11/28/2000 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
November 28, 2000
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.-
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Thomas A. Miller, Council President
Dave Earling, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember (arrived 7:10 p.m.)
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Christopher Davis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Robin Hickok, Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jason Tourtellot, Code Compliance Officer
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
range to I COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
genda
REMOVE ITEM 6 (ANNUAL REPORT FROM PROSECUTOR JEFFREY GOODWII� FROM
THE AGENDA AS MR. GOODWIN WAS ATTENDING NIGHT COURT. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember White was not present for the vote.)
Approve
Claim
hecks
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember White was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Miller requested Item H be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, . SECONDED BY COUNCH.MEMBER DAVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember White was not present for the vote.) The agenda items
approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #44864 THROUGH #44903 FOR THE WEEK OF
NOVEMBER 20, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $262,490.97. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
CHECKS #31685 THROUGH #31775 FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH
NOVEMBER 15, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $430,659.49. APPROVAL OF POLICE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 1
AND FIRE HOLIDAY BUYBACK PAYROLL CHECKS #31777 THROUGH #31872,
DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $231,149.20.
Claim for
Damages (C) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM HELEN BOWES
($25,000)
General
Fund Report (D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL
POSITION FOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 2000
"Purchase of (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED NOVEMBER 13, 2000, FOR THE PURCHASE OF A 10-
Dump Truck YARD DUMP TRUCK AND AWARD OF BID TO MOTOR TRUCK, INC. ($109,557.10)
Purchase of (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL PURCHASING
mbulance AGREEMENT WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 AND CONTRACT WITH H & W
EMERGENCY VEHICLES FOR PURCHASE OF ONE AMBULANCE
Ord #3335
L1Ds 215 (I). ORDINANCE NO. 3335 RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOS. 215
and 216 AND 216; AND RATIFYING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NOS. 3286 AND 3287,
Reenact APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE FINAL ASSESSMENTS AND ASSESSMENT
Ord #3286 ROLLS IN THOSE RESPECTIVE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
and 3287
Item H: Prouosed Ordinance Relating to Local Improvement Districts Nos. 215 and 216: Authorizine the
Issuance and Sale of Local Improvement District Bond Anticipation Note Pending the Receipt of the Proceeds
of the Local Improvement District Bonds and Assessment Collections: and Providing for the Sale of Such
Bond Anticipation Notes to Key Bank National Association of Bellevue, Washington
Council President Miller requested Mr. Lee Voorhees, Bond Counsel, address the proposed change to the
ordinance. I -
Lee Voorhees, Foster Pepper Scheffelman, explained a change was made in Section 4 of the proposed
ordinance to reflect the bank agreement to eliminate any prepayment fee from an early prepayment of the
note during the last three months prior to maturity. He summarized this was a one -year interim financing
LID note bearing interest at 5 %, callable (prepayable) at any time on five days notice in accordance with
the terms of the document. The note would be repaid with proceeds of the bonds when issued next year
or from other funds available after the prepayment of assessments.
Ord #3334 ,
LIDS 215 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO
and 216
Bond APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3334 WITH THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4 AS DESCRIBED
nticipa- BY MR. VOORHEES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember White was not
tion Note present for the vote.) The ordinance title reads as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3334 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS NOS. 215 AND 216; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE
OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE PENDING THE .
RECEIPT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BONDS AND
ASSESSMENT COLLECTIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF SUCH - BOND
ANTICIPATION NOTES TO KEY BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BELLEVUE,
WASHINGTON
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Design Natalie Shippen, 1020 Euclid, Edmonds, requested as the Design Guidelines were discussed, the
uidelines
problem that required each revision be explained. Further, when the Design Guidelines were prepared
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 2
for public hearings, she requested each section be introduced with an explanation of the problem to be
solved.
osswalks Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, referred to a letter he submitted regarding
crosswalk stings, a program where motorists were ticketed for failure to yield in crosswalks. He
suggested the City conduct such a program in June or ,July. Next, he recalled in the. past,
Budget Councilmembers had the opportunity to review expenditures and direct staff to hold expenditures they
did not agree with. He commented the amount the Mayor could authorize had been increased from
$2,500 to $8,000. He recommended the amount be reduced to $4,000.
Video Tape Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, stated the Council had been informed via memo from
of Nov. 14 Mayor Haakenson that a decision had been made not to air the videotape of the 10- minute November 14,
Council 2000 Council meeting. Mr. Hertrich requested the Council reinstate the public showing of the November
Meeting
14 meeting. He clarified that although this was not a legal challenge, it was a reminder that in the
Mayor /Council form of government, the Council made the laws and set the budget and the Mayor
managed the City. He said Council made the decision to air meetings and Council should make the
decision whether to air individual meetings, not the Mayor. If the Council allowed a meeting to be kept
off TV, a precedent would be set.
Councilmember Earling agreed with Mr. Hertrich. Although the meeting was short and there was not a
great deal of content, he felt it should be aired. ,
Video Tape Betty Mueller, 209 Casper Street, Edmonds, agreed the November 14 tape should be aired. She
of Nov. 14 pointed out there were a number of citizens who watched the Council meetings on TV. She said
ouncil meetings were public information and citizens wanted to hear the meetings. She asked if it was illegal to
eeting
pull a tape. Mayor Haakenson assured her it was not.
