HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-2005 - Agenda PacketMEDINA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
August 22, 2005
501 Evergreen Point Road
7:00 p.m.
Medina, WA
A. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL (Adam, Blazey, Nunn, Odermat, Phelps, Rudolph, Vail-Spinosa)
C. ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Mayor
2. Council
3. Staff
D. DISCUSSION
1. Presentation of Citizen Survey Final Report
2. Construction Mitigation Plans
3. Special Event Policy
4. Tree Preservation Ordinance
5. Council Agenda Calendar
E. ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Medina City Council encourages public participation and values input from citizens. In an
effort to conduct meetings in a fair, but efficient manner, the City Council will follow previously
adopted procedures, which are available in the City Clerk's Office. All comments shall be
addressed to the Council as a whole in a courteous and respectful manner. Citizens wishing to
address the Council should complete a speaker card and submit it to the recording secretary prior
to the start of the meeting. Speaker cards are on the podium prior to the start of the City Council
meetings.
Meeting Agenda is subject to change prior to approval of the agenda during the meeting.
Persons interested in a specific agenda item may wish to call the City Clerk at
(425) 454-9222 before 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting to confirm agenda items.
ITEM D - 1
of M
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.233.6400
www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: Citizen Survey Report
RECOMMENDATION: No action required. Discussion item only.
BACKGROUND: The City Council will receive a presentation of the final survey results from
Dr. Bruce Brown, PRR, Inc. during the August 22, 2005 Study Session.
The final report will not be completed until close of business on Thursday,
August 18th. The final report will be distributed to the City Council via email
and/or hard copy no later than close of business on Friday, August 19tn
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
'+ y www.medina-wa.gov
ITEM D — la
425.233.6400
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 19, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: Citizen Survey Report
Bruce Brown sent the attached document for discussion Monday night. Mr. Brown indicated it is not the
final report, but rather a document that presents the results of the survey data analysis in a format he felt
would allow for better focus of the results on Monday night. Mr. Brown will present the final report in a
different format and as a separate document on Monday night.
1
1
Medina Survey Results Summary
(Full report will be delivered at 8/22/05 meeting)
Methodology Information:
• A total of 691 respondents are included in the analysis
• The margin of error is +/- 3.09%
• Data is weighted by age to adjust to census age parameters
• Response rate is 32% of all citizens 18 years of age or older
• Response rate is 45% of all City households
Q1 - When was the last time you had contact with City Hall staff on official business?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Within the last 3 months
227
32.9
33.4
33.4
Between 4 to 5 months
64
9.3
9.5
42.8
ago
Between 6 to 12 months
107
15.4
15.7
58.5
ago
More than 1 year ago
184
26.7
27.1
85.6
Never
98
14.2
14.4
100.0
Total
680
98.4
100.0
Missing System
11
1.6
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Most (85%) have had contact with City Hall staff
• One third had contact within the last 3 months
• About a quarter had contact within the last 4-12 months
• Small percent (14.4%) have never had contact with City Hall staff
Q2 - Type of City Hall staff had contact with
Type of
Front desk staff
Count
381
Citty
Column %
66.3
Hall
City Manager
Count
113
staff
had
Column %
19.7
contact
Public Works staff
Count
79
with
Column %
13.8
Land use staff
Count
148
Column %
25.7
Land use consultants
Count
91
Column %
15.8
Other
Count
86
Column %
14.9
Findings:
• Two-thirds (66.3%) have contact with front desk staff
• About a quarter (25.7%) with land use staff
• About a fifth (19.7%) with City Manager
• Those who mentioned "other" specified people such as police, building permit staff, City
Attorney, Mayor/City Council, and Planning Director
2
Q3 - Satisfaction with City Hall staff
Av ilability
Helpfulness
C urtesy
Timeliness of
addressing
your concerns
Responsive to
your needs
Overall quality
of service
c
o
0
c
o
c
o
C
o
c
o
c
o
U
U
U
U
U
U
Very dissatisfied
25
4.3%
32
5.7%
34
6.0%
67
11.9%
73
12.9%
61
10.8%
2
39
6.8%
63
11.1 %
15
2.7%
52
9.2%
61
10.9%
34
6.1 %
3
96
16.9%
77
13.6%
85
15.1 %
98
17.6%
81
14.3%
92
16.3%
4
161
28.2%
157
27.7%
156
27.6%
120
21.4%
140
24.9%
171
30.4%
Very satisfied
230
40.3%
228
40.2%
266
47.1 %
205
36.8%
198
35.3%
195
34.7%
Don't know
20
3.4%
10
1.7%
8
1.5%
17
3.0%
10
1.7%
10
1.7%
Total
570
100.0%
566
100.0%
565
100.0%
559
100.0%
561
100.0%
563
100.0%
Findings:
• Satisfaction with aspects of City Hall staff from most satisfied to least satisfied aspects:
➢ Courtesy (mean = 4.09)
➢ Availability (mean = 3.97)
➢ Helpfulness (mean = 3.87)
➢ Overall quality of service (mean = 3.73)
➢ Timeliness of addressing your concerns (mean = 3.64)
➢ Responsive to your needs (mean = 3.60)
• Those more satisfied (as measured by Overall Satisfaction with City Staff Index) are:
➢ Somewhat more likely to be older
• Females are somewhat more satisfied with:
➢ Availability
• Males are somewhat more likely to be satisfied with:
➢ Responsiveness to your needs
• The factors which impact satisfaction with overall quality of City Hall staff service are (in order of
their impact):
➢ Helpfulness
➢ Responsiveness to your needs
➢ Timeliness of addressing your concerns
➢ Availability
r Courtesy
Q4 - Would you volunteer to be a member of a citizen volunteer corps?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid No
541
78.3
82.8
82.8
Yes
112
16.3
17.2
100.0
Total
653
94.5
100.0
Missing System
38
5.5
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Most are not interested in being part of citizen volunteer corps.
• Those who are interested in volunteering are:
➢ Somewhat more likely to have lived in Medina fewer years
➢ Somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 years of age at home
%
CO M V CO O
N
M M O
Y
CO
a
} uno
`o c.0 Ln o, M
N N
CD
��.0000
00 m N w V O
00 0 V N O
d
'O
0
}un0o
� r� r^- � " ti
U
N O
y
c
w N
Z c
> N M t > 0 H
Cif
C
L
0
V
L
C
v
y
L
L
0
E
CC�
G
CD
m
0
3
C
L
0
E
L
i
C
E
_4)
3
L
.1+
V
L
�F+
L
0
°c '0
L 0 0
A B II Y N i r
AW�+�+M c00��cRi�� i�„�.� 0M
=LL��.a�o�-a-�
VI—u..a�cnt��o��cnin Mtn �,��.,� 4) €^c.
