01/25/2005 City Councili� M .,9l
January 25, 2005
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council.
Chambers, 250 5'h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Richard Marin, Council. President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council. Asst.
Megan Cruz, Video Recorder
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Vii♦ 1 ♦ r�i 1 -4 11 �• ♦ C • �♦ 10are] •
W W . 1 I .. 1 012FINkli 10A 01
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Marin requested Items E and I be removed from the Consent Agenda so that he could
abstain from voting on those items.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
1/18/05 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2005.
Minutes
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #76733 THROUGH #76897 FOR THE WEEK OF
Approve
Claim Checks JANUARY 17, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,376,841.95. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #40061 THROUGH #40134 FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY I THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $763,629.23.
Claims for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM MARY BETH
amages PETERS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), ALLEN JOHN ALBERTSON ($436.77), AND
JOHN A. MERZ, JR. (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
Minute
Taking (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Services CONTRACT WITH KARIN NOYES FOR MINUTE TAKING SERVICES.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 1
Cathodic (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO THE
Protection PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COSMOPOLITAN ENGINEERING
Project
GROUP FOR THE SEWER OUTFALL — CATHODIC PROTECTION PROJECT.
Lift Station (H) ACCEPTANCE OF CHATTEL DEED FROM OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER
Chattel Deed DISTRICT (OVWSD) FOR WASTEWATER LIFT STATION.
Item E: Approval of List of Edmonds Businesses Applying for Renewal of their Liquor Licenses
with the Washington State Liquor Control Board
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1); COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN
ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
Liquor I (E) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
Control Board THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD
Item I: Authorization of Resolution to Submit Grant Application for 2005 Snohomish County
CDBG
Capital CDBG Capital Program for Senior Center Improvements
rogram
Council President Marin advised he serves on the Snohomish County Policy Advisory Board who
approves these grant requests, therefore, he would abstain from the vote.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM L MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1); COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN
ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
(I) AUTHORIZATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1082 TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION
FOR 2005 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CDBG CAPITAL PROGRAM FOR SENIOR
CENTER IMPROVEMENTS.
Mayor Haakenson brought to the Council's attention that Item No. 6 on the Agenda had been tabled at the
January 18, 2005 City Council Meeting. Therefore, a motion was required to remove this item from the
Reorg. of table in order for it to be considered this evening.
Parks & ftec
Management COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
!7 13 DIVA 11 911104 ffII 1 21704 111I111I011_\ 1 a 01111yrey IffleCN� 7H101 11112/1letIU [11110
Kgli17 i Dl►`ry D[K1]U i►i i 1112`(1 IF.y
Marla Miller, 81.0 Hindley Lane, Edmonds, Executive Director of Business and Operations,
Former Edmonds School District, provided background and clarification regarding the District's recent activities
Woodway
Elementary pertaining to the former Woodway Elementary School and other District properties. She explained the
School publicly- elected five member School Board was the decision - making body for the District. The Edmonds
School District served students in the communities of Brier, Woodway, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace,
unincorporated Snohomish County as well as Edmonds. All those communities are part of the District's
educational program and pay taxes in support of schools. Since 1991, Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds
Woodway and Meadowdale High Schools have been rebuilt. The fourth high school, Lynnwood as well
as the alternative program, Scriber Lake, need to be rebuilt. Although a majority of voters supported
construction proposals in 2002 and 2003, they did not receive the super majority required for school
construction bonds and the District is in the process of obtaining funding for those reconstruction.
projects.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 2
Last year the District hired a consultant to review the potential best use of ten properties located
throughout the District, the consultant provided their report to the School Board in November and in
December the Board authorized staff to pursue recommended next steps including exploring the potential
sale of the former Woodway Elementary school site. Informal discussions were held in December with
City staff regarding the City's interest in purchasing the property and the District's legal parameters for
selling the property. She described state requirements for the sale of school property which include
conducting an appraisal no more than one year prior to the sale by a certified property appraiser, and the
School Board declaring the property surplus prior to the sale.
At this time the Board has not authorized the sale of any properties and has not obtained an appraisal of
the former Woodway Elementary site. On December 27, 2004, the District submitted a letter to the City
to preserve the possibility of requesting a Comprehensive Plan land use amendment for the foriner
Woodway Elementary school site during 2005; to be eligible for an amendment during 2005, as it was
necessary to submit a request prior to January 1. She summarized it was not yet known whether the
Board would recommend the sale of the property during the year or whether the City will be in a position
to purchase the entire property or a portion. She advised information would be provided at School Board
meetings and posted on their website. She offered to meet with citizens who have questions.
Roger Hertrich,1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, urged the Council to be careful regarding the educational
Reorg. of requirements for new positions under the reorganization of the management structure of the Parks,
Parks & Rec Recreation & Cultural Services Department. He commented on the importance of an educational
Management
background in management, noting work experience was not all that was required for a management
position. With regard to the waterfront, he asked whether the City had applied for grants for the purchase
of the waterfront property that was announced recently. With regard to the Planning Board's hearing
Planning regarding the Comprehensive Plan update, Mr. Hertrich alleged the public process had been tainted by
Board allowing public testimony after the public hearing was closed. Further, the Planning Board did not
Hearing re:
33 -foot discuss the 33 -foot proposed height limit for the downtown - waterfront area even though the majority of
Height Limit the public testimony was opposed to the height increase. He suggested it was premature for the Council
to consider the matter and suggested it be returned to the Planning Board for discussion.
Mayor Haakenson advised at tomorrow night's Planning Board meeting, each member would be asked to
state their reasons for supporting or opposing the 33 -foot height limit and that information would become
part of the Comprehensive Plan record.
Economic 4. QUARTERLY REPORT FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Development
Department Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend reviewed her report which was divided into three
Report
sections, general overview of economic development services provided, place - specific work and relevant
local market information, trends and other news of interest.