Mayor Haakenson explained the November 14 meeting was held prior to committee meetings. He
explained he just returned from vacation and based on information he was provided, made comments at
the meeting regarding what had occurred in budget process during his vacation. After the meeting, he
learned the information he had been given was incorrect. He then considered whether to air a 5- minute
Council meeting with incorrect and possibly alarming information. He discussed this with Council
President Miller who agreed it was not a good idea to show the Council meeting that contained incorrect
information that might alarm the public. Mayor Haakenson indicated he had no problem with showing
the tapes and stated the minutes and tapes were available in the Council Office. He commented the
camera equipment may not be operating tonight.
Council President Miller stated that Mayor Haakenson telephoned him when he discovered there was
some erroneous information, and he agreed it may not be in the best interest of the Council to perpetuate
bad information by airing the video of the meeting. He did not object to airing the meeting tape.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
HAVE THE VIDEOTAPE OF NOVEMBER 14, 2000 RE- BROADCAST. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Snohomish
ounty 4. PRESENTATION BY THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
conomic
evelop- Deborah. Knutson, Snohomish County onomic Development Council DC referenced a stud
ent �' P �� y
ouncil that was conducted comparing the economies of King and Snohomish Counties over the past ten years.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 3
She described findings of the study such as a decline in the ranking of Snohomish County's median
income due primarily to high tech growth in King County.
Ms. Knutson explained that although people were moving to Snohomish County for affordable housing
and lifestyle, they were not moving to Snohomish County for jobs as illustrated by the 90,000 residents
who leave Snohomish County for work in King County. It was also assumed due to the well - paying
manufacturing jobs in Snohomish County, residents were going to King County for professional service,
high tech and construction jobs. She stated Snohomish County could have a significant influence on the
type of growth, jobs and development that occur. Therefore, the EDC decided to be proactive and seek
partners to assist them. The EDC's efforts will focus on changing the image of Snohomish County to
employers and developers, doing more business outreach, working on infrastructure and permitting
issues at the county and city level, and doing workforce development to ensure students can fill the jobs
that are brought to Snohomish County.
Ms. Knutson distributed copies of the Economic Development Initiative that highlights the initiatives the
EDC plans to undertake. The EDC pledges to help create new jobs via local business expansion or
recruitment at salaries of $38,000 - $45,000+ per year. This will create over 4,000 jobs in Snohomish
County over five years and an additional $2.5 billion in additional wages /salaries to be spent in
Snohomish County's economy. She referred to a return in investment chart in the Economic
Development Initiative that illustrated the increase in municipal taxes.
Ms. Knutson reported the EDC plans to market the entire county as well as work in partnership with all
cities. She explained the proposed initiatives would cost approximately $700,000; the EDC's current
budget was $290,000 with a staff of three people. She invited Edmonds to partner with the EDC by
participating at the level of $10,000 per year. This would provide Edmonds a seat at the Investors
Council, equivalent, to a CEO roundtable, that would meet quarterly to discuss and develop
implementation strategies. She explained that regardless of whether new jobs came to Edmonds, the
employees would spend money in the City. By partnering with EDC, the City would also have an
opportunity to discuss issues such as transportation, higher education, and K -12 education. Jurisdictions
that agreed to partner with EDC on the initiative include Snohomish County, Everett, Mukilteo, Sultan,
Marysville, Pt. of Edmonds and Pt. of Everett.
Councilmember Earling expressed his support for this program. He recalled the City eliminated its
membership in several, organizations due to I -695 and had not participated in the EDC for the past 12
months. He felt this was to the City's detriment because if the City was not at the table, it could not be
part of the solution. He described funding levels other cities have agreed to, which illustrates other cities
are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of the Snohomish County economy. He pointed out
the need to be more proactive in attracting businesses to Snohomish County and the resulting economic
benefit that provides. He acknowledged this was a five -year commitment that was renewed each year
and assured, the EDC would provide an annual report to the Council.
Ms. Knutson explained the City was being asked to contribute $10,000 as leverage toward a $700,000
program. She pointed out it would be difficult for the City- to conduct a similar program for $10,000.
She assured the City would get its money's worth and have an additional 5 -7 person staff working on its
behalf.
Mayor Haakenson advised the $10,000 request was included in the preliminary 2001 budget.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 4
rd #3336 5. APPROVAL OF THE 2001 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET — PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATIN
pproval o TO THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1. 2001, PROVIDING
)01 FY F R MONTHLY REVENUE REPORTS AND FIMG A TIMM VM N T F SAAM SHALL
dget BECOME EFFECTIVE
Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler explained this ordinance would adopt the 2001 budget.
The ordinance includes the General Fund as well as other operating and capital funds. Over the past two
months, two budget workshops, two public hearings and a Town Hall meeting have been held to discuss
the budget and receive input from the public. She reiterated the budget did not contain a property tax"
increase or any new revenue sources and the City's status quo service and staffing levels were being
maintained.
Ms. Hetzler advised revenues for 2001 were projected at $22.1 million and recommended expenditures
were projected at $23.2 million. She said the Council packet contained an updated 5 -year forecast.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
PASSAGE OF THE BUDGET, ORDINANCE NO. 3336. MOTION CARRIED,
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. The Ordinance title reads as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3336 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2000, PROVIDING FOR
MONTHLY REVENUE REPORTS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE. .
Prosecutor
Annual 6. ANNUAL REPORT FROM PROSECUTOR JEFFREY GOODMAN
Report
This item was removed from the agenda.
