01/27/2004 City CouncilJANUARY 27, 2004
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
David Dwyer, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR.
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2004.
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #68331 THROUGH #68483 FOR THE WEEK OF
JANUARY 19, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $367,274.59. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #37471 THROUGH #37551 FOR THE PAY PERIOD
JANUARY 1 THROUGH JANUARY 15 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $952,187.57.
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM BILL WILSON
($897.66).
(E) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD.
(F) AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF A NEW AWD FULL SIZE PASSENGER VAN FOR
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 1
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Council President Plunkett invited audience members to speak during Audience Comments regarding
items on the agenda, pointing out none of the subsequent agenda items were public hearings. He noted
the Council would be scheduling public hearings in the future with regard to regulation of amateur radio
antennas, Council decisions regarding quasi judicial matters, and regulation of hedges.
Claudia Erlandson, 15714 Burke Avenue N, Shoreline, recalled collecting signatures on the
spay/neuter petition and was concerned the ordinance had not been implemented. She stated there were
too many dogs and cats, thus the need to have them altered prior to adoption. She shared an experience
where a female cat was trapped only to discover she left behind three kittens who ultimately froze to
death. She urged the City not to release animals for adoption without having them spayed or neutered.
Lindsay Saibara, 20706 78th Place W, Edmonds, commented she was one of many who signed the
petition to have dogs and cats spayed/neutered prior to adoption. She was dismayed the policy had not
been implemented, pointing out Edmonds was the last municipality or private shelter not to implement a
spay/neuter policy. She urged the City to adopt a spay/neuter policy which would decrease the number of
animals in shelters.
Tamar Puckett, PAWS, PO Box 1037, Lynnwood, expressed concern with the City's reluctance to
implement a spay/neuter policy. After the Council passed the policy a year ago, PAWS indicated they
would track the implementation of the policy and were told by the city that shelter animals were being
spayed/neutered prior to adoption. She was surprised to learn that unaltered cats and dogs were being
adopted out in Edmonds. She pointed out there was no good reason for the delay in implementing this
policy as there was no financial burden because adoption fees would render the policy revenue neutral,
the contractual framework for implementing the policy was in place, the Police Department agreed to
transport animals to the veterinarian, and the City's shelter provider, Adix's, was not impacted by the
policy. She urged the Council to get beyond the "legal nitpicking" and recognize the merits of a legally
mandated spay/neuter policy. Altering animals prior to adoption was good public policy because it was
recognized as the only humane and effective method to address animal overpopulation. With Everett's
adoption of a spay/neuter policy, Edmonds was the last municipality in the Puget Sound region that failed
to alter shelter animals. She urged the Council to pass the ordinance and demonstrate to citizens the
Council's intent to implement the initiative that was adopted over a year ago.
Kay Farrell, 4325 South 239`h Place, Kent, quoted declining euthanasia statistics and declining numbers
of dogs and cats in the United States since spaying/neutering animals became a general practice. She
cited the costs she incurred to have a stray boarded, trained, and adopted. She urged the Council to
implement the spay/neuter policy.
Ron Wambolt, 504 6th Avenue S, Edmonds, commented it was appropriate for the Council to hold their
retreat in La Conner. Next, he asked the Council to consider that many citizens believed builders/
developers received preferential treatment due to campaign contributions they made to Councilmembers.
He referred to recent events at a Council meeting that appeared to support this theory, a citizen was
assessed a fine of $27,500 for a building permit violation but builders were not being charged for the use
of City right-of-way if their project began before the fees for the use of the right-of-way were
implemented. He referred to a builder nearby who was using portions of three blocks to store equipment
and materials but not compensating the City. He also requested increased traffic enforcement, citing
violations that are not enforced such as parking too close to fire hydrants, crosswalks or stop signs as well
as speeding. He urged the Council to review the City's priorities and cease to accept campaign
contributions from builders in an effort to eliminate the perception that they receive preferential
treatment.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 2
Ralph Turner, 8716 Talbot Road, Edmonds, recalled efforts over the past three years to pass an
ordinance to ensure all sheltered animals were spayed/neutered prior to adoption. This would reduce
animal suffering due to the lack of adoptable homes as well as reduce the number of animals that were
euthanized. The citizens initiative required establishing a spay/neuter policy, but what followed was legal
nitpicking even though this was a moral issue, not a legal issue. He was embarrassed that every
municipality in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King and Pierce counties except Edmonds had passed a
spay/neuter policy. He urged the Council to implement the spay/neuter policy for shelter animals.
Richard Huffman, 4602 223rd Street SW, Mountlake Terrace, echoed Mr. Turner's comments. He
was surprised to learn. Edmonds was not spaying/neutering shelter animals, noting there were many
reasons why that was the right thing to do including that it was humane and cost effective. He reiterated
Edmonds was the only city in the Puget Sound region that did not spay/neuter shelter animals. He
encouraged the Council to take action and begin spaying/neutering shelter animals prior to adoption.
Mary Ellen Zolas, 9717 2401" Place SW, Edmonds, a veterinarian at the City of Seattle Spay/Neuter
Clinic, assured that spaying/neutering worked. She agreed this was a moral issue but it was also a cost
effective method. She relayed Seattle's experience and the tremendous reduction in animals that came to
the shelter and/or were euthanized.
Carol Turner, 8716 Talbot Road, Edmonds, pointed out all other communities in the surrounding area
had a mandatory spay/neuter policy for stray and abandoned animals. She assumed when petitions were
signed establishing a spay/neuter policy and the initiative was passed by the Council, the problem would
be solved. She was surprised to learn that a policy had still not been implemented, an embarrassment to
Edmonds that the City Council and Mayor should rectify.
Roger Hertrieh, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, stated the spay/neuter policy was an expensive process
and suggested Council discuss all costs associated with the policy to educate the public regarding what
had been created via this ordinance. He disagreed with the age of two months for spaying/neutering dogs,
suggesting dogs should be older before being spayed/neutered. He agreed with the policy of allowing
additional time before a licensed dog was spayed/neutered. He was heartened that Edmonds residents
were interested in this issue but not with residents from outside the City, pointing out Edmonds was a
small city and could be different. He disagreed with the bad publicity Adix's had received with regard to
this issue, as Adix has allowed the City to reduce costs related to animal sheltering. Referring to fences
and hedges, he said a fence or hedge when used on the border of a property functioned the same,
therefore, hedges should be regulated the same as fences. Regarding Council making decisions on quasi
judicial issues, he stated although the fee to appeal to Council from the Hearing Examiner was $220 and
the fee to appeal to Superior Court was $110, an appeal to Superior Court also requires hiring an attorney.
