06/29/1999 City CouncilApprove
Claim
Warrants
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
JUNE 29,1999
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Barbara Fahey, Mayor
Gary Haakenson, Council President
Dave Earling, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember
Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember
Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Paul Mar, Community Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
James Walker, City Engineer
Michael Karber, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Fahey explained the Council held a Special Meeting prior to the Council meeting to interview the
top candidates for the Fire Chief position.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson requested Item 4 become 4A and the addition of "Highway 99 Project
Temporary Construction Easements" be added to the agenda as Item 4B.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST, TO CHANGE ITEM 4 TO 4A AND TO ADD HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIONS EASEMENTS AS ITEM 4B. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NO.RDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Miller requested Consent Agenda Item B be removed from the agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #34149 THROUGH #34308 FOR THE WEEK OF
JUNE 21, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $508,604.48
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 1
Report on (D) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
General
Fund MAY 31,1999
Museum
indow (E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE EDMONDS HISTORICAL
eplacement MUSEUM WINDOW REPLACEMENT
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
errmville PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CHS ENGINEERS, INC. FOR THE
ILID Design PERRINVILLE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS DESIGN PROJECT
es.956 (G) RESOLUTION NO. 956 ADOPTING A SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION
-Year TIP IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND DIRECTING THE SAME TO BE FILED WITH THE
STATE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT BOARD
es. 957 (H) RESOLUTION NO. 957 SETTING JULY 20, 1999, AS THE HEARING DATE FOR A
'caring Date i REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF 216"r STREET SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF-
rST -99 -25 WAY IMMEDIATELY EAST OF 84' AVENUE WEST (Applicant: Edmonds School
District / File No. ST- 99 -25)
Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 22,1999
prove Councilmember Miller advised he would abstain from the vote on this item, as he was absent from the
22/99 June 22 Council meeting.
inutes
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B. MOTION CARRIED,
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER ABSTAINED. The agenda item approved is as follows:
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 22,1999
Public 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
Baring APPROVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DC -98 -181 CODE (ECDC) SECTION 20.60.050 PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF "WALL GRAPHICS."
(File No. CDC -98 -181)
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this issue arose as a result of a public hearing regarding a
specific sign. He explained the proposal was to amend the Code to clarify what constitutes a wall
graphic and how they are reviewed. The amendment would require a wall graphic, as defined in the
Code, to be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB).
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Linda Goodrick, 16508 76" Ave W, Edmonds, requested more detail regarding the proposed change.
Mr. Chave explained the Code currently does not require review of wall graphics by the ADB, which the
proposed change would require. He read the proposed definition of a wall graphic, "a wall graphic is a
wall sign in which color and form and without the use of words, is a part of the overall design on the
buildings) in which the business is located. A wall graphic may be painted or applied (not to exceed 112
inch in thickness) to a building as part of its overall color and design, but may not be internally lighted.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 2
Mr. Chave commented this is intended to address a graphic applied to the building, not a sign. He
continued reading the proposed definition, "Internally lighted assemblies including those which project
from the wall of. the structure, or which are located on any accessory structure on the site shall be
considered wall signs and comply with the requirement of this chapter." He explained the intent was to
make a distinction between a wall graphic and a sign.
Mayor Fahey observed wall graphics are currently reviewed by staff and a decision is made regarding
whether it is a wall graphic. Mr. Chave agreed the Code is not clear whether wall graphics should be
reviewed by staff or the ADB. Historically, staff has referred wall graphics with a great deal of visibility
to the ADB but does not refer wall graphics with a small impact. He clarified a wall graphic is not
intended to be a business message.
Ms. Goodrick supported this proposal, as there are currently no restrictions on wall graphics. She said
the sign code should address wall graphics that use the business name or call attention to a business.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, endorsed the Planning Board's recommendation. He
said this change would allow better review of this issue in the future.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the audience comment portion of the public hearing
and remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE #3262 TO AMEND ECDC SECTION 20.60.020.A.1 AND
20.60.050A. MOTION CARRIED. THE ORDINANCE APPROVED IS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO. 3262 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE BY THE AMENDMENT OF 20.60.020(A)(1) RELATING TO STAFF
APPROVALS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO WALL GRAPHICS AND SECTION 20.60.050 TO
DEFINE WALL GRAPHIC, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
Public 4A. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO
Baring APPROVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DC -98 -182 CODE (ECDC) SECTIONS 16.45.010(B) AND 16.50.010(B) PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS
GOVERNING "LIMITED DISPLAY AND SALES ACTIVITIES OF A SEASONAL NATURE."
(File No. CDC -98 -182)
Planning Supervisor Rob Chave explained this ordinance amends the BC - Community Business and BN
- Neighborhood Business zones to allow seasonal sales. He read the definition of a seasonal sale, "the
exterior display and sale of seasonal items such as pumpkins, flowers, trees, plants and other items
traditionally associated with certain seasons, holidays or times of year. " These sales can be conducted
outside the premises and cannot exceed normal lot coverage requirements. Seasonal display and sale of
any specific item or class of item are limited to 30 days duration in any calendar year. Total seasonal
exterior display of any and all items or classes of items shall not exceed 60 days in any calendar year.
He explained this ordinance was drafted as a result of numerous Christmas tree lots and other seasonal
sales activities that occur which the City does not currently have a method of permitting.
For Council President Haakenson, Mr. Chave explained the sunset clause allowed one calendar year for
the City to consider how these regulations work and to determine if they accomplish the intended
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 3
purpose. He read from the ordinance, "unless extended by the act of the Edmonds City Council, these
provisions shall expire and be void one year after their effective date."
Mayor Fahey asked staff to address how this affects the City's ability to address solicitors and individuals
to sell in the City on a temporary basis. Mr. Chave explained a business would still need to obtain a
business license for this activity. The proposed change would not allow an individual to set up a
business on the street, the business must be a normal business activity in the BC or BN zone.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke expressed concern with the 30 -day duration of a seasonal display /sale
and the 60 -day total seasonal exterior display. He referred to the memo from City Attorney Scott Snyder
that did not specify the cumulative number of days. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said since the City
is in the process of attempting to be more user friendly and cooperative with merchants, he
recommended the 60 -day period be extended to 90 days. He said this would allow an innovative
merchant to promote any season they choose and promote it in a customer - friendly manner without the
City policing that activity. He asked how the 60 -day period was established. Mr. Chave explained the
intent was for this to apply to seasonal merchandise tied to a season. The Planning Board felt the 60 -day
period was reasonable.