Public 7. ANNUAL REPORT FROM PUBLIC DEFENDER JAMES FELDMAN
Defender
Annual James Feldman, Public Defender, explained as the City's public defender for the past 13 -14 years, his
Report job is to provide representation to plaintiffs charged with misdemeanor offences in the City who are
eligible for public defender services. He said nothing unusual has occurred in the process this past year.
He commented that although he was not requesting an increase, an increase was budgeted due to an
increase in the number of defendants appointed to his office by the court.
Mayor Haakenson thanked Mr. Feldman for the service he provides the City and looked forward to
another year.
Design 1 g, PRESENTATION BY CASCADE .DESIGN COLLABORATIVE OF FINAL DESIGN
uidetines I GUIDELINES REPORT
Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the process of selecting the consultant, Cascade Design
Collaborative, for the purpose of developing draft Design Guidelines. He described the numerous public
open houses, focus groups with the development and architectural community, and public meetings at the
Architectural Design Board (ADB) and Planning Board, which resulted in a great deal of public and
technical input. He explained Cascade Design Collaborative would present the draft of the Design
Guidelines to the Council. If the draft was acceptable to the Council, he recommended the Council
accept it as a public hearing draft. Mr. Chave explained 1 -2 public hearings regarding the'draft would be
held at the Planning Board and return to the City Council for an additional public hearing. Adoption
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 5
would not occur until all the public hearings have occurred. He anticipated the final draft would be
similar to the proposed draft but would likely be revised based on public testimony.
Eric Schmidt, Cascade Design Collaborative, explained the document content reflected the process
that had been undertaken with the public, the development community, the ADB, and the Planning
Board. In response to the request to identify problems that precipitated the action taken, he said the
objective statement in the introduction of each chapter framed the existing condition/problem.
Mr. Schmidt stated the Guidelines addressed desires of the development community and public, which
were often conflicting. The intent throughout the development of the guidelines was to identify options
and opportunities to satisfy the development community and to preserve and protect the character of the
City. Mr. Schmidt reviewed concepts that illustrated how a balance was achieved.
1. The community wanted assurance that registered professionals and high - trained professionals
worked on larger projects due to their skill and the increasing complexity of such projects.
Developers wanted to maintain relationships with individuals who may not be registered
professionals but who had been doing building design and were capable of providing good
documentation. The document balanced this by requiring registered, licensed professionals provide
documentation on large projects, over 18,000 square feet. Smaller projects could continue to be
designed/developed by individuals who were not necessarily licensed.
2. The community asked to establish specific minimum dimensions and categories for design.
Developers agreed but recommended there be a menu of choices to solve a problem. Dimensional
specificity was provided for the community as well as design options for „the development
community.
3. To allow flexibility in the ADB's approval of projects and to address the development community's
desire to have the approval process occur more quickly, a checklist was developed to assist staff to
address a majority of the issues that arise prior to ADB review. This will expedite the process for a
developer. For the community, if a project met certain goals but not necessarily the absolute
dimensional requirement (i.e. 10 foot setback), but was within 10% of the dimensional requirement
and other elements of the project mitigate the impact or provide added benefit and it did not exceed
25 feet, the ADB had some flexibility in considering the dimensional requirement.
4. The community wanted to retain natural forms and protecting natural vegetation, views and unique
characteristics of the community. Developers wanted flexibility in their site design, which they
currently do not have in terms of setbacks. The Guidelines include buffer averaging and setback
averaging to allow flexibility in the dimensional setback to preserve existing trees, a view, move
away from a single family zone as long as the total project still met .the dimensional requirements.
5. For pedestrian safety and to improve pedestrian characteristics of the street, the number of curb cuts
was reduced and shared driveways and pedestrian and vehicular interconnections between properties
were encouraged.
6. A new requirement, which will also require an amendment to the Code, is to require usable open
space in multifamily projects. To balance the requirement for open space, developers would be
allowed flexibility in the maximum lot coverage if at least 80% of the parking was placed
underground.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 6
7. To preserve historic buildings,.the design requirements for a new structure adjacent to the historic
structure were reduced as an incentive to preserve historic buildings.
8. To promote open spaces, plazas and places for the public to gather downtown, a developer would be
allowed to eliminate one. of the massing requirements of a larger building.
9. Allow flat roofs above 25 feet but only to a maximum of 20% of the total area and increase the
required roof pitch along public rights -of -way to 8 in 12.
10. Provide different massing options for small, medium and large buildings due to their different
impacts on the environment.
11: Fagade /modulation requirements were added but deductions allowed in the requirements if signage
or awnings were integrated into the design of the project.
Responding. to questions of Councilmember Petso, Mr. Schmidt stated the height limit is 25 feet; a
historic building could not be 30 feet in height. Councilmember Petso recalled the requirements for a
structure adjacent to a historic building could be reduced. Mr. Schmidt said one of. the massing
requirements could be eliminated. Councilmember Petso asked if the height limit was one of the options.
Mr. Schmidt answered no, if the roof form was between 25 -30 feet, the roof must meet the specified
design criteria. He emphasized only the roof form would be allowed to be between 25 -30 feet not the
design, mass or volume of a building.
Councilmember Petso asked if open space could be exchanged for roof height. Mr. Schmidt answered
no, providing open space for a plaza would allow the developer a massing credit. Councilmember Petso
asked if a developer could "buy" a 33 -foot roof. Mr. Schmidt answered not by providing a plaza. A
developer could be allowed a 3 foot increment above 25 feet for certain portions of a roof if the roof had
an 8 in 12 pitch facing a public right -of -way or a modulated flat roof, if the amount of roof area above 25
feet did not exceed 20% of the total roof area of the entire building.
