Loading...
07/18/2006 City CouncilJuly 18, 2006 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 Deanna Dawson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauni Moore, Councilmember (arrived 7:08 p.m.) Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager Don Sims, Traffic Engineer Mike Thies, Code Enforcement Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Moore was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Moore was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 6/27/06 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2006. Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #89042 THROUGH #89167 FOR JUNE 29, 2006, IN Checks THE AMOUNT OF $400,400.13, #89173 THROUGH #89320 FOR JULY 6, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $323,907.39, AND #89323 THROUGH #89458 FOR JULY 1.3, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $523,308.75. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #43241. THROUGH #43387 IN THE AMOUNT OF $831,582.23 FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 16 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2006. Claim for I (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JOHN G. FENTON Damages ($150,000.00). Edmonds Night (E) AGREEMENT WITH THE EDMONDS POLICE FOUNDATION TO PROVIDE $2,000 Out Event FOR PROMOTING THE EDMONDS NIGHT OUT EVENT ON JULY 27, 2006. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 18, 2006 Page 1 Office Supplies gs and Furnishin (F) Agreement Postage Meter Equipment (G) Comcast Cable Franchise greement (H) Comcast Cable Franchise greement 'o r thstreat" (J) Storm Repa r Improvements EMS Supply Agreement (K) Fire Dept. Surplus Apparatus Economic Development (M) Director Salary Historic �N� Preservation Commissioners AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OFFICE SUPPLIES AND FURNISHINGS PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH OFFICE MAX. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PITNEY BOWES FOR POSTAGE METER EQUIPMENT. CITY OF EDMONDS AND COMCAST CABLE COMPANY FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR SENIOR CENTER FIRE ALARM RENOVATION PROJECT TO ABSCO ALARMS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,056.23. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH EARTH TECH, INC. FOR THE NORTHSTREAM 30 -INCH STORM REPAIR/IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. EMS SUPPLY AGREEMENT WITH LYNNWOOD FIRE DEPARTMENT. SURPLUS OLD SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS TO FIRE DISTRICT #1 AND EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT. MODIFYING THE CURRENT L -5 SALARY RANGE FOR THE POSITION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. CONFIRMATION OF REAPPOINTMENT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONERS STEPHEN WAITE AND ROB VAN TASSELL. PSRC Update 3. PRESENTATION BY PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL (PSRC) ON THE UPDATE OF of Vision 2020 VISION 2020. Councilmember Marin advised Bob Drewel, PSRC Executive Director, was unable to attend tonight's meeting due to a family matter. He relayed Mr. Drewel's offer to make a presentation regarding the Prosperity Partnership at a future meeting. Norman Abbott, PSRC Director of Growth Management, explained the purpose of his presentation was to introduce a regional conversation about the region's future, to present an overview of the Vision 2020 Update which builds on existing vision as well as adds new thinking, and describe the four alternatives. He reviewed the organization and decision making responsibilities of PSRC and PSRC's officers and member organizations. He described regional responsibilities including Vision 2020, Destination 2030 and the Regional Economic Strategy. He advised the update of the Vision 2020 Plan would be followed by an update of the transportation plan. He displayed a chart of transportation investments planned over the next 30 years, a total of $106 billion. Mr. Abbott described the two - pronged approach to Prosperity Partnership — rebuild the region's economic foundations to meet the needs of the new economy and meet the unique needs of identified clusters — explaining this approach has been successful and resulted in development of a regional economic strategy and an 18 -point implementation program. He displayed a graphic of the 170+ partners in the Prosperity Partnership. Mr. Abbott described the regional agreement and regional framework in Vision 2020 that includes regional geographies, urban form, regional growth centers, industrial centers, rural lands, and transportation systems. The update would provide a vision with regard to how and where growth would occur. Where growth would occur would be addressed by the adoption of a preferred alternative; consideration was being given to four alternatives. How growth would occur would be determined via an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 18, 2006 Page 2 update to the Multicounty Planning Policies. He reviewed the Growth Management Policy Board's accomplishments with regard to the update including scoping, analysis of existing Multicounty Planning Policies, creation of ten issue papers, scenario analysis, selection of four alternatives and the kick -off of the DEIS comment period. He briefly described the creation of the ten issue papers that formed the basis of the update and noted they are available on the PSRC website as well as in the Executive Summary. Mr. Abbott described the value of the update including building on the existing vision and local Comprehensive Plan: remain visionary; be ambitious and realistic — refine our common vision for how and where growth should occur; and involve all communities in the region; establish priorities and identify implementation; promote desired growth pattern through revised Multicounty Planning Policies; and