Loading...
08/06/2002 City CouncilL 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES August 6, 2002 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire 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 Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Brian McIntosh, Cultural/Recreation Supervisor Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder han a to COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO genda MOVE AGENDA ITEM 9 TO 4A, MOVE AGENDA ITEM 10 TO 4B, AND TO ADD A FIVE MINUTE UPDATE ON THE PUBLIC FACILITY DISTRICT'S PROGRESS AS ITEM 4C. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Orvis requested Item J be removed from the Consent Agenda, Councilmember Wilson requested Item F be removed, and Councilmember Petso requested Item I be removed. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL prove 3/02 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2002 nutes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2002 Page 1 Approve m Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #56935 THROUGH #57084 FOR THE WEEK OF Checks JULY 22, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $370,052.12. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS cks #57085 THROUGH #57214 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 29, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF al $262,380.36. JGene undrRe ort (D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL Report POSITION FOR THE MONTH ENDING JUNE, 2002 Report on (E) QUARTERLY REPORT REGARDING GRANTS ants 164 St. Sw (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT alkway WITH KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN OF 164TH STREET SW WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS Call for Bids or Fire (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR FIRE STATION #16 Station #16 It_e_m F: Authorization for Mayor to Sign Contract #02-99400-008 with Washington State Department for Waterfront Community, Trade and Economic Development for Job Creation and Infrastructure Program Capital Grant Walkway/ in the Amount of $297,450 for the Development of the Waterfront Walkway/Bulkhead Proiect Bulkhead Mayor Haakenson advised he requested Councilmember Wilson pull this item from the Consent Agenda Project to allow staff and Senator Fairley to make comments. On behalf of the City, Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde expressed her appreciation to Senators Paull Shin and Darlene Fairley for working with the State Legislature to fund a $300,000 matching grant for economic benefit to complete the Edmonds Waterfront Bulkhead and Walkway in the mid -waterfront area. Senator Darlene Fairley commented as Chair of the Capital Budget, she and staff make these decisions She recalled Senator Paull Shin requested this project be added to the budget. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows: (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT #02-99400-008 WITH WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR JOB CREATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM CAPITAL GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $297,450 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATERFRONT WALKWAY/BULKHEAD PROJECT Item I: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.27 of the Edmonds Citv Code, Specifically Prohibiting the Sale, Purchase, Possession and Use of Consumer Fireworks from December 27, 2002 through December 31. 2002 Councilmember Petso commented that although she was aware illegal fireworks could be hazardous to people and property, she was aware the City's fireworks ban was lightly enforced on some occasions. She did not favor a fireworks ban, noting most safe, legal fireworks could be properly used. rd# 3413 COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR Prohibiting APPROVAL OF ITEM I. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. Fireworks on 12/27/02 to The item approved is as follows: 12/31/02 (I) ORDINANCE NO. 3413 AMENDING CHAPTER 5.27 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITING THE SALE, PURCHASE, POSSESSION AND USE OF CONSUMER FIREWORKS FROM DECEMBER 27, 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2002 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2002 Page 2 Item G: Proposed Ordinance Electing to be Preempted in Accordance with the Provisions of ESSB 6594, Establishing Additional Standards for the Siting of Secured Community Transition Facilities, Providing for a Process to Comment to the State and to Oppose the Siting of Any Facility Which Does Not Comport with the Reauirements Herein Adopted Councilmember Orvis recalled he voted against this when it was discussed previously and would vote against it again. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM J. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: rd# 3414 Secured (,n ORDINANCE NO. 3414 ELECTING TO BE PREEMPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ommunity ransition THE PROVISIONS OF ESSB 6594, ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR acilities THE SITING OF SECURED COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITIES, PROVIDING FOR A PROCESS TO COMMENT TO THE STATE AND TO OPPOSE THE SITING OF ANY FACILITY WHICH DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS HEREIN ADOPTED 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Planned Diane Azar, 8202 Talbot Road, Edmonds, referred to Item 4B (Proposed Interim Zoning Ordinance Residential g �' �' Develop- Amending ECDC 20.35.080 in Order to Clarify that the Ci Council, g ner Instead of the Hearin Examiner, ent Shall Make Final Decisions on Planned Residential Development Applications), explaining the Talbot Applications Group supported the City Council making the final decision on Planned Residential Development applications instead of the Hearing Examiner. ned idential Jan Nofziger, 17927 Talbot Road, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Azar's comments, stating that she also Develop- favored the elected City Councilmembers making the decision regarding Planned Residential ent tications Development applications rather than the Hearing Examiner. 4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF "A TASTE OF EDMONDS" 20TH ANNIVERSARY, AUGUST 9, 10 AND 11, 2002 Taste of Edmonds Mayor Haakenson introduced Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Chris c`v Guitton, Chamber President Dave Arista, and Taste of Edmonds Chair Paul Mar. Anniversary Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation declaring August 9 — 11, 2002 as "A Taste of Edmonds" Weekend. On behalf of Board President Dave Arista, Executive Director Chris Guitton, members of the Chamber, and numerous volunteers, Mr. Mar expressed his thanks to the City and the community for the support that has made this event so successful for the past 20 years. onstruction 4A. PROPOSED INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.60 OF THE Signs EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC), ADOPTING A NEW DEFINITION AND REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SIGNS. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this interim zoning ordinance was proposed due to an apparent oversight in the Development Code. Prior to the amendments made to the sign code, this type of sign was permitted as outlined in the proposed ordinance. As it was the construction season, and because of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2002 Page 3 the importance of clarifying that these type of signs were allowed, an interim zoning ordinance was proposed while the Planning Board reviewed the issue. A public hearing before the Planning Board was scheduled for August 14. He clarified these signs were construction signs that were typically seen at a construction site that listed the contractor, architect, etc., and provided an illustration or other information regarding the development occurring at the site. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Section 4 of the ordinance which states, "...Such measure shall expire on its own terms six months from the date of enactment." He asked whether a construction sign would need to be removed after six months. Mr. Chave answered an interim zoning ordinance could only extend for six months. The six month period was to allow the Planning Board to study the issue, hold public hearings, and make a recommendation to the Council. He expected that within six months, a permanent ordinance would be adopted or a recommendation made to remove the interim ordinance. Councilmember Petso noted this type of sign was currently permitted under the temporary sign ordinance. Mr. Chave explained the temporary sign ordinance permitted signs for a total of 60 days which a typical construction project generally exceeds. Further, there were severe sign size limitations in certain zones, for example 6 square feet in a multifamily zone which Mr. Chave noted was not much space to provide information. Councilmember Petso noted she had received emails regarding this issue, one related to the 60 day limit. She stated there were complaints from several merchants including those in Firdale Village regarding the 60 day limit due to their concern that 60 days was an insufficient amount of time for temporary signs used to market their businesses. She said the question was raised why when merchants complain and ask for more time, nothing happened but when builders complained and ask for more time, an interim ordinance was proposed. Mr. Chave explained this was proposed as an interim zoning ordinance as it was an oversight in the code and a provision that formerly existed in the code. He pointed out construction signs did not fit into the category of temporary or permanent signage and most construction projects were ongoing longer than 60 days. He noted when the temporary sign provisions were enacted, they were carefully reviewed and included a public hearing. He commented there was a process for requesting the Planning Board review the temporary sign provisions again. A -frame signs had had close, careful scrutiny by the Planning Board as well as the City Council. Councilmember Petso questioned whether that review was on A -frames in the downtown pedestrian oriented shopping area. Mr. Chave answered the review was A -frame signs in general. Councilmember Petso inquired about the display period for construction signs and how they could be enforced to ensure they were temporary. Mr. Chave answered the project would have to have an active building permit. Councilmember Petso asked how long a building permit lasted. Mr. Chave answered the life of the project. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered one year with opportunity for extension. Councilmember Petso asked whether a construction project such as the one on Olympic View Drive that has been ongoing for 5-6 years could have had a temporary sign that entire time. Mr. Chave answered he was not familiar with the particulars of that project; however, the proposed interim zoning ordinance allowed the sign as long as the project had an active building permit. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Planning Board's review would consider a limit on the length of time the signs could be displayed. Mr. Chave agreed that would be considered. Councilmember Petso inquired whether the proposed interim zoning ordinance included a maximum sign size. Mr. Chave answered the maximum size was 32 square feet. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Chave explained these signs listed the contractor, architects, etc. and described the project. Councilmember Orvis asked why the sign needed to be larger than what would be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2002 Page 4 allowed for a residential site. Mr. Chave answered multifamily residential projects were typically larger buildings/complexes. It has been staff's experience that the larger the project, the larger the sign tended to be. The proposed ordinance added the requirement for an active building permit which was not previously required. The 60 day limitation in the temporary sign ordinance was problematic for an ongoing project. Councilmember Orvis asked how that would affect the development. Mr. Chave answered there would be development activity occurring without notification/information to the public regarding the project. Councilmember Wilson asked whether this would apply to City projects. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Wilson noted projects that have received HUD or state or federal funding required a sign indicating the project was being constructed with citizens' tax dollars. Without the interim sign ordinance, that would not be allowed. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Wilson asked whether such signage was a common practice in other jurisdictions. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Wilson asked staff to describe what information would be provided on the signs. Mr. Chave answered the logos, names, contact information, etc. of the contractor and architect, a rendering of the project, description of the project, availability of leasable space, etc. Councilmember Wilson asked whether such signage was commonplace with development of a single family home or for larger commercial or multifamily developments. Mr: Chave answered a contractor developing a single family home would have some type of signage; a larger project would have a more elaborate sign due to the number of contractors, etc. that are involved in the project. . Councilmember Wilson noted some jurisdictions required construction signs as they provide contact information to citizens. Mr. Chave agreed that was a valid purpose for the signs. Council President Earling noted the signs were often displayed on properties that were presold; absent the sign, the contractor would not have an opportunity to indicate that he was the builder of the home. He noted allowing this information to be displayed was a positive business decision so that contractors would want to work in the City. Due to his real estate background, he was aware these signs provided a great deal of information and assisted the consumer with the price range, floor plans, etc. He noted this was a community benefit as well as a contractor benefit. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3415 AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2002. Councilmember Petso pointed out all useful information could be disseminated within 60 days. She did not favor allowing construction signs to be displayed during the life of the project because a project took a long time and after awhile, the sign was not informative, it only provided perpetual advertising. She suggested the Planning Board develop an enforceable time limit for displaying construction signs. She referred to the minutes of the meeting when the temporary sign ordinance was reviewed, noting there was no mention of A -frames in vehicle traffic areas, and requested staff provide minutes that reflected that discussion. Councilmember Orvis indicated he would not support the motion, expressing concern with this type of sign being treated differently from other business signs as well as with the signs having a different size standard. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out these signs had been used successfully in the community for a number of years to inform the public what was being constructed and the proposal was to reinstate that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2002 Page 5 provision in the code. He pointed out the importance of providing that information as long as the project was under construction. Councilmember Dawson expressed concern with allowing this type of advertising for one type of business, such as a construction business. She understood the signage had some benefit by informing the public what development was occurring and the public may not have an opportunity to see the sign if it was displayed only for 60 days but pointed out it was basically providing free advertising. She questioned why construction signs could be displayed as long as construction activity was occurring but A -frame signs could only be displayed for 60 days. She concluded this was only a temporary ordinance to allow the Planning Board to review the issue and hold a public hearing. As this provision was virtually identical to the previous provision, she favored reinstating that provision until the Planning Board had an opportunity to review it. She indicated she would support the temporary ordinance. Councilmember Wilson indicated he would support the proposed interim ordinance, noting it was critical for a developer to advertise to ensure they were successful in the community. A developer's success benefited the community via the additional tax revenues that projects generated, additional housing opportunities and goodwill by identifying lending institutions and other participants in the project. He referred to the comparison to A -frame signs in Firdale Village, noting most businesses were allowed permanent signs that could be displayed as long as the business was in operation. Construction signs identified a new development, and did not provide additional signage over what other businesses were allowed. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND ORVIS OPPOSED. The ordinance approved is as follows: rd# 3415 Construction ORDINANCE NO. 3415 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER Signs 20.60 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, ADOPTING A NEW DEFINITION AND REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SIGNS AS AN INTERIM ZONING MEASURE, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Final 4B. PROPOSED INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDING ECDC 20.35.080 IN ORDER TO Decisions CLARIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL. INSTEAD OF THE HEARING EXAMINER SHALL n Planned MAKE FINAL DECISIONS ON PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Residential Develop- ment City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this ordinance was necessary to correct an error. He explained Applications there are two sections of Code that describe appeal periods. A change was made to provide for Hearing Examiner review and decision in the Planned Residential Development (PRD) ordinance but the other section of the Code that indicated the Council made the final decision on PRDs was not amended. He explained this issue was raised to the Hearing Examiner by opponents to a PRD application currently under review. The Hearing Examiner suspended the process, requesting an opinion regarding how to interpret the code. Mr. Snyder explained City Attorney Phil Olbrechts found case law that indicated a PRD decision was akin to a rezone and must be made by the City Council. Although the original case involved constructing multifamily housing in a single family zone, Mr. Olbrechts determined that case had been cited numerous times by the Court of Appeals for the general proposition that PRDs must be heard by the City Council. Mr. Snyder pointed out an application was in progress where there were two descriptions in Code about where the final decision was made. He recommended a rule be made to allow the Planning Board to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2002 Page 6 complete its review of the PRD ordinance. He recommended adopting the proposed interim zoning ordinance. He noted a hearing date must be scheduled within 60 days as this was an interim zoning ordinance. Councilmember Orvis referred to the court case Lutz v. City of Longview which refers to a PUD and asked how a PUD differed from a PRD. Mr. Snyder answered they were the same tool; most cities used Planned Unit Development (PUD). He explained the Edmonds Council used PRD to differentiate because Edmonds was not allowing attached duplexes. He noted PUD and PRD were legally the same tool but the Council chose a different acronym to describe it. Mr. Snyder further explained PUD and PRD were the same type of device, a device where a Council provides a flexible process to vary some provisions of the zoning code in order to permit use of properties that were difficult to develop or had some site constraints. In some communities, a Planned Unit Development could be a commercial or mixed residential and commercial development, however, Edmonds allowed only residential structures in the PRD. He noted the case Johnson v. Mt. Vernon was an instance where uses could be varied. However, Edmonds' ordinance was a more narrow application, typical of King and Snohomish County which allowed only variations in bulk requirements. Councilmember Orvis asked who made the decision in other jurisdictions. Mr. Snyder answered most followed a process that allowed the Council to give final approval, akin to subdivision, where the Hearing Examiner made a recommendation but the Council issued the final approval. In Redmond, the Hearing Examiner made final approval on 90% of the provisions of the PRD, and only decisions on variances from critical issues such as density or height were made by the Council. A rezone that changed a use or permitted great flexibility in the zoning