.
Councilmember Petso asked if there was any tradeoff that would allow a developer to construct a
building over 30 feet. Mr. Schmidt answered no, except in the Hospital /Medical area, the Medical Area
Master Plan dictated the height; not the City's 25 -foot height limit. He said this was consistent with the
existing code.
Councilmember Petso further inquired if a list of necessary code amendments could be provided if the
proposed guidelines were adopted. Mr. Schmidt referred to the list of modifications on page 114 of the
Council packet. He recommended one additional revision, to allow sites whose elevation exceed 25 feet
from corner to corner to be subdivided into two areas, rather than averaging the entire site, to develop the
base elevation to determine the height. He explained rather than the one story and four story building
that would result via averaging, allowing the property to be subdivided would result in a two story and
three story volume. He said this was an easier structure to construct economically and also reduced the
visual impact of the 4 -story side. He acknowledged there have been comments from the community that
allowing the subdivision of the property may allow the second floor to interfere with the views of an
adjacent building. He said this would need to be reviewed by the ADB on a case -by -case basis.
Councilmember Orvis observed the draft guidelines changed the way heights were measured. Mr.
Schmidt said the guidelines proposed a steeply sloping site be allowed to be divided into two equal areas
to determine the base elevation. He said until the code was amended, this would not be allowed.
Edmonds City . Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 7
Councilmember Orvis asked if the guidelines applied to all zones or only residential. Mr. Schmidt
answered only non - single family. Councilmember Orvis asked if the guidelines applied to structures on
Hwy. 99. Mr. Schmidt answered yes. The 25 -foot height limit could be exceeded on properties on Hwy.
99 that were annexed with a higher height limit.
Councilmember Orvis asked for an example of an 18,000 square foot building that would require
submission of documentation by a professional. Mr. Schmidt answered a project with approximately 15-
20 residential units or a 3 -story office building with 60 x 100 -foot dimension.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the ADB would be required to review all projects under the
proposed guidelines or if there was a threshold. Mr. Schmidt answered if a project was under 7,000
square feet, staff could review the checklist. He said even on large projects, if staff agreed via the
checklist that the designer /developer had met all requirements, ADB review would not be required..
Councilmember Orvis asked if the majority of projects would still be reviewed by the ADB. Mr.
Schmidt answered it would depend on the developer, such as the number of pre - application meetings
they had with staff, etc. to resolve any issues. Mr. Chave responded the Planning Board had been asked,
once the guidelines were drafted, to consider the ADB process to determine whether the ADB process
could be altered once the guidelines were in place. It was anticipated with guidelines such as these that
are quite specific, there would be fewer hearings before the ADB. He assured there would still be staff
review and public notice.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired if the integrity of the proposed guidelines would be impaired if the
ADB process was eventually moved into the pre - planning stage. Mr. Chave answered the guidelines .
would work either the way the ADB operates now or in a pre - planning role. The key was the guidelines
and checklist format. The Council would ultimately determine how the ADB process occurred. He
invited the Council to provide direction to the Planning Board regarding the ADB process.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled when this process began approximately two years ago, the Council's
intent was to move the ADB into the pre - planning stage. He asked if leaving the ADB in a quasi judicial
role in the draft guidelines would lead to misunderstanding the Council's intent. Mr. Chave said the
Planning Board would consider the guidelines along with the Cedar River report that suggested the pre -
application role of the ADB. He said the ADB had not assumed the role they would take and were
awaiting the development of Design Guidelines. He said the Planning Board would meet with the ADB
to discuss their pre - planning versus quasi-judicial role in light of the new guidelines.
Councilmember Plunkett questioned if the draft guidelines addressed threshold. Mr. Chave replied that
the draft guidelines provided flexibility as well as clear direction. The guidelines would give developers
a clear idea of the City's requirements, an element that was missing in the past. The proposed guidelines
would help developers, citizens and staff tremendously even if nothing changed in the ADB process.
Councilmember Plunkett said although the purpose and intent of the guidelines was to provide a clear set
of objectives and a minimum set of design requirements, there has been criticism from professionals who
have been involved in the process that the proposed guidelines would actually increase requirements, and
making permitting/development in the City more difficult. Mr. Schmidt agreed design
guidelines /standards required creativity and thus required more of an architect's time, which would cost
the developer more. It also limited the use of some materials such as stucco as the skin for a building
due to problems with leakage in this climate. The proposed guidelines do not prohibit this material but
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 8
limit the amount. He agreed this increased the cost of a project on a per square foot basis. Although
there were other incremental cost increases from the design requirements, there were also tradeoffs that
allowed a developer to recoup and potentially improve the leasable value of the .building. He
summarized the cost of the design guidelines could be offset by increased speed in the review process
and the flexibility the guidelines allowed. The driving cost of a project was not in the design guidelines
but in the cost of land and the cost of money.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether it would be advisable to remove the references to historic
preservation in light of the plans to establish a historic preservation advisory committee as well as the
fact that little or no information was available regarding historic preservation in Edmonds. Mr. Schmidt
said the guidelines stated until there was historic preservation documentation, the ADB would make
decisions regarding older buildings that were considered historic. He referred to the language on page 24
that states "historic buildings are defined as buildings with historic character as defined by the City,
County, State or Federal statutes." This reference would support historic statutes once they were
established in the City.
Councilmember Petso commented page 1 of the document implied the design guidelines would not be
applidd in single family areas; however, there were non - residential uses in single family areas such as
churches and schools. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board could identify which non - residential
structures in single family zones the guidelines would apply to.
