07/19/2005 City CouncilJuly 19, 2005
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Richard Marin, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Thomas Tomberg, Fire Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Megan Cruz, Video Recorder
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Marin requested Item G be removed from the Consent Agenda so that he could abstain
from the vote.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
I (A) ROLL CALL
Approve 7/5/05
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 5, 2005
Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #80783 THROUGH #80932 FOR THE WEEK OF
Checks JULY 4, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $167,706.35. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
#80933 THROUGH #81079 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 11, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$285,915.86. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #41.040
THROUGH #41174 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 16 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $869,736.47. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #41175 THROUGH
#41207 FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 6, 2005 THROUGH JULY 6, 2005 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $8,455.91
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 1
Claim for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MARK AND DAWN
Damages BURGESS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
Pine Street Park (E) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL NEW PLAY STRUCTURE AT PINE
Play Structure I STREET PARK.
Surplus City (F) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO
Vehicle I SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLE.
Resrl 1101
Chinook (H) RESOLUTION NO. 1101 RATIFYING THE WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA
Salmon (WRIA) 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN.
Conservation
Plan
ITEM (G): APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
Liquor Control THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
Board BOARD.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM G. MOTION CARRIED (5 -0 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN
ABSTAINED.
Citizens
Advisory 3. INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS OF THE NEWLY FORMED CITIZENS ADVISORY
Transportation TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
Committee
City Engineer Dave Gebert explained the City was facing significant challenges in its transportation
program as a result of the passage of I -776 in November 2002 which resulted in a loss to the City of
approximately $350,000 or 46% of recurring annual funds for the transportation program. As a result, the
City was unable to accomplish many projects and the overlay cycle was approaching 60 years although
the industry recommended standard was 20 -30 years. The City was also unable to accomplish many
sidewalk, walkway, bikeway, signal, and traffic calming projects.
In the City's continuing effort to address these challenges and provide citizen input, a new Citizens
Advisory Transportation Committee (CATC) was formed. The primary purpose /goal of the committee is
to monitor and make recommendations with regard to the City's transportation program, provide input
and monitor accomplishment of the objectives of the Transportation Comprehensive Plan and enhance
communication with the public on transportation issues. The committee meets on the third Thursday of
each month and has held three meetings to date. Members must be residents of Edmonds; the members
selected are a broad geographic representation of the City and bring an impressive range of expertise and
experience to the committee.
Mr. Gebert introduced the following committee members, described their backgrounds and experience
and expressed the City's appreciation for their willingness to serve on the committee: William Angle,
Stephen Bernheim, Stacy Gardea, Kristiana Johnson, Don Kreiman, Sharon Minton, Henry Moravec and
D.J. Wilson.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Gebert explained the committee was in the process of formulating how
they would operate, select a chair and make decisions. The first three meetings were primarily staff
providing background regarding the Transportation Comprehensive Plan and funding options that were
previously presented to the Council.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the committee's objectives. Mr. Gebert stated staff has asked the
committee to consider and provide input regarding funding options to assist staff in making a
recommendation to the Council during the 2006 budget cycle.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 2
Councilmember Moore inquired about the committee's reporting schedule to staff and to the Council.
Mr. Gebert advised specific rules /procedures had not yet been established. Councilmember Moore
commented this was a great committee and she commended staff and the Mayor for organizing it..
Crosswalk 4. AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT FOR BIDS FOR THE CROSSWALK PAVER RENOVATION
Paver PROJECT AT THE 5TH AVENUE SOUTH / MAIN STREET AND 5TH AVENUE SOUTH /
Renovation DAYTON STREET INTERSECTIONS.
Public Works Director Noel Miller reported the replacement of the deteriorating concrete paver
crosswalks at the 5th Avenue South & Main Street and 5th Avenue South & Dayton Street intersections
was reviewed at the April 12 Finance Committee meeting. Since that time staff has reviewed three
crosswalk replacement treatment options with the Downtown Merchants Association and Cultural
Services Manager Frances Chapin and the project has been designed and is ready to be advertised. As the
project currently exists, additional funding is required to proceed to secure bids.
Mr. Miller displayed photographs of the existing conditions, explaining a number of areas within the
existing crosswalks have settled and are uneven. Settling was caused primarily by the sand bed beneath
the pavers migrating out during rainy conditions as well as heavy bus and truck traffic in the area. The
settling has created an uneven walking surface for pedestrians. He described the three options staff
considered for replacement, 1) replace in -kind with the existing concrete pavers, 2) use cast -in -place
concrete and stamping the wet concrete with a brick pattern, and 3) use asphalt and stamp with a brick
pattern (not recommended as the asphalt color wears quickly).
Mr. Miller explained the project goal was to restore the intersections to their original appearance when
constructed in 1991. He displayed a photograph of the red brick pattern with a white border identifying
the edge of the crosswalk. He compared the concrete pavers and stamped concrete:
Options
Cost
Life Expectancy
Time to Construct
Stamped Concrete
$100,000
50 years
4 weeks
Pavers
$ 84,300
12 -15 years
3 weeks
Mr. Miller advised $25,000 was currently budgeted for this project in the 112 Fund. He explained via this
project, the broken concrete curbs would be replaced, the entire intersection at 5th Avenue South &
Dayton would be repaved, care would be taken at the 5th Avenue South & Main intersection not to disturb
the concrete artwork, and pedestrian routes would be kept open during construction.
Mr. Miller reviewed the project schedule that included advertising the project via the Small Works Roster
and receiving bids in early August, awarding the contract and constructing the project in mid to late
September. Staff recommends the stamped concrete option due to the life expectancy. An additional
$75,000 must be appropriated for the project; staff proposes using $42,000 in additional fuel taxes with
the remainder from Fund 111.
