02/24/2004 City CouncilFebruary 24, 2004
Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview candidates for the Arts Commission and the Sister
City Commission, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor
Haakenson in the Council. Chambers, 250 51' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the
flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Brian McIntosh, Asst. Parks & Recreation Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Haakenson requested the addition of a ten minute Executive Session regarding a legal matter as
Agenda Item 8a.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Plunkett requested Items E and I be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2004.
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #69030 THROUGH #69164 FOR THE WEEK OF
FEBRUARY 16, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $170,186.96. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #37639 THROUGH #37717 FOR THE PAY PERIOD
FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $927,448.18.
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM L. RAYMOND
MCKINLEY ($11,103.89).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2004
Page 1
(F) AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD CONTRACTS TO LOCAL ARTS ORGANIZATIONS
FOR PROMOTION OF ARTS EVENTS AND CULTURAL TOURISM.
(G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A THREE-YEAR LEASE FOR ONE (1) 2004
FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE CAR WITH FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,412.43 WITH SALES TAX.
(H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A THREE-YEAR LEASE FOR SIX (6) 2004
FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE CARS WITH FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $217,583.48 WITH SALES TAX.
Item E: Confirmation of the Mavor's Aamointment of Todd Timmcke to the Arts Commission and Rita
Bailey to the Sister City Commission
Leigh -Ann Hafford, Chair of the Arts Commission, introduced Todd Timmcke and described his
background. Assistant Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh introduced Rita Bailey and described
her background.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARlN,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as
follows:
(E) CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF TODD TIMMCKE TO THE
ARTS COMMISSION AND RITA BAILEY TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION.
Item I: Final ADuroval of a 22 Lot Plat / PRD on Main Street lust west of Five Corners. The Droiect will be
recorded as Madrona Cove. (ADDlicant: Phoenix Development / File Nos. PRD-2002-171 and P-2002-172)
Council President Plunkett disclosed he purchased a condominium from the same developer who
constructed this PRD, Phoenix Development. He explained he paid full market price minus the closing
costs which was well within industry standards. He also disclosed the owner of Phoenix Development,
Larry Sundquist, contributed to his State Senate campaign. He clarified he did not meet with Mr.
Sundquist during the purchase of his condominium and worked through his agent.
Councilmember Wilson advised he would abstain from the vote as he did not participate in the public
hearing and had not had an opportunity to review the record.
Councilmember Moore disclosed she purchased property from Mr. Sundquist, lived next door to this
development, and attended the public meeting when this matter was discussed.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM I. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
(I) FINAL APPROVAL OF A 22 LOT PLAT / PRD ON MAIN STREET JUST WEST OF
FIVE CORNERS. THE PROJECT WILL BE RECORDED AS MADRONA COVE.
(APPLICANT: PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT / FILE NOS. PRD-2002-171 AND P-2002-172)
3. LIBRARY BOARD ANNUAL REPORT
Chuck LaNasa, President of the Library Board, identified the members of the Library Board, Lynda
Hughes (Secretary), Barbara Chase, Barbara Paul Johnson, and James Thyden. He advised Laurie
Dressler was the liaison with the Edmonds Friends of the Library.
Mr. LaNasa commended Edmonds Librarian Evie Wilson-Lingbloom on the operation of the library,
noting the management was innovative and the library had numerous special programs. He noted
following annexation, Sno-Isle had been very attentive to the library's needs.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2004
Page 2
Mr. LaNasa recalled the original library levy vote was scheduled for February 4. As the first meeting for
the year would have occurred after the vote, the meeting was scheduled to occur before the vote to
provide a forum for Edmonds citizens for discussion. He recalled discussion included increased taxes and
inconsistent financial contributions by libraries within Sno-Isle that were not annexed. He recalled
criticism of Sno-Isle due to their failure to communicate regarding the levy. When the levy issue arose
the following fall, their communication increased dramatically, resulting in the positive levy vote.