4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF READING IN EDMONDS MONTH FEBRUARY 2004
Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation in honor of Reading in Edmonds Month, February 2004 and
presented it to Tom Nielsen, Librarian at Westgate Elementary and Paul Borchert, Librarian at Edmonds
Elementary.
Mr. Nielsen and Mr. Borchert thanked the Council for the proclamation and thanked the community and
the City for their support. They provided the Council with `Be Happy, Read" signs.
5. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS RELATED
TO ANIMAL CONTROL.
Police Chief David Stern explained this agenda item consisted of three parts intended to implement the
spay/neuter initiative enacted into law, 1) amendments to Ordinance 5.05.030, 2) a contract for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 3
veterinarian services, and 3) a contract for animal kenneling services. At the recommendation of the
Public Safety Committee, the three items would be addressed individually.
(A) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EXISTING SPAY NEUTER ORDINANCES
Chief Stern provided a brief history, explaining the initial ordinance was passed on December 17, 2002
and amended on January 7, 2003 to clarify logistics of accomplishing spaying/neutering. The ordinance
was again amended on October 7, 2003 with regard to the issue of veterinarian fees. The proposed
amendment before Council contained additional amendments clarifying the fee structure.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the initial initiative presented to the Council had a premise that was
subject to the initiative process, spaying/neutering of abandoned animals. However, the initiative also
included a number of provisions that indicated spaying/neutering would be done at public expense and
detailed how fees would be charged, providing a level of administrative detail that was not available to
individuals via the initiative process. The first ordinance that was adopted by the Council passed the
initiative as written. The second ordinance, recognizing that the City Council had no authority under
State law to amend an initiative, attempted to provide some compatible administrative detail.
Mr. Snyder explained staff was then tasked with developing ordinances and contracts to implement the
ordinance. The difficulty was that the implementation process at public expenses would have cost the
City tens of thousands of dollars that were not recoverable under the initiative from people adopting
animals and placed the burden on the City's taxpayers. He noted these provisions were beyond the scope
of the initiative. He summarized there was no way to implement the initiative as written without costing
Edmonds taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.
The Council passed the initiative as written to spare the City the cost of a special election, in excess of
$50,000. State statute requires once an initiative is received, it must be placed on the next special election
ballot. He summarized the choices available to the Council were to pass the initiative as written with
annual implementation costs of $20,000-$30,000 or put the initiative before the voters at a cost of
$50,000. As a result, the Council has been struggling over the past several months with whether to tweak
the ordinance which it has no legal authority to do, put the matter on a ballot to appeal portions of the
initiative, or go to court and have certain portions of the ordinance struck down. He noted the latter
option was also quite expensive. He noted the issues before the Council were legal rather than moral.
Mr. Snyder explained the ordinance enacted in October 2003 provided for an adoption fee; the initiative
as written required the City, at public expense, to spay/neuter animals and provided no method for
recovering that added value. The ordinance also contained a provision to address the requirement in the
initiative that animals be spayed/neutered when brought to the shelter and ignored the issue of licensed
pets whom the owner may not want spayed/neutered. The initiative also did not address a rather obvious
situation, animals that were already spayed/neutered. A final issue was feral cats which were not suitable
for adoption; the initiative provides for animals not to be spayed/neutered if they were to be euthanized
but there were no definitions. He noted this could be handled via consultation with the veterinarian.
Mr. Snyder summarized the proposed ordinance made a number of common sense tweaks to the initiative.
He reiterated the issue the Council was faced with was honoring the intent of citizens who brought the
initiative forward and having it make common budgetary sense.
At Mayor Haakenson's suggestion, Chief Stern described the Public Safety Committee, a Council
Committee that meets the second Tuesday of each month to consider issues raised by the Police and Fire
Departments. The Committee is comprised of Councilmember Dawson, Chair, and Councilmember
Olson.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 4
Councilmember Wilson asked whether adopting the ordinance as drafted which exceeded the Council's
ability under State law, would subject the Council to legal action. Mr. Snyder answered that action would
be contrary to the initiative and referendum statutes in the State. He pointed out the provisions to be
amended were beyond the power of initiators to initiate, therefore, if an action was brought to challenge
the Council's action, his advice would be to seek a declaratory judgment action invalidating those
provisions. In the long term, he recommended the Council consider at one of the least expensive
elections, placing amendments to the power of initiative and referendum to allow the Council to do what
the State Legislature had the right to do under the State Constitution.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether another reason for the delay was to identify veterinarians to
provide the spay/neuter service. Chief Stern agreed that was a component of the delay. He advised letters
of interest were sent to seven veterinarians and three responded. He noted the fee structure contained in
Exhibit A of the contract for veterinarian services was the lowest submitted; the actual fee varied by the
type, sex, condition, etc. of the animal.
Councilmember Dawson noted even with the proposed ordinance that would substantially increase
adoption fees, the policy would not be revenue neutral. Chief Stern answered until the City had some
experience, it was difficult to determine whether it would be revenue neutral. Councilmember Dawson
noted in some instances, the cost of spaying/neutering would exceed the adoption fee the City collected.
Mr. Snyder pointed out there was one category, cat neuter, that was under $50, all others were above. For
example, the spay/neuter of an obese dog could cost in excess of $150.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her appreciation for staff's efforts to draft an ordinance in view of the
legal restrictions. She referred to Mr. Snyder's memo which indicated this was a common sense approach
but that it was "extra legal." Mr. Snyder agreed although it was difficult for him to state that his client
would be doing something illegal, the Council would be. Mr. Snyder explained that although this was a
common sense approach, his oath was to uphold the laws of the State of Washington and the Washington
State Constitution. Councilmember Dawson clarified Mr. Snyder was uncomfortable signing off on the
proposed ordinance due to the oath he took as the City Attorney, which was similar to the oath
Councilmembers took.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out the City would not be precluded from spaying/neutering animals if
the Council did not pass the proposed ordinance, it would only mean that feral cats would be
spayed/neutered, etc. at City expense. Mr. Snyder noted the spay/neuter of licensed pets was also an issue
addressed by the proposed ordinance as well as an adoption fee. He noted without the proposed
ordinance, the City would lose $50-$150 per animal.
