05/02/2000 City Counciln
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
MAY 29 2000
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Thomas A. Miller, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Christopher Davis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIAL ABSENT
Dave Earling, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Maia Krause, Student Representative
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief
Ray Miller, Development Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeff Wilson, Senior Planner
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
James Walker, City Engineer
Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director
Doug Farmen, Accounting Manager
Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Change to I Council President Miller requested Item 3 be removed from the agenda as the appellants, Mr. and Mrs.
Benda Wassall, had submitted a letter requesting a 60 day postponement. He invited Mr. Wassall to address the
Council.
Wassall Jim Wassall, 342 Sunset Avenue, Edmonds, requested a postponement of their appeal to allow time for
Appeal - Mayor Haakenson to formalize the agreement between the City of Edmonds and Burlington
Fencing Northern/Santa Fe Railroad on a reasonable alternative to the approximately 2000 -foot steel fence
Sunset Ave. pp �' .
proposed along Sunset Avenue. Once the agreement had been signed by interested parties, he said
Mayor Haakenson planned to send the agreement to the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (WUTC) and request they rescind their requirement for the 2000 -foot fence. Mr. Wassall
said everyone agrees the alternative Mayor Haakenson has been working on is a much better solution to
the problem of trespassers on the railroad tracks. He expressed his appreciation for Mayor Haakenson's
efforts to find a more common sense solution to the problem of trespassers on the tracks.
Robert Walkley, Burlington Northern /Santa Fe Railroad, stated they had no objection to the 60 -day
postponement of the hearing to provide time to work on the series of proposals that may resolve this
matter.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 1
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO POSTPONE AGENDA ITEM 3 UNTIL JULY 18, 2000. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO
REVERSE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS 4 AND 5. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Items H and I be removed from the Consent Agenda. Council President
Miller requested Item F be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Hwy 99
JProject (E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
Human (G) APPROVAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT JOB DESCRIPTION
Resources
Asst. Job
Description Item F: Authorization to Purchase a 2000 Ford Crown Victoria for the Police Department from Financial
Consultants International. Inc. ($31,078.07)
Council President Miller advised that the Police Department indicated to him they have not executed a
contract for reimbursement from Stevens Hospital for this vehicle and have requested this item be
removed from the Consent Agenda until that matter was resolved.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO REMOVE ITEM F FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
Purchase of UNANIMOUSLY. The item removed is as follows:
Vehicle —
Removed (F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A 2000 FORD CROWN VICTORIA FOR THE
from POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Agenda
($31,078.07)
Item H: Approval of Reclassification of Court Administrator Position
Councilmember Petso pointed out that the materials provided indicate there were various other positions
that were equally in need of a salary adjustment/reclassification and questioned why this reclassification
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 2
(A)
ROLL CALL
Approve
X25
Minutes
(B)
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2000
Approve
Claim
(C)
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35954 THROUGH #40717 FOR THE WEEK OF
Checks
APRIL 24, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $202,200.91
Claims for
(D)
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JOY DOUGLAS
Damages
DOCTOR (Amount Undetermined), JEANINE BUTLER ($100,000.00 +), AND LOREN
KERR ($3,000.00)
Hwy 99
JProject (E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
Human (G) APPROVAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT JOB DESCRIPTION
Resources
Asst. Job
Description Item F: Authorization to Purchase a 2000 Ford Crown Victoria for the Police Department from Financial
Consultants International. Inc. ($31,078.07)
Council President Miller advised that the Police Department indicated to him they have not executed a
contract for reimbursement from Stevens Hospital for this vehicle and have requested this item be
removed from the Consent Agenda until that matter was resolved.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO REMOVE ITEM F FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
Purchase of UNANIMOUSLY. The item removed is as follows:
Vehicle —
Removed (F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A 2000 FORD CROWN VICTORIA FOR THE
from POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Agenda
($31,078.07)
Item H: Approval of Reclassification of Court Administrator Position
Councilmember Petso pointed out that the materials provided indicate there were various other positions
that were equally in need of a salary adjustment/reclassification and questioned why this reclassification
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 2
should be approved and not the others. She preferred to consider salary adjustments /reclassifications as a
whole, particularly in light of the City's financial situation, rather than considering them one at a time.
She supported the Human Resources Committee's request that salary adjustments /reclassifications be
considered on an annual basis and looked forward to that process in the future.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, FOR
Court APPROVAL OF ITEM H. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED.