Mr. LaNasa advised the Board continued its vigilance with regard to maintenance issues at the library.
He reported on the front desk refurbishment that was accomplished in 2003. He recalled after the
annexation vote, a question arose regarding whether the Library Board was needed. After discussion, the
Board concluded they still had an important role such as monitoring library operations, providing advice
to the Council when asked, and providing liaison between Sno-Isle and the City. He noted the Board
requested to be included in the distribution of the Council agenda and minutes which has been
accomplished. He expressed concern that the Library Board, an advisory board to the Council, was never
asked for advice. He commended Parks & Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde for her assistance.
Mr. LaNasa explained a large issue in the recent past was filtering of the Internet and the ability of
children to visit the library and not be assaulted by pornographic or inappropriate materials via the
Internet. He referred to the Board's position to filter the Internet and the balance that must be achieved
between freedom of expression and protection of children. He noted many found it offensive that tax
dollars would be used for inappropriate use of the Internet at the library. He referred to a judgment
awarded in a recent case regarding a Minneapolis library where the management of the library did not
protect workers from inappropriate Internet images. He noted the Edmonds Library had not had any such
issues and Sno-Isle Library voted to comply with the Children's Internet Protection Act which provides
significant protections but still requires management.
Mr. LaNasa advised $1,000 was dedicated recently from the Special Library Fund for library carts.
Council President Plunkett requested the Library Board call or correspond with him or all
Councilmembers regarding ways the Library Board and City Council could improve communications.
Mr. LaNasa commented the Library Board could be an important recourse for the Council.
Evie Wilson-Lingbloom, Edmonds Librarian, noted with the coming of computers, some believed
people would no longer use libraries as they could obtain all their information from the Internet. She
stated even with the challenges of the library being closed for ten days this Fall for installation of the new
circulation desk as well as parking shortages, the Edmonds library continued to circulate approximately
1,100 items per day in 2003, experienced a circulation increase of approximately 2,000, had an increase in
attendance at children's programs of 941, and questions to the reference desk increased by 4,040. She
pointed out in her experience, during difficult times, people used libraries for recreation as well as
information.
Ms. Wilson-Lingbloom assured that the staff at the Edmonds library worked hard to make the library the
kind of place the community enjoyed visiting. As an example, she noted four staff members managed to
keep the library open until 3:00 p.m. on the icy, snowy day in January. She noted the staff attempted to
keep the library open during inclement weather due to the numerous patrons who walk to the library.
Councilmember Moore thanked Ms. Wilson-Lingbloom for the wonderful service she and staff of the
library provided her and her family.
Councilmember Olson assured that the Council felt the library was important, noting three
Councilmembers were members of the Friends of the Edmonds Library. She commended the library on
the great job they do.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2004
Page 3
4. MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE FEBRUARY 3, 2004 CITY COUNCIL ACTION REGARDING
A CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION ON
THE APPLICATION BY MJ AND MP INVESTMENT LLC FOR A MIXED USE BUILDING AT
215 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH.
Mayor Haakenson recalled the Council took action on this item on February 3, 2004 and one of the
appellants, Mr. Bernheim, requested the Council reconsider their action. Mayor Haakenson called for a
Motion for Reconsideration from a Councilmember who voted on the prevailing side, Council President
Plunkett, or Councilmembers Olson, Moore, or Marin. There was no Motion for Reconsideration voiced.
5. FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE FEBRUARY 3, 2004 CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF
THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION ON THE APPLICATION BY MJ AND
MP INVESTMENT LLC FOR A MIXED USE BUILDING AT 215 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS SUBMITTED. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION
CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, MARIN
AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON, ORVIS, AND WILSON
OPPOSED.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Wambolt, 504 61" Avenue S, Edmonds, commented the City's existing building code addressed
building heights of 25 and 30 feet. The ADB did not allow 25-foot buildings with flat sides without
modulation. The code allowed buildings of 30 feet if the roof was also modulated. He noted the lead
paragraph in the proposed ordinance indicates the language was originally intended to permit only
buildings with a modulated roof design above the existing 25 foot height limit. It was clear to reasonable
people what the current code required and it was unfortunate that further time and expense was required
to create a new ordinance. He hoped the proposed ordinance could be quickly implemented and that any
project currently in the system would have the correct reading of the ordinance applied. He noted the new
ordinance addressed vesting which he hoped did not mean projects currently under review would be
grandfathered, allowing them to benefit from the faulty reading of the existing code.
