12/06/2005 City CouncilDecember 6, 2005
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a legal matter, the Edmonds
City Council meeting was called to order at 7:06 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
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Steven Landry, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Al Compaan, Assistant Police 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
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Change to
Agenda COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, WITH AGENDA ITEM #3 OCCURRING WHEN STUDENT
REPRESENTATIVE LANDRY ARRIVED. MOTION CARRIED
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Wilson requested Item K be removed from the Consent Agenda so that he could abstain
from the vote.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Approve (A) ROLL CALL
11/29/05
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 29, 2005.
Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #84045 THROUGH #84217 FOR THE WEEK OF
Checks NOVEMBER 28, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $304,984.92.
Claim for I (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LARRY WILCYNSKI
Damages ($240.47), SCOTT SCHRIEBER ($504.29), AND AVALON AT EDMONDS
CONDOMINIUMS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION ($15,000.00).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 1
MEBT Plan
Restatement (E) APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' BENEFIT TRUST (MEBT) PLAN
RESTATEMENT, EFFECTIVE DATE 1- I. -06.
Recycling I (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Coordinator BETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR JOINT
FUNDING OF THE RECYCLING COORDINATOR.
Chattel Deed— (G) COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF CHATTEL DEED QUIT CLAIMING TO THE CITY OF
Stormwater EDMONDS OWNERSHIP OF A STORMWATER LINE BY THE VISTA DEL MAR
11-inc
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION.
Sr. Executive
Council Asst. (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR
Employment
Contract SENIOR EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ASSISTANT JANA SPELLMAN.
Collection (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM TO THE STATE CONTRACT
`4get1Oy #04198 FOR COLLECTION AGENCY SERVICES WITH ALLIANCEONE
Services RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC.
Resg 1112 (J) RESOLUTION NO. 1112 THANKING STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE STEVEN
Thanking
Student Rep. LANDRY FOR HIS SERVICE AS A STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE.
Resg 1113 ITEM K: PROPOSED RESOLUTION THANKING COUNCILMEMBER JEFF WILSON FOR HIS
Thanking
Councilmember SERVICE ON THE CITY COUNCIL
Wilson
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
(K) RESOLUTION NO. 1113 THANKING COUNCILMEMBER JEFF WILSON FOR HIS
SERVICE ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
Closed Record 4. CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON THE CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF A
Review—
Property at Ixx CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION BY DON DREW PROPERTY OWNER AND ED LEE OF
Sunset Ave. THE HOTEL GROUP FOR A CONTRACT REZONE MASTER -PLAN APPROVAL AND
DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1XX SUNSET AVENUE NORTH. THE
CONTRACT REZONE REQUEST SEEKS TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RS -6 TO
MASTER - PLANNED OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL (MPOR) TIED TO A MASTER -PLAN AND
DESIGN REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR A 2 -STORY OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
WITH A BASEMENT PARKING GARAGE.
Couneilmember Wilson recused himself from participating in the discussion on this item and left the
building.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this item was required due to a mistaken response he provided the
Council following their vote on a motion to approve the application in which the Council voted 3 -3. As
he indicated at the time, the motion did not pass; however, in response to a question regarding what that
meant, he responded it was over. Upon further review the next day, he determined under Regulatory
Reform and the Planning Enabling Act, the City must announce a final decision on a case, base the
decision on the record of the proceedings, and render written Findings and Conclusions. Although a
motion to approve was not passed, no other decision was made.
Mr. Snyder described other options available to the Council including motions to remand, deny, or
conditionally approve. He noted either a remand or conditioned approval would likely result in a further
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 2
proceeding before the Planning Board. Because the record did not reflect a final decision, he
recommended the Council continue their deliberation and review other potential avenues to reach a
decision. If the Council was unable to reach a decision, a parliamentary impasse could be declared and
Findings would be prepared that reflected the state of the application and the Council's relative positions.
With regard to how a motion to reconsider applied to a decision that was not approved, his opinion was
all motions were in order because no decision had been made. Under Roberts Rules of Orders, the Chair
would make a ruling; in the event a motion was made and challenged, the Chair's ruling stood unless
overturned by a majority of the Council.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the ex parte contacts, emails and letters contained in the packet needed
to be read or noted. Mr. Snyder recommended they be noted for the record, advising they would be
included in their entirety in the record of the proceeding. He advised all written materials were available
for the public's review. He recommended Councilmembers disclose any other ex parte contact at this
time.
Noting this was a continued quasi judicial matter, Mayor Haakenson asked whether any Councilmembers
had any ex parte contact or conflicts to disclose. Councilmember Plunkett advised in addition to the
emails /letters in the packet, he had a conversation with Councilmember Orvis regarding procedure, the
reconsideration and Mr. Snyder's advice, but they did not discuss the substance of the matter.
Councilmember Dawson advised she had a brief conversation with Councilmember Plunkett regarding
procedures before they agreed they should not discuss it further.
Councilmember Orvis disclosed the conversation with Councilmember Plunkett and Councilmember
Dawson regarding procedure. Councilmember Orvis advised of a meeting with John Reed on another
matter, advising when the conversation veered into the Sunset issue, he stopped the conversation.
Mayor Haakenson asked Councilmembers Plunkett, Orvis or Dawson whether they could make a fair and
impartial decision. Councilmembers Plunkett, Orvis and Dawson answered they could.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether any parties of record had any challenges to the participation of
Councilmembers Plunkett, Orvis or Dawson. There were no challenges voiced.
Mayor Haakenson referred to a letter from Mr. Bissell challenging Councilmember Orvis' participation.
John Bissell, Higa Burkholder Associates, Everett, advised it came to his attention during the last week
that Councilmember Orvis wrote a letter to the editor, published October 27, 2005, describing his
concerns with a number of Comprehensive Plan issues and the project on Sunset Avenue and advising
voters if they voted for Mr. Wambolt these issues could be overturned. Mr. Bissell asserted this was a
conclusion of opposition to a project after the application had been made but prior to the hearing. He
noted Councilmember Orvis' letter was written after the MPOR zone was approved, therefore, could not
have been related to the legislative issue of the MPOR zone or the Comprehensive Plan which was also
approved prior to his letter.
Mr. Bissell summarized the only conclusion a reasonable person could make was that Councilmember
Orvis had determined any project within the MPOR zone would be inappropriate and should be denied.
Because Councilmember Orvis had already decided the issue prior to hearing the facts at the hearing, Mr.
Bissell questioned his ability to make a fair and impartial judgment in the matter. He noted the RCWs
regarding Appearance of Fairness addressed an issue such as this arising prior to the time a decision was
made and presented to the decision - making body. Mr. Bissell request Councilmember Orvis recuse
himself.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 3
Councilmember Orvis advised he would not recuse himself, explaining his letter was merely a comment
on a legislative matter before the Council which he had the right to do. Mayor Haakenson asked whether
he could make a fair and impartial decision and Councilmember Orvis answered he could.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether there were any other parties of record who wished to challenge the
participation of a Councilmember.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds reiterated his objection to the participation of Councilmember Olson for the
reasons previously stated. He recalled prior to the previous proceeding, his objection to Mayor
Haakenson's participation was interrupted and never completed. He again objected to Mayor
Haakenson's participation, referring to his emails to Council and emails from Economic Development
Director Jennifer Gerend who he asserted was a go- between and proponent in testimony from the
audience at the Planning Board meetings. He objected to Ms. Gerend carrying Mayor Haakenson's
message and to Mayor Haakenson's participation.
Mayor Haakenson recalled Mr. Hertrich's previous challenge to Councilmember Olson's participation
was based on her attendance at a Planning Board meeting. Mr. Snyder advised the objection and
Councilmember Olson's response were already in the record.
Mayor Haakenson advised Ms. Gerend was one of 250 employees who worked for him and they were
certainly free to express themselves on any matter as they saw fit. Ms. Gerend's comments were already
part of the record and although he did not necessarily agree with or share the same opinions expressed by
all 250 of his employees, if asked to vote on any matter this evening, he would do so based on the record
and merit of the argument in a fair an unbiased manner. He pointed out he could not vote on this matter
due to the required ordinance.
Mayor Haakenson summarized the options available to the Council were, 1) motion to remand with
specific reasons, 2) motion to approve with specific reasons, 3) motion to approve with specific
conditions, or 4) motion to deny with specific reasons.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION.
Councilmember Moore provided the following reasons for approval, noting the Council in a quasi judicial
proceeding acted as judges: the applicant complied with the Comprehensive Plan, met the zoning
ordinance requirements, met the ADB design criteria, met height requirements and met all four of the
transition elements and the density was lower than allowed,. For those reasons, she found the Council
had no logical way to deny the application and urged the Council to think long and hard before they voted
on the application.
Councilmember Orvis advised he would vote against the motion because he found the application failed
to meet three of the four site development standards. With regard to 16.72.020(D) transition, he noted
one of the standards with regard to transition was midpoint. According to the staff report there were
portions of the building that would be within 10 -feet of the property line; the residential zone has a 20-
foot setback and the BC zone has none, therefore, portions of the building that had less than a 10 -foot
setback did not meet the midpoint standard. Although one method of calculating lot coverage indicated
there was 67% lot coverage, the staff report states the project has a 75% lot coverage which he found did
not meet the midpoint standard of 100% lot coverage allowed in the BC zone and 35% allowed in a
residential zone. He pointed out the ADB's concerns regarding massing and staffs indication that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 4
massing could be improved. Because the applicant did not follow the ADB's recommendations with
regard to massing, Councilmember Orvis did not find the project met the massing criteria.