Councilmember Petso referred to page 13 which appeared to provide substantial flexibility for providing
parking under the building ( "for multi- family projects where parking is under the building, the allowable
lot coverage percentage may be increased ") but did not indicate by how much the allowable lot coverage
could be increased. Mr. Chave explained a specific code amendment would be required to implement
this. The Planning Board would need to determine the percentage when reviewing the guidelines. He
said applicable companion code amendments would accompany the guidelines when they were returned
to the Council.
Mr. Schmidt suggested language could be added specifying who must comply with the design guidelines
and the size of the structure would determine whether the requirements for a small, medium or large
building would apply.
Councilmember White recalled there was previous Council consensus to have the ADB's review during
the pre - design stage. Rather than asking the Planning Board to evaluate that issue, the Planning Board
should be informed if there was consensus on that issue.
Councilmember Plunkett preferred the Council make a decision regarding the timing of the ADB review
and include that information in the draft guidelines.
COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER, TO
EXTEND THE DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM. FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Petso preferred not to make a decision tonight regarding the ADB's role. She had not
expected to make that decision tonight and had not had an opportunity to review the Cedar River report.
She indicated she would abstain from a vote at this time regarding the ADB's role. Councilmember
Davis agreed with Councilmember Petso's comments. Councilmember Orvis preferred the ADB review
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 9
occur in the pre - planning stage and said making that decision would assist the Planning Board in their
review.
Councilmember White pointed out the need to minimize the Planning Board's workload and
recommended a decision be made regarding the ADB's role tonight or next week. Councilmember
Earling agreed with Councilmember White and requested this issue be addressed next week and in the
meantime, new Councilmembers review the Cedar River report and meet with Planning staff as
necessary to understand the dynamics of this decision.
It was agreed this would be discussed at the December 5 Council meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out a historic preservation advisory committee would be formed soon
whose task would be to develop policies regarding historic preservation. He recommended reference to
historic preservation in the draft guidelines be eliminated until specific policies had been developed.
Councilmember Earling suggested a notation be included indicating a citizens group was being formed
and the policies regarding historic preservation would be amended if necessary. He pointed out the need
to have some policies in the guidelines regarding historical structures until permanent polices were
developed.
Council President Miller noted if the Council accepted the proposed guidelines, they would go to the
Planning Board as a public hearing draft. They would be further amended and then returned to the
Council. He agreed with Councilmember Earling, if policies had not yet been developed by the historic
preservation advisory committee, there needed to be some policies included in the draft guidelines.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO
ACCEPT THE DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REFER THE DRAFT TO THE PLANNING
BOARD FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
Councilmember Earling recommended information be forwarded to the Planning Board indicating that a
historic preservation advisory committee was being formed and the guidelines regarding historic
preservation would eventually be changed.
Councilmember Orvis voiced a concern with the height provisions in the guidelines regarding terracing
which changed the way height limits were measured. He pointed out heights on a sloped lot were
currently measured from the center. The proposed change allowed the measurement to occur on a higher
portion of the lot, which raised the height limit. He was reluctant to support that change.
Councilmember Davis supported forwarding the guidelines for public hearing to seek public input
regarding this issue.
Councilmember Plunkett emphasized the Council was not accepting the design guidelines but only
moving a work in progress forward for further discussion and review.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
and Use
egulations 9. WORK SESSION ON LAND USE REGULATIONS GOVERNING ANIMALS
oveming
nimals Planning. Manager Rob Chave stated the Council approved an update of the animal control regulations
recently, however, revisions were also necessary to the zoning code regulations, which contain land use
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 10
Fj
Ll
regulations governing animals. He said until the land use regulations were revised, the City must address
complaints under the existing code which the Planning Board felt was not in the City's best interest.
Mr. Chave reviewed three areas where additional discussion was warranted.
1. How many domestic animals (dogs, cats, etc) would be allowed to be kept?
The code currently allowed three domestic animals to be kept. Animal control regulations regulate how
animals were kept and land use regulations regulate how many, the dimensions, where they could be
located, etc. The Planning Board recommended increasing the number of animals that were allowed to
five.
Z. How horses and other "covered animals " should be handled.
The code currently allowed this type of animal in the City. The Planning Board recommended horses
and other covered animals continue to be allowed as long as Chapter 5.05 controlled how they were kept
(i.e. specifies the minimum square footage for horses, etc.). Based on the testimony and the Planning
Board findings, the alternatives were to (a) allow covered animals as a permitted use, or (b) allow
covered animals to continue as a grandfathered use .so long as the use continues (not conditioned on the
presence of a specific animal).' Staff concluded that as a maturing City, parcels suitable for keeping these
types of animals were far and few between and would be less easy to find in the future due to land
values. He said the history of complaints regarding horses was minimal. Staff recommended option (a)
allowing covered animals as a permitted use as long as they were in compliance with Chapter 5.05.
3. How fowl should be handled.
There is a history of complaints regarding fowl. It is difficult to prescribe the amount of land required
for fowl because they were kept in many .different circumstances, some addressed in Chapter 5.05.
Based on public hearing testimony and the Planning Board's record, staff suggested grandfathering fowl
and to confirm the grandfathered status via a registration process. This would not allow new uses to be
established and any fowl that were not registered would not be grandfathered.
Mr. Chave explained the intent was to develop a public hearing draft of updated land use regulations
governing animals.