With regard to overview of services provided, Ms. Gerend described technical assistance she provides
including problem solving and information gathering for businesses, property owners and others. She
also serves as the staff liaison to the business community, attending regular meetings of the Chamber of
Commerce, the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, TEAM Edmonds and the Chamber's
Economic Development Committee, relaying information about important topics and meetings of interest
as well as bringing information back to staff. She described economic development related promotion,
public relations and special projects including a day of birding activities planned on Migratory Bird Day
(May 14) to promote birding tourism, preparation of an RFP to host the Community Trade and Economic
Development Downtown Revitalization Institute in 2006, and assisting two independent film productions
to navigate the special events permit process and find sites for different scenes. She described her efforts
with regard to site selection, business recruitment and retention including tracking available space,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 3
working with businesses looking for space, and reaching out to existing businesses that have changing
business needs as well as providing information to property owners on how to include their property
information in other databases such as the commercial multiple or Costar. She also organized local .
commercial realtors with larger properties to participate in the Snohomish County Economic
Development Council's real estate binder of opportunities and organized an Edmonds table at their event
for site selection and real estate professionals.
With regard to site specific -work, Ms. Gerend described her efforts to follow -up on recommendations in
the consultant reports prepared regarding Hwy. 99 in 2004 such as visually enhancing an International
District along Hwy. 99 through the use of signage and public art. She also hosted a brainstorming session
with a focus group of Hwy. 99 business owners who are interested in the concept. With regard to
neighborhood centers, she advised that a couple of local chain restaurants are looking for space on
Edmond Way near Westgate. Caffe Ladro, a Seattle -based coffeehouse, signed a lease to take the space
next to the gym at Five Corners, providing this area a much needed neighborhood gathering place. She
advised of two new businesses opening in downtown, Nana's Candy Shop, which will occupy the former
Cottage Gate storefront, and Netmusic.com, which rented second floor space in Old Milltown.
With regard to relevant local market information, trends and other news of interest, Ms. Gerend reported
many landlords downtown are charging approximately $15 per foot for retail space and space in Westgate
can rent from the low $20's per foot. Rent for space on Hwy. 99 varies greatly depending on the space
and location. Demand for prime storefronts with quality retail space remains steady. Although there is
some natural turnover in tenants, there are also many interested new tenants applying for storefronts.
Tenants most interested in downtown storefronts are independent specialty retailers who would
compliment the existing retailers. There is also a growing interest from gourmet and specialty food
businesses. She relayed feedback from younger professionals who are interested in more evening
activities in the downtown area, noting the Edmonds Center for the Arts will likely further increase
demand for places to gather in the evening. She described demand for what planners call "third places"
(not home, not work but someplace else), a quality of life amenity considered in location decisions by
residents and businesses.
With regard to next steps for economic development policy, Ms. Gerend suggested the Council may want
to consider increasing the emphasis on economic development via a separate Economic Development
chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. If the Council was interested in pursuing that, she offered to lead a
visioning session at the Council retreat to begin the process as well as research other cities' Economic
Development chapters. This would provide sufficient time through the end of 2005 to write the chapter,
gather feedback from the public, etc.
Councilmember Moore agreed with Ms. Gerend's suggestion to conduct a visioning session at the retreat
regarding economic development. She asked when an answer would be provided on the RFP to host the
Community Trade and Economic Development Downtown Revitalization Institute in 2006. Ms. Gerend
answered it would be announced in April at the district conference.
In response to Councilmember Moore's request that she comment on current turnover in downtown retail
space, Ms. Gerend explained there were many reasons for business closures. Although it may be assumed
that a business closed because it could not survive, it may be for personal reasons, retirement, sale of the
business, etc. She explained it was the consensus of the business owners downtown that recent activity
was part of natural turnover, particularly when most businesses were independent retailers.
Council President Marin agreed with Ms. Gerend's suggestion to develop an Economic Development
Comprehensive Plan element as well as with her suggestion to conduct a visioning session at the Council
retreat.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 4
5. QUARTERLY REPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Community
Services
Department Community Services Director Stephen Clifton provided an update on major projects currently being
Report worked on by the Community Services Department, beginning with the Edmonds Crossing. As
announced at the November 9 City Council meeting, after an 11 -year environmental process, the
Edmonds Crossing Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued by the Federal Transit
Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Washington State Department of Transportation and
the City of Edmonds. The next step is to obtain a record of decision issued by the Federal Highway
Administration; the agencies are working with the Tribes on a Memorandum of Agreement. He clarified
the agencies have reached agreement with the Tribes; the issue is now being discussed among the Tribes
themselves.
With regard to Sound Transit, Mr. Clifton referred to the extensive information included in the packet,
explaining on December 2, 2004, Sound Transit issued a supplemental draft EIS to update the information
provided in the 1996 long range plan. In early to mid 2005, citizens and elected officials will have an
opportunity to join the effort to update the Sound Transit long range plan. He explained in the
supplemental draft EIS, Sound Transit is reviewing past conclusions that were made in the 1996 long
range plan, approved by the voters, and refreshing the environmental studies. The new draft study
considers the impact of two alternatives, 1) a no action alternative that would complete all investments
approved by the voters in 1996, and 2) build out of the 1996 long -range plan and exploring the impacts of
adding more commuter rail, light rail, regional express bus, monorail, etc. as well as supporting facilities
to operate such a system. Notice of the supplemental draft EIS was placed on the City's website and
Channel 21 in December 2004 and with the release of the draft supplemental EIS, Sound Transit wants to
hear from the community. Additional information is available from Sound Transit's website,
soundtransit.org, or by calling Sound Transit at 206 - 398 -5000 and asking for Matt Shilden.
Mr. Clifton advised Sound Transit also wants to hear from the community regarding Phase 2, a potential
expansion of the system. Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith and he are monitoring this via participation in a
Snohomish County Technical work group; Sound Transit will soon begin involving elected officials and
the community in establishing a Phase 2 plan. He explained there were three transportation packages
being discussed as outlined in the tables in the Council packet. He invited the public to contact him for
further information regarding those packages. He advised both Mr. Smith and he would be submitting
letters in response to Sound Transit's supplemental draft EIS. In an effort to update the Council and the
public regarding Sound Transit's activities, at his request, Sound Transit Executive Director Joni Earl will
provide an update at the Council's February 2 meeting.