In addition to meeting the MPOR standards, Councilmember Orvis noted the project must also meet the
standards of a contract rezone. After reading the criteria, he found there was insufficient guarantee that
the final project would be as the applicant proposed due to the ability to make substantial changes to the
design without the Council's approval. He recommended very tight standards be applied to any contract
rezone to ensure the project proposed by the applicant was the project that was built.
Councilmember Plunkett found the application failed to comply with the zoning ordinance in regard to
transition. He agreed with the ADB's concerns with regard to setback and transition to the neighborhood.
He found the setbacks inadequate to transition to a residential zone, particularly with the proposed
massing. With regard to massing, he found the building massive and unbroken when compared to the
residential property to the north that the building was intended to transition with. With regard to lot
coverage, he noted the 66% lot coverage did not provide adequate transition with the residential
neighborhood to the north. Based on those three reasons, he found the application failed to meet the
required criteria.
Councilmember Dawson concurred with the comments made by Councilmembers Plunkett and Orvis.
She shared the ADB's concerns with the project's transition. She found the size of the project mandated
the utilization of greater setbacks than were proposed and neither the massing nor setbacks provided
adequate transition from one zone to another. She noted the purpose of the zone was to provide
transition; however, the combination of the size of the building, massing of the building, setbacks and lot
coverage made the building out of scale and did not provide transition. For those same reasons, the
proposed rezone failed to protect the surrounding area. She noted the proposed lot coverage and setback,
which she found inadequate, were not specified in the contract rezone. Therefore, she found the contract
rezone did not provide adequate protection to ensure even the insufficient setbacks and lot coverage
would be provided.
Councilmember Olson disagreed with Councilmembers Orvis, Plunkett and Dawson, noting even though
the ADB had concerns, they found the project complied with the design review chapters of the Edmonds
Community Development Code. The Planning Board held public hearings on the contract rezone request
and design review of the project and recommended approval. She summarized if the ADB and Planning
Board had such grave concerns, they would not have recommended the project.
UPON ROLL CALL, VOTE ENDED IN A (3 -3) TIE WITH COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT, DAWSON, AND ORVIS OPPOSED.
Council President Marin recalled when this issue was discussed previously, the Council was deadlocked
with little explanation from Councilmembers who wished to deny the application.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED TO REMAND AND SEEK REVISIONS TO THE
CONTRACT REZONE THAT ATTEMPTED TO FIND CURES TO THE CONCERNS RAISED
WITH SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE, MASSING AND GUARANTEES IN THE CONTRACT
REZONE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
DENY THE APPLICATION. UPON ROLL CALL, VOTE ENDED IN A (3 -3) TIE, WITH
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT AND DAWSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT MARIN, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE AND OLSON OPPOSED.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 5
Mayor Haakenson advised the remaining options were remand or approve with conditions. Hearing no
further motions, he declared an impasse and recommended the Council make a motion to direct the City
Attorney to prepare Findings and Conclusions or make a motion to continue deliberations again.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT
ESTABLISHED THAT THE COUNCIL WAS AT AN IMPASSE AND ADEQUATELY SET
FORTH THE BASIS ON BOTH SIDES FOR THE MOTION'S FAILURE. UPON ROLL CALL,
VOTE ENDED IN A (3 -3) TIE, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS, AND
DAWSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND MOORE AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT MARIN OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson requested Mr. Snyder comment on what result this vote had and whether he could vote
on a request to have the City Attorney draft Findings and Conclusions. Mr. Snyder answered Mayor
Haakenson could vote on the procedural motion to direct him to prepare Findings and Conclusions. Mr.
Snyder advised under State law the Council had the obligation to announce a decision, in this case an
impasse, and to adopt written Findings and Conclusions reflecting their decision. It would be his
intention to prepare Findings and Conclusions that adequately reflected the position of each party and to
indicate the Council was unable to reach a decision. When Findings and Conclusions were presented, he
encouraged the Council to vote according to whether the Findings and Conclusions accurately reflected
what had occurred. He strongly recommended the Council announce a decision and adopt written
Findings and Conclusions as required by law so that the Findings and Conclusions could be provided to
the applicant to commence the appeal period provided under the Land Use Petition Act.
UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION, COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND MOORE REVISED THEIR VOTES TO AN AFFIRMATIVE
VOTE AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Wilson returned to the dais at the conclusion of this item.)
Student
Representative 3. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION TO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE STEVEN LANDRY
Steven Landry
Council President Marin read Resolution No. 1112 commending Student Representative Steven Landry
for his service as a student member of the Edmonds City Council from November 1 to December 6, 2005.
Student Representative Landry thanked the Council for the opportunity, noting it had been a great
learning experience. He hoped to continue to be involved and possibly become the Mayor one day.
Mayor Haakenson read from a newspaper article that identified Steven Landry as student of the month
from Edmonds - Woodway High School. The article described Mr. Landry's involvement in numerous
school and community activities and his plans to double major in business and Spanish and have a
successful international business someday.
Zoning 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3555, EXTENDING A ZONING
Moratorium- MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Modulated
Design / APPLICATIONS OR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS, NOT OTHERWISE VESTED
Building Height PURSUANT TO STATE LAW PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE
WHICH SEEK TO UTILIZE MODULATED DESIGN IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A BUILDING
HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF THE TWENTY -FIVE FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ESTABLISHED
BY ECDC 15.40.020(A)(2).
Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised this matter was referred to the Planning Board.
The Planning Board plans to make a report to the Council on their work in January 2006. He
recommended the Council extend the ordinance to allow the Council to review the Planning Board's work
and make a decision regarding how to address that section of the code.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 6
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Architectural Design Board (ADB) was reviewing the matter
as well. Mr. Bowman answered the ADB and Planning Board had been considering the matter; the ADB
reviewed the design guidelines and the Planning Board considered the code. He noted a code amendment
would be required and the Planning Board must provide a recommendation regarding code amendments.
Councilmember Moore observed the moratorium was in regard to buildings over 25 feet. She asked
whether there had been any applications submitted for buildings under 25 feet. Mr. Bowman answered
there had not been any submitted for development in the BC zone. Councilmember Moore commented
the moratorium had little affect. Mr. Bowman noted there had not been any applications for mixed use
using the modulated design in order to obtain a building height in excess of 25 feet.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether the Council could adopt an ordinance if the Planning Board
completed its work before the six month extension expired. Mr. Bowman answered yes.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Dale Marmion, Edmonds, recalled this ordinance was adopted as a result of a land use decision where
the court brought into question the City's interpretation of the code. He agreed with retaining the interim
moratorium until decisions were finalized. He clarified this did not prevent someone from applying for a
building permit for a structure over 25 feet, only if they wanted to use the modulated design approach.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Ord# 3576 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
Extend zoning ADOPT THE ORDINANCE NO. 3576, EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3555, A ZONING
Moratorium —
Modulated MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Design / APPLICATIONS OR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS, NOT OTHERWISE VESTED
Building Height PURSUANT TO STATE LAW PRIOR TO DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE
WHICH SEEK TO UTILIZE MODULATED DESIGN IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A BUILDING
HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF THE TWENTY -FIVE FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ESTABLISHED
BY ECDC 15.40.020(A)(2). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Zoning 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3556, EXTENDING A ZONING
Moratorium — MORATORIUM ON THE APPLICATION OF ECDC 20.10.070(0)(3) RELATING TO THE
Special Height IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL HEIGHT LIMITS TO PROTECT VIEWS.
Limits to
Protect Views
Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised this ordinance was established to allow the
Planning Board an opportunity to review provisions of the code related to imposition of special height
limits to protect views. He noted this issue would be presented to the Council along with Planning
Board's work on design review, buildings height and modulation. He recommended the Council continue
the moratorium until the Planning Board had completed their review.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Dale Marmion, Edmonds, asked for clarification, explaining his original understanding was the
ordinance placed a moratorium on the use of the current code requirement that allowed a decision on a
building to account for view blockage and if a building were over a certain height, allow the imposition of
a height limit if it created a view blockage. He was concerned this issue would get overlooked. Mr.
Snyder agreed that was the section of code the moratorium addressed. He pointed out the term "view"
was not defined in the code nor was there any methodology for application of the requirement. His
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 7
concern has been compliance with the case law, Anderson v. Issaquah, which requires specific reasons
and processes.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Ord# 3577 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
Extend zoning
Moratorium —
ADOPT THE ORDINANCE NO. 3577, EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3556, A ZONING
Special Height MORATORIUM ON THE APPLICATION OF ECDC 20.10.070(0)(3) RELATING TO THE
Limits to IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL HEIGHT LIMITS TO PROTECT VIEWS.
Protect Views
Councilmember Dawson recalled she voted against this matter twice previously due to her opinion that
the Council should be able to clarify via the ordinance that view protection could be considered.
MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON OPPOSED.
Ord# 3578 7. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE FINAL 2005 BUDGET AMENDMENT
Final 2005
Budget Administrative Services Director Dan Clements advised this year end ordinance had been reviewed and
Amendment
approved by the Council Finance Committee on November 7. The amendment adjusted the $70.3 million
2005 budget by approximately $459,000. He highlighted major adjustments such as $62,800 in the
General Fund for insurance and fire training grants, $170,000 for LID bonds, $126,000 to close the Public
Safety Construction Fund, and $30,000 for additional fuel costs for fleet management.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the audience who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3578, THE FINAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENT. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Skate Park at 8, PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EDMONDS SKATE PARK WORK GROUP PROPOSAL TO
Civic Center LOCATE A SKATE PARK AT THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS.