WAAAAAAAAAAAA oA mAA AAA �A
(a L
LL L 1,012
s
3
3
_
as
>
>
�
N
E
co
O
O
E
•'
R'Y
=
c
�p
�
N
a�
as
ca
c�
t
r
O
O
A
A
�
Y
O
O
E
E
t
L
3
3
E
E
O
O
to
M
rn
�
c
�
E
E
W
L
L
V
t�
S�
L
N
N
.O
.O
0
�
3
O d
O
3
O
cm
•$
•3
cr a
.°
a) Mo s
Y
^ a
IM
IMa yMa) NMo
a_��_l r1}0,om
i y y a)'m
co co
0 m i
0.cCoCLCocn�t����
L i'a O M 0
AA o w A"W
A
A A A A A A A A
t O
s O
F- v
F- 0
®
N
O
O
M
00
O
L
r-
4
M
LO
O
O
O
O +'
L
CD
junoo
d'
M
�
r`
O
or)m
N
�
Co
M
�
%
LO
d
M
r-
N
O
O
a) a
>
O
N
CD
4
r-
O
CU
O c:
Q cu
junoo
Co
r-
(D
r`
It
o-)
O
ItN
rn
r-
co
co
"a
aD
o
o
O
c
%
M
O
N
O
r-
C)C
co
r-
N
ao
r-
N
N
N
Co
N
O
O
a) c6
cU �
N
C:
junoo
coo
N
t
co
°r°
ti
N
%
Co
N
Co
r
U)
r
0
'-
C
c-
O
r
LO
N
r`
N
M
M
O
O
U) �
c6CM
} u n o o
ti
c°po
ti
N
C:
N
CU
c4 �
° �0
LO
M
N
00
(fl
C)N
j
O �:
M
0)
cA
N
�
CO
N
O
L
!A +
E L
0 O
U
o
junoo
w
N
M
cD
O
'It
LO
CD
O
r-
�-
O
Co
%
N
C)N
M
00
In
O
Y�
� o
O
cyi
N:
M
O
O
L o
o
p
cM-
2 N
E U
junoo
m
co
O
c000�Lococo
co
(D
M
"t
0)
U) a) U
�'�w
f
N
Cfl
c6
�t
00
N
It
O
M
O
o ICU
N
O
r--r--
r
C)N
M
C)
C)
U N
a)
o
Cr
C
o
junoo
,t
M
r`
Ln
r-
r-
Lo
,
�
N
o
Q
CL
o
v7
a
o
U
cn
c
o
0
N
M
�
o
O
H
le
CL
CL
rn
lC
Qi
c
a u
a c
N
o `r
E °
O
E u
0 co
N
CD r
S' N
d , E
(D
0- II w
CL O
E��
ci (D
L � Y
C 3
0
as y
QA A
cm
c
c
U.
L
O
C
C
d
t
O
L
3
C
�
°
as
a)
C
....
a)
rn
c
r
3
0
>
v
a
•i
i.
>
o
ci
C%
L
E
fJl
•-
O
yL.
L
L
C
O
402
O
O
402
�>r
L
Qi
O
L
Q
C.
f+
c
M
r•
y
>_
M
~
t
11
N
O
O
C p
II
Q
EM
m
'_
°o
c
asp
N
t� o
ch
s�
w �
L iO
L
as
O
L
°� as '� °�
Lm
° m '�
jF
M 11 a?
°E E
8� N
OOC
d_
r
>
0
W p
O
�d�
W
O
yMV
O
mfl-
°
E
C mm
O O v OO
C �
_CCIICO
O O
CL
CD 3
N Co
=
O
O
O C? C s (D
C w C 0
O O
cn +�
Etm
tm
O O O 0 co
O C O tm
O O
M M
}, =
m=
v v= t4 r
N
u um
N
y =
.O
l0
.0
d 0
CM CD
'a
.�[ �[ �C .O
-
3 3 3 M
3 3 3�
���
0•�'E
� > mmam
a .- w
m-6-c
.y •y
O L
i0»
O (Q O
•y •y •N i.
.N y •to O
L L L
u o o
L ++
�m
Ci ai
L=�
CL o a'o
(D G) Gi O
° O ci �,
L L L s'•
o 0 0
_��
Em
c�
N
E 3
���__=m.3
��� E
AAAAA
mAA
LaAAAA
o
�AAaa
H
um
H v
Q8 - How important is it to you that the City actively works to reduce levels of noise
generated from outside the City?
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Not important at all
67
9.8
10.0
10.0
2
62
9.0
9.2
19.2
3
113
16.4
16.8
36.0
4
116
16.7
17.1
53.1
Very important
312
45.2
46.3
99.4
Don't know
4
.6
.6
100.0
Total
675
97.6
100.0
Missing System
17
2.4
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Almost half (46.3%) think it is very important the City Council should work to reduce noise levels
are very important.
Q9 - Have you used the City's permit services within the last three years?
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Valid No
419
60.6
62.2
62.2
Yes
254
36.8
37.8
100.0
Total
673
97.4
100.0
Missing System
18
2.6
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• More than a third (37.8%) have used permit services in last 3 years
• Those who have used are:
➢ Somewhat more likely to have lived in Medina for fewer years (even when controlling for
age)
➢ Somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 at home (even when controlling for age)
Q10 - How satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the City of Medina permitting
process?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very dissatisfied
102
14.8
35.8
35.8
2
43
6.3
15.1
50.9
3
65
9.5
22.9
73.8
4
41
5.9
14.3
88.1
Very satisfied
11
1.6
3.9
92.0
Don't know
23
3.3
8.0
100.0
Total
286
41.4
100.0
Missing System
405
58.6
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• More than half (50.9%) are dissatisfied (scores 1 & 2) and more than a third (35.8%) are very
dissatisfied
• Those more dissatisfied are:
➢ Somewhat more likely to have lived in Medina for fewer years (even when controlling for
age)
➢ Somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 at home (even when controlling for age)
Q11 - For the level of services you receive from the City of Medina, and with the
awareness that $.08 of every property tax dollar goes to the City, do you think
the property taxes you pay to the City are:
Fre uency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Too low
34
4.9
5.2
5.2
About right
345
50.0
53.3
58.4
Too high
194
28.0
29.9
88.3
Don't know
76
11.0
11.7
100.0
Total
649
93.9
100.0
Missing System
42
6.1
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Little more than half (53.3%) think the property taxes are about right
• Almost a third (29.9%) think property taxes are too high
• Females are somewhat more likely to think property taxes are too high
Q12 - When was the last time you had contact with the City police on official business?
Fre uency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Within the last 3 months
188
27.3
27.7
27.7
Between 4 to 5 months
44
6.4
6.5
34.2
ago
Between 6 to 12 months
123
17.7
18.0
52.2
ago
More than 1 year ago
229
33.2
33.7
86.0
Never
96
13.8
14.0
100.0
Total
680
98.4
100.0
Missing System
11
1.6
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• A little more than a quarter (27.7%) have had official contact with the police in the last 3 months
• Another quarter (24.5) have had contact in the last 4-12 months
• Females are somewhat more likely to have had more recent contact with police department
• Those who have had contact with the police more recently are:
➢ Somewhat more likely to have lived in Medina for fewer years (even when controlling for
age)
➢ Somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 at home (even when controlling for age)
�'3
Q13 - Satisfaction with police department
Response
time
Patrol visibility
Providing
sense of
security
Courtesy
Investigation
effectiveness
Follow-u
c
o
c
o
o
0
c
0
o
c
a
o
C
0
0-0-
Very dissatisfied
12
1.8%
19
2.8%
13
2.0%
17
2.6%
30
4.6%
37
5.5%
2
8
1.2%
26
3.9%
44
6.6%
17
2.5%
14
2.1 %
26
3.9%
3
36
5.5%
59
8.8%
86
12.8%
53
8.0%
52
7.9%
32
4.9%
4
129
19.5%
204
30.5%
211
31.6%
109
16.5%
89
13.4%
88
13.3%
Very satisfied
340
51.3%
347
52.1 %
300
44.7%
432
65.0%
187
28.2%
207
31.4%
Don't know
137
20.7%
13
1.9%
16
2.4%
37
5.5%
291
43.9%
271
41.0%
Total
662
100.0%
1668
1100.0%
669
1 100.0%
1 665
1 100.0%
1 664
1 100.0%
1 661
1 100.0%
Findings:
• Satisfaction with aspects of police department from most satisfied to least satisfied:
➢ Response time (mean = 4.48)
➢ Courtesy (mean = 4.47)
➢ Patrol visibility (mean = 4.28)
➢ Providing sense of security (mean = 4.13)
➢ Investigation effectiveness (mean = 4.04)
➢ Follow-up (mean = 4.03)
• Those more satisfied with police providing sense of security were somewhat more likely to have
had more recent contact with the police in an official capacity
• Those more satisfied with police courtesy were somewhat more likely to have had more recent
contact with the police in an official capacity
• Females are somewhat more likely to be more satisfied with patrol visibility
• Those who have lived in Medina more years are somewhat less satisfied with the following
aspects of the police department (even when controlling for age):
➢ Providing sense of security
➢ Courtesy
• Those with kids under 18 at home are somewhat more satisfied with the following aspects of the
police department (even when controlling for age):
➢ Courtesy
➢ Follow-up
Q14 - How much do you support Medina having its own K-9 unit?