Councilmember Nordquist referred to the Market at 2281 and Hwy. 99 where seasonal items are
displayed beyond 90 days, possibly as long as six months. He felt 90 days was too short, particularly due
to the desire to attract businesses to Edmonds. Mr. Chave explained the intent of the ordinance was to
apply to seasonal/holiday activities. He said a longer period of time could be considered as a separate
issue. City Attorney Michael Karber said the Code as currently drafted does not allow outside storage,
display or sale of products in the BC or BN zone. A business that wants to continually store, display or
sell items outside can apply for a Conditional Use Permit which requires a public hearing. The proposed
ordinance provides an administrative method for addressing outside storage, display, and sale.
Councilmember Nordquist referred to businesses in the City that display items outside frequently
throughout the year. Mr. Chave said plans are for the Community Services Committee to review other
outdoor uses at their next meeting such as outdoor dining. Mayor Fahey commented historically
established businesses were not allowed to display items for sale outside the building. She explained last
year two individuals received solicitor licenses and sold products on an on -going basis on privately
owned property in the City. As a result, staff realized there were no regulations in the Code to address
seasonal sale of products. She said if the City sought to curtail these outdoor uses, they would be
curtailing the independent person who sells seasonal items such as Christmas trees. She agreed staff may
need to review other issues and how they impact the Code.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, expressed concern with this issue, pointing out that
outside sales on a larger lot (i.e. grocery stores) had less impact than outside sales on a small lot, which
may contain a lot of traffic. He pointed out the difficulty in policing this issue, noting the City does not
currently police A -frame signs. He said the amount of time the seasonal display is present will not be
regulated due to the City's lack of enforcement. He pointed out an outdoor display could be present for a
long period of time with only the changing of the holiday symbol.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 4
Jacque Mayo, 415 Main Street, Edmonds, said restrictions on activities drives out business. He felt
businesses should be allowed to display and create activity. Restricting displays /sales too much will
result in businesses leaving the community.
Shari Nault, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, 1215" Ave. N., Edmonds, urged the Council
to think carefully and gather input before establishing restrictions. She said there are opportunities to do
displays tastefully.
Shaun Richards, 802 Main, Edmonds, said seasons are what make Edmonds thrive. He agreed with
Mr. Mayo's comment that additional restrictions on businesses discourage businesses from locating in
the City during a time when the City needs businesses.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Nordquist recommended any action be postponed until the Community Services
Committee had an opportunity to review this, and commented that more community input was needed.
Council President Haakenson expressed concern with uses addressed in the ordinance, commenting they
are not specific enough and the 30 day and 60 day time periods are not long enough. He agreed with
Councilmember Nordquisfs request to postpone consideration of this until staff provides additional
information. He cautioned the Council to be careful legislating to businesses in the City what they can
sell. He felt having merchandise in front of stores is a plus for the community.
Councilmember Plunkett said Juneau, Alaska, which has very narrow sidewalks, has vendors on the
sidewalks who create a lot of excitement in the downtown area. He agreed with Councilmember
Nordquist's suggestion for the matter to be reviewed by the Community Services Committee.
Councilmember Miller observed the ordinance was brought forward by the City Attorney in response to
a citizen complaint. The Planning Board held a study session, and two public hearings. He was not
aware of any egregious violations in the community and agreed with Councilmember Nordquist's
suggestion to have the matter reviewed by the Community Services Committee. He said this ordinance
appears to be somewhat over - regulating.
Councilmember White agreed with Councilmember Miller's observation that three public hearings have
been held and there has not been a great deal of public outcry. He agreed with the suggestion to have it
reviewed by the Community Services Committee and promptly returned to the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST,
FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMITTEE AT THEIR NEXT MEETING AND REPORT BACK AT THE EARLIEST
POSSIBLE DATE. MOTION CARRIED.
.ghway 99 4B. HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
onstruction
Easements City Engineer Jim Walker explained Lynnwood found that several property owners along Highway 99
had not provided a temporary construction easement to allow work adjoining the right -of -way. The
proposed ordinance would allow Lynnwood to take action to acquire the temporary easements, which
could include condemnation if necessary.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 5
Councilmember Plunkett asked the cost of the total Highway 99 improvement project. Mr. Walker
answered approximately $21 million.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
WHITE, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 'NO. 3263. MOTION CARRIED. THE ORDINANCE
APPROVED IS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO. 3263 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION
OF EIGHT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION PERMITS OR EASEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE
OF CONSTRUCTING IMPROVEMENTS TO A STRIP OF LAND ADJACENT TO AND
PARALLEL TO HIGHWAY 99 IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY STANDARDS
AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS, ALL SAID PARCELS LYING WITHIN THE CITY OF
EDMONDS; PROVIDING FOR CONDEMNATION, 'APPROPRIATION, TAKING AND
DAMAGE OF THE LAND OR OTHER PROPERTY NECESSARY THEREFORE; PROVIDING
THAT THE ENTIRE COST THEREOF SHALL BE PAID PER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
FROM THE GENERAL FUND OR OTHER AVAILABLE FUNDS OF THE CITY;
AUTHORIZING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD IN
ORDER TO AUTHORIZE CONDEMNATION OF THESE PARCELS IN CONJUNCTION WITH
LYNNWOOD PARCELS, BY THE CITY ATTORNEY OF LYNNWOOD TO PROSECUTE SUCH
ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANNER
PROVIDED BY LAW FOR SAID CONDEMNATION AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Study on 5. PRESENTATION OF CONSULTANT STUDY ON THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
Design
Review
Process Community Services Director Paul Mar explained last July 28 at the conclusion of a public hearing, the
Council authorized retention of a consultant to refine the City's design guidelines and the review process.
Cedar River Associates and Johnson Architecture and Planning were selected and embarked on a data
collection and research effort that began in October 1998 including interviews with approximately 20
individuals such as staff, applicants, past and present ADB members and concerned citizens. On
January 19, 1999, they presented preliminary findings to Council. It was agreed at that time that the
scope of the review would be revised and the study completed. He explained the consultants have
completed the study and have produced a checklist for rewriting the Design Guidelines including some
interim guidelines. They have recommended specific changes to the Design Review process including
the timing of key events. They have also revised submittal requirements for ADB applications. A
brainstorming session was convened in March to review these issues with emphasis on design departures.
Several Councilmembers were briefed regarding the result of that brainstorming. Mr. Mar said all the
process changes recommended by the consultant have been reviewed by Development Services Director
Ray Miller and City Attorney Scott Snyder. On behalf of the consultants, the recommendations of the
study were presented to the ADB on June 16 and to the Planning Board on June 23. Minutes of those
meetings are contained in the packet. He requested the Council provide direction on accepting the
consultant's final report.
Councilmember Earling observed staff is seeking Council acceptance of the report and inquired about the
process for implementation. Mr. Mar responded there are a number of legal and legislative procedures to
be addressed such as converting the ADB's role from quasi judiciary to an advisory board. This would
require a change to the ordinance and a public hearing. The Planning Board recommends that a public
hearing be convened at the Planning Board to discuss the issue before providing a recommendation. For
Councilmember Earling, Mr. Mar said the ADB is reviewing the interim guidelines; once their review
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 6
has been completed, they will bring forward a recommendation to the Council to adopt them as interim
guidelines to be used until the final guidelines are adopted.