Playfields
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh addressed questions raised by the Council at the November
29 meeting. With regard to Councilmember Wilson's inquiry about the history of siting park amenities
and other controversial installations, he recalled when the playground in City Park was scheduled for
replacement, the existing location was deemed too small for peak usage. Residents of the adjacent
condominium located within 100 feet of the proposed playground expressed concern with the noise, size
and color of the playground. Following installation, the neighbors realized they enjoyed watching the
children and their previous concerns had not been realized. As an added bonus, the increased visibility
increased safety and deterred vandalism.
In response to Councilmember Wilson's request to compare the cost of the skate park to other
playgrounds, Mr. McIntosh pointed out there were often hidden costs associated with playgrounds. He
explained to withstand the normal wear and tear, playground amenities must be durable, low maintenance
and built to current industry and safety standards and park staff must be certified to inspect and perform
necessary playground structure repairs when necessary. The City had replaced half its aging playground
structures in the past four years which have a standard unlimited warranty. The cost of the 1995
installation at City Park was $154,000 with over half for retaining walls and drainage systems; $85,000
for the installation in Seaview Park in 2001 with $28,000 for retaining walls and drainage; $59,000 for the
installation at the Frances Anderson Center in 2001 and $53,000 for the installation at Pine Street.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 8
In response to questions raised by Councilmember Plunkett regarding the budget, Mr. McIntosh explained
the need for a skate park was identified in the 2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and the
project has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan since that time. Currently $200,000 was
budgeted with 50% for site preparation and the approximately 5,400 square foot concrete pad and the
remainder to purchase and install features. Due to the peat bog under the Civic Center Playfields,
development at the site in the 1980's required additional excavation and fill. He referred to information
regarding the estimated cost of the skate park that detailed components of the total cost for construction
and concrete modular features of $195,200. He advised the construction costs were calculated within the
last week and the concrete modular features were similar to the features installed at the Kenmore skate
park three months ago.
Mr. McIntosh pointed out the $30,000 cost of removing 600 yards of peat type soil, recalling a question .
regarding the cost savings if removal of the peat type soil were not required. He explained even on a
perfect site, a 1 -foot excavation would be required; he estimated savings of approximately $18,000 if the
peat type soil did not have to be removed and $8,000 for installation of dry pit run, a total savings of
$26,000 if the skate park were installed on a perfect site.
In response to Councilmember Plunkett's questions regarding maintenance, Mr. McIntosh explained all
city parks and playgrounds were inspected and maintained regularly with inspection logs kept. Parks
maintenance staff responded immediately to reported problems or vandalism and visited the Civic Center
Playfields nearly daily due to its active use. Due to high use and the visibility of the site, staff did not
anticipate the skate park being a maintenance burden. He noted in many communities skate park users
took ownership and peer pressure helped control vandalism. The preferred streetscape style features were
fiberglass reinforced concrete with a double polyurethane finish. These have been used in Europe for
approximately ten years and North America for six years and have proven to be virtually indestructible.
The features have an initial 5 -year unlimited warranty and extended 10 -year parts replacement warranty.
Other communities who have installed this product have been satisfied with the product and service.
To address Councilmember Plunkett's question regarding the cost of other cities' skate parks, Mr.
McIntosh provided costs for parks in Everett, Snohomish, Lynnwood, Marysville, and Mukilteo. He
pointed out each park was different and used various funding sources including in -house labor, etc.;
therefore, it was difficult to compare costs on a square footage basis. He noted some of the parks had
been constructed as early as 1999; construction and material costs have increased considerably since then.
Mr. McIntosh reviewed the background of the project, explaining in October 1999 the Edmonds Police
Foundation donated $4,500 toward the future development of a skate park in downtown Edmonds. At
that time, Mayor Fahey, Council and staff recognized the health and social benefits of skateboarding and
the success of the new Lynndale Skate Park jointly funded by the cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood after
a lengthy development process. It was also identified that the Lynndale Park was heavily used and it was
difficult for inexperienced skateboarders to get to the park. The need for a skate park was identified in the
2001 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan
since that time.
In March 2004 staff met with the Foundation to discuss the possibility of a skate park in the downtown
area and a decision was made to form a Skate Park Work Group. The Work Group, comprised of
Edmonds skaters, parents, Foundation and Police Department members, Parks & Recreation Department
staff and members of the community held its first meeting in May 2004. Staff and the Work Group met
with the Council's Community Services /Development Services Committee in July 2004 who encouraged
the group to move ahead with planning and development of a skate park in the downtown area.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 9
In January 2005, the Skate Park Work Group made a presentation to the Planning Board and following
questions, the Planning Board scheduled a public hearing for March 2005. At the March 9, 2005 public
hearing, the Skate Park Work Group was asked to return with answers to the Planning Board's questions
regarding noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and to provide an active site plan of the park.
The Greenbusch Group provided a comprehensive noise study to the Planning Board on October 26, 2005
and refinements to the original proposal were presented, 1) a revised location within the Civic Playfields,
and 2) a significant change in the product proposed for the site.
Mr. McIntosh explained the Parks & Recreation community recognized skateboarding as a healthy and
popular recreational activity and a legitimate use to accommodate in the City's park system. The goal of
the Skate Park Work Group was to gain approval to plan and construct a skate park in downtown
Edmonds at the preferred Civic Field site for beginning to intermediate skateboarders.
Mr. McIntosh commented on the increasing popularity of skateboarding, 11.6 million riders between the
ages of 6 and 18 skateboarding in the year 2000 with an expected 15 million skateboarders by 2005 which
he noted exceeded the number of little league baseball players and was only exceeded by basketball and
soccer participation. He pointed out the need for facilities as the popularity of the sport increased as
evidenced by the installation of skate parks in communities surrounding Edmonds.
With regard to safety and liability, Mr. McIntosh reiterated there were far fewer skateboarding accidents
per capita than any other popular sport such as baseball, soccer and snowboarding. Children under the
age of 1.5 were three times as likely to suffer a bicycle injury and twice as likely to be injured on a
playground. The skate park would not be directly supervised and if constructed to industry standards and
maintained properly, the Recreation Immunity Act protected the City from liability for skateboarding
accidents.
With regard to security and police, Mr. McIntosh recalled early in the development of the proposal, the
City's Crime Prevention Officer solicited information from surrounding communities regarding common
problems they encountered. Other cities emphasized the need for the facility to be in a highly visible area
and many encouraged a strong police presence particularly in the early weeks to set a tone that the police
were aware of and interested in the success of the facility and to assist in creating a bond between
skateboarders and officers. Parents watching and community spectators also provided security and caring
as well as provided the participants an opportunity to perform. This facility would also provide a place
for the Police Department to direct skateboarders who were skating in restricted public /private areas.
With regard to location, Mr. McIntosh explained the survey conducted by the Crime Prevention Officer
and other readings and research by the Work Group yielded a set of ten criteria the group used to
determine the best location in the downtown area for a skate park. The Work Group identified nine
potential sites. Following independent visits to each site, the Work Group applied the ten criteria and
selected the Civic Center Playfields as the preferred location. None of the criteria was weighted so easy
assess by the Police and Fire Department was scored the same as availability of restrooms and phone.
Mr. McIntosh explained the original location identified by the Work Group was adjacent to the basketball
courts, 120 feet from the north perimeter fence and 140 feet from the nearest residents. Upon further
observation, it was discovered that shifting the skate park south and slightly east retained most of the
usable dimensions on the north field and the consistent 285 -foot perimeter of the softball field and
increased the distance from the nearest residence to 240 feet.
Mr. McIntosh advised rules similar to other skate parks and following the Washington Cities Insurance
Authority would be posted at the park. The park would be designed for skateboards and rollerblades.
The park would not be lighted and would be open from 9:00 a.m. until dusk; anyone using the facility
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 10
outside of these hours would be trespassing. He noted the hours could be adjusted. To protect skaters
from errant baseballs, soccer balls, etc., the proposal includes 8 -foot fencing on the north, 10 -foot fencing
on the east, and 4 -foot fencing on the south and west. Fencing will be removable to enable flexibility for
special events.
With regard to drainage, Mr. McIntosh advised the field area north of the proposed site and east of the
courts has had an ongoing drainage problem that made the area unplayable for significant parts of the
year. A separate drainage project will be undertaken to rectify this problem in coordination with the
development of the park.
Mr. McIntosh explained the original proposal was for a modular park with steel, wood or like surfaces to
enable removal for special events such as the Taste of Edmonds. The Work Group visited other sites and
explored alternate surfaces including the markedly quieter precast concrete recently installed at the
Kenmore Skate Park. This product could be designed to match any skating feature; units that duplicate
real streetscape forms are popular with skaters. The features are low maintenance, permanent and the 2 -6
ton weight of each concrete piece absorbs sound and creates stability. Forms would be placed on an
approximately 5,400 square foot, smooth concrete pad. The Chamber of Commerce endorsed the design
and indicated they would be able to work on and around the design for special events.
Julie Weibusch, Greenbusch Group, Inc., advised they were contracted to conduct a noise study to
evaluate the noise from a modular and an in- ground system. She reviewed the three components of the
study, established the preconstruction ambient condition at the site, measured noise from each system
type and put the data gathered into a computer model to predict the exposure level on the surrounding
neighborhood. She explained noise measurements were made of the loudest events within 5 feet of the
skaters during a 2 -3 hour visit to a modular facility in Issaquah and an in- ground system in Shoreline.