Councilmember Dawson noted the other option, adopting the ordinance, would save the City money but
was something the Council was not authorized by law to do. Mr. Snyder reiterated his recommendation
to put on the ballot at the least expensive opportunity a provision that would authorize the Council to
make such amendments. He explained the City Council had the power to budget for the City and
establish fees and they were not subject to the initiative process. The flaw of the initiative was that
limitations within the ordinance were beyond the initiators' power.
Council President Plunkett asked whether the overall cost of adoption under the proposed ordinance was
within industry standards. Chief Stern answered it was within the range of what other cities charged.
Council President Plunkett referred to the provision in the ordinance for a mid -year review. Mr. Snyder
advised that was Council direction but was not contained in the ordinance. Assistant Police Chief Al
Compaan recalled that issue was raised with regard to the contract with Adix's. Staff negotiated a
contract with Adix's for 2004, 2005 and 2006 that did not require any further review. Council President
Plunkett suggested a six month review would provide information regarding how many animals were
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 5
spayed/neutered. Mr. Snyder advised the Adix's and veterinarian contracts locked in costs; the mix of
dogs and cats that were spayed/neutered would determine the budget impact. He noted the final contract
with Adix's was similar to the fee the City paid in the past, there were no significant increases in the
contract beyond cost of living.
Council President Plunkett stated with the increase in fees, there was a good opportunity to have shelter
animals altered without increasing the cost to the City. Chief Stern indicated the estimated cost was a
best guess as information regarding numbers of animals, sex, condition, etc. was not yet available. He
advised in 2002, 70 cats and 46 dogs were adopted. Through October 2003, 32 cats and 21 dogs had been.
adopted. He noted the decrease corresponded to the 1/3 reduction in staff.
Councilmember Dawson noted although the proposed fees were similar to other cities, animals adopted
from PAWS received shots which animals adopted from Edmonds would not and PAWS provided a
carrier/leash which Edmonds did not. She asked if fewer animals would be adopted in Edmonds due to
the increased fees and logistics of adopting. Assistant Chief Compaan stated animal control and shelter
personnel did not anticipate Edmonds would be at any competitive disadvantage. One issue may be the
collection of the adoption fee as Adix's was not interested in collecting the adoption fee due to increased
responsibilities of collecting funds. Therefore, logistically once someone identified an animal at the
kennel, they would need to pay the adoption fee at the Police Department counter and return to the kennel
to pick up the animal. Councilmember Dawson noted someone selecting an animal on the weekend
would have to come to the Police Department on Monday -Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Councilmember Wilson noted the logistics may add to the number of days Adix's would need to hold an
animal. Assistant Chief Compaan advised Adix's was aware of that. Chief Stern advised the fee
negotiated with Adix's was predicated on a number of spaces, the City was allocated ten kennels that
could house two dogs each. He noted the City could be charged extra if that number was exceeded but
that was a very rare occurrence.
Hearing no further questions, Mayor Haakenson remanded the ordinance to Council.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO.3486 AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE EXISTING
SPAY/NEUTER ORDINANCE.
Student Representative Dwyer encouraged the Council to vote against the amendment as
Councilmembers were to abide by the laws and any Councilmember who voted in favor of the
amendment would be violating their oath.
Councilmember Dawson agreed with Student Representative Dwyer. Although she did not object to the
public policy behind the initiative and agreed the ordinance made common sense by fixing problems
posed by the initiative, she was unable to break the oath of office she took by voting for something the
City Attorney said was not lawful. She agreed the City should proceed with spaying/neutering animals
prior to adoption and consider an amendment to the initiative procedures so that amendments such as this
could be accomplished lawfully. She acknowledged this process would cost the City money, but she
could not vote for the ordinance even though it made good common sense and would fix flaws in the
initiative. She encouraged Councilmembers not to break their oath of office by voting in favor of the
ordinance.
Councilmember Moore indicated she would vote in favor of the ordinance because it made common
sense. She expressed her irritation over the Council being put in this position, noting the initiative was a
well-meaning idea that was poorly executed. She commended staff for their efforts to develop a common
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 6
sense approach that walked a tricky line. She favored resolving the moral issue so that the legality could
be addressed in the proper manner. She urged citizens who were part of the initiative process to consider
what they had done to put the Council in this position.
Council President Plunkett clarified Adix's had worked with the City over the past year and had come a
long way in helping this happen. He recalled the petition process was begun because in the first half of
the process, it was the shelter provider who indicated they would not increase fees. The initiative was
written specifically based on what Adix's indicated they would and would not do. Therefore, the people
who wrote the initiative did not put the City in this position, they only responded to what the shelter
provider indicated they wanted. He recalled four years ago the shelter provider was asked whether they
would assist with this effort by increasing fees to cover the cost of spay/neuter and their response was no.
Council President Plunkett expressed surprise that a difference of opinion was being characterized as a
failure to uphold the oath of office. He commented that as an elected official, he reserved the right to
disagree with the City Attorney by enacting an ordinance that would withstand the test of time and legal
scrutiny. He planned to support the ordinance by upholding his oath of office which required that he
legally discharge the duties of the office which he believed he was doing.
Councilmember Olson indicated she would support the ordinance. She expressed her dislike for
initiatives because they often led to flawed laws. She noted people were often driven to initiatives by
frustration. She was dismayed that Edmonds was the only municipality between Olympia and Canada
that did not have this policy.
Councilmember Orvis thanked the people who circulated the petition. He recalled his earlier statement
that imposing a fee structure was not amending the initiative. He planned to support the ordinance,
pointing out the provisions of the ordinance did not undermine the initiative, but strengthened it.
Councilmember Wilson indicated he was torn with regard to this issue but could not support the
ordinance as currently drafted. He agreed with the argument posed by Student Representative Dwyer and
Councilmember Dawson. He relayed his recent participation on a jury and the judge's instruction that the
jury must follow what the law said regardless of the evidence or opinions. Councilmember Wilson
explained he gave a great deal of deference to the professional opinion of the City Attorney in interpreting
the law. He recalled the progress the Council had been making toward a solution when discussing this
issue a year ago, efforts that were superceded by the initiative process and now the Council was faced
with the dilemma of enacting an initiative that exceeded the powers provided by an initiative.