Administrator The item approved is as follows:
Reclassifica-
tion (H) APPROVAL OF RECLASSIFICATION OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR POSITION
Item I: Proposed Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Plan Adopted Pursuant to Ordinance Nos 3030
3133 and 3174
Councilmember Petso indicated she would abstain from the vote as at least two of the items in the list
involved intricate, comprehensive Council discussion prior to her election to the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM I. MOTION CARRIED (5 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO
ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
(iv) AMEND THE LAND USE MAPS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
Ord. #3308
(I) PROPOSED ORDINANCES AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NOS. 3030, 3133 AND 3174
Ord. #3305
Sanitary
(i) ORDINANCE NO. 3305 AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
er Comp
UTILITIES ELEMENT, TO ADD A NEW 2000 SANITARY SEWER
ORDINANCE NO. 3308 CHANGING FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (File No. CDC -98 -1)
#3306
MULTI- FAMILY" TO "SINGLE FAMILY" DESIGNATION FOR THE
Bikeway
(ii) ORDINANCE NO. 3306 AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
omp Plan
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, ADOPTING THE 2000 BIKEWAY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (File No. CDC -99 -1)
ulslian xd.
Ord. #3307
AND 10826 KULSHAN ROAD
eadowdale
(iii) ORDINANCE NO. 3307 AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
& Perrinville
Drainage
ADOPT THE MEADOWDALE AND PERRINVILLE DRAINAGE STUDIES AS
Studies
PART OF THE UTILITY SECTION OF THE TEXT (File No. CDC -98 -1)
(iv) AMEND THE LAND USE MAPS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
Ord. #3308
REFLECT THE FOLLOWING (File No. CDC- 98 -1):
Amend Land
Use Map
540, 550, 600 0,
( ) a
ORDINANCE NO. 3308 CHANGING FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY
606 & 612
MULTI- FAMILY" TO "SINGLE FAMILY" DESIGNATION FOR THE
Edmonds way
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 540, 550, 600, 606 & 612 EDMONDS WAY
10826
ulslian xd.
AND 10826 KULSHAN ROAD
Ord. #3309
Amend La nd
m La
( ) b
ORDINANCE NO. 3309 CHANGING FROM "PLANNED BUSINESS" TO
Use Map —
"SINGLE FAMILY" FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 601
601 Edmonds
EDMONDS WAY AND 560 PARADISE LANE
Way & 560
Paradise Lane
(c)
ORDINANCE NO. 3310 CHANGING FROM "MIXED USE
COMMERCIAL" TO "PARKS AND OPEN SPACE" FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 230 2l'1D AVENUE SOUTH
F
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 3
Closed
Record
3. CLOSED RECORD MEETING (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 4 2000) APPEAL OF THE
Meeting —
Wassail
HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION BY
THE CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING DIVISION ON BEHALF OF BURLINGTON
Appeal AP-
00 -26
NORTHERN /SANTA FE RAILROAD FOR REAPPROVAL OF A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 2,000 LINEAR FEET OF
(Fencing on
Sunset Ave.)
TUBULAR METAL SAFETY FENCING RANGING FROM 3 TO 4 FEET IN HEIGHT THE
PROPOSED FENCING WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON TOP OF THE BLUFF WITHIN THE
BURLINGTON NORTHERN /SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PARALLEL TO
SUNSET AVENUE BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY EDMONDS STREET AND CASPERS
STREET. (Appellant: James & Sally Wassall / File No. AP -00 -26 / Applicant: City of Edmonds
Engineering Division & Burlington Northern /Santa Fe Railroad / File No SM 99 176)
This item was postponed until July 18, 2000 (action taken under Agenda Item 1).
Public
Hearing — 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE BN —
Outdoor NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS ZONE (ECDC CHAPTER 16.45.030). THE BC COMMUNITY
Dining BUSINESS ZONE (ECDC CHAPTER 16 50 030), THE CW — COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT
ZONE (ECDC CHAPTER 16.55.030). AND CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE (ECDC
CHAPTER 16.60.030) TO PERMIT LIMITED OUTDOOR DINING AS A PERMITTED USE AND
TO OTHERWISE PERMIT MORE EXTENSIVE OUTDOOR DINING THROUGH A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT formerly Agenda Item 5)
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained that technically outdoor dining was currently not permitted on
private property. He acknowledged many restaurants have outdoor dining most of which occurred in the
past before the code was adopted that prohibited outdoor dining. He also pointed out it was noted in the
downtown visioning process that outdoor activity assisted with providing a vibrant community.
During the Planning Board's review of bistro dining, it was brought to their attention that the existing
code did not permit outdoor dining. He advised the Planning Board's recommendation indicated small
increases in outdoor dining (seasonal) should be a staff decision but `more significant increases (more
than 10% of the indoor seating capacity or more than 8 chairs) would still be a staff decision but require
a Conditional Use Permit. In both instances, the Planning Board felt it was unnecessary to increase the
parking requirements for the property as the seasonal nature would not pose a burden on parking and the
overall purpose of encouraging pedestrian activity outweighed any incidental parking increases.
Mr. Chave referred to the memo from City Attorney Scott Snyder outlining the policy question to be
resolved regarding outdoor dining provisions. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board felt bistro dining was
a direct result of the visioning process and the intent to increase activity in public areas. However,
outdoor dining on private property could occur anywhere on the property, in front of the business, in a
courtyard out of public view, in the rear of the building, etc. For that reason, the Planning Board felt
bistro dining and outdoor dining on private property were two distinctly different situations. Mr.