Councilmember Plunkett said the Council is being asked to accept the report for further study and
review, not to accept the conclusions. Council President Haakenson said the Council is accepting the
conclusions that the consultant reported and was not bound to anything.
Nancy Fox, Cedar River Associates, said since the last presentation to the Council, they have met with
the ADB, held many conversations with staff and the City Attorney as well as a small advisory group.
The recommendations in the final report are a result of these conversations. She said there was
considerable support for the core concepts identified in the interim report. She reviewed key objectives
that the improvements should strive to achieve, 1) increase the effectiveness of the design review process
to ensure it is achieving the urban design objectives for the City, 2) give the ADB the tools it needs to
become a more positive force in the development and design review process, and 3) seek opportunities
for streamlining and making the design review process work better with the overall permit process.
Ms. Fox reviewed the design review recommendations and implementation schedule. She said the first
finding presented in January was related to the existing design review guidelines. They found Edmonds
has a series of overlapping documents, at least four, that are considered to be part of the set of materials
that are used to review projects. Having four different sets of documents was unworkable and as a result
the existing guidelines are not being used. Their first recommendation is to rewrite the Design
Guidelines to create a single document to consolidate and synthesize the existing guidelines and, once
they're available, to insist they are used as the basis for decision making. Their recommendation
includes direction regarding the character /organization of the Guidelines, a suggestion for including a
checklist which is a tool the ADB can use in the review of individual projects, clarifying the distinctions
between neighborhoods, and addressing policy gaps which will require Council direction. She said one
of the most significant policy gaps is the view policies that are included in the Guidelines; they can be
interpreted in a number of different ways and it is not clear whether the City intends to address private
view protection. She said one of the appendixes to the recommendation includes steps for rewriting the
guidelines. A key to producing a solid set of Guidelines is to work closely with the ADB and coordinate
this work with the Edmonds visioning process and seek linkages between the two. They recommended
the rewrite of the Guidelines take place mid to late 1999.
Their second recommendation is tied to the first recommendation; the lack of a usable set of Design
Review Guidelines is an urgent problem for the ADB and cannot wait to be addressed until the end of
1999. To fill that gap, they produced an Interim Design Guideline Checklist (Appendix D) which they
propose for immediate adoption. This will give the ADB some interim direction until a new set of
Guidelines has been developed. To develop the checklist, they reviewed the existing documents and
Guidelines in an attempt to organize the information. This was not an attempt to resolve,policy issues or
rethink the existing Guidelines but to provide'a workable tool based on the Guidelines in place now. She
said this will not only provide the ADB a tool during the interim but could provide valuable testing of the
ideas so that as the Guidelines are developed, the checklist can assist with that process. She said this
recommendation is tied to their sixth recommendation, apply the Interim Design Guidelines Checklist to
existing Code exceptions. She said this would assist the ADB when considering code waivers such as
landscaping waivers and the provision for an additional 5 feet of roof height for certain modulation
features.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 7
Ms. Fox displayed a flowchart of the proposed Design Review. Process and explained their third
recommendation was to change the timing of ADB review including establishing a pre- design meeting
for major projects (new construction or significant building additions). This would provide the ADB an
opportunity to meet with the applicant before the building is designed in order to review the checklist,
make an assessment of what site - related features might be important in the design of the building, and
provide guidance to the applicant to reduce the need to make changes to the permit application and avoid
multiple meetings with the ADB in the future. This would provide the ADB a more positive opportunity
to work with applicants on the key design parameters for a project, rather than waiting until the building
plans are completed. If the ADB finds a problem at that point, it becomes a very contentious situation
due to the expense of making changes to the design at that point in the process. She said public notice
would be provided of this pre- design meeting and public comment would be accepted at the meeting..
Their fourth recommendation is to revise the Design Review process in several ways including having
the SEPA review and scheduling of an ADB meeting occur concurrently. This will speed up the process
by at least several weeks for most permit applications. She agreed it was possible a project could go
through SEPA review and be conditioned in a manner that the building design could be changed and
returned to the ADB for further review. However, this does riot occur often and most applicants likely
would readily accept that risk.
Ms. Fox said they also recommend eliminating the formal ADB hearing on projects. Having the ADB
hold a formal public hearing contributes to creating a formal, somewhat adversarial atmosphere in the.
ADB that does not foster open dialogue. Having the ADB hold a formal hearing is also misleading to the
public who often comment on issues beyond the ADB's scope of authority, placing the ADB in a
negative role. They recommend public comment still be allowed but clarify for the public that the intent
of the ADB is to hear their comments about how the project responds to the City's Design Review
Guidelines. They also recommend, changing the configuration of the ADB meeting, having the ADB
around the table at the same level as the applicants. '
Another revision to the Design Review Process would be to have the ADB be an advisory board rather
than make the decision regarding Design Review. She said although the term advisory may indicate their
recommendation could be ignored or not have a great deal of strength in the decision - making, that is not
the purpose. Their recommendation is that the ADB's decision carry considerable weight, almost be
determinative in the Director's decision on the project. She suggested the City have the City Attorney
draft language regarding the Director's discretion to modify the recommendation of the ADB. These
could be very strict and only allow a change by the Director in the event of an error. They recommend
the ADB be an advisory board because as long as the ADB is the decision -maker in the process, they
must act in a quasi-judicial capacity, cannot consider evidence other than what is presented by the
parties, are discouraged from offering their own ideas on possible design solutions, and have even been
instructed not to visit the project site. This would allow the ADB members to bring their own design
expertise into the process.
Ms. Fox said they also recommend a change in the way appeals are currently handled. Appeals are
currently made to the City Council and their recommendation is to have a Hearing Examiner hear
appeals. This would provide a greater degree of predictability and less uncertainty about the timing of
decisions. For the ADB, they would be held accountable to a set of adopted Design Review Guidelines.
For the Council, this will eliminate lengthy debates about minor details of project design and allow the
Council to focus on establishing appropriate guidelines /principles and taking legislative action that is
necessary for establishing" criteria for the program.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 8
Their fifth recommendation is to establish a program for site - specific code departures through Design
Review. This issue was discussed in the interim report and has been explored further. The advisory
group responded favorably to this recommendation. The intent is to allow the ADB to grant flexibility
from specific code requirements for individual projects where an applicant could demonstrate that by
getting the departure, they would be able to do a better job of meeting the City's Design Guidelines and
providing a specific public benefit. The goal is to give the ADB a tool to allow them to leverage better
design outcome in projects. As this is a new concept which will require more discussion, she suggested
staff undertake additional analysis of this issue while the Design Guidelines are being rewritten and
revisions are being made to the Design Review process so that once that is completed, the Council could
consider the issue of code departure and have analysis of specific proposals of what type of code
standards might be eligible and what limits might want to be set on issues such as heights.