process could not be delegated by the Council; whereas, something with strict standards that could be done with some precision, was acceptable for delegation to a Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Mr. Snyder could provide information to the Council regarding Redmond's ordinance. Mr. Snyder indicated he could, stating the Planning Board may want to consider that information during their review of the PRD ordinance. He pointed out there were currently two conflicting review provisions and until it was resolved, one needed to be selected as the process to be followed. Council President Earling referred to the Buildable Lands effort that would be upcoming that includes an effort to streamline the permitting process. He pointed out the importance of determining the effect the Hearing Examiner versus the City Council would have on the process. A common complaint was that value of property was affected by development of PRDs and he requested staff provide further information regarding whether PRDs affected property values. He recalled the intense discussion regarding the PRD on Talbot Road, noting the City's PRD ordinance was not the same as the ordinance used to make the decision for the Talbot Group. He requested staff provide a reminder regarding that change. Council President Earling requested an update on issues associated with the Growth Management Act (GMA), lot sizes of 12,000 and 20,000 square feet, and the effect GMA could have on the community. He recalled the Talbot Group requested larger lots be excluded from PRDs, which was in opposition to GMA. Councilmember Wilson noted the court decisions that had been cited addressed instances where the PRD changed the underlying zoning, for example the Lutz v. Longview was multifamily in a single family zone. Edmonds' ordinance was more restrictive and his research found that in several cities the decision Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2002 Page 7 on a PUD or PRD was made by the Hearing Examiner and appealable to the Council. He expressed concern that a number of jurisdictions appeared to have reached a different conclusion and requested further information regarding that difference. He requested a sampling of how other jurisdictions addressed the issue and suggested researching the Bremerton, Longview, and Mt. Vernon ordinances. With regard to how other jurisdictions were proceeding, Mr. Snyder said many had reviewed the cited cases and made a distinction between minor variations in bulk requirements and broader issues such as zoning. He noted there were no cases that represented a rule that extended to only this set of circumstances; the findings to date have been that PUD/PRD were akin to a rezone and required a decision by the Council. He recommended the City take the most conservative route until the Planning Board and Council had an opportunity to evaluate the risk/benefit. Councilmember Plunkett recalled it had taken approximately 12-18 months to develop the PRD ordinance. He questioned whether the PRD ordinance was written intentionally making the Hearing Examiner the final decision maker. Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Dawson clarified this was an interim ordinance and the decision regarding who would make the final decision would be reviewed by the Planning Board and Council as well as during public hearings. She noted there were no cases direct on point as to whether or not allowing the Hearing Examiner to make the final decision was constitutional. Mr. Snyder answered all case law assumed the decision required Council approval; the specific issue, whether PRD ordinances that limit Hearing Examiner authority to bulk requirements, have not been considered by the courts. Councilmember Dawson noted there was problem with the existing ordinance and the Council needed to select either the Hearing Examiner or Council for making the final decision. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO BRING THE REQUESTED INFORMATION TO THE COUNCIL ON AUGUST 20. Councilmember Petso questioned the need to bring back further information regarding GMA requirements, etc. as that information related to the PRD regulations rather than the issue addressed by the interim zoning ordinance. She noted the wise course was to give the Council the final decision- making authority and avoid any legal complications due to the illegal ordinance. She questioned what could be gained by reviewing the requested information unless the Council believed it would change Mr. Snyder's legal opinion. She preferred to adopt staff's recommendation and review the additional information during the review of the PRD ordinance. Councilmember Wilson commented the opportunity to review further information would be beneficial to the Council. Councilmember Marin suggested two draft ordinances be provided, one with the Hearing Examiner making the final decision and another with the Council making the final decision. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the City's ordinance was illegal as there were two different provisions regarding the final decision maker. She emphasized the Council needed to take action tonight on an interim ordinance that designated a final decision making body until the Planning Board had an opportunity to review the issue. Mr. Snyder pointed out the Council would be scheduling a public hearing within 60 days which would be the appropriate time to hear from the public as well as review additional information. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2002 Page 8 Council discussed an appropriate date for staff to provide the additional information in view of two closed record reviews scheduled for the August 20 meeting, one regarding a PRD. Mr. Snyder explained the reason this was presented as an interim ordinance was to establish a rule so that the Council could hold the close record review on August 20. Mr. Snyder advised staff could provide information regarding how this issue was being addressed by neighboring communities as well as provide copies of Redmond's ordinance. He noted many of the other issues that were raised such as land values, stream lining the Hearing Examiner process, etc. related to the Planning Board's review of the PRD ordinance. Council President Earling suggested the additional information be provided to the Council on August 13 prior to Committee meetings. Councilmember Dawson asked what ramifications this delay would have, such as on an application for a PRD filed this week. Mr. Snyder noted the closed record review scheduled for August 20 was the only application this problem related to. He noted that although there were other PRDs in process, they were not at the stage where this was an issue. He noted the ambiguity in the ordinance needed to be resolved; the standard rule would be to resolve it in a manner that avoided unconstitutionality which would be to have the Council make the final decision. He noted the parties to the closed record review scheduled for August 20 were awaiting Council direction regarding the specific standards for review. Councilmember Dawson concluded that although she preferred the Council make a decision tonight, she was comfortable with providing the additional information on August 13. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. blic 4C. UPDATE ON THE PUBLIC FACILITY DISTRICT'S PROGRESS cilities District Council President Earling noted the Public Facilities District (PFD) was facing a series of critical decisions at the end of August. He stated a briefing to the Council was scheduled for August 20 although there were key decisions that would occur after that date such as the appraisal. PFD Board Member Jan Conner provided an update of the PFD'S activities as they moved toward the completion of the contingency requirements established by Snohomish County PFD and the City Council. She referred to a copy of the PFD'S work plan that was provided to the Council, explaining since the formation of the PFD in 2001, the PFD had been on a fast track. The Board's momentum had increased substantially since May 2002 in an effort to meet the August 31 deadline. She indicated the Board's desire to meet with 1-2 members of the Council during August to seek their input and answer any questions. The PFD planned to make a presentation to the Council on August 20 which would include a PowerPoint presentation and status report regarding contingency tasks. As there were some items that had deadlines immediately before and after the August 20 representation, an additional presentation would be made to the Council on August 27 or in early September. Ms. Conner summarized the PFD Board was grateful for the opportunity to preserve a historical building as well as preserve a venue for the arts in Edmonds. She expressed the Board's appreciation to the City for their assistance, particularly for the professionalism and cooperation of City staff. Council President Earling encouraged Councilmembers to meet with PFD Board Members. kinan 5. RECOGNITION OF HEKINAN STUDENT DELEGATION dent legation Mayor Haakenson explained the annual Hekinan student delegation arrived on August 2 and would be visiting the City until August 14. He noted the 15 students and two chaperones had very full schedules Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2002 Page 9 touring the region and sampling the cultural and family experiences that are the basis of their visit. He welcomed the delegation to the City and he and Councilmembers greeted the members of the delegation. 6. RECOGNITION OF YOUTH VOLUNTEERS Recognition f Youth Mayor Haakenson explained that within the community, there were hundreds of young citizens who give Volunteers freely of their time to serve on committees, work in hospitals, participate in community programs, or just mow the grass of their elderly neighbors. Tonight's group of young people are amongst 56 volunteering their time this summer in the Super Summer Day Camp program and at the Edmonds Boys and Girls Club. He noted their volunteerism showed their commitment to their community. These young people have been engaged as active leaders and spent their energy and creativity building assets in younger children. Sarah Yamasaki described her experience as a Junior Counselor at the Edmonds Super Summer Day Camp. Katheryn Mashnovskaya described her experience volunteering at the Edmonds Boys and Girls Club. The following were provided certificates in recognition of their volunteer service: Abby Bacon, Rachael Bennett, Johnathan Casey, Robin Culp, Kaitlyn Dwan, Bruce Gritten, Jonathan Honari, Christy Housler, Matthew Johnston, Asami Konishi, Jennifer Lewis, Katheryn Mashnovskaya, Andrew Murphy, Chelsea Olsen, Sarah Reiser, Joanna Tell, Kathryn Temir, Grant Warner, and Sarah Yamasaki. Reception 7. RECESS FOR RECEPTION IN HONOR OF YOUTH VOLUNTEERS or Youth Volunteers Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess for a reception in honor of the Youth Volunteers. 