With regard to Unocal site cleanup of the lower yard, Mr. Clifton explained Unocal continued to conduct
interim actions to cleanup the lower yard; on January 5, Unocal removed the portion of the trestle above
the railroad tracks. The remainder of the pier that extends over Marina Beach and into the Puget Sound
was purchased by the City as part of the Marina Beach property and will be removed as part of the
Edmonds Crossing project.
With regard to the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD), Mr. Clifton reported the PFD continues its
fundraising efforts including former City employee Arvilla Oblde and he applying for grants. He reported
contributions in the last quarter have included $30,000 from Nordstrom, $50,000 from Boeing and a
federal appropriation of $372,500. He advised contributions had also been received from US Bank, Wells
Fargo, and Washington Mutual.
Mr. Clifton reported no significant activities have occurred with regard to Snohomish. County Paine Field
during the last quarter.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 5
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the City would fund the removal of the pier. Mr. Clifton
answered it was part of the overall construction cost of Edmonds Crossing.
Reorganization
of Parks & 6. APPROVAL OF REORGANIZATION OF MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OF PARKS
Recreation RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Management
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh recalled last week the Council removed from the Consent
Agenda the reorganization of the management structure of the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Department for clarification and discussion regarding the education and experience requirements of the
Recreation Services Manager position. He advised as the section was currently written, the minimum
requirement to apply for both internal and external candidates was a four -year degree and five years of
experience or a combination of education and experience, in effect substituting on -the -job experience for
education. He explained this was not unprecedented in the City, several current managers have come
through the ranks and this was an accepted past practice in the City. He advised his department currently
had three long term, very capable recreation coordinators, all with different talents and abilities, two with
degrees and one who does not. He did not want to eliminate any potential candidates who had been loyal
employees for several years who have the requisite capabilities, recent training and responsible job
progression. He expected a large number of applications for this position that would undergo a rigorous
screening and selection process and was confident the candidate selected would be the best available and
would serve the City well.
Councilmember Moore recalled when the qualifications were first placed on the Consent Agenda, one
required a degree and experience and two did not require a degree, now none of the three required a
degree. Her concern was setting a precedent, noting others look to Edmonds as a leader in parks. She
noted Mr. McIntosh's position required a degree and his input has been invaluable, in part because of his
experience as well as his degree. She found a degree critical, recommending all three positions require a
degree and experience, particularly the one administering $750,000 in income and numerous staff. Her
research of past employees indicated those positions required degrees at some time in the past. She
inquired about the urgency of approving this request. Mr. McIntosh responded the department had been
without an assistant for several months and needed some relief as summer approached. Councilmember
Moore reiterated her suggestion that the Council discuss this further.
Councilmember Wilson asked when the high programming period for the Parks & Recreation Department
began. Mr. McIntosh advised the preparation phase began approximately February 1; actual .
programming began in late May. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the timeline for the hiring
process to fill these positions. Mr. McIntosh responded the process would take a minimum of 6 -8 weeks.
Councilmember Wilson asked Mr. McIntosh to provide an example of other City management positions
that did not require a degree. Mr. McIntosh anticipated applicants competing for this position would have
maximum qualifications. He advised the Parks Maintenance Manager had progressed through the ranks
and did not have a degree and there were others in Public Works and Human Resources. Further, the City
of Shoreline, who has similar job descriptions and qualifications, indicated their descriptions allowed
them to consider special circumstances and exceptional abilities.
Councilmember Dawson questioned whether delaying this decision would provide additional information.
She pointed out specific direction could have been given to staff last week when this item was tabled.
She remarked if the best candidate for the position had a four -year degree, that would be who was hired;
if the best candidate did not have a four -year degree, a requirement for a degree should not exclude that
person. She found the combination of experience and education a good compromise. Another option
could be to have the person selected work toward obtaining a four -year degree while in the position and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 6
within a certain number of years to retain the position. She recalled in other governmental entities such as
the court systems, good people were eliminated from consideration because they did not have a degree
and she did not want to see that happen in this instance. She summarized she did not want to limit
candidates to only those with degrees when there may be a person without a degree who was the best
candidate. Unless Human Resources or the Mayor determined this position must have a degree, she
preferred approving the position without the degree requirement.
Councilmember Olson commented if someone had been working for the City for eight years and they
were interested in advancing and had that much experience, it was fairly easy to obtain a degree. She was
concerned with "dumbing down" the job requirement. Mr. McIntosh commented a degree would score
points in the interview process.
W W W113,111 Wei = I go IN I.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked Mr. McIntosh for the additional information, commenting the idea had
matured sufficiently to allow him to support the motion.
Councilmember Wilson thanked Mr. McIntosh for implementing his suggestions in the revised job
qualifications. Councilmember Wilson commented the City was seeking a combination of educational
and practical experience to identify the best possible candidate. He questioned whether it was the
Council's role to review job requirements and suggested the Council establish guidelines and policies
with regard to job requirements rather than considering them on an individual basis. He noted these
positions needed to be filled so that the programs could be successful. He suggested discussing this at the
Council retreat.
Councilmember Moore agreed this was an appropriate topic for the retreat. She was interested in
protecting the taxpayers' dollars and hiring the best candidate. She felt the Council should be involved in
drafting the job requirements for a position paid $65,000 per year and that managed $750,000. She was
unable to support the motion, noting this was a critical position for the City. She apologized for not
requesting further information when she tabled the matter but preferred the Council discuss the matter
further before taking action.
Councilmember Orvis commented if he were writing the job qualifications, he would require a degree,
therefore, he would not support the motion. He was most concerned that the Recreation Services
Manager position did not require a degree, noting it was a fairly complicated position as this person
would be constantly hiring and firing employees. He preferred that position in particular require a degree.