promote framework to coordinate resources and fund regional needs. He described the four alternatives, emphasizing there was no preferred alternative at this time. The four alternatives include, 1) growth targets extended, 2) metropolitan cities, 3) largest cities, and 4) smaller cities. He described how growth in the region was organized around city types — metropolitan, core suburban cities, larger suburban cities such as Edmonds, smaller suburban cities, unincorporated UGA and rural. He explained that via this mechanism, the Growth Management Policy Board could consider the role of cities without addressing individual cities. Next, Mr. Abbott explained the existing Vision 2020 strategy did not have any numbers; however, without numbers it was difficult to explain and monitor progress. The purpose of including numbers in the update was to provide regional guidance regarding desired growth patterns, allow a conceptual distribution of people and jobs, allow analysis, and make the vision more clear and measurable but he assured the numbers were not targets or forecasts. He displayed population ranges for each city type, advising the population growth range being studied for larger suburban cities was 26,700 — 160,000. He explained the range was intended to allow a wide range of impacts to be studied. He described common and different impacts of the alternatives, advising mitigation was the key to managing impacts. Focusing growth on larger cities in the region would reduce impacts on outer areas of the region and the most environmentally sensitive areas. He acknowledged that focusing growth on the larger cities would impact those cities. Conversely, if growth was dispersed, it would impact the most environmentally sensitive areas as well as impact smaller cities that lacked the ability to accommodate growth. He reviewed evaluation criteria that the Growth Management Policy Board would use to determine a preferred alternative. The criteria include overarching goals as well as several categories for consideration including environmental quality, health, economic prosperity, land use, transportation, social justice and human potential, rural character, resource lands, and efficient use of infrastructure, public facilities and services. Mr. Abbott described next steps that include the Policy Board collecting and reviewing public comment in Summer 2006, developing a preferred alternative in Fall /Winter 2006, revising Multicounty Planning Policies in Fall/Winter 2006, publishing a supplemental Draft EIS on the preferred alternative, a 60 day comment period on the DEIS, with final action anticipated in Winter 2008. Council President Dawson expressed concern with how Edmonds was viewed; although the theory sounded great — larger cities absorbing more growth which had less impact on natural resources — the cities that were grouped together as larger cities were not necessarily similar. For example Edmonds and Marysville were both identified as larger cities, however, Marysville was experiencing and desiring explosive growth versus Edmonds which was fully built out and constrained by natural features which limit its ability to absorb large amounts of population growth. Further, she noted several of the cities that were identified as smaller cities such as Mill Creek and Monroe, in 20 years would likely be larger than Edmonds. She questioned how the unique features of various cities would be considered in this update. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 18, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Abbott responded the regional geography approach focused on groups of cities and not on individual cities. The group was organized based on city size. He acknowledged Marysville was more able /aggressive about absorbing growth versus a city such as Mukilteo which was within the same category. Council President Dawson commented current population may not be the most appropriate means of identifying city types because by 2025, Edmonds was unlikely to be similar to the cities identified as larger cities and growth in smaller cities may result in their population being similar to larger cities. She also questioned the use of artificial boundaries such as city boundaries, speculating it may be more appropriate to identify areas such as south Snohomish County, north Snohomish County, Everett, etc. versus specific cities. Mr. Abbott responded the Growth Management Policy Board also struggled with that issue and considered organizing cities by growth areas and not using political boundaries but that approach was rejected by the members who preferred to use groups of cities. Council President Dawson commented it may not be appropriate to identify cities that were expected to incorporate large areas of unincorporated Snohomish County as smaller cities. She also suggested consideration be given to the features of each city such as geography. Mr. Abbott commented this could be accomplished under the mechanism "painting the region" where a computer model was used to paint the region and place growth in different ways within the regional geography. He acknowledged similar concerns had been expressed by other cities. He commented on redevelopment in the region, such as the Hwy. 99 corridor, an area that was viewed as having substantial redevelopment potential. He noted other cities have made an effort to look for areas to absorb growth. Council President Dawson commented city staff raised an issue regarding the current designation of the Hwy. 99 corridor as an activity center and potentially reclassifying it as an urban center. She asked whether PSRC was encouraging redesignation of areas as urban centers. Mr. Abbott answered PSRC was not encouraging or discouraging "regional growth centers;" there was a process for becoming a regional growth center which started locally in a city's Comprehensive Plan, then a countywide planning process and a 3 -step process at PSRC whereby criteria was applied and the PSRC Executive Board made the final decision. Councilmember Wambolt asked how the forecasts of 1.6 million more people and 1.1 million more jobs by 2025 were developed. Mr. Abbott answered PSRC produced forecasts approximately every five years and over time they have been very accurate. He explained the forecasts were developed via the use of a sophisticated model and the use of a consultant. