Loading...
06/29/1999 City CouncilApprove Claim Warrants EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES JUNE 29,1999 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Gary Haakenson, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Paul Mar, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Director James Walker, City Engineer Michael Karber, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Fahey explained the Council held a Special Meeting prior to the Council meeting to interview the top candidates for the Fire Chief position. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson requested Item 4 become 4A and the addition of "Highway 99 Project Temporary Construction Easements" be added to the agenda as Item 4B. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO CHANGE ITEM 4 TO 4A AND TO ADD HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIONS EASEMENTS AS ITEM 4B. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NO.RDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Miller requested Consent Agenda Item B be removed from the agenda. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #34149 THROUGH #34308 FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 21, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $508,604.48 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 1 Report on (D) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED General Fund MAY 31,1999 Museum indow (E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE EDMONDS HISTORICAL eplacement MUSEUM WINDOW REPLACEMENT (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE errmville PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CHS ENGINEERS, INC. FOR THE ILID Design PERRINVILLE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS DESIGN PROJECT es.956 (G) RESOLUTION NO. 956 ADOPTING A SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION -Year TIP IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND DIRECTING THE SAME TO BE FILED WITH THE STATE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD es. 957 (H) RESOLUTION NO. 957 SETTING JULY 20, 1999, AS THE HEARING DATE FOR A 'caring Date i REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF 216"r STREET SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF- rST -99 -25 WAY IMMEDIATELY EAST OF 84' AVENUE WEST (Applicant: Edmonds School District / File No. ST- 99 -25) Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 22,1999 prove Councilmember Miller advised he would abstain from the vote on this item, as he was absent from the 22/99 June 22 Council meeting. inutes COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER MILLER ABSTAINED. The agenda item approved is as follows: (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 22,1999 Public 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO Baring APPROVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DC -98 -181 CODE (ECDC) SECTION 20.60.050 PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF "WALL GRAPHICS." (File No. CDC -98 -181) Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this issue arose as a result of a public hearing regarding a specific sign. He explained the proposal was to amend the Code to clarify what constitutes a wall graphic and how they are reviewed. The amendment would require a wall graphic, as defined in the Code, to be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Linda Goodrick, 16508 76" Ave W, Edmonds, requested more detail regarding the proposed change. Mr. Chave explained the Code currently does not require review of wall graphics by the ADB, which the proposed change would require. He read the proposed definition of a wall graphic, "a wall graphic is a wall sign in which color and form and without the use of words, is a part of the overall design on the buildings) in which the business is located. A wall graphic may be painted or applied (not to exceed 112 inch in thickness) to a building as part of its overall color and design, but may not be internally lighted. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Chave commented this is intended to address a graphic applied to the building, not a sign. He continued reading the proposed definition, "Internally lighted assemblies including those which project from the wall of. the structure, or which are located on any accessory structure on the site shall be considered wall signs and comply with the requirement of this chapter." He explained the intent was to make a distinction between a wall graphic and a sign. Mayor Fahey observed wall graphics are currently reviewed by staff and a decision is made regarding whether it is a wall graphic. Mr. Chave agreed the Code is not clear whether wall graphics should be reviewed by staff or the ADB. Historically, staff has referred wall graphics with a great deal of visibility to the ADB but does not refer wall graphics with a small impact. He clarified a wall graphic is not intended to be a business message. Ms. Goodrick supported this proposal, as there are currently no restrictions on wall graphics. She said the sign code should address wall graphics that use the business name or call attention to a business. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, endorsed the Planning Board's recommendation. He said this change would allow better review of this issue in the future. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the audience comment portion of the public hearing and remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE #3262 TO AMEND ECDC SECTION 20.60.020.A.1 AND 20.60.050A. MOTION CARRIED. THE ORDINANCE APPROVED IS AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE NO. 3262 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY THE AMENDMENT OF 20.60.020(A)(1) RELATING TO STAFF APPROVALS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO WALL GRAPHICS AND SECTION 20.60.050 TO DEFINE WALL GRAPHIC, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Public 4A. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO Baring APPROVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DC -98 -182 CODE (ECDC) SECTIONS 16.45.010(B) AND 16.50.010(B) PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS GOVERNING "LIMITED DISPLAY AND SALES ACTIVITIES OF A SEASONAL NATURE." (File No. CDC -98 -182) Planning Supervisor Rob Chave explained this ordinance amends the BC - Community Business and BN - Neighborhood Business zones to allow seasonal sales. He read the definition of a seasonal sale, "the exterior display and sale of seasonal items such as pumpkins, flowers, trees, plants and other items traditionally associated with certain seasons, holidays or times of year. " These sales can be conducted outside the premises and cannot exceed normal lot coverage requirements. Seasonal display and sale of any specific item or class of item are limited to 30 days duration in any calendar year. Total seasonal exterior display of any and all items or classes of items shall not exceed 60 days in any calendar year. He explained this ordinance was drafted as a result of numerous Christmas tree lots and other seasonal sales activities that occur which the City does not currently have a method of permitting. For Council President Haakenson, Mr. Chave explained the sunset clause allowed one calendar year for the City to consider how these regulations work and to determine if they accomplish the intended Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 3 purpose. He read from the ordinance, "unless extended by the act of the Edmonds City Council, these provisions shall expire and be void one year after their effective date." Mayor Fahey asked staff to address how this affects the City's ability to address solicitors and individuals to sell in the City on a temporary basis. Mr. Chave explained a business would still need to obtain a business license for this activity. The proposed change would not allow an individual to set up a business on the street, the business must be a normal business activity in the BC or BN zone. Councilmember Van Hollebeke expressed concern with the 30 -day duration of a seasonal display /sale and the 60 -day total seasonal exterior display. He referred to the memo from City Attorney Scott Snyder that did not specify the cumulative number of days. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said since the City is in the process of attempting to be more user friendly and cooperative with merchants, he recommended the 60 -day period be extended to 90 days. He said this would allow an innovative merchant to promote any season they choose and promote it in a customer - friendly manner without the City policing that activity. He asked how the 60 -day period was established. Mr. Chave explained the intent was for this to apply to seasonal merchandise tied to a season. The Planning Board felt the 60 -day period was reasonable. Councilmember Nordquist referred to the Market at 2281 and Hwy. 99 where seasonal items are displayed beyond 90 days, possibly as long as six months. He felt 90 days was too short, particularly due to the desire to attract businesses to Edmonds. Mr. Chave explained the intent of the ordinance was to apply to seasonal/holiday activities. He said a longer period of time could be considered as a separate issue. City Attorney Michael Karber said the Code as currently drafted does not allow outside storage, display or sale of products in the BC or BN zone. A business that wants to continually store, display or sell items outside can apply for a Conditional Use Permit which requires a public hearing. The proposed ordinance provides an administrative method for addressing outside storage, display, and sale. Councilmember Nordquist referred to businesses in the City that display items outside frequently throughout the year. Mr. Chave said plans are for the Community Services Committee to review other outdoor uses at their next meeting such as outdoor dining. Mayor Fahey commented historically established businesses were not allowed to display items for sale outside the building. She explained last year two individuals received solicitor licenses and sold products on an on -going basis on privately owned property in the City. As a result, staff realized there were no regulations in the Code to address seasonal sale of products. She said if the City sought to curtail these outdoor uses, they would be curtailing the independent person who sells seasonal items such as Christmas trees. She agreed staff may need to review other issues and how they impact the Code. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, expressed concern with this issue, pointing out that outside sales on a larger lot (i.e. grocery stores) had less impact than outside sales on a small lot, which may contain a lot of traffic. He pointed out the difficulty in policing this issue, noting the City does not currently police A -frame signs. He said the amount of time the seasonal display is present will not be regulated due to the City's lack of enforcement. He pointed out an outdoor display could be present for a long period of time with only the changing of the holiday symbol. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 4 Jacque Mayo, 415 Main Street, Edmonds, said restrictions on activities drives out business. He felt businesses should be allowed to display and create activity. Restricting displays /sales too much will result in businesses leaving the community. Shari Nault, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, 1215" Ave. N., Edmonds, urged the Council to think carefully and gather input before establishing restrictions. She said there are opportunities to do displays tastefully. Shaun Richards, 802 Main, Edmonds, said seasons are what make Edmonds thrive. He agreed with Mr. Mayo's comment that additional restrictions on businesses discourage businesses from locating in the City during a time when the City needs businesses. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Councilmember Nordquist recommended any action be postponed until the Community Services Committee had an opportunity to review this, and commented that more community input was needed. Council President Haakenson expressed concern with uses addressed in the ordinance, commenting they are not specific enough and the 30 day and 60 day time periods are not long enough. He agreed with Councilmember Nordquisfs request to postpone consideration of this until staff provides additional information. He cautioned the Council to be careful legislating to businesses in the City what they can sell. He felt having merchandise in front of stores is a plus for the community. Councilmember Plunkett said Juneau, Alaska, which has very narrow sidewalks, has vendors on the sidewalks who create a lot of excitement in the downtown area. He agreed with Councilmember Nordquist's suggestion for the matter to be reviewed by the Community Services Committee. Councilmember Miller observed the ordinance was brought forward by the City Attorney in response to a citizen complaint. The Planning Board held a study session, and two public hearings. He was not aware of any egregious violations in the community and agreed with Councilmember Nordquist's suggestion to have the matter reviewed by the Community Services Committee. He said this ordinance appears to be somewhat over - regulating. Councilmember White agreed with Councilmember Miller's observation that three public hearings have been held and there has not been a great deal of public outcry. He agreed with the suggestion to have it reviewed by the Community Services Committee and promptly returned to the Council. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE AT THEIR NEXT MEETING AND REPORT BACK AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE. MOTION CARRIED. .ghway 99 4B. HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS onstruction Easements City Engineer Jim Walker explained Lynnwood found that several property owners along Highway 99 had not provided a temporary construction easement to allow work adjoining the right -of -way. The proposed ordinance would allow Lynnwood to take action to acquire the temporary easements, which could include condemnation if necessary. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 5 Councilmember Plunkett asked the cost of the total Highway 99 improvement project. Mr. Walker answered approximately $21 million. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 'NO. 3263. MOTION CARRIED. THE ORDINANCE APPROVED IS AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE NO. 3263 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF EIGHT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION PERMITS OR EASEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING IMPROVEMENTS TO A STRIP OF LAND ADJACENT TO AND PARALLEL TO HIGHWAY 99 IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY STANDARDS AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS, ALL SAID PARCELS LYING WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS; PROVIDING FOR CONDEMNATION, 'APPROPRIATION, TAKING AND DAMAGE OF THE LAND OR OTHER PROPERTY NECESSARY THEREFORE; PROVIDING THAT THE ENTIRE COST THEREOF SHALL BE PAID PER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FROM THE GENERAL FUND OR OTHER AVAILABLE FUNDS OF THE CITY; AUTHORIZING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD IN ORDER TO AUTHORIZE CONDEMNATION OF THESE PARCELS IN CONJUNCTION WITH LYNNWOOD PARCELS, BY THE CITY ATTORNEY OF LYNNWOOD TO PROSECUTE SUCH ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW FOR SAID CONDEMNATION AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Study on 5. PRESENTATION OF CONSULTANT STUDY ON THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Design Review Process Community Services Director Paul Mar explained last July 28 at the conclusion of a public hearing, the Council authorized retention of a consultant to refine the City's design guidelines and the review process. Cedar River Associates and Johnson Architecture and Planning were selected and embarked on a data collection and research effort that began in October 1998 including interviews with approximately 20 individuals such as staff, applicants, past and present ADB members and concerned citizens. On January 19, 1999, they presented preliminary findings to Council. It was agreed at that time that the scope of the review would be revised and the study completed. He explained the consultants have completed the study and have produced a checklist for rewriting the Design Guidelines including some interim guidelines. They have recommended specific changes to the Design Review process including the timing of key events. They have also revised submittal requirements for ADB applications. A brainstorming session was convened in March to review these issues with emphasis on design departures. Several Councilmembers were briefed regarding the result of that brainstorming. Mr. Mar said all the process changes recommended by the consultant have been reviewed by Development Services Director Ray Miller and City Attorney Scott Snyder. On behalf of the consultants, the recommendations of the study were presented to the ADB on June 16 and to the Planning Board on June 23. Minutes of those meetings are contained in the packet. He requested the Council provide direction on accepting the consultant's final report. Councilmember Earling observed staff is seeking Council acceptance of the report and inquired about the process for implementation. Mr. Mar responded there are a number of legal and legislative procedures to be addressed such as converting the ADB's role from quasi judiciary to an advisory board. This would require a change to the ordinance and a public hearing. The Planning Board recommends that a public hearing be convened at the Planning Board to discuss the issue before providing a recommendation. For Councilmember Earling, Mr. Mar said the ADB is reviewing the interim guidelines; once their review Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 6 has been completed, they will bring forward a recommendation to the Council to adopt them as interim guidelines to be used until the final guidelines are adopted. Councilmember Plunkett said the Council is being asked to accept the report for further study and review, not to accept the conclusions. Council President Haakenson said