Councilmember Earling recommended staff return with a draft ordinance in accordance with staff
recommendations. Council President Miller agreed, suggesting staff also describe how fowl that had not
been registered would be handled.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE USING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
AND RETURN FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A DATE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Endangered 10. UPDATE ON ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND SHORELINE AMENDMENTS
Species Act
and
Shoreline Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained Congress passed the Endangered Species Act
Amend- (ESA) in 1973 with the express purpose of protecting endangered species and threatened species. The
is ESA requires the Secretary of Interior to publicize regulations listing species that have become
endangered or threatened. He explained an endangered species was in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species was likely to become an endangered species
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 11
within the foreseeable future. Once a species was listed, protections afforded by the ESA and its
regulations were triggered. Section 9 of the ESA made it unlawful for any person to take any endangered
species. Take is defined broadly to mean things such as harm, kill, capture, collect or attempt to engage
in any such conduct but may also include significantly modifying habitat or degradation of an
environment that kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns
including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
According to the courts, the prohibition on take also contemplates in limited instances, the actions of
government in permitting third parties to engage in activities resulting in a take. Threatened species are
not automatically protected in the same manner as endangered species. Instead, Section 4(d) of the ESA
requires the Secretary to issue regulations that provide for the conservation of species listed as
threatened. Regulations adopted under this section are known as 4(d) rules. The 4(d) rules can include a
prohibition on taking of the threatened species, thus extending to threatened species' protections that
would otherwise apply only to endangered species. The National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS)
who had the responsibility for developing the 4(d) rules for listed salmon species, issued a general 4(d)
rule for west coast salmon on July 10, 2000. The rule extended the prohibition on take normally,
applicable to endangered species to salmon species listed as threatened including the Puget Sound
Chinook. The final 4(d) rule goes into effect January 8, 2001.
The 4(d) salmon rule describes exemptions from the take prohibition if a local jurisdiction adopts
municipal, residential, commercial and industrial (MRCI) development ordinances which achieve certain
objectives such as ensuring the development avoids inappropriate areas such as unstable slopes,
wetlands, and areas of high habitat value; avoiding stormwater discharge impacts to water quality and
quantity; protecting wetlands and wetland functions; providing adequate landscaping with native
vegetation to reduce the need for watering and application of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer; and
preventing erosion and sediment runoff during construction.
Many cities address these issues with existing codes including critical area regulations and Shoreline
Master Programs. However, some of the challenges to negotiating a 4(d) rule with NMFS is that NMFS
appears to be unwilling to accept compliance with existing state and local laws and regulations as
adequate. In order to qualify for MRCI exception, a local government must prepare a submittal package
to NMFS for review ad approval. Given these challenges, why should Edmonds seek 4(d) rule protection
or coverage? The main reason is that by complying with the ESA program, the 4(d) rule provides some
protection from a lawsuit. If a local jurisdiction adopts acceptable ordinances that address MRCI
exemptions, NMFS will not bring an action against the City for violation of the ESA. A city may also
use the 4(d) rule as an affirmative defense to any third party citizens' lawsuit if the City's actions are
within the realm of the regulations established in the 4(d) rule. Nothing in the ESA requires NMFS to
defend the City if challenged; however, if the City is challenged, NMFS has been known to provide
assistance.
Mr. Clifton explained one of the most significant undertakings to address ESA and the 4(d) rule is the
Tri- County Framework, a proposal initiated by County Executives from Snohomish, King, and Pierce
Counties to develop a local salmon recovery plan that meets Federal requirements and recovers salmon
runs. The Tri - County Framework is intended to provide a global approach to meeting the 4(d) rule's
MRCI development component. Originally, the intent was that the three counties would seek NMFS'
approval for the Tri - County proposal, eliminating the need for individual cities to seek NMFS approval
of individual development regulations. However, the Tri - County Framework continues to be a moving
target. NMFS recently modified its strategy regarding the Tri County framework and has acknowledged
the framework will be a model only and local jurisdictions may adopt variations of the model. The Tri-
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 12
County proposal tracks 12 separate areas of MRCI development set out in the 4(d) rule with minor
variations.
The six programs or "planks" covered under the Tri- County Framework include roadway maintenance,
stormwater management, land use management, water resource inventory area (WRIA) planning, habitat
funding program and adaptive management. Regarding Plank #1; roadway maintenance, the City is in
the beginning stages of incorporating Best Management Practices from the Department of Ecology
Stormwater,Management Manual for Western Washington which provides the framework for a program
to assist road maintenance supervisors, operators and crews in protecting the environment by using
specific erosion guidelines. As the guidelines associated with ESA become more defined, the City may
need to train employees further and establish specific standards for activities. A major issue still to be
addressed is the required level of street sweeping necessary to remove fine particulates from roadways
before they are washed into creeks via storm drainage system. Edmonds staff plans to purchase the
City's first regenerative air (vacuum) type sweeper in 2001 to begin addressing the need to remove small
particulates that cannot be removed by conventional street sweepers. More equipment and labor may be
needed to be purchased in the future as NMFS standards are developed.
Regarding Plank #2, stormwater management, the Tri - County stormwater proposal is both prescriptive
and some fear unaffordable for most jurisdictions. As of October 2000, it appears the final Tri - County
stormwater package will consist of 14 separate components, 11 will likely be requirements the City must
comply with under the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Examples of these requirements include stricter standards to control runoff from new
development and redevelopment, inspection and enforcement for stormwater requirements and facilities
in connection with private development, elevated standards for maintaining public stormwater systems,
public education and involvement actions, water quality testing and monitoring, a basin planning effort
and a capital improvement program for public stormwater systems. Edmonds will be working to achieve
compliance to the maximum extent possible over the next few years. The capital program requirement
could turn out to be a major exception. As of early October, it appeared local governments may be asked
to retrofit their existing public stormwater systems to provide additional water quality protection.