Snyder's memo poses the possibility of combining the two and outlines situations where it may be
appropriate to consider bistro dining and outdoor dining on private property together.
Councilmember Petso asked if the Planning Board discussed this issue at their May 26 meeting. Mr.
Chave answered yes; the City Attorney's memo was presented to the Planning Board. Following
discussion, the Planning Board unanimously reaffirmed that bistro dining and outdoor dining on private
property were two different situations. Councilmember Petso asked when the minutes from the May 26
Planning Board meeting would be available. Mr. Chave answered they would be available within the
next few days.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 4
Councilmember Orvis clarified the City Attorney's point was that under the Planning Board's version, a
business may choose to obtain an encroachment permit rather than making full use of their existing
courtyard space. Mr. Snyder explained if a restaurant chose to have outdoor seating for nine, under the
Planning Board's recommendation, a CUP would be required if all the seating was provided on their own
property, allowing the City to establish conditions, etc. However, if four seats were on public property
and five on private property, then the CUP process would not be required. He said his memo addressed
both the Planning Board's recommendation (Version A) and a combined approach (Version B).
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the hearing.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, asked what the fee was for a Conditional Use
Permit. He was opposed to imposing any more fees on businesses in the City.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the hearing.
Mr. Snyder advised the schedule of fees was not included in the code book; however, Mr. Chave and he
recalled the fee for a Conditional Use Permit was approximately $250.
Councilmember Petso suggested either delaying action until the minutes of the May 26 Planning Board
meeting were available or adopting the Planning Board's version of the ordinance.
Councilmember Orvis suggested amending the ordinance to raise the threshold for a CUP.
Council President Miller shared Councilmember Petso's desire to review the Planning Board's minutes
prior to taking action.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO
CONTINUE DELIBERATION TO MAY 16, 2000. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Public 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND
Hearing- EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTER 20.60 REGARDING
Regulate THE REGULATION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD
Temporary
Signage REGULATE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE BASED ON ZONING CLASSIFICATION , ON WHETHER
THE SIGNAGE IS ON -OR- OFF -SITE. AND ON WHETHER THE SIGNAGE IS FOR
COMMERCIAL OR NON - COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (formerly Agenda Item 4)
Planning Manager Rob Chave recalled the Council held a work session regarding this item a few weeks
ago. He explained the proposal was to modify how the ECDC regulates temporary signs and emphasized
the regulations regarding permanent signs were not being changed. He explained that until now,
temporary signs were regulated by type, such as for sale, campaign, going out of business, etc. However,
State law no longer allows signage to be regulated based on content. The proposal differentiates types of
signage and where they occur such as commercial versus non - commercial speech and whether the sign
was located on or off site. He commented the proposed code was more flexible than the existing
regulations. For example, sandwich boards were not currently allowed on sidewalks in the downtown
business district; this code would allow them. The proposed code would not allow off -site sandwich
boards downtown, only signs in front of a business and an encroachment permit would be required.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 5
Mr. Chave explained the proposed ordinance would still allow campaign signs and not establish
additional requirements for campaign signs. The proposed ordinance would allow real estate for sale
signs in the public right -of -way that technically were not permitted under the existing code. Further,
private property owners would maintain the ability to display small, personal signage on their property.
Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board held a number of workshops, open houses and public hearings but
obtained very limited input. The Planning Board also met with the Architectural Design Board to review
the sign regulations. The City of Bothell undertook a similar review and Edmonds benefited from the
input they obtained as both cities' sign codes were reviewed by City Attorney Michael Karber.
Mr. Chave reviewed revisions Mr. Karber made to the proposed ordinance following the Council's
review including deleting references to sign registration, ensuring the campaign and real estate sign
sections were consistent with encroachment permit requirements already in the code, and increasing the
size of a temporary sign on premises and in residential zones from 4 square feet to 6 square feet.
City Attorney Scott Snyder referred to Section 20.60.020(C), explaining "street use permit" had been
changed to "encroachment permit" due to a recent change in the City's ordinances. He referred to
Section 20.60.080(C)(9)(f), explaining Mr. Karber believed this referred to the landscaped planting strip.
However, his intent had been the planter boxes in downtown and gardens. Mr. Snyder recommended the
paragraph be revised to read, "Off- premises signs shall not be posted upon public property other than the
public right -of -way, and shall further not be posted upon the up blic landscaped portions of the public
right -of -way in "
Mr. Chave commented the Planning Board's recommendation was in code language format and an
ordinance would be prepared for adoption.
Councilmember Petso reiterated her concern with the reference in Section 20.60.060(B)(1) to Section
20.60.080(B)(10), which did not exist.
