Loading...
10/23/2001 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES October 23, 2001 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Richard Marin, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Meredith Storey, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Greg Wean, Assistant Police Chief Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Serv. Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Mike Stark, Information Services Coordinator Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA hange to COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, genda TO ADD A TEN-MINUTE EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL ISSUE TO THE AGENDA AS ITEM 11. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Plunkett asked that Item E be removed. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 1 Ul (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #51344 THROUGH #51494 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 15, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $253,302.41. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #3371 THROUGH #3464 FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 15, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $799,427.01 Liquor ontrol (D) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF oard THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD ransporta- ion Element (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT date WITH BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF (BWR) FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2001 Councilmember Petso advised she submitted corrections to City Clerk Sandy Chase regarding paragraph 6 on page 4 of the minutes. The minutes state she was concerned the Council action may be violating the Growth Management Act (GMA) but in fact her concern was violating prior interpretations of GMA. [The paragraph in the minutes was revised to read: Councilmember Petso reiterated her concern with this action, recalling that the City had previously interpreted the GMA to required that the City to place a dwelling unit on "every single square inch of property in this town," but this action ignored GMA the interpretation in favor of allowing an adjacent business to be expanded.] pprove f COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, FOR as APPROVAL OF ITEM B AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item d approved is as follows: (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 Item E: Quarterly Report Regarding Grants Councilmember Plunkett commented the report did not indicate whether there had been improvement/decline in grants compared to last year. City Engineer Dave Gebert responded the report was intended to show activity and reported on a rolling 12-month period. He offered to provide some comparison with the previous year. Quarterly Report COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR Regarding APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved pproved is as follows: (E) QUARTERLY REPORT REGARDING GRANTS Mayor Haakenson wished City Clerk Sandy Chase a happy birthday. Swearing -in 3. SWEARING -IN OF CHIEF OF POLICE DAVID STERN (Reception Following) f Chief of Police David Stem Mayor Haakenson described the selection process, explaining along with him the following team participated in the selection: Councilmember Miller, Judge Ryan, Fire Chief Tom Tomberg, Acting Police Chief Greg Wean, Police Union Representative Steve Harbinson, Police Foundation Representative Tom Snyder, Chamber of Commerce representative Stan Dickinson, and Human Resources Director Brent Hunter. Nine candidates were interviewed of approximately 35-40 who applied for the position of Edmonds Chief of Police. From the original nine candidates, the interview team recommended three finalists who were interviewed by the City Council on September 17. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 2 Following those interviews, he appointed, and the Council confirmed the appointment of David Stern. Tonight would be the formal swearing -in of Chief Stern followed by a brief reception. Mayor Haakenson described Chief Stem's educational background and 30 years experience in law enforcement, including 20 years in Santa Maria where he was a Police Division Commander and also served as Acting Chief during that time. Santa Maria Police Department has 127 fulltime employees, 90 sworn officers, and an $11.4 million budget. The City's resident population is 80,000 with significantly more population in the surrounding county. He's married with two grown children. Mayor Haakenson swore in Chief Stern as Chief of Police and Chief Stern read and signed the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. Chief Stern commented it was nice to have a chance to reread the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, recalling he was required to memorize it while at the Police Academy in 1968. He commented the Code of Ethics was just as valid today as it was then, and truly says what law enforcement was all about. He looked forward to serving the community and working with elected and appointed officials, community members, and most importantly, members of the Police Department. He thanked the Council for their trust and confidence and stated his intent to live up to every word. Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council meeting for a brief reception in Chief Stem's honor. Library 4. ANNUAL REPORT BY THE LIBRARY BOARD Board Annual Parks and Recreation Director Avilla Ohlde introduced the Chair of the Libra Board Barbara Chase Report Library > > who introduced the other Library Board members, Beverly Kaufman, Linda Hughes, Charlie LaNasa, and John Pryor. Ms. Chase reported financing the library had been a concern to the City and the Library Board for several years. Due to the financial challenges, the Board considered many possibilities including a Levy Lid Lift. After much consideration, the Board made a decision to support annexation to the Sno-Isle Regional Library System. The Board acknowledged this was a new tax but determined stabilization of funding was important for the future of the library. The "Yes For The Edmonds Library Committee" was formed and solicited endorsements and donations for the cost of newspaper ads and mailings. Board members wrote letters to the newspaper informing citizens about annexation and attended Town Hall meetings and City Council meetings to address concerns regarding annexation. The committee members also telephoned voters urging them to vote in favor of annexation in the May 18 election. Voters passed N annexation by a substantial majority. An important component of annexation was an agreement between the City and Sno-Isle to establish benefits for the library such as expanded hours on Sundays during the summer, assistance with funding a new library roof, and establishing a reserve fund to finance future library improvements. The Library Board will be responsible for monitoring the progress of this agreement. Ms. Chase advised she attended the Sno-Isle Board meeting where she was assured the reserve fund would be a separate fund dedicated to the Edmonds Library. Ms. Chase briefly reported on the progress of repairing the library roof, advising the project was scheduled for completion in 2003. She reported on personnel changes in the Library Board including Bob Freeman who resigned to become Trustee for the Sno-Isle Regional Library System and Donna Phillips who completed her term. She noted there were numerous applicants for the Library Board positions and the Board selected John Pryor and Charles LaNasa. She described other changes in library personnel including a new children's librarian, Edith Farar. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 3 Ms. Chase referred to concerns that have arisen with filtering the Internet. Boardmembers attended a Sno-Isle Board meeting as well as a local meeting where citizens expressed concern with content on the Internet, particularly children's exposure to inappropriate pictures and content. Federal law has been passed to require filtering if libraries receive E-rate funding. This law is currently being reviewed in the court. After much debate Sno-Isle made a decision to filter the Internet for all patrons under the age of 18; unfiltered Internet may be provided at parents' request. Adults will have access to unfiltered Internet unless they request filtered. The District has also initiated a policy of reserving time on the Internet, allowing patrons to reserve up to two hours per day. Ms. Chase reported the City's Special Library Fund had an ending cash balance of approximately $1,300. Decisions regarding the use of these funds will be made after library needs are reviewed. Ms. Chase reported on Friends of the Edmonds Library, including the book sale on Saturday, October 27. Funds from the sale finance scholarships, children's programs, the fish tank and other items. The Friends of the Edmonds Library donated funds for the "Yes For the Edmonds Library Committee" and their members are enthusiastic supporters of the Edmonds Library. Ms. Chase reported many representatives of the Sno-Isle Regional Library attend Library Board meetings and Sno-Isle Director Art Weeks gave a presentation recently regarding potential impacts on library services from I-747, an initiative that would restrict property tax increases to 1 % per year. Sno-Isle Library has prepared a budget, which the Library Board is in the process of reviewing. Ms. Chase summarized the Library Board was willing and able to work with the Council and Mayor on issues and concerns with regard to the library. Evie Wilson Lingbloom, Edmonds Librarian, recalled when computers were installed in libraries, there was concern that patrons would stop visiting the library for books, particularly since databases could be accessed online. For a few years, circulation dropped and then for no apparent reason the decline stopped in February 2001 and circulation has begun a gradual trend of increasing. She surmised many people used the library online to reserve books and the amount of material on the library's hold shelves has increased. She noted that although circulation declined, attendance at the library had not. Ms. Wilson Lingbloom reported on the Youth Task Force who submitted a report to the Council and Planning Committee with a list of recommendations. Due to her interest in the library being a vibrant part of the community and being responsive to the community, she planned to present the recommendations to the Edmonds Library staff to discuss ways to be responsive to those recommendations. She planned to report to the Council next year what the library had done to implement those recommendations. Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether there were any issues to be addressed at the time annexation became effective January 1, 2002. Ms. Chase said her primary concern was the reserve fund, the annexation would occur automatically with no further action from the Library Board. Ms. Wilson Lingbloom said in addition to the Sunday hours and the commitment to participate in the roofing project, Sno-Isle has budgeted to provide the Edmonds Library with a new circulation desk in 2002. The current desk was constructed 20 years ago when the library was built and was not designed for current technology. The new desk would be more efficient and allow the addition of more technology. Mayor Haakenson expressed his thanks to the Library Board for the volunteer efforts. etery 5. ANNUAL REPORT BY THE CEMETERY BOARD d ual ort Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde next introduced Cemetery Board Chair Greg Sarvis. Mr. Sarvis introduced board members Dorothy Williamson, Bob Stevenson, Esther Sellers, Dale Hoggins, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 4 Marvene McGinness, Rosemary Specht, and Bobbie Sherman and Cemetery Sexton Cliff Edwards. He expressed the Board's appreciation for the assistance of Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde, Sexton Cliff Edwards, and Parks Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay. Mr. Sarvis provided a brief history regarding the cemetery such as the donation of the 5-acre site in 1891. In 1972 the once neglected cemetery was listed on the Washington State Registry for Historical Places. The present cemetery became City -owned in 1982 when businessman Larry Hubbard purchased and gifted the site via the Hubbard Trust to the City. The Hubbard Trust and key capital improvements are significant factors in the cemetery restoration. Mr. Sarvis explained the cemetery created cash flow and sales from lots, burials, equipment fees, niche and marker setting fees and various services performed by Mr. Edwards. He explained a major undertaking in 1996 provided a well and a complete self-contained irrigation system. Mr. Sarvis described activities at the cemetery including the Plots of History exhibit by the Edmonds Historical Museum, Memorial Day event, the display of over 400 flags on Veterans Day for veterans buried in the cemetery, and the I Ph annual open house. He described ongoing projects including updating cemetery records and pursuing the unclaimed plots program to reclaim abandoned gravesites that are without known owners. A major project this year was the replacement of the fence on the northwest perimeter. Future challenges include exploring new possibilities for memorial spaces and a variety of burial space options and revenues. Mr. Sarvis advised a cemetery Master Plan will be presented to the Council on November 5, explaining the Master Plan would aid in directing planning and design to retain the uniqueness of the grounds and preserve future planning integrity. The adopted Master Plan would assist with addressing general landscaping, vehicular circulation, shoulder parking, plaza gatherings, water features, courtyard spaces, and costs and choices with protecting future revenue producing possibilities. The Board is currently reviewing shrubbery planting options to provide a natural buffer from the new fast food neighbor adjacent to the property along Edmonds Way. He advised the budget, which reflected maintenance and upkeep, and projected purchases had been reviewed and accepted by the Board. He noted market trends predict cremation internment will represent 90% of the sales market and the board must project to meet the needs of that market place. Mr. Sarvis described the response to the Mayor's request to display flags at the cemetery memorial park following the events of September 11. He noted flowers placed around the fountain were transported to the cemetery and further memorialized the World Trade Center, Pennsylvania, and Pentagon tragedies. Mr. Sarvis summarized history played a grand role in shaping the community. The history that created this marvelous memorial park progressed due to a common interest among board members, the City Council, Mayor and private individuals, a shared common willingness to accomplish and cooperate. He expressed his appreciation for the support and representation from the City Council, Mayor, Parks and Recreation Department, and Sexton Cliff Edwards. Council President Earling encouraged the Cemetery Board to remind the community of improvements made to the decrepit condition the cemetery was in before the Hubbard Trust rejuvenated the cemetery. He suggested the Board approach the press with a suggestion for a contrast of the before and after of the cemetery. Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation for the Board's volunteer efforts. He also expressed his appreciation to Mr. Edwards for his efforts to maintain the cemetery and for displaying flags following the tragic events of September 11`h Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 5 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS nds of Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, representing the Friends of the Edmonds Library, Lib rary ookSp Y, P invited the public and Council to the book sale on Saturday, October 27 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 m. at the Anderson Center. Planned Terry Hanna, 6920 172"d Street SW, Edmonds, referred to the proposed changes to the Planned Residential Residential Development provisions. He noted some of the revisions give the neighborhood/existing Develop- homeowners more protection but said the proposal needed further work. He referred to the introduction Develop- ments p p p that states one of the purposes was to protect the existing quality and value of existing homes which he did not feel the proposal met. In his situation, he viewed it as a direct transfer of wealth by a private homeowner to the developer/owner of the property across the street. He explained the owner of the neighboring property would be allowed to construct far more units than were allowed when he purchased the property. The property has terrain that previously would have accommodated seven houses. With the proposed change, 60 or more residential units could be constructed on the property which would be grouped together directly across the street from his house. He pointed out this could result in an apartment or condominium complex as attached units would be allowed. He proposed, 1) there be exact guarantees and guidelines regarding the quality and character of the structures, 2) setbacks be increased to screen the housing from existing homes, 3) the number of lots be rounded down, 4) review by the Architectural Design Board be public and allow public input at least in written form, 5) any Councilmember with a conflict of interest recuse themselves from the discussion. He noted the Public Disclosure Act indicated some Councilmembers had taken significant campaign contributions from individuals and organizations that benefit by the direction of the code change and some Councilmembers Vwork in occupations that could benefit from the code change. .eRoger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, observed the proposed revisions to the Planned Residential Residential Development (PRD) code represented major changes including reducing the number of lots entsop from five to two, allowing common walls/zero lot lines, and possibly duplexes. He referred to a PRD process that is underway, Talbot Commons, indicating there were several letters written in objection to that development. He suggested the City gain more experience with the existing ordinance and the resulting developments to determine what were the real problems with the PRD ordinance. He next referred to comments he made at the last meeting regarding the notice of Public Facilities District (PFD) Comments Board meetings including earlier notice of the October 22 PFD meeting and the notice now provided on Regarding TV. He objected to Councilmember Plunkett's response to his comments at the last meeting regarding PFD Meetings his concerns with noticing of the PFD meetings, noting his intent had been to assist the public. Mr. Hertrich concluded he felt the PFD Board was doing an excellent job. rightwater Jeff Wilson, 21306 84th Avenue W, Edmonds, said one of the issues that has arisen when he has been Treatment doorbelling in his campaign for a City Council position was the BrightWater facility. He commented on Plant the appropriate action the Council took when adopting a resolution that was forwarded to King County Facility providing a factual basis and pointing out flaws in the siting process and concerns with siting the facility at the Unocal site. He commented a letter was also sent to King County Executive Sims raising the same issues and requesting his response regarding this issue, particularly how Edmonds was selected as the Unocal site did not appear to meet the siting criteria. He pointed out the Unocal site would not disappear from King County's list; it was one of two sites selected for further consideration. However, the City could begin to take a proactive role to represent citizens. He encouraged the City to pursue the option of retaining lead agency status for the purpose of reviewing SEPA. This places the City in the position of assisting what is in the SEPA including options and alternatives. He pointed out the importance of expanding the sites to be considered in the SEPA process to include sites that were removed from the list. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 6 He commented the RCW definition of essential public facilities under GMA includes regional transportation facilities and solid waste facilities but does not specifically list a wastewater treatment plant as an essential public facility. For example, the impact to the public from a treatment facility at the Unocal site in conjunction with the multimodal facility would be significantly greater than a treatment i facility located at the Gun Range site. ppearance Mayor Haakenson requested City Attorney Scott Snyder respond to Mr. Hanna's comments regarding the DocaiHess Council's participation on Agenda Item 8, the PRD work session. Mr. Snyder explained the Council adopted an ordinance requiring all Councilmembers to file their PDC campaign contributions with the City Clerk. Further, if the statute is complied with, campaign contributions do not represent