Their seventh recommendation is to change the character of submittals applicants are asked to make
when coming to the ADB. This is tied to the change in timing of the ADB review. She said it was
agreed that in order to get the type of review that is desired, there needs to be a point where the ADB can
focus on the context of the site. Their recommendation is that applicants not be required to have detailed
building plans at the time of the pre - design meeting but rather present concept -level information
particularly regarding features around the site. She said they developed a checklist of items that are
appropriate to be presented at the pre- design meeting. She said this would also be a good opportunity to
test the application of the "Virtual Edmonds" program.
Their eighth recommendation is to consider raising the threshold for projects that come to the ADB for
review and allow more minor actions to be reviewed by staff and major projects forwarded to the ADB
for review. She said their report contains some specific recommendations for determining which
projects are reviewed by.staff and which are reviewed by the ADB. She said one key to raising the
threshold is adopting a new Sign Code.
Their ninth recommendation is a series of suggestions for strengthening the staffing, training, and
credentials of the ADB. She said the City has given the ADB an important job and it is worthwhile now
to make a commitment to training and supporting them and ensuring the ADB has the credentials that
will earn public credibility.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke complimented Ms. Fox and Mr. Johnson for their comprehensive
analysis of a very difficult issue. He referred to paragraph 2 on page 7 of the report that addresses views,
commenting since the visioning process was completed, many residents are concerned the City will no
longer protect views. He asked the consultants to address this issue.
Steve Johnson, Johnson Architecture and Planning, said the report reflects that views are a key
element in Edmonds. However, it is not clear in the City's Code which views are protected, where the
most critical views are located, and what views are to be most respected. He said there is a lot of text in
the Code relating to views, particularly a very rigorous and restrictive height limitation but the Code as
currently structured does not permit a dialogue regarding land form.
Ms. Fox said the ADB is currently charged with considering 5 -foot roof height increases based on roof
modulation. However, if roof modulation is considered only on a mechanical basis but not considering
the overall objective of how it affects views, the review process does not necessarily lead to a logical
result. Mr. Johnson said the height restriction in the Land Use Code reflects the importance of view and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 9
maintaining a low structure height. He said while the height restriction is sensitive to the important
element of view, it simultaneously harms other aspects of the City's development, particularly in the
downtown area such as pedestrian friendly streetscapes, building entrances, retail frontages, etc.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke referred to Appendix A that cites the average time from application to
decision and asked how their recommendations would affect the overall length of the process. Ms. Fox
said in most cases the ADB hearing is not scheduled until 3 -4 weeks have passed to allow consideration
of SEPA. The time may also be shortened for projects that in the past have become struck in a repeat
cycle of review. Mr. Johnson said one of their recommendations within the structure of the ADB is to
focus the staffing of the ADB within the Development Services Department so that a knowledgeable
staff person works with the ADB and could bring their working methodology to the applicant to assist
with a better dialogue regarding the process with the applicant.
Councilmember Plunkett complimented Ms. Fox and Mr. Johnson on their report, stating it gives the
community, the Council and staff a great deal to think about which is the key to a great success. He
asked if a group of people (architect, developer, City staff, ADB, planner, etc.) had an opportunity to
discuss the final report together. Ms. Fox answered no, the group meeting was held between the interim
and final reports. Mr. Johnson said many of these recommendations were in place at that time.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the consultant to comment on the City's current Design Review process.
Mr. Johnson said Edmonds started design review in this region although the City has fallen to the
wayside -- where the City was once a leader, its processes have not evolved to be the most useful.
Ms. Fox said when they began their review of the process, there was a lot of frustration expressed and
finger- pointing about parts and actors in the process. She said they were surprised by the level of
agreement/understanding about where the weaknesses are in the process, given the feelings when the
process began.
Mr. Mar responded to Councilmember Plunkett's earlier question, explaining Development Services
Director Ray Miller has discussed this report with his staff. The ADB had a copy of the report when he
made the report to them and the Planning Board had a copy of the report when a report was made to
them. Councilmember Plunkett said his question was whether it has been discussed by the group as a
whole. Ms. Fox said the reason the tasks have been broken up and an implementation schedule
suggested is because it would be more productive to address the issues individually.
Councilmember Miller complimented Ms. Fox and Mr. Johnson on their presentation and
recommendations. He said the proposal would fast track the process for applicants, add value for the
City and provides a positive role for the ADB.
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO ACCEPT THE FINAL REPORT.
Council President Haakenson thanked Councilmember Earling for suggesting this study be undertaken.
Councilmember Earling commented that the most important issue to him when this process began was
trying to define the role of the ADB and ensure that they have considerable influence on the visual
outcome of the City. He said the consultant's recommendation included two important areas for the
ADB to have influence in the process. He felt implementation would achieve two goals -- maintain the
influence of the ADB process and allow developers an opportunity to streamline the process.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 10
MOTION CARRIED.
j ntown 6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE
king
e Community Services Director Paul Mar explained last week the Council directed staff to bring back
several pieces of information, 1) data on parking habits of employees at the Civic Center campus, and 2).
data regarding the financing method, specifically gross receipts. The Council subcommittee on the
downtown parking garage met yesterday afternoon to discuss these items and agreed to discuss the
information with the full Council.
Councilmember Earling explained the subcommittee was asked to review the potential for a gross
revenue tax as one of the potential funding sources. At yesterday's meeting, Administrative Services
Director Peggy Hetzler expressed frustration with the dissection and analysis of information provided by
the state. He said she had now had an opportunity to do a more thorough analysis regarding the gross
receipts tax and has additional information regarding an employee tax.
Mr. Mar displayed a map of the site, recalling the details of available parking on the site for staff had
been discussed last week and Council requested staff provide further information regarding employees'
parking habits. He explained 104 parking spaces will be provided on the Public Safety campus (81 in
front and 23 spaces for Police and Fire staff), 45 parking spaces are provided underneath the City Hall
building and 22 spaces are provided in the parking lot south of the City Hall building, for a total of 171
parking spaces. His analysis indicated 74 automobiles are driven to the Civic Campus on a daily basis,
there are currently 27 employee parking permits for City employees working at the Civic Center campus,
there are 11 City -owned vehicles that park on City property (excludes police cars) and there are 3 leased
spaces in the lot south of City Hall for a total parking demand of 88 spaces.
Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler said several staff members have attempted to decipher
the gross receipts information provided by the state and are currently able to match up approximately
60% of the citywide businesses (comparing the City's business license information to the state's
information). Since there is still a 40% uncertainty, they could not develop a good comfort level
regarding the numbers. She said based on the limited research they have done, a number of problems
were envisioned with administering this tax. She clarified for the subcommittee that the number of
businesses in the City is 1,700 and the number of employees citywide is 7,000. She said the discussion
with the subcommittee regarding gross revenues concluded with the idea that staff would consider what
revenues could be generated by a citywide employee tax.
