Loading...
10/05/2004 City CouncilOctober 5, 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 Mauni Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Marin and Council President Plunkett requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Wilson requested Item F be removed. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Approve (A) ROLL CALL 9/28/04 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2004. Approve I Claim Checks (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #74198 THROUGH #74380 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $665,976.55. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECK #39302 IN THE AMOUNT OF $225.32. Public Art Project (D) AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK ARTISTS FOR PUBLIC ART PROJECT FOR EXTERIOR SOUTH WALL OF CITY HALL. Findings of Item E: Approval of Findings of Fact Related to a Closed Record Review Held on September 28, Proposed 2004 Regarding the Planning Board's Recommendation to Deny a Proposed Contract Rezone for Rezone at 546 the Property Located at 546 Paradise Lane. Paradise Lane Council President Plunkett advised following the Council's vote on September 28 regarding this issue, he responded to a communication from Mike Connolly which constituted ex parte communication. Therefore, he will abstain from the vote on the Findings of Fact. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 5, 2004 Page 1 Councilmember Marin recalled he voted in opposition to the Council's decision to deny the proposed rezone. He explained after reading the Findings of Fact which identified what the property owner needed to do to develop the property, he was not satisfied from the Council's deliberation there was enough unanimity on those items. He suggested the Council delay their decision to provide each Councilmember an opportunity to fully review the Findings of Fact. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR THREE WEEKS. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-1-4), COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN AND MOORE IN FAVOR, COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, DAWSON, WILSON AND ORVIS OPPOSED, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT ABSTAINED. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER MARIN OPPOSED AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows: (E) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO A CLOSED RECORD REVIEW HELD ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY A PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 546 PARADISE LANE. Item F: Proposed Ordinance AmendinLy the Provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code Section 16.50.020(B) Relating to Commercial Development on the Ground Floor. Councilmember Wilson recalled he voted against the proposed amendments when previously considered by the Council and would vote against the proposed ordinance as well. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND Ord# 3518 DAWSON OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: Commercial n the he Ground () on F ORDINANCE NO. 3518 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS o Floor COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.50.020(B) RELATING TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE GROUND FLOOR. 3. PRESENTATION BY THE SEA SCOUTS Sea Scouts Jeremy Makin, Skipper of Sea Scout Ship 6, Kelcema, explained their Sea Scout ship was sponsored by the Port of Edmonds. He described sea scouting as a 92 year old part of Boy Scouts of America, a program for youth ages 14 to 21 that offers on -the -water activities. He advised their ship had been serving youth of Edmonds for the past ten years. Peter Johnason, Scout Ship 6, Kelcema, Boatswain, explained he was elected by the youth of the ship and worked in concert with adults to provide the most fun and interesting program possible. He displayed photographs of the vessels they use, events they attended last fall, projects they undertook during the winter, sailing in the spring and weekly sailing during the summer including a 10-day cruise. He encouraged youth ages 14 — 21 to join them for an evening. Mr. Makin narrated a video illustrating events they participated in over the past year, their fleet of boats, skills building exercises, safety training, and community service. Lucas Schuller, Scout Ship 6, Kelcema, Yeoman, explained as yeoman he had many duties including taking attendance, planning activities and notifying the crew of activities and serving as Boatswain in his Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 5, 2004 Page 2 absence. He described activities he has participated in as a Sea Scout and skills learned during the past six months. He encouraged youth ages 14-21 to join them. Mr. Makin summarized Sea Scouting offered a fun, on -the -water program with benefits that extended beyond the shoreline and into the community. They were currently working on a cooperative use agreement with Edmonds Parks for the joint use and maintenance of a fleet of six small laser sailing units and looked forward to the opportunity to add to their program and provide service in return to the City. Interim 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3511 AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE Zoning Ordinance AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 21.30.010 Amending the FAMILIES, TO ADD A NEW PARAGRAPH D, IN ORDER TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF Definition of FAMILY TO AUTHORIZE AND PERMIT EXCHANGE STUDENTS TO RESIDE WITH Family FAMILIES FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR. Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised this is a public hearing on an interim zoning ordinance to authorize and permit exchange students to reside with families for a period not to exceed one year. He advised following the public hearing, the matter needed to be referred to the Planning Board for consideration as a possible permanent amendment to the code. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the audience present who wished to provide testimony. Mayor Haakenson closed the opportunity for public comment and remanded this matter to Council for action. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Third Quarter 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE THIRD QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT Budget Amendment Administrative Services Director Dan Clements advised the third quarter budget amendment contained a total of 18 proposed adjustments to 14 of the City's funds. Most of the changes were housekeeping in nature and reflected the receipt of unanticipated revenue and interfund adjustments. He recalled that after reviewing the list of amendments, the Finance Committee requested additional information regarding the police uniform amendment and Association of Washington Cities Retro Pool. He explained the police uniform item was added to the 2004 budget during final deliberations in December 2003. The adjustment establishes a $20,000 appropriation for this purpose. The Retro Pool was a program initiated by Human Resources in late 2003 to administer the City's Labor and Industries program. Over time, the pool approach was anticipated to result in a savings but there was an unbudgeted $19,000 assessment for 2004. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the audience present who wished to provide testimony. Mayor Haakenson closed the opportunity for public comment and remanded this matter to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE THIRD QUARTER 2004 BUDGET AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance adopted by this motion reads as follows: Ord Amending ing the ORDINANCE NO. 3519 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3476 AS A RESULT OF 2004 Budget UNANTICIPAED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITUES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. Mayor Haakenson recognized State Representative Mike Cooper in the audience. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 5, 2004 Page 3 Motorized 16. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT ORDINANCE REGARDING MOTORIZED SCOOTERS IN Scooters EDMONDS AND POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION Council President Plunkett explained the Council had been provided three draft ordinances regarding motorized scooters. Version 1 contained no age restriction and cruising was addressed by reference to the existing code; Version 2 contained an age restriction of 16 years and cruising was addressed by reference to existing code; and Version 3 contained an age restriction of 15 years and a specific provision related to cruising. He concluded with the exception of those items mentioned, the three versions were the same. City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified Version 1 regulated to the maximum extent permitted by State law. Although some citizens have recommended a ban, the City does not have the authority to ban riders on State highways; Version 2 allows those 16 and older to ride on City streets. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council received additional correspondence including two letters from the Nunn family requesting a ban on scooters and an email from Lincoln and Ani Sieler also requesting a ban. Nancy Sewell, 9107 206th Street SW, Edmonds, read from written comments provided to the Council, referring to State law regarding electric personal assistive mobility devices which were defined as having two wheels not in tandem that could be ridden on sidewalks but made no reference to foot scooters. She noted State law suggests the possibility of limiting electric mobility devices where the speed limit is over 25 mph but again makes no reference to foot scooters. She pointed out Edmonds ordinances do not allow motorized foot scooters on sidewalks or streets, contrary to State law that states motorized foot scooters may be operated most places bicycles are allowed and no driver's license is required. She referred to amazing and economical transportation options recent technology has provided like the Segway and motorized foot scooters. She pointed out the benefit of motorized foot scooters to 14 and 15 year olds to reach jobs and activities. She opined the issue of safety for motorized foot