She clarified the noise measurements were not an average taken over a long period of time. The study
concentrated on the closest residential properties, three condominiums on 6`b Avenue. The study first
compared the noise exposure levels to Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.30 that identified permissible noise
levels based on zoning. The Civic Center Playfield is zoned Public Use which has the same permissible
noise levels as residential; the maximum permissible noise level at the neighboring property line is 55
dBA.
Ms. Weibusch noted at the time the meter was set, the background levels were dominated by traffic on
local streets and yard maintenance equipment operating in the area. She commented the operation of the
yard maintenance equipment was part of the overall condition and not intended to elevate the noise level.
The ambient condition at the site, determined via a 24 hour average, was 51 dBA. She noted the average
noise level increased during the hours of 5:00 — 6:00 p.m. due to activity on the field.
The measured levels from skateboard activity were then placed in the model. She reported her
observation when making the noise measurements of how polite the skateboarders were and taking turns
for safety reasons, with usually no more than three skaters moving at a time. She noted there was not a
lot of conversation occurring as the skaters were focused on their tricks and no music was allowed. For
the model, three of the loudest events were used and assumed to occur simultaneously which she noted
was unlikely to occur. She commented the measurement of three events did not limit the park to three
skaters; it was unlikely more than three would be actively using the features at one time due to logistics.
She noted the measurement was conducted on a modular steel unit as the decision to use concrete
modular features was made after the study was complete. She noted the concrete features were heavier
and the noise levels would be similar to the in- ground features. The noise was measured at 51 dBA at the
condominium for the steel modular features and 47 dBA for the in- ground features.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 11
Ms. Weibusch explained the study also considered impact on the community. She clarified this was not
whether residents would hear the sound or be annoyed by it, but how much the noise level increased over
existing conditions. She referred to established EPA parameters that indicate a 0 -5 dBA increase had a
slight impact. Comparing the existing noise level to the predicted noise level, their study found the
predicted noise levels were below existing conditions during the sports use, meaning there would be very
little impact on the neighborhood. She clarified this did not mean the neighborhood would not hear the
sound but that the exposure level did not increase a great deal.
With regard to a question about the topography, she explained their study was based on the nearest
residences, however, she made predictions of sound to 7th Avenue of 47 dBA with the modular units and
42 dBA with in- ground units. She noted even if the noise energy were doubled for the topography, it was
a logarithmic addition and would only add 3 dBA. With regard to a question about reflections, she noted
there was not a lot for the sound to reflect off and other than the Boys & Girls Club, the skate park was
located in the center of an open field. She did not consider the barrier affect provided by the Boys &
Girls Club building in order to consider the worst case scenario. She noted the area was not a complete
bowl thus there would be little reflection from the hillside.
Ms. Weibusch stated their conclusion that the impact on the community would be marginal predicated on
the amount of activity already occurring on the site.
Councilmember Orvis asked the impact of shrubs and trees on sound. Ms. Weibusch answered 100 feet
of dense forest would reduce the sound by 3 -4 dB. She explained the human ear perceived 3 dB as barely
audible.
Councilmember Moore asked how construction of the skate park would affect the use of the rugby field.
Mr. McIntosh answered the width of the field remained quite large, approximately 70 yards. He noted the
rugby players did not use the field for games, only for practice and it was his experience that they would
practice anywhere there was space.
Council President Marin asked how long the fields had been in use. Mr. McIntosh answered the City
took the fields over when the junior high school was vacated in the mid- 1970's. He estimated the
playfields had existed for at least fifty years.
Councilmember Orvis asked if the hours of operation could be changed if problems arose. Mr. McIntosh
answered yes.
Councilmember Dawson referred to an email she received today from Darrell Marmion stating neighbors
had not received adequate notice. She asked what notification was provided to residences within earshot
of the park, commenting if the neighbors learned more, they may realize their concerns would not come
to fruition. Mr. McIntosh pointed out this was the third public hearing on the skate park proposal; for
each public hearing the site was signed two weeks in advance, notices were published in the newspaper as
required by law, notices were mailed to residences within 300 feet of the site and articles appeared in the
newspaper.
Councilmember Dawson noted this was the first public hearing before the Council. She pointed out
sound traveled more than 300 feet and questioned the rationale for mailing notices to residences within.
300 feet. Mr. McIntosh answered that was the standard radius for notices. City Clerk Sandy Chase
advised in addition to the notice Mr. McIntosh described, notice was posted at several public buildings
throughout the city, notice was broadcast on Channel 21 and the City's website, and notice of tonight's
public hearing was included on the Council's November 29 agenda. Councilmember Dawson
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 12
acknowledged the City had done more than the required notice but was concerned the sound impacts may
affect a larger area.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the time frame for approval. Mr. McIntosh advised once a
decision was made, planning would begin in the spring. Construction would not begin until after the
Taste of Edmonds in mid- August. Councilmember Dawson asked if the project would be delayed if the
Council requested further public input. Mr. McIntosh answered it would depend on the length of the
delay. As this was not a complex project, he estimated three months lead time would be sufficient.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He referred to the
additional communication the Council received from Phil Burkhart, the Griffith family, Emily Ehrlich,
Ron Bussiere, and Darrell Marmion in opposition; and from Kendall Berry, Debbie Daniels, Bill Evans,
Ron & Carol Robinson, Doug & Carol Sheldon, Ann Brown, Joanne Otness, Jim Underhill and Cheryl
Hay in favor. He added that as he reviewed the correspondence there seemed to be a recurring theme that
the City had acquired or was acquiring property at the old Woodway High School. He advised that was
incorrect; the City was working on a joint venture to provide athletic fields at the former Woodway High
School. In discussions with the Edmonds School District today, they indicated there was no space in the
current or future athletic field configuration for a skate park. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the former
Woodway High School had not been considered by staff as a potential location.
Emily Ehrlich, Friends of Civic Playfield, extended her thanks to the following people for their efforts:
Mary Beth Walsh who walked the neighborhood collecting signatures, Finis Tupper for his historical
perspective, the mayor and her husband. Ms. Ehrlich provided a presentation, listing topics discussed at
each Work Group meeting and expressing concern that not as many youth as they had hoped participated
in that effort. She referred to comments made by the Boys & Girls Club Director expressing his
reservations. She displayed photographs of the Friends of Civic Playfield's preferred skate parks, parks
with in- ground features. She displayed a comparison of other municipalities' costs for skate parks.
(Council President Marin agreed to allow Ms. Ehrlich additional time to make her presentation due to the
number of people she represented.)
Ms. Ehrlich reviewed the Friends of Civic Playfield's analysis of the sites identified by the Work Group.
She referred to Mr. McIntosh's statement that the skate park was intended for youth who do not drive,
noting it appeared this skate park would be located in a neighborhood where the least number of children
lived. She provided a brief audio recording approximating the noise at a skate park. She read a quote
from a resident near a skate park in Vancouver that expressed support for a managed skate park facility
and describing their inability to open their windows or use their balcony due to the noise from the skate
park. Ms. Ehrlich estimated the noise from skateboards impacting a surface was 75 -80 dB. She urged the
City to consider other funding sources such as from skateboard and apparel companies. She asked
whether the City had sought grants from state agencies or the Tony Hawk Foundation. She recommended
an in- ground facility via a process that included input from all citizens and broad funding sources.
Dick Van Hollebeke, Edmonds, expressed the need for more activities for young people. He recalled
his pride when during his tenure as a Councilmember, the Council approved and built the Lynndale Skate
Park that is well used year- round. He explained the Civic Center Playfields was nearly an ideal site, it
was central, within walking distance for thousands of residents and there were many young people
interested in skateboarding. He reported on his visit to the Kenmore Skate Park that had the concrete
modular units, commenting it was very quiet and not nearly as loud as the tape the Friends of Civic
Playfield played. The Kenmore Skate Park had asphalt between the modular features which made it
much louder than the smooth concrete platform proposed for this skate park. He recalled there were
about 15 youth between the ages of 7 and 18 skating at the Kenmore facility today who were very
respectful and supportive of each other. He was impressed by the participation and leadership of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 13
young citizens who have worked tirelessly on this effort. He hoped the Council would recognize that the
youth had identified the best location and answered all the questions that had been raised. He pointed out
the need to encourage families to live in Edmonds, noting the children here tonight were the City's future.
He encouraged the Council to approve the skate park tonight.
Mary Beth Walsh, Edmonds, commented her concerns regarding the noise survey had been answered.
She expressed her support for an in- ground skate park and would accept that at the Civic Center
Playfields. She asked how much the existing noise level at Civic Playfields increased between 4:00 and
6:00 p.m.
Nancy Crim, Edmonds, Edmonds Police Foundation, commented on negativity and NIMBY (not in my
backyard) and suggested residents strive toward more positive efforts. She commented on the negative
affects of negativity on ones health. She noted one of the things that made Edmonds such a wonderful
place was the diversity of ages. She recalled the number of children at the tree lighting ceremony, a
positive aspect of Edmonds. She urged the Council to approve the skate park as planned and studied.
Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, commented he was not necessarily opposed to the skate park but as a
resident on the hillside to the east, he was concerned about constructing a skate park on the Civic
Playfield absent sufficient data to ensure it would not negatively impact the neighborhood. He referred to
information he provided to the Council, a map from the noise study that identified affected buildings and
the map superimposed on an aerial photograph, pointing out properties that should have been notified of
the public hearing due to the noise impacts. He urged the Council not to make a decision tonight due to
the incomplete noise study that did not consider the amphitheater affect of the hillside. He noted from his
house on the hill he could hear a Police Officer close his car door at the police station when conditions
were right. He advised they moved to their house because of the view of the park and they enjoyed the
sounds of sports in the park, however, the proposed skate park would be a different type of noise.