Councilmember Dawson was troubled by the notion that the best person for the position could not be a
person without a four -year degree and that a four -year degree equated to a person being the best person
for the job. She acknowledged a person with a degree would have a leg -up on the competition but the
person with the best experience, management skills, etc. could be the person best qualified for the
positions. She was troubled with the suggestion that hiring someone without a degree was considered
dumbing down. She pointed out there were many very bright, talented people in Edmonds, in other cities,
and who work in the community who do not have four -year degrees. She concluded if the best person for
the position did not have a four -year degree, that was who should be hired.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out Bill Gates as a great example in the Puget Sound of a person who did
not graduate from college. He agreed there were incredibly talented people who may not have a four -year
degree but the deeds, actions and qualities they bring to the interview process were what would make
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 7
them stand out and the persons conducting the interviews would recognize that and hire the best candidate
possible.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN,
COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, WILSON AND DAWSON IN FAVOR, COUNCILMEMBERS
ORVIS, MOORE AND OLSON OPPOSED.
Councilmember Moore requested the Council's role in establishing job qualifications be discussed at the
Council retreat.
Quasi Judicial 7. DISCUSSION ON QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS
Matters
Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled the Council's role in quasi judicial matters was
brought up for discussion at the February 2003 Council retreat. In January 2004, the Planning Board met
with the Council to discuss quasi judicial matters and review the Planning Board's work. This was
followed up at the 2004 Council retreat where the Council adopted a review of the Council's role in quasi .
judicial matters as part its Mission, Vision, Values and Strategic Plan.
Mr. Bowman recalled in 2003 the Planning Board extensively reviewed this issue and recommended a
rewrite of the processes found in Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). At
their January 27 meeting, the Planning Board will have their first discussion regarding revisions to Title
20. He displayed a list of quasi judicial issues which include standard subdivisions, Conditional Use
Permits, Shoreline Permits, rezones and variances. One option is to remove the Council from quasi
judicial matters so that land use matters would be resolved via the Hearing Examiner process with appeal .
to the Superior Court. He noted the Council must remain as the decision -maker in rezones. He concluded
the Planning Board would begin discussing amendments to Title 20 and forward a recommendation to the
Council regarding those processes and procedures for the Council's consideration.
Council President Marin commented it had been uncomfortable for the Council at times to deal with
details that many Councilmembers may not understand well. He empathized with audience members who
felt they had not been able to participate in the process in the case of a closed record review. He
supported the Planning Board discussing and forwarding a recommendation regarding what quasi judicial
decisions the Council should and should not be involved in.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the list of quasi judicial issues, pointing out the State Legislature
recognized that the Hearing Examiner should not be the decision -maker on rezones because it was a
different type of process. He suggested the question for the Planning Board may be what should be the
appeal process for each of the quasi judicial matters rather than all quasi judicial matters being treated the
same. He noted last week's hearing, while possibly uncomfortable for some, was very eye- opening and
led him to believe he could not support a recommendation that removed the Council from the variance
appeal process. Because the Council created code, it should be the Council's responsibility to vary it.
Conversely, he could see the Hearing Examiner being the decision -maker on decisions such as standard
subdivisions. He suggested the Planning Board consider the process for each type of hearing separately.
Councilmember Wilson was interested in the Planning Board's recommendation, suggesting they also
consider how the closed record review process is structured such as how to preserve the record so that
there were not procedural problems at the Council level.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested the Planning Board consider a clause in the draft Comprehensive Plan
that states one of the goals is maximum citizen participation and determine which process would be
appropriate to attain maximum citizen participation. He did not object to being in an uncomfortable
position, noting Councilmembers were elected to be uncomfortable.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 8
Councilmember Dawson clarified the option was a closed record review of a quasi judicial matter by the
Council or no review by the Council and appeal only to Superior Court. Mr. Bowman explained in the
mid 1990's the State adopted the Regulatory Reform Act, which radically changed the permit process,
allowing only one open record hearing. Regulatory Reform also allowed for closed record review and
under the City's system, that is where the Council is involved. He explained the difficulty with a closed
record review was that no new information can be introduced and only parties of record can argue
information already in the record. He acknowledged the uncomfortable situation at last week's closed
record review trying to prohibit the parties from providing new information.
Mayor Haakenson clarified last week's closed record review was uncomfortable not from the decision -
making standpoint, but trying to explain why new information could not be provided and why neighbors
who were not parties of record could not participate. Councilmember Dawson commented the City
needed to do a better job educating people about establishing a record.
Councilmember Moore commented on WCIA's presentation to the Planning Board. She clarified a quasi .
judicial matter was not an opportunity for citizens to change the Council's mind by stating they would or
would not vote for them — that was illegal. She found quasi judicial matters separated voters from their
elected officials by not allowing citizens to talk to the Council outside the record or even allowing
Councilmembers to visit the site. Quasi judicial matters placed the Council in the position of a judge and
most did not run for office to sit in judgment on land use decisions for which they were not trained.
Councilmember Wilson added Councilmembers were not uncomfortable making decisions; it was the
process that was difficult. He agreed the City needed to do a better job educating the public about when
to participate — at the one and only hearing. He suggested the Planning Board consider how to educate
the public regarding how and when to participate to maximize their efforts.
Councilmember Olson commented the Council could not discuss even potential quasi judicial matters
with citizens when they encountered them outside the Council Chambers.
Design 8. DISCUSSION ON DESIGN GUIDELINES NEXT STEPS
Guidelines
Planning Manager Rob Chave recalled the Planning Board previously recommended Design Guidelines to
the City Council which was ultimately tabled. The Council did act on Design Guidelines for signs,
however, the balance of the Guidelines are awaiting further consideration.
The Planning Board included the objectives from the Design. Guidelines in the recommended
Comprehensive Plan, concluding the objectives were general enough that they represented policy
statements and belonged in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board felt by including them in the
Comprehensive Plan, there would be some movement toward providing additional guidance. In its
deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Board felt Design Guidelines, more than anything
else, would have a positive impact on how buildings looked than other issues such as height limits.
Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board tweaked the Design Guidelines slightly for the downtown;
therefore, the Comprehensive Plan included two sets of Design Guidelines, one that addressed the
remainder of the City and a modified set for the downtown - Waterfront Activity area. He noted the
Planning Board was uncomfortable with including any more specificity regarding roof modulation issues.