an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation. Any Councilmember with a direct financial interest in a project or who has property that might gain by the action should disclose that; however, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine principles do not apply to legislative determinations of the Council, which the PRD provisions are. 7. PRESENTATION OF PRELIMINARY 2002 BUDGET reliminary 002 Budget Mayor Haakenson expressed special thanks to Executive Assistant Jeanne Startzman who developed the PowerPoint presentation and to Information Services Coordinator Mike Stark for his technical assistance. Mayor Haakenson described the budget review process which begins with the Finance Department sending each department a baseline budget (the minimum required to provide service delivery to Edmonds citizens including salaries, supplies, and nothing new in the way of programs, personnel, vehicles or equipment). If staff sees the need for anything new, they must submit a decision package. Decision packages may include additional supplies, a new position, new vehicle, or consultant contract. These are considered discretionary requests that may or may not be funded. There are also mandatory decision packages such as increases in costs over which the City has no control such as higher electricity and gas bills, outside agencies such as Medic 7 and SnoCom, services from Snohomish County or State. The budget review team then spent several days listening to directors present their budgets including a description of their discretionary decision packages. Mayor Haakenson said he encouraged staff to bring forth ideas to improve how they do business on behalf of the City. The budget review team is comprised of Administrative Services, Community Service and Human Resources Directors and him as well as a City Councilmember, this year Councilmember Marin. Mayor Haakenson explained following staff s presentation, he spends several weeks reviewing the data before drafting his recommended budget. The budget is then reviewed again with staff before being presented as the Preliminary Budget. This year the review team considered approximately $2 million in discretionary decision packages. After listening to presentations and reviewing each one, he felt 90% of the requests would benefit citizens of Edmonds if implemented. They would provide better service, faster service and a more consistent, reliable approach to citizen's expectations. However, the funding of $2 million in requests would have serious impacts on the City's budget in future years, thus began the painful process of rejecting decision packages. Some were delayed until 2003 and some were cut in half. An extremely painful cut was the request for an additional code enforcement officer. He noted citizens who call with complaints may have to wait months until the City is able to investigate their concern which was very frustrating for citizens and staff alike. Also cut were needed upgrades to the City's Emergency Operations Center although recent times have shown the need for preparedness. Also cut was a request to purchase portable defibrillators to be placed in various public locations in the City. Even more frustrating was having to approve costs that were not generated by staff such as the hiring of a consultant to implement a study required by the General Accounting Office to count trees in parks because they are now considered assets as well as inventorying curbs, gutters, sidewalks and roadways Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 7 for the same reason. Other frustrating areas are costs associated with Endangered Species Act and many more that are out of the City's control. During last year's budget presentation, Mayor Haakenson recalled he explained the five year plan was predicated on a 3% property tax increase each year which was the case again this year. He explained the preliminary budget was heavy on technology, public safety and code revision, three areas that are most important to the City. He explained the City was understaffed; over the past two years he has ignored the urge to add staff, even in the face of need. If the intent was to continue to push the workforce to be more productive, to do more with less and to increase individual workloads, the City has the responsibility to provide the right tools. Technology allows that; additional software programs increase efficiency and customer service, thus he noted technology requests were a big part of the budget. Mayor Haakenson noted for six years he has heard the City's codes are outdated, dysfunctional, hard to understand and in conflict with each other, which he tended to agree with. He pointed out the sign code as a classic example. Of the code enforcement issues awaiting resolution, 90% are sign -related, particularly businesses that erect signs illegally without obtaining permits. Upon investigation, he learned the City's sign code is confusing and muddled; the costs are prohibitive to a small business and permits actually cost more than the signs themselves. He pointed out the difficulty with fostering economic development with such restrictive codes. He cited the importance of fostering economic development if the City was to move away from its reliance on property taxes. Consequently, there was an added