Fre u ncy
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Do not support at all
149
21.6
21.9
21.9
2
74
10.7
10.9
32.8
3
95
13.7
13.9
46.7
4
55
8.0
8.1
54.8
Very much support
209
30.3
30.8
85.6
Don't know
98
14.2
14.4
100.0
Total
680
98.4
100.0
Missing System
11
1.6
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Mixed opinions on support for K-9 unit. 39% support (scores 4 & 5). 32.8% do not support
(scores 1 & 2).
9
Q15 - How much do you agree or disagree that the City should install surveillance
cameras at sites determined to help prevent crime?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly disagree
125
18.1
18.4
18.4
2
68
9.9
10.0
28.4
3
110
16.0
16.2
44.6
4
98
14.2
14.4
59.0
Strongly agree
225
32.6
33.0
92.1
Don't know
54
7.8
7.9
100.0
Total
682
98.6
100.0
Missing System
9
1.4
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Almost half (47.4%) agree (scores 4 & 5) with installation of surveillance cameras, with one-third
(33%) strongly agreeing.
Q16 - How often do you use the City of Medina Parks?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Never
51
7.4
7.5
7.5
Rarely
79
11.5
11.6
19.2
Once in a while
223
32.3
32.7
51.8
Often
145
20.9
21.2
73.0
Very often
184
26.7
27.0
100.0
Total
683
98.9
100.0
Missing System
8
1.1
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Almost half (48.2%) use parks often (scores 4 & 5), with more than a quarter (27%) using very
often.
• Those who use parks more often are somewhat:
➢ More likely to have kids under 18 living at home (even when controlling for age)
➢ More likely to be female
Q17 - Support for possible future park improvements
More
community
organized park
activities
Improved
I landscapinq
More picnic
areas
Upgrade
Medina Park
playground
equipment
Construction of
more athletic
fields
Install lights at
tennis courts
in Medina Park
Install lights at
tennis courts
in Fairweather
Nature
Preserve
c
O
°
c
O
°
c
O
c
O8_0
c
O
c
O
°`
c
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Do not support at all
159
23.7%
68
10.2%
110
16.5%
100
14.9%
170
25.4%
188
27.9%
193
28.8%
2
139
20.7%
98
14.8%
113
17.0%
82
12.2%
123
18.3%
70
10.4%
72
10.8%
3
191
28.5%
234
35.2%
203
30.4%
147
21.9%
143
21.3%
105
15.5%
87
12.9%
4
66
9.9%
138
20.8%
144
21.5%
91
13.6%
79
11.7%
115
17.1 %
90
13.4%
Very much support
76
11.4%
106
15.9%
74
11.1 %
181
27.1 %
121
18.0%
142
21.1 %
110
16.5%
Don't Know
39
5.8%
21
3.1 %
24
3.7%
69
10.3%
35
5.2%
54
8.0%
118
17.6%
Total
669
100.0%
1 665
100.0%
1 668
100.0%
669
100.0%
669
100.0%
673
100.0%
669
100.0%
10
Findings:
• Support for future parks improvements in order from most support to least support
➢ Upgrade Medina Park playground equipment (mean = 3.29)
➢ Improved landscaping (mean = 3.18)
➢ More picnic areas (mean = 2.93)
➢ Install lights at tennis courts in Medina Park (mean = 2.92)
➢ Install lights at tennis courts in Fairweather Nature Preserve (mean = 2.73)
➢ Construction of more athletic fields (mean = 2.77)
➢ More community organized park activities (2.62)
• Those who use the parks more frequently are:
➢ Somewhat more likely to support the installation of lights at tennis courts at Medina Park
• Females are somewhat more likely to support:
➢ Upgrade of Medina Park playground equipment
• Those who have lived in Medina more years support the following park improvements aspects
somewhat less (even when controlling for age):
➢ More community organized park activities
➢ Improved landscaping
➢ More picnic areas
➢ Upgrade of Medina Park playground equipment
➢ Construction of more athletic fields
• Those with kids under 18 at home support the following park improvements somewhat more (even
when controlling for age):
➢ More community organized park activities
➢ More picnic areas
➢ Upgrade of Medina Park playground equipment
➢ Construction of more athletic fields
Q19 - Which option regarding dog rules in Medina Park do you support the most?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid On leash all the time
133
19.2
19.8
19.8
Under voice control year
192
27.7
28.5
48.4
round, no leash required
On leash in some parts
of the park, not others
111
16.1
16.5
64.9
year round
On leash west part
seasonally, off -leash
222
32.2
33.1
98.0
east part yr. round
No dogs in the park
13
1.9
2.0
100.0
Total
671
97.1
100.0
Missing System
20
2.9
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Mixed support for dog leash rules. A third (33.1%) like the current rule. Almost another third
(28.5%) like the former rule. 69% like leashing dogs in some fashion (choices 1, 3, and 4); 62% like
dogs unleashed in some fashion (choices 2 & 4).
• Those who use the park very frequently (n=183) are somewhat more likely to favor the former rule
(no leashes). Those who use the park often (n=142) are somewhat more likely to favor the current
rule. Those who use the park never or rarely (n=124) are somewhat more likely to favor the current
rule.
Q20 - Are you familiar with the City of Medina land use policies?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid No
303
43.9
45.3
45.3
Yes
366
53.0
54.7
100.0
Total
670
96.9
100.0
Missing System
22
3.1
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• About an even split on those familiar (54.7%) and not familiar (45.3%) with land use policies.
• Those familiar with land use policies are:
➢ Somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 living at home (even when controlling for age)
➢ Somewhat more likely to be male
521 - In your view have the City's land use policies governing the development of Medina
been:
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Too restrictive
172
24.9
44.6
44.6
About right
123
17.8
31.9
76.6
Not restrictive enough
71
10.3
18.5
95.0
Don't know
19
2.8
5.0
100.0
Total
386
55.8
100.0
Missing System
305
44.2
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Almost half (44.6%) think land use policies are too restrictive. Another third (31.9%) think they are
about right.