Arnie Gunderson, representing Cascade Symphony Orchestra, commented a vibrant arts community
was crucial to the long term health of the city and the Arts Commission's awards represented the
Council's support of the arts in Edmonds. He thanked the Council for the decision to allocate funding
from the Lodging Tax for the support of cultural tourism. He noted the Cascade Symphony Orchestra had
been part of the community since 1962 and looked forward to providing high quality symphonic music to
the South Snohomish County and North King County communities for many years.
7. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING PURSUANT TO RCW 35A.63.220 AN INTERIM
ZONING REGULATION CLARIFYING THE APPLICATION OF ROOF HEIGHT ABOVE
TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET AS A PART OF MODULATED ROOF AND BUILDING DESIGN,
VESTING CERTAIN APPLICATIONS IN PROCESS AND ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC
HEARING DATE WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE
Mayor Haakenson explained the Community Services/Development Services Committee forwarded this
issue to the Council. Committee Chair Councilmember Wilson noted the Committee reviewed this issue
to ensure the ordinances were crafted in a manner that was clear and concise and easily understandable
for the applicant, staff and the lay public. Recent public hearing indicated the language was not clear and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2004
Page 4
concise and readily understandable, a fact he noted Mayor Haakenson had brought to the Council's
attention several times.
In an effort to address the issue, an interim ordinance was drafted that clearly defined that any structure
must have both building modulation and roof modulation in order to obtain the additional five feet of
building height. He noted this would provide clear guidance to the ADB and staff. He acknowledged this
was not a permanent solution, but rather a first step in an interim measure that would allow the
Community Services/Development Services Committee to solicit additional comments from the ADB and
Planning Board as well as input from planning staff and the public for review by the Committee at their
meeting in March. He summarized the proposed ordinance defines that obtaining the additional five feet
of roof height above 25 feet required both building modulation and roof modulation. He noted a public
hearing was required within 60 days. The Council had also identified this as a topic for discussion at the
upcoming Council retreat.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained pursuant to State Statute, the Council had the ability to adopt
moratoriums and interim zoning regulations without a public hearing although a public hearing was
required within 60 days. He noted April 6 was available as the date for the public hearing and could be
inserted in Section 3 of the ordinance.
Mr. Snyder advised a vesting provision was inserted in Section 2 of the ordinance for the Council's
consideration. He explained under State law, rights vested when a fully completed building permit with
all fees was submitted to the City. Applicants typically entered into the process with a preliminary or
conceptual study. If the Council wished to pass an interim ordinance without a vesting provision, the
ordinance could be amended to eliminate Section 2. He noted the vesting provisions in Section 2
indicated only the roof design clearly shown or described in the application text would be vested. He
explained the reason was that architectural design applications typically did not go into a great deal of
detail regarding doors, windows, and other details required for a building code application. The intent
was to vest only a project in process with a roof design.
Councilmember Dawson referred to the statement in the ordinance, "Vertical parapet walls or flat roofs
with a pitch of less than three in twelve are not allowed to protrude above the 25-foot height limit unless
they are part of an approved modulated roof and building design," questioning if this would allow a
building with a flat roof design to be above 25 feet if it was part of an approved modulated roof design.
Councilmember Wilson noted in order to have a modulated roof design, something other than a flat roof
design would be required. The overall roof design could not be flat but there could be elements of the
roof that were flat.
Responding to Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Snyder noted the only new language in the section referred
to was "roof and building." He noted the code language was also supplemented with pictures and
examples. He stated as an interim ordinance, it would be reviewed and potentially modified in the future.