Leslie Haan, Edmonds, parent of four boys two of whom skateboard, referred to comments regarding
the importance of doing things for kids and questioned the impact on adults and taxpayers. She pointed
out children interested in skateboarding had Lynndale. She acknowledged there may be a need for
another skate park but questioned whether the Civic Playfields was the appropriate location due to the
numerous activities on that site already. She disagreed the City needed to site a skate park within a few
blocks of downtown to prove the residents loved children. She suggested the funds allocated for the skate
park be used for a year -round pool which would provide activity for a broader range of residents. She
summarized the playfields were already overrun with children and adding a skate park would be too
much. She questioned how the skate park would affect the Taste of Edmonds and recommended more
time be devoted to considering alternate locations. She referred to the audio of a skate park, noting the
ongoing noise from a skate park was different than the existing noise.
Nancy McDonald, Edmonds, President, Edmonds Police Foundation, commented the Foundation had
supported the concept of a downtown skate park since 1999. The Foundation received regular updates
from the Work Group and Parks Department and members attended several meetings and public hearings.
She commended the youth involved in the Work Group for their tremendous efforts. The Work Group
has been thorough and fair and addressed the concerns expressed by the community. She concluded the
Civic Playfields was the right location for the skate park, particularly in its revised location. She
encouraged the Council to approve the proposed plan for the skate park so that it could be built before
some of the older members of the Work Group left for college.
Teresa Pruett, Edmonds, parent of a 13 -year old skateboarder who is a good student at Meadowdale
Middle School and who takes his citizenship very seriously. To dispel the perception that skateboarders
were a different type of person and would attract trouble to a skate park, she assured her son and his
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 14
friends were good kids who developed amazing friendships via that activity as well as participating in this
process to bring the skate park to the Council. She reported on visits with her son to skate parks in the
area and in California, commenting they were amazing facilities and there was nothing detrimental about
skate parks in other communities. She agreed the Civic Playfields was the best location due to the great
visibility and proximity of the Police and Fire Departments. She agreed with Council President Marin's
point that the playfields had existed for a long time and anyone moving near a playfield did so because of
the open space and a skate park was a foreseeable use of a playfield. Because the playfields were used for
a lot of activities, she supported the finding that the skate park would not have a large impact on the
neighbors. She concluded the Work Group had provided scientific analysis regarding the noise, had
moved the skate park to a better location addressed concerns and have presented a good project. She
urged the Council to approve the proposed project. With regard to notice, she pointed out the community
had been on notice for the past 18 months.
Christin Leupold, Edmonds, relayed a near - accident she had with a skateboarder while driving on an
arterial. When discussing the incident with the teens involved, she realized they were unaware of the
potential danger of colliding with a car. She concluded constructing a skate park would make a difference
by providing a place for skateboarders to ride without putting their lives in danger. She pointed out the
skate park gave the Council the opportunity to save a child's life every time they used it.
Robin Heslop, Crime Prevention Officer, Edmonds Police Department, explained her professional
opinions regarding the preferred location of a skate park in Edmonds were largely influenced by Crime
Prevention Through Environmental. Design (CPTED) which used the existing built environment to reduce
fear and the incidence of crime. She described her evaluation of the potential sites for a skate park, noting
the two that influenced her selection the most were natural surveillance and the current and future users.
Combining these principles, the goal was to attract the appropriate young people and adults to the site and
make it a place that was safe and devoid of crime which required it to be a highly visible site with regular
daily usage where positive activities occurred. She noted the old Woodway High School site was isolated
and completely surrounded by woods, making it a poor location for a skate park. She sited positive
reasons for selecting the Civic Playfield site, the site is well used but not over used, open natural
surveillance of the site and use by numerous members of the public throughout the day, current use by
good users make it less likely to attract bad users, and close proximity to emergency services, telephone,
restrooms, and convenient for officers to visit. She commented parents would likely feel safe leaving
their children at the skate park while shopping downtown.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, commented the family ambiance of City Park was not compatible with a skate
park and trees in the woodland area in the southern area of City Park would have to be removed to
construct a skate park. Conversely the water logged section of property at Civic Center Playfields
proposed for a skate park would be fixed prior to construction, improving the existing condition. He
pointed the Civic Playfields had been playfields since the high school was constructed and were leased to
the City by Edmonds School District for recreation only. He found the Civic Playfields the ideal location
for a skate park due to its proximity to the Police and Fire Departments, visibility, and proximity to the
Boys & Girls Club where restrooms, water, telephone and a safe environment for youth of all ages was
available. He expressed concern with statements on the ACE website that they did not support a skate
park at the Civic Playfields, recalling the history of Edmonds was blue collar workers whose priority was
their children. He feared if the residents around Civic Playfields could prevent the City from siting a
skate park, what would be next — the Taste of Edmonds, 4t' of July, sports teams or the Boys & Girls
Club? He expressed dismay that ACE appeared to be prioritizing their interests over the best interests of
children.
Michelle Bretz, Edmonds, expressed support for the skate park at Civic Playfields. She suggested the
Council consider which members were supported by ACE. She stressed the importance of having a place
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 15
for young people to hang out, to support each other, and be mentored by each other. She commented it
appeared Edmonds wanted to hide their kids; she did not like Lynndale Park due to its limited visibility.
She assured youth would walk, skate, bike from all over the city to use the proposed skate park. She
noted the skateboarders were among the City's future voters and she urged the skateboarders who would
be voting soon to vote for candidates who supported kids and their projects. She thanked the youth
involved on Work Group for their efforts to move the skate park forward.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to the 2001 survey to determine the types of facilities and services
residents wanted. He recommended the skate park issue be sent back to the Planning Board for further
study.
Evie Wilson- Lingbloom, Lynnwood, reported on her participation on the Edmonds Youth Advisory
Committee that prepared a Community Youth Report in July 2001. She recalled talking with many young
people during the preparation of the report who, although they knew Lynndale Park was being
constructed, expressed the need for more skate parks due to transportation issues. She suggested the
Council reexamine the Community Youth Report, pointing out the skate park would address many of the
recommendations in the report. She recognized the efforts of the youth involved in the Work Group,
learning about grass roots political organization and the importance of proper research and
documentation. She quoted from the report, "involve us, listen to us, plan with us, and hold us
accountable, we will not disappoint you." She urged the Council not to disappoint these youth.
Tom Knutson, Edmonds, representing the rugby team that used the Civic Center Playfields, expressed
the team's support for the skate park. After reviewing the revised plan and the proposal for a new field at
the former Woodway High School site, the team determined they could work with the Parks Department
to play at the Civic Playfields until the new field was available.
Aaron Taylor, Edmonds, skateboarder, commented visitors to New Zealand often refer to the country as
going back in time; however, his experience touring New Zealand earlier this year gave him the
impression that in terms of their support for kids, they were well ahead. He relayed skating at 11 different
skate parks, many in towns with less than 1,000 residents, most in parks or near schools and in areas
frequented by other support and activities. He learned from talking to the local Police Department in
Arrow Town, a small town on the south island near Queenstown, that most of the parks were the result of
kids working with the cities and towns and that the skate parks have been a positive enhancement to the
community. He encouraged the Council to approve the skate park in support of youth.
Alex McDonald, Edmonds, skateboarder, explained a skate park served youth that were not necessarily
involved in team sports. He pointed skateboarding was just as legitimate a sport as baseball, football or
soccer and was at least if not more physically demanding and provided the same camaraderie. To those
who think youth should use Lynndale, he pointed out many do not have transportation to Lynndale. He
concluded a lot of kids would use a skate park at the Civic Center Playfields and the young people here
tonight represented a much larger group of skateboarders.
Molly Thomson, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the skate park and urged the Council to make a decision
soon.
Kaylene Wilson, Edmonds, expressed her support for the skate park and urged the Council to vote on it
tonight. She noted the skate park also provided a venue for kids who did not skate to watch.
Kai Taylor, Edmonds, commented no one had spent as much time watching at a skate park as she had at
parks through the U.S. and other continents. She noticed when talking to parents in other communities
that originally adults were opposed to skate parks but once they are constructed, the parents and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 16
community supported them. She recalled hearing the wish at many parks that the skate park was bigger
once residents realized what a wonderful thing it was for the community. She encouraged the Council to
approve the skate park tonight.
Nancy Carroll, Edmonds, noted the Edmonds Police Foundation provided a significant amount for a
skate park for the youth of Edmonds and the Foundation and Police Department agreed on the importance
of the skate parking being within eye and earshot of the Police Department. She expressed her thanks to
the young people for their perseverance in their cause and for standing their ground, urging them to be
proud of their presentations and the manner in which they conducted themselves. She hoped the youth
would remember the importance of these meetings and to instill in their own children the values exhibited
during this issue.