• Those who think land use policies are too restrictive are:
➢ Somewhat less likely to have kids under 18 at home (even when controlling for age)
➢ Somewhat more likely to have lived in Medina for more years
Q22 - Do you think the current zoning regulations adequately protect the
character of the City of Medina?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid No
202
29.3
32.0
32.0
Yes
261
37.7
41.3
73.3
Don't know
169
24.4
26.7
100.0
Total
632
91.4
100.0
Missing System
59
8.6
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• About a third (32%) do not think current zoning regulations protect the character of the City. More
than forty percent (41.3%) think zoning regulations do protect character of City.
• Those who think zoning regulations do not protect City character are:
➢ Somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 at home (even when controlling for age)
12
Q23 - Types of information desired from City
Type of
City government news
Count
505
information
Column %
75.3
desired from
General community news
Count
505
City
Column %
75.3
Neighborhood news
Count
459
Column %
68.4
Special events
Count
486
Column %
72.4
Important City notices
Count
587
Column %
87.6
County news
Count
166
Column %
24.7
State news that affects Medina
Count
548
(such as SR 520 planning) Column % 81.7
Other Count 57
Column % 8.6
Findings:
• Two-thirds or more are interested in news about all categories except county news. Highest
interest is in important City notices (87.6%) and 520 planning news (81.7%). Relatively low interest
in county news (24.7%)
Q24 - Communication method preferences
Newsletter
Website
E-mail alerts
Direct mail
letters
Special
notices
Other
o
_
o
�
�
o
�
C
o
o
�
c
o
U
0
U
0
U
U
Do not prefer at all
22
3.4%
96
18.1 %
99
16.8%
114
20.7%
65
12.4%
16
48.3%
2
14
2.1 %
64
12.2%
23
3.8%
62
11.2%
53
9.9%
1
3.6%
3
77
11.8%
120
22.7%
61
10.5%
116
20.9%
125
23.6%
7
20.3%
4
165
25.2%
98
18.5%
93
15.9%
125
22.6%
124
23.5%
3
9.5%
Very much prefer
375
57.4%
151
28.6%
312
53.1 %
136
24.6%
162
30.6%
6
18.3%
Total
653
100.0%
530
100.0%
588
100.0%
553
100.0%
528
100.0%34
100.0%
Findings:
• Preferred methods in order from most preferred to least preferred:
➢ Newsletter (mean = 4.31)
➢ E-mail alerts (mean = 3.85)
➢ Special notices (mean = 3.5)
➢ Website (mean = 3.27)
➢ Direct mail (mean = 3.19)
➢ Other (2.46)
• Females are somewhat more likely to prefer:
Newsletters
• Those who have lived in Medina more years prefer the following communication methods
somewhat less (even when controlling for age):
➢ Website
➢ E-mail alerts
➢ Special notices
• Those who have lived in Medina more years prefer the following communication methods
somewhat more (even when controlling for age):
13
v Direct mail
• Those with kids under 18 at home prefer the following communication methods somewhat less
(even when controlling for age):
➢ Newsletter
➢ Direct mail
➢ Special notices
• Those with kids under 18 at home prefer the following communication methods somewhat more
(even when controlling for age):
➢ E-mail alerts
Q25 How satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the City of Medina website?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very dissatisfied
19
2.8
6.9
6.9
2
40
5.8
14.2
21.1
3
107
15.5
38.3
59.4
4
90
13.0
32.2
91.5
Very satisfied
24
3.4
8.5
100.0
Total
280
40.5
100.0
Missing Have not visited
City website
392
56.7
System
19
2.8
Total
411
59.5
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Well more than half (56.7%) have not used the City website.
• Of those who have, about forty percent (40.7%) are satisfied to some degree (scores 4 & 5). A little
more than a fifth (21.1%) are dissatisfied to some degree (scores 1 and 2).
• Those who are more satisfied with the website are:
➢ Somewhat less likely to have kids under 18 living at home
➢ Somewhat more likely to be female
Q26 - Town Hall meeting topics would be very likely to attend
Town
Allocation of the City's budget
Count
208
meeting
surplus
Column %
35.6
topics
Identification of citizen preferred
Count
371
would
520 upgrade alternatives
Column %
63.6
attend
Retention of the Metro flyer stop
Count
232
on SR 520 at Evergreen Pt
Column %
39.7
Should city limit size of house can
Count
359
be built on smaller lots
Column %
61.4
Creation of additional on -street
Count
255
parking in various places
Column %
43.7
Findings:
• Greatest interest is in 520 upgrade alternatives (63.6%) and in whether City should limit the size of
house that can be built on smaller lots (61.4%).
14
Q28a - Length of time lived in Medina
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid less than 1 year
1
.2
.2
.2
1-5 years
168
24.2
24.4
24.6
6-10 years
136
19.7
19.8
44.4
11-15 years
69
10.0
10.1
54.5
16-20 years
108
15.6
15.7
70.3
21 or more years
204
29.5
29.7
100.0
Total
686
99.3
100.0
Missing System
5
.7
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Almost a third (29.7%) has lived in Medina 21 or more years. Another quarter (24.6%) has lived in
Medina 5 or fewer years.
Q29 - Do you have children (under 18 years of age) living in your home
full-time?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid No
389
56.4
57.1
57.1
Yes
293
42.3
42.9
100.0
Total
682
98.7
100.0
Missing System
9
1.3
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Percent with children under 18 is very similar to census parameter of 39%.
Q30 - Age
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 18 to 24
35
5.0
5.0
5.0
25 to 34
69
10.0
10.0
15.0
35 to 44
159
23.0
23.0
38.0
45 to 54
159
23.0
23.0
61.0
55 to 64
117
17.0
17.0
78.0
65 or over
152
22.0
22.0
100.0
Total
691
100.0
1 100.0
Findings:
• Weighted age percents are identical to census parameters.
15
Q31 - Gender
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male
317
45.9
47.4
47.4
Female
352
51.0
52.6
100.0
Total
669
96.9
100.0
Missing System
22
3.1
Total
691
100.0
Findings:
• Percent male and female is identical to census parameters of 48% and 52% respectively.
ITEM D -2
.A of M CITY OF MEDINA
Development Services
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
www.medina-wamo
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 18, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Director of Development Services
RE: Evaluation of the Construction Mitigation Program
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review and discuss the following
report on the effectiveness of the construction mitigation program (MMC 15.20). If the City Council
determines that code revisions are worth exploring, a problem statement or project scope should be
identified.
POLICY IMPLICATION: The construction mitigation program is aimed at minimizing construction
nuisances for the neighbors of construction sites. It works by supplementing traditional types of
regulations such as noise limits and street parking restrictions with a requirement for applicants to
develop a customized plan that details all measures that will be taken to reduce impacts on neighbors.
BACKGROUND: There have been three ordinances concerning the construction mitigation
program in Medina history. In 1994, Ordinance 588 first established the program with a trigger that was
so high that only very large projects were required to undergo the process — the resulting caseload
averaged less than one per year. In 1999, Ordinance 665 made a minor revision to the program. It
essentially required projects to demonstrate that use of a tower crane provided benefits to the
neighborhood before one would be allowed. The Planning Commission reviewed and decided on all
construction mitigation plans under Ordinances 558 and 665.