the Council is accepting the conclusions that the consultant reported and was not bound to anything. Nancy Fox, Cedar River Associates, said since the last presentation to the Council, they have met with the ADB, held many conversations with staff and the City Attorney as well as a small advisory group. The recommendations in the final report are a result of these conversations. She said there was considerable support for the core concepts identified in the interim report. She reviewed key objectives that the improvements should strive to achieve, 1) increase the effectiveness of the design review process to ensure it is achieving the urban design objectives for the City, 2) give the ADB the tools it needs to become a more positive force in the development and design review process, and 3) seek opportunities for streamlining and making the design review process work better with the overall permit process. Ms. Fox reviewed the design review recommendations and implementation schedule. She said the first finding presented in January was related to the existing design review guidelines. They found Edmonds has a series of overlapping documents, at least four, that are considered to be part of the set of materials that are used to review projects. Having four different sets of documents was unworkable and as a result the existing guidelines are not being used. Their first recommendation is to rewrite the Design Guidelines to create a single document to consolidate and synthesize the existing guidelines and, once they're available, to insist they are used as the basis for decision making. Their recommendation includes direction regarding the character /organization of the Guidelines, a suggestion for including a checklist which is a tool the ADB can use in the review of individual projects, clarifying the distinctions between neighborhoods, and addressing policy gaps which will require Council direction. She said one of the most significant policy gaps is the view policies that are included in the Guidelines; they can be interpreted in a number of different ways and it is not clear whether the City intends to address private view protection. She said one of the appendixes to the recommendation includes steps for rewriting the guidelines. A key to producing a solid set of Guidelines is to work closely with the ADB and coordinate this work with the Edmonds visioning process and seek linkages between the two. They recommended the rewrite of the Guidelines take place mid to late 1999. Their second recommendation is tied to the first recommendation; the lack of a usable set of Design Review Guidelines is an urgent problem for the ADB and cannot wait to be addressed until the end of 1999. To fill that gap, they produced an Interim Design Guideline Checklist (Appendix D) which they propose for immediate adoption. This will give the ADB some interim direction until a new set of Guidelines has been developed. To develop the checklist, they reviewed the existing documents and Guidelines in an attempt to organize the information. This was not an attempt to resolve,policy issues or rethink the existing Guidelines but to provide'a workable tool based on the Guidelines in place now. She said this will not only provide the ADB a tool during the interim but could provide valuable testing of the ideas so that as the Guidelines are developed, the checklist can assist with that process. She said this recommendation is tied to their sixth recommendation, apply the Interim Design Guidelines Checklist to existing Code exceptions. She said this would assist the ADB when considering code waivers such as landscaping waivers and the provision for an additional 5 feet of roof height for certain modulation features. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 7 Ms. Fox displayed a flowchart of the proposed Design Review. Process and explained their third recommendation was to change the timing of ADB review including establishing a pre- design meeting for major projects (new construction or significant building additions). This would provide the ADB an opportunity to meet with the applicant before the building is designed in order to review the checklist, make an assessment of what site - related features might be important in the design of the building, and provide guidance to the applicant to reduce the need to make changes to the permit application and avoid multiple meetings with the ADB in the future. This would provide the ADB a more positive opportunity to work with applicants on the key design parameters for a project, rather than waiting until the building plans are completed. If the ADB finds a problem at that point, it becomes a very contentious situation due to the expense of making changes to the design at that point in the process. She said public notice would be provided of this pre- design meeting and public comment would be accepted at the meeting.. Their fourth recommendation is to revise the Design Review process in several ways including having the SEPA review and scheduling of an ADB meeting occur concurrently. This will speed up the process by at least several weeks for most permit applications. She agreed it was possible a project could go through SEPA review and be conditioned in a manner that the building design could be changed and returned to the ADB for further review. However, this does riot occur often and most applicants likely would readily accept that risk. Ms. Fox said they also recommend eliminating the formal ADB hearing on projects. Having the ADB hold a formal public hearing contributes to creating a formal, somewhat adversarial atmosphere in the. ADB that does not foster open dialogue. Having the ADB hold a formal hearing is also misleading to the public who often comment on issues beyond the ADB's scope of authority, placing the ADB in a negative role. They recommend public comment still be allowed but clarify for the public that the intent of the ADB is to hear their comments about how the project responds to the City's Design Review Guidelines. They also recommend, changing the configuration of the ADB meeting, having the ADB around the table at the same level as the applicants. ' Another revision to the Design Review Process would be to have the ADB be an advisory board rather than make the decision regarding Design Review. She said although the term advisory may indicate their recommendation could be ignored or not have a great deal of strength in the decision - making, that is not the purpose. Their recommendation is that the ADB's decision carry considerable weight, almost be determinative in the Director's decision on the project. She suggested the City have the City Attorney draft language regarding the Director's discretion to modify the recommendation of the ADB. These could be very strict and only allow a change by the Director in the event of an error. They recommend the ADB be an advisory board because as long as the ADB is the decision -maker in the process, they must act in a quasi-judicial capacity, cannot consider evidence other than what is presented by the parties, are discouraged from offering their own ideas on possible design solutions, and have even been instructed not to visit the project site. This would allow the ADB members to bring their own design expertise into the process. Ms. Fox said they also recommend a change in the way appeals are currently handled. Appeals are currently made to the City Council and their recommendation is to have a Hearing Examiner hear appeals. This would provide a greater degree of predictability and less uncertainty about the timing of decisions. For the ADB, they would be held accountable to a set of adopted Design Review Guidelines. For the Council, this will eliminate lengthy debates about minor details of project design and allow the Council to focus on establishing appropriate guidelines /principles and taking legislative action that is necessary for establishing" criteria for the program. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 8 Their fifth recommendation is to establish a program for site - specific code departures through Design Review. This issue was discussed in the interim report and has been explored further. The advisory group responded favorably to this recommendation. The intent is to allow the ADB to grant flexibility from specific code requirements for individual projects where an applicant could demonstrate that by getting the departure, they would be able to do a better job of meeting the City's Design Guidelines and providing a specific public benefit. The goal is to give the ADB a tool to allow them to leverage better design outcome in projects. As this is a new concept which will require more discussion, she suggested staff undertake additional analysis of this issue while the Design Guidelines are being rewritten and revisions are being made to the Design Review process so that once that is completed, the Council could consider the issue of code departure and have analysis of specific proposals of what type of code standards might be eligible and what limits might want to be set on issues such as heights. Their seventh recommendation is to change the character of submittals applicants are asked to make when coming to the ADB. This is tied to the change in timing of the ADB review. She said it was agreed that in order to get the type of review that is desired, there needs to be a point where the ADB can focus on the context of the site. Their recommendation is that applicants not be required to have detailed building plans at the time of the pre - design meeting but rather present concept -level information particularly regarding features around the site. She said they developed a checklist of items that are appropriate to be presented at the pre- design meeting. She said this would also be a good opportunity to test the application of the "Virtual Edmonds" program. Their eighth recommendation is to consider raising the threshold for projects that come to the ADB for review and allow more minor actions to be reviewed by staff and major projects forwarded to the ADB for review. She said their report contains some specific recommendations for determining which projects are reviewed by.staff and which are reviewed by the ADB. She said one key to raising the threshold is adopting a new Sign Code. Their ninth recommendation is a series of suggestions for strengthening the staffing, training, and credentials of the ADB. She said the City has given the ADB an important job and it is worthwhile now to make a commitment to training and supporting them and ensuring the ADB has the credentials that will earn public credibility. Councilmember Van Hollebeke complimented Ms. Fox and Mr. Johnson for their comprehensive analysis of a very difficult issue. He referred to paragraph 2 on page 7 of the report that addresses views, commenting since the visioning process was completed, many residents are concerned the City will no longer protect views. He asked the consultants to address this issue. Steve Johnson, Johnson Architecture and Planning, said the report reflects that views are a key element in Edmonds. However, it is not clear in the City's Code which views are protected, where the most critical views are located, and what views are to be most respected. He said there is a lot of text in the Code relating to views, particularly a very rigorous and restrictive height limitation but the Code as currently structured does not permit a dialogue regarding land form. Ms. Fox said the ADB is currently charged with considering 5 -foot roof height increases based on roof modulation. However, if roof modulation is considered only on a mechanical basis but not considering the overall objective of how it affects views, the review process does not necessarily lead to a logical result. Mr. Johnson said the height restriction in the Land Use Code reflects the importance of view and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 9 maintaining a low structure height. He said while the height restriction is sensitive to the important element of view, it simultaneously harms other aspects of the City's development, particularly in the downtown area such as pedestrian friendly streetscapes, building entrances, retail frontages, etc. Councilmember Van Hollebeke referred to Appendix A that cites the average time from application to decision and asked how their recommendations would affect the overall length of the process. Ms. Fox said in most cases the ADB hearing is not scheduled until 3 -4 weeks have passed to allow consideration of SEPA. The time may also be shortened for projects that in the past have become struck in a repeat cycle of review. Mr. Johnson said one of their recommendations within the structure of the ADB is to focus the staffing of the ADB within the Development Services Department so that a knowledgeable staff person works with the ADB and could bring their working methodology to the applicant to assist with a better dialogue regarding the process with the applicant. Councilmember Plunkett complimented Ms. Fox and Mr. Johnson on their report, stating it gives the community, the Council and staff a great deal to think about which is the key to a great success. He asked if a group of people (architect, developer, City staff, ADB, planner, etc.) had an opportunity to discuss the final report together. Ms. Fox answered no, the group meeting was held between the interim and final reports. Mr. Johnson said many of these recommendations were in place at that time. Councilmember Plunkett asked the consultant to comment on the City's current Design Review process. Mr. Johnson said Edmonds started design review in this region although the City has fallen to the wayside -- where the City was once a leader, its processes have not evolved to be the most useful. Ms. Fox said when they began their review of the process, there was a lot of frustration expressed and finger- pointing about parts and actors in the process. She said they were surprised by the level of agreement/understanding about where the weaknesses are in the process, given the feelings when the process began. Mr. Mar responded to Councilmember Plunkett's earlier question, explaining Development Services Director Ray Miller has discussed this report with his staff. The ADB had a copy of the report when he made the report to them and the Planning Board had a copy of the report when a report was made to them. Councilmember Plunkett said his question was whether it has been discussed by the group as a whole. Ms. Fox said the reason the tasks have been broken up and an implementation schedule suggested is because it would be more productive to address the issues individually. Councilmember Miller complimented Ms. Fox and Mr. Johnson on their presentation and recommendations. He said the proposal would fast track the process for applicants, add value for the City and provides a positive role for the ADB. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO ACCEPT THE FINAL REPORT. Council President Haakenson thanked Councilmember Earling for suggesting this study be undertaken. Councilmember Earling commented that the most important issue to him when this process began was trying to define the role of the ADB and ensure that they have considerable influence on the visual outcome of the City. He said the consultant's recommendation included two important areas for the ADB to have influence in the process. He felt implementation would achieve two goals -- maintain the influence of the ADB process and allow developers an opportunity to streamline the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 10 MOTION CARRIED. j ntown 6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE king e Community Services Director Paul Mar explained last week the Council directed staff to bring back several pieces of information, 1) data on parking habits of employees at the Civic Center campus, and 2). data regarding the financing method, specifically gross receipts. The Council subcommittee on the downtown parking garage met yesterday afternoon to discuss these items and agreed to discuss the information with the full Council. Councilmember Earling explained the subcommittee was asked to review the potential for a gross revenue tax as one of the potential funding sources. At yesterday's meeting, Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler expressed frustration with the dissection and analysis of information provided by the state. He said she had now had an opportunity to do a more thorough analysis regarding the gross receipts tax and has additional information regarding an employee tax. Mr. Mar displayed a map of the site, recalling the details of available parking on the site for staff had been discussed last week and Council requested staff provide further information regarding employees' parking habits. He explained 104 parking spaces will be provided on the Public Safety campus (81 in front and 23 spaces for Police and Fire staff), 45 parking spaces are provided underneath the City Hall building and 22 spaces are provided in the parking lot south of the City Hall building, for a total of 171 parking spaces. His analysis indicated 74 automobiles are driven to the Civic Campus on a daily basis, there are currently 27 employee parking permits for City employees working at the Civic Center campus, there are 11 City -owned vehicles that park on City property (excludes police cars) and there are 3 leased spaces in the lot south of City Hall for a total parking demand of 88 spaces. Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler said several staff members have attempted to decipher the gross receipts information provided by the state and are currently able to match up approximately 60% of the citywide businesses (comparing the City's business license information to the state's information). Since there is still a 40% uncertainty, they could not develop a good comfort level regarding the numbers. She said based on the limited research they have done, a number of problems were envisioned with administering this tax. She clarified for the subcommittee that the number of businesses in the City is 1,700 and the number of employees citywide is 7,000. She said the discussion with the subcommittee regarding gross revenues concluded with the idea that staff would consider what revenues could be generated by a citywide employee tax. Ms. Hetzler displayed a parking funding strategy based on an employee count, which assumes an annual funding requirement of $100,000. Using figures revised as of June 29, the average number of employees citywide is 4, the tax per employee increased to $15, the average business tax would be $60. The proposed minimum tax, with an annual cap, would need to be $40 and the proposed maximum tax would need to be $200 per year. She said the maximum would apply to businesses with up to 14 employees or 75 businesses. Ms. Hetzler explained an error occurred with previous figures regarding the number of employees that needed to be excluded from the overall pool to calculate the per employee amount, which is the reason for the increase in the minimum and maximum tax amounts. Council President Haakenson asked if this information was based on a citywide tax. Ms. Hetzler answered yes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 11 Councilmember Van Hollebeke observed that in order to limit the taxation to the area in closest proximity, the number presented would have to be tripled. Councilmember White asked Ms. Hetzler to explain "employees excluded from the count." Ms. Hetzler said she began with a pool of approximately 7,000 employees and subtracted the number of employees associated with businesses at the maximum cap. Rather than $100,000 divided by 7,000 employees, the result was $100,000 divided by 4,000 employees. She explained the numbers have always excluded the hospital and most non- profits. The numbers are based on businesses the City charges a license fee to each year and do not include any municipal employees or any school district employees. For Councilmember Earling, Ms. Hetzler said the numbers include home businesses and apartments. Councilmember Miller referred to the memo regarding employee parking data and noted that with the construction of the new Public Safety facility and City Hall, there are 171 total parking stalls available (67 at City Hall and 104 at Public Safety). Mr. Mar agreed that would be the correct number once the Public Safety complex is complete. Councilmember Miller observed there are currently 74 employee vehicles utilizing those parking stalls. In calculating the number of parking stalls needed by employees and city -owned vehicles, Councilmember Miller stated there would be about 85 stalls available. It! referring to the study regarding shortage of parking in the downtown area, Councilmember Miller said the consultant indicated the City was approximately 148 stalls short. Mr. Mar said that figure was based on the special benefit area defined by a radius from the Public Safety complex. Councilmember Miller observed without spending any more money or raising additional taxes, the 85 available stalls would address 60% of the shortfall cited by the consultant. Mr. Mar^ said that would require a statement that those spaces on City property are available for public parking. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the consultant's report stated there was a nominal parking deficit of 787 stalls. Mr. Mar said the 787 was the peak demand determined by the consultant if all parking demands occurred at the same time. As he realized not all the demand would occur at the same time and there would be overlapping uses, he determined there was a 148 stall deficit. Councilmember Plunkett observed the parking demand could be between 148 and 787. Councilmember Plunkett said the 85 spaces at the Public Safety complex were required by the Code and are specifically designed to function as parking for the Public Safety building. Mr. Mar agreed. Councilmember Plunkett said these spaces were required because it was believed (by those who wrote the Code) that those spaces would be utilized by users of the building. Mr. Mar said the information used to calculate the demand was based on the same Code the appraiser used. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO .EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey asked if all spaces were determined to be required under the City Code and whether the number was based on the fact that there is an assembly situation for the District Court and Council meetings. Mr. Mar explained the parking requirements in the Code are based on usage; offices have a parking ratio, assembly areas have a parking ratio, and the fire station because part of it is a residential area has parking ratios. He recalled the requirement in the Code for the site was 92 spaces and the plan Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 12' 1 provided 104 spaces on the campus. The method used to determine the parking requirement for the Public Safety complex was the same as would be used for any other developer. Councilmerber Earling said the information provided yesterday indicated there was some potential for 85 spaces if the Council chose to make these available to citizens. Although he understood the parking requirements are determined by the Code, he said the parking requirements will be driven by what happens in the court, which is primarily to and from parking. He observed there appeared to be at least a minimum of 85 unassigned stalls and if 25 -30 were dedicated for business related to the Public Safety building, an additional 50 -70 parking stalls could be provided at the current site without spending any additional funds. These spaces could then be utilized during the day by shoppers and those attending events at the Floral Arts Center and the Puget Sound Christian College. Further, there is the possibility of at least 125 stalls for evening and weekend use. Mr. Mar said the Council or administration has the authority to designate the parking for any use it chooses. Councilmember Earling asked if additional moneys were needed to fund those parking spaces. Mr. Mar said the stalls shown on the site drawing will be provided at the completion of the Public Safety project with the funds included in the bond. Council President Haakenson said this issue was one of those no -win situations the Council has considered during the past four years. The only thing that everyone has agreed on during this lengthy process is the need for more parking. He observed the estimated cost of the garage began at $750,000 and is now estimated at $1.5 million possibly more depending on other issues such as ground water and moving the detention facility. He said the Council cannot continue to debate this process week after week, some conclusion must be reached. The financing proposals presented to the Council have been constantly moving targets, from a group of property owners donating funds to an LID, to a square footage tax, head taxes, etc., but there has been nothing to focus on. He felt the Council was willing to commit a specific amount to a parking structure within the City if the remaining moneys to fund the project can be determined. He said last week several Councilmembers expressed concern with a citywide tax and said he did not support a citywide tax as it was not fair to ask businesses to contribute to funding a parking garage in the downtown area that they will not benefit from. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said he has been agonizing over this issue because in principle he would like to have it occur. Over the years, he has seen the downtown core community come together and. the HyettPalma visioning study brought them closer together. Many of the people who participated in that process strongly voiced their support for additional parking with the idea this is property the City already owns. However, the process has been fraught with "land mines" that are difficult to identify and/or avoid. He reiterated his opposition to a citywide tax. He agreed in principle with Councilmember Plunkett's comments regarding any improvement to the City improves the entire City but felt asking businesses outside the area to contribute to the garage would be a step backward in the effort to get the business community to pull together. He said this would not benefit businesses outside the area except possibly bring more people to the downtown core and conceivably to other areas of the City. He recalled earlier discussions included funds from the in- lieu -of- parking fund and changes to the parking permit structure and asked if any new conclusions had been reached regarding these funding mechanisms. Councilmember Earling said the in- lieu -of- parking fund was viewed as a potential funding source but one that was not predictable. It was suggested any funds from that source be used to reduce the bond. Some of the projects for the on- street parking permits were determined not to be good projections due to the increase in price and the uncertainty regarding the number of permits. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 13 Councilmember White said he did not find any of the proposed revenue streams to be appropriately predictable. He stressed these are General Fund dollars, the City would be "on the hook" for the funds that would be used to build this facility. He expressed concern with the proposed estimated cost of the garage particularly by someone who may be involved in the bidding process and did not think $1.5 million was accurate. Although he is not a contractor, he indicated he has done a lot of construction litigation and there are a lot of factors that did not appear accurate. The estimate and the revenue streams are both moving targets and he was convinced more funds would be needed. He said one cannot be in favor of cutting the budget and opposed to increases in General Fund taxes, and at the same time propose a project over which the City has no control over costs. He said the revenue streams proposed have only been hypothetical. Councilmember White observed the relative benefit compared to the proposed cost has not been sufficiently analyzed. It now appears all the parking spaces provided may not be needed according to the study. He questioned whether the City was prepared to finance a project that provides more parking than is needed. Although this may be visionary, it may not be appropriate for the present. He did not support a citywide tax, as it was inappropriate for the reasons already stated. Councilmember Miller said although the continued deficit of parking stalls needs to be studied further, the construction of the Public Safety facility significantly addresses the deficit. He recommended staff move forward with the Public Safety project as is and Council and the subcommittee review other alternatives to meet the deficit. Councilmember White said although it is true the property is owned by the City and this opportunity will not arise again,'those factors do not necessarily make it the right thing to do. As a participant on the Council parking subcommittee as well as the Council liaison to the Downtown Parking Committee last year, he was aware of the extreme dedication to this project by the parking committee and the subcommittee. He said while the parking garage has been under consideration, other residents have contacted him regarding requests for sidewalks, filling of potholes, etc. Although the parking garage is important, the Council needs to take a closer look at it. Councilmember Earling said the Council has been criticized over the last few weeks for trying to find reasons to defeat the proposal. He pointed out citizens elected the Council to consider issues, review information, or request additional information to make a good decision. He said the Council's analysis has covered the original finance assumptions, the fairness of a citywide tax for downtown improvements, financing projections, and the potential for 55 -70 additional daytime parking spaces as well as possibly 150 parking spaces for evening and weekend use. He questioned whether this.could be perceived as an effort to stop the parking garage. He felt the Council has thoughtfully analyzed the issue and as a result the Council has become more familiar with the need for better parking availability in the downtown core. He said one of the issues for some Councilmembers- has been the location of the parking facility and whether it would be better to find another location to better serve the downtown core. He suggested the Council continue working with the Parking Committee on short term and long term solutions to improve the parking situation beyond the 55 -70 stalls that have been identified. Councilmember White said it was appropriate to keep the subcommittee in tact and he was willing to participate. Council President Haakenson thanked the Parking Committee for their efforts. Although be overcame any concern over the location of the garage, he remains concerned about the moving target funding Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 14 options and the estimated construction cost of the garage. He said the Council had a responsibility to look at each and every option presented to them but they have a greater responsibility to the taxpayers to ensure they spend their dollars wisely. Councilmember Nordquist said the in- lieu -of- parking fund had good intentions when it was started to address off -site parking but has not been kept current. He recommended consideration be given to eliminating the in- lieu -of parking fund or increasing the amount so that adequate funds will be available for future parking facilities. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO DIRECT STAFF TO TERMINATE ANY FURTHER EFFORTS ON THIS PROPOSED UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE PROJECT AT THIS TIME. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT OPPOSED. Business 7. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY CODE SECTION 3.20 - BUSINESS LICENSE AND License & OCCUPATION TAX ORDINANCE Occupation Tax Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler said information regarding the current Business License and Occupation Tax (B &O) ordinance was presented to the Finance Committee at their June 6 meeting. She has researched other cities' B &O tax ordinances and found Edmonds' ordinance is unique in that it does not include sanitary sewer and garbage collection businesses. The City's existing ordinance allows the charge of 5.75% against the gross receipts of the majority of utilities that operate within the City limits. The City currently charges 5.75% against the majority of utility type businesses and 6% is charged against the PUD. Her discussion with City Attorney Scott Snyder regarding the maximum rate indicated certain utilities are capped at 6% under state law; other utilities have no cap. While reviewing taxes for other cities, she found there are several cities that implement the full 6% and the majority of cities include sanitary sewer and garbage collection businesses. She presented options for amending the current City ordinance to the Finance Committee, to include the sanitary sewer and garbage utilities and establish a uniform rate of 6 %. The estimated impact of these changes would be an additional $420,000 per year to the General Fund. Included in the packet is a survey of Washington cities of similar size to Edmonds, including Bothell, Kirkland and Redmond. She said Kirkland charges 6.5% on utilities related to business activities. If the council is interested in pursuing an ordinance that charges a uniform rate, it could also include the sanitary sewer and garbage collection businesses at either 6% or 5.75 %. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said the garbage license fee is based on $1.00 per year per customer basis that yields $10,000. If the Council adopted the proposed change, capping it at 6 %, the yield would increase from $10,000 to $190,000. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said there are two collection companies within the City, Lynnwood Disposal and Sound Disposal. He said Sound Disposal is a small, family business and asked if the tax, if levied, could be passed on to their customers. Ms. Hetzler clarified this is a tax against the customer. She explained Edmonds is unique in that the garbage collectors are subject to a different „business license which requires a $10,000 annual payment as a license fee but they have been omitted from the utility tax. She assumed the business license fee for garbage collectors would be done on the salne basis as other business and include them in the utility taxing ordinance, for a net increase of $190,000. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the revenue enhancement would be placed in a specific fund. Ms. Hetzler said these would be General Fund, non - devoted revenue. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 15 Councilmember Earling said the Finance Committee considered this at their May meeting but this information was brought forward as a result of a request from Council at the retreat for staff to identify ways to generate more revenues for the City. He said Ms. Hetzler's presentation was not intended as a recommendation for action. The Finance Committee believed this was an important issue to discuss and will be bringing forward 2 -3 other options to generate revenue. .These could then be considered for implementation during the budget review. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked what impact these increases would have on a typical family. Ms. Hetzler said she has done that analysis but did not have that information with her tonight. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said that would be a critical piece of information as it is the Council's responsibility to consider the impact any increase would have on a citizen. Council President Haakenson referred to the statement, "at present garbage collection providers are not included in the City's business license and occupation tax ordinance. A separate City ordinance establishes a garbage collection license fee based on $1.00 per year per customer," and asked how old this ordinance was. Ms. Hetzler answered it was adopted in 1962. Council President Haakenson said this may be an issue for the Finance Committee to consider as well as what other cities charge garbage collectors as a way to increase revenues. Mayor Fahey concurred this information is being presented to be factored into the budget proposal this fall. She said one of the critical issues facing the City, and one citizens are encouraging the City to consider, is the condition of residential streets. They are in terrible condition and to overlay all the residential streets in the community is estimated to cost $5 million. She said these are streets that are in such bad condition that they must be completely replaced, as they cannot be chip - sealed any longer. She said there is the potential for one or more of these funding sources to be established as a dedicated revenue stream to justify Councilmanic bonds to borrow an adequate amount to redo the streets. She said this could be a way to address one of the most critical issues in the community, the decaying condition of residential streets, which has no other funding method. Councilmember Earling said the Finance Committee asked staff to review all street needs. There was also discussion last week of using the projected cash carryover in the next 2 -3 years as a possible funding source. ear 2000 8. REPORT ON YEAR 2000 ISSUES ssues Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler referred to her presentation in April 1999 regarding the efforts underway to identify Y2K issues. She said the packet included an inventory of the progress each department is making in determining whether a problem exists and if so, how it will be addressed. She advised the City has received vendor confirmation of compliance of the City's traffic controllers, fire apparatus, communication equipment and medical equipment, police mobile data terminals and the water telemetry systems. Staff continues to work with SnoCom and Snohomish PUD to develop contingency plans. She said the City is well underway in determining the magnitude of any problem the City could potentially encounter and have made tremendous strides in determining the computer systems will not fail. Councilmember Miller said a number of governmental agencies have put in place Y2K readiness response plans, have done system testing analysis such as pushing the dates forward on their systems to 2000, and have had additional technical analysis done by consultants. He was concerned that nothing of this nature has been done in the City such as tabletop exercises, etc. While he did not expect any Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 16 problems, he preferred the City's systems be tested and not just accept the vendor's confirmation. Ms. Hetzler answered she was not aware whether any tests were planned to test the traffic controllers, etc. She said the City's computer systems have been tested and they are not basing compliance on vendor confirmation. Councilmember Miller recommended a systematic test be done in each department including perhaps prioritization of Public Safety issues and a written readiness plan should problems occur on January 1, 2000. He also requested monthly updates be provided to the Council on this matter. Councilmember White commented that Congress today achieved compromise legislation to exempt or immunize companies who have been knowingly selling defective Y2K products for the past five years from substantial litigation. Congress has protected the computer and software industry from all lawsuits that they are expecting will result from computer failures and software crashes as a result of Y2K. As a result, vendor guarantees are now meaningless and the City must protect itself. Mayor Fahey agreed with the need to test all systems. The City has been working on the problem for over a year, particularly since Ms. Hetzler assumed leadership as Risk Manager. While adequate communication may not have been provided to the Council, numerous steps have been taken to address this issue. To the best of their ability, staff has determined that a majority of the equipment in the City is Y2K compliant. Everything within the City's control has been evaluated. The state of Washington is far ahead of most other states in addressing this issue. She indicated she brought back information from the AWC meeting, National League of Cities, as well as a video from the Conference of Mayors. She said the City's concerns are from outside systems, the biggest potential problem is the possibility of a failure with energy feeds and electricity. Therefore, staff is considering this as a situation that would occur when a major power outage occurs and have in place the capabilities to meet the basic public safety needs of citizens. Council President Haakenson agreed with the need for monthly updates and suggested the Public Safety Committee become the Council's investigators. 9. DISCUSSION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE TEMPORARY USE PERMITS FOR emporary se Permits DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITIES Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this item was reviewed by the Development Services /Community Services Committee who recommended it be discussed with the full Council. This is an attempt to allow, via street use permits, the ability to place outdoor pedestrian activities in the public way (i.e. sidewalks) and provide for the Zoning Code to define and allow those uses. He said the information considered at the Development Services /Community Services Committee directed the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for implementation. He said there is not a one -to -one correspondence with the first ordinance (Exhibit 1). Following tonight's discussion, he recommended the City Attorney develop an ordinance to be placed on the Consent Agenda for a future meeting. Councilmember Van Hollebeke stated this issue arose as a result of the visioning report presented by HyettPalma. In virtually every presentation they provided, particularly slides, thriving communities all had some form of outdoor dining, outdoor activity, bike racks, etc. to encourage pedestrian usage. HyettPalma also suggested the City consider heated lamps so people could dine outdoors in cold weather. He said the intent was to do it on a temporary basis to allow an opportunity to consider how it worked. Council President Haakenson said this issue also arose last year when several restaurants had outdoor dining last summer, which was very well accepted by citizens. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 17 Mr. Chave said the intent was also to establish some parameters such as requiring a free and clear way that meets ADA requirements, etc. and also providing legal mechanisms for businesses that do want to provide outdoor activities. It was the consensus of the Council to have the ordinance placed on a future Consent Agenda. Mr. Chave said this is a two part issue, the amendment of Chapter 1.8 does not require additional action, the amendment of Chapter 17 would be an interim zoning ordinance which would be effective for six months while the Planning Board makes a recommendation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR A TOTAL OF 30 MINUTES, WITH 15 MINUTES RESERVED FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. 10. MAYOR'S REPORT Conference Mayor Fahey reported she attended the Conference of Mayor's meeting two weeks ago in New Orleans. of Mayor's Some of the issues covered included (1) an extensive update on what is being done on the federal level Meeting regarding Y2K and what issues need to be addressed by cities; (2) information on the Census 2000 process and the efforts the City must follow to ensure an accurate count because of the impact accurate counts will have on funding from the federal government; (3) information regarding pending community block grants; (4) a report from FEMA was provided on Project Impact, a process for accessing information on how to prevent earthquake damage. She said the Fire Department will follow up on this information and inform citizens on actions they can take in the event of an emergency situation such as an earthquake. In addition, numerous resolutions were passed addressing actions being considered by Congress in the next few months, some of which could negatively impact the City and others that could significantly benefit the City. Attendees to the conference also received an update on the status of the committee that is considering Internet taxation and point of sale issues, which will ultimately have significant ramifications for City revenue streams including the possibility of negative impacts on the local business community. They also discussed issues related to domestic violence and actions to prevent youth violence throughout the nation. She advised an extensive packet.of information will be presented to the Police Department regarding items that can be included in youth services. uried Art Mayor Fahey advised upon her return from the Conference of Mayors, she attended a juried art process, rocess which is the initial stage of selecting the artists who will present a proposal for the traffic circle. She explained they narrowed the artists to three who are now being commissioned to bring forth very specific proposals for the site. Each artist indicated their willingness to work with the community to discuss what the community would like to see at that location and at least two of the artists indicated an interest in crafting something with the sense /flavor as the gazebo. Their proposals will