8. APPROVAL OF PRETREATMENT TECHNICIAN POSITION AT THE WASTEWATER Pretreatment TREATMENT PLANT Technician Position Treatment Plant Manager Stephen Koho explained this was a follow-up to the Council's approval of the Pretreatment Ordinance. He noted the Finance and the Community Services/Development Services Committees recommended approval of the Pretreatment Technician position. He explained the Pretreatment Technician would fill a vacant, reclassified position. The position would be regional in nature and the expense would be shared regionally. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF A NEW JOB DESCRIPTION AND AUTHORIZATION TO FILL A POSITION FOR PRETREATMENT TECHNICIAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS aste of Mayor Haakenson encouraged the public to attend the Taste of Edmonds on Friday, Saturday anddmonds Sunday, August 9-11. rightwater Mayor Haakenson reported that on August 13, King County Executive Ron Sims would be announcing reatment his preferred site for the Brightwater Treatment Plant. Mayor Haakenson was hopeful there would be rant good news to share with the public on August 13. Mayor Haakenson extended birthday wishes to his mother on her 80th birthday. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2002 Page 10 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS S Levy Council President Earling recalled the Council approved placing the continued funding of the EMS levy on the November ballot and announced proponent and opponent committees would be formed. He noted only one member of the community volunteered to serve as one of the three proponents; therefore, Mayor Haakenson and he would serve as the other two proponents. No one volunteered in opposition to the measure. Council President Earling welcomed his son, John, in attendance at the meeting who was home for a visit Community from college. Services/ Development Councilmember Marin announced the Community Services/Development Services Committee would Services meet on August 27 at 6:00 m. in Council Chambers rather than on August 13. Committee g p • � Meeting With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. GARY F6AKENSON, MAYOR `SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2002 Page 11 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 51" Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. AUGUST 6, 2002 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order _ '91 Flan Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 23, 2002 (C) Approval of claim checks #56935 through #57084 for the week of July 22, 2002, in the amount of $370,052.12. Approval of claim checks #57085 through #57214 for the week of July 29, 2002, in the amount of $262,380.36. (D) Report on the General Fund and other selected funds financial position for the month ending June, 2002. (E) Quarterly report regarding grants. (F) Authorization for Mayor to sign Contract #02-99400-008 with Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development for Job Creation and Infrastructure Program Capital Grant in the amount of $297,450 for the development of the Waterfront Walkway/Bulkhead Project. (G) Authorization for Mayor to sign Professional Services Agreement with KPFF Consulting Engineers for design of 164th Street SW Walkway Improvements. (H) Authorization to call for bids for Fire Station #16. (1) Proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 5.27 of the Edmonds City Code, specifically prohibiting the sale, purchase, possession and use of consumer fireworks from December 27, 2002 through December 31,,2002. Page 7 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 6, 2002 Page 2 of 2 (J) Proposed Ordinance electing to be preempted in accordance with the provisions of ESSB 6594, establishing additional standards for the siting of Secured Community Transition Facilities, providing for a process to comment to the State and to oppose siting of any facility which does not comport with the requirements herein adopted. 3. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 4. ( 5 Min.) Proclamation in Honor of "A Taste of Edmonds" 20t' Anniversary, August 9, 10 and 11, 2002. 5. (10 Min.) Recognition of Hekinan Student Delegation 6. (10 Min.) Recognition of Youth Volunteers 7. (15 Min.) Recess for reception in honor of Youth Volunteers 8. ( 5 Min.) Approval of Pretreatment Technician Position at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. 9. (10 Min.) Proposed interim zoning ordinance amending Chapter 20.60 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), adopting a new definition and regulations for construction signs. 10. (10 Min.) Proposed interim zoning ordinance amending ECDC 20.35.080 in order to clarify that the City Council, instead of the Hearing Examiner, shall make final decisions on Planned Residential Development applications. 11. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 12. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT&T Cable, Channel 21.