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether PSRC had taken a position opposing scheduled commercial flights at Paine Field, noting the Edmonds Council as well as other cities passed resolutions in opposition. Mr. Abbott answered PSRC had not considered that issue. Councilmember Orvis asked whether expanded use of Paine Field had been factored into any scenarios. Mr. Abbott answered it had not other than Paine Field was viewed as an industrial /manufacturing center and was forecast to provide additional employment. Councilmember Orvis pointed out the range of population increase would be 27% - 150% increase in population, noting even a 27% increase in Edmonds' population would be very challenging. He asked whether any of the scenarios factored in changes to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) or was the UGB fixed. Mr. Abbott answered it was not assumed to be fixed nor was it assumed to move. He explained it would be difficult to move the UGB generically by a percentage or number of acres as the model must know where the boundary would be expanded and it was the county's responsibility to move the UGB. The UGB was assumed to be static or at least not move in any substantial way during this time period. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 18, 2006 Page 4 Councilmember Marin acknowledged the need to consider population growth and found it helpful to have PSRC consider "what if' with regard to population increases in the region and how Edmonds interconnected with other communities with regard to transportation and employment. He asked whether there would be additional opportunities for the City to provide comment. Mr. Abbott answered yes, advising a decision regarding a preferred alternative would be made this fall which would be followed by another public comment period. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would be discussing the PSRC update again at their July 25 meeting. 4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Six Year Tr AND RESOLUTION NO. 1128 ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION Improvement rovement IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND DIRECTING THE SAME TO BE FILED WITH THE Program SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD. Traffic Engineer Don Sims explained the State required the City to update the Transportation. Improvement Plan (TIP) by July 31 each year. The TIP must contain all regionally significant projects the City planned to undertake in the next six years. Edmonds has traditionally included all transportation projects in the TIP. He explained each jurisdictions' TIPS were then used to create a statewide TIP. Mr. Sims stated the TIP was required to be financially constrained in the first three years; the last three years were not required to be financially constrained. He commented it was important to include on the TIP all transportation projects because projects not on the statewide TIP were not eligible for state and federal grant funding. He assured that approval and adoption of the TIP did not mean the Council had given final approval for the projects; there were many additional opportunities for the Council to review projects including during the update to the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, when staff presented the draft CIP for adoption, during the budget submission process, when staff requests authorization to bid projects and when the Council accepted the bids. He relayed staff's recommendation that the Council approve the Six -Year TIP and adopt the resolution. Councilmember Marin asked whether approving the TIP for the July 31 deadline would eliminate the ability to include opportunities that may be identified on Hwy. 99 in the next few months. Mr. Sims answered three new projects that were draft recommendations from the Hwy. 99 Safety and Circulation Study were added to this year's TIP. He identified the additional projects: SR 99/76th realignment, an area identified by WSDOT as a high accident location; a new signal at 228th which would provide a connection to the new Park & Ride in Mountlake Terrace; and capacity improvement at the intersections of 220th, 216th and 212th. He advised as other projects arose, they would be added to next year's TIP. Councilmember Moore complimented Mr. Sims on his presentation and expressed her thanks for the 4- way stop on 4th Avenue. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised citizens could call Public Works Director Noel Miller to report potholes and City staff would come out to fix them. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 18, 2006 Page 5 Resg 1128 1 COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO Six Year TIP APPROVE THE SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1128 AND AUTHORIZE RECORDING OF THE DOCUMENTS BY THE CITY CLERK. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Zoning 5 Moratorium - CG & CG2 Zones PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3582, A ZONING MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR CERTAIN USES IN THE CG (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND CG -2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL 2) ZONES. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the specific uses addressed in Ordinance No. 3582 were mobile home parks, storage, mini - storage and ground floor residential uses. He recalled on August 2, 2005, the Council passed Ordinance No. 3558 establishing the moratorium which was extended on February 7, 2006, via passage of Ordinance No. 3582 to allow the Planning Board time to complete their work. He advised the Planning Board developed a work program, planned to hold a public hearing on the CG zone regulations on August 9 and forward a recommendation to the Council in September. He relayed staff's recommendation to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to extend the moratorium to allow the Planning Board to complete their work and forward a recommendation to the Council for review and action in September. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, agreed the Planning Board needed more time to review this issue including considering storage and mini storage facilities that had been built in the past three months in neighboring cities to the south. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE MORATOIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN USES IN THE CG AND CG2 ZONE DISTRICTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Closed Record 6. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW: APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION Review - REGARDING THE DISCONTINUATION OF A DUPLEX USE IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE. Duplex Use at 21100 shell THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 21.1.00 SHELL VALLEY ROAD AND IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY Valley Rd. RESIDENTIAL (RS -8, PRD- 1 -75). APPELLANT: WILLIAM L. ENGLISH / FILE NOS. AP -05 -122 (English) AND AP- 06 -15. City Attorney Scott Snyder described the procedures for a closed record review, explaining testimony was limited to parties of record who appeared before the Hearing Examiner and was limited to argument based on the record; no new evidence was allowed. Mike Thies, Code Enforcement, explained the City received a land use complaint regarding the property at 21100 Shell Valley Road alleging someone was living in the garage and there was a duplex or triplex on the property. Staff researched the complaint and found none of the required permits. Staff contacted the owner, William English, and advised he must either convert the dwelling back to a single family dwelling or apply for and obtain a permit for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Mr. English appealed staff's decision to the Hearing Examiner who held a public hearing on January 19, 2006, and denied Mr. English's appeal. On February 6, 2006, Mr. English filed an appeal seeking to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision; that appeal was delayed until tonight as Mr. English lives in New Zealand. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 18, 2006 Page 6 Councilmember Orvis asked how staff verified this was Lot 33, noting there was reference to Lot 31 in Attachment 4. Mr. Thies advised Attachment 4 was the Assessor's Office field notes. He advised Lot 33 was identified in the record in Attachment 7. Councilmember Orvis asked whether that information was accurate. Mr. Thies answered it was to the best of his knowledge. Mayor Haakenson advised the appellant would have 15 minutes for his presentation. William English stated he was seeking leniency, mercy, and clemency, and was not someone trying to get away with something. He urged the Council to look beyond the undisputed code violation to issues of greater importance. He explained the issues on which his appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision was based were contained in Exhibit 2. First, he requested the Council provide some latitude, commenting that a hearing before the Hearing Examiner did not seem the proper venue for this problem. When he was about to purchase this property, he was told it was okay as a duplex and that the garage apartment was not illegal. He clarified this information was not provided by the real estate agent but by the City's previous code enforcement officer. He subsequently purchased the house which he anticipated using as a duplex as it had been used as a duplex for many years. He noted the use did not come to the attention of the City until a meter reader noticed someone was living in the garage, a space that was no longer a garage but a studio apartment. Mr. English recalled when talking with the Hearing Examiner before the hearing, he indicated that he did not have the latitude to discuss all the issues Mr. English planned to address. He recalled the Hearing Examiner also mentioned several times during the hearing that his review was constrained to the factual issues of the code violation. He requested the Council consider something other than just that narrow problem. He was willing to correct any lack of building permit or other code violations but wanted to do it with what he purchased, which was a duplex. Mr. English commented that although the Hearing Examiner was able to rule that the City's earlier advice was in error, he did not have the latitude to hold him harmless from the City's error. Mr. English's second point was the Hearing Examiner did not address the appellant's request for a solution other than an ADU. He recalled in discussions with an attorney, the attorney suggested the City and he identify a middle ground. He acknowledged the Hearing Examiner was not able to offer a compromise and he hoped the Council could. He questioned the distinction between an ADU and a duplex other than one had one rental unit and the other had two. He explained his ability to afford the house was based on the ability to rent it out. He hoped to live in the house someday but for the time being wanted and needed the revenue from the two rental units. His third point was a suggestion