Ms. Hetzler displayed a parking funding strategy based on an employee count, which assumes an annual
funding requirement of $100,000. Using figures revised as of June 29, the average number of employees
citywide is 4, the tax per employee increased to $15, the average business tax would be $60. The
proposed minimum tax, with an annual cap, would need to be $40 and the proposed maximum tax would
need to be $200 per year. She said the maximum would apply to businesses with up to 14 employees or
75 businesses.
Ms. Hetzler explained an error occurred with previous figures regarding the number of employees that
needed to be excluded from the overall pool to calculate the per employee amount, which is the reason
for the increase in the minimum and maximum tax amounts.
Council President Haakenson asked if this information was based on a citywide tax. Ms. Hetzler
answered yes.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 11
Councilmember Van Hollebeke observed that in order to limit the taxation to the area in closest
proximity, the number presented would have to be tripled.
Councilmember White asked Ms. Hetzler to explain "employees excluded from the count." Ms. Hetzler
said she began with a pool of approximately 7,000 employees and subtracted the number of employees
associated with businesses at the maximum cap. Rather than $100,000 divided by 7,000 employees, the
result was $100,000 divided by 4,000 employees. She explained the numbers have always excluded the
hospital and most non- profits. The numbers are based on businesses the City charges a license fee to
each year and do not include any municipal employees or any school district employees.
For Councilmember Earling, Ms. Hetzler said the numbers include home businesses and apartments.
Councilmember Miller referred to the memo regarding employee parking data and noted that with the
construction of the new Public Safety facility and City Hall, there are 171 total parking stalls available
(67 at City Hall and 104 at Public Safety). Mr. Mar agreed that would be the correct number once the
Public Safety complex is complete. Councilmember Miller observed there are currently 74 employee
vehicles utilizing those parking stalls. In calculating the number of parking stalls needed by employees
and city -owned vehicles, Councilmember Miller stated there would be about 85 stalls available.
It! referring to the study regarding shortage of parking in the downtown area, Councilmember Miller said
the consultant indicated the City was approximately 148 stalls short. Mr. Mar said that figure was based
on the special benefit area defined by a radius from the Public Safety complex.
Councilmember Miller observed without spending any more money or raising additional taxes, the 85
available stalls would address 60% of the shortfall cited by the consultant. Mr. Mar^ said that would
require a statement that those spaces on City property are available for public parking.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled the consultant's report stated there was a nominal parking deficit of
787 stalls. Mr. Mar said the 787 was the peak demand determined by the consultant if all parking
demands occurred at the same time. As he realized not all the demand would occur at the same time and
there would be overlapping uses, he determined there was a 148 stall deficit. Councilmember Plunkett
observed the parking demand could be between 148 and 787.
Councilmember Plunkett said the 85 spaces at the Public Safety complex were required by the Code and
are specifically designed to function as parking for the Public Safety building. Mr. Mar agreed.
Councilmember Plunkett said these spaces were required because it was believed (by those who wrote
the Code) that those spaces would be utilized by users of the building. Mr. Mar said the information
used to calculate the demand was based on the same Code the appraiser used.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO .EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Fahey asked if all spaces were determined to be required under the City Code and whether the
number was based on the fact that there is an assembly situation for the District Court and Council
meetings. Mr. Mar explained the parking requirements in the Code are based on usage; offices have a
parking ratio, assembly areas have a parking ratio, and the fire station because part of it is a residential
area has parking ratios. He recalled the requirement in the Code for the site was 92 spaces and the plan
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 12'
1
provided 104 spaces on the campus. The method used to determine the parking requirement for the
Public Safety complex was the same as would be used for any other developer.
Councilmerber Earling said the information provided yesterday indicated there was some potential for
85 spaces if the Council chose to make these available to citizens. Although he understood the parking
requirements are determined by the Code, he said the parking requirements will be driven by what
happens in the court, which is primarily to and from parking. He observed there appeared to be at least a
minimum of 85 unassigned stalls and if 25 -30 were dedicated for business related to the Public Safety
building, an additional 50 -70 parking stalls could be provided at the current site without spending any
additional funds. These spaces could then be utilized during the day by shoppers and those attending
events at the Floral Arts Center and the Puget Sound Christian College. Further, there is the possibility
of at least 125 stalls for evening and weekend use. Mr. Mar said the Council or administration has the
authority to designate the parking for any use it chooses.
Councilmember Earling asked if additional moneys were needed to fund those parking spaces. Mr. Mar
said the stalls shown on the site drawing will be provided at the completion of the Public Safety project
with the funds included in the bond.
Council President Haakenson said this issue was one of those no -win situations the Council has
considered during the past four years. The only thing that everyone has agreed on during this lengthy
process is the need for more parking. He observed the estimated cost of the garage began at $750,000
and is now estimated at $1.5 million possibly more depending on other issues such as ground water and
moving the detention facility. He said the Council cannot continue to debate this process week after
week, some conclusion must be reached. The financing proposals presented to the Council have been
constantly moving targets, from a group of property owners donating funds to an LID, to a square
footage tax, head taxes, etc., but there has been nothing to focus on. He felt the Council was willing to
commit a specific amount to a parking structure within the City if the remaining moneys to fund the
project can be determined. He said last week several Councilmembers expressed concern with a
citywide tax and said he did not support a citywide tax as it was not fair to ask businesses to contribute to
funding a parking garage in the downtown area that they will not benefit from.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke said he has been agonizing over this issue because in principle he would
like to have it occur. Over the years, he has seen the downtown core community come together and. the
HyettPalma visioning study brought them closer together. Many of the people who participated in that
process strongly voiced their support for additional parking with the idea this is property the City already
owns. However, the process has been fraught with "land mines" that are difficult to identify and/or
avoid. He reiterated his opposition to a citywide tax. He agreed in principle with Councilmember
Plunkett's comments regarding any improvement to the City improves the entire City but felt asking
businesses outside the area to contribute to the garage would be a step backward in the effort to get the
business community to pull together. He said this would not benefit businesses outside the area except
possibly bring more people to the downtown core and conceivably to other areas of the City. He recalled
earlier discussions included funds from the in- lieu -of- parking fund and changes to the parking permit
structure and asked if any new conclusions had been reached regarding these funding mechanisms.
Councilmember Earling said the in- lieu -of- parking fund was viewed as a potential funding source but
one that was not predictable. It was suggested any funds from that source be used to reduce the bond.