Ordinance 748, which was passed in February 2003, was a complete overhaul of the construction
mitigation program (CMP). The most significant change was a lowering of the program trigger. Under
the new trigger virtually all new homes are required to undergo the CMP process. Another significant
change was the introduction of the "Level 1 / Level 2" system with the intention of simplifying the process
for smaller projects (Level 1) compared to the process for bigger projects (Level 2). The difference in the
processes for the two levels is that fewer supporting documents are required for Level 1 plans and staff
review and approve Level 1 plans while the Planning Commission approves Level 2 plans. A third
significant change with Ordinance 748 is the start of performing public notice for CMP applications to the
same extent as with land use permit applications — including posting notices on the future construction
site and mailing notices to all neighbors in a 300-foot radius from the site.
ITEM D - 2
Since the CMP as a permitting requirement is relatively unique to the City of Medina, an evaluation of
the effectiveness of the program is warranted. In planning for this evaluation, the first thing that occurred
k.o me is there are several different ways that one could gauge the success of the program. Therefore,
seven different "measures of success" are offered below. The evaluations within each of the measures
reflect varied degrees of success. Adding to the difficulty of rating the overall program success is the
fact that the City Council may wish to assign different weights to different measures. In an effort to allow
the reader to quickly absorb the information below I have assigned my personal rating to each measure
on the "Poor — Fair — Good — Excellent" scale. My negative ratings are not intended as criticisms of staff
or the 2003 City Council that passed Ordinance 748. To a large extent, they represent the fact that
governmental involvement can never be a perfect substitute for neighborly good will in addressing these
issues.
Measures of Success — Construction Mitigation Program
Measure: Certainty Rating: POOR
The first two measures of success are currently a pair of "buzz words" in the urban planner community —
certainty and flexibility. Certainty refers to the ideal situation where a typical permit applicant
comprehends exactly what procedure and requirements will be entailed in applying for a given permit
from a given jurisdiction. Of course, this is a hard ideal to attain with regulations in constant change and
with applicants practicing in multiple jurisdictions. Flexibility refers to the ideal situation where a
jurisdiction can tailor the permit requirements to the unique circumstances possessed by the applicant.
(';,If course, taking this idea to the extreme has issues. Leaving the permit requirements completely
flexible requires a hearing process or granting staff a significant discretionary authority. This can easily
lead to real or perceived problems that staff or the hearing body is not exercising their discretion in a
uniform or fair manner from one application to the next.
• The fact that no other jurisdictions in the area have a CMP requirement like Medina's is a
hindrance to the certainty goal.
• On a few occasions the City has required CMP measures that 1) the applicant could not have
expected, and 2) are based on changed circumstances beyond the applicant's control. An
example of 1) is prohibiting a construction activity on the date of a community event. An
example of 2) is stipulating the use of an indirect truck haul route to the site to avoid a
concentration of truck traffic from several other active construction sites in the same
neighborhood.
Measure: Flexibility Rating: EXCELLENT
• The open-ended process of selecting mitigation measures under the CMP benefits the
community because the plan can be tailored to the unique issues and sensitivities of the
surrounding neighbors. For example, temporary noise walls are a common measure where
sites are in close proximity to the neighbors. On the other hand, some neighbors who have
participated in the process and noted that they prefer to tolerate the noise rather than have the
aesthetic impact of the noise walls. The process allows for the accommodation of such
preferences.
• The open-ended process of selected mitigation measures under the CMP benefits applicants
hPrni mp the nlan can he tailored to the unique mitim ion 0000rtunities found on the construction
Page 2
ITEM D - 2
site. Examples include using barges for major earthwork transport on waterfront projects and
utilizing existing or proposed hedges in place of noise walls.
Measure: Application Fees and City's Cost Recovery Rating: GOOD
• Based on direction from Council to minimize the burden for Level 1 CMP applicants application
fees were set at a flat fee of $200 for Level 1 and a flat fee of $2500 for Level 2. "Flat fee"
means that consultant charges are not passed -through to the applicant.
• One might consider the $200 Level 1 fee to be negligible in comparison to the $250,000 project
cost that the Level 1 CMP is targeted at. To put the $2,500 Level 2 fee into some context, the
building permit fees for a $750,000 project are approximately $13,500 (does not include Grading
and Drainage or Landscape permit fees).
• A full cost recovery analysis is difficult at this time because very few projects have completely
run their course since passage of Ordinance 748. However the following has been observed:
Typical consultant charges for processing a Level 1 CMP are in the range of $500 to $1,000
compared to the revenue of $200. Typical consultant charges for processing a Level 2 CMP are
in the range of $1,200 to $1,600 compared to the revenue of $2,500.
• Looking at the composite picture of Level 1 and Level 2 combined, the revenue appears to be
very close to or above City costs. In other words the fact that we are not recovering enough on
Level 1 CMP's is balanced by the fact that we are recovering too much on Level 2 CMP's.
• Because of the overhead that is built into consultant billing rates, the City could lower the
application fees while recovering costs with staff administering the program instead.
Measure: Minimizing the Level of Administrative Burden Rating: FAIR
• Ideally, the CMP would be set up so that the administrative burden to applicants was
proportional to the size of the project. Unfortunately, experience has shown that small project
sites can be some of the most problematic. This is because the limited space surrounding the
building puts pressure on staging and parking activities to extend into the street or encroach on
the neighbors.
• There are no standard professional practices for organizing and formatting a construction
mitigation plan (compared to something like preparing a set of blue prints). While staff would
prefer to confine their corrections to substantive issues, we occasionally need to require
organization and format changes for clarity. This is based on comments we have received from
Planning Commissioners and neighbors about their needs in absorbing the plan content.
• The addition of a substantial public noticing process with Ordinance 748 created a certain
amount of administrative burden with a limited yield of neighbor involvement (see below.) In
addition to the time that a CMP application is stalled for notice periods and appeal periods, there
is the constraint of Planning Commission meetings only occurring once a month (for Level 2
CMP's). On the other hand, applicants submit their CMP application at the same time as their
building permit application and the CMP is usually approved before the building permit.
Therefore the CMP is typically not the critical path to being able to start construction.
• One idea to reduce administrative burden while maintaining flexibility is to replace the current
open-ended process of identifying mitigation measures with more of a menu -based process
where the City pre -selects a list of the most effective measures and the process becomes one of
choosing the most appropriate measures from that list.
• A more significant change aimed at reducing administrative burden might be conceived of as
switching from the current plan -based process to a performance -based process. The idea is
Page 3
ITEM D - 2
that the present plan -based process forces the contractor examine all mitigation measures and
site logistics in relation to the project before the start of construction. This involves a requirement
to prepare a plan containing details down to the exact location for stock piles and each
employee parking stall. In contrast, the idea of a performance -based process would be simply
convey to the contractor that he / she is responsible for construction site management with the
understanding that fines will be levied for violations such as staging and parking in the street or
exceeding noise limits.
Measure: Has There Been a Reduction in the Volume of Complaints? Rating: GOOD
• While this would appear to be a logical question in evaluation of the CMP, there is no scientific
means of tallying the change in complaint volume after the passage of Ordinance 748.
• Anecdotally, staff believe that there is greater satisfaction in the community with construction site
management.
• 1 would speculate that there were more cases of complainants feeling "shuffled around" upon
calling the City before staff had the sanctioned procedures set by Ordinance 748.