scooters riders was more about age discrimination and actually a smoke screen for the noise issue. She recommended the City consider the same rules and limitations for all who drive a motor -assisted mobility device and recommended motorized foot scooters be allowed to be operated by drivers ages 14 and older who can pay a reasonable fee to certify their knowledge of a fair and applicable ordinance. Brent Logan, 1004 Daley Street, Edmonds, described his informal study of motorized foot scooters which revealed in a city with a population of 70,000, there were only about 1.0-20 motorized foot scooters ridden on a regular basis. The average decibel radius with the factory authorized muffler was audible for approximately 10 blocks. He concluded this required only 3-4 scooters to disrupt the entire population of the community. He urged the Council to adopt the City Attorney's motorized scooters ordinance with no reduction in the 16-year old age restriction. Robert Stivers, 9514 224th Street SW, Edmonds, inquired whether the 10-inch or smaller wheel was a State definition, noting larger wheels were a possibility in the future. He noted Version 1 which did not allow operation on any city street and required the operator be 16 years of age appeared to be overly restrictive but noted this was addressed in Version 2. He suggested if the desire was to allow 14-year olds to operate motorized foot scooters, the State could be asked to extend their learner's permit to provide a motorized foot scooters learner's permit. He pointed out the availability of a muffler option that resulted in even louder operation. With regard to seizure and forfeiture, he questioned whether the general public could be empowered with enforcement. He questioned how police planned to transport scooters. John Rocco, 20031 81st Avenue W, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember Moore for their letters. He agreed with the precautions in the ordinance but disagreed with the age limit. He explained the majority of riders were under 16 and youth 16 years and older did not want to ride scooters. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 5, 2004 Page 4 He pointed out the scooters were not constructed well and required repairs; another opportunity for a lesson in economics and responsibility. He asserted the Council was regulating parenting via the age limit and reiterated the need for tolerance. He referred to Mukilteo's ordinance which had an age restriction of 14 years. Nathan Love, 20031 81" Avenue W, Edmonds, a 13-year old, explained he rides his motorized foot scooters to his grandparent's house who think it's great he has transportation to visit them. He commented motorized foot scooters were no louder than a lawn mower or weed whacker. He asserted everyone who objected to the noise were "just really old." State Representative Mike Cooper, 820 Maple Street, Edmonds, advised he introduced the first piece of legislation in 2002 after a 1.7-year old constituent received a ticket in Lynnwood due to the lack of definition for motorized foot scooters. He explained unfortunately the Legislature chose only to address electric motorized scooters and Segways and did not provide any local ability to address State highways, collect a license fee to track scooter violations or any ability to license riders He encouraged the Council, regardless of the ordinance version passed, to contact the Association of Washington Cities who worked hard to defeat his legislation because it took away local control from City Councils, to ask the Legislature to address these important issues. He concluded it would be irresponsible for the City to pass an ordinance regarding motorized foot scooters that allowed riders without a helmet. Kim Pierce, 17530 Talbot Road, Edmonds, commented his 14-year old son rides a scooter, his 10-year old would like to but is not yet allowed. He commented the alleged 40 mph speed of a motorized foot scooter likely could only be achieved downhill. He pointed out there was no law preventing youth from reaching 40 mph traveling downhill on Main Street on a bicycle. He was opposed to an age limit, questioning whether an age limit would then need to be instituted on kids who ride bicycles or play with balls and dart out in front of cars. He concluded the youth riding lower powered scooters at a high rate of speed would destroy their scooters, taking care of the problem without the city's intervention. Ron Sewell, 91.07 2O6th Street SW, Edmonds, advised a 16 year -old age limit was not reasonable as youth that age would be driving cars, not motorized foot scooters. He supported motorized foot scooters as an opportunity to allow 14 and 15 year -olds to get around reasonably quickly. He supported the educational and muffler provision in the ordinance. With regard to the informal study done regarding noise, he questioned whether any study had been done on the noise from leaf blowers, construction noise, etc. He concluded youth needed an opportunity to do something and the Council needed to be farsighted in how they restricted their use. If the 16 year age restriction was adopted, he asked whether there would be a provision to compensate people who purchased the motorized foot scooters legally and now could not ride them. Kevin Pierce, 17530 Talbot Road, Edmonds, a motorized foot scooter rider, explained he lives in a neighborhood of older people so has a quieter muffler on his scooter. He explained the scooter made it easier and quicker to reach friends who live in other areas as well as go downtown to buy hobby supplies and participate in Sea Scouts. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Council President Plunkett referred to Section 8.35.030, Penalty, and the statement that the court may confiscate and order forfeiture of the offender's motorized foot scooter. He questioned whether the statement should be that the police may confiscate. Mr. Snyder answered the language was correct, and explained physical confiscation was done by the police but before a citizen could be deprived of property, a hearing was required, therefore, it was the order of the court that controlled confiscation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 5, 2004 Page 5 Council President Plunkett asked at what age an individual could be determined to be competent to operate a motorized vehicle on public streets. Mr. Snyder advised under Washington State law, children 14 and under were presumed to be unable to form criminal intent. Council. President Plunkett concluded the age of 16 was when the State determined an individual could operate a motorized vehicle on a public street. Mr. Snyder explained because children under age 14 were presumed to be unable to form criminal intent and because children under 16 could not be brought before the City's Municipal Court, the ordinance was developed with parental responsibility for children under age 16. Councilmember Wilson asked whether State law differentiated between gas and electric powered scooters. Mr. Snyder advised the ordinance used definitions established by State law. He commented the City could regulate devices differently but could not ban either. Councilmember Wilson asked whether hours of operation could be established due to the difficulty to adequately light scooters and because the noise factor was so intrusive to neighborhoods at night. Mr. Snyder answered yes, his intent in Version 1 was an ordinance that contained the maximum sustainable regulations under State law, assuming there would be individual amendments of provisions the Council found too intrusive. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the City regulated the noise emitted by car stereos. Mr. Snyder answered many cities did but Edmonds did not. Councilmember Wilson asked whether there was any way to test mufflers before they were allowed to operate on the City's streets. Mr. Snyder pointed out one of the difficulties was the City did not have a licensing regulation. He explained a provision could be crafted with decibel limits; the practical reality was the cost of the lab test of the muffler would exceed the amount of the fine that could be collected. Councilmember Wilson asked about the comment regarding people who have already purchased scooters and then the City adopted an age limit. Mr. Snyder answered it was an exercise of the City's police power and was not a taking under constitutional principles. Councilmember Wilson commented the age of 16 was a subjective test in view of other states that have lower age limits for obtaining a driver's license. Mr. Snyder explained the juvenile justice system in Washington State was established with the principle that youth 14 and under could not form criminal intent. He agreed it varied from state to state, with cultures and with the times. Councilmember Orvis referred to the cruising provision in Version 3 and asked whether it was enforceable. Mr. Snyder answered it was enforceable if a police car was in the same location for that period of time. He noted the City's provision was modeled after Seattle's cruising provision which applied to traffic congested areas. The cruising provision in Version 3 was more limited in time and scope because with scooters it was a neighborhood problem versus a driving strip. He concluded although it was legally enforceable, in practicality it placed a great burden on the Police Department. Council President Plunkett recalled Mr. Snyder previously advised cruising could be addressed via the existing code and asked the advantage of the cruising provision in Version 3. Mr. Snyder recalled Council President Plunkett's inquiry was in regard to racing which is a violation of the State adopted rules of the road. He noted cruising was not addressed by the State's rules of the road provisions and was typically a locally enacted matter. Councilmember Dawson asked how an ordinance with an age restriction of 16 was enforceable with regard to a 14 or 15 year old. Mr. Snyder answered practically, the City would not ticket juveniles Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 5, 2004 Page 6 because the tickets were not subject to Municipal Court jurisdiction and juvenile courts did not recognize that type of offense. He concluded practically the enforcement would be parental negligence/parental responsibility provisions, the parents would