Regarding Plank #3, land use management program analysis, Mr. Clifton explained of all the "planks"
within the Tri - County 4(d) proposal, the land management program element is one of the most
controversial because many streams and lake conditions along with current development activity
throughout the Puget Sound area vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. All municipalities and
their staff are closely following development of the proposal for compliance with ESA in Water
Resource Inventory Area (WIRA) 8. Because negotiations are continuing between NMFS and the Tri -
County negotiating team, the true implications of the land management program element within the Tri -
County agreement have yet to be determined. Upon completion and publication of the 4(d) rule in
Janu4ry 2001, Edmonds will need to evaluate functions for compliance with ESA such as building,
zoning, subdivision, shoreline regulations, utility crossing, stormwater facilities, code enforcement, bank
stabilization, roads and bridges, and clearing and grading activities. Discussion should then center on
major policy implications and potential action to bring the City's regulatory functions into compliance.
Regarding Plank #4, WRIA Planning, the Tri- County area contains seven different WRIAs. Edmonds is
located within WIRA 8. A small policy group of inter jurisdictional elected'officials and staff, led by the
Suburban Cities Association, King County and Seattle, developed a model interlocal agreement that
provides for a jurisdictional response to ESA compliance as well as the general groundwork for WRIA
planning. The proposed interlocal agreement is intended to provide a mechanism and governing
structure for joint part icipation in and funding of WIRA based watershed plans. Edmonds recently
Edmonds City Council .Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 13
received a letter from Barbara Cothern, Snohomish County Council, stating she believes WRIA 8
planning would be more effective if all cities jointed King County and its cities in the planning effort.
Mr. Clifton advised the Suburban Cities Association Executive Director had been invited to attend the
December 12 Council meeting to provide a presentation on the interlocal agreement. The interlocal
agreement is also being reviewed by the City Attorney.
Mr. Clifton referred to the "Legal" section of his memorandum to the Council, which described many of
the legal challenges the City faced. This section contained several of the legal obligations, forms of
enforcement and conflicts in state law related to addressing ESA requirements.
Mr. Clifton explained in order to satisfy the planning require of ESA, the next step was for staff to
analyze the interlocal agreement and, at the time of the presentation regarding the interlocal agreement
on December 12, staff will provide a recommendation whether it was in the City's best interest to
participate in the interlocal agreement. He said the proposed cost to Edmonds for participation was
$10,500 for one year, which would leverage an even . greater amount. The second step was to perform a
gap analysis, focusing on land use management between the Tri -County proposal and the City's current
programs. Additionally, City staff will perform an analysis of Edmonds' codes, regulations, programs,
activities and planning documents against the 4(d) rule and identify potential areas of needed revisions.
Step three will be to decide on an approach to the 4(d) rule which will include consideration of the Tri -
County proposal, an individual approach, a group proposal or the preparation of a habitat conservation
plan. The fourth step is to contact NMFS for a pre - submittal conference once an approach to the 4(d)
rule is determined.
Councilmember Petso asked if any jurisdiction had developed a response to the 4(d) rule that was
acceptable to NMFS. Mr. Clifton answered no. Councilmember Petso asked if the City could obtain
sub -WIRA status to separate itself from the watersheds in WIRA 8. Mr. Clifton said the interlocal
agreement has the City participating as one portion of the WIRA and each city pays a contribution to a
total amount, estimated at $500,000, that they will spend in 2001 to hire consultants and professionals.
The result of this planning process will be recommended actions that cities draining into WIRA should
adopt in order to receive NMFS approval. He explained under ESA, watershed planning was required.
Although the City drains to Puget Sound, it also drains to WIRA 8. He pointed out Bellevue did not
participate in the Tri-County Framework but has agreed to participate in WIRA 8 planning.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why $10,500 needed to be spent to participate in the interlocal
agreement. Mr. Clifton answered $10,500 would be contributed to WRIA planning, which is one aspect
of addressing the 4(d) rule requirements. Councilmember Plunkett observed the City would be required
to spend money on improved road maintenance, stormwater management, land use management, water
resource inventory, habitat programs and adaptive management. He asked how much this would all cost.
Mr. Clifton answered the total amount was unknown. Until the final 4(d) rule was issued in January
2001 and until the negotiations between NMFS and Tri-County had been concluded, the requirements
would be unknown. He pointed out the importance of the gap analysis to identify potential areas in need
of revision. Once this assessment has been completed, a better estimate of the cost to address these
requirements can be made.
Regarding the Shoreline Master Program, Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the State Department
of Ecology was in the process of finalizing its updated regulations for Shoreline Master Programs and the
City will be required within the next four years to update its Shoreline Master Program. Unfortunately,
because the 4(d) rule is a moving target, the shoreline regulations are also a moving target. DOE has
been attempting to couple shoreline regulations with ESA regulations so that within the shoreline area, if
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 14
a jurisdiction complies with either Path A or Path B, ESA requirements would also be addressed. Once
the final 4(d) rule goes into effect in January 2001, the City can analyze whether Path ,A or B will meet
the City's needs.