Councilmember Moore inquired whether Community Transit had been notified that a route change would
be necessary when the road was closed to traffic. Mr. Miller assured they would be.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN CROSSWALK PAVER
RENOVATION PROJECT AT THE 5TH AVENUE SOUTH /MAIN STREET AND 5TH AVENUE
SOUTH/DAYTON STREET INTERSECTIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 3
JEsperance 15. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ESPERANCE ISLAND ANNEXATION. THE CITY COUNCIL
Island WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO THE POSSIBLE
Annexation
I_11►1►1D►INI[171`[17 a 1: 1 a N910 1/1 10 1Y211 61 1 1 01 001 N01tXVY9117 _\.791_IIT0Oki99171014
Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled on June 21, the Council voted to proceed with
annexation of the Esperance Island via the election method. Before proceeding with that action, the
Council requested a public hearing be scheduled.
Mr. Bowman explained the annexation via an election method required only a majority vote. If a ballot
issue was also included regarding the annexed area assuming the City's bonded indebtedness, a 60%
majority would be required. If after considering public testimony the Council chooses to proceed with the
election method annexation, the City Attorney should be directed to prepare the resolution to initiate the
election. If the Council chooses to include assumption of the City's bonded indebtedness on the ballot,
that should be incorporated into the resolution. Once the resolution was approved, it would be forwarded
to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board and following a 45 -day review period by the
Boundary Review Board, Snohomish County would establish when the election would occur. He noted it
would be tight to make the November election.
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained all the pro formas to date have included
residents assuming the City's bonded indebtedness. He estimated the cost to a property valued at
$300,000 was $52 per year. Mayor Haakenson clarified the annexation calculator on the website included
the assumption of bonded indebtedness.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Clements advised the bonded indebtedness was for the Public Safety
bonds.
Councilmember Moore asked the cost of a special election if the ballot measure did not meet the deadline
for the November election. Mr. Clements answered the previous figure he provided of $60,000 was for a
citywide election. The auditor's office has estimated the cost of a special election at $3 - $11 per vote
depending on the election. He was confident the cost of a special election would be less than $10,000. If
combined with a November election, the cost would range from $5,000 - $6,000. He advised he was told
that a mail -in vote would be more expensive and Snohomish County would prefer it be conducted at the
polls rather than a mail -in ballot for one issue.
Councilmember Dawson referred to Councilmember Orvis' suggestion for an election regarding building
heights, asking whether a citywide election would lower the cost. Mr. Clements answered it would
depend on when it was held, whether it was at the general election in November or a special election with
another issue.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council
received two correspondences, one from Gordon and Joanne Boyles who indicated they were in favor of
annexation, and another from J. H. Brown who indicated he was opposed to annexation. Mayor
Haakenson suggested speakers provide the reasons they were in favor of or opposed to annexation.
Steve Koho, 8422 221s' Place SW, Edmonds, commented the Growth Management Act (GMA) was
having exactly the intended result— an isolated pocket of Snohomish County had been abandoned by the
county in hopes the local city would provide the services citizens require. He requested the Council
pursue annexation as it was the only way Esperance residents would receive basic services. To the
Esperance residents opposed to annexation, he suggested the existing situation could only get worse, and
in light of their budget deficit, Snohomish County had the motivation to provide fewer services to
continue sending resources to areas of the county with growing populations. The result would be citizens
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 4
would eventually vote to annex to a neighboring city if the situation in Esperance got bad enough. During
this time, the County would continue to collect tax revenue for services it did not provide. He expressed
frustration with the existing situation including a large puddle that formed at the end of his street during
rains that blocked access and weeds growing through the asphalt in front his home. He recalled at a
recent open house in Esperance, the only response Esperance residents gave for not wanting to annex to
Edmonds was that Edmonds would not let their chickens run free. He urged the Council to proceed with
annexation to fulfill the intent of GMA.
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council also received an email from Carol Riddell who was in favor of
annexation.
Amy Williams, 22722 88th Avenue W, Edmonds, who resides on property that has been in her family
for 65 years, expressed opposition to annexation. She explained the house she previously lived in that is
in Edmonds was now an apartment building. She referred to the large lots in Esperance, and expressed
concern that her land and /or land around her house would be developed into condominium or multi -unit
housing. She was satisfied with services received from Snohomish County and was opposed to
annexation.
Terry Trout, 221.09 86th Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to the estimated $150,000- $155,000 per mile
cost to repair six miles of roads in Esperance for a total of $930,000. Assuming the annexation generated
an operating surplus of $600,000, he questioned the source of the $330,000 shortfall. He questioned the
rationale for the 6% increase or $460,000 the Police Department indicated they would require to police
the Esperance area. He concluded Edmonds needed to retain the taxes the City collected as there were
numerous existing projects that needed funding. If the City annexed the Esperance area, the Council
would need to provide funding for projects in that area. He was opposed to annexation and in favor of
existing Edmonds residents.
Larry Wilson, 8707 228th Street SW, Edmonds, spoke in favor of annexation to provide Esperance
improved police protection. He noted there were 1 to 2 Sheriff's officers covering the southeastern .
unincorporated areas of Snohomish County. He recalled when a neighbor was involved in an accident a
few years ago, an officer did not interview them until three days later.
Leonard Banks, 8633 Maple Lane, Edmonds, commented they have lived in Esperance for 37 years
and every time annexation has been proposed, they have supported it and continue to support it. He
expressed concern with public safety, pointing out the amount of development occurring everywhere, not
just in Edmonds, Esperance and Snohomish County but also in King County and Shoreline. Blockwatch
Captains since 1999, their home was not in a high crime area; however, he knew of instances where the
police were called and the Snohomish County Sheriff's office could not respond unless it was an
imminent, life- threatening situation. He noted in the event of an imminent life- threatening situation, it
was the Edmonds Police Department that responded and Edmonds already provided fire protection to the
area. He asked how many registered sex offenders lived in the Esperance area, how they were monitored
and accounted for, and how this public safety concern would be addressed/improved via annexation.