Measure: Does the Program Apply Well to Construction Site Management? Rating: POOR
• The problem of subcontractors: The CMP application process requires involvement by the
general contractor. Unfortunately, there is no way to force the general contractor to
communicate plan requirements to all the subcontractors, which are considerable in number on
a typical project and can involve multiple levels (e.g. the plumbing subcontractor can have his /
her own subcontractor).
• Small home projects in Medina tend to be organized without a full-time superintendent devoted
to the project. This represents another hindrance to disseminating information on plan
requirements.
Measure: The Public's Involvement and Comprehension of the Program Rating: FAIR
• 1 would characterize the level of public involvement in the plan preparation as relatively low.
Written comments have been received from the public on less than half of the 43 CMP cases
that have been noticed since Ordinance 748.
• Neighbors have attended 6 of the 17 Level 2 hearings that have been held since Ordinance 748.
• 1 would speculate that for every neighbor that provides comments there may be one or two more
who only review the case file at the reception counter. While this activity is not noticeable it may
represent a benefit of the program for neighbors who simply want to be informed about the
project.
• One issue with public involvement is that the comment providers sometimes seem to think that
the City has more authority that it actually does through the CMP. An example would be a
neighbor who asserts that the City should address issues with the architectural design of a
proposed house. Of course this issue emerges from time to time with all types of noticed
permits.
Page 4
ITEM D - 3
�`k °i
` CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.233.6400
b www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: Special Event Policy
RECOMMENDATION: Discuss attached draft special event policy and provide direction regarding
final draft and development of an ordinance for adoption at a future regular
meeting of the City Council.
The City Council is asked to review the draft policy and provide direction to
the City Manager regarding desired changes.
POLICY IMPLICATION: The attached special event policy is intended to establish regulations for
special events conducted within the city of Medina, which will ensure
special events are conducted in such a manner that protects the safety and
welfare of participants, protection of public property is considered, and the
impact of the event on non -participating citizens is minimized. A corollary
purpose of the policy is to ensure that benefactors of the special City
services provided to the event bear the cost of the services.
BACKGROUND: The attached special event policy has been drafted based upon the input
provided by the City Council during the May Study Session. The policy
includes language from special event policies used by several cities in
Washington as well as other States.
Key elements of the policy include.
• Section 1.3 - identifies special event activities that require a permit;
• Section 1.4 — identifies special event activities that are exempt from
requirement to obtain a permit;
1
• Section 1.5 — establishes the minimum required information to be
included on the application form. Additional information may be
required if deemed necessary by city manager;
• Section 1.7 — establishes the criteria and conditions, which must be
met before a permit may be issued. Additional criteria and
conditions may be required, if deemed necessary by the city
manager;
• Section 1.8 — identifies conditions, which may be prescribed to the
issuance of a permit. Includes reimbursement of reasonable costs
incurred by the City, indemnification and hold harmless
agreements;
• Section 1.11 — establishes an appeal procedure, which is to be
considered and acted upon by the City Council.
9 Page 2
CITY 0.� 94 EDIWA
SPECIAL EVENTS POLICY
EFFECTIVE DATE: ADOPTED:
REVISED: PUBLISHED:
SUPERSEDED:
SECTION 1.1 — Purpose
INDEX: 1.2 Definitions
1.3— Permit Required
1.4 — Exemptions
1.5 — Application - Form — Required Information
1.6 — Application — Fee
1.7 — Findings Required
1.8 — Conditions to Permit
1.9 — Prior Application
1.10 — Notice of Issuance or Denial
1.11 —Appeal Procedure
1.12 — Contents of Permit
1.13 — Duty of Permittee
1.14 — Revocation or Suspension of Permit
1.15 — Public Conduct During a Special Event
1.16 — Violation — Penalty
1.1 PURPOSE
To establish policies and procedures to ensure that special events held within the
city of Medina are conducted in such a manner that protects the safety and
welfare of the participants, protection of public property is considered, and the
impact of the event on non -participating citizens is minimized. A corollary
purpose of this policy is to ensure that benefactors of the special City services
provided to the event bear the cost of the event.
1.2 DEFINITIONS
"Special Event" means a temporary or ongoing activity organized by any
individual or organization that occurs on public or possibly private property that
affects the ordinary use of parks, public streets, right-of-ways, sidewalks, traffic,
etc. and will generate or invite considerable public participation and/or
spectators. A special event is also defined as meeting all three of the following
criteria: (1) is reasonably expected to cause or result in more than fifty (50)
people gathering in a park or other public place; (2) is reasonably expected to
have a substantial impact on such park or other public place; and (3) is
reasonably expected to require the provision of substantial public services.
CI?'y OF A EDIWA
"Parade" means a march or procession of any kind.
"Public meeting or assembly" means a planned or organized gathering of a group
of persons, or any ceremony, demonstration, show, exhibition, dance or pageant,
which may reasonably be expected to result in the gathering of a group of
persons, upon any public street, park or other public grounds.
"City" shall refer to the City of Medina.
"City Operated Event" means a public event which is directly related to a
recognized function of city government and which is in major part initiated,
financed and executed by the City of Medina.
"Co -sponsored Event" means an event in which the City of Medina is merely
listed as a co-sponsor, but does not carry a major share of the burden of
initiating, financing and executing the event.
"Non-profit Event" means an event, which is directly related to a non-profit
organization and which is in major part initiated, financed and executed by the
non-profit organization.
"For -profit Event" means an event, which is operated by for -profit sponsors,
which are beneficial to the City and the public.
"Commercial Filming" means the process of video or film production of any
location and/or activity, which is intended for use as public entertainment,
documentary or educational purposes.
1.3 PERMIT REQUIRED
It is unlawful for any reason to hold, manage, conduct, aid, participate in,
form, start or carry on any special events activity as defined in this
chapter in or upon any public street, park or other public grounds in the
city unless and until a permit to conduct such special events activity has
been obtained in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, except as
herein provided.
1.4 EXEMPTIONS
The following special events, when conducted entirely upon private property,
shall be exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit under this policy:
A. Funeral processions;
B. A governmental agency acting within the scope of its functions;
C. Dances and other special events conducted by schools or churches;
D. Students going to and from school classes or participating in educational
activities, providing such special events activity is authorized by the school
district and is under the immediate direction and supervision of the school
CM OF N EDIXA
authorities authorized by the school district to approve and supervise such
special events activity;
E. Garage sales and rummage sales;
F. Other similar events and activities, which do not directly affect or use City
services.
1.5 APPLICATION — FORM — REQUIRED INFORMATION
Any person desiring to apply for a special event permit shall do so by filing a
written application therefore with the City Clerk. The application shall be made on
forms provided by the City and shall include, at a minimum, the following
information:
1. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant;
2. The name, address and telephone number of the person who will be
directly in charge of and responsible for the special events activity;
3. A full and complete description of the special event sought to be held
and the duration of such special event;
4. The proposed location of the special event and the dimensions and
plans for any structure to be erected or constructed in connection with
the special event;
5. Whether the special event will require the use of any city street or
right-of-way and if so, the location and dimensions of the proposed
use, together with a statement as to the dimensions of remaining
unobstructed street or right-of-way;
6. The approximate number of spectators and persons who will or are
expected to participate in the special events activity and the number
and kind of vehicles, equipment and animals which will be used;
7. If the permit sought is for the use of a city street not connected with a
special event, a full and complete description of the use sought to be
made of the street by the applicant and the duration of such use;
8. Plans for the assembly and dispersal of the special events activity,
including times and locations thereof including setup/takedown times;
9. Any additional information, which the city manager or city manager's
designee shall find reasonably necessary to a determination of the
findings required by Section 1.7
CM OF JIEDIX-A
1.6 APPLICATION FEE
All applications shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable application fee as set
forth in the City fee schedule, provided, that the city manager may waive such
fee if, in the opinion of the city manager, the imposition of such fee will create an
undue hardship for the applicant.