Councilmember Dawson noted pictures were included in the code previously. She was uncertain that this
language made the code that much more clear. Councilmember Wilson stated the addition of "roof and
building" provided further specificity that both roof and building modulation were required to be
considered a modulated design. Councilmember Dawson suggested language that made this more clear
be developed in the future. Councilmember Wilson agreed, noting this was an interim solution.
Councilmember Dawson referred to Section 2, stating the law did not require the City to vest any rights
under the old ordinance for projects in process. Mr. Snyder agreed, explaining State Statute and the
City's ordinance vested only a fully completed building permit application. Councilmember Dawson
noted if it was intended to return to the original intent to require buildings to have a modulated roof
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2004
Page 5
design to extend above 25 feet, the Council should strike Section 2 as that would prevent any additional
buildings above 25 feet that did not have a modulated roof design. Mr. Snyder agreed there was nothing
that limited the Council's discretion to take that action.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 3488 ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO RCW 35A.63.220, AN INTERIM ZONING REGULATION CLARIFYING THE
APPLICATION OF ROOF HEIGHT ABOVE TWENTY-FIVE FEET AS PART OF MODULATED
ROOF AND BUILDING DESIGN WITH THE VESTING PROVISIONS AS CURRENTLY
CRAFTED AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out the intent of the Council was not to allow buildings to exceed 25
feet unless there was a modulated roof design. She noted it was clear to the Council when the original
ordinance was passed and it was clear to three Councilmembers that this was not how the ordinance was
being interpreted. She objected to buildings being allowed to be "slipped in" that would be 30 feet in
height without a modulated roof design.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
STRIKE SECTION 2.
Councilmember Moore requested staff explain why this only affected flat roofs. Mr. Snyder explained
pitches of three in twelve were permitted via a wide variety of provisions of the code; the issue was
whether the space between 25 and 30 feet could be utilized for anything other than the three in twelve
pitch. He noted this would permit elements of the roof which could include vertical parapet walls or flat
roofs as part of a modulated roof design. Councilmember Moore noted Section 2 would allow portions of
the roof to be flat but the overall roof design would be modulated. Mr. Snyder noted a legislative record
had been established for that requirement and the language had been changed to accomplish that. He
noted there would be an opportunity to provide additional pictures and language following the Planning
Board review.
Councilmember Dawson urged the Council to strike Section 2, noting unless that section was eliminated,
there would be buildings without roof modulation that were 30 feet tall. She emphasized that was never
the intent of the Council or the populous of the City to have 30 foot tall buildings without a modulated
roof. The only way to ensure buildings currently in process would not be 30 feet tall without a modulated
roof design was to strike Section 2. If Councilmembers were not in favor of preventing buildings over 25
feet that were not modulated, it was not even worthwhile to pass an interim ordinance.
Mayor Haakenson inquired how many building applications would be impacted. Planning Manager Rob
Chave noted there would need to be a new application submitted as there were none in process except for
the one the Council just approved. Mayor Haakenson noted that could not be changed at this point. Mr.
Snyder advised it could because it had not vested under State law.
Councilmember Wilson inquired regarding the effective date of the ordinance. Mr. Snyder answered the
ordinance did not include an emergency clause; therefore, it would be effective five days after
publication, a week from Friday. He noted if a super majority of the Council found an emergency, it
could be adopted immediately.
Councilmember Wilson noted the application approved tonight would need to have a fully completed
building application to the City prior to next week. Mr. Snyder agreed, if the ordinance were adopted
without Section 2.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2004
Page 6
Councilmember Wilson inquired what was considered a completed application. Mr. Snyder noted it
would need to show all the major structural elements of the building and be accompanied by the fee. He
noted staff would then issue a determination of completeness. If there were elements missing, the
determination of completeness was determined when all the additional information was provided.