Mayor Haakenson invited anyone who had a question but did not wish to speak to provide their question
to staff.
Jerry Helman, 8511 228th SW, Edmonds, a 35 -year resident of Esperance, expressed his opposition to
annexation. He recalled annexation of the area has been voted down in the past. He questioned whether
the Interlocal. Agreement process would take annexation out of the voters' hands. He acknowledged
someday Esperance may be annexed but he preferred it occur because a majority of Esperance residents
supported it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 5
Vic Schultz, 8305 224th SW, Edmonds, expressed his opposition to annexation. He recalled when his
family originally moved to their home in the Esperance area and their ongoing enjoyment of the
wonderful community. He was opposed to another layer of government, commenting new rules were
often ambiguous, duplicative and unnecessary. He acknowledged there were some problems in the
Esperance area although not insurmountable, most were the result of over- zealous efforts to increase
density. He commented on residents' efforts to develop a park and address surface water
treatment/control. He commented on the former volunteer Fire Department that provided fire protection
to the area and the road conditions that he estimated were better than within the City of Edmonds. He
urged the Council to allow Esperance to remain as it is, noting as the population increased, the time would
come for annexation but it was not time yet.
Mark Daniels, 8614 238th St SW, Edmonds, commented when he moved to his current residence, it was
not within the City limits and when annexation was proposed residents voted it down. However, the City
circumvented the wishes of the residents and annexed the area via attaining the approval of a percentage
of property values. Thus his first experience as an Edmonds resident was negative and since that time, he
had not seen any improvement in the service. He pointed out Esperance was an island because Edmonds
has annexed surrounding area in an illogical manner via annexation of small neighborhoods leaving this
area isolated. He summarized residents' taxes would increase and it was unlikely there would be
improvements. He commented the property taxes were about the same but the increase utility taxes
increased taxes overall. He did not recommend annexation.
Peggi LaPlante, 7717 224th St SW, Edmonds, commented the annexation appeared to be financially
motivated — income for the City from property and utility taxes and business revenue from future
development along Hwy. 99 as well as assistance with repayment of bonded indebtedness. She referred
to Snohomish County records that indicated Esperance was a low crime area; in her experience, the
Sheriff's response to emergency and non - emergency issues has been appropriate and there was no
assurance the City would provide any increased level of service. She pointed out that as long as growth in
the Esperance area was discouraged, it would continue to be a low crime, low risk area. She shared
reasons for opposition including that Edmonds' vision for growth was not in line with Esperance
residents' vision, a lack of leadership and listening skills, a lack of follow- through, and reports from
friends /relatives in outlying areas of Edmonds of their dissatisfaction with the services the City offers and
responsiveness to their neighborhoods. She urged the Council not to waste the $11,000 cost of an
election and allow Esperance residents to continue to live in Snohomish County, pay their taxes to the
County and have their services provided by the County.
Jeff Ward, 22608 84th Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed his strong support for annexation. He described
moving into the Esperance area four years ago, believing they were in Edmonds. He asserted Snohomish
County viewed the area as an island and were not raising any opposition to annexation. Edmonds could
offer a sense of community that was lacking in Esperance. He commented services provided by
Snohomish County would only get less as the area was only a small representation of the County. He
relayed their experience when a neighbor saw their house being broken into and it took the Sheriff 20
minutes to reach their home. He encouraged the Council to continue pursuing annexation.
Vita Lobelle, 22424 77th Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to the view Councilmember Dawson had from
her home on 12th Avenue NW, a view many Esperance residents also enjoyed before a 150 -foot monopole
was erected that destroyed their views. She noted although residents pleaded with the City not to erect
the pole, it was uncaringly accomplished anyway even though there are many other locations for the
monopole such as adjacent to commercial property. She concluded this experience destroyed Esperance
residents' confidence in the City. She referred to comments during the last meeting regarding the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 6
importance for Edmonds to get the Hwy. 99 property; however, there was no indication of the benefit
Esperance residents would receive from development of the Hwy. 99 corridor.
Terry Erickson, 222nd SW, Edmonds, commented Esperance residents liked things the way they were,
and the main reason they did not want to annex was the potential for increased development.
Eric Larson, 22217 82nd Place W, Edmonds, commented he was not fond of politicians and their lies
and he hated to pay more taxes that were wasted more than they were already. He commented on the
City's regulations against chickens and banning fireworks. He questioned why the City continued to
pursue annexation when Esperance residents have been saying no for years. He summarized if there was
a way he could stop annexation he would.
Gianpietro Migla, 22424 77th Avenue W, Edmonds, was opposed to annexation. He described his
experience with the Sheriff's office, both times they arrived within 15 -20 minutes. He commented the
150 -foot monopole reminded him daily what Edmonds provided. Although many of the statements
supporting annexation sounded good such as increased police protection, in his opinion the City already
had its hands full. He urged the Council to be sure they could deliver before they made promises.
Greg Braun, 22207 90th Place W, Edmonds, previously a resident of the Firdale neighborhood,
explained when he had an opportunity to purchase a home, he bought one in Esperance. He said
Esperance residents do not want to be annexed, they get the services they want from Snohomish County.
He suggested residents who wanted to live in Edmonds should sell their homes and move to Edmonds.
He commented there was more sense of community in Esperance before it was surrounded by Edmonds.
Michael Luke, Mike's Deli -Mart, Edmonds, referred to comments that the residents of Esperance
received services from Edmonds for free; pointing out Esperance residents contributed tax revenue to
Edmonds via shopping and /or visiting restaurants in the City.
Bill Strickland, 22224 82nd Place W, Edmonds, explained he and his neighbors live on large lots and he
was concerned with the potential for development if the area were annexed. He commented development
including condominiums and apartments has occurred everywhere in Edmonds. He was opposed to
annexation.