Mayor Haakenson read the first page of the ordinance into the record:
"WHEREAS, certain provisions of the animal control ordinance of the City of Edmonds were
adopted by the Edmonds City Council in response to an initiative petition; and
WHEREAS, normally the provisions of an initiative must be enacted by a Council without
amendment and may not thereafter be amended except by a vote of the people; and
WHEREAS initiative powers are limited under Washington Sate law and may only exercise
powers delegated to the City in its corporate capacity in a broad and general manner, and may not
exercise powers specifically delegated to the City Council, particularly regarding budgetary and other
similar specific powers of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the initiative enacted by the City Council contained language detailing fees to be
charged by the City, and such provisions are not appropriate exercises of the initiative power; and
WHEREAS the City Council reserves to itself the sole power to exercise decision making
authority relating to the budget and therefore has enacted this amendment in order to avoid a gift of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 7
public funds due to the enhancement in value of'an adoptedpet, and to provide for a balancing of'revenue
and expenditure with respect to spaying and neutering of animals; NOW, THEREFORE,..."
Mayor Haakenson noted this section of the ordinance was followed by specifics regarding fees,
spay/neuter of owner surrender animals, and setting a date when the ordinance would become effective.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, MARIN, OLSON, AND MOORE IN FAVOR;
COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON AND WILSON OPPOSED. The ordinance approved reads as
follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ECC
SECTIONS 5.05.030 AND 5.05.127.1 RELATING TO THE SPAYING AND NEUTERING OF
ANIMALS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Mayor Haakenson expressed irritation by people who came to the Council meeting without the full story
about what had occurred over the past year. He applauded those who were present because they heeded
PAWS' calls, but explained staff had worked extremely hard over the past year to identify a cost
effective, legal way to implement the initiative. He urged the public to get the facts regarding the City's
efforts before they spoke to the Council.
(B) CONTRACT FOR VETERINARY SERVICES WITH EDMONDS-WESTGATE
VETERINARY HOSPITAL
Chief Stern explained the veterinary services contract with Edmonds -Westgate Veterinary Hospital was
necessary to implement the spay/neuter ordinance. He explained the Police Department sent letters of
interest to seven potential vendors and received three responses. The Edmonds -Westgate Veterinary
Hospital provided the most economically viable quote as shown in Exhibit A of the contract. He pointed
out the spay/neuter fee structure varied widely based on the type, size, and condition of the animal. To
provide an example of potential volume, he reported that in 2002, 139 cats and 264 dogs were
impounded; of those 70 cats and 46 dogs were adopted. Through October 2003, a total of 67 cats and 177
dogs were impounded; of those, 32 cats and 21 dogs were adopted. He noted the reduction in volume
corresponded to the 1/3 reduction in animal control staffing.
Mr. Snyder referred to the opinion he provided to the Council, explaining the Council was obligated,
whether they passed the initiative or it was passed via a public vote, to implement the terms of the
initiative. He noted neither of the contracts were subject to the concerns he expressed regarding the
foregoing ordinance.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Dawson noted the contract for veterinary services did not include a test that could be
conducted on dogs or cats prior to anesthesia. Mr. Snyder agreed there were a variety of tests a private
pet owner may have conducted to determine an animal's fitness for anesthesia which would add $20-25 to
the cost. He acknowledged those fees were not provided for in the spay/neuter service and the City
agreed to sign a waiver to address that issue. For Councilmember Dawson, he indicated no statistics had
been compiled regarding such risks.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT WITH EDMONDS-WESTGATE VETERINARY HOSPITAL.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 8
(C) CONTRACT FOR ANIMAL KENNELING SERVICES WITH ADIX'S BED & BATH
FOR DOGS AND CATS
Chief Stern advised the contract for animal kenneling services was with Adix's Bed & Bath for Dogs and
Cats and was an extension of the current service contract. The City's relationship with this service
provider had been excellent and staff recommended continuing that relationship. He reported the annual
fee for 2004 would be $21,815, a 1.2% increase over 2003 which was consistent with the Consumer Price
Index (CPI). He noted there were also additional provisions in the contract to cover the logistics of the
spay/neuter ordinance as well as a few minor changes to codify past practices such as ten kennels.
Councilmember Dawson noted the proposed contract was in line with the ordinance the Council passed
but not the initiative such as holding licensed pets, etc. Mr. Snyder answered the collection of fees would
occur outside this contract as Adix's would not be collecting fees. He advised the proposed contract was
consistent with the initiative and/or existing provisions in City ordinances.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether this contract was in opposition to the intent of the initiative which
purported to have animals immediately spayed/neutered rather than holding licensed animals for a period
of time. Mr. Snyder clarified if arguing to a court, he would argue the intent of the initiative was to deal
with spay/neuter of abandoned and stray animals and an argument could be raised whether a licensed
animal subject to notice and retrieval constituted an abandoned or stray animal. He concluded he had no
issue recommending the Council sign this contract.
Councilmember Marin reported when visiting Adix's with the animal control officer, he found they
provided excellent service to the City and was pleased the City had been able to negotiate a contract with
them.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONTRACT FOR KENNELING SERVICES WITH ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR
DOGS AND CATS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
6. REVIEW OF THE FOLLOWING PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
Council President Plunkett clarified these were Council work sessions after which the ordinances would
be scheduled for future public hearings.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board had completed their work and developed
code amendment language on the regulation of amateur radio antennas and regulation of hedges;
therefore, those two items were potentially ready for the Council to schedule public hearings. With
regard to Council decisions on quasi judicial matters, Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board had a
direction they intended to proceed but wanted to verify that direction with the Council before they began
to draft code amendment language as that would be a fairly extensive effort.
(A) REGULATION OF AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS
Mr. Chave explained the City had not changed its regulations regarding amateur radio antennas for many
years although technology has changed over the years. He explained the City's existing regulations
require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for antennas. He provided a brief history, explaining the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) grants a license to an individual. The radio antennas are a device
used by individuals to exercise their rights under the FCC license. Therefore, the FCC was not licensing
a tower, antenna or device but licensing the individual a right to the airwaves. The City may only
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 9
exercise a limited regulatory authority; the FCC via their license has already allowed the individual the
ability to undertake these activities. Therefore, the City cannot create a situation where the licensee was
unable to do what the license allowed them to do.