Some of the projects for the on- street parking permits were determined not to be good projections due to
the increase in price and the uncertainty regarding the number of permits.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 13
Councilmember White said he did not find any of the proposed revenue streams to be appropriately
predictable. He stressed these are General Fund dollars, the City would be "on the hook" for the funds
that would be used to build this facility. He expressed concern with the proposed estimated cost of the
garage particularly by someone who may be involved in the bidding process and did not think $1.5
million was accurate. Although he is not a contractor, he indicated he has done a lot of construction
litigation and there are a lot of factors that did not appear accurate. The estimate and the revenue streams
are both moving targets and he was convinced more funds would be needed. He said one cannot be in
favor of cutting the budget and opposed to increases in General Fund taxes, and at the same time propose
a project over which the City has no control over costs. He said the revenue streams proposed have only
been hypothetical.
Councilmember White observed the relative benefit compared to the proposed cost has not been
sufficiently analyzed. It now appears all the parking spaces provided may not be needed according to the
study. He questioned whether the City was prepared to finance a project that provides more parking than
is needed. Although this may be visionary, it may not be appropriate for the present. He did not support
a citywide tax, as it was inappropriate for the reasons already stated.
Councilmember Miller said although the continued deficit of parking stalls needs to be studied further,
the construction of the Public Safety facility significantly addresses the deficit. He recommended staff
move forward with the Public Safety project as is and Council and the subcommittee review other
alternatives to meet the deficit.
Councilmember White said although it is true the property is owned by the City and this opportunity will
not arise again,'those factors do not necessarily make it the right thing to do. As a participant on the
Council parking subcommittee as well as the Council liaison to the Downtown Parking Committee last
year, he was aware of the extreme dedication to this project by the parking committee and the
subcommittee. He said while the parking garage has been under consideration, other residents have
contacted him regarding requests for sidewalks, filling of potholes, etc. Although the parking garage is
important, the Council needs to take a closer look at it.
Councilmember Earling said the Council has been criticized over the last few weeks for trying to find
reasons to defeat the proposal. He pointed out citizens elected the Council to consider issues, review
information, or request additional information to make a good decision. He said the Council's analysis
has covered the original finance assumptions, the fairness of a citywide tax for downtown improvements,
financing projections, and the potential for 55 -70 additional daytime parking spaces as well as possibly
150 parking spaces for evening and weekend use. He questioned whether this.could be perceived as an
effort to stop the parking garage. He felt the Council has thoughtfully analyzed the issue and as a result
the Council has become more familiar with the need for better parking availability in the downtown core.
He said one of the issues for some Councilmembers- has been the location of the parking facility and
whether it would be better to find another location to better serve the downtown core. He suggested the
Council continue working with the Parking Committee on short term and long term solutions to improve
the parking situation beyond the 55 -70 stalls that have been identified.
Councilmember White said it was appropriate to keep the subcommittee in tact and he was willing to
participate.
Council President Haakenson thanked the Parking Committee for their efforts. Although be overcame
any concern over the location of the garage, he remains concerned about the moving target funding
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 14
options and the estimated construction cost of the garage. He said the Council had a responsibility to
look at each and every option presented to them but they have a greater responsibility to the taxpayers to
ensure they spend their dollars wisely.
Councilmember Nordquist said the in- lieu -of- parking fund had good intentions when it was started to
address off -site parking but has not been kept current. He recommended consideration be given to
eliminating the in- lieu -of parking fund or increasing the amount so that adequate funds will be available
for future parking facilities.
COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO TERMINATE ANY FURTHER EFFORTS ON THIS PROPOSED
UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE PROJECT AT THIS TIME. MOTION CARRIED,
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
Business 7. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY CODE SECTION 3.20 - BUSINESS LICENSE AND
License & OCCUPATION TAX ORDINANCE
Occupation
Tax
Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler said information regarding the current Business License
and Occupation Tax (B &O) ordinance was presented to the Finance Committee at their June 6 meeting.
She has researched other cities' B &O tax ordinances and found Edmonds' ordinance is unique in that it
does not include sanitary sewer and garbage collection businesses. The City's existing ordinance allows
the charge of 5.75% against the gross receipts of the majority of utilities that operate within the City
limits. The City currently charges 5.75% against the majority of utility type businesses and 6% is
charged against the PUD. Her discussion with City Attorney Scott Snyder regarding the maximum rate
indicated certain utilities are capped at 6% under state law; other utilities have no cap. While reviewing
taxes for other cities, she found there are several cities that implement the full 6% and the majority of
cities include sanitary sewer and garbage collection businesses. She presented options for amending the
current City ordinance to the Finance Committee, to include the sanitary sewer and garbage utilities and
establish a uniform rate of 6 %. The estimated impact of these changes would be an additional $420,000
per year to the General Fund. Included in the packet is a survey of Washington cities of similar size to
Edmonds, including Bothell, Kirkland and Redmond. She said Kirkland charges 6.5% on utilities related
to business activities. If the council is interested in pursuing an ordinance that charges a uniform rate, it
could also include the sanitary sewer and garbage collection businesses at either 6% or 5.75 %.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke said the garbage license fee is based on $1.00 per year per customer
basis that yields $10,000. If the Council adopted the proposed change, capping it at 6 %, the yield would
increase from $10,000 to $190,000. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said there are two collection
companies within the City, Lynnwood Disposal and Sound Disposal. He said Sound Disposal is a small,
family business and asked if the tax, if levied, could be passed on to their customers. Ms. Hetzler
clarified this is a tax against the customer. She explained Edmonds is unique in that the garbage
collectors are subject to a different „business license which requires a $10,000 annual payment as a
license fee but they have been omitted from the utility tax. She assumed the business license fee for
garbage collectors would be done on the salne basis as other business and include them in the utility
taxing ordinance, for a net increase of $190,000.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the revenue enhancement would be placed in a specific fund.
Ms. Hetzler said these would be General Fund, non - devoted revenue.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 15
Councilmember Earling said the Finance Committee considered this at their May meeting but this
information was brought forward as a result of a request from Council at the retreat for staff to identify
ways to generate more revenues for the City. He said Ms. Hetzler's presentation was not intended as a
recommendation for action. The Finance Committee believed this was an important issue to discuss and
will be bringing forward 2 -3 other options to generate revenue. .These could then be considered for
implementation during the budget review.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked what impact these increases would have on a typical family.
Ms. Hetzler said she has done that analysis but did not have that information with her tonight.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke said that would be a critical piece of information as it is the Council's
responsibility to consider the impact any increase would have on a citizen.
Council President Haakenson referred to the statement, "at present garbage collection providers are not
included in the City's business license and occupation tax ordinance. A separate City ordinance
establishes a garbage collection license fee based on $1.00 per year per customer," and asked how old
this ordinance was. Ms. Hetzler answered it was adopted in 1962. Council President Haakenson said
this may be an issue for the Finance Committee to consider as well as what other cities charge garbage
collectors as a way to increase revenues.