Stephanie Harris, 8523 224th Street SW, Edmonds, a property owner in Esperance for 32 years, wanted
the area to remain as Esperance. She referred to the Council minutes, noting it appeared the primary
reason the City wanted to annex. Esperance was the $300,000 in tax revenues. She commented on the
City's 70 year overlay cycle and Snohomish County's 30 -year cycle. She referred to the tree removal that
occurred on the Unocal property, relaying her understanding that there were Councilmembers who saw it
happening and did nothing. She summarized she would always oppose annexation although she shopped
in Edmonds. As Edmonds residents could have only five pets and she already owned two cats, one dog
and two fish, she asked whether she could get more fish if the area were annexed. She concluded it was
the financial aspect of annexation that concerned her most; it appeared the City needed Esperance but
Esperance did not need the City and did not want to assume the bonded indebtedness.
Gwen Strickland, 22224 84th Street W, Edmonds, spoke against annexation, pointing out the
tremendous cost of rectifying flooding from a creek that occurs at the bottom of their street. She pointed
out the impact that increased development has on flooding because the area is a peat bog. She had not
experienced any problem with police response and surmised the reason some people may experience
delays in police response was because their calls were inconsequential.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 7
Kelly Mueller, 22728 84th Avenue W, Edmonds, commented until their house was broken into last
month she did not feel one way or another about annexation. She acknowledged the Snohomish County
Sheriff tried to do as much as they could, however, they did not have adequate resources. She preferred
to have police protection provided by the Edmonds Police Department.
Bob Gregory, 7609 224`" Street SW, Edmonds, questioned how GMA would affect their area and
whether more police protection would be necessary. He was happy with the Esperance community,
commenting Edmonds had an awesome 4th of July parade, but Esperance had an awesome Easter egg
hunt. Mayor Haakenson commented Edmonds also had an awesome Easter egg hunt.
Shawn O'Donnell, 22716 86th Place W, Edmonds, commented when he moved into the Esperance area
26 years ago, he evaluated the area and the character of the neighborhood and found there was a sense of
community. He was opposed to annexation and in his experience, Snohomish County has provided
adequate services including the Sheriff's office, animal control, roadway maintenance, and surface water
drainage.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowman read a question provided by an audience member regarding comments by two people in the
latest Edmonds Beacon that the City failed to deal with a fireworks problem on July 4t''. Mayor
Haakenson advised anyone with concern regarding fireworks should call 911; it was unclear from the
letters whether 911 had been called.
In response to questions /comments regarding increased development, Mr. Bowman explained Snohomish
County classifies the Esperance area as urban medium density, 6 -12 dwelling units per acre which has
resulted in the low density multiple residential rezones that are occurring in that area, a potential that
existed today for any oversized lot in the Esperance area. Upon annexation, the area would be zoned the
most comparable zoning, the predominate zoning in the Esperance area is 8400 which corresponds to a
comparable Edmonds zoning of RS -8. The commercial areas would be zoned comparable to Snohomish
County commercial zoning. The existing multi family areas would also be zoned comparably.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether a property owner with a lot zoned 8400 today could develop it multi
family upon annexation. Mr. Bowman answered no.
With regard to the $330,000 for road improvements, Mr. Bowman answered it was envisioned that cost
would be paid using revenues generated in the Esperance annexation area.
With regard to the Interlocal Agreement, Mr. Bowman clarified the Council was not pursuing annexation
via the Interlocal Agreement process, and had instead expressed their support for the election method.
With regard to the monopole, Mr. Bowman explained it was a quasi judicial decision. The City must
make provisions for allowing such uses and the City's code allows monopoles on the General
Commercial zoned properties such as where the monopole was sited. As long as the monopole complied
with the City's regulations, it must be allowed to be sited. Mayor Haakenson inquired why the City must
allow the monopole. Mr. Bowman answered zoning as well as case law allowed property owners to
develop their land consistent with land use regulations and the federal government mandates that
jurisdictions provide for such uses.
In response to the inquiry regarding number of pets, City Attorney Scott Snyder read from the zoning
code. A resident was allowed to have five domestic animals such as cats and dogs and as many mice,
hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, non - venomous snakes, birds, reptiles and fish as are normally associated
with a house of that size.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 8
With regard to Hwy. 99, Mr. Bowman explained the City has studied that area and was applying for
grants to improve pedestrian safety and signalization. He pointed out there was no way for a pedestrian to
cross Hwy. 99 between approximately 228th and 238th
Mayor Haakenson asked staff to respond to comments regarding chickens. Mr. Bowman acknowledged
the City did not allow chickens, however, for a resident that had chickens and had established the use
under Snohomish County, the chickens were a non - conforming use that could continue.
Mayor Haakenson referred to a comment regarding the City annexing small portions of Esperance,
recalling a vote in the late 1990s that resulted in annexation of some areas of Esperance. He asked
whether these annexations occurred as a result of the City pursuing annexation or the residents of those
neighborhoods requesting to be annexed. Mr. Bowman advised the Firdale area was annexed in 1997 via
the election method. Small annexations have occurred over time via the petition method. He explained
the petition method requires a majority of the property owners to petition the City for annexation and
requires that their properties be contiguous to the City's boundaries. Should the Council make a decision
not to pursue annexation via the election method, he explained neighborhoods contiguous to the City
could pursue the petition method of annexation.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Bowman explained that under Snohomish County regulations, a duplex
could be constructed on a property 1% times the basic zoning. Councilmember Orvis observed a duplex
could be constructed on a 12,600 square foot lot, however, in Edmonds, only one house would be
allowed.
Council President Marin asked whether the monopole could have been built in Snohomish County. Mr.