Mr. Chave explained this issue was discussed by the Community Services/Development Services
Committee who referred the issue to the Planning Board. The Committee felt some devices should be
permittable outright without a regulatory process and if a device exceeded a threshold, further review
could be required. As a result, the Planning Board developed a two -tiered process that would permit
outright antennas that were under a certain height and if that threshold was exceeded, a staff review, staff
decision, and public notice to neighbors within 300 feet would be required. He noted there was also a
waiver option whereby a licensee in trying to abide by the code could not exercise the rights granted them
by the FCC or for technological impracticalities. This option was an interactive process via the Hearing
Examiner. He noted neighbors could also trigger the interactive review by the Hearing Examiner.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the rights created were developed in a different historical era. Ham
radio operators had always been an important aspect of the emergency preparedness network and many of
the regulations were developed in the 1930s. Although certain issues in the FCC regulations were very
clear such as radiation from the towers could not be a consideration and an antenna could likely be
prohibited in an historic district, the FCC had declined over the past five years to give definitive guidance
with regard to other aspects. The FCC only requires an interactive process and amateur radio operators
must be permitted to exercise their rights.
Mr. Snyder recalled approximately 15 years ago, the City Council denied a CUP for a ham operator who
proceeded to Federal District Court. The summary judgment motion he submitted was overruled and the
license granted before the end of the same business day, illustrating the deference that federal courts give
to these rights.
Mr. Chave acknowledged this was an issue the Planning Board struggled with because neighbors testified
regarding their concern with views, but the FCC regulations restricted what the Planning Board could do.
He noted there was another issue with regard to fees; the CUP via the Hearing Examiner process was
$1200 which may exceed the cost of the radio equipment. The Planning Board did not reach a conclusion
with regard to the fee. Mr. Snyder's advice was that the fee should be minimal so as not to restrict access.
The Planning Board did not recommended Hearing Examiner review; however, even a staff review
process had a fee of $490. If the Council adopted the Planning Board's recommendation regarding staff
review, a special fee may need to be established.
Mr. Chave displayed a drawing illustrating antenna heights that would be permitted outright, 1) a house -
mounted antenna 12 feet above the 25 foot height limit in a residential zone, 2) a ground -mounted antenna
at or below the overall height limit in the zone, and 3) a 25-foot height limit on antennas on accessory
structures. He explained an antenna under these limits would not require a permit. Antennas above these
height limits would require administrative review and would need to be a retractable device. He
explained the retractable device, when fully extended could be up to 65 feet. Mr. Snyder explained the 12
feet limit above the 25 foot height limit was in deference to existing TV antennas, etc. Further, the 65
foot height limit was standard and was related to the scientific nature of the ham license.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether antennas were allowed in zones other than single family. Mr. Snyder
answered the one exception was that lattice towers were only appropriate in commercial zones. Mr.
Chave explained the language in the ordinance addressed the height limit in the underlying zone.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the proposed language adhered to the federal laws. Mr. Snyder
answered this was the maximum defensible regulation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 10
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Planning Board also considered television dish antennas. Mr.
Chave answered the Planning Board's focus was on radio antennas although language was included to
clarify television dish antennas. Mr. Snyder pointed out the height of radio antennas was dictated by the
wavelengths to be received whereas a dish only needed to be aimed without obstruction toward the
southwest quadrant of the sky and height was not an issue.
For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Chave explained antennas mounted on homes were typically masts with
an antenna at the top and there typically would not be a tower. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the
potential for an antenna that exceeded the 25 foot height limit by 12 feet to a maximum of 65 feet. Mr.
Snyder explained the 12 feet was in recognition of items that were currently mounted on roofs such as
chimneys, TV antennas, etc.
Councilmember Wilson noted antennas would be allowed to be extended to 65 feet when in use and asked
how determining when an antenna was in use would be administered. Mr. Snyder answered it was an
issue common to code enforcement.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the proposal did not change the type of antenna, only when they were
required to be permitted. Mr. Chave agreed.
Councilmember Moore asked how many ham operators there were in the City. Mr. Chave recalled
testimony at the Planning Board that there were approximately 250 in the area.
Councilmember Moore asked how the fees were established. Mr. Chave answered the fees were
calculated based on staff time to process the permit. He pointed out an issue to consider was whether it
was fair to have the same fee for a use that was licensed by the FCC and provided a broader public
benefit. The City should also avoid blocking access via a fee that was too high. Mr. Snyder stated that
given the City's obligations under federal law, these costs may need to be absorbed by the General Fund
or into general pen -nit procedure costs.
Councilmember Marin supported lowering the fee. Mr. Chave explained the Council would need to pass
a resolution that would accompany the ordinance to establish a fee. Mr. Snyder explained three fees
would need to be determined, an application fee, a fee for the operator waiver as well as a fee for the
neighbors to initiate the interactive process.
Council President Plunkett scheduled a public hearing regarding regulation of amateur radio antennas on
the February 17 Council agenda.
(B) COUNCIL DECISIONS ON QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS
Mr. Chave relayed the Planning Board's recommendation that the City Council not be involved in quasi.
judicial decisions or as an appellate body unless required by State law. The Planning Board was seeking
Council direction regarding whether that was the direction the Council wanted to proceed. He explained
the Planning Board heard testimony as well as a presentation from Washington Cities Insurance Authority
(WCIA) with regard to the Hearing Examiner process, quasi judicial decisions, etc.
Mr. Chave explained the next step for the Planning Board would be to draft a set of code amendments and
they wanted Council direction prior to proceeding. He read from a memo from Mr. Snyder in the context
of a PRD decision, "For better or worse, the City Council's ability to react to many of the concerns,
expressed currently by citizens, is limited, if not eliminated, by enactments such as the Growth
Management Act (urban density), regulatory reform (one hearing), Anderson v. Issaquah (the need for
clearly expressed standards), and the Substantial and Competent Evidence Doctrine. Citizens concerns
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 11
can better be addressed through the legislative process, not the quasi judicial process. When properly
defined standards have been adopted which reflect the Edmonds' community values, they will, by
necessity, be detailed and susceptible of application by a hearing examiner or by the council on
recommendation or appeal. Review of compliance with clear standards alone will streamline the
process, regardless of where the appeal is taken. "
Mr. Chave explained staff and the Planning Board attempted to summarize the pros and cons heard during
the public process in the agenda memo. The Planning Board determined there was more benefits to not
having the Council involved in quasi judicial decisions.