Councilmember Wilson noted even if an application was submitted by a week from Friday, there was no
guarantee it would meet the provisions of vesting if it were not deemed a completed application. Mr.
Chave explained typically applications that require ADB review also required SEPA, traffic analysis, etc.
Councilmember Wilson clarified an application would require full construction documentation. Mr.
Chave agreed, noting it was a substantial task.
Councilmember Dawson asked if there was an option for the Council if they did not want to allow new
building to be submitted in the next five days but not preclude the building that was approved tonight by
vesting a building already approved by the Council. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council could vest any
project that received final ADB approval on or before the effective date of the ordinance.
Councilmember Dawson noted that because the ordinance would not become effective for ten days, any
applicant who wanted to obtain the additional five feet without roof modulation could submit an
application for ADB review. Mr. Snyder stated another option would be to adopt a moratorium to
prohibit applications.
Councilmember Wilson asked the likelihood of an applicant submitting a fully completed application for
ADB review. Mr. Chave answered if an applicant were working from scratch, it would be very difficult.
If a developer was already working on a project, it may be possible although staff was not aware of any
such projects.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the ordinance could be amended to stipulate that the only applications
that would be vested were those that have received ADB approval before the effective date of the
ordinance. Mr. Snyder suggested a brief recess to allow him to draft an amendment to the language in
Section 2.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT
VESTING ONLY APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT WERE ALREADY APPROVED BY THE ADB.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Mr. Snyder read the proposed amendment to Section 2 of the ordinance, "The provisions of the interim
zoning ordinance shall apply to any and all applications for architectural design review finally approved
by the City Council or Architectural Design Board on or before the effective date of this ordinance.
Approved projects shall be considered vested to the extent which such project incorporates a vertical
parapet wall or flat roof with a pitch of less than three in twelve which protrudes above the 25-foot height
limitation and is clearly shown on the application and approval by clearly and unambiguously delineating
the intrusion in a scaled drawing or is clearly and unambiguously set forth within the text of the
application and approval. All other aspects of the building, project or structure shall vest in accordance
with ECDC 19.00.110 and RCW 19.27.095."
:_U 101011110 1 WIN :11 ::_1511 i.6 U i
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2004
Page 7
8. PROPOSED ORDINANCE REPEALING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 1.14 PUBLIC
OFFICIAL DISCLOSURE — PROHIBITED INTEREST, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 1.20
COPIES, CERTIFICATIONS AND TRANSCRIPTION OF CITY RECORDS TO ADD A NEW
SECTION 1.20.080 RELATING TO THE FILING OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE FORMS.
City Attorney Scott Snyder referred to a matrix included in the packet as Exhibit 2 in response to a
request for a comparison of the existing ordinance, the parallel State provision and the change provided
by the proposed ordinance. He noted the purpose and definition sections, 1.14.010 and 1.14.020 were not
referred to in the matrix. He reviewed the existing provisions, beginning with 1.14.030, the 10 day filing
requirement and the parallel State provision, noting this was the primary aspect of the ordinance, moving
this provision to Chapter 1.20 where public records were addressed.
Mr. Snyder explained the current ordinance provides for a disclosure by Councilmembers of contributions
over $250. He noted this was the one aspect of Chapter 1.14 that was not duplicated by State law or
moved to Chapter 1.20. He explained this was not a violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine as
codified by the State Legislature. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that anything said in the
course of a campaign and contributions that are properly revealed to the Public Disclosure Commission
(PDC) are not a conflict. Because the City has a custom of disclosing such contributions, a good faith
disclosure provision was included in the ordinance under Paragraph D which states although the State
provision does not require it, a Councilmember should made a good faith effort to disclose in a quasi
judicial hearing campaign contributions in excess of $250 received from a person or entity identified in
the record as a party of record. He noted this no longer carried criminal penalties and was more of a
guide for Council conduct.