Bowman responded he did not quote Snohomish County regulations. Mayor Haakenson asked whether
the monopole could have been a smaller antenna atop Olympic View's water tank if they would have
allowed it. Mr. Bowman answered it was possible.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to describe how Esperance residents could benefit from the City
annexing the property on Hwy. 99. Mr. Bowman answered annexing that area would facilitate a
consistent pattern for development of the Hwy. 99 corridor and increased revenue from development on
Hwy. 99 would benefit residents. He referred to the area developing as an International District as an
example.
Councilmember Plunkett commented it was his understanding that Esperance residents contacted the
Mayor and staff requesting that the Council consider annexation. Mayor Haakenson agreed.
Council President Marin asked staff to describe the intent of the focus groups held by the Hwy. 99 Task
Force. Mr. Bowman explained the intent of the focus groups was to talk to commercial property owners
as well as residents in the area. Feedback from residents included a desire for services that the
neighborhood could walk to as well as an ability to cross Hwy. 99, particularly in the Esperance area due
to the current lack of controlled access points across the highway between 228th and 238th
Councilmember Olson asked staff to respond to the comment regarding the trees cut on the Unocal
property. Mr. Bowman explained the trees, located on private property, were cut in violation of the
arborist's report for that development. The report determined most of the trees on the hillside suffered
from disease and the arborist plan outlined a specific method for removing the trees which the developer
violated via the removal of the trees. The City brought action against the developer who subsequently
paid a substantial fine and were required to replant the hillside and adhere to monitoring and annual
maintenance. Councilmember Olson noted there are no restrictions on the heights of the replanted trees.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 9
Mayor Haakenson asked whether anyone connected with City government watched the trees being cut
and did nothing. Mr. Bowman answered no.
In response to a comment that many existing residents were dissatisfied with the services provided by the
City, Mayor Haakenson invited any resident who was dissatisfied with any service they received from the
City to call him or any Councilmember.
Mayor Haakenson provided assurance that he wanted Esperance residents to be part of the City and
believed the City could protect their quality of life, could protect their zoning likely better than
Snohomish County, and could provide better customer service for a lower cost than residents were
currently receiving. He disagreed there was any subversive plot to take all the Esperance residents'
property taxes, emphasizing the City's interest in having Esperance as part of the City. He summarized
the reason the Council wanted to have a vote was to allow residents to determine whether or not they
wanted to be annexed.
Council President Marin inquired about including or excluding assumption of bonded indebtedness on the
ballot. Mr. Clements answered there would be two separate ballot measures, annexation and assumption
of bonded indebtedness. He commented if the annexation vote were approved and the assumption of
bonded indebtedness were not, the Council would make a decision whether to accept the annexation
without assumption of the bonded indebtedness. He noted the Firdale annexation was approved without
the residents' assumption of bonded indebtedness.
Councilmember Dawson questioned why an Esperance resident would vote in favor of assuming bonded
indebtedness if they did not have to in order to be annexed. Mayor Haakenson recalled in 1997 several
parts of Esperance voted to accept the bonded indebtedness. Councilmember Dawson asked whether that
was with the caveat that the Council would not approve the annexation if residents did not approve
assumption of the bonded indebtedness. Mayor Haakenson clarified there were two separate ballot
measures and the Council voted to accept the annexation without assumption of bonded indebtedness.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether two separate ballot measures were required. Mr. Clements
responded if the Council decided not to require assumption of the bonded indebtedness, that could be
omitted from the ballot. Councilmember Dawson questioned whether the Council should advise residents
up front whether they would accept annexation if they did not approve assumption of bonded
indebtedness. Mr. Bowman advised if the Council planned to have assumption of bonded indebtedness
on the ballot, it must be included in the resolution to initiate annexation. If annexation and assumption of
bonded indebtedness were combined in one ballot measure, a 60% majority would be required.
Councilmember Dawson asked if residents approved annexation but not assumption of bonded
indebtedness, could the Council decline the annexation. Mr. Bowman answered yes. She asked whether
the Council could decline the annexation if the residents voted in favor of annexation and assumption of
bonded indebtedness. Mr. Snyder advised the Council would make the final determination regarding
annexation. He suggested if the Council agreed the only way they would annex the area was with the
assumption of bonded indebtedness, that was how the ballot measure should be structured. If the Council
wanted to keep their options open and make that decision following the election, he suggested two
separate ballot measures.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OFFERING ANNEXATION
VIA THE ELECTION METHOD WITH ANNEXATION AND ASSUMPTION OF BONDED
INDEBTEDNESS AS SEPARATE BALLOT MEASURES.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 10
Councilmember Plunkett commented he did not care whether Esperance was annexed into the City but he
did care about giving residents who contacted the City an opportunity to be annexed. He also supported
allowing those opposed to annexation an opportunity to solicit their neighbors to vote against annexation.
He summarized the majority would decide.
Councilmember Moore agreed it was important to allow residents to vote on annexation as there were
residents with strong feelings on both sides. To avoid misinformation, she encouraged residents to access
the information on the City's website and to utilize the annexation calculator. In her opinion, the City
could offer Esperance residents less development, lower taxes, benefits from improvements on Hwy. 99,
and potentially return their taxes to the area via road improvements.
Council President Marin commented he viewed residents of all the neighborhoods in the City including
Esperance as part of the community and he was eager to have Esperance residents join the City. He
explained the Hwy. 99 Task Force was interested in improvements on Hwy. 99 to benefit the City as well
as nearby residents. He recalled the systematic process via the focus groups to solicit input from residents
within a three block radius included Esperance residents. He encouraged Esperance residents to support
annexation whether or not they supported assuming bonded indebtedness.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her appreciation for the Council's decision to pursue annexation via
the election method, commenting annexation via the Interlocal Agreement method forced the issue and
did not allow residents to express their feelings. She supported allowing Esperance residents to decide
whether to annex into the City, noting annexation would benefit residents of Esperance, particularly
delivery of public safety services. She pointed out when Esperance residents called 911 with an
emergency, the first responder was likely Edmonds Police Department. She was uncertain what her
feeling regarding annexation would be if the residents did not vote to approve the bonded indebtedness,
commenting their not assuming the City's bonded indebtedness was unfair to existing residents.