Mayor Fahey concurred this information is being presented to be factored into the budget proposal this
fall. She said one of the critical issues facing the City, and one citizens are encouraging the City to
consider, is the condition of residential streets. They are in terrible condition and to overlay all the
residential streets in the community is estimated to cost $5 million. She said these are streets that are in
such bad condition that they must be completely replaced, as they cannot be chip - sealed any longer. She
said there is the potential for one or more of these funding sources to be established as a dedicated
revenue stream to justify Councilmanic bonds to borrow an adequate amount to redo the streets. She
said this could be a way to address one of the most critical issues in the community, the decaying
condition of residential streets, which has no other funding method.
Councilmember Earling said the Finance Committee asked staff to review all street needs. There was
also discussion last week of using the projected cash carryover in the next 2 -3 years as a possible funding
source.
ear 2000 8. REPORT ON YEAR 2000 ISSUES
ssues
Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler referred to her presentation in April 1999 regarding the
efforts underway to identify Y2K issues. She said the packet included an inventory of the progress each
department is making in determining whether a problem exists and if so, how it will be addressed. She
advised the City has received vendor confirmation of compliance of the City's traffic controllers, fire
apparatus, communication equipment and medical equipment, police mobile data terminals and the water
telemetry systems. Staff continues to work with SnoCom and Snohomish PUD to develop contingency
plans. She said the City is well underway in determining the magnitude of any problem the City could
potentially encounter and have made tremendous strides in determining the computer systems will not
fail.
Councilmember Miller said a number of governmental agencies have put in place Y2K readiness
response plans, have done system testing analysis such as pushing the dates forward on their systems to
2000, and have had additional technical analysis done by consultants. He was concerned that nothing of
this nature has been done in the City such as tabletop exercises, etc. While he did not expect any
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 16
problems, he preferred the City's systems be tested and not just accept the vendor's confirmation.
Ms. Hetzler answered she was not aware whether any tests were planned to test the traffic controllers,
etc. She said the City's computer systems have been tested and they are not basing compliance on
vendor confirmation.
Councilmember Miller recommended a systematic test be done in each department including perhaps
prioritization of Public Safety issues and a written readiness plan should problems occur on January 1,
2000. He also requested monthly updates be provided to the Council on this matter.
Councilmember White commented that Congress today achieved compromise legislation to exempt or
immunize companies who have been knowingly selling defective Y2K products for the past five years
from substantial litigation. Congress has protected the computer and software industry from all lawsuits
that they are expecting will result from computer failures and software crashes as a result of Y2K. As a
result, vendor guarantees are now meaningless and the City must protect itself.
Mayor Fahey agreed with the need to test all systems. The City has been working on the problem for
over a year, particularly since Ms. Hetzler assumed leadership as Risk Manager. While adequate
communication may not have been provided to the Council, numerous steps have been taken to address
this issue. To the best of their ability, staff has determined that a majority of the equipment in the City is
Y2K compliant. Everything within the City's control has been evaluated. The state of Washington is far
ahead of most other states in addressing this issue. She indicated she brought back information from the
AWC meeting, National League of Cities, as well as a video from the Conference of Mayors. She said
the City's concerns are from outside systems, the biggest potential problem is the possibility of a failure
with energy feeds and electricity. Therefore, staff is considering this as a situation that would occur
when a major power outage occurs and have in place the capabilities to meet the basic public safety
needs of citizens.
Council President Haakenson agreed with the need for monthly updates and suggested the Public Safety
Committee become the Council's investigators.
9. DISCUSSION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE TEMPORARY USE PERMITS FOR
emporary se Permits DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITIES
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this item was reviewed by the Development
Services /Community Services Committee who recommended it be discussed with the full Council. This
is an attempt to allow, via street use permits, the ability to place outdoor pedestrian activities in the
public way (i.e. sidewalks) and provide for the Zoning Code to define and allow those uses. He said the
information considered at the Development Services /Community Services Committee directed the City
Attorney to draft an ordinance for implementation. He said there is not a one -to -one correspondence
with the first ordinance (Exhibit 1). Following tonight's discussion, he recommended the City Attorney
develop an ordinance to be placed on the Consent Agenda for a future meeting.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke stated this issue arose as a result of the visioning report presented by
HyettPalma. In virtually every presentation they provided, particularly slides, thriving communities all
had some form of outdoor dining, outdoor activity, bike racks, etc. to encourage pedestrian usage.
HyettPalma also suggested the City consider heated lamps so people could dine outdoors in cold
weather. He said the intent was to do it on a temporary basis to allow an opportunity to consider how it
worked. Council President Haakenson said this issue also arose last year when several restaurants had
outdoor dining last summer, which was very well accepted by citizens.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 17
Mr. Chave said the intent was also to establish some parameters such as requiring a free and clear way
that meets ADA requirements, etc. and also providing legal mechanisms for businesses that do want to
provide outdoor activities.
It was the consensus of the Council to have the ordinance placed on a future Consent Agenda.
Mr. Chave said this is a two part issue, the amendment of Chapter 1.8 does not require additional action,
the amendment of Chapter 17 would be an interim zoning ordinance which would be effective for six
months while the Planning Board makes a recommendation.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR A TOTAL OF 30 MINUTES, WITH 15
MINUTES RESERVED FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED.
10. MAYOR'S REPORT
Conference Mayor Fahey reported she attended the Conference of Mayor's meeting two weeks ago in New Orleans.
of Mayor's Some of the issues covered included (1) an extensive update on what is being done on the federal level
Meeting
regarding Y2K and what issues need to be addressed by cities; (2) information on the Census 2000
process and the efforts the City must follow to ensure an accurate count because of the impact accurate
counts will have on funding from the federal government; (3) information regarding pending community
block grants; (4) a report from FEMA was provided on Project Impact, a process for accessing
information on how to prevent earthquake damage. She said the Fire Department will follow up on this
information and inform citizens on actions they can take in the event of an emergency situation such as
an earthquake. In addition, numerous resolutions were passed addressing actions being considered by
Congress in the next few months, some of which could negatively impact the City and others that could
significantly benefit the City. Attendees to the conference also received an update on the status of the
committee that is considering Internet taxation and point of sale issues, which will ultimately have
significant ramifications for City revenue streams including the possibility of negative impacts on the
local business community. They also discussed issues related to domestic violence and actions to
prevent youth violence throughout the nation. She advised an extensive packet.of information will be
presented to the Police Department regarding items that can be included in youth services.
uried Art Mayor Fahey advised upon her return from the Conference of Mayors, she attended a juried art process,
rocess which is the initial stage of selecting the artists who will present a proposal for the traffic circle. She
explained they narrowed the artists to three who are now being commissioned to bring forth very specific
proposals for the site. Each artist indicated their willingness to work with the community to discuss what
the community would like to see at that location and at least two of the artists indicated an interest in
crafting something with the sense /flavor as the gazebo. Their proposals will be presented in September
and will include an opportunity for the public to review their proposals prior to a final selection.
