and where it was located. Their assessment considered population, age, income levels, ethnicity, etc. This provides information regarding the size of the market, orientation of the facility, rates of participation, and pricing of services. Their analysis considered utilization rates of Yost Pool as well as other amenities available in Edmonds and the immediate surrounding area. They visited nearly all public, non - profit and for - profit facilities in the area including private health clubs, Dale Turner YMCA, Shoreline Pool, and Lynnwood's plans for a larger renovated aquatic facility. Their assessment revealed there is a market for an aquatic facility. He next reviewed key findings of a random, statistically valid, telephone survey conducted by Leisure Vision of Edmonds residents during the months of January and February (324 respondents). Mr. Comes reviewed the four concepts they developed and presented at a public meeting: Concept I - Outdoor only pool at Yost Park • Reuse existing lap pool • Replace pool mechanical systems • New leisure pool • Replace existing pool house • Add parking • Site impacts • Project cost budget: $8.2 million • Estimated annual tax impact to average home: $35.51 • Annual operation subsidy: $0- $50,000 Concept 2 - Indoor only pool at Yost Park • Demolish existing pool and pool house • New indoor lap pool Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 4 • New indoor leisure pool • Add parking • Site impacts • Project cost budget: $21.9 million • Estimated annual tax impact to average home: $95.40 • Annual operation subsidy: $200,000 - $300,000 Concept 3 - Outdoor and indoor pools at Yost Park • New indoor lap pool • New therapy pool and whirlpool • New outdoor leisure pool • Add parking • Site impacts • Project cost budget: $16.7 million • Estimated annual tax impact to average home: $72.61 • Annual operation subsidy: $150,000- $250,000 Concept 4 + Concept 1 - Harbor Square & Yost Park • Partnership with Harbor Square Athletic Club • New indoor lap pool • New spray deck and outdoor lap pool • Includes outdoor pool at Yost Park • Project cost budget: $17.4 million • Estimated annual tax impact to average home: $75.49 • Annual operation subsidy: $25,000- $125,000 Mr. Comes explained these four options were presented at a second public meeting. As a result of the discussion, they were asked to consider the following two concepts: Concept 5 - Yost Park • Replace the existing pool house at Yost Park • Renovate existing lap pool • $5 million project cost budget • Similar cost to option 1, result is a new 1970's pool • No impact to annual subsidy • Does not address trends or recreation uses desired in the survey • Does not address desire for indoor pool Concept 6 - Do nothing • Yost Pool would eventually close within a few years Mr. Comes relayed their recommendation for Concept 3. This facility would provide the best balance for the City, includes capital recreation facilities highly desired in the survey, outdoor recreation amenities would be available during the summer, provides a different experience than is available in other communities, adds a warm water therapy pool, and maintains the facility in Yost Park. He relayed current lap swimmers expressed a desire to maintain outdoor lap swimming at Yost Park due to the beautiful setting; this option does not allow that but would allow year -round lap swimming. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 5 He displayed conceptual images of a facility in Yost Park, explaining the intent would be for the natatorium to be transparent, allowing users inside to see the view and from the outside reflect the trees to minimize its impact on the natural setting. Mr. Comes provided a secondary recommendation, Concept 1. This facility has the lowest capital costs and operating subsidy, no competing outdoor recreation facilities, but has no indoor facility. Mr. Ballard commented recreation amenities and activities contribute to a strong community identity and quality of life. He identified the direct economic benefits of the four options (expenditures in addition to entrance fees to the facility): Option 1: $200,000 - $400,000 Option 2: $900,000 - $1.8 million Option 3: $600,000 - $1 million Option 4: $330,000 - $650,000 Mr. Ballard provided financing options for the four options with regard to principal, term, interest rate, annual debt, 2009 accessed value, rate per thousand, average home value, annual impact and monthly impact. He noted the cost of a facility could be reduced via partnerships, fundraising, grants and other sources such as the formation of a Parks & Recreation Service Area (PRSA). Councilmember Wambolt noted that the chart that Mr. Ballard displayed with the four options has an error; the rate per thousand for option one is correct, but it obviously cannot be the same rate per thousand for the other options. Mr. Ballard stated that the rate per thousand means that it remains constant in terms of the amount of load in on the debt side; it should be consistent since it doesn't change but it gets calculated out by the amount of debt. He reiterated that the rate remains constant per thousand dollars. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the annual impact calculated here is correct which means the rate per thousand has to change. Mr. Ballard concluded that they would relook at this issue in combination with the Finance Department. Councilmember Wambolt referred to the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District near Beaverton, Oregon, commenting that may be an option for the Council to consider. For example, the costs of parks and recreation and the senior center, $3.5 million, could be transferred to a PRSA. This would remove those costs from the City's budget, create a new taxing authority, and provide a consistent funding source for the senior center and parks. Mr. Ballard cautioned Oregon's laws with regard to establishing Park & Recreation Districts were more liberal than Washington. That option was available in Washington in a slightly different format. There is a PRSA in the Northshore area that was established to support the Northshore Senior Center. PRSA's tend to be for a single purpose and in most instances, a PRSA is formed to broaden the tax base for a facility such as was done in Northshore. In this area, it would be difficult to expand beyond the City's current boundaries as most of the neighboring cities have aquatic facilities and likely would not be interested in joining a PRSA. Councilmember Wambolt commented the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District only includes Beaverton and a small unincorporated area of Washington County. Councilmember Plunkett asked why the consultants were not enthusiastic about forming a special district. Mr. Ballard explained there were a number of complications and it took a great deal of time to establish a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 6 PRSA and get the funding in place. They have considered PRSAs in other areas of Seattle where it would be possible to expand the tax base. In Edmonds, a PRSA could remove the expense from the City and place it in a district but because the boundaries could not be expanded to increase the tax base, it would not reduce the cost to the taxpayer. Councilmember Plunkett summarized a PRSA was an option for a funding mechanism but there was a little difference between a PRSA or the City doing a levy. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Ballard reviewed the estimated net subsidy (revenue less expense) for each option: • Current: $100,000 • Option 1: $0450,000 • Option 2: $200,000 - $300,000 • Option 3: $150,000- $250,000 • Option 4: $25,000- $125,000 Councilmember Plunkett asked whether outdoor lap swimming could be accommodated in Option 3. He referred to the outdoor Magnolia pool that includes recreation and lap. Mr. Comes answered it could be done. He explained the hardcore lap swimmers, swim teams, and fitness swimmers like a lower water temperature than the users of a recreation pool. Councilmember Plunkett assumed the lap swimmers at Yost Pool were casual swimmers and may not be as affected by water temperature. Mr. Comes agreed outdoor lap lanes could be added within the recreation tank without impacting the cost. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Wilson asked where in the report the economic impact information was located. Mr. Ballard answered it was on pages 105 -107. Council President Wilson asked how those numbers were determined. Mr. Ballard acknowledged it was difficult to do detailed economic impact projections at this point. They used assumptions based on the increase in admissions and a rate of approximately $10 per person. He cautioned the economic impact projections were very conservative at this point in the process. The economic impact for Option 2 (all indoor) was higher because it had year -round use and was a larger facility. He clarified the $10 per person was money spent on the trip to /from the pool and did not include the admission price. He advised the $10 was determined via reducing the amount cited by the Visitor's Bureau for a more in -depth economic study for an aquatic facility in Bellevue. Mr. Comes commented a facility with outdoor recreation would be unique to this area and would attract residents who stay for a few hours as well as people who stay all day, buy lunch, etc. Council President Wilson asked whether Concept 4 +Concept 1 (Harbor Square) had been reviewed by the Harbor Square management. He recalled their desire during early conversations to retain the tennis courts. Mr. Comes answered they have had multiple conversations with Harbor Square ownership. Their architect prepared an option with a similar concept that eliminated more site area than Concept 4. Council President Wilson asked if cities in Washington typically used a 20 -year bond that required a 60% voter approval rate or a 6 -year bond that required a 50% voter approval rate. Mr. Ballard stated it would depend on the magnitude of the project. Most of the options were too expensive for a 6 -year payback. In his experience, most indoor facilities were at least 15 years, a 20 year bond was provided as a baseline. He noted a 6 -year payback would be tax intensive and approximately triple the per year cost to taxpayers. Council President Wilson asked whether quotas were used in the survey such as age or income. Mr. Ballard answered age and income information was used to ensure the responses met the demographics of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 7 the City. The randomness of the survey typically represents the City's demographics. It was his understanding there was no weighting done in the survey. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bernheim commented the analysis and options were very good and would cost the average household between $30 and $100 /year. He recalled a Planning Board Member and he visited the pool project at the private Klahaya Pool, commenting it was possible to spend less and obtain a very good project. Mr. Comes agreed, noting they did not want to provide too low an estimate. He pointed out the Klahaya Pool project was a pool -only replacement; the concepts presented included the replacement of a 6500 square foot pool house on a difficult site which accounts for a majority of the difference between the Klahaya Pool and the concepts they presented. Councilmember Bernheim commented consideration could not be given to only the cost of a facility, the resulting multi- faceted facility would provide a great benefit to the community that was not measurable in dollars and cents. The facility would provide a place for team sports, a place for teens and may also increase residents' property values. Councilmember Peterson commented the site benefits of Yost Park were also drawbacks, specifically parking. A larger facility would require additional parking which would require removing trees. He asked whether any consideration was