by an attorney that the City was holding him to a private covenant developed as part of the PRD for the subject property. He pointed out the concept of ADU post -dated the covenant. In his fourth point, Mr. English recalled there were several questions asked by the Hearing Examiner that he felt were asked on his behalf such as how this viewpoint was reached and Mr. Thies' response that it was based on logic. Mr. English questioned whether this implied that he (Mr. English) was illogical. He recalled the Hearing Examiner asking Mr. Thorpe, a neighbor who testified before the Hearing Examiner, whether there had been any problems with the units and his reply that there had not been. He noted this answer was in spite of a complaint in 1999 in regard to a trailer that was hooked up to the property. He explained that situation resulted in code enforcement by former Code Enforcement Inspector Jason Tourtellot and the subsequent letter from Mr. Tourtellot that stated the house could be used as a duplex and the unit in the garage was not illegal. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 18, 2006 Page 7 Mr. English requested the Council look at the big picture, and consider whether a structure that had not been altered but was changed admittedly without building permits into a multi family dwelling was a danger to the neighborhood. He concluded the neighborhood was not deteriorated by the fact that more than one family occupied the structure. Mr. English summarized the error made by the City had consequences; not serious consequences to the neighborhood but serious consequences to him. He urged the Council to consider the exceptional circumstances that required an exceptional solution. Councilmember Orvis referred to Mr. English's comments in Attachment 3 that the language regarding use restrictions was vague, in particular the language, "no lot shall be used except for residential purposes." Mr. English responded the first sentence was acceptable. He alleged the remainder of the language `No building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than on detached single family dwelling with a private garage..." was vague. He recalled making the point with the Hearing Examiner that the person who originally built the structure could have interpreted that language to refer to structures only, that more than one structure was not allowed on a particular lot except for designated lots. In this circumstance, there was only one structure with three possible living areas. He clarified he had never asked for a triplex only a duplex which he was told this was. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. English's comment that he purchased a duplex, pointing out a person's purchase of a property was predicated on the title. He asked why Mr. English referred to this as a duplex when the title stated it was a single family home. Mr. English replied Mr. Tourtellot stated it was a duplex. He explained when he was looking at this house which was listed for sale as a duplex, he was told to call the City to confirm the duplex which he did. He also provided a letter that confirmed Mr. Tourtellot's statement. He suggested the word of the City should be sufficient evidence. Councilmember Plunkett asked what the property title stated. Mr. English answered it said single family dwelling. Mayor Haakenson opened the review to comment from parties of record. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on the requirement for an owner to reside in a residence with an ADU for six months of the year. He pointed out property purchases included a real estate contract that could contain amendments. He suggested investigating whether a real estate contract existed. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Snyder explained these were restrictions on the PRD, not covenants; if they were private covenants, the City would not have any enforcement authority. Mr. Snyder reviewed two rules the Council must operate under, the finality of vested permits and conversely estoppel — if the City makes a mistake, the City is obligated to enforce its ordinances the way they are written. He explained the Land Use Petition Act requires that any final decision on a permit application or development permit be appealed within 21 days and if not appealed, the decision is final. The Division 1 Court has held that the finality of vested permits rule applies even though the ordinance may be vague or unconstitutional. Further, no City official including the City Council sitting as a quasi judicial body had the authority to grant permission to do something that the City's ordinances prohibited. He cited Miller v. Bainbridge Island in which the Bainbridge Island Mayor wrote a letter to a developer granting permission to redevelop a dock and pier. The outcome of that action was that acts done without legal authorization or authority were beyond the ability of the public official to grant. Mr. Snyder explained there were good policy reasons for this distinction. Mr. Tourtellot's decision was administrative — the public did not receive notice and the decision was not appealable. Conversely, development permits were published and posted and the decisions were appealable. He summarized the City did not have the ability to turn its back on a violation and was obligated to enforce its ordinances. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 18, 2006 Page 8 He acknowledged Mr. English's remedy if he experienced a financial loss as a result of the negligent statement made to him was to file a claim with the City. He reiterated the City could not negotiate code violations and problems caused by staff error by allowing a violation to continue. He offered to discuss the potential legal liability with the Council in Executive Session. Rebuttal Mr. English explained he was not asking the Council to turn their back on the code violation; he was willing to correct that by obtaining the necessary building permits. He did not object to the City enforcing its zoning code, pointing out this area was zoned for mixed dwellings and allowed duplexes. He pointed out the three buildings adjacent to his property were duplexes. He summarized allowing him to obtain the necessary permits to use the house as a duplex would not impact the zoning. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. Councilmember Orvis disagreed with some of Mr. English's argument regarding interpretation and found staff had accurately interpreted the use restrictions on the PRD. He advised the only evidence in the record was that Lot 33 required a single family dwelling unit on the lot. Although he sympathized with Mr. English and would rather Mr. Tourtellot had made the correct statement in his letter, the party at fault was the previous owners who divided the house without the appropriate permits. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND AFFIRM THE HEARING EXAMINER'S JANUARY 26, 2006 DECISION TO DENY THE ORIGINAL APPEAL. Council President Dawson also sympathized with Mr. English, commenting although it was an unfortunate situation, Mr. Snyder's legal opinion was correct — there was no way for the Council to allow a use not allowed by the zoning. She summarized the Council's hands were tied by the law and it was not a situation where the Council had the ability to negotiate. Councilmember Wambolt expressed sympathy for Mr. English, advising he would also support the motion to deny the appeal. Although it was unfortunate Mr. Tourtellot wrote the letter, the letter would not have been a factor had Mr. English retained a real estate attorney at the time of the purchase as the attorney would have verified the allowed uses. Next, he pointed out this may not be a poor financial transaction for Mr. English as he had purchased the property for $265,000 in 2002 and it was currently appraised for tax purposes at $357,000, 35% more than the purchase price. As tax assessments were typically 15% below market value, the value of the property was approximately $400,000. Councilmember Marin advised he would support the motion. He agreed it was unfortunate the Council had little latitude to compromise or make an exception as they must follow the City's rules and regulations as written. Councilmember Moore advised she would not support the motion. She recalled the last time she felt the Council's hands were tied and she was unable to vote her heart, the Council's decision was overturned in court. She planned to vote her heart this time and allow common sense to prevail. She disagreed a real estate attorney was necessary to purchase a house. She believed Mr. English acted in good faith, pointing out a buyer did not see the title until the property was purchased. She found Mr. English's ability to profit from the sale of the property to be irrelevant to this issue. Councilmember Olson commented although she would like to follow her heart and not support the motion, she respected the City Attorney's opinion. She pointed out the Council was obligated to enforce the rules and regulations the way they existed or risk a lawsuit from other parties. She sympathized with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 18, 2006 Page 9 Mr. English's position and hoped he could convert the house to a single family with an ADU. She recognized there was no good solution. Councilmember Plunkett commented a property purchase was subject to 8 -9 contingencies including inspection of the title and verifying that the necessary permits had been obtained. He advised if a buyer, upon inspecting the title, was not satisfied, he /she could decline to purchase the property. He emphasized the need for a buyer to conduct due diligence particularly for an investment property. Councilmember Moore commented this was an example of why she did not believe the Council should be involved in quasi judicial decisions. Although she respected individual Councilmembers' expertise, Councilmembers were not trained as judges and should not be interpreting the City's code. She clarified she was voting against the motion for the reasons she stated previously. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER MOORE OPPOSED. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Old Woodway Elementary Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reminded the Council of the petitions submitted with regard to retaining the School site neighborhood park at the old Woodway Elementary School site the way it was. Planned Ray Martin, Edmonds, recalled several years ago he opposed revisions to the PRD regulations, finding Residential the were an attack on the quality of life in Edmonds promoted clear cutting, density and were Developments y q y � p g� y not consistent with the neighborhood. He recalled the result of the revisions were disastrous and the subsequent PRDs alienated many citizens in Meadowdale. He acknowledged the PRD ordinance was subsequently revised and improved but felt the regulations were still poor and existed for the benefit of contractors, increased density, promoted clear cutting and were not necessarily consistent with the neighborhood. He referred to a proposed PRD in Perrinville, questioning whether that was the reason some elected officials sought to downzone the Seaview area to 10,000 square feet. He indicated his plans to comment on variances in PRDs at a future meeting. 