Councilmember Dawson clarified that unless different direction was provided by the Council, the
Planning Board would proceed with drafting code amendments that would remove the Council from quasi
judicial decisions. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Dawson recalled the majority of comments from
citizens was not in favor of taking quasi judicial decisions away from the Council. Mr. Chave agreed that
comprised the majority of the testimony although there was not a lot of testimony. Councilmember
Dawson suggested WCIA provide a presentation to the public along with a presentation regarding the
benefits of the Council making quasi judicial decisions followed by an opportunity for additional public
comment.
Councilmember Moore commended the Planning Board for their work. She agreed with the Planning
Board's recommendation to proceed. Council President Plunkett, and Couneilmembers Marin, Orvis, and
Olson agreed. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a presentation to the Council by WCIA.
(C) REGULATIONS OF HEDGES
Development Services Director Duane Bowman acknowledged the current definition of hedges in the
ECDC 21.40.020 was very vague, "a hedge means a fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs
or low growing trees" and did not define shrub or low growing tree. In 1989, the Hearing Examiner
issued a ruling defining low growing as anything that grew taller than 25 feet was not considered a low
growing tree. At that time the Hearing Examiner indicated the definition needed to be corrected but that
had never occurred. The controversy over the Hearing Examiner's ruling continued and the Council
remanded the matter to the Planning Board in 2002.
Mr. Bowman reviewed alternatives considered by the Planning Board, 1) redefine the definition of hedges
to make it more enforceable, or 2) discontinue regulating hedges. Topics of discussion raised by the
public during the Planning Board process focused on four key areas, 1) protection of views, 2) impact on
property values, 3) impact on sunlight and shade, and 4) spiteful neighbors. He described pros and cons
of the two alternatives. Pros for redefining the definition of hedges included local resources to deal with
problems, clarification of the current vague hedge definition, and potential to protect property values.
Cons included expensive documentation to inventory current hedges estimated to cost $100,000+ or
deferring costs to hire experts to testify regarding the age of a hedge. Mr. Snyder explained if a definition
was changed to regulate something that was not previously regulated, the City would be creating non-
conforming uses which would require an inventory. Additional cons were continued exposure to
potential lawsuits, increased attorney costs and continued difficulty defining hedges.
With regard to the comment that hedges were the same as fences, Mr. Bowman commented plants
continued to grow, fences did not. He displayed photographic examples of vegetation that could be
considered a hedge.
With regard to the second alternative, discontinue regulating hedges, Mr. Bowman explained that after
taking public testimony and written correspondence, the Planning Board concluded it may be appropriate
to discontinue regulating hedges due to the difficulty defining a hedge, existing hedges would be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 12
grandfathered, the City was often caught in the middle of disputes between neighbors, exposure to
lawsuits and increased attorney costs, and extensive documentation that would be required to create new
regulations.
Mr. Bowman explained the draft ordinance amended ECDC 21.30.020, the fence definition section,
removing terminology regarding hedges, retitled ECDC Chapter 17.30 to refer to only fences, removes all
references to hedges in ECDC 17.30, amends 21.12.025 addressing the visibility of driveways and vehicle
access points. Mr. Bowman explained another issue that arose was the site distance triangle which the
City's Traffic Engineer and he would present to the Council in the future. He explained ECDC 18.85.060
provides for pruning of any vegetation impacting sidewalks or streets for visibility purposes (no change).
Mr. Bowman explained the Planning Board struggled with this issue because Edmonds is a view
community and the question arose whether it was a good use of public resources to work out private
matters between property owners. He recalled many property owners work with their neighbors to
develop creative solutions such as purchasing a view easement or allowing an uphill property owner to
maintain plants at their expense to maintain their view. He noted few cities regulated views or vegetation
because of the problems created by the continual growth. He noted a Clyde Hill ordinance, one of the
few cities that did regulate vegetation, was included in the Council packet.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the regulation regarding pruning of vegetation that impacted
sidewalks or streets for visibility purposes, inquiring whether the City requested the property owner
resolve the distance issue. Mr. Bowman explained the property owner was asked to resolve the issue and
if they did not, the City pruned the vegetation and billed the property owner.
Councilmember Orvis asked how non -conforming trees would be regulated. Mr. Snyder explained if a
zoning regulation was passed that rendered something illegal, anything that existed was grandfathered.
The problem would then be how to "fix" the height of the tree at the time the regulations were enacted.
He explained property owners could be required not to allow any tree to grow beyond a certain height
which would address any trees under the height limit that was established. Trees that were already over
the height limit could be required to be maintained at the height they were on the date the ordinance was
passed which would require an inventory. Another approach would be the City could amortize out the
existing tree/shrub over the height limit by providing a period of time for the property owner to enjoy the
tree/shrub and then require it be cut to the established limit. In either case, the problem was how to
determine the height of trees/shrubs on the date the ordinance was passed which would require an
inventory. If the amortization method were used, the City would be required to provide a reasonable use
period or pay the property owner for the trees. Mr. Bowman emphasized the proposed ordinance would
not regulate individual trees, only hedges.
(Councilmember Dawson left the meeting at 9:40 p.m.)
If an inventory were not conducted and enforcement was accomplished via complaints, Councilmember
Orvis asked whether the City could require the complainant provide evidence that the hedge had grown.
Mr. Snyder answered the City could place the burden on the complainant to show they had reasonable
cause to pursue enforcement. However, if the City pursued a code enforcement action, it was a civil
matter, and the City would have the burden of proof and unless the neighbor had photographs and
measurements, the City would be required in a significant number of cases to hire an arborist to testify
regarding the growth of vegetation used for a hedge. Councilmember Orvis acknowledged that may be
true if an enforcement action were necessary. Mr. Snyder cautioned against passing regulations that the
City did not intend to enforce.
Council President Plunkett asked whether the Council requested the Planning Board provide only one
alternative. Planning Board Chair Jim Young answered that was the way the Planning Board decided
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 13
to approach the issue, acknowledging it was a 4-3 vote and there were strong differences of opinion on
the Planning Board with regard to that approach.
Council President Plunkett assumed the three dissenting votes were interested in regulating hedges. Mr.
Young answered not necessarily, recalling the Planning Board reached the conclusion that it was not
effective to try to regulate hedges for the purpose they understood the regulations were implemented, to
protect views, because of the issue of whether a public agency could expend public funds to protect
property values and because this was an ineffective way to approach view protection as single trees were
not regulated.