Robert Rhein, Edmonds, stated it would be a mistake to deny these youth this skate park because they
were asking for so little. He commented on the difficulty asking the presenters, boys between the ages of
13 and 16, for anything if this reasonable request were denied. He questioned why one would purchase
property adjacent to a park and not expect noise from children's activities. He encouraged the Council to
vote in favor of the proposed skate park to show the youth that the City would stand behind them.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, endorsed skateboarding but was concerned with the proposed location and
the sound from the park. The Work Group did not consider the Woodway High School site and the City
had not approached the school district. He was concerned with the City's budget and the cost of this
project. He could endorse a skate park that was well received by the neighborhood but did not support a
skate park that was a deterrent to reasonable living in the neighborhood. He noted none of the Council
lived near the proposed skate park and most of the proponents did not live in close proximity. He
emphasized the importance of preserving the quality of neighborhoods. He relayed a conversation with a
neighbor who planned to move because she could not stand any more activity at the Civic Playfields. He
referred to the $26,000 savings if the skate park were sited elsewhere, noting the $4,500 donation from
the Edmonds Police Foundation resulted in a $30,000 excavation and drainage project. He concluded the
decision regarding the location of the skate park was short sighted, recalling a similar short sighted
decision 15 years ago not to purchase a cover for the Yost Pool at a cost of $100,000. He urged the
Council to consider the concerns expressed regarding the location, cost and noise. He expressed concern
with the safety of the raised modular units compared to in- ground units.
Alex Witenberg, Edmonds, original member of the Skate Park Work Group, emphasized the need for a
skate park for beginner and intermediate skaters. He acknowledged more advanced skaters would not
enjoy the proposed park, reducing the potential for young skaters to be intimidated by more experienced
skaters. He referred to the noise study that indicated there would be minimal noise impact on the
neighbors by the location proposed by the Work Group. The park would be in a central location that was
safe due to its proximity to the Police and Fire Departments. He described the experience of participating
on the Work Group, transforming an idea into a project for presentation to the Council. To those who
questioned the need for a skate park, he found it difficult to describe the joys of skateboarding because it
had to be experienced to be fully understood. He found skateboarding exhilarating to do and awesome to
watch. Youth often did not have much say regarding what happened in the City; this was their chance to
have input about a subject they cared about. He implored the Council to listen to the voices of youth and
the science, reflect on the compromises they made and the good citizenship they have exhibited and
unanimously approve the skate park at the Civic Playfields as a testament to youth in Edmonds.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, suggested further consideration needed to be given to alternate funding sources
such as those suggested by Ms. Ehrlich. He questioned whether now was the appropriate time to expend
1/4 million dollars plus annual maintenance. He commented there were good and bad kinds of noise —
skateboard noise was among the bad kinds, the sound of a train was a good kind of noise. If
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 17
skateboarding was such a fast growing sport, he questioned why schools did not have skate parks. He
also questioned why proximity to the Police Department and visibility was an important feature of a skate
park. He pointed out the importance of considering the concerns of residents surrounding the playfield,
suggesting consideration be given to a sound barrier to address Mr. Marmion's concerns with noise
impacts on upslope properties. He questioned the number of skateboarders the park would serve. He
suggested this was an opportunity for the Council to get it right and suggested they conduct further
research so that the skate park was sited in a location that was best for the entire community.
John Pierre, Edmonds, questioned how much more research was needed, pointing out this issue had
been researched since 1999. He strongly encouraged and recommended the Council approve the skate
park tonight.
Andrew Manning, Edmonds, pointed out there were a lot of kids in Edmonds who liked to skateboard;
however, most schools, parks and private property had signs prohibiting skateboarding. He recommended
the Council approve the proposed skate park.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, stated although he had the opportunity to serve on a number of committees
in the past 16 years, none had given him greater pleasure than the opportunity to work with the youth of
the City on this skate park project as the liaison to the Edmonds Police Foundation who provided seed
money to the project. He described the citizenship and responsibility displayed by the youth, often in the
face of harsh criticism of skateboarders as a group from the opponents of this skate park. He pointed out
the flexibility the youth displayed in revising the original location within the Playfield and in selecting
different, state -of -the -art materials for the modular units out of respect for the neighbors' concerns. In the
face of demeaning remarks early in the process, the youth were undeterred. They reflected on the
comments of the opposition, made significant compromises in an effort to satisfy reasonable and
justifiable concerns while maintaining their position that the Civic Center Playfields was the ideal and
location supported by the Edmonds Police Department, Police Foundation, research, professional noise
study as well as many adults and youth in the community. The youth involved in this process have
demonstrated maturity far beyond their years and should be an example for all; they've stuck to the issues
and not gotten into innuendo and personal attacks on their opponents. They have willingly engaged in
dialogue with all who have raised questions.
Mr. Witenberg recalled Kendall Berry, a Main Street condominium owner and early opponent of the
project who attended many of the Work Group's meetings and voiced legitimate concerns on behalf of
her neighbors which the Work Group addressed. Ms. Berry now supports this location as confirmed by a
letter in the Council packet. He noted none of the other opponents attended any of the Work Group
meetings. Several of the Work Group members would receive little benefit from the group efforts
because they were advanced skaters and the park's design was for beginner and intermediate skaters, but
they have served unselfishly so that others could benefit from their work. He urged the Council to reward
the youths' efforts and show their faith in the youth of the community by approving the proposed skate
park in the Civic Center Playfields.
Harold Huston, Edmonds, complimented the youth for their efforts with regard to the skate park. He
commented on his completion of a motorcycle defensive driving course attended by a number of young
people. A volunteer in many programs, he urged the City to do something for kids in the community to
keep kids involved. He commented on the amount of study that had been done on this issue, pointing out
there was no need for another survey or further public hearings. He viewed this as a golden opportunity
for the Council to take an affirmative action and he urged the Council to approve it tonight.
Aaron Greenmun, School Resource Officer, Edmonds Police Department, explained police were
responders. In his job he had the good fortune to be on the positive side of Police Department, dealing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 18
with young people in a positive manner. He was honored to serve on the Skate Park Work Group,
commenting the youth had been mentors to him, pouring their hearts into the project. He relayed that the
youths' passion about the project was an inspiration to him and truly what civil service was about —
getting involved in the community. The only question now was how the City would respond to the youth.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
In response to questions regarding funding, Mr. McIntosh assumed the grants suggested were IAC grants,
a grant process the City had utilized in the past. He noted the City usually sought IAC grants for major
renovations and not park amenities; however, that was a route that could be pursued if the Council chose.
With regard to the Taste of Edmonds at Civic Playfields, he met with the Taste of Edmonds Committee
who indicated they did not have a problem with the proposal.
In response to Mr. Martin's suggestion for a sound barrier on the east side that did not block views, Ms.
Weibusch explained a wall would need to be exceedingly high to block the sounds because usually if you
could see an activity, you could also hear it. She noted a wall around the skate park would also create a
shadow zone that would block the sound near the skate park but would reflect the sound that would have
gone toward the water onto the hill. She noted the only solution to that problem would be to create a
concrete box with a lid which would eliminate visibility.
In response to the question regarding increase in existing noise during evening hours, Ms. Weibusch
advised the existing dBA averaged over the hour of 4:00 & 5:00 p.m. was 52 dBA and 56 dBA between
5:00 & 6:00 p.m., and 54 dBA between 6:00 & 7:00 p.m.
With regard to the audio demonstration by Ms. Ehrlich, Ms. Weibusch commended her for the diligence
with which she had studied the issue, but pointed out it was extremely difficult to enter audio recordings
into evidence. She noted although the recording may have been 45 dBA when recorded, it was not when
it was played back. She noted if everyone in the Council Chambers was extremely silent and held their
breath, the ambient sound level might be 45 dBA. With movement, etc. the ambient level was likely up
to 50 dBA and the recording was at least 75 dBA. She noted the sound quality of the recording was also
very different than what she heard at the skate parks. She cautioned the Council regarding the weight
they gave the recording as it was not 45 dBA.
Mayor Haakenson agreed with Mr. Martin that this was an opportunity for the Council to get it right,
noting the skate park was one of the rare opportunities for the City to do something for the youth of
Edmonds. He explained the Work Group and City staff had done an excellent job researching this project
and even better job of addressing the neighbors' concerns. He questioned what better place for a skate
park than an existing area of high youth activity, next to the Police Department and adjacent to a Boys &
Girls Club. He pointed out a playfield was land used for and usually equipped with facilities for
recreation, especially for children. He concluded this was an opportunity for the Council to put their
money where their mouth was, recalling comments by candidates regarding the need to support the youth
of Edmonds. Mayor Haakenson supported this project and this location because it was the right thing to
do for the youth of Edmonds and they deserved it. Hearing no further questions of staff, he remanded the
matter to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
AUTHORIZE STAFF AND THE SKATE PARK WORKGROUP TO PROCEED WITH THE
SKATE PARK PROJECT AS PROPOSED AT THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS.
Councilmember Orvis did not fault anyone's concern with impacts or process but he was impressed with
the arguments made by those who supported the skate park and particularly the changes that were made in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 19
response to the sound study as well as the proximity of the site to the Public Safety facility. He indicated
he would support the motion.
Council President Marin referred to a letter in the packet from a doctor in Mukilteo about his concern
when he learned there would be a skate park next to their building and their dread of the noisy and crazy
teens, tweens and twenty - somethings disturbing them. The doctor went on to state that after the park
went in, they did not regret having them there at all. Council President Marin described his experience in
San Diego where at an intersection in Pacific Beach various performers would provide periodic
exhibitions. He was fascinated by the tricks they would do and soon found he had favorites he liked to
watch. He hoped as the park was constructed and used, nearby residents would discover they developed
favorites and would enjoy the free entertainment. He indicated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Olson referred to the Council's decision to ban motorized foot scooters for riders less
than 16 -years of age. If the Council took activities away from kids, they had to provide places where they
could go and experience things like skateboarding. With regard to the comment why schools did not have
skate parks, she recalled soccer became popular with teams before it was incorporated into the school.
She envisioned in the future schools might have skate parks.