Mr. Snyder advised the remaining provisions were code of ethics and identified where they were codified
in State law. He noted the State provisions were far more detailed and covered a broader range of
situations. State law required cities use these as minimum ethical considerations. Although there were a
variety of penalties for PDC provisions, violations of the ethical provisions could be a basis for recall, the
Council could add violation of the State Statute as a city misdemeanor. He noted that was not included in.
the proposed ordinance but could be added.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out there would be no consequence for a Councilmember failing to make a
campaign disclosure in excess of $250 other than they could be portrayed as acting in bad faith. Mr.
Snyder agreed, noting the Council also had Roberts Rules ability to censure its members for violations of
rules of conduct.
Mayor Haakenson stated this would become a grey area for Councilmembers in the future and suggested
it either be a requirement or not, rather than asking that Councilmembers make a good faith effort.
Councilmember Dawson recalled last year when issues arose with regard to this matter, a committee was
formed that consisted of Councilmember Wilson, Orvis and herself to discuss this issue. She suggested
the committee be revived to discuss disclosures beyond what State law required. Council President
Plunkett agreed the committee could continue their review and invite citizen input.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON,
TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED.
Councilmember Moore commented the ordinance was needed to eliminate redundancy and unnecessary
cost to the City. She noted the matter had already been discussed by a committee and she was not in
favor of further committee review. Mayor Haakenson clarified although the matter was discussed by a
Council subcommittee, Item D was not discussed by the committee.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2004
Page 8
Mr. Snyder recalled the difficulty with using the municipal court process for criminal review of Council
actions because the Council appoints the judge and contracts with the prosecutor. To provide public
credibility to the process, the City has had to involve the Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office who
gave the impression such matters were not of interest to them.
Mayor Haakenson recalled the matter was referred to him and as he read the proposed provision D,
Councilmembers were only asked to disclose contributions and there was no penalty for not making
disclosures. He envisioned his being asked to make a decision regarding whether a Councilmember acted
in bad faith by not disclosing a $250 contribution. He reiterated his suggestion that disclosure either be a
requirement or not rather than asking that Councilmembers make a good faith effort.
Councilmember Dawson agreed this section should be eliminated or moved in the future, however, in the
interim, it was preferable to retain it in the ordinance. She noted the teeth this provision had was that
everyone was now well aware this provision was in the code. A $250 contribution was substantial
enough that a Councilmember should remember to disclose it. Although failure to disclose would not
result in removal from office, it would certainly raise the ire of the public which should be enough for a
Councilmember to disclose such contributions during a quasi judicial hearing. She supported the
committee and citizens considering this issue further in the near future.
Councilmember Wilson expressed his support for the committee continuing their discussion of this issue.
Council President Plunkett supported the committee continuing their discussion as well as adopting the
proposed ordinance. He noted a provision regarding good faith effort was an attempt at more disclosure.
Councilmember Moore suggested requiring disclosure but not have any punishment provision.
Councilmember Olson stated the primary goal of the ordinance was to eliminate redundancy. She agreed
with Councilmember Moore to require disclosure without punishment. Mr. Snyder pointed out if
disclosure were a requirement, failure to disclose could be a basis for recall. He noted the names on a list
of parties of record could be informative but when it was the wife of a contributor or major shareholder of
a corporation, it may be difficult to make a determination regarding a disclosure.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out the intent of the ordinance was to eliminate the duplicity of filing
disclosure documents. She supported the proposed ordinance as an interim step and reiterated her
suggestion that the committee reconvene to further discuss the issue of campaign contribution disclosures.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance adopted reads as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3489 REPEALING CHAPTER 1.14 PUBLIC OFFICIAL DISCLOSURE —
PRHOHIBITED INTEREST, AMENDING CHAPTER 1.20 COPIES, CERTIFICATIONS AND
TRANSCRIPTIONS OF CITY RECORDS TO ADD A NEW SECITON 1.20.080 RELATING TO
THE FILING OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE FORMS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
8A. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER.
At 8:25 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a ten minute Executive Session regarding a legal
matter. The meeting was reconvened at 8:34 p.m.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2004
Page 9
10. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL COMMENTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS.