Councilmember Olson expressed her support for the motion, commenting an election would allow the
residents to choose whether they wanted to be annexed. She pointed out if Esperance were annexed,
residents would only need to come to Edmonds to talk to City officials instead of going to Everett.
Councilmember Orvis commented annexation was a good idea but should only occur if the residents of
Esperance supported it.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Design 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT WOULD APPLY TO
Guidelines
COMMERCIAL AND MULTI FAMILY BUILDINGS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WITH
SEPARATE GUIDELINES FOR BUILDINGS IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL AREA.
THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES CODE AMENDMENTS FOR SITE DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE
STANDARDS, AS WELL AS GUIDELINES FOR BUILDING DESIGN. THE DESIGN REVIEW
PROCESS WOULD ALSO BE UPDATED TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Design Guidelines were originally drafted through the
Planning Board using a consultant and forwarded to the Council. The Council at this time has been
reviewing the Guidelines with the intent of adoption. The difference this time is the old Design
Guidelines chapters regarding building form and building facades were collapsed into a Building
Guidelines section that incorporated many of Mr. Hinshaw's suggestions. The site guidelines are
basically intact as forwarded by the Planning Board but were separated into two sections, one regarding
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page l I
downtown and a second regarding other parts of the City. From staff's point of view, there was adequate
differentiation between zones as well as adequate flexibility in the Guidelines.
Mr. Chave suggested the Council would need to discuss the process in further detail; the process
originally recommended by the Planning Board was for major projects (projects requiring SEPA review)
to be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) as they are today. The difference is that all
other projects would be staff decisions. He referred to a suggestion submitted by Councilmember Wilson
that consideration be given to a different process for Hwy. 99 projects. The process recommended by the
Planning Board also did not include Council review of any projects, the only review by the Council
would be for public projects. Appeals on staff decisions or ADB decisions would be to the Hearing
Examiner or court rather than to Council.
Mr. Chave advised staff was seeking Council input regarding the Design Guidelines. Following public
comment tonight, staff would incorporate suggestions from the public and the Council and return the
Guidelines to the Council for review next week.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Pat Marker, 233 4th Avenue N, Edmonds, advised his property was currently zoned BC; the proposal to
change one block of 4th Avenue N between Bell Street and Edmonds Street to a Conservation Zone would
also restrict building heights to 25 feet. He advised the current height limit in the BC zone was 25 feet
plus an additional five feet for modulation which has resulted in many buildings that are 30 feet in height.
The proposed zoning surrounding this area would remain BC and only the one block would be
Conservation. He pointed out the possibility that the height limit in the BC zone being increased to 33
feet, yet the maximum height in the Conservation zone would be 25 feet. He concluded via this proposal,
their property would be down sized, adversely affecting his property's value. He expressed his opposition
to the Conservation zone on 4th Avenue North.
Councilmember Dawson commented that issue would be discussed next week and although the Council
would consider Mr. Marker's comments, he may want to attend next week's Council meeting as well.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out Council consideration next week was not a public hearing, therefore, the
public would need to speak under Audience Comments.
Joan Bloom, 600 8th Avenue N, Edmonds, inquired how one could obtain the draft map that identified
the proposed heights for the downtown area. Mayor Haakenson suggested she confer with Mr. Bowman
and Mr. Chave.
Tony Shapiro, 18105 Sunset Way, Edmonds, noted he was an architect and commented it was
everyone's objective to attain an interesting inspiring downtown that was quaint and had lively retail.
After reviewing the proposed Guidelines as well as Guidelines utilized in other jurisdictions, he found the
proposed Guidelines were not the best way to attain the objectives. The Guidelines created commonality
among structures, shaving the peaks of a good and bad architecture, resulting in a mundane middle. He
found the Guidelines did not provide adequate flexibility for alternate design motifs. Although he tended
to adhere to more classical architecture, restricting architecture would limit creative solutions and result in
a monotonous downtown with little interest. He referred to the highly regulated architectural
environment at University Village where all aspects of design were regulated, noting cities could not
control projects to that extent. He suggested the proposed Guidelines approached that level of detail and
would stifle creativity and possibilities that otherwise might occur. Architecture was very trendy in the
way it evolved over time; Guidelines written today may fit the context of today's design, yet may not be
applicable in 5 -10 years and would require continuous modification. He suggested the Council consider
Lynnwood's Design Guidelines written by Mr. Hinshaw and governed by the Director of Community
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 12
Development. He preferred Edmonds' review by the ADB and supported appeal to the Council rather
than court.
David Dwyer, 18709 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, expressed concern with incentives via Guidelines
allowing a third story. He referred to the devastating impact a third story could have on views, displaying
photographs illustrating the view over the Bob Gregg building, currently under construction at two stories
and the view blockage when constructed to three stories. He recommended the Design Guidelines be
written to promote 2 -story development in the BC zone to retain views for the neighborhoods behind.
Strom Peterson, 9110 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, agreed the Guidelines needed to be considered
as guidelines and not mandates, pointing out architecture was a living, breathing thing and change would
happen. He supported steering architecture toward a certain look and feel to retain the existing great
downtown Edmonds via proper guidance from the Council, staff, and residents. He encouraged the
Council to move forward with the Guidelines, keeping in mind this was one small step toward a broader
vision for Edmonds.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented he had attended many Planning Board
meetings, meetings with the consultant and the joint meeting with the ADB. He commented unless the
Council read the Guidelines and had a complete explanation, the Guidelines would be difficult for the
Council to understand. He questioned the elimination of the objections regarding signage in Section
20.11.140. He recalled at the June 28 meeting, the Council discussed a number of issues that arose at the
last minute such as decorative signage, lighting and awnings. These issues need further review by the
Planning Board. He also referred to the massing section for multi family and mixed use projects that
addressed buildings of 10,000 square feet and above and questioned whether the Council understood the
size of such of a building. He suggested staff apply the massing section of the proposed Guidelines to a
building such as the Bob Gregg building. He concluded the simplest answer to the height issue was to
return to the old method of calculating heights — 25 feet plus 5 additional feet for a pitched roof.