With regard to next steps, Mr. Cbave advised the first would be the Comprehensive Plan including
Council consensus on including the objectives in the Comprehensive Plan followed by review of the
Design Guidelines to differentiate how they are applied downtown and in other areas of the City. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 9
noted the Council could have that discussion alone or with the Architectural Design Board (ADB). The
Planning Board felt the ADB has more expertise with design issues and with the number of issues facing
the Planning Board, they would have difficulty adding the Design Guidelines to their agenda.
Council President Marin suggested the ADB finalize their recommendation regarding the Design
Guidelines in the April /May timeframe and forward them to the Council.
Councilmember Wilson suggested the ADB wait until the Council completed their review of the
Comprehensive Plan and then have a joint meeting with the ADB to provide them direction for
implementing the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave agreed.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Comprehensive 9. WORK SESSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Plan
Amendments Planning Manager Rob Chave announced the two City Council public hearings regarding the Planning
Board recommended amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; the Council will consider the bulk of the
Comprehensive Plan amendments on February 1. On February 15, the public hearing will be devoted to
amendments proposed for the Downtown - Waterfront Activity Center which includes the Downtown -
Waterfront Plan, districts, 33 -foot building heights, Design Guidelines, etc.
Mr. Chave explained Comprehensive Plan elements include Land Use, Community Culture and Design,
Utilities, Capital Facilities, Housing, Transportation and Parks, Recreation & Open Space. The City's
plan is unique in that it has a central document and incorporates a number of specific, functional plans by
reference such as master plans for parks, high school, hospital; public urban design, street tree plan, sewer
and water plans, bikeways and the downtown - waterfront plan. He explained the City has amended its
Comprehensive Plan annually since the first GMA Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995; this year is
a required update and must incorporate new information regarding population targets, etc. to 2025. The
update also incorporates essential public facilities policies and process as well as updates the land use
map. He explained the City was required to show that urban areas have urban densities; due to the
amount of critical areas in Edmonds, staff considered the relationship between critical areas and the single
family zoning pattern. The update also incorporates the goals and policies developed for Hwy. 99,
incorporates Design. Guidelines objectives and updates the Downtown - Waterfront Plan.
Mr. Chave advised historical trends regarding population, housing units, households, land area, net land
area, etc. were also incorporated into the update. One of the things the City, as an urban area, was
required to show was that urban densities were occurring and that certain areas were maximizing infill.
The net (excluding critical areas) housing units per acre citywide had increased from 4.9 in 1990 to
approximately 5.4 in 2000. He noted this was significant as the City was mandated to achieve four units
per acre and the increase shows the City was accomplishing infill development as mandated by GMA.
Mr. Chave displayed a graph illustrating population growth from 1940 through 2000, noting population
increases since the 1970's have been very small with increases in the 1990's occurring only as a result of
annexations. He displayed a comparison of the City's growth target to historical growth based on
buildable land capacity, pointing out the Comprehensive Plan shows the City has the land capacity to
meet its growth targets to 2025. He noted the letter from the State commended the City for its ability to
meet its growth targets to 2025.
With regard to critical area and single family zones in the City, Mr. Chave explained as a result of the
critical area study with EDAW, an overlay of existing critical areas on large lot single family zoning
pattern was developed. Staff then identified areas zoned for large lot development (density less than four
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 10
units per acre) such as RS -12 and RS -20 that did not coincide with critical areas. Via that analysis, large
lot zoning without critical areas were identified as areas where the zoning was likely to be changed and
the Planning Board recommended a new single family zoning classification. He explained single family
zoning was currently divided into two broad types, 1) small lot development (RS -6 or RS -8) which meet
the minimum four units per acre test, and 2) large lot development (RS -12 or RS -20) does not meet the
minimum four units per acre test. Under the new proposed zoning, small lot development would continue
but be termed Single Family Urban 1 which corresponds to RS -6 or RS -8 and Single Family Urban 2
which corresponds to RS -8 or RS -10. The Planning Board recommends potentially designating the areas
where large lot zoning did not coincide with critical area as Single Family Urban 2. If the Council agrees
with those designations, the Planning Board would follow up with a public hearing to determine the exact
zoning classification for each area.
Mr. Chave explained the remaining large lot areas, justified by the critical areas, would be termed Single
Family Resource and their zoning could remain RS -12, RSW -12 or RS -20. A substantial area,
particularly in the north Meadowdale area would retain their large lot designation. The justification for
the Single Family Urban 1 and 2 and Single Family Resource was described in the Comprehensive Plan.
He noted it was felt to be particularly important in stream areas to maintain connection between stream
corridors via the large lot zoning. Mr. Chave also identified the Single Family Urban Master Plan area, a
small area near Paradise Lane, explaining the large lot zoning had been retained in that area, even though
there was not a critical area, due to WSDOT's concerns with access to SR 104. The Planning Board felt
although the large lot zoning could not be defended based on critical areas, there was justification for a
Master Plan to increase the density. He noted this location could potentially obtain urban zoning but a
PRD or Master Plan that addressed access issues would be required. He recalled there was testimony at
the Planning Board expressing concern with access in that area.
Mr. Chave displayed a proposed map that identified downtown districts, commenting that although the
districts provided more variety, the broad land uses in the 2004 updated Comprehensive Plan did not
change. He displayed a pie chart identifying percentages of land in various zoning classifications. He
noted the Planning Board incorporated the Hwy. 99 enhancement project into the Comprehensive Plan
update including diagrams and policies.
Mr. Chave explained three items would be reviewed at the February 1 public hearing, the first two were
specific applications submitted by individual property owners (legislative decisions) — Comprehensive
Plan map changes along Edmonds Way, one requested a change to multifamily and the other was for
Edmonds Way Corridor. The recommended Comprehensive Plan map reflects that proposed change. The
third item is a closed record review because the applicant, in addition to their request for a
Comprehensive Plan map change to multifamily, also submitted a rezone request for multifamily. He
noted further information regarding these individual requests would be provided in the Council packet.
Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board began their review of the Downtown- Waterfront Plan in early
2004. He referred to a quote from page 24 of the Comprehensive Plan, "The approach proposed in
Edmonds is to strategically plan for future development in two activity centers based on `Activity
Clusters' described in Vision 2020." He recalled Vision 2020 had a hierarchy of regional centers; it was
felt Edmonds did not meet the criteria for any of the regional centers, the City chose two central locations
which in the Vision 2020 terminology were termed "Activity Clusters" but were identified as "Activity
Centers" in the Comprehensive Plan — the Downtown - Waterfront Activity Center, and the
Hospital /Medical /Hwy. 99 area. He noted these two areas followed the policy direction in the
Comprehensive Plan as areas where development, infill, positive change would be focused. By doing
that, the Comprehensive Plan was seeking to protect other areas against the negative impacts of increased
density or growth.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 11
Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board's goals for the Downtown Plan were to consolidate all plan
direction regarding "downtown" in one place — the section on the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center,
update the plan with current information and identify new trends, address issues such as building design,
undesirable commercial spaces and explore the idea of "downtown districts." The Planning Board
considered the map of existing downtown zoning, public projects including Edmonds Crossing, as well as
other public projects including the waterfront walkway, Brackett's Landing North and South, Edmonds
Center for the Arts, etc. The Planning Board began by developing preliminary districts and also reviewed
historical building heights in downtown Edmonds between 1956 and 1980, pitched roofs after 1980 and
recent building designs. He reiterated the Planning Board's conclusion that Design Guidelines would
play a larger part in building design than anything else.
Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board also considered other data such as new commercial versus
residential floor area, examples of the below grade commercial space in recent years, and topographic
cross sections. Mr. Chave advised there was an average of a 5% grade in downtown; on a 120 foot deep
lot this translated to approximately 6 feet. He summarized this resulted in a different approach in
Edmonds' code than an area like Kirkland where the downtown was flat. In. Kirkland the building heights
were staggered so that the lowest heights were along the water with building heights increasing as
property moved inland. The result was somewhat the same, a stair step, but the base was flat.
Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board also attended a conference on what makes a successful downtown
that included information on retail trends (70% of retail sales in America are made after 5:30 and on
weekends — a business not open during those hours lost sales), importance of mixed use development for
downtowns, and human scale height to width ratios. Mr. Chave pointed out the boundaries of the
Downtown- Waterfront Activity Center included multifamily and commercial areas as well as single
family areas due to the importance of a mixture of housing types. With regard to human scale height to
width ratios, Mr. Chave explained with a 60 -foot right -of -way, typically for a downtown, pedestrian scale
buildings should be between 20 and 30 feet; typically downtowns have right -of -way widths of 60 -80 feet
with building heights of approximately 35 feet.
The Planning Board also considered the relationship between the first floor height to the overall building
height such as the impact on the overall height of the building if the ceiling height of first floor was
increased to 12 feet which led to the 33 foot building heights. The Planning Board found once the
mandated first floor height increased, the building height increased. A commercial first floor height of 12
feet was minimal to ensure higher commercial ceilings on the first floor; building heights would likely be
35 feet. The Planning Board concluded 33 feet was the highest they were comfortable with as a
compromise that recognized the history of downtown.
The Planning Board also considered the Heartland report that concluded two stories of residential drive
new development. Mr. Chave noted that even if regulations were created that allowed for 33 -foot
buildings /three stories in downtown, change would likely not occur in the strongest retail areas due to the
strong economics. He pointed out the importance of residential floor area if the intent was mixed use
development. He urged the Council when considering building heights to be cautious about creating a
situation where no mixed use development would be likely to occur in downtown. This would refute all
the assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan about targeting the Downtown Activity Center for future
mixed use development and would require reassembling the assumptions and recalculating population
capacities. Mixed use development in downtown went hand -in -hand with building heights.
Mr. Chave reviewed the Planning Board's recommendation to require one foot of setback for each
additional foot of height over 30 feet with a maximum building height of 33 feet. He explained this
would maintain the pedestrian scale ratio and result in wider sidewalks without a public expenditure as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 12
well as potentially protecting view corridors. Mr. Chave displayed and reviewed a map of the proposed
downtown districts and a map of the BC zone with a minor expansion near the art center.
Mr. Chave advised the large lot issue and critical area would be reviewed at the February 1 public
hearing; a fairly detailed letter describing the issue was sent to residents in those areas.
Councilmember Moore inquired about the focus on the two activity areas with the intent of avoiding other
areas, asking when that was approved. Mr. Chave responded it was passed with the first GMA
Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City Council in 1995.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to deleted text on page 78, "encourage the rehabilitation and restoration
of older buildings and historic buildings in order to obtain variety..." Insofar as many people were
interested in the rehabilitation and restoration of older buildings, he asked whether other language had
been substituted in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave identified language in the Urban. Design
Element, explaining the new language referred to the establishment of the Historic Preservation.
Commission and if further detail was desired, this would be the appropriate location.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to another deletion on page 78, the general appearance clause regarding
two story buildings and asked whether that language had been incorporated elsewhere in the Plan. Mr.
Chave answered no, the Planning Board found general appearance to be too vague and possibly
misleading and concluded the specificity in the districts would provide more direction.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out 75% of the BC zone was two stories or less, therefore the general
appearance complied with the existing language. Mr. Chave responded it depended on how the language
was read. It could be interpreted to be nothing over two stories or nothing under two stories.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested although it could be read that way, the reasonable interpretation was
one or two stories. Mr. Chave disagreed.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled a suggestion that placing the historic language in the Cultural Chapter
diminished its significance and that it should be placed in the Downtown Activity Center chapters. He
asked whether not placing it in the Downtown Activity Center Chapter diminished its importance. Mr.
Chave responded it did not; placing it in a general chapter gave it more importance than including it only
in one district.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to property at Sunset and Main where the Comprehensive Plan
proposed changing the designation from multifamily to commercial, asking whether a rezone would be
necessary if the Council accepted the proposed designation for that property. Mr. Chave agreed.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether changing the designation in the Comprehensive Plan made the
rezone more likely. Mr. Chave answered it would require some change. He explained a Master Plan
designation would be the most vague, neutral designation. He identified the two properties
Councilmember Plunkett was referring to on the railroad side of Sunset, north of Main, the planned
residential office district.