be ticketed, not the child. Councilmember Dawson questioned how it could be proven that the parent knew the 14 or 15 year old was riding the scooter irresponsibly and whether the only way to enforce the parental aspect was to prohibit youth under a certain age from riding on City streets. Mr. Snyder answered that would be the easiest; he provided in the ordinance a provision for notification and informational ticketing with the idea of beginning a case against a parent. He noted the first time the parents would be notified, making it easier the second time to prove the parent was negligent and easier the third time to prove the parent was knowing. He concluded the intent was to make it expensive for parents who were not taking proper notice of their child's behavior. Councilmember Dawson pointed out it was easier to enforce an ordinance that did not allow riders under 16 years. Mr. Snyder acknowledged the entire ordinance would be difficult for the Police Department to enforce. Councilmember Dawson concluded with 16+ year old riders, there was the opportunity for individual liability via Municipal Court; under 16, the parents must be pursued. Councilmember Dawson asked the Police Department to address the difficulty enforcing the cruising provision. Police Chief Stern advised the Police Department would do their best to enforce whatever the Council adopted but there were concerns with the practical aspects. He explained enforcement of the cruising provision would require an officer be in a position to observe the area in question long enough to determine the ordinance had been violated. Chief Stern could not guarantee an officer could remain on a certain street for 1/2 - 1 hour without being called away to a more important matter. Mr. Snyder pointed out this was a traffic infraction that must occur in the officer's presence in order for a ticket to be issued; information provided by a neighbor would not be sufficient. Councilmember Moore pointed out the community's voluntary compliance with animal scoop laws. Chief Stern agreed a certain amount of voluntary compliance could be expected with whatever scooter ordinance was adopted. If the ordinance were enacted, Councilmember Wilson asked how residents should complain. Chief Stern advised it should be via a 911 call. MAIN MOTION COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE VERSION 2 WITH A 16-YEAR AGE RESTRICTION AND CRUISING ADDRESSED BY REFERENCE AND ALLOWING RIDERS 16 YEARS OR OLDER TO USE STREETS FOR TRANSPORTATION. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE MAIN MOTION COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND PARAGRAPH E, K & L TO ALLOW 15 YEAR OLDS. Councilmember Marin advised his biggest concern upon observing the use of motorized foot scooters in his neighborhood was the lack of helmets. He did not view motorized foot scooter riders as juvenile delinquents or purposely running people off the streets. He acknowledged there may have been instances where people felt they were being run off the street and where the sound propagation made the scooters sound worse at a distance than up close. He concluded 15 year olds in the City were primarily good kids and he was opposed to denying them the opportunity to ride scooters legally. Council President Plunkett advised he would vote against the amendment, not because he felt 15 year olds were juvenile delinquents or were not good kids. He noted the youth in the audience who spoke to the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 5, 2004 Page 7 Council demonstrated their maturity. His rationale for the 16 year old age restriction was the ordinance was more enforceable at age 16 and also at age 16 the State has determined an individual is competent to be on the road and has passed tests proving their understanding of the rules of the road. Councilmember Moore indicated she would vote against the amendment because if an arbitrary age were selected, she preferred 13 as those were the youth using motorized foot scooters. She concluded youth 15-16 years had a learner's permit or driver's license and were not riding motorized foot scooters. For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Snyder advised cases against someone 16 years and older would be easier to prove because the rider would be ticketed; for riders below age 16, the police would be ticketing the parent based on the child's behavior. Councilmember Wilson stated he hoped this would be an interim measure until the Legislature addressed the issue statewide. He encouraged the Council to work with the Legislature because although he did not object to a younger age limit, there were difficulties with enforceability for riders younger than 16. Councilmember Dawson indicated she would oppose the amendment and support Version 2. She agreed with Council President Plunkett's statements, noting age 16 was not arbitrary because it was the age at which the ordinance was enforceable with the person riding the scooter rather than a parent and the age at which the City had Municipal Court jurisdiction. She concluded motorized foot scooters should be treated as any other type of motorized vehicle although the City was