Rowena Miller, 8711 182 °a Place SW, Edmonds, pointed out all the photographs in Part 1 of the
Guidelines for the downtown business district depicted 3 -story buildings, giving the appearance that 3-
story, 33 -36 foot buildings were a done deal. She referred to the July 13 Planning Board meeting where
20 different developers said they could not do anything without at least 33 foot and preferably 36 foot
building heights. She concluded the only good thing about the Design Guidelines was the inclusion of
many of Mr. Hinshaw's ideas such as providing choices for architectural features. She recommended the
Council refer to their notes from Mr. Hinshaw's presentation and follow his recommendation to retain the
precious downtown and the 25 -foot height limits.
Jack Jacobsen, 128 Sunset, Edmonds, commented there appeared to be a lot of controversy and a lot of
things changing that residents were not aware of. He preferred building heights remain at 25 feet as he
did not End any beauty in taller buildings.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Council President Marin asked staff to describe the process a project would go through to be approved
and the mechanism with the Design Guidelines in place that would allow staff to approve /deny a project.
Mr. Chave referred to the matrix in Exhibit 3 on page 6 of the Design Guidelines, explaining a project
that required SEPA review would be considered a major project and would require ADB review similar to
today's process. For projects that did not exceed the SEPA threshold, if the Design Guidelines were
followed, the decision could be made by staff with no notice required. A project that departed from the
Design Guidelines, such as proposing an alternative design, would require an ADB or staff process with
notice to property owners within 300 feet.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 13
Council President Marin asked who would make the decision on a project that adhered to the Design
Guidelines. Mr. Chave advised if there were no departures from the Guidelines and the project did not
require SEPA review, a Planner would review the project, most likely during the building permit stage
and approval would follow the standard building permit process. A larger project that required SEPA
review would also require ADB review. For a project that deviated from the Design Guidelines, in
exchange for that flexibility, public notice was required. Council. President Marin noted the Guidelines
would allow staff to approve many projects that did not depart from the Guidelines without further review
or notice. Mr. Chave provided examples such as minor additions or a small building that did not meet the
SEPA threshold.
Councilmember Dawson preferred appeals come to the Council. She agreed with Mr. Hertrich's
suggestion that it may be helpful for staff to provide examples of applying the Guidelines to recently
constructed buildings. She also agreed with Ms. Miller's observation that the illustrations in the proposed
Guidelines appeared to be 33 -foot or taller buildings. She pointed out this may be deceptive to developers
and give the impression that 3 -story buildings were acceptable. Many of the buildings depicted in the
photographs would not be allowed under the current height restrictions and she found it inappropriate to
have proposed Design Guidelines that illustrated buildings that she hoped would not be allowed in the
future. Mr. Chave commented the illustrations were provided by Mr. Hinshaw. Councilmember Dawson
questioned how the Council could approve Design Guidelines absent a height limit and /or the number of
building stories.
Councilmember Olson commented most of the people who participated in the special Planning Board
meeting were property owners, not developers. Mr. Chave clarified the Planning Board's meeting was
with property owners; some of the property owners are also developers.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern that the Architectural Design Board (ADB) worked on the
Design Guidelines five years ago and many members were unsure about them today. He relayed an ADB
member's comment that the attempt to amend the 5 -year old Design Guidelines with Mr. Hinshaw's input
created a mishmash. He relayed comments from the ADB that the Design Guidelines were unclear and
needed better definitions, commenting ADB members struggled with the "shoulds and shalls" in the
document. He questioned why the Council was being asked to approve the Guidelines when the
Comprehensive Plan had not yet been finalized? He summarized if the intent was for the Council to vote
on the Guidelines next week, he would not vote and preferred the Design Guidelines be returned to the
ADB to allow them an opportunity to provide input.
Crosswalk at Ginny Burger, 22910 102nd Place W, Edmonds, introduced Laura Caparroso, 21503 801h Avenue W,
216 Ave. W W. �` Edmonds who introduced her guide do Gemma. Ms. Burger explained Ms. Caparroso moved to
216' St. sw � g g g p p
Edmonds 8 months ago and in order to be independent, needed a safe crosswalk across 76`h Avenue West.
Ms. Caparroso described the route she takes to and from her home on 80th to Top Foods, requesting the
City install tactile domes on the north wheelchair ramp crossing at 216th Street SW and 76th Avenue West
to assist her in activating the pedestrian signal and safely crossing the street. She also requested the City
install an audio pedestrian signal on the 216`h Street SW crossing signal.
Mayor Haakenson read City Engineer Dave Gebert's response to Ms. Caparroso's letter that referred to
the loss of approximately $350,000 per year or 46% of the recurring annual revenues to the City's
transportation capital project program as a result of voter approval of 1 -766 in November 2002. This
resulted in a serious shortfall in the transportation capital projects fund (Fund 112) and insufficient funds
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 14
to accomplish many important and needed projects such as street overlays, sidewalks, walkways,
bikeways, signal and intersection improvements, traffic calming and ADA curb ramp improvements. The
2005 capital budget contains only $10,000 for ADA curb ramp improvements and no funding for
citywide signal improvements. Approximately $5,000 (of the $10,000) has been committed to date for an
ADA curb ramp near Sherwood Elementary School. The adopted 2005 -2010 CIP continues to program
this same level of funding for these projects through 2010.