1.7 FINDINGS REQUIRED
A. All permits issued under this policy shall be issued by the city manager or
city manager's designee. A permit may be issued to the applicant only if
all of the following criteria and conditions for issuance are met:
1. The proposed special event will not unreasonably endanger the participants,
spectators, or the public;
2. The proposed special event will not unreasonably interfere with vehicular or
pedestrian traffic flow at the proposed location;
3. The concentration of persons, spectators, animals and vehicles will not
unduly interfere with proper fire and police protection of, or ambulance
service to, areas where the special events activity will take place or areas
contiguous to such area;
4. The conduct of such special events activity will not unduly interfere with the
movements of emergency response equipment en route to a call for service;
5. Such special events activity is not to be held for the sole purpose of
advertising the goods, wares or merchandise of a particular business
establishment or vendor;
6. Adequate plans for parking exist to meet the need generated by the proposed
special event;
7. Proper arrangements have been made for setup/takedown and cleanup
following the special event;
8. The proposed special event or proposed use of the street will not intrude onto
or over any portion of a public right-of-way open to vehicle or pedestrian
travel in such a manner as to create a likelihood of endangering vehicles or
pedestrians. In addition, in the event the requested permit involves
encroachment or partial obstruction of a sidewalk or other walkway open to
the public, a minimum of 3 feet of unobstructed sidewalk or other walkway
shall be maintained at all times;
9. If the special event or use of the street involves an obstruction of a portion of
a public sidewalk or other walkway, the city manager shall establish the
specific period of the permit;
CIS OF 9biEDIN.1
10. In the case of special events such as fun runs, marathons, etc., or in the case
of any street use which requires the closure of any public street or walkway,
the proposed event or use will not require closure for period longer than
that established by the city manager;
11. Whenever the requested permit is for an action which will require the use of
any city street, or other city property, whether or not such use is connected
with a special event, the applicant must agree to indemnify, defend and hold
the City harmless from any and all claims for bodily injury or property damage
that may arise out of or in connection with the applicant's permitted special
event or use;
12. Whenever the requested permit is for an action, which will require the use of
any street or other city property, whether or not such use is connected with a
special event, the applicant must secure and maintain in full force and effect
throughout the duration of the permit comprehensive general liability
insurance for bodily injury and property damage in such amounts as the city
manager deems necessary, and shall have the City of Medina named as an
additional named insured on the policy of insurance, which shall include a
provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy except upon 30 days' prior
written notice to the City;
13. Whenever any special event or other use requires provision of additional city
services, including, but not limited to, the employment of police officers to
direct or block pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or the provisions of standby aid
car or fire protection services, the applicant shall agree to reimburse the City
for the same;
14. Such other and further conditions as the city manager deems necessary to
reasonably ensure that the proposed special event does not in any way
create a likelihood of endangering those who may participate or be
spectators.
B. If any of the above criteria are not met by the proposal, the city manager
shall deny the permit or may issue the permit with such, conditions as the
city manager deems necessary for the application to meet all of the
criteria set forth above.
C. All conditions of the permit shall be subscribed on or attached to the
permit.
D. Notwithstanding any provision of Medina Municipal Code, the city
manager or city manager's designee is authorized to allow special events
or signs, which would otherwise be prohibited by city ordinance. In
reviewing an application, the following factors shall be considered: (1) will
not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor
injurious to property or improvements in the immediate vicinity of the
temporary use or temporary sign; (2) is compatible with the purpose and
intent in the area in which the proposed use will occur; (3) is compatible in
intensity and appearance with the existing land uses in the immediate
CIS OF JW EDIWA
vicinity of the use, and (4) hours of the use will not cause noise, light or
glare, which adversely impacts surrounding uses.
1.8 CONDITIONS TO PERMIT
The city manager or city manager's designee may prescribe conditions to the
issuance of a permit, including, but in no way limited to the following:
1. Execution of an agreement to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and
on any claim that may be made or brought against the City for loss, injury or
damage to any persons or property arising out of or in connection with the
special events activity.
2. Entry forms for special events activity participants, which require each
individual participant to release the City from any liability that might be
occasioned on account of any injury to the participant or damage to the
participant's property. If the special events activity will involve minors, said
entry form shall provide for a release of such liability on behalf of the minor,
by the minor and the minor's parents or guardian.
3. Requirement(s) for the prompt and orderly removal of any signs, booths,
barricades and any other articles or items erected or used in connection with
the special events activity and any trash or debris occasioned by the special
events activity.
4. Reimbursement, upon presentment of the City's statement, for all reasonable
costs incurred by the City for expenditure of funds, manpower or equipment
to ensure the safe and orderly conduct of special events activity or
disassembly or removal of any articles erected or used in connection with the
special events activity or collection of trash or debris occasioned by the
special events activity.
5. Performance bond to ensure that all of the findings and conditions to permit
exist and/or have been met during the continuation of or after the special
events activity.
1.9 PRIOR APPLICATION
If a prior permit application shall have been made for a special events activity
proposed to be held at the same time or place, the city manager or city
manager's designee may refuse approval of the later application. In case of such
refusal, written notice shall be sent to the applicant with the opportunity to apply
for an alternate time, date and/or place.
CI7"y OF .TWEDIJVA
1.10 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OR DENIAL
The city manager or city manager's designee shall act upon the permit
application within ten business days of the filing thereof. If the permit application
is denied, a written notice of the decision, including reason(s) for the decision,
shall be mailed to the applicant no later than five business days after the decision
has been made.
1.11 APPEAL PROCEDURE
All decisions of the city manager with respect to issuance, denial, revocation or
suspension of any permit under this policy shall be final unless appealed by any
aggrieved party to the City Council. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the City
Clerk within two business days after receipt of notice of denial or date of posting
of the notice of decision. The City Council shall act upon the appeal at its next
regularly scheduled meeting following receipt of the notice of appeal.
1.12 CONTENTS OF PERMIT
Conditions to the issuance of any permit shall beset forth in the permit.
1.13 DUTY OF PERMITTEE
A. A permittee hereunder shall comply with all terms and conditions of said
permit and with all applicable laws and ordinances.
B. The written permit obtained pursuant to this policy shall be carried by the
person heading or leading the special events activity for which the permit
was issued.
1.14 REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF PERMIT
All permits issued pursuant to this policy shall be temporary, shall vest no
permanent rights in the applicant, and may be revoked by the city manager or
city manager's designee as follows:
A. The permit may be immediately revoked by the city manager or
city manager's designee in the event of a violation of any of the
terms or conditions of the permit; or
B. The permit may be immediately revoked by the city manager or
city manager's designee in the event the permitted special event
or street use shall become, for any reason, dangerous to person
or property, or if any structure or obstruction permitted becomes
insecure or unsafe; or
CI?"l� OF N EDIWA
C. The permit may be revoked by the city manager or city manager's
designee upon 30 days' notice if the permit was not for a specified
period of time and is not covered by either of the preceding
subsections.