Councilmember Petso referred to Section 20.60.060(3) that appeared to imply a street use permit would
be required for off - premise campaign signs in the right -of -way. Mr. Snyder agreed.
Councilmember Orvis referred to Section 20.60.060(D) and suggested eliminating the paragraph or
establishing a more appropriate time period such as upon declaration of candidacy. Mr. Snyder
reminded that first amendment rights allowed any sign to be displayed on private property. He explained
the current ordinance implied that a campaign sign could not be displayed until it was an issue in a
current election. He recommended selecting a date from the State statute or not including a date.
Councilmember White asked if the City could regulate posting of campaign signs prior to a candidate
registering. Mr. Snyder answered only in the public right -of -way, but not on private property. He
commented the intent was to address "year -round candidates."
Mayor Haakenson said that from the Public Disclosure Commission's (PDC) standpoint, a public
announcement of intent to run for office was the same as registration. 'Mr. Snyder agreed, pointing out a
public announcement triggered a candidates' obligation to file with the PDC.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out filing with the PDC (which could be done in January) and
registering for candidacy (which was done in late June) were two different things. He said the Tacoma
case indicated campaign signs could be placed in the public right -of -way without a time limit other than
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 6
removal 10 days after the election. However, the proposed ordinance appeared to restrict signs in the
public right -of -way. Mr. Snyder replied the City's current ordinance refers to the Tacoma case, "signs
are limited to information about a candidate, political party or public issue involved in a current election
campaign." As this language was very general, he said the intent was to establish a date such as
registration or certification. He commented the reference to "upon registration or certification" was
likely the limit of enforceability.
Councilmember Plunkett supported Councilmember Orvis' suggestion regarding "declaration of
candidacy." Councilmember Plunkett said his understanding was the Tacoma case allowed signs in the
public right -of -way with no restrictions. Mr. Snyder said reasonable restrictions were allowed;
Tacoma's ordinance was deemed to be too restrictive regarding a time frame. He agreed to research
references to State statutory provisions regarding declaration of candidacy.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the hearing.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, recalled the PDC recommended a Public Disclosure
Commission be appointed in Edmonds. He disagreed with charging businesses $250 for a permit to
display a sign in front of their store.
Jeff Scobal, 10527 243' Place SW, Edmonds, supported regulating political signs, commenting they
constituted "urban blight." He recommended display of campaign signs be restricted to 45 days before
the election.
Shari Nault, 19501 West 80`h, Edmonds, applauded the City for considering the sign ordinance. She
pointed out Edmonds had been selected, for the eighth year, as the Friendliest City and the sign
ordinance reflected that.
Fair Cuter, 537 Main Street, Edmonds, owner of Just Frogs Toads Too, said her store and two others
were further away from the pedestrian area of Main Street and displaying an A -board sign in the
sidewalk area in front of their businesses allowed them to attract customers from the gazebo area. She
said her store, Main Street Gallery and the new antique store were the only ones with A -board signs that
were visible from the crossing of Main and 5h. She requested their signs be allowed under a grandfather
clause until kiosks were built or a walking map produced. She supported the requirement for an
encroachment permit.
Mr. Chave advised the one -time fee for an encroachment permit was $150.
In response to Mr. Rutledge's comments, Mr. Snyder advised the City previously had its own registration
requirements which were removed approximately six years ago as the Council felt maintaining duplicate
filings was unnecessary. In response to Ms. Cuter's comments, he explained the City could not regulate
first amendment speech more stringently than free speech. If the City permitted off - premise signs in the
downtown area for businesses, it opened the door for political signs as well.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
hearing.
Councilmember Davis observed a number of businesses currently utilized illegal sandwich board signs.
He clarified in order for them to display such a sign, they must obtain an encroachment permit and the
sign must meet size requirements. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Davis asked whether sandwich
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 7
board signs would be picked -up if a business did not obtain an encroachment permit. Mr. Chave
answered the City did enforcement on a complaint basis, commenting complaints regarding sandwich
board signs have been received in the past. He said the intent was to strictly enforce the rules once they
were established.
Mr. Snyder said if the City did not enforce illegally displayed A -board signs, it ran the risk of opening
the downtown area to campaign A -board signs as well. Mr. Chave commented as City employees were
on the streets, they could advise business owners of the need to obtain an encroachment permit.
Councilmember Petso asked if staff had informed merchants outside the downtown area, such as Firdale
Village or strip malls on SR104, of the public hearing. She commented that although most of the
discussion had been regarding the downtown area, many merchants in Firdale Village and the Westgate
corridor used A -frame signs to attract customers. Mr. Chave answered merchants were invited to open
houses and there was a front -page article in The Edmonds Paper prior to this public hearing. Mr. Snyder
said if that was a concern, consideration should be given to maximum allowable sign area, which was
regulated by the ADB. If merchants needed additional signage, placing it higher was more appropriate.