be presented in September and will include an opportunity for the public to review their proposals prior to a final selection. we Mayor Fahey stated she then attended the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) meeting which eeting addressed many of the same issues addressed at the Conference of Mayors but on a state level. She attended a workshop of performance measurements and benchmarking, which she hoped to incorporate into the budget next year. An update was provided regarding the changes that must be made to the City's ; Shoreline Management Plan to meet the ESA requirements. ire Chief Mayor Fahey reported there were 24 applicants for the Fire Chief position. These were reduced to six osit;on top candidates for the position, who were interviewed by a committee that included several members of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 18 the Fire Department and the field was narrowed to three candidates. The Council interviewed the three candidates prior to tonight's Council meeting. Some additional investigation into the candidates' applications and backgrounds will be done during the next two weeks. She anticipated bringing her recommendation to the Council for the final selection at the July 20 Council meeting. She invited Councilmembers to contact her with any additional input regarding the three candidates. ' of July Mayor Fahey reminded citizens of the 4'' of July celebration on Sunday. The Children's Parade begins at elebration 1:00 p.m. and the main parade begins at 3:00 p.m. She encouraged the public to attend the parade and stay on for the fireworks display. For those unable to attend the celebration, she wished them a happy 4' of July. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS d hoc Council President Haakenson asked the ad hoc parking committee, Councilmembers Plunkett, White and Parking Earling, to meet at least once more to discuss the future direction of addressing the parking deficit and Committee return to the Council with a recommendation as soon as possible. ESA Listing Councilmember Earling reiterated his request for information regarding the potential implications the 0 ESA listing has upon the City both financially as well as the impact on development issues. He would like this issue placed on a future agenda. With regard to the figures for the proposed financing of the Financing for Parking parking garage, Mr. Earling thanked Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler for pointing out Kiarage that an error had been made, and he apologized for not notifying other subcommittee members regarding the additional information Ms. Hetzler provided him this afternoon. king Councilmember Plunkett complimented the Council for their deliberation on the parking issue. He said ue the Council discussed the information and made a sincere effort to evaluate it. He expressed his appreciation to the Parking Committee for their efforts to review this issue. Wo Councilmember Nordquist said he attended the AWC meeting and offered to provide copies of the Meeting information he received. hambers Councilmember Miller said he received a call over the weekend from a citizen regarding Chambers able Cable who is still missing nine channels. The citizen discussed this with Chambers Cable and was told 2 -3 were for future use, 2 -3 were for Pay- Per -View and the others were not activated due to issues that needed to be addressed with the City. Community Services Director Paul Mar explained the franchise agreement includes public, education and government (PEG) channels. Seven channels were allocated for this use, three are not in operation, one is being used to broadcast the City Council meetings and one channel is being used by UWTV, the remainder do not have signals. Councilmember Miller said this citizen was concerned that he is paying the new rate but not receiving all channels. Mr. Mar explained Chambers Cable has two service areas, Edmonds and Shoreline, the channel capacity for public, education and government includes both areas but the Shoreline system is not yet totally rebuilt. He said Shoreline's City Council meetings will be televised, similar to Edmonds and Shoreline Community College, Edmonds Community College and the University of Washington have educational programs they would like to broadcast. He said the channels are dedicated for that use and will be activated in the future for that use. Mayor Fahey explained the Federal Telecommunications Act requires cable companies to reserve channels for public, educational and governmental broadcasting and ultimately each will be a dedicated channel. When each channel is filled with the prescribed content, the next series of three channels would Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 19 be activated. Therefore, for a period of time, only three of the seven channels will be activated. The seventh channel will likely be shared. She said the government channel will include broadcast of Council meetings and can include other usage to better communicate with citizens. The problem is that programming must be created to fill the channel or time allocated to organizations, which is something that needs to be addressed. The City also needs to formulate policies on allocating the use of the public channel for public programming. Citizens are receiving all the commercial channels available from Chambers Cable; they are not getting all the seven PEG channels because insufficient programming is available for those channels. i COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MILLER FROM THE JUNE 22 COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER MILLER ABSTAINED. Councilmember White commented although he was told his cable would be connected by June, then in July and now sometime in August, but he has yet to receive the new cable service at his home even though it is available three blocks away. Council President Haakenson observed Chambers Cable's July report was not shown on the Extended Agenda. He preferred it be scheduled for the July 6 meeting as the last report was made the first week in June. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER Mayor Fahey adjourned the Council to Executive Session at 10:15 p.m. for discussion of a legal matter for approximately 15 minutes. She advised. the Council would adjourn immediately following the Executive Session. BARB,., S. FAHEY, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 29, 1999 Page 20 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. JUNE 29, 1999 SPECIAL MEETING 6:00 P.M. — INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITION OF FIRE CHIEF 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 JUNE 22, 1999 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #34149 THROUGH #34308 FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 21, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $508,604.48. (D) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 1999 (E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE EDMONDS HISTORICAL MUSEUM WINDOW REPLACEMENT (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CHS ENGINEERS, INC. FOR PERRINVILLE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS DESIGN PROJECT (G) PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND DIRECTING THE SAME TO BE FILED WITH THE STATE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD (H) PROPOSED RESOLUTION SETTING JULY 20, 1999, AS THE HEARING DATE FOR A REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE 216TH STREET SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY EAST OF 84TH AVENUE WEST (Applicant: Edmonds School District / File No. ST- 99 -25) 3. (30 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPROVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) SECTION 20.60.050 PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF "WALL GRAPHICS." (File No. CDC -98 -181) 4. (200n.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPROVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) SECTIONS 16.45.010(B) AND 16.50.010(B) PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS GOVERNING "LIMITED DISPLAY AND SALES ACTIVITIES OF A SEASONAL NATURE." (File No. CDC -98 -182) 5. (45 Min.) PRESENTATION OF CONSULTANT STUDY REGARDING THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS 6. (20 Min.) CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE 7. (20 Min.) DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY CODE SECTION 3.20 — BUSINESS LICENSE AND OCCUPATION TAX ORDINANCE 8. (10 Min.) REPORT ON YEAR 2000 ISSUES CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JUNE 29, 1999 Page 2 of 2 I 9. (10 Min.) DISCUSSION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE TEMPORARY USE PERMITS FOR DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITIES 10. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 11. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS j 12. (15 Min.) EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER I i I I i parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advanc4 notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appear. he following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.