given to traffic impacts. Mr. Comes answered consideration of traffic impacts was not part of their scope of work. He agreed tree removal would be required as a pool would impact the topography. One of the priorities of any project would need to be maintaining as many trees as possible. He pointed out in the existing 65 parking stalls, users feel like they are parking in the woods and any parking expansion would need to maintain that character which would likely result a less efficient, more expensive lot. He pointed out in the aerial photographs of Yost Pool, the parking lot was not visible because it was covered by the tree canopy. He suggested the City also consider alternatives to reduce the parking impact such as allowing a reduction in parking due to bus service, bike parking, carpool spaces, etc. Councilmember Peterson asked if the parking would need to be doubled. Mr. Comes estimated twice the parking would be the minimum. The diagrams illustrate approximately twice the current 65 spaces. Councilmember Peterson suggested the transportation plan consider the impact of a facility on nearby intersections. Councilmember Plunkett observed the cost of Concept 1 was $8 million and Concept 3 was twice that amount. He anticipated Concept 1, outdoor lap and outdoor recreation, may satisfy the vast majority of Edmonds residents; however, the consultant's recommendation was Concept 3 which includes indoor lap. He asked what was so compelling about indoor lap that justified twice the cost. Mr. Comes answered the survey results indicated 32% wanted an indoor option and 28% wanted both indoor and outdoor. Mr. Ballard noted in addition to the surveys, people at the community meetings expressed a desire for an indoor option. Councilmember Plunkett concluded the desire was not simply indoor lap, but an indoor option. Mr. Comes explained the indoor pool was designated as a lap pool; it could be used for lap swimming, lessons, recreation swimming, etc. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, expressed concern with the item on tonight's agenda concerning an interim zoning ordinance suspending the application of Chapter 23.90.040(C), placing a moratorium on the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 8 retention of vegetation on land zoned RS -12 and RS -20, requiring the issue to be reviewed by the Planning Board and holding a public hearing. She was concerned the public was not aware of this code as it was not included in the agenda packet. With approval of this interim ordinance, the Council would instantly suspend the retention of a minimum of 30% native vegetation on subdividable and undeveloped parcels zoned RS -12 and RS -20 as well as eliminate the requirement for providing a vegetation management plan. She suggested the Council not approve the interim ordinance and instead refer it to the Planning Board for a public hearing to determine public sentiment. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, referred to the interim zoning ordinance and the comments he provided at the last Council meeting, commenting none of the Council's discussion regarding the interim ordinance resolved his concern that the ordinance was unnecessary. He was concerned to learn the ordinance was referred to the City Attorney by the Planning Department a year after the ruling. He questioned the existence of a crisis when a year had passed before the City responded. He reiterated his recommendation that the Planning Board, followed by the City Council, address this issue with the existing code and protections in place. Next, with regard to the trees proposed to be removed near Horizon Bank, he suggested a more prudent and less costly solution would be to apply asphalt or concrete to minimize the sidewalk discontinuity that may create a trip hazard, a method used on Seattle streets. He referred to a meeting citizens had with Seattle arborist Nolan Rundquist and his statement that no tree exists that only grow down and not laterally; whether the sidewalk lifts is primarily related to the depth of the hardpan. He pointed out six of the seven spindly deciduous trees the City planted after removing brush and hydro seeding at the end of his street had died. Planting fir or cedar trees in this area would have been less costly, increased the survivability of the trees, minimized maintenance and provided more habitats. Dick Van Hollebeke, Edmonds, a member of the Aquatic Feasibility Study Committee, complimented the consultant team. He preferred Concept 3, the indoor and outdoor pool option, which would cost the average household $6.05 /month. He suggested including maintenance in the bond issue, a cost of approximately $12 -$15 /year per household. He pointed out people live in Edmonds because 1) the beautiful area, 2) the people, and 3) amenities including the pool. He offered to spearhead the citizen effort to put a bond issue on the ballot. He suggested scheduling a public meeting to gather citizen input and a year from November place a bond measure on the ballot. Monda Van Hollebeke, Edmonds, offered to assist Dick with the citizen effort for a bond issue. Dennis Weaver, Edmonds, spoke in support of preserving Edmonds' mature trees, specifically the canopy of shade trees west of Horizon Bank to 4t'' Avenue on the north side of Dayton. He noted Edmonds was the dream of many community designers - walkable, comforting, authentic, historic, and with character. He pointed out the environmental benefits provided by mature trees and suggested in view of the tight budget, the City restrict the expenditure of funds to the inexpensive grinding of sidewalk lips, leveling a sidewalk panel, or installing a small amount of asphalt versus the more expensive method of removal, restoration and replanting. He referred to the Council's 2009 Sustainability Agenda, pointed out the City's mature trees would assist with branding and marketing the City as a green destination. He commented City resident Barbara Mercer, before leaving for Europe, told him she expected to see the trees by Horizon Bank when she returned. Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, referred to the interim zoning ordinance regarding the retention of vegetation on subdividable or undeveloped parcels, pointing out the narrative description stated a recent court case in King County invalidated its set asides in rural areas. Edmonds is a city and should not be required to base its ordinances on decisions in rural King County. She referred to the statement that the City's ordinance had some similarities to King County's ordinance and questioned the City's response to adopt a moratorium on a critical areas ordinance. She referred to the alternative approach, require site - specific critical area studies in lieu of a uniform percentage approach, asking what criteria would be used for a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 9 site -by -site review, preferring the Planning Board conduct their review before adopting a moratorium. She pointed out the top priority of the group that prevailed in the appeal, Citizens Alliance for Property Rights, was saving taxpayers money and not the environment. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, described the fire on the island in Lake Ballinger and the fire department's response. He commented on ash from the fire on several homes, noting most homes on the lake have pumps that draw water from the lake. George Murray, Edmonds, complimented the presentation on Yost Pool, noting it was good to see people unite regarding an issue that was so important to the community. He expressed support for an indoor pool with a zero entry. He noted there may be funds available from health organizations that underwrite pool programs. Next, he referred to a presentation he attended regarding the $1.3 million library levy on the November ballot. The library plans to reduce senior administrative staff salaries by 3% in 2010, freeze staff salaries in 2010, delay replacement of the library's computer system, reduce replacement of manuals and materials, not fill open positions, and all non - library programs are being eliminated. He noted the presentation was well received because the library system was sharing the burden. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the evaluation of the former Woodway High School in the Aquatic Feasibility Study. He suggested the City and School District administration reach an agreement to allow a pool on that site. He also supported an outdoor pool at Yost Park, recalling the study cited the popularity of the natural setting of the outdoor Yost Pool. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Van Hollebeke's comment regarding including maintenance and operating costs in a pool bond and requested the consultants add a note to their report regarding the possibility of financing M &O. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh responded there would need to be two separate bond measures, contingent on the passage of each other, one asking for construction funds and a second for M &O. 6. INITIAL DISCUSSION ON ISSUES RELATING TO ROOF DESIGN STANDARDS. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained recent construction in a multi family zone raised a number of questions about how roof standards have been applied in the RM zones. As a result Building Official. Ann Bullis and he reviewed 20+ years of history of multi family projects in RM zones in an effort to determine how roof standards have been applied and how the rules have been interpreted. He displayed an aerial photograph of a multi family building approved in 1989 that illustrates a roof that dips into the center portion of the building. In the center portion there are drainage features, flat roof sections, etc. that is below the highest portion of the roof but not necessarily below 25 feet. He displayed photographs of buildings constructed in the last 1990s that illustrate a pitch at the edge of the building and then the roof dips down, often into a series of peaks and valleys. This presents a challenge for getting rid of the water that collects in the valleys, necessitating the use of "cricket" features. Crickets are placed on top of the roof where there is a valley to collect and direct water toward a drain. The crickets are not typically 4- in -12, but as low a pitch as possible to still collect and move the water, often ' /4- in -12. He noted the crickets were not technically part of the roof structure. He displayed several photographs of buildings with roofs that have peaks and valleys, many with cricket systems to collect and redirect water toward drains. When reviewing plans, crickets were sometimes shown on the plans and sometimes they were not. History reveals it is impractical to expect a roof on a large RM building to span its entire roof area with a uniformly pitched roof, complicated roof systems have been developed including internal wells and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 10 valleys; crickets have been used to solve drainage problems arising from complicated roof designs. The Zoning Code states the following: • ECDC 16.30.030(A): Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of 4 inches in 12 inches or greater. • ECDC 21.85.070 Roof: Roof means the top covering of a building or structure The Zoning Code does not define a cricket and it appears they have been allowed for the past 20+ years. Another factor to consider is roofs must achieve a certain structural integrity and achieve their purpose - protect the structure and provide adequate drainage. He cautioned the City should not mandate designs through zoning that are impractical to build, create structural or maintenance issues or add unnecessarily to the cost. Questions that arise from the current code include: • Dictionary definition of roof includes dormers, gables as part of the roof • Where does a roof start? • Pitch is specified in the code but roof form is not • Roofs have many forms and features - peak of the roof where planes