Council President Plunkett asked whether the Planning Board and staff could draft an ordinance that
regulated hedges if directed by the City Council. Mr. Young and Mr. Snyder answered yes. Council
President Plunkett asked whether the Planning Board considered grandfathering existing hedges and not
conducting an inventory. Mr. Young answered no, they were following Mr. Bowman's advice that if the
City adopted a regulation, it must be enforceable. Council President Plunkett asked whether the Planning
Board could draft an ordinance that would grandfather low growers and establish a limit on the height of
high growers. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Mr. Young reiterated the Planning Board was seeking direction
from the Council whether to continue regulating hedges.
Council President Plunkett asked whether staff currently responded to complaints regarding high growing
shrubs. Mr. Bowman answered yes, although the City's one code enforcement officer had a caseload of
over 250 cases.
Mr. Snyder recalled 12 years ago one of staff's recommendations to the Council was to restrict new
plantings in new subdivisions and new construction to plants with a growth pattern of 25 feet which was
consistent with the height limit in single family zones. The Council received a great deal of negative
comment about intruding into property owners' ability to plant on their property and the Council rejected
that suggestion.
Council President Plunkett commented some Councilmembers wanted more than one option. Mr.
Bowman urged the Council to adopt an enforceable ordinance or to cease regulating hedges.
Mayor Haakenson recalled one of the Hearing Examiner's concerns since 1989 had been the definition of
a hedge because of the difficulty enforcing that code, thus the need to change the code.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether an ordinance that included grandfathering would also require an
inventory. Mr. Snyder answered an inventory was one method, another would be a registration program.
Another possible method would be the use of expert testimony when a problem arose. Councilmember
Wilson relayed his experience with other cities regarding regulating view protection and if hedges were
grandfathered, the City would need to document existing situations via an inventory.
Councilmember Wilson asked how successful the City had been in processing hedge violations. Mr.
Bowman answered the City has not been at all effective. He referred to the landmark case in 1989,
recalling he brokered a solution that would have solved the problem for both property owners,
unfortunately the two parties did not like each other and ended up at the Hearing Examiner and with the
decision he made. He recalled the Council also faced this issue in 2002 when reviewing two cases.
Councilmember Wilson objected to the City's involvement in disputes between property owners and
suggested mediation as a possible solution. He inquired about the likelihood that staff could draft a
successful ordinance that regulated hedges. Mr. Snyder answered it would have a dimensional standard
that defined low growing with pictures and photographs that provided details. He noted the issue was the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 14
City's involvement in neighbor disputes. Councilmember Wilson pointed out that even with a
dimensional standard, the City would need to document existing conditions. Mr. Snyder agreed,
explaining this issue arose repeatedly with regard to hedges as well as trees.
Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Wilson's suggestion to refer property owners to
mediation. She concurred with the Planning Board's recommendation, noting they had done a very good
review. She preferred the City cease regulation of hedges at least for now because the City had enough
on its plate for 2004 with the Comprehensive Plan update and code revisions.
Councilmember Marin commented a dimensional standard would not address the problem due to different
topographical situations; in some instances a 12 foot hedge provided privacy for one neighbor but
interfered with the view of another. He pointed out topping a tree would also not address the problem
because topping was detrimental to the tree. He pointed out the difficulty for the City to balance privacy
with views. He was agreeable to considering another option for regulating hedges.
Council President Plunkett referred to the third option, hiring an arborist to provide expert testimony. Mr.
Snyder explained in a code enforcement procedure, the City would have the burden of proof which would
require hiring an arborist. Council President Plunkett pointed out an inventory would then not be
required. Mr. Snyder answered an inventory would be best because although the expert testimony
approach would be sufficient for 5-10 years, it would become more burdensome in 20+ years. Mr.
Snyder explained an inventory was a one-time cost; the use of an expert arborist would be a continuing,
annual cost.
Council President Plunkett asked whether the use of an arborist would be a small cost compared to an
inventory. Mr. Snyder answered it would average $1200 - $1500 per code enforcement case.
Councilmember Olson preferred mediation as enforcement would be very difficult. She noted there were
property owners across the street from their house whose vegetation they (Councilmember Olson) paid to
have trimmed to maintain their view. Mr. Bowman advised staff was developing a brochure for the code
enforcement officer to distribute that described how to get along with your neighbor and how to use
mediation to resolve issues. Mr. Snyder advised communities could engage the services of Snohomish
County Mediation Service who conducted neighborhood mediation.
Responding to Council President Plunkett, Mr. Bowman answered property owners would be directed to
mediation as a potential resource for resolving a dispute with a neighbor if they were unable to reach an
amicable solution themselves.
Mr. Snyder agreed with Councilmember Marin that a dimensional requirement would not take into
account topography or views and would not address trees on the interior of lots that had the same impact
on views. From a public policy standpoint, if the goal was to protect views which was something that a
private property owner could do by purchasing a view easement, the Council was using its regulatory
powers to change existing rules between private property owners, transferring a past civil burden to the
general taxpayer. It was up to the Council to determine whether that was worth the expenditure.
Council President Plunkett observed staff was suggesting the Council schedule an ordinance that
deregulated hedges for a public hearing; however, he and Councilmember Marin would like to consider
an option.
Mayor Haakenson urged the Council to provide more specific direction with regard to a draft ordinance
that regulated hedges. Council President Plunkett suggested Mr. Bowman, Mr. Snyder and Mr. Young
incorporate the Council's comments in a draft ordinance that regulated hedges. Mr. Snyder suggested the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 15
Council provide direction with regard to an ordinance or staff could provide the Clyde Hill ordinance
along with costs associated with that approach. Council President Plunkett indicated the Council's
suggestions could be incorporated into the Clyde Hill ordinance so that a public hearing could be held on
that ordinance as well as the ordinance recommended by the Planning Board.
Councilmember Moore expressed concern with staff drafting an ordinance without regard to the financial
impact to the City. Mr. Snyder advised such an ordinance would have dimensional standards that would
grandfather existing conditions and have a registration program. Mr. Bowman reiterated his objection to
a registration program. Councilmember Orvis suggested consideration be given to an arborist option.
Mr. Chave suggested staff work with Mr. Snyder as the Planning Board's agenda was full with the
Comprehensive Plan update, Critical Areas Ordinance, etc. Mr. Bowman suggested providing a draft
ordinance at a Council study session prior to scheduling a public hearing.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the intent of the new draft ordinance would be to spend City staff time and
public dollars to enforce view protection on private property. Councilmember Marin clarified he was not
in favor of the City paying for an arborist to settle a dispute. Mr. Bowman explained if a code
enforcement action was necessary, the burden of proof was on the City to prove that a violation occurred,
requiring the City to provide an expert to prove the property owner was in violation of the code.