Councilmember Wilson expressed his support for the skate park. Having been involved in the public
process for 25 years, he estimated he had attended 4,000 — 5,000 public hearings; the presentation by the
Skate Park Work Group was the best he had seen and especially from a lay group. He commended the
Work Group for their efforts and actions, commenting the group had always held themselves to the
highest standards, standards the Council and other participants in the public process should hold
themselves to. He agreed it was time for the community to give back to the youth and provide
opportunities. Too often adults want kids to fit into a mold or activity and if they did not fit the mold,
adults did not support it. The skate park would provide an opportunity for youth to express themselves in
an increasingly popular sport, allowing them to achieve goals they set for themselves.
In response to the comment that none of the Council lived close to the Civic Center Playfields,
Councilmember Moore clarified she lived about 21/2 blocks away and looked forward to watching the
skateboarders. She noted everyone who used the track would enjoy the entertainment while doing laps.
She thanked the kids for their citizenship as well as the adults who testified on behalf of the kids and who
complimented the kids on their citizenship.
Councilmember Moore referred to the petition submitted by the Friends of Civic Playfield and her
skepticism whether those who signed it understood it. She reported the comments made by 18 of the 37
signers who provided telephone numbers when she contacted them: 1) still concerned about noise; I just
don't believe the study, 2) the noise is a trouble and kids riding to the park on skateboards, 3) I don't feel
strongly about it at all the youth need something to do, 4) I don't think it's a problem because I realize
people who move next door to a park should really expect the noise, 5) things have changed now and we
no longer oppose it, 6) I was caught off guard by a woman, I'm not opposed to it at all, I just signed the
petition, 7) I don't like skating by the ferry, it has to be legal and safe so if it's a sturdy park I would feel
good about it, 8) it's not a concern to me, 9) I think the noise might be loud; I just don't know, 10) I was
at the farmers market and this woman came up but I have no information and I don't really care about it,
11) no I want the skate park; the lady told me it would be metal and I just wanted something more solid,
12) six members of the rugby team who believed their field would be eliminated (a representative
indicated tonight they had changed their position), 13) a woman from the condos just asked me to sign it
but I don't really know anything about it, 14) my opinion really should not count; I really don't have an
opinion, 15) my grandchildren skate at every park in the area and I was just concerned about the flimsy
construction; I want something permanent; 16) the condo owners really ought to know better if they
bought here, 17) I'm not opposed to kids having fun so I'm not adamantly opposed to this unless the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 20
noise is too bad, and 18) I really don't care about that skate park; what I'm really concerned about is the
Taste of Edmonds that's when we get some really bad people around this neighborhood who drink at the
beer garden and come into my yard to relieve themselves. Councilmember Moore cautioned the Council
and others about the value of signatures on petitions such as this. Further this petition was quite dated
and the people who signed it were not aware of the changes the Work Group had made. She looked
forward to having the skate park in her neighborhood and was pleased to have a facility for kids in that
age group to use.
Councilmember Dawson agreed the Civic Center Playfields was a very good site for the skate park;
however, what made it a good site was also what people didn't like — it was visible and it was already
being used by a lot of people. She acknowledged no matter where a skate park was sited, there would be
concerns of some kind. She expressed her support of the motion with the caveat that the Parks &
Recreation Department and Work Group explore funding alternatives such as the State Wildlife and
Recreation funding as well as opportunities for private groups to co- sponsor the skate park. She
anticipated the neighborhood would be surprised by the sound level because the ambient noise level
would be so much less than other sports that occur in the park.
Student Representative Steven Landry expressed support for the skate park, noting none of the students he
spoke with felt the skate park would be a bad idea or anticipated sound being a problem. He referred to a
comment made by Mr. Huston regarding senior skaters, commenting he was sure there were
skateboarders who would be willing to teach skateboarding to adults. He commented there was not a lot
for youth to do in the Edmonds area; positive choices were better than possibly doing something negative.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
city Council 9. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES
Meeting RELATED TO AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Procedures
Council President Marin asked whether any Councilmember objected to the addition of the following
sentence in the Council meeting procedures: "In accordance with RCW 42.17.130, the opportunity for
public comment shall not include comments which promote or oppose candidates for public office or
ballot measures except during the course of a public hearing." He clarified this sentence was intended to
address statements promoting or opposing specific candidates during the campaign period and was not
intended to infringe on anyone's First Amendment rights.
Councilmember Dawson did not see a need to include this sentence in the Council procedures. She noted
the City's long standing policy of not encouraging campaign speeches at the podium had been honored
other than two people who made statements about specific candidates this year. She was concerned that
this had gone too far unnecessarily. She noted this issue had never arisen before and she was concerned it
was content based even though it was intended to be neutral. She concluded it perhaps sent the wrong
message. She appreciated Mr. Snyder's memo regarding the PDC's indication that the Council could
include this language, noting the PDC regulations had also been struck down by the Supreme Court
recently based on content.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled opponents of certain Council candidates made campaign statements at
the podium prior to the 2001 and 2003. He agreed it needed to be clarified whether that was allowed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 21
either via the Mayor's statement or putting it in writing. He noted there were those who disagreed with
Mr. Snyder's advice, finding the inclusion of this language was somehow too confining and that the
Council could not include the language. To those people, he suggested they prove their position. He
concluded this clarification was long overdue.
Councilmember Orvis also had a minor concern, finding the language too broad. He found it acceptable
to have anyone disagree with him at the podium. He recommended any restraints on what could be said
from the podium be limited to a statement requesting the public vote for or against a specific candidate.
He pointed out anything a person said regarding an issue could be construed as promoting or opposing a
specific candidate.
Council President Marin advised that was his intent in adding the proposed language to the Council .
meeting procedures.
10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Process for Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested the Council review their process for providing public comment,
,
Public noting some cities required speakers to submit the topic they wish to speak about prior to the meeting.
Comment Next he recommended the City establish an elections committee to develop a code of ethics as well as
address how meetings were conducted.
Contributions Michelle Bretz, Edmonds, asked which Councilmembers accepted contributions from parties of record
to council on the Sunset issue. Her research revealed Councilmembers Plunkett and Dawson had accepted
candidates contributions from ACE members as well as residents on Sunset. If Councilmember Wilson recused
himself on the basis of a contribution to his campaign, she questioned why Councilmembers Plunkett and
Dawson had not recused themselves. She also questioned why Councilmember Orvis had not recused
himself based on the challenge by Mr. Bissell. She questioned the ethics of some Councilmembers and
asked how she could get answers to her questions. Mayor Haakenson suggested visiting the PDC's
website. Ms. Bretz acknowledged she could do that but questioned why the Councilmembers did not
disclose that information themselves. Mayor Haakenson suggested she talk with individual
Councilmembers.
Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, reiterated he was not opposed to the skate park project but had concerns as
Skate Park at a property owner including whether he would have an recourse after the ark was constructed. He
Civic Center p p y `b' S' p
Playfields expressed concern with Councilmember Moore's comments that a group perceived as opposed to an issue
or that did not have a popular position were viewed as negative and their opinions were discounted versus
a group of kids and their parents who have a positive message and therefore should be supported. He was
also concerned that Councilmember Moore's comments cast a shadow on petition efforts; he
recommended each petition be viewed on its own merits. With regard to Councilmember Moore's
comment that implied he was whining and looking out for his own personal interests, he was dismayed
his comments as a property owner expressing concern with impacts on his property were not given the
same merit given as comments provided by a developer at Stn and Walnut.
Coun Meeting Don Kreiman, Edmonds, referred to the change in the meeting procedures, suggesting "endorse" be
Procedures substituted for "promote" and some other, stronger word be substituted for "oppose."
Skate Park at
Civic center Alex Witenberg, Edmonds, thanked the Council for approving the skate park. For all those who worked
Playfields on the issue, it was great to finally see the project moving forward.
Appreciation ofi ruce Witenberg, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Wilson for his dedication and service to the
Councilmember citizens of Edmonds during the past four years on the Council. He recalled as a city employee
Wilson
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 22
Councilmember Wilson helped their neighborhood annex to the City. Councilmember Wilson was
always well prepared on issues, willing to make difficult decisions even in the face of vicious personal
attacks that no public official should have to endure. He used his professional background and expertise
to educate the community and the Council on difficult land use issues in an effort to make Edmonds a
better place to live. His comments were always thought provoking, his decisions and service to the
community were well thought out and well reasoned. He served the community with passion and
perseverance and Mr. Witenberg was proud of the representation Councilmember Wilson provided. He
stated that Councilmember Wilson's voice and his principles would not be silenced and he would
continue to advocate to make Edmonds a better place to live.
Closed Record Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Council President Marin's email to Councilmembers at 1:36 a.m.
Review re: the morning following the meeting regarding the closed record review on the Sunset Avenue property.
Sunset Ave. He acknowledged the emails were public and had been included in the packet but questioned whether
Property i ' l H commended Councilmember D f h y that
Council Council President Maries actions were legal. e commene Councmemer awson or her reply Council g I�
Communication stated the Council should not be communicating on the matter. He referred to an email from Mayor
Haakenson at 9:01 a.m. that morning, questioning the advisability of Mayor Haakenson's putting his
opinion why the City would be sued in writing. He referred to other emails throughout that morning,
remarking even Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend was involved in the emails including
an email from John Bissell. He found the communication following the meeting inappropriate and illegal
and he objected to the Council operating outside the public view.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the Council was communicating about a subject they thought was
over based on his mistake. He pointed out it was an honest error that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
allowed to be disclosed.
Councilmember Orvis observed the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine still applied on this issue. Mr.