we Mayor Fahey stated she then attended the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) meeting which
eeting addressed many of the same issues addressed at the Conference of Mayors but on a state level. She
attended a workshop of performance measurements and benchmarking, which she hoped to incorporate
into the budget next year. An update was provided regarding the changes that must be made to the City's ;
Shoreline Management Plan to meet the ESA requirements.
ire Chief Mayor Fahey reported there were 24 applicants for the Fire Chief position. These were reduced to six
osit;on top candidates for the position, who were interviewed by a committee that included several members of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 18
the Fire Department and the field was narrowed to three candidates. The Council interviewed the three
candidates prior to tonight's Council meeting. Some additional investigation into the candidates'
applications and backgrounds will be done during the next two weeks. She anticipated bringing her
recommendation to the Council for the final selection at the July 20 Council meeting. She invited
Councilmembers to contact her with any additional input regarding the three candidates.
' of July Mayor Fahey reminded citizens of the 4'' of July celebration on Sunday. The Children's Parade begins at
elebration 1:00 p.m. and the main parade begins at 3:00 p.m. She encouraged the public to attend the parade and
stay on for the fireworks display. For those unable to attend the celebration, she wished them a happy 4'
of July.
11. COUNCIL REPORTS
d hoc Council President Haakenson asked the ad hoc parking committee, Councilmembers Plunkett, White and
Parking Earling, to meet at least once more to discuss the future direction of addressing the parking deficit and
Committee return to the Council with a recommendation as soon as possible.
ESA Listing Councilmember Earling reiterated his request for information regarding the potential implications the
0 ESA listing has upon the City both financially as well as the impact on development issues. He would
like this issue placed on a future agenda. With regard to the figures for the proposed financing of the
Financing for Parking parking garage, Mr. Earling thanked Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler for pointing out
Kiarage that an error had been made, and he apologized for not notifying other subcommittee members regarding
the additional information Ms. Hetzler provided him this afternoon.
king Councilmember Plunkett complimented the Council for their deliberation on the parking issue. He said
ue the Council discussed the information and made a sincere effort to evaluate it. He expressed his
appreciation to the Parking Committee for their efforts to review this issue.
Wo Councilmember Nordquist said he attended the AWC meeting and offered to provide copies of the
Meeting information he received.
hambers Councilmember Miller said he received a call over the weekend from a citizen regarding Chambers
able Cable who is still missing nine channels. The citizen discussed this with Chambers Cable and was told
2 -3 were for future use, 2 -3 were for Pay- Per -View and the others were not activated due to issues that
needed to be addressed with the City. Community Services Director Paul Mar explained the franchise
agreement includes public, education and government (PEG) channels. Seven channels were allocated
for this use, three are not in operation, one is being used to broadcast the City Council meetings and one
channel is being used by UWTV, the remainder do not have signals. Councilmember Miller said this
citizen was concerned that he is paying the new rate but not receiving all channels. Mr. Mar explained
Chambers Cable has two service areas, Edmonds and Shoreline, the channel capacity for public,
education and government includes both areas but the Shoreline system is not yet totally rebuilt. He said
Shoreline's City Council meetings will be televised, similar to Edmonds and Shoreline Community
College, Edmonds Community College and the University of Washington have educational programs
they would like to broadcast. He said the channels are dedicated for that use and will be activated in the
future for that use.
Mayor Fahey explained the Federal Telecommunications Act requires cable companies to reserve
channels for public, educational and governmental broadcasting and ultimately each will be a dedicated
channel. When each channel is filled with the prescribed content, the next series of three channels would
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 19
be activated. Therefore, for a period of time, only three of the seven channels will be activated. The
seventh channel will likely be shared. She said the government channel will include broadcast of
Council meetings and can include other usage to better communicate with citizens. The problem is that
programming must be created to fill the channel or time allocated to organizations, which is something
that needs to be addressed. The City also needs to formulate policies on allocating the use of the public
channel for public programming. Citizens are receiving all the commercial channels available from
Chambers Cable; they are not getting all the seven PEG channels because insufficient programming is
available for those channels.
i
COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MILLER FROM THE JUNE 22 COUNCIL
MEETING. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER MILLER ABSTAINED.
Councilmember White commented although he was told his cable would be connected by June, then in
July and now sometime in August, but he has yet to receive the new cable service at his home even
though it is available three blocks away.
Council President Haakenson observed Chambers Cable's July report was not shown on the Extended
Agenda. He preferred it be scheduled for the July 6 meeting as the last report was made the first week in
June.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER
Mayor Fahey adjourned the Council to Executive Session at 10:15 p.m. for discussion of a legal matter
for approximately 15 minutes. She advised. the Council would adjourn immediately following the
Executive Session.
BARB,., S. FAHEY, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 29, 1999
Page 20
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 p.m.
JUNE 29, 1999
SPECIAL MEETING
6:00 P.M. — INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITION OF FIRE CHIEF
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 1999
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #34149 THROUGH #34308 FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 21, 1999, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $508,604.48.
(D) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 1999
(E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE EDMONDS HISTORICAL MUSEUM WINDOW
REPLACEMENT
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH CHS ENGINEERS, INC. FOR PERRINVILLE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID)
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS DESIGN PROJECT
(G) PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND
DIRECTING THE SAME TO BE FILED WITH THE STATE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD
(H) PROPOSED RESOLUTION SETTING JULY 20, 1999, AS THE HEARING DATE FOR A REQUEST TO
VACATE A PORTION OF THE 216TH STREET SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY EAST OF 84TH
AVENUE WEST (Applicant: Edmonds School District / File No. ST- 99 -25)
3. (30 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPROVE A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) SECTION 20.60.050
PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF "WALL GRAPHICS." (File No. CDC -98 -181)
4. (200n.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPROVE A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) SECTIONS 16.45.010(B) AND
16.50.010(B) PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS GOVERNING "LIMITED DISPLAY AND SALES ACTIVITIES
OF A SEASONAL NATURE." (File No. CDC -98 -182)
5. (45 Min.) PRESENTATION OF CONSULTANT STUDY REGARDING THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
6. (20 Min.) CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE
7. (20 Min.) DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY CODE SECTION 3.20 — BUSINESS LICENSE AND OCCUPATION TAX
ORDINANCE
8. (10 Min.) REPORT ON YEAR 2000 ISSUES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JUNE 29, 1999
Page 2 of 2
I
9. (10 Min.) DISCUSSION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE TEMPORARY USE PERMITS FOR DOWNTOWN
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITIES
10. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
11. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS j
12. (15 Min.) EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER
I
i
I
I
i
parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advanc4
notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appear.
he following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.