He said a low A -board sign on a highway was not the best method.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
Council President Miller supported the requirement for an encroachment permit. He shared Mr. Scobal's
opinion regarding campaign signs and suggested a 30 -day restriction for political signs.
Councilmember White supported establishing a more stringent time frame for posting political signs
rather than removing the time frame from the ordinance and felt 45 days was appropriate.
Councilmember Petso agreed she did not like political signs but said if they did not work or appear to
work, candidates would not post them. Likewise, businesses displayed sandwich board signs because
they draw customers and increase their business. She said the same must apply to political signs and
suggested if one was angered by a candidate's signs, not to vote for the person displaying the sign. She
questioned whether it was the City's responsibility to regulate political signs.
Councilmember Orvis agreed with Councilmember Petso. As a candidate challenging an incumbent, he
said name recognition was an important part of a campaign and a challenger to an incumbent usually had
to work hard on name recognition. He was reluctant to put restrictions on a candidate who was trying to
make a change by running for election.
Councilmember Plunkett supported some restrictions on campaign signs; commenting a 30 -day period
appeared to be an "incumbent protection plan" due to the need to establish name recognition. He
supported a 30 -60 day time period.
Councilmember Davis agreed a time frame was appropriate and supported a time frame between 30 and
60 days.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR APPROVAL ON
THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20.60.045(3) ESTABLISHING
A TIME PERIOD OF 45. DAYS AS WELL AS THE CHANGES OUTLINED BY STAFF.
Mr. Snyder said he would research the minimum permissible time period
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 8
Councilmember White stressed the need to examine the time period issue to avoid creating an ordinance
that would draw the City into court. Mr. Snyder agreed.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder advised the ordinance would be accompanied by a memo regarding the Tacoma case.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Fencing on Senator Paull Shin advised he has been in contact with the Washington Utilities and Transportation
sunset Ave. Commission regarding the Sunset Avenue fence and has received a great deal of correspondence
expressing dissatisfaction with this issue. He understood that item had been postponed (Agenda Item #3)
and indicated he would return on July 18.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation to Senator Shin for attending tonight's meeting as well as
his vote to pass on $222,000 to the City in 2000 and $444,000 in 2001. Senator Shin apologized for the
lengthy Legislative session, commenting it had been a difficult session in light of I -695. Mayor
Haakenson advised it was hoped the July 18 hearing could be avoided by eliminating the fence via
discussions with WUTC. Mr. Shin said the 2,000 -foot fence destroyed the beautiful landscape.
Audio /Visual Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, recalled the Council discussed audio /visual
Equipment for equipment for the new Council Chambers at their last meeting. He described equipment the City of
New Council
ambers Seattle has , including the ability to obtain a tap e immediately following a meeting. He su gg ested the
City utilize a portion of the $222,000 to fund the audio /visual equipment. He also suggested the City
record and televise other City meetings.
Councilmember White commented on how significant and progressive the sign ordinance was. He
explained as a result, campaign signs would not be displayed until July 29. He agreed the signs were a
"blight" but explained the necessity for candidates to erect signs.
( Councilmember White left the meeting at 8:15 p.m.)
Fire �• REPORT ON FIRE CONSOLIDATION EFFORTS
Consolida-
tion Mayor Haakenson explained Councilmembers White and Plunkett, Fire Chief Tom Tomberg, Human
Resources Director Brent Hunter, Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler, and he have been
involved in discussions with other cities in South County regarding consolidation of fire and medic
services into one department. He advised tonight's report would be a brief update of today's
consolidation meeting and a full report with documentation would be provided to the Council in two
weeks.
Fire Chief Tom Tomberg explained the most recent attempt to integrate fire and emergency medical
services (EMS) was the seventh such effort since 1984. Previous efforts have involved various
combinations of the cities of Brier, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Woodway and Fire District 1 /11. He
said the last attempt involving Edmonds ended on March 2, 1999, when the Council voted (6 -1) to
withdraw from the consolidation effort, pay the bills associated with the study that were due and payable,
and move forward with hiring a new Fire Chief.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 9
Chief Tomberg explained the most recent attempt at consolidation began when Mountlake Terrace
announced they would be forced to withdraw from the Medic 7 Consortium (a board consisting of
representatives from Brier, Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Woodway) due to I -695
shortfalls. He said Mountlake Terrace's withdrawal would leave the remaining cities two choices, 1)
absorb the approximately $313,000 Mountlake Terrace paid, or 2) select another method of delivering
advanced life support (ALS) services. Mountlake Terrace's decision to exit Medic 7 must be presented
to the Board by July 1, 2000 to be effective January 1, 2001. The City of Lynnwood offered to be the
provider city/lead agency in the latest attempt to integrate fire and EMS. The integration plan discussed
by fire, labor and management, and that was being reviewed by Human Resources and Finance Directors,
was Lynnwood's plan. Lynnwood was the vendor /seller and Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds, Woodway
and Brier and Medic 7 Consortium Board were the potential "buyers."