Mr. Gebert's letter explained a product was available for installing truncated /detectable domes on existing
ADA curb ramps and staff is investigating whether this project would be suitable for the existing curb
ramps at the intersection of 76th Avenue W and 216th Street SW. If found suitable, the cost to install the
domes at this intersection would be approximately $4,000 (a typical intersection with eight curb ramps
would cost $8,000). If the product was not suitable, the estimated cost of removal and replacement of the
existing concrete curb ramps with new concrete curb ramps meeting WSDOT and ADA standards was
$20,000 - $25,000 for all the curb ramps at that intersection. The estimated cost to install audio
pedestrian signals at this intersection was approximately $4,000; insufficient funds are available to
replace existing outdated traffic signal controllers let alone upgrade to audio pedestrian signals. In
addition, the Public Works Director advised that WCIA should be consulted before installation of these
audio signals as there is some concern that having audible warning devices may increase the City's
liability exposure in a pedestrian accident since they are not 100% reliable. Staff will consult with WCIA
on this issue. There are numerous intersections throughout the City without curb ramps that meet current
ADA and WSDOT standards including at the high school parking lot off 216th west of this intersection.
Staff continues to investigate potential grant opportunities to address this and other pedestrian safety
project needs citywide.
If staff concludes the product for applying domes to the existing curb ramps is a suitable product and can
be installed within the budgeted funds, staff recommends proceeding with a project to install them. Funds
are not available in the adopted 2005 Fund 112 budget to install the requested audio pedestrian signal.
Until the Council provides additional funding for the transportation capital Fund 112, improvements such
as this audio pedestrian signal, curb ramp replacements, and many other needed projects cannot be
accomplished. Staff plans to recommend options to Council for additional revenue sources for Fund 112
in the 2006 budget process.
Planing Board Rowena Miller, 8711 182nd Place SW, Edmonds, concurred with Councilmember Olson's comment that special the 20 participants in the Planning Board's special meeting were downtown property owners , but many
Meeting with were also developers and architects. She commented all 20 agreed they needed higher ceiling and higher
Property
Owners building heights. She recalled comments from Bob Gregg who supported building heights above 33 feet
and said that people like her were special interest and should stop this political nonsense. Mr. Gregg also
said nothing would be developed in downtown Edmonds if the building heights were not increased. She
was concerned that the City invited developers to participate in a special Planning Board meeting where
they were allowed to speak without any time limits and encouraged the Council to ignore their comments.
resign Roger Hertrich,1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, suggested as the Council reviewed the Design Guidelines
Gnieciines they consider Section 20.10.025 which indicates in order to obtain a departure, an applicant must
demonstrate the intent and objectives of the Design guidelines are met and the project has provided other
design elements that mitigate the impacts of the departure. He encouraged the Council to carefully
review the Design Guidelines, paying particular attention to the "shoulds." Next, Mr. Hertrich questioned
how Councilmember Moore was able to make comments to the Planning Board regarding design,
commenting there was no introduction of her comments reflected on the agenda or in the minutes.
Design I Tony Shapiro, 18105 Sunset Way, Edmonds, observed most of the graphic examples in the Design
Guidelines Guidelines were illustrated as if on flat land. However, most of Edmonds was sloped and stepping retail
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2005
Page 15
was highly difficult. He concluded the Design Guidelines were simplistic and did not address the sloped
nature of downtown.
In response to Mr. Hertrich's question, Councilmember Moore advised she was invited by the Chair to
speak to the Planning Board.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Dawson explained several months of her emails had been inadvertently deleted; most
were old but there were some to which she had not yet responded. She invited anyone who sent her an
email and had not received a response to resend their email to her.
Councilmember Moore commented Councilmembers also may change email addresses. She suggested
the best way for the public to reach Councilmembers was via the Council's Executive Assistant Jana
Spellman or City Clerk Sandy Chase who would distribute the email to all Councilmembers.
Councilmember Moore congratulated the Mayor and Engineering Department staff for creating the
Citizens Advisory Transportation Committee.
Councilmember Moore encouraged Councilmembers and the public to listen to the audio recording of the
special Planning Board meeting, commenting it was helpful to hear comments from downtown property
owners.
Councilmember Olson expressed her appreciation to the Planning Board for inviting the property owners
to provide their opinions.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:49 p.m.
ALIA
• Y i.O• ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19,2005
Page 16
AGENDA
•
11111
.� EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
11 Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
JULY 19, 2005
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 July 5, 2005.
(C) Approval of claim checks #80783 through #80932 for the week of July 4, 2005,
in the amount of $167,706.35. Approval of claim checks #80933 through
#81079 for the week of July 11, 2005, in the amount of $285,915.86.* Approval
of payroll direct deposits and checks #41040 through #41174 for the period
June 16 through June 30, 2005, in the amount of $869,736.47. Approval of
payroll checks #41175 through #41207 for the period of July 6, 2005 through
July 6, 2005 in the amount of$8,455.91.
*Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Mark and Dawn Burgess
(amount undetermined).
(E) Authorization to purchase and install new play structure at Pine Street Park.
(F) Authorization to contract with James Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus City
vehicle.
(G) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor
Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
(H) Proposed Resolution ratifying the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. (Approved by the Community/Development Services
Committee on 7/12/05.)
3. (10 Min.) Introduction of members of the newly formed Citizens Advisory Transportation
Committee.
4. (10 Min.) Authorization to solicit for bids for the crosswalk paver renovation project at
the Stn Avenue South / Main Street and Stn Avenue South / Dayton Street
Intersections.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JULY 19, 2005
5. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on the Esperance Island Annexation. The City Council will take
public comment in support or opposition to the possible annexation of the
remaining unincorporated area of Esperance.
6. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on proposed Design Guidelines that would apply to commercial
and multi family buildings throughout the City, with separate guidelines for
buildings in the downtown commercial area. The proposal includes Code
amendments for site design and landscape standards, as well as guidelines for
building design. The design review process would also be updated to .
implement the new Design Guidelines.
7. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda 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.
Page 2 of 2