Loading...
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.