Councilmember Plunkett observed general GMA guidelines required that the City accept a certain amount
of growth and in recent years the Council has taken action toward meeting those growth targets. He
asked whether the City was meeting growth targets under the existing Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave
answered under the existing Comprehensive Plan, the City was meeting growth requirements and under
the proposed Comprehensive Plan, the City continued to meet its requirements. He identified a listing of
reasonable measures the City has been taking to encourage affordable housing, density, etc.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 13
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Council ignored the Planning Board's recommendation to extend
heights in downtown to 33 feet and retained the Comprehensive Plan description of two stories, would the
City still meet growth projections. Mr. Chave answered yes as long as it could be shown that mixed use
development would continue.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the proposed Arts Corridor where uses were encouraged to be arts,
noting "encourage" did not require those uses. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the Planning Board's intent was
to make the regulations more flexible to allow bed & breakfasts, maintaining a residence in a commercial
building, etc. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether an office could be located in the proposed Arts
Corridor. Mr. Chave answered under the existing zoning, yes; however, in order to implement the Plan,
the Council would need to adopt a new zoning classification. Councilmember Plunkett observed when
the Council adopted a new zone, they would also need to consider incentives. Mr. Chave agreed.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to language in the Downtown Master Plan that stated it could enable
design that provided for higher buildings outside current view corridors. He asked how high buildings
could extend. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board felt some averaging over the site was appropriate
with the default being the existing zoning. He noted only a positive change via a Master Plan would
allow any averaging.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the graph regarding historical trends and asked whether the citywide
goal for housing units per acre for 2020 had been calculated. Mr. Chave answered no. Councilmember
Wilson suggested it that figure be calculated and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the current percentage of single family development in the City and
asked what percentage of single family was anticipated by 2020. Mr. Chave explained the number of
dwelling units has shifted toward multifamily because there was more potential for development of
multifamily and mixed use than single family. Although there was an increasing share of multifamily
development to the total housing, the total land area devoted to multifamily development was the same.
Councilmember Wilson requested staff provide the percentage of multifamily versus single family
development.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether Snohomish County Tomorrow's fair share housing allocation was
addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave answered the Housing Element incorporated language
regarding the fair share housing allocation, stating it was used as an indicator of need rather than a target.
Reasonable measures regarding affordable housing, etc. were also included in the Housing Element.
Councilmember Wilson inquired whether the Comprehensive Plan should include policies regarding
employment trends such as number and distribution of jobs. Mr. Chave answered that was an old table
with old data that was deleted from the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Wilson suggested the
Comprehensive Plan should include policies regarding types of employment the City wanted to encourage
in the community. Mr. Chave answered this was briefly addressed in the Economic Development
Strategy. He agreed the Comprehensive Plan was lacking an Economic Development Element.
Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council discuss type of jobs at the retreat.
Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend commented there was some language in the update
regarding employment in the Medical Cluster. Mr. Chave pointed out there was also information .
regarding jobs in the Hwy. 99 Task Force material and in the downtown information regarding retail and
office. Councilmember Wilson concluded in order to encourage economic development, the Council
needed to determine what type of jobs the City wanted to encourage. Mr. Chave agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 14
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Downtown Mixed Commercial in the Downtown Activity
Center would allow multifamily residential development to occur. Mr. Chave answered yes.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether any area of the downtown would be preserved for
retail /commercial development. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board considered that but did not
include it; the closest thing was the Fountain Square.
Councilmember Wilson recalled the Heartland report said residential was the driver for downtown
development. He was concerned about the impact that had on a viable downtown with jobs and retail
activity. Mr. Chave pointed to historical trends, commenting that although residential has increased, it
has not been at the expense of commercial. Councilmember Wilson asked staff to email Councilmembers
the numbers with regard to retail and office development versus residential development.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Downtown Residential Office area was off Sunset. Mr. Chave
identified this unique district and location, noting it was the only one in the City. Councilmember Wilson
questioned applying that designation to only two lots. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board
considered a variety of designations and ultimately selected a multifamily zone with a 25 -foot height limit
that allowed office to provide some flexibility as well as make it compatible with the surrounding single
family uses.
Councilmember Orvis displayed a drawing of a 120 foot deep lot, a 5% grade and a 6' increase in the
elevation, questioning how increasing the height limit from 30 feet to 33 feet made the building more
feasible. Mr. Chave explained the companion requirement would be a 12 -foot commercial first floor; in
Councilmember Orvis' drawing the result would be three stories on one side and two stories on the upper
side. He noted due to the depth of the building, the commercial first floor requirement may not extend
throughout the entire building. Mr. Chave summarized a great deal depends on the specific property,
noting there was not an even 5% slope throughout downtown.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether staff had done a parcel -by- parcel analysis of which properties
needed a 33 foot height for buildings to be feasible. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board was
reacting to recent experience with a 30 foot height restriction, the commercial first floor was below grade;
three feet was added to the height to bring the first floor to grade. He explained the Planning Board
considered the information provided in the Heartland report as well as recent buildings constructed
downtown.
Councilmember Orvis reiterated he did not see how a 33 foot building height helped make a building
feasible. He asked whether the Heartland report considered a scenario with a lot depth of 120 feet where
60 feet was commercial and 60 feet was residential. Mr. Chave did not recall that Heartland considered
that scenario. Councilmember Orvis asked whether a scenario had been considered where businesses
were above grade, recalling a variance where the businesses were above the sidewalk level. Mr. Chave
answered the Heartland report did not consider that scenario.
Councilmember Orvis referred to a Master Plan site, the Antique Mall, inquiring whether underground
parking was feasible on that site. Mr. Chave responded Heartland's research found underground parking
was not possible as the water table was too high. It was felt a combination of structured parking and
surface parking would be necessary for that site.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the Planning Board considered changing parking requirements in
the downtown core. Mr. Chave answered no as parking requirements had been addressed recently.
Councilmember Moore pointed out the parking requirements may preempt development of some
downtown properties. She asked whether a property owner of a small property could demolish a building
and construct a new building with two floors of condominiums and one floor of commercial and provide
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 15
adequate parking. Mr. Chave answered the parking would need to be underground as once a building was
demolished, the property owner was required to meet current parking requirements. He noted historic
buildings have an advantage due to incentives that waive their parking requirements.