Chief Tomberg said the Edmonds Fire Management and Labor group have attended approximately 20
multi- agency meetings since February and have been involved in numerous other discussions to develop
the plan being presented. He said Human Resources and Finance were asked to accomplish a great deal
in a short amount of time and both reports were finalized at today's meeting. He said Mountlake
Terrace, via legislative action, received approximately two - thirds of their I -695 funding which
considerably diminished the urgency that drove the initial process. He said Mountlake Terrace
representatives made a new proposal at today's meeting. He said the full report to be made to the
Council in two weeks would address this new proposal.
Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler commented this presentation had many unanswered
financial questions. She reiterated the timelines were originally driven by Mountlake Terrace's need to
give notice to Medic 7. The plan was not presented to finance departments until mid - April, providing
only ten working days to cost out some very complex issues. She said tonight's presentation included a
number of "holes" but that was unavoidable with the timeframe provided. Nevertheless, she explained it
was clear the proposal made by the City of Lynnwood did not result in any savings to any entity
involved.
Ms. Hetzler explained the three area Finance Directors met with the Fire Consolidation work group in
mid -April and were asked to develop costs for two scenarios, 1) the current minimum staffing level, and
2) the recommended minimum staffing level. She clarified the work group indicated the positions they
wanted, the number of staff in each position and asked how much it would cost. She said no
consideration was given to operational issues, station relocation or changes in service delivery patterns,
they were only asked to cost out the staffing levels for each entity. She explained under the current
minimum staffing level, the four combined entities would have 125.75 employees; currently the four
entities combined have 127.25 authorized positions. She explained the difference in the number of
employees (1.5) was the elimination of the Mountlake Terrace Fire Chief position (which is currently
vacant) and the halftime Medic 7 Director. She explained the proposal includes three battalion chiefs
(which no entity has in place now) and 16 paramedics from Medic 7.
Ms. Hetzler explained the recommended minimum staffing levels include the addition of five captains,
three firefighters and one halftime clerical support.
Ms. Hetzler said Finance was asked to cost out each city's authorized FTE's according to the Lynnwood
pay scale. She displayed a list illustrating each city's existing fire service and Medic 7 contribution,
inflated by Lynnwood's pay scale. She explained Edmonds' current budget was $4,527,000 and the
restated budget, at Lynnwood's pay scale, would be $4,592,000. She displayed a chart illustrating the
current minimum staffing level based on a formula of 1) assessed valuation (25 %), population (25 %) and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 10
calls (50 %); 2) average valuation (50 %) and population (50 %); and 3) only assessed valuation. She
pointed out Edmonds' allocation based on the first formula was $4,592,000, the same as the restated
budget. Based on the second formula, Edmonds' cost would be $4,980,000. Edmonds' allocation based
on the third formula was $5,197,000. She clarified this information was only the cost of merging
personnel with Lynnwood as the contracting city. As payroll costs comprise 80% of the fire service
budget, no attempt was made to quantify any savings in supplies, professional services, etc.
Ms. Hetzler displayed a chart illustrating the staffing levels recommended by the professionals making
the proposal (eight additional employees) including each entities' current budget restated at Lynnwood's
pay scale and the same cost allocation formulas (assessed valuation/population /call volume, assessed
valuation/population, and assessed valuation). She pointed out Edmonds' allocation for the
recommended staffing levels would be approximately $270,000 more due to the inclusion of the eight
additional employees. She displayed the impact to the City's allocation for the three formulas, noting
there would be a significant increase to the City depending on which cost allocation formula was used.
Ms. Hetzler stressed there were other financial issues that had not yet been considered including payroll
liabilities (estimated at $470,000), training costs to cross -train personnel ($100,000 per employee), labor
contract negotiations ($12,000), LEOFF liability (not yet quantified), MEBT /401A (not yet quantified,
additional information required), legal fees (not yet quantified, additional information required),
office /communication setup (not yet quantified, additional information required), Medic 7 /LEOFF
conversion (not yet quantified, additional information required), uniforms /logs /signage (not yet
quantified, additional information required), and facilities /equipment (not yet quantified).
Ms. Hetzler summarized Finance was unable to identify a cost savings or distinct benefit to the City from
consolidation as currently proposed.
Human Resources Director Brent Hunter commented this was primarily a finance- driven study and the
consideration was primarily given to personnel costs. He said although the City could make
consolidation work, he questioned whether enough study had been done. He pointed out the additional
time and expense that would be needed to negotiate collective bargaining agreements associated with
consolidation. He said Edmonds firefighters indicated MEBT as an initial "deal breaker" as Lynnwood
did not have the MEBT program enjoyed by Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace firefighters. Lynnwood
indicated they believe they could match the MEBT program but sufficient information has not yet been
provided. Regarding unfunded liabilities, he pointed out the figures used by Finance were based on
assumptions the Finance Directors made but that had not negotiated with the unions. For example, the
assumption that unfunded liabilities would be paid at the same rate as retirement; he indicated the union
was interested in 100% transfer on liabilities which could easily double the costs indicted.