Snyder agreed that until the Council adopted Findings and Conclusions, they should not discuss the
matter. Based on his comments, he could understand the Council's confusion and the Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine allowed the Council to address the problem by putting the ex parte communications
into the record. He concluded there was nothing fatally illegal about what occurred. Although some of
the Council's comments were perhaps more direct than usual, they were only deliberation and were the
same things that had been said at previous meetings.
Permit 11. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH BITCO SOFTWARE, LLC FOR
Tracking PERMIT TRACKING SOFTWARE.
Software
Development Services Director Duane Bowman sought the Council's authorization for the Mayor to sign .
a contract with Bitco Software to allow the purchase and implementation of permit tracking software for a
total cost of $66,756. He advised payment for the software would be from his 2005 budget.
Mr. Bowman explained in 2000, prior to his employment, the former Finance Director purchased a permit
module as part of the EDEN software package. The cost of the module was $45,000 with $22,500 paid
initially and the remaining $22,500 due on final acceptance which had never been given. Staff was
assigned to implement the software and soon discovered the inability to reroute a resubmitted permit.
Attempts to develop a work around to fix the problem failed. He noted routing was a key function as it
allowed tracking of a permit's status.
A staff committee comprised of the Administrative Services Director, Development Services Managers,
IT staff and himself reviewed proposals from EDEN as well as a local company, Bitco Software, for
implementing the permit tracking software. EDEN's proposal cost $61,989 in addition to the $22,500
that had already been paid and did not include a routing function or additional reports. The proposal from
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 23
Bitco Software would provide a complete system including web access for customers, standard
reports /forms, conversion of data, installation and implementation of the system, and a cashiering
function. He noted the web based application proposed by Bitco was very flexible and could be adapted
to fit nearly any operation including code enforcement. Staff believed the software from Bitco would
provide the City with the best new permit tracking system at a very reasonable cost and in a timely
manner. He advised the system could be operational by March 2006 or sooner. He introduced Bitco's
representative, Cory Jorgensen.
Councilmember Orvis pointed out the importance of the routing function in the industry and encouraged
the Council to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Bitco Software.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH BITCO SOFTWARE, LLC.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Recognizing
12. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION TO COUNCILMEMBER JEFF WILSON
Councilmember
Jeffwlson Council President Marin read Resolution No. 1113 recognizing Councilmember Jeff Wilson for his
service to the Edmonds City Council from December 11, 2001 to December 2005, for representing the
City's interests on a number of committees, for his conscientiousness of the community and its citizens
when deliberating Council agenda items and wishing him the best of luck in his future endeavors.
Councilmember Wilson thanked the citizens of Edmonds for the honor of serving on the Council for the
past four years. He expressed his appreciation for the citizens' support when they agreed with him and
for their criticism when they did not agree with him. He thanked his supporters during the reelection
campaign, remarking it was heartening and satisfying to see that support. He thanked the Council for the
interesting and growth experience over the past four years and wished Councilmembers including Mr.
Wambolt the best of luck. He expressed special thanks to Mr. Bowman and staff. After 25 years working
with cities he had the opportunity to work with many different staffs and found Edmonds staff by far the
best he had seen. He found the Edmonds staff very diligent, passionate, professional and interested in the
community. He thanked Mayor Haakenson for assembling such a great staff. Although the Council and
the public may not always like or agree with staff's answers, they did their jobs with pride,
professionalism, honesty and integrity.
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson wished Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman a belated happy birthday.
He thanked Student Representative Steve Landry and wished him the best in the future. He expressed his
pleasure working with Councilmember Wilson, remarking he would be missed.
14. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Responding to a comment made during audience comments, Council President Marin denied doing
anything illegal, explaining the gist of his email to Councilmembers was to advise them the matter would
be scheduled on a future agenda for further discussion. His email did not open the discussion; it was
advisory only and was not illegal.
Councilmember Olson thanked Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith, who was resigning at the end of the
month, for his efforts. She explained Mr. Smith had been an asset to the community and had secured
numerous grants.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2005
Page 24
Councilmember Dawson thanked Student Representative Landry for his efforts. To Councilmember
Wilson, she recalled they came into office together. They had a lot of good times over the past four years
and became good friends and she would miss him on the Council. Even though they disagreed over
certain issues she always knew he came to his decisions honestly. She wished everyone a happy holiday.
Student Representative Landry thanked the Council.
Councilmember Plunkett congratulated Student Representative Landry, remarking he would do a good
job at whatever he did in the future. He recognized Councilmember Wilson for his sincerity and
dedication to his job as a Councilmember.
Councilmember Moore echoed others' appreciation to Councilmember Wilson for his service to the City,
remarking he would be missed very much. She wished everyone a happy holiday and good health
City's Budget through the holiday season. She then displayed the budget projection for the next five years and
Projection challenged the Council and Mayor to reverse the downward trend of the City's budget. She urged the
Council to balance the budget and make every effort to retain City services that reflected the Edmonds
lifestyle and made everyone proud to live here. She described her efforts to develop her own vision with
the help of hundreds of citizens via stimulating growth in the City that would exist in 2020 and increase
sales tax revenue. She anticipated an Edmonds Forward Thrust program that would allow the City to
purchase shoreline property, build parks, repair roads, purchase open spaces, and keep the library,
infrastructure and public safety at the highest levels. She commented City staff was very thin and getting
thinner with the resignation of Mr. Smith. She anticipated the City would suffer further "brain drain" if
staffing and the budget continued to be reduced. She challenged the Council and Mayor to create a vision
Vision for the that would accommodate growth and that the majority of the Council could agree on. She pointed out if
City
the community agreed with the vision they would support what it took to realize the vision. She
encouraged the Council and Mayor to write down their visions and goals for the next year and suggested
the Council combine their visions and goals at the Council's annual retreat. She invited the public to
participate in the process, suggesting the City's newsletter and website be used to keep residents informed
and to avoid misinformation. She summarized Edmonds was about everybody in all age groups and
needed to be sustainable and a beautiful place to live for future generations.
Councilmember Wilson expressed his thanks to the Planning Board, Architectural Design Board, Sister
City Commission, Arts Commission, etc. who provide immeasurable volunteer hours assisting in making
Edmonds a better place to live. He thanked City Attorney Scott Snyder for their 15 year working
relationship. He also thanked Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman and City Clerk Sandy
Chase for their tireless efforts. He wished everyone a happy holiday.
Councilmember Wilson reminded that although the Council's role was to serve citizens of today and
address present day needs, the role of the Council was always to be thinking about the future. He
encouraged the public to offer their opinions in a constructive manner with an eye on the future. He
stressed the importance of not living in the past and looking toward the legacy that would be left for
today's children. He encouraged the Council in all their decisions and actions to do what was in the
City's best interest today but also consider how it impacted future opportunities.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m.
Azwassri
ARY61 AAKENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6,2005
Page 25
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
DECEMBER 6, 2005
6:30 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding a Legal Matter
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
A. Roll Call
B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 29, 2005.
C. Approval of claim checks #84045 through #84217 for the week of November
28, 2005, in the amount of$304,984.92.
D. Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Larry Wilcynski ($240.47),
Scott Schrieber ($504.29), and Avalon at Edmonds Condominiums
Homeowners' Association ($15,000.00).
E. Approval of Municipal Employees' Benefit Trust (MEBT) Plan Restatement,
effective date 1-1-06.
F. Authorization for Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of
Lynnwood and the City of Edmonds for Joint Funding of the Recycling
Coordinator.
G. Council acceptance of Chattel Deed quit claiming to the City of Edmonds
ownership of a stormwater line by the Vista Del Mar Homeowners'
Association.
H. Authorization for the Mayor to sign Employment Contract for the Senior
Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman.
I. Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum to the State Contract #04198 for
Collection Agency Services with Allianceone Receivables Management,
Inc.
J. Proposed Resolution thanking Student Representative Steven Landry for his
service as a Student Representative.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
DECEMBER 6, 2005
K. Proposed Resolution thanking Councilmember Jeff Wilson for his service on
the City Council.
3. ( 5 Mina Presentation of Resolution to Student Representative Steven Landry.
4. (30 Min.) Continued City Council deliberation on the Closed Record Review of a
consolidated application by Don Drew, property owner, and Ed Lee of the Hotel
Group for a contract rezone, master-plan approval and design review for the
property located at 1XX Sunset Avenue North. The contract rezone request
seeks to change the zoning from RS-6 to Master-Planned Office and Residential
(MPOR) tied to a master-plan and design review proposal for a 2-story office and
residential building with a basement parking garage.
5. (15 Min.) Public Hearing on the extension of Ordinance No. 3555, extending a zoning
moratorium on the acceptance of Architectural Design Board applications or
building permit applications, not otherwise vested pursuant to State law prior to
date of enactment of this Ordinance which seek to utilize modulated design in
order to obtain a building height in excess of the twenty-five foot height
limitation established by ECDC 15.40.020(A)(2).
6. (15 Min.) Public Hearing on the extension of Ordinance No. 3556, extending a zoning
moratorium on the application of ECDC 20.10.070(C)(3) relating to the imposition
of special height limits to protect views.
7. (15 Min.) Public Hearing regarding the final 2005 Budget Amendment.
8. (45 Mina Public Hearing on the Edmonds Skate Park Work Group proposal to locate a
Skate Park at the Civic Center Playfields.
9. (15 Min.) Discussion on proposed change to the City Council Meeting Procedures related
to audience comments.
10. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
11. (20 Min.) Authorization for Mayor to sign contract with Bitco Software, LLC for permit
tracking software.
12. (10 Mina Presentation of Resolution to Councilmember Jeff Wilson.
13. ( 5 Mina Mayor's Comments
14. (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