currently unable to due to State law. With regard to enforceability, Councilmember Moore reiterated it was a practical burden on the Police Department regardless of which version was adopted By lowering the age limit to a group of young people who ride the scooters, the enforcement would be the responsibility of the parents particularly with the informational ticketing provisions included in the ordinance. She concluded that was why the scoop laws did not require enforcement, because the people were inclined to obey the law. Councilmember Olson expressed her support for the amendment, pointing out a 16 year age restriction was not reasonable as youth that age were not riding scooters. She felt the community was over reacting and preferred a 14 or 15 year old age restriction. She noted the main problem in her neighborhood were the young kids that ride around the block continually which resulted in noise complaints. Older kids using scooters for transportation won't be riding around the block and the noise from riding down the street one way was similar to a lawn mower or weed whacker. She reiterated her support for lowering the age restriction. Councilmember Moore agreed the real solution was with the Legislature. VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE MAIN MOTION AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5); COUNCILMEMBER OLSON AND MARIN IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, WILSON, MOORE AND DAWSON OPPOSED. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MAIN MOTION COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO AMEND VERSION 2 OF THE ORDINANCE BY INCORPORATING THE CRUISING PROHIBITION. Councilmember Dawson spoke in opposition to the motion, commenting although the intent was good, it was not enforceable. Councilmember Marin explained he requested Mr. Snyder draft the cruising provision along with the 15 year old age restriction. He acknowledged that it may be difficult to enforce, pointing out the cruising Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 5, 2004 Page 8 provision sent a message that the City was concerned about noise. He noted without the cruising provision, if he/she chose to, a 16 year old could ride around the block repeatedly. Councilmember Wilson spoke against the amendment, noting that although it may send a good message, it sent a mixed message because it was practically impossible to enforce. VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO.2 TO THE MAIN MOTION MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, ORVIS, AND OLSON IN FAVOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, MOORE, AND DAWSON OPPOSED. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the primary issue was noise at night and suggested the hours of operation be limited for safety reasons as well. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED TO AMEND VERSION 2 PARAGRAPH G OF SECTION 8.36.010 TO IMPOSE A LIMIT ON THE HOURS OF OPERATION TO ONE HOUR AFTER DAWN AND ONE HOUR BEFORE DUSK. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND. Councilmember Marin agreed the lighting requirements addressed in Paragraph G could not reasonably be accommodated on a scooter. He referred to a provision related to when vehicle headlights were required. Councilmember Wilson noted it was difficult to see scooters operating when daylight was minimal. He noted allowing scooters an hour after dawn would prevent riders very early on summer mornings. Mr. Snyder explained the provision to which Councilmember Marin referred was incorporated in Paragraph G, RCW 46.37.020, the State hours of darkness when vehicle headlights are to be turned on. He noted the paragraph would need to be retained for those who operate scooters on State highways or other areas regulated by the State. The Council could prohibit the use of scooters on city streets during the hours of darkness. Councilmember Dawson recalled there was a provision in the RCW regarding hours of operation for a motorized foot scooter. AMENDMENT NO.2 TO THE MAIN MOTION COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO LIMIT THE HOURS OF OPERATION TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE ALLOWED BY STATE LAW. Council President Plunkett spoke against the amendment, noting there are adults who have indicated they need scooters and he wanted to ensure they were allowed to use them on city streets. He noted he supported allowing adults the opportunity to ride scooters including not restricting their use at night for transportation. Councilmember Dawson commented bicycles had lighting requirements; motorized foot scooters did not have those safety features and therefore could not be safely operated after dark. She suggested an option could be not to allow a motorized foot scooter to be operated during hours of darkness without adequate lighting. Mr. Snyder clarified the intent of Paragraph G was that scooters operated during hours of darkness must have lights. Councilmember Wilson stated although he was concerned with safety and visibility, his primary concern was that scooters not be allowed to be operated at night, similar to not allowing lawn mowing or Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 5, 2004 Page 9 construction at night. He found limiting the hours of operation an appropriate way to address safety and noise concerns. Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Wilson's comments. Councilmember Dawson commented although there may be adults using scooters for transportation, most were youth riding them for fun, therefore, limiting the hours of operation was reasonable. VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO.2 TO THE MAIN MOTION MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, MARIN, WILSON, DAWSON, AND OLSON IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. Council President Plunkett commended the youth who spoke to the Council for speaking to the issue. He was disappointed the Council had to pass this ordinance because of the impact it would have on some very good kids. Councilmember Marin advised he planned to vote against the motion due to the age limit and to assist in sending a message to the Legislature that virtually closing the door on these devices by establishing an age restriction of 16 was not the right answer. He agreed with the other provisions in the ordinance. Councilmember Moore stated she would vote against the ordinance due to the age limit. She supported the provisions in the ordinance that required helmets, time limits, informational ticketing, etc. However, the 16 year age restriction virtually eliminated the opportunity for the youth actually riding scooters. Councilmember Wilson spoke in favor of the motion. He found the age limit as proposed acceptable given the lack of tools the State has provided. He supported further efforts by the Council and AWC to encourage the Legislature to address the problems they created and avoid each city adopting their own regulations to address the problem. He indicated he could support a lower age limit, even age 13, on a statewide basis provided there were adequate enforcement tools. Councilmember Orvis spoke in support of the motion, commenting he could not support a reduction in the age limit because he found motorized foot scooters to be a motorized vehicle and 16 was the age youth were allowed to operate a motorized vehicle. Councilmember Olson spoke against the motion, agreeing with Councilmembers Moore and Marin that the age limit was too restrictive. VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED UPON ROLL CALL, THE MOTION AS AMENDED TO ADD THE CRUISING PROVISIONS AND LIMITING HOURS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE UNDER STATE LAW CARRIED (4-3); COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, DAWSON, AND ORVIS IN FAVOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, MARIN AND MOORE OPPOSED. Mr. Snyder advised an ordinance would be presented to the Council after he had an opportunity to review State Statute to determine the maximum extent that hours of operation could be limited. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ron Wambolt, 530 Dayton Street, Edmonds, noted it may sometimes appear from his comments that Proposed he is anti -development but that wasn't true; he was only striving for decisions that met the rules and Rezone of regulations and were in the best interest of the City's residents. With regard to the rezone of property on Property on Paradise Zane Paradise Lane last week, he questioned whether Councilmembers had visited the site before the Council deliberation, commenting that practice might improve the Council's chances for making a correct Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 5, 2004 Page 10 decision and minimize the amount of litigation. Contrary to what was stated at the Council meeting, upon visiting the Paradise Lane area, he found cars were able to easily pass on Paradise Lane either on pavement or slightly onto the flat shoulder. He also found that drivers who find access onto SR 104 too hazardous could use an alternative back route. He commented on the Council's approval earlier this year of the project across the street and was now in Superior Court. He noted there were often 1-2 Councilmembers who did not understand the ordinance and an extension in the Council's decision may result in a decision that did not lead to litigation. He encouraged the Council to do their homework and refrain from voting if necessary. Barking Don Kreiman, 24006 95t" Place W, Edmonds, advised the 2005 budget did not include funding for a Fnf°r°ement full-time parking enforcement officer although the position would more than pay for itself. He pointed out that due to the lack of enforcement of 3-hour parking, as much as 30% of parking spaces on Main Street were occupied by the same cars all day, blocking easy access to storefronts. He pointed out an additional $10,000 could be realized if retail sales downtown increased by 1 %; those funds added to the funds from employee parking permits and in -lieu -of funds could be used for a full-time parking enforcement officer. A full-time parking enforcement officer would benefit all Edmonds residents. Boat Ramp at John Rocco, 20031 81st Avenue W, Edmonds, observed Edmonds did not have a boat ramp although the the Port public could pay the Port