Mr. Hunter pointed out if the size of the Fire Department increased, salaries would be compared with
larger fire departments. He commented there was a larger fire department north of the City that was one
of the best paid in the State. Based on their proximity, they likely would be one the consolidated fire
department would be compared to. He summarized there had not been adequate time to consider costs
during this study and the costs that have been identified did not indicate there would be much benefit to
Edmonds.
Mayor Haakenson commented that the initial financial decision paper indicated consolidation would cost
the City $400,000 more than the current fire and emergency service. He said this item was delayed last
week due to the cancellation of the Fire Consolidation meeting. A new financial decision paper was
provided this week that indicated the cost increase to Edmonds would be $200,000. In order to provide
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 11
staff an opportunity to review the information further, a full report would be provided to the Council in
two weeks.
8. UPDATE ON IMPACTS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Endangered
Species Act
Mayor Haakenson commented this would be the last update on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that
Jeff Wilson of the Planning Division would provide, as he would be leaving the City's employ. Mayor
Haakenson advised Mr. Wilson he would miss the hard work and knowledge he has provided over the
years.
Mr. Wilson noted that Councilmember Earling and the Finance Committee have considered what
potential costs the City may incur with the implementation of the ESA. He said there were two
somewhat unknown elements of the ESA, 1) efforts of the Tri -County proposal to craft language
regarding acceptable limitations on take that the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) would find
acceptable, and 2) NMFS issuance of the 4(d) rule that outlines limitations on the prohibitions of take.
He explained NMFS plans to issue the 4(d) rule in June. It was initially planned that the 4(d) rule would
be implemented immediately upon issuance; however, NMFS may adopt the rules in June and delay
implementation until fall or later to allow jurisdictions to catch up. He said this would allow the City
additional time to review the rules and determine the costs to the City.
Mr. Wilson said implementation of the 4(d) rule may be delayed to allow additional work on the Tri -
County agreement. He explained the 4(d) rule prohibits taking of habitat, damage to spawning grounds,
causing the death of fish, or having any negative affect on fish with the exception of certain limitations in
accordance with the 4(d) rule. He explained the 4(d) rule would require the City to follow much broader
standards and requirements including more prohibitions, thus incur higher costs. The Tri -County
proposal would broaden those exceptions to allow some of the normal items such as road maintenance,
land use planning to occur as exceptions to the 4(d) rule. This would provide greater flexibility to
jurisdictions and reduce the liability exposure. He said there had not been a great deal of information
provided thus far; he supported "planning for the worst" (adoption of the federal 4(d) rule) and not
assuming a Tri -County agreement would be established.
Mr. Wilson referred to a memorandum from the City of Renton that held a meeting recently with all
King County jurisdictions to discuss the potential implications of the federal 4(d) rule. He read from the
Renton memo "we are particularly concerned about two elements of the Tri -County 4(d) rule framework.
One is the proposed 200 -foot management zones around streams and water bodies which would have a
significant impact on development activities in local jurisdictions (and in some cases on the ability of
jurisdictions to implement the land use elements of the Comprehensive Plans)." He explained if
development around stream corridors was restricted within 200 feet and jurisdictions were not allowed to
use that land as intended in the Comprehensive Plan, cities may not be able to meet their population or
employment targets and a larger planning effort may be necessary to update the Comprehensive Plan to
reallocate population/employment to other areas of the City. Another concern expressed in the Renton
memo was, "the apparent Tri - County assumption that local governments will take the lead in restoration
planning and assume liability for regulatory compliance of private development (this seems to require
local jurisdictions to be more proactive and to take on more liability than the ESA law requires)."
Mr. Wilson summarized this was a very large, difficult issue. One of the reasons Edmonds has not been
able to follow it as closely as other larger jurisdictions has been lack of resources and the lack of
expertise that larger jurisdictions may have. He indicated the packet included preliminary assumptions
of costs that may be associated with the ESA including possible annual costs and one -time costs. He said
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 12
1
annual costs were estimated in the range of $1.5 million although there were also a number of unknowns
such as legal fees. One -time costs were estimated to be slightly less than $1 million. One -time costs
would include updates to plans, hiring technical expertise to do mapping, etc.
Mr. Wilson explained there were three phases under the Tri- County proposal. The first two years allow
jurisdictions to review, analyze and evaluate the current regulations to determine what needs to be
updated/amended. Regulations would be amended during the subsequent three years. The final phase
would be however long it takes the species to recover.
Mr. Wilson emphasized there were more questions than answers. There will be significant costs but they
are still unknown until final direction is issued by NMFS and the success (or lack of success) of the Tri-
County agreement is known. He said there was a possibility for the City not to participate in the Tri-
County agreement but a decision would need to be made regarding which would have a greater cost
impact.