Mr. Chave said the recently adopted Shoreline Master Program was superior to the program that was
adopted in the 1970s and the City was in a better position to address ESA issues. However, ESA was not
addressed directly in the Shoreline Master Program and DOE was not asked to rule whether they met the
ESA Path A/B. The benefit was DOE did not review the Shoreline Master Program under ESA
regulations. Until the State DOE has an opportunity to review the 4(d) rule and compare it to the
shoreline regulations, it will be difficult for them to determine whether a city's program meets the Path
A/B requirements.
Mr. Chave referred to the Draft. Management Zone Concept that illustrated management zones
significantly larger than current buffer requirements, commenting there would be additional
requirements such as native vegetation that the City's codes did not currently address.
11. MAYOR'S REPORT
Budget Mayor Haakenson expressed his thanks to the Council for their work on the budget and for adopting the
budget tonight.
12. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
ree
Lighting Councilmember Davis reported on the success of the Tree Lighting Ceremony on Saturday.
odging Councilmember Petso advised at the request of the Council, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee was
ax
dvisory meeting on December 7 at 10:00 a.m. on the third floor of City Hall to discuss the request from the
ommittee Cascade Symphony Orchestra.
Alliance for Councilmember Plunkett reported many of the lights and the effort behind the Christmas tree lighting
Economic ceremony was the result of work done by the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development (EAED) and
Develop-
ment downtown merchants. He reported the EAED installed a kiosk on the northeast corner of the former
Bank of Edmonds building and was considering installing another near 5' and Dayton.
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Telecommunicators in, SnoCom have been certified by the
ISnoCom
Washington State Training Commission as Telecommunicators I or II. He reported the remodeling of
the SnoCom facility was continuing and SnoCom would be operating out of a temporary headquarters in
a trailer for the next 9 -12 months. He anticipated the remodel of SnoCom would be completed late in
summer 2001. The new 911 system, funded via consumers' telephone bills, was in place and the ability
to reroute 911 calls in the event of a disaster to SnoPac (the equivalent agency that handles Everett and
east King County) had been successfully tested.
Sound Councilmember Earling reported the Sound Transit Board of Directors made a decision recently to
ransit suspend negotiations on the light rail tunnel when it became apparent the cost was beyond affordable.
The negotiations have been suspended until Sound Transit can reassess whether there are other
alignments considered in the EIS that can be considered to develop an affordable project. Staff will
provide this information to the Board in December. He said Sound Transit has a $500 million Federal
Transportation Administration grant pending and wants to find a way to secure those funds and move
forward with the project.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 15
Councilmember Earling reported Sound Transit express bus services moved approximately 15,000
passengers a day in the first year. Ridership on the commuter rail between Tacoma and Seattle continues
to grow. Negotiations have been completed with Tacoma to allow more trains in the morning and
evening, which will increase ridership. In February 2001, commuter rail stations in Kent, Tukwila and
Puyallup will open which will also increase ridership.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
G„ Y HAA V SON, MAYOR
r
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 28, 2000
Page 16
1
a AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
r Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 p.m.
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2.' CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #44864 THROUGH #44903 FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 20, 2000,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $262,490.97. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #31685 THROUGH #31775
FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH NOVEMBER 15, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $430,659.49.
APPROVAL OF POLICE AND FIRE HOLIDAY BUYBACK PAYROLL CHECKS #31777 THROUGH
#31872 DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $231,149.20.
(C) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM HELEN BOWES ($25,000)
(D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE
MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 2000
(E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED NOVEMBER 13, 2000, FOR THE PURCHASE OF A 10 -YARD DUMP
TRUCK AND AWARD OF BID TO MOTOR TRUCK, INC. ($109,557.10)
(F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A RETRACTABLE PRESENTATION SCREEN FOR THE MUNICIPAL
COURT /COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
(G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH FIRE
DISTRICT 1 AND CONTRACT WITH H & W EMERGENCY VEHICLES FOR PURCHASE OF ONE
AMBULANCE
(H) PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS NOS. 215 AND 216;
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOND
ANTICIPATION NOTE PENDING THE RECEIPT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT BONDS AND ASSESSMENT COLLECTIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF SUCH
BOND . ANTICIPATION NOTES TO KEY BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BELLEVUE,
WASHINGTON
(1) PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS NOS. 215 AND 216; AND
RATIFYING AND REENACTING ORDINANCES NOS. 3286 AND 3287, APPROVING AND .CONFIRMING
THE FINAL ASSESSMENTS AND ASSESSMENT ROLLS IN THOSE RESPECTIVE LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
4. (10 Min.) PRESENTATION BY THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
5. ( 5 Min:) APPROVAL OF THE 2001 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET — PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, PROVIDING FOR MONTHLY
REVENUE REPORTS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
6. (15 Min.) ANNUAL REPORT FROM PROSECUTOR JEFFREY GOODWIN
7. (15 Min.) ANNUAL REPORT FROM PUBLIC DEFENDER JAMES FELDMAN
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
Paae 2 of 2
8. (45 Min.) PRESENTATION BY CASCADE DESIGN COLLABORATIVE OF FINAL DESIGN GUIDELINES REPORT
9. (30 Min.) WORK SESSION ON LAND USE REGULATIONS GOVERNING ANIMALS
10. (20 Min.) UPDATE ON ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND SHORELINE AMENDMENTS
11. ( 5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
12. (15 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS /UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
1
i
'arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advanc
otice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on AT &T Cable, Channel 21. Delayed telecast of this meeting appear
he following Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 21.