Councilmember Marin explained his intent was to illustrate to the public at a public hearing that all
options had been explored before the City ceased to regulate hedges, whether via a draft ordinance or a
list of pros and cons. Mayor Haakenson explained the reason this issue was before the Council was
because staff was called upon to settle such disputes on a daily basis.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the Council packet regarding this issue, pointing out the Planning
Board held several meetings, compiled an extensive record of their review, options, testimony and
history. The proposed ordinance was the Planning Board's recommendation for the most appropriate
solution to a problem that had no good solution. He acknowledged regardless of what course the City
pursued, not everyone would be happy.
Council President Plunkett expressed concern with providing only one option at a public hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN,
TO EXTEND THE METING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Dawson was not present for the vote.)
Councilmember Marin clarified he wanted to review the Clyde Hill ordinance and the Planning Board's
recommended ordinance. Mr. Snyder commented the Clyde Hill ordinance was not an appropriate option
because it regulated all trees.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO SET
A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE ON
MARCH 2, 2004.
Councilmember Moore disagreed with presenting two ordinances at a public hearing. She agreed the
Planning Board had sufficiently studied the options.
Councilmember Marin suggested the Clyde Hill ordinance could be presented as an example of potential
problems with regulating hedges.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, WIL,SON,
MOORE AND OLSON IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. (Councilmember Dawson was not present for the vote.)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 16
7. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE CITY COUNCIL RETREAT TO BE HELD IN
LA CONNER, WASHINGTON
Council President Plunkett explained if the Council wished to hold the retreat in La Conner, a source for
the $2,702 expenditure would need to be identified.
Councilmember Marin commented that although he would not mind holding the retreat in La Conner, he
objected to the expense. He suggested one day in Edmonds and one day in La Conner as a method of
reducing the cost.
Councilmember Moore pointed out the logistical issue that splitting the location of the retreat posed for
staff. She suggested reducing the cost of holding the retreat in La Conner by Councilmembers bearing the
cost of mileage and meals.
For Councilmember Moore, Council President Plunkett described sources for the expenditure including
the Council Contingency Fund or General Fund ending cash balance.
It was the consensus of the Council to hold the retreat in. La Conner on March 5 & 6 funded via the
Council Contingency Fund with a reduction in costs via the Council absorbing the cost of meals and
mileage.
8. REPORT ON THE JANUARY 20, 2004 COMMUNITY SERVICES/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COMMITTEE MEETING
Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee discussed the 220th Street SW/88th Avenue W sewer
collector special connection fee. He explained since the City was undertaking a major street improvement
on 220`h Street SW, staff identified three properties that were not connected to the sewer system and was
considering installing the sewer stub at the time the street work was done to avoid cutting into the new
street improvements after construction was complete. Staff was directed to hold neighborhood meetings
and return to the Council with an ordinance. Next, the Committee discussed alternate funding methods
for the Street Capital Projects Fund 112 which was severely impacted by recent initiatives including I-
776. One option that was considered was a Street Utility Tax which was not currently allowed under
State Law. The Committee asked staff to prepare and present to the full Council a resolution of support to
the State Legislature to allow cities to establish a Street Utility. He noted this was not an endorsement of
the Street Utility but only an option if adopted by the Legislature. Staff was also asked to present
alternate funding options at the Council retreat. The Committee then was provided a presentation by staff
regarding the International Building Code that would consolidate the three building codes used in the
United States. The final item was a continued discussion regarding a draft trash and receptacle enclosure
policy. The Committee directed staff to take a draft ordinance to the ADB for their approval.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
to. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Council President Plunkett reported on a recent WRIA 8 meeting where procedures were discussed. He
noted anyone interested in watersheds in the Puget Sound area could contact Development Services
Director Bowman for further information.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 17
Councilmember Marin expressed his appreciation to staff and the Planning Board for their efforts with
regard to the regulation of amateur radio antennas, Council decisions on quasi judicial matters, and
regulation of hedges.
Port of I Councilmember Orvis reported on a recent Port of Edmonds meeting, advising Bruce Faires was elected
dmonds J President of the Board. The Commission discussed the waterfront festival; the Rotary requested and was
granted a two year commitment. The Port is also funding a new program to entice guest boaters to visit
Edmonds. There was also discussion regarding the Port's participation in the City's economic
development efforts with the new Economic Development Director.
Seashore
ransporta- Councilmember Moore reported on the recent SeaShore Transportation Forum, comprised of North King
ion Forum
County, South Snohomish County, who were in the process of reorganizing. She reported on the
Snohomish Snohomish County Cities and Towns dinner at which Mayor Haakenson was elected to be the
ounty
ities & representative to the Puget Sound Regional Council.
owns
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:37 p.m.
,41L��
G Y H E ON, MAYOR
W. d . -
�SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 27, 2004
Page 18
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 51' Avenue North, Edmonds
7:00 - 10:00 mm.
JAN UARY 27, 2004
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes January 20, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #68331 through #68483 for the week of January 19,
2004, in the amount of $367,274.59. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #37471 through #37551 for the pay period January 1 through January
15, 2004, in the amount of $952,187.57.
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Bill Wilson ($897.66).
(E) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor
Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
(F) Authorize the purchase of a new AWD full size passenger van for the Police
Department.
3. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
"Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
4. ( 5 Min) Proclamation in honor of Reading in Edmonds Month, February 2004.
5. (30 Min) Discussion and possible action regarding the following items related to animal
control:
(A) Proposed ordinance amending existing spay/neuter ordinances.
(B) Contract for veterinary services with Edmonds -Westgate Veterinary Hospital.
(C) Contract for animal kenneling services with Adix's Bed & Bath for Dogs and
Cats.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
January 27, 2004
Page 2 of 2
6. (so Min) Review of the following Planning Board recommendations:
(A) Regulation of amateur radio antennas.
(B) Council decisions on quasi judicial matters.
(C) Regulations on hedges.
7. (is Min) Discussion and possible action on the City Council Retreat to be held in
La Conner, Washington.
8. ( 5 Min) Report on the January 20, 2004 Community Services/Development Services
Committee Meeting.
9. ( 5 Min) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Min) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk ai
(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as s
delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.