Council President Miller asked how the costs would be spread out. Mr. Wilson answered one -time costs
would be up -front, set -up costs that would be incurred in the first 1 -3 years. The annual costs would be
incurred on an annual basis until the species was removed from the endangered list. He said it was
unlikely the endangered list would be shortened, it likely would be expanded. He said the City was not
significantly impacted by the species that are listed currently but expanding the list would have a greater
impact on Edmonds.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to work with Mr. Wilson over
the last few years, commenting he was always very articulate, knowledgeable and precise.
Councilmember Plunkett said the people of Edmonds and the Council would miss him.
9. MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
10. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Petso advised she took five 9 -11 year -olds from Edmonds to the National Chess
Championship in San Jose, California. In addition to winning five individual awards, they also won a
National Championship trophy.
Student Representative Maia Krause said freshmen and sophomores spent the last week taking the
WASL test.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
,erARY H KENSON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 2, 2000
Page 13
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 p.m.
MAY 2, 2000
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 APRIL 25, 2000
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35954 THROUGH #40717 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 24, 2000, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $202,200.91
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JOY DOUGLAS DOCTOR (Amount
Undetermined), JEANINE BUTLER ($100,000.00 +), AND LOREN KERR ($3,000.00)
(E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
(F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A 2000 FORD CROWN VICTORIA FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
FROM FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ($31,078.07)
(G) APPROVAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT JOB DESCRIPTION
(H) APPROVAL OF RECLASSIFICATION OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR POSITION
(1) PROPOSED ORDINANCES AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE NOS. 3030, 3133 AND 3174:
(i) AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UTILITIES ELEMENT, TO ADD A NEW 2000 SANITARY
SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (File No. CDC -98 -1)
(ii) AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, ADOPTING 2000 BIKEWAY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (File No. CDC -99 -1)
(iii) AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE MEADOWDALE AND PERRINVILLE
DRAINAGE STUDIES AS PART OF THE UTILITY SECTION OF THE TEXT (File No. CDC -98 -1)
(iv) AMEND THE LAND USE MAPS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REFLECT THE
FOLLOWING (File No. CDC- 98 -1):
(a) CHANGE, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI- FAMILY" TO "SINGLE FAMILY"
DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 540, 550, 600, 606 & 612
EDMONDS WAY AND 10826 KULSHAN ROAD
(b) CHANGE FROM "PLANNED BUSINESS" TO "SINGLE FAMILY" FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 601 EDMONDS WAY AND 560 PARADISE LANE
(c) CHANGE FROM "MIXED USE COMMERCIAL" TO "PARKS AND OPEN SPACE" FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 230 2ND AVENUE SOUTH
Page 1 of 2
�.J
I.
1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MAY 2, 2000
Page 2 of 2
(75 Min.) CLOSED RECORD MEETING (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 4, 2000) — APPEAL OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S DECISION GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
ENGINEERING DIVISION ON BEHALF OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN /SANTA FE RAILROAD FOR
REAPPROVAL OF A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
APPROXIMATELY 2,000 LINEAR FEET OF TUBULAR METAL SAFETY FENCING RANGING FROM 3
TO 4 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE PROPOSED FENCING WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON TOP OF THE BLUFF
WITHIN THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN /SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY PARALLEL TO
SUNSET AVENUE BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY EDMONDS STREET AND CASPERS STREET.
(Appellant: James & Sally Wassail / File No. AP -00 -26 / Applicant: City of Edmonds Engineering
Division & Burlington Northern /Santa Fe Railroad / File No. SM -99- 176) ' *Please note Arr addiftoraal
request f6r tontmaance nding'"
4. (40 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTER 20.60 REGARDING THE REGULATION OF
TEMPORARY SIGNS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD REGULATE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE
BASED ON ZONING CLASSIFICATION, ON WHETHER THE SIGNAGE IS ON -OR- OFF -SITE, AND ON
WHETHER THE SIGNAGE IS FOR COMMERCIAL OR NON - COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
5. (20 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE BN —
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS ZONE (ECDC CHAPTER 16.45.030), THE BC — COMMUNITY BUSINESS
ZONE (ECDC CHAPTER 16.50.030), THE CW — COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT ZONE (ECDC CHAPTER
16.55.030), AND CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE (ECDC CHAPTER 16.60.030) TO PERMIT
LIMITED OUTDOOR DINING AS A PERMITTED USE, AND TO OTHERWISE PERMIT MORE
EXTENSIVE OUTDOOR DINING THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
7. (30 Min.) REPORT ON FIRE CONSOLIDATION EFFORTS
8. (15 Min.) UPDATE ON IMPACTS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
9. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
10. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance
notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46. Delayed telecast of this meeting
appears the following Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46