to have their boat dropped in the water. He inquired how to go about getting a boat ramp in the city. Mr. Rocco was referred to Port Commissioner Gouge in the audience. Paine Field Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, expressed appreciation for Mayor Haakenson's newspaper article opposing expansion of Paine Field. Next, he said the public was being left out of the NASCAR NASCAR decision -making process and recommended an outcry from the Council regarding the deliberations that are occurring because the public's voice was not being heard. Kim Pierce, 17530 Talbot Road, Edmonds, expressed disappointment in the Councilmembers who Motorized voted to approve the ordinance regarding scooters. He commented it was more of a noise issue and the Scooters Council's action made Edmonds a less kid -friendly city and if they continued to do so, they would lose the younger people of the community. Parking In response to Mr. Kreiman's comments, Council President Plunkett clarified the Council took on the Enforcement Iresponsibility for identifying ways to fund the parking enforcement officer. He advised a tentative plan to improve parking enforcement would be distributed to the Council by the end of this week. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Plunkett wished Councilmember Wilson a happy birthday on October 8. Parking In response to Mr. Kreiman's comments, Councilmember Wilson clarified the Mayor's budget was not Enforcement yet available. He recalled earlier this year, the Council adopted amendments to the downtown parking ordinance because it was determined there was not a parking problem downtown and indicating there wasn't a need for parking enforcement. He suggested the Council seek clarification during the budget process regarding whether parking enforcement was needed downtown. Councilmember Moore wished Councilmember Wilson a happy birthday. In response to Mr. Wambolt's suggestion, she asked for clarification whether the Council could visit a site that they were to discuss as a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 5, 2004 Page 11 quasi judicial matter. Mayor Haakenson clarified a Councilmember, if they visited a site, must disclose that fact and could possibly be disqualified from participation. Brothers Councilmember Dawson wished Councilmember Wilson a happy birthday. She thanked Councilmember J.d Sisters Wilson and others who attended the Big Brothers and Sisters auction this weekend. She thanked Chiefs Tomberg and Stern who donated auction items. She announced the Snohomish County Chapter of Co dndate Washington Women Lawyers was hosting a candidate forum of Supreme Court candidates at the Best Western in Everett on October 14 at 5:00 p.m. She invited the public to contact her for further information. Councilmember Olson wished Councilmember Wilson a happy birthday. Council President Plunkett acknowledged former Supreme Court Judge candidate Jim White in the Couurtrt Judge M l audience. He explained Judge White came within five votes of winning the statewide election; sweeping White the vote in Snohomish and King Counties. Council President Plunkett looked forward to the next time Judge White ran for an office, noting he currently served the community well as Municipal Court Judge and would serve the community well at any other level. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. GKRY ENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 5, 2004 Page 12 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. OCTOBER 5, 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 of September 28, 2004. (C) Approval of claim checks #74198 through #74380 for the week of September 27, 2004, in the amount of $665,976.55. Approval of payroll check #39302 in the amount of $225.32. "Note: Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. (D) Authorization to seek artists for public art project for exterior south wall of City Hall. (E) Approval of Findings of Fact related to a Closed Record Review held on September 28, 2004 regarding the Planning Board's recommendation to deny a proposed Contract Rezone for the property located at 546 Paradise Lane. (F) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code Section 16.50.020(0) relating to commercial development on the ground floor. 3. (10 Min.) Presentation by the Sea Scouts. 4. (15 Min.) Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 3511, an interim zoning ordinance amending Edmonds Community Development Code Section 21.30.010, Families, to add a new paragraph D, in order to amend the definition of family to authorize and permit exchange students to reside with families for a period not to exceed one year. 5. (15 Min.) Public Hearing on the Third Quarter Budget Amendment. 6. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on the draft ordinance regarding motorized scooters in Edmonds and possible Council action. Page 1 of 2 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 5, 2004 Page 2 of 2 7. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 8. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 9. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television - Government Access Channel 21.