IT
Councilmember Marin reported the Highway 99 Task Force would be conducting meetings this week on
Wednesday and Saturday with business and property owners along Highway 99.
ort I Councilmember Orvis reported on the Port Commission meeting which included discussion with a
ommiss,on consultant regarding the north seawall project. He noted this was of interest to the City because it would
affect the Dayton outfall. He noted the Port has budgeted funding for the project in 2006; the City plans a
simultaneous project in an effort to reduce the cost to the Port and the City. He reported the Port
Commission meeting also had a philosophical discussion regarding property taxes.
xcused COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
bsence
EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON FROM THE FEBRUARY 17 COUNCIL MEETING.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ScaShore I Councilmember Olson reported on the SeaShore Forum which included an update from Sound Transit
Drum J regarding their efforts. She noted publicity for the Sounder Train would be done in March and the
departure times would be changed in June to accommodate an eight -hour work day.
snocom Councilmember Dawson reported SnoCom was revising their Interlocal Agreement; she anticipated a
version would be provided to the Council in the near future. She advised SnoCom elected officers; she
was elected Vice -Chair.
xcused COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON,
bsences TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE AND MARIN FROM THE FEBRUARY 17
MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson advised issues on next week's agenda included a continued public hearing on
regulations concerning amateur radio antennas as well as a public hearing on proposed amendments to the
Edmonds Community Development Code repealing the City's current hedge regulations.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
i
GAMOAAKENSON. MAYOR
I I
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24,2004
Page 10
AGENDA
- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5t" Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
FEBRUARY 24, 2004
6:45 p.m. - Interview candidates for the Arts Commission and Sister City Commission.
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #69030 through #69164 for the week of February 16,
2004, in the amount of $170,186.96. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #37639 through #37717 for the pay period February 1 through February
15, 2004, in the amount of $927,448.18.
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from L. Raymond McKinley
($11,103.89).
(E) Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Todd Timmcke to the Arts
Commission and Rita Bailey to the Sister City Commission.
(F) Authorization to award contracts to local arts organizations for promotion of
arts events and cultural tourism.
(G) Authorization for Mayor to sign a three-year lease for one (1) 2004 Ford Crown
Victoria police car with Financial Consultants International, Inc. in the amount
of $38,412.43 with sales tax.
(H) Authorization for Mayor to sign a three-year lease for six (6) 2004 Ford Crown
Victoria police cars with Financial Consultants International, Inc. in the
amount of $217,583.48 with sales tax.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
February 24, 2004
Page 2 of 2
(1) Final approval of a 22 lot Plat / PRD on Main Street just west of Five Corners.
The project will be recorded as Madrona Cove. (Applicant: Phoenix
Development / File Nos. PRD-2002-171 and P-2002-172)
3. (15 Min.) Library Board Annual Report
4. (15 Min.) Motion to reconsider the February 3, 2004 City Council action regarding a
Closed Record Review of the Architectural Design Board decision on the
application by MJ and MP Investment LLC for a mixed use building at 215 Fifth
Avenue North.
5. (15 Min.) Findings of Fact regarding the February 3, 2004 Closed Record Review of the
Architectural Design Board decision on the application by MJ and MP
Investment LLC for a mixed use building at 215 Fifth Avenue North.
6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. (20 Min.) Proposed Ordinance adopting pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 an interim zoning
regulation clarifying the application of roof height above twenty-five (25) feet
as a part of modulated roof and building design, vesting certain applications in
process, and establishing a public hearing date within sixty (60) days of the
adoption of this ordinance.
8. (10 Min.) Proposed Ordinance repealing Edmonds City Code Chapter 1.14 Public Official
Disclosure - Prohibited Interest, and amending Chapter 1.20 Copies,
Certifications and Transcriptions of Citv Records to add a new Section
1.20.080 relating to the filing of public disclosure forms.
9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
10. (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. The Council Agenda as well as a
delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.