Councilmember Moore thanked the Planning Board and Mr. Chave for their incredible effort in updating
the Comprehensive Plan. She asked whether the purpose of the update was just to meet GMA
requirements. Mr. Chave answered no, the Planning Board could have incorporated the updated
information and not consider the downtown amendments; however, the Planning Board felt a
responsibility to address building design. He noted downtown was only one aspect of the Comprehensive
Plan update, the update also addresses the issue of large lot zoning and critical areas, an approach
commended by the State.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Purchase of In response to Mr. Hertrich's inquiry regarding whether the City had applied for any grants for the
Waterfront purchase of the waterfront property, Mayor Haakenson advised Council policy for many years and
Property reaffirmed last year was to use Real Estate Excise Tax (REST) funds to acquire park property and grants
were not part of the policy established for the acquisition of park property.
Planning With regard to the Planning Board's plans to discuss the 33 -foot height limit, Mayor Haakenson recalled
Board Mr. Wambolt emailed him concerning the Planning Board not discussing their reasons for forwarding a
Discussion re:
33 -foot recommendation with 33 -foot building heights and his indication to Mr. Wambolt was that he would
Building review the Planning Board minutes. Mayor Haakenson concluded Mr. Wambolt was correct; there was
Height very little discussion at the meeting where the recommendation was made although the Planning Board
had discussed the issue for 8-12 months. Mayor Haakenson contacted the Planning Board Chair who
suggested they may have been lax in their duty in that regard and offered to have each Planning Board
Member state their reason for supporting the 33 -foot height limit. He noted that would be accomplished
at the Planning Board's January 26 meeting and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan record. He
applauded the Planning Board for their willingness to do that.
lid 11211 3mi1111n1[KI1i1►[e10.791 Ell ta r elgr elam11xKelu /U1IaIDI 9►I 7 our 1N9YY1►[lfl
Board of Council President Marin reported as Chair of the Governor's Veteran Advisory Committee, he provided
Governors for Governor Locke a plaque at a recent event. Prior to the event he had occasion to speak with Governor
Edmonds
Community Locke regarding the appointment of Councilmember Moore to the Board of Governors for the Edmonds
College Community College and the Governor stated it had not been a difficult decision to appoint
Councilmember Moore as she had excellent qualifications for that appointment.
Community Council President Marin noted Councilmember Wilson had reminded him of plans to hold the fifth
Outreach Tuesday Council Public Outreach Meetings in the community. He advised upcoming Public Outreach
Meetings meetings were scheduled in the following locations: March 29 at Meadowdale Clubhouse, May 31 at
Seaview Elementary School, August 30 at Sherwood Elementary School, and November 29 at Fire
Station 20.
Councilmember Wilson thanked Council President Marin for scheduling the Public Outreach Meetings,
recalling the concept of public outreach was to bring the meetings into the community. He advised
Snohomish
o°nntty
County tomorrow's tomorrow's Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting would include the affordable housing allocation.
Tomorrow formula. Due to a conflict, he suggested the alternate, Councilmember Dawson, attend the meeting. He
advised a local resident, Mr. Freeman, had applied to be a member of the Citizen Advisory Board; his
appointment would also be considered at tomorrow's meeting.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25, 2005
Page 16
SnoCom Councilmember Dawson requested an update regarding SnoCom be scheduled as a future agenda item.
She was unable to attend the Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting due to a scheduling conflict and
invited another Councilmember to attend.
SeaShore Councilmember Moore reported on the SeaShore meeting that Councilmember Olson and she attended,
Meeting explaining SeaShore is a regional transportation group that includes North King County and South
Snohomish County. She explained SeaShore is part of a three member transportation group that advises
WSDOT,King County and Sound Transit. Other members include an eastside transportation group and a
south county transportation group. The three groups developed a brochure to present to the State
Legislature with the issues the groups could agree upon, including a statewide gas tax increase with direct
distribution to local government, funding for major corridors, additional revenue tools for local
government and the experimental hot lane project. She advised members of SeaShore have asked Sound
Transit to study in Phase 2 the economic impact of light rail on Hwy. 99 or 15th Avenue.
Port of Councilmember Orvis reported the Port approved funding for their participation with the City in the
Edmonds projects to repair the north seawall and the sewer outfall. He noted doing the projects together saved
money for Port and City residents as well as minimized impact to the waterfront. He thanked City
Engineer Dave Gebert and Mayor Haakenson for their efforts.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Air , p
��jr./��s�i.r� +C/• `. tom
G• 'Y iff. ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 25,2005
Page 17
11" AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
b - Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
JANUARY 25, 2005
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 18, 2005.
(C) Approval of claim checks #76733 through #76897 for the week of January 17,
2005, in the amount of $1,376,841.95. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #40061 through #40134 for the period January 1 through January 15,
2005, in the amount of$763,629.23.*
*Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Mary Beth Peters (amount
undetermined), Allen John Albertson ($436.77), and John A. Merz, Jr. (amount
undetermined).
(E) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor
Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
(F) Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Contract with Karin
Noyes for minute taking services.
(G) Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 3 to the Professional Services
Agreement with Cosmopolitan Engineering Group for the Sewer Outfall -
Cathodic Protection Project.
(H) Acceptance of Chattel Deed from Olympic View Water and Sewer District
(OVWSD) for Wastewater Lift Station.
(I) Authorization of Resolution to submit grant application for 2005 Snohomish
County CDBG Capital Program for Senior Center improvements.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
January 25, 2005
Page 2 of 2
3. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
4. ( 5 Min.) Quarterly Report from the Economic Development Department
5. ( 5 Min.) Quarterly Report from the Community Services Department
6. (10 Min.) Approval of Reorganization of Management Structure of Parks, Recreation &
Cultural Services Department
7. (20 Min.) Discussion on Quasi Judicial Matters
8. (20 Min.) Discussion on Design Guidelines Next Steps
9. (60 Min.) Work Session on Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
10. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Min.) Individual Council Reports on Outside Committee/Board Meetings
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television-Government Access Channel 21.