meet • Non - structural drainage features such as crickets He suggested the City needed to get away from code provisions that did not achieve what the Council wanted to accomplish. He commented design features include appearance from the street; light, air, mass; materials; and interest and scale. With regard to what is good design and how it can be legislated, he suggested different standards be developed for different RM zones such as on Highway 99 and corridors, downtown and neighborhood centers as well as giving consideration to visual preferences. As an example he displayed an aerial photograph of two RM buildings with similar peak and valley roof systems and the same buildings as viewed from the street, one with few architectural details, the other with a great deal of architectural detail.. He concluded roof systems and design do not equate in the current code. Mr. Chave recalled the Comprehensive Plan was developed in the 1990s, citizens were asked to rate a series of building photographs. He displayed photographs of a 3 story multi family building and a 1' /z story multi family building that residents rated positively and the same. He displayed photographs of a single family home, multi family building and a mixed use residential /commercial building that residents rated the same as the two multi family buildings. He summarized in many cases, use and scale were not the most important factor; people react primarily to design. Going forward he suggested the City focus on what they wanted the code to do and the rules should consider and be consistent between zoning requirements (height, bulk and scale), design (appearance), and building code (structure, maintenance). Currently these factors are not in synch. Another issue is single family in RM zones; in the BC zone single family structures are allowed but only to a height of 25 feet. In the RM zones, single family structures may be the same height as multi family structures and only single family setbacks are required which are typically smaller. Council President Wilson commented the purpose of this item tonight was to bring the Council up to speed with conversations staff has been having with Councilmember Bernheim regarding the building at 523 Alder. The September 22 agenda will include further discussion on the issues Mr. Chave identified. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether any changes would need to be reviewed by the Planning Board. Mr. Chave agreed they would. Councilmember Plunkett commented staff has accepted the cricket systems because they do not impact the streetscape. Mr. Chave agreed. He commented when Ms. Bullis and he reviewed the building plans, sometimes crickets were shown, sometimes they were not and often Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 11 they were very difficult to discern in the plans. Typically the focus of staff and the ADB is on appearance and overall elevation and often the crickets were overlooked. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether literal enforcement of the slope requirement was impractical in every case. Mr. Chave answered the interaction of the building code, slope requirement and zoning led to impractical solutions and maintenance issues waiting to happen. Councilmember Bernheim referred to the photographs Mr. Chave displayed of buildings constructed as early as 1988, pointing out the current code was adopted by Ordinance 3627 in 2007. He asked whether the site development standard of 4 -in -12 were in existence when the buildings Mr. Chave displayed were constructed. Mr. Chave answered that provision in the RM zone has not changed since 1981. Councilmember Bernheim suggested if the literal wording of the law is disregarded, and the roof design of the building does not comply with the 4- in -12, then the developer is being allowed to construct a larger building than otherwise would be allowed. He commented the mass was as importance as the design. Mr. Chave responded mass and roof design are entirely different. Councilmember Bernheim asked if any buildings were built during this period that complied with the spirit of the 25+5 height limit. Mr. Chave answered some buildings clearly had simpler 4 -in -12 roof designs. Councilmember Bernheim pointed out "structure" was not referenced in the code, only that all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of 4 -in -12 or greater. With regard to different standards in different neighborhoods, he noted the RM and BD zones required all portions of the roof above 25 feet to be a certain manner and the BD5 zone required all parts of the building above 25 to be a certain manner. Mr. Chave clarified his intent was RM zones in different areas of the City. Councilmember Bernheim noted there were at least four variations of the roof requirement above 25 feet. City Attorney Bio Park reported the City Attorney's office was asked to work with staff to develop a correct interpretation of the code. Therefore they looked at the plain language and asked staff what roof structure could be built applying the plain language of the code. Their response was it was impractical but it would not result in an absurd situation. They may be strange looking and not very efficient, but the plain meaning of the code could be interpreted to build a functioning roof. The City's experience in interpreting the code, given that the definition of roofs does not include crickets and given that the definition of heights includes several exceptions to what can exceed the building height such as chimneys, vents and elevator penthouses, the fact that crickets were specifically excluded was an indication that the Council intended to exclude crickets. Councilmember Plunkett recalled when Mr. Chave referred to the plain meaning of the code, he mentioned impractical; Mr. Park said it the result would be strange. He asked for examples of building design that applied the plain meaning of the code. Mr. Chave answered they would be similar to existing buildings; the difference would be crickets may disappear. One solution would be to construct a roof such that the interior structure sloped. This would result in additional expense as each truss would need to be individually designed versus a set of uniform trusses. Councilmember Plunkett commented a significant increase in cost would be absorbed by the purchasers rather than the builder and could result in an increase in the cost of housing in the community. Mr. Chave answered it could, which was the importance of a design discussion and not considering one aspect in isolation. Once the Council determined what they wanted to achieve, the rules to achieve that could be developed. The problem now is the disconnect between the zoning code and the building code. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 12 7. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON A PROPOSED RESOLUTION RELATED TO DELAYING THE REMOVAL OF TREES AT 5TH AVENUE AND DAYTON STREET NEAR THE SITE OF HORIZON BANK. Public Works Director Noel Miller explained staff's proposal was to replace the Plum and Sweet Gum trees in front of Horizon Bank with Bowhall Maples in accordance with the 2006 Street Tree Plan. In addition staff proposes to replace the Sweet Gum trees at the 5t'' and Dayton intersection with October Glory Maples in conjunction with the Daley Street overlay project. As part of the overlay, the curb ramps must be replaced at the intersection which will damage the tree roots and reduce the health of the trees. The trees are recommended for replacement due to the shallow and continued root growth which cause the sidewalks to uplift, increasing trip hazards and claims against the City. Staff recommends removal of the existing street trees on Dayton and replanting with a tree species in accordance with the Street Tree Plan that will be less disruptive to downtown sidewalks. Staff is sensitive to the reduction of canopy; however, it would reduce trip claims, allow planting of trees whose roots that are less invasive and would eventually create an attractive canopy. Councilmember Wambolt asked why the trees on the Horizon Bank property were proposed to be removed. Mr. Miller answered staff planned to do the sidewalk improvements in conjunction with the Dayton Street overlay project. Based on experience with the street trees on Main Street as well as other streets in the downtown area, he anticipated the trees would lift the sidewalk in this area. Another solution is to install asphalt or concrete shims but the result would be an undulating sidewalk in the future. Councilmember Wambolt asked about the trees north of the sidewalk. Mr. Miller answered the Plum trees were in the City right -of -way, the Sweet Gum trees were along the Horizon Bank property. The Sweet Gum trees have a very shallow, fast growing root structure and tend to uplift the sidewalks. He acknowledged the trees may not be lifting the sidewalk dramatically now, however, based on their history, it would be efficient to address the Sweet Gum trees at the same time as the overlay. Councilmember Bernheim thanked staff for the materials included in the agenda packet. He pointed out none of presentations at the public hearings on the Street Tree Plan mentioned the downtown streetscape nor were there any public comments regarding the downtown streetscape. He noted the Street Tree Plan required a 3.5 inch caliper tree downtown; however, all the trees that have been planted are 1.5 - 2.5 inch caliper due to the unavailability of large trees or because the larger caliper trees will not fit within the utility vault. He noted a 2.5 - 3.5 inch caliper tree was nearly twice the size of a 1.5 inch caliper tree. His consideration when cutting trees was whether their removal would improve safety, preserve the canopy and retain the image that attracted visitors. He commented removing existing trees, flat sidewalks, replanting trees of a uniform size and looking forward to their growth in 7 -8 years was one image; unless there was some urgency, he preferred the lower cost approach such as grinding uplifted portions of the sidewalk. He pointed out there would not be an appreciable increase in the City's insurance premiums regardless of the decision regarding the tree replacements. He concluded it was unnecessary to remove the trees but it was part of an overall tree update. Councilmember Bernheim referred to a scientific study he provided that indicated downtowns were healthier economically when shoppers were surrounded by trees. He pointed out Kirkland, Issaquah, Seattle and many other cities were installing flexible sidewalks. Although they were a greater cost, the recycled tire material allowed the sidewalk to be constructed around the tree roof invasion which results a safe sidewalk and preservation of the tree canopy. He also noted WCIA indicated it was the City's discretion whether to remove the trees. Mayor Haakenson summarized staff would continue to follow the adopted Street Tree Plan unless the Council provided specific direction not to or requested specific trees not be removed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 13 COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO RETAIN THE THREE SWEET GUM ON THE HORIZON BANK PROPERTY AND NOT REMOVE THEM AT THIS TIME. Councilmember Bernheim explained it was not his intent to involve the Council in every tree removal and recognized it was an executive responsibility. He wanted to moderate the attitude that trees that were not causing an uplift problem should be removed as part of an overall update without first considering the possibility of a rubber sidewalk. He cautioned the City could not brand itself as a green city if they were continually removing trees. Councilmember Plunkett thanked Councilmember Bernheim for his efforts, acknowledging it was administration's responsibility to carry out the policy but it was the Council's responsibility to set policy. If the Council's policy was not to remove trees, that needed to be stated. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, THAT THE COUNCIL ENCOURAGE THE ADMINISTRATION TO LOOK INTO ALTERNATIVES TO TREE REMOVAL INCLUDING RUBBER SIDEWALKS AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND IN THE COURSE OF CONSIDERING COMPLIANCE WITH THE STREET TREE PLAN, THEY CONSULT WITH NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES WHO ARE ACTIVELY IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVES. Mayor Haakenson suggested the Council review and revise the Street Tree Plan. Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the Street Tree Plan did not require removal of these trees. Council President Wilson inquired about Councilmember Bernheim's intent with regard to encouraging consideration of alternatives. Councilmember Bernheim answered his intent was for staff to consider alternatives including new technologies such as getting an estimate for a rubber sidewalk. Council President Wilson asked Mr. Miller to comment on the use of rubber sidewalk material. Mr. Miller answered in certain situations a rubber sidewalk would be workable such as in a residential area where there is a curb planter strip that provides separation between the street tree and the sidewalk as there would be adequate space for contouring. This was problematic in areas where the sidewalk was lifting above the elevation of the curb as it created a higher drop from the curb into the street. Rather than a standard curb drop of 6 inches, the tree roots raise the sidewalk and increase the drop to 10+ inches. Installing rubber sidewalk material would not eliminate the increase in the drop. He agreed to keep the Council updated on staff's contact with vendors and other cities. Council President Wilson asked when the Street Tree Plan was scheduled for review by the Council. Mr. Miller answered there was not a regular cycle for review but due to the number of issues that have arisen recently, he recommended placing it on staff's work plan in early 2010. Council President Wilson suggested a moratorium on the removal of trees until the Council reviewed the Street Tree Plan. Councilmember Plunkett suggested the Council either propose amendments to the Street Tree Plan, or adopt a moratorium and in the meantime develop alternatives for a January update of the Street Tree Plan. Councilmember Peterson commented his concern with the moratorium was ADA compliance. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 14 COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO ESTABLISH A MORATORIUM ON STREET TREE REMOVAL WITH A JANUARY DEADLINE TO REVIEW THE STREET TREE PLAN. Councilmember Bernheim clarified his motion would include trees proposed to be removed on Dayton. Mayor Haakenson noted the Dayton Street overlay was an opportunity to replace the trees; staff wanted to avoid digging up Dayton Street a second time to remove and replace the trees in the future. Mr. Miller advised there were three street trees in the parking strip west of the intersection and four trees at the intersection, a total of seven trees. Mayor Haakenson advised the Dayton overlay has been delayed and was now scheduled to begin September 14. The sidewalk at 3rd Avenue will be replaced at the same time. Councilmember Bernheim requested the Plum trees be excluded and the Sweet Gum trees in the parking lot be retained. Mr. Miller clarified the Plum trees could be removed; however, the Sweet Gum trees at the intersection in front of the bank and the Red Twig restaurant needed to be retained as well as the Sweet Gum trees by the Horizon Bank parking lot. Councilmember Bernheim agreed. Mr. Miller commented the Plum trees may not be removed. Councilmember Wambolt inquired whether the ADA ramps could still be installed. Mr. Miller answered they could, the concern was the ramps would be damaged by the tree roots if the trees were not removed. Council President Wilson restated the motion as follows: PUT A MORATORIUM ON ALL STREET TREE REMOVAL IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS INDEFINITELY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE THREE PLUM TREES ON DAYTON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. REVIEW AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE SUSPENDING THE APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 23.90.040(C), RETENTION OF VEGETATION ON SUBDIVIDABLE, UNDEVELOPED PARCELS. Mayor Haakenson recalled several citizens voiced concern about the moratorium, why it took so long for the City to take action in response to the July 2008 decision and why there was now a rush. City Attorney Bio Park responded his understanding was staff had been discussing this with the City Attorney's office for several months; the City Attorney has been analyzing whether the City's ordinance was comparable to King County's ordinance and recently concluded it was. He noted the application of King County's ordinance to rural zoning was not pertinent to the court's decision to invalidate King County's ordinance. King County had established a set aside of up to 50% depending on lot size and there was no proportionality to the specific features of the property to support the set aside. Mayor Haakenson asked the risk to the City of referring the issue to the Planning Board without a moratorium. Mr. Park answered there were pending applications in the City that may be impacted by the City's current 30% set aside. If the requirements were changed to site - specific critical area studies, a change to the code would be required and applications would be vested under the current code. The risk would be an applicant may challenge the City's code under the King County decision. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained when the critical area regulations were adopted, they were believed to be defensible because RS -12 and RS -20 zones were in and around critical areas, establishing a nexus for the requirement versus King County's rule which applied to all rural areas. Staff began discussions with the City Attorney when the ruling on King County's set aside was made. One approach considered was rather than via critical areas was via the subdivision regulations, low impact development standards, etc. The difficulty now is an application has been submitted that would require retention of the 30% native vegetation under the current rules. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 15 For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave explained if the Council adopted the moratorium, the application would not be required to provide the 30% set aside. Without the moratorium, the existing rules would apply and retention of 30% native vegetation would be required. Mr. Chave recalled a previous applicant who later did not proceed with their application raised the question and said the City's rule was inappropriate. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the moratorium provided the best protection. Mr. Chave answered staff was convinced by the City Attorney's office that a moratorium was the most prudent action to take. Councilmember Bernheim asked where in the materials the City Attorney provided that opinion. Mr. Chave answered it was verbal at this point. Councilmember Bernheim said he was unable to accept a verbal recommendation to abandon the critical areas ordinance. He asked if the existing ordinance allowed for an individual assessment of a subdivision based on critical areas. Mr. Park answered a change to the code to require individualized study /assessment would not apply to applications that were vested under the current code. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Peterson commented if the moratorium were approved, an applicant would not need to retain 30% native vegetation; if the Council did not pass the moratorium and an applicant successfully challenged the code, they would not need to retain 30% native vegetation. Mr. Park commented it was very likely the City's requirement could be challenged under the King County case in Superior Court. The strategy with regard to defending a challenge would need to be discussed in Executive Session. Councilmember Peterson commented if the code were not changed until the Planning Board had an opportunity to review the requirement and an applicant successfully challenged it, the City had a better chance of protecting its critical areas. Mr. Park responded a challenge would likely include takings and constitutional damages, etc. that may or may not be upheld. He summarized it was likely additional damages would be sought by a plaintiff. Councilmember Peterson asked whether damages were sought in the King County case and if they were significant. Mr. Park answered issues were bifurcated; first the adjudication of the merits and if plaintiffs prevail, damages are adjudicated separately. He offered to research the damages in the King County case. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out there would also be legal costs associated with a challenge. Mr. Park agreed, advising legal costs for such a case would not be covered by WCIA. Councilmember Wambolt asked if the City would be required to pay the plaintiff's legal costs if a challenge were successful. Mr. Park answered yes if they prevailed on certain constitutional issues. Council President Wilson concluded the potential downside of any future litigation was outweighed by waiving the critical areas ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO SEND THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REGULAR AND NORMAL REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS Council President Wilson reported the Lake Ballinger Forum met today and are moving into the next phase which is to identify a governance structure to implement the Strategic Action. Plan such as an Interlocal Agreement or creating a new agency or lake management district with its own taxing authority. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 16 Councilmember Plunkett reported the Historic Preservation Commission will be presenting properties to the Council for inclusion on the Historic Registry. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson reported he will make a presentation on the Fire District 1 contract offer at the September 1 Council meeting. City Clerk Sandy Chase distributed a binder to each Councilmember containing all the pertinent information. Mayor Haakenson advised documents would be available for citizen review at the September 1 meeting and links would be provided on the City's website on September 2. He invited Councilmembers to contact him with any questions. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the binder contained all the information the Council would need. Mayor Haakenson answered it did, including questions Councilmembers have asked in the past. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Wilson thanked Mayor Haakenson for distributing the information regarding Fire District 1. He explained the schedule would include a presentation by City Attorney Scott Snyder on September 15 regarding other options for regionalization of fire service such as an RFA, reverse annexation and ways other communities have addressed the issue. Public comment will be accepted at the September 22 Council meeting. A joint meeting with the Council and Fire District 1 Commissioners is scheduled for the September 29 Council meeting. At the October 6 Council meeting, he invited the Mountlake Terrace Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and City Manager as well as the Brier Mayor to speak to the Council regarding their experience as cities that contract with Fire District 1 for fire service. Public comment will be accepted on October 6 and again on October 20. The October 20 agenda will include a Council work session on the Fire District 1 proposal. He anticipated the Council may take a vote at the October 27 meeting with regard to contracting for fire service with Fire District 1. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 25, 2009 Page 17