8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JULY 11, 2006. Community/ Community Services /Development Services Committee Development Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee discussed the Six Year TIP which the Council reviewed Services Committee and approved earlier this evening. The Committee also discussed the 2006 Comprehensive Sewer Plan which will be reviewed by the Washington Department of Ecology before being presented to the Council in September. Next the Committee discussed street vendor regulations. He explained in 2004 after much difficulty enforcing street vendor regulations, the Council approved a change that prohibited trailers. As a result of interest in allowing vendor trailers near the ferry, the Committee recommended staff forward a recommendation to Council to modify the ordinance that prohibited trailers. Finance I Finance Committee Committee Councilmember Olson reported the Committee received an overview of the proposed changes to the L5 compensation plan for non - represented employees. The formal redesigned policy will be presented to the Finance Committee at their August meeting. The Committee also discussed changing the Economic Development Director compensation which was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. Next, the Committee discussed staffs request to open franchise negotiations with Comcast. The Committee also discussed the results of the 2005 State Audit. She recognized Assistant Administrative Services Director Kathleen Junglov and Administrative Services Director Dan Clements for the superb job they do; the City received an unqualified opinion and had no findings or management letter. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 18, 2006 Page 10 Public safety Public Safety Committee Committee ' Councilmember Marin reported the Committee discussed the continuation of a very favorable contract with the City of Lynnwood whereby Lynnwood purchased EMS supplies and made them available at Stevens Hospital. This item was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. The second item the Committee discussed was surplusing self - contained breathing apparatus to Fire District #1 and Edmonds School District which was approved on the Consent Agenda. He advised the Public Safety Committee would be discussing barking dog regulations at their August meeting. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson reported he met with 15 other mayors in the State today to discuss issues that affect the cities and to discuss ways to work with the legislature in next year's session. The mayors plan to meet again in the fall to discuss the work plan developed at today's meeting. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS IStarbucks Grand Opening Councilmember Olson reported she attended the Starbucks grand opening. She commented the opening of Starbucks and the fountain were great additions to downtown. She also commented on the opening of 220th Street 220tH recognizing the great job done by the contractors. Opening Ei c Councilmember Wambolt clarified after the Finance Committee meeting, staff surveyed the salary for the everopment Economic men Develo t Director in other cities and revised the range to $80,000 - $100,000. Director Salary h g Employment Councilmember Moore reported on the Employment Recruitment Center at Paine Field, a community Recruitment at Paine Field college effort in partnership with Boeing to recruit and train employees for the new 787 program. Psxc Councilmember Moore complimented Planning Manager Rob Chave for his memo to the Council Presentation regarding the PSRC presentation and Hwy. 99. She suggested the Council invite the new Director of and xWy 99 Stevens Hospital to make a presentation to the Council. Councilmember Moore complimented Mayor Haakenson and Community Services Director Stephen Clifton on their recent letter to the members of the legislative Joint Transportation Committee with regard Crossing g l� g to Edmonds Crossing. She expressed her gratitude to Mayor Haakenson for continuing to pursue funding for this project. She was supportive of Edmonds Crossing not only because it would be a great transportation link and would potentially provide more public open space on the waterfront, but because it also represented a vision developed by pervious Councils. She complimented previous Councils who created the vision for Edmonds Crossing. Global Councilmember Moore complimented Mayor Haakenson for signing the City's agreement to comply with warming the Kyoto Accords. She referred to Mayor Haakenson's announcement of a committee to make recommendations regarding what individuals could do to help reduce CO2 emissions to fight global warming. She urged the Council to also support policy changes to reduce CO2 emissions and suggested adopting a baseline to allow improvements to be measured. Mayor Haakenson advised that would be included in the committee's work. Sound Transit Councilmember Marin reported Sound Transit made a decision last week to bring to the public for comment a five- tenths of one percent sales tax increase funding scenario that would bring light rail to Lynnwood in Sound Transit 2. Next, Councilmember Marin reported viewing on video the first light rail car running on tracks. He advised two cars were being constructed; the first would arrive in Seattle in the first quarter of 2006. Testing would begin on a section of track that had been completed from the south Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 18, 2006 Page I I entrance to the downtown bus tunnel to the maintenance /operations facility across from the former Rainier Brewery. He was ecstatic about the potential this would bring to the region and to Edmonds. City Attorney Scott Snyder referred to Councilmember Moore's comments that alluded to the Day decision. He reminded there were two parts to that decision. First, a non - conforming use in which he represented staff and another attorney represented the City. Second, the Judge upheld the estoppel argument, that a mistake did not obligate the City to allow the use to continue. 7 1 With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 18, 2006 Page 12