D. If any event, use or occupancy for which the permit has been
revoked is not immediately discontinued, the city manager or city
manager's designee may remove any structure or obstruction, or
cause to be made, without obligation to do so, such repairs upon
the structure or obstruction as may be necessary to render the
same secure and safe, or adjourn any special event. The cost and
expense of such removal, repair or adjournment shall be
assessed against the permittee, including all professional fees
associated with enforcement of the collection of the same.
1.15 PUBLIC CONDUCT DURING A SPECIAL EVENTS ACTIVITY
A. It is unlawful for any person to unreasonably obstruct, impede or interfere
with any special events activity or with any person, vehicle or animal
participating in such special events activity for which a permit has been
granted in accordance with the provisions of this policy.
B. The city manager or city manager's designee shall have the authority,
when reasonably necessary, to prohibit or restrict the parking of vehicles
along a street, highway, roadway or alleyway or part thereof constituting
part of the route of the special events activity.
1.16 VIOLATION — PENALTY
Any person convicted of a violation of this policy shall be punished by a fine not
to exceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in jail for a period not to
exceed six months, or both such fine and imprisonment. In addition, each and
every day during which any violation of any provision of this policy is committed,
continued or permitted by any person or organization constitutes a separate
offense.
1
ITEM D - 4
,t of M CITY OF MEDINA
Development Services
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
www.medilna-wamo
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 18, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Director of Development Services
RE: Discussion of Tree and Vegetation Code Issues
RECOMMENDATION: Discussion item only per request from Council Member Vall-Spinosa,
which was added to the Council Calendar during the August 8"' Council Meeting.
POLICY IMPLICATION: Council Member Vail-Spinosa requested discussion of the Tree and
Vegetation Code. The remainder of this report is a summary of the provisions of the Tree and
Vegetation Code (MMC 12.28). Staff may be able to identify some ideas for improvements to in the
code with some policy direction from the City Council
As summarized in the City of Medina Comprehensive Plan, Medina prides itself on its "distinctive and
informal natural setting that is typified by semi -wooded and heavily landscaped lots." It is these two
aspects of Medina that combine to create its rural character. In order to maintain this character, the City
Council enacted the Tree and Vegetation Ordinance. This ordinance strives to maintain the existing tree
canopy and seeks to create natural and informal plantings along the arterial streets' right-of-ways in the
City. Various levels of permitting and mitigation (replacement) are required when homeowners wish to
remove trees on their lots and/or undertake construction activities when living on a collector street.
The Tree and Vegetation Ordinance requires mitigation for private property tree removal depending on
the level of construction activity on the property, the size of the tree proposed for removal and the tree's
health. Proposed removal of a healthy tree measuring 24" in caliper and greater on private property not
undergoing new development or reconstruction requires a permit and mitigation. Proposed removal of a
healthy tree measuring between six inches in caliper to less than 24" in caliper on private property not
undergoing new development or reconstruction requires notification to the City with mitigation possible (if
the property re -develops) within the following two years. Proposed removal of a tree measuring less
than six inches in caliper on private property not undergoing new development or reconstruction does
not require a permit or notification to the City. Proposed removal of a healthy tree measuring six inches
in caliper and greater on private property undergoing new development or reconstruction requires a
permit and mitigation. Proposed removal of a tree measuring less than six inches in caliper on private
property undergoing new development or reconstruction does not require a permit or mitigation.
F
ITEM D - 4
The Tree and Vegetation Ordinance provides more protection for trees in the public right-of-way (ROW).
For trees proposed for removal in the ROW adjacent to the homeowner's property, a Right -of -Way Tree
Trimming/Removal Permit must be submitted to the City and approved prior to tree removal. Based on
the level of construction activity, the size of the tree and its health, mitigation may or may not be required
for tree removal. The Right -of -Way Tree Trimming/Removal Permit requirement may be waived if the
landscape consultant determines the tree to be unhealthy. For trees proposed for removal in the ROW
not adjacent to the homeowner's property, a hearing before the Hearing Examiner is required to
determine if the proposed tree can be removed. If the Hearing Examiner approves the request,
mitigation would be based on the level of construction activity, the size of the tree and its health.
In order to maintain the rural character to the City, the Tree and Vegetation Ordinance requires a permit
and ROW plantings for properties undergoing new development or reconstruction that abut the minor
arterials, collector, and other streets. These include NE 8t" Street, NE 12t" Street, NE 24t Street, 82"d
Avenue NE, 84t" Avenue NE, Evergreen Point Road, Overtake Drive East and West, and Lake
Washington Boulevard. The ROW planting requirements consist of a percentage of trees, shrubs and
groundcovers based on the size of the plantable ROW. For properties not undergoing new
development or reconstruction, no permit or ROW plantings are required.
Page 2
2005
City Council Calendar
September 12,
2005 Regular
Meeting
September 26,
2005 Study
Session
October 10,
2005 Regular
Meeting
October 24,
2005 Study
Session
2006 Budget
Discussion
Discussion
Discussion
Discussion
2006 Labor Agreements
Discussion
Discussion
Cable TV Franchise
Discussion/Action
Financial Report — 3rd
Quarter
Discussion
Medina Park Off -leash
Rules
Discussion/Action
Tax Levy
Discussion
-Property
Site Plan Review
Discussion/Action
08/16/2005 Page 5 of 5
P:\2005 Agenda Packets\08222005\ltem D-5, 2005 City Council Calendar.doc
2005
City Council Calendar
Description
November 14,
2005 Regular
Meeting
November 28,
2005 Study
Session
December 12,
2005 Regular
Meeting
December 26,
2005 Study
Session
- 2006
Hearing
Discussion
Hearing/Action
-Budget
City Manager
Performance Eval
Discussion
Discussion
Tax Levy
Hearing/Action
-Property
08/16/2005 Page 6 of 6
P:\2005 Agenda Packets\08222005\Item D-5, 2005 City Council Calendar.doc
Lucius H. Biglow, Jr.
2425 Evergreen Point Road
Medina, WA 98039
August 22, 2005
To: Mary Odermat and Doug Schulze
Re: Citizens' Survey; Your letter of July 22, 2005
Thank you for your letter, referred to above. To me it seemed more
political than responsive, not what I am used to from you, Mary.
Wayne might have reviewed it; but I'm guessing that he didn't.
PRR looks good to me, and probably is costing less than Hebert might
have. Not wanting to be divisive, dishonest or appalling, I tried not to
taint them , although I was tempted.
Sorry to have been caught alleging. Helpful suggestions were
intended. However, lest I be taken to agree with your second
paragraph, I don't. Getting involved in the survey was like pulling
teeth. Apparently, the request for input went out to department heads,
not the public and then was massaged a bit by the Council.
Nor do I agree with your third paragraph. As you said in your memo
dated December 21, Doug, criteria and procedures for evaluating 774
were needed. The Council responded with a survey, which quickly
degenerated into a general inquiry, not focused on that Ordinance.
You have my list of the questions that should have been asked, if a
real evaluation was wanted. They weren't.
The results summary for the survey says that those who use Medina
Park never or rarely are more likely to favor the current rule. It seems
to me that this result is encouraged by the form of the questions,
which I think is biased. I am confident that you will not be influenced
by uninformed opinions. A discount factor should be applied.
The survey is indeed useful, for political purposes, and I am glad that
my input is appreciated and welcome.
Cc: Medina City Council, Wayne Tanaka
Sincerely,
I