emphasis on rewriting code in the proposed budget. Several years ago, decisions were made regarding Police and Fire Department equipment including placing laptops in police cars. The laptops are scheduled for replacement in 2002. The new 800 MHz radio system has been under construction for several years and will become operational in 2002, requiring the City to begin paying their share of the 800 MHz costs as well as purchasing new radios for fire and police vehicles. The Fire Department will also experience much needed growth in this budget. First paramedic service — Mountlake Terrace and Brier withdrew from the Medic 7 program effective yearend 2001, adding over $200,000 to the cost of providing paramedic service to Edmonds residents. The cost for this service will be slightly under $1 million for 2002. This item alone will consume the entire 3% property tax increase assumed in the budget. Although there are attempts being made to bring paramedics within the City's Fire Department, the 2002 budget was prepared with the assumption that Medic 7 service would continue into 2002 as it currently exists. . As negotiations continue, Chief Tomberg and he will keep the Council informed. Due to the withdrawal of two cities, Medic 7 service will cost significantly more whether it remains as a standalone system or is integrated into the Edmonds Fire Department. Mayor Haakenson commented over the past several years there has been much discussion regarding Battalion Chiefs in the Fire Department. He acknowledged that three years ago he was skeptical of that need. Then the ruling was made regarding 2-in/2-out for firefighting and he has witnessed over the past two years as Mayor the reduction in productivity from management staff due to their constant need to respond as Duty Chief in South Snohomish County. He noted training was one of the highest priorities for firefighters and this City has not kept up with the need, which may in fact create liability issues in the future. When paramedics are added to the department, the addition of Battalion Chiefs will allow the addition of firefighter -paramedics to backfill those who are promoted into Battalion Chief positions. The position of firefighter -paramedic will be necessary in the future as more cost-effective ways are investigated to provide this service. With regard to the Battalion Chief philosophy, Mayor Haakenson commented he has gone from a skeptic to a believer. This is the beginning of a much -needed overhaul to the service delivery of the Edmonds Fire Department. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 8 Due to the fragile economic climate, Mayor Haakenson directed staff that no new programs or studies would begin before July 1, 2002. No new equipment purchases planned in the 2002 budget would be consummated before July 1, 2002 either. Any vehicle purchases under consideration would be delayed until July 1 unless the State Bid contract in the spring presented a moneysaving opportunity that it would be foolish to pass up. He explained this delay would provide additional time to witness the effects of the war on terrorism and the anticipated economic downturn. Mayor Haakenson next displayed a five year projection, pointing out the next three years provided adequate cash flow, the fourth year would be close to breakeven but the fifth year begins to look relatively ominous. He explained he believed in everything proposed in the preliminary budget and saw the need in order to provide appropriate service levels to citizens, yet he was not happy that in five years the City faced another financial challenge. He offered the following three specific challenges to the Council: First, he urged the Finance Committee to begin a study to identify new revenue streams for the City, noting clearly the days of property taxes paying for all City services were over because property taxes did not generate enough revenue to pay for everything and it was obvious taxpayers have had enough. He said the time had come to look at a fee for service concept, also know as user fees. This was targeted at services that were available to everyone but used by a lesser number. He looked to the Finance Committee for creativity and common sense. Second, to the Public Safety Committee, he has offered the first step in an overhaul of how the Fire Department provided service to Edmonds residents. He requested the Public Safety Committee consider the second step, serious discussions about the provision of paramedic services five years from now. He urged them to look at how other cities provide service and study what is cost effective and medically responsible, keeping emotions out of the process. Determine what gives Edmonds citizens the highest level of service and at the same time is financially prudent. The third challenge was in the area of economic development — what did it mean and where did the City's responsibility lie? The Alliance was currently tasked with economic development, the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce works in this area and the City pays into the Snohomish County Economic Development Council to assist Snohomish County in the development. He pointed out the Chamber did not have horsepower to accomplish the task and had all they could do to maintain their membership and focus on retention. The Alliance continues to focus on their work plan as directed by their Board of Directors. The Economic Development Council has yet to recruit a business to Edmonds. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the importance of recruitment to economic development and because neither the Chamber nor Alliance did work in this area, perhaps this was where the City could play a role. If so, where would the funds come from to fill such a position? He pointed out there were limited tax dollars available in the area of economic development and difficult budget decisions would be necessary to reallocate funds to that task. He asked that the Community Services/Development Services Committee take on this task. Mayor Haakenson advised the items included in the budget were selected based on need and what they would return to the community. The budget reflects a response to the customer service the City should provide to taxpayers but yet in a fiscally responsible manner. He looked forward to the upcoming budget workshops and public hearing. He thanked Councilmember Marin for his assistance on the budget review team, noting his insight had been very helpful. Mayor Haakenson described I-747, which if approved would limit the City's property taxing ability to 1% per year unless approved by voters. He asked the Council to begin thinking about their Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 9 recommendations to staff should I-747 pass. He noted the current budget assumptions for the five year plan include a 3% property tax increase for each of the next five years, scaling back to a 1% increase only made the future less financially secure. Without new revenue sources or creative service deliveries, the City would be left with only two choices, cuts in services or if I-747 passes, yearly elections for voters on higher tax levies. He requested the Council support on the budget and his requests of the Council committees. He emphasized this was a preliminary budget, subject to change. He pointed out today AWC informed the City that insurance rates would increase 20% next year; an 8% increase was factored in the budget. Mayor Haakenson invited the public to the budget workshop on Saturday, October 27 at 9:00 a.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall. 8. WORK SESSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY Planned DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.35 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) AND Residential TITLE 21 (DEFINITIONS), PROVIDING FOR NEW PURPOSES, STANDARDS, CRITERIA, Develop- ments AND A REVISED REVIEW PROCESS FOR APPROVING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (File No. CDC-2000-132) Mayor Haakenson suggested the Council review and reach consensus on each of the ten major issues outlined by staff. Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained the purpose of staff and the Planning Board considering revisions to the Planned Residential Development (PRD) chapter was in response to direction in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan to accommodate housing and population forecasts through designed infill. One of the prime methods for designed infill was creative residential development via PRD and other tools such as refinements to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) chapter. Issue 1: Should PRD's be an option for short plats? Mr. Bullock explained this was discussed in detail at the Council work session as well as the public hearing. He noted the PRD was the option least often chosen by the development community. The Planning Board and staff sought to rectify this because the PRD process could be a positive and beneficial tool for the community, particularly on many of the difficult sites that remain in the community for development. The Planning Board unanimously approved the change to the PRD chapter eliminating the five -lot minimum, making it available for any property that could be subdivided into two or more lots. Mr. Bullock recalled Councilmember Petso expressed concern that PRD's proposed on smaller lots might significantly impact single-family neighborhoods, and she suggested staff maintain the five or more lot limit for a PRD or for fewer lots when a critical area existed. Mr. Bullock reviewed the two options, a) leave as proposed — PRD's apply to any property that can be subdivided [staff recommendation] or 2) allow a PRD for five or more units unless a critical area exists. Mr. Bullock explained staff preferred a PRD be allowed for any properties that could be subdivided. He noted many applicants would choose not to pursue a PRD because the process was more cumbersome than a typical subdivision. Councilmember Petso asked whether the existing PRD ordinance only applied to lots with critical areas. Mr. Bullock answered the PRD ordinance required there be a special circumstance but did not specify a critical area. He noted the "special circumstance" had been open to interpretation. For example, the Orchard development on the corner of 9t" and Puget Drive, although there was not critical area on the site, was eligible for a PRD because the location of the property on the corner of a busy roadway and major entrance into the downtown Edmonds area was deemed to be a special circumstance for that site. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 10 City Attorney Scott Snyder referred to examples given in the Purposes section of the type of policy goals the PRD ordinance was to implement: preserve natural landscape, trees, streams or other valuable community amenities; cluster structures to preserve or create open spaces, especially where steep slopes or other environmentally sensitive areas exist; provide a more efficient street and utility system serving units in a cluster thus lowering housing, land development and maintenance cost and reducing the amount of impervious surfaces. Councilmember Petso summarized the proposal opened the ordinance in two ways; it eliminated the requirement for five or more lots and eliminates the requirement for a unique circumstance. She suggested rather than her proposed language regarding a critical area that the unique circumstances requirement be retained. She noted this would allow the City to not allow a PRD if there was nothing unusual about a site. Mr. Bullock answered staff would not support that suggestion. He explained with the PRD process, there would be the ability for staff and the applicant to consider the design of the buildings which otherwise could not be done for single-family design. He said this tool would be beneficial to neighborhoods and should not be limited to only special circumstances. He acknowledged this process was more burdensome to the applicant but the City did realize a benefit. Mr. Snyder commented another problem was the interpretation of "unique." He noted the reason developers most often pursued a PRD was due to common development problems associated with infill development. He suggested if a limitation was desired, specific criteria be developed versus relying on "unique circumstances." Councilmember Petso noted her intent was to assist staff in achieving their goal of addressing difficult lots without the result that there were no longer any subdivisions, only PRD's. She commented the tradeoff was giving up control of lot sizes, setbacks, normal roads, etc. that were typically associated with a subdivision, for design of the residences. Mr. Bullock pointed out the applicant had the ability to propose lot size, setbacks, etc. but it was still subject to review by staff and recommendation to the Hearing Examiner for decision. Councilmember Petso asked whether there would be a tremendous economic development for proposing a PRD versus a subdivision because more homes could be accommodated. Mr. Bullock said the economic benefit could only be determined on a project -by -project basis. He acknowledged there was a potential economic benefit but it would depend on the size of the parcel. He pointed out the proposed revisions include a limit on rounding, particularly for smaller lots. Mr. Bullock recalled an earlier concern regarding the area northeast of the Westgate shopping area and the potential to obtain more lots than would be allowed under the current density calculation. He recalled only ten lots in this area would be allowed to round up and obtain an additional lot. The other area of concern was the Seaview area where it was determined fewer than ten lots would be allowed to round up and obtain an additional lot. Councilmember Petso pointed out under the proposed revision, streets would no longer be deducted from the available land. Streets were deleted from the available land area for a subdivision, thus PRD's would result in more homes because the street area was included in the calculation. Mr. Bullock pointed out it would depend on the property due to issues such as setbacks, access, etc. Councilmember Petso asked whether there were any lots that could be subdivided and obtain as many lots as could be obtained under the PRD proposal. Mr. Bullock answered he did not think so. Councilmember Petso summarized her concern with eliminating the minimum number of lots and eliminating the requirement for a unique circumstance had increased as a result of Mr. Snyder's suggestion for specific criteria. She referred to the Planning Board minutes, which indicate the Planning Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 11 Board understood the distinction between allowing a PRD 'to develop a difficult property and allowing a PRD everywhere. She read from the January 12, 2001 minutes, "Mr. Cobbs said he supports the PRD concept because it allows difficult and unique properties to be developed in a creative way that benefits the City." She referred to the December 8, 1999 Planning Board minutes, [Mr. Dewhirst] He said that he has processed a one lot PRD in the past and he does not feel these fit the intent of the regulations. He cautioned the PRD process should not provide a method for people to get around the regulations but to allow for creative development in lots that are difficult. He suggested this provided a benefit to the entire community." Councilmember Petso commented she did not see a benefit to the community by eliminating the five or more lot requirement for a PRD as it would be difficult to demonstrate a benefit to the community from a 2-lot PRD. If there was no critical areas or unique development circumstances on the property, she was uncertain it should be developed as a PRD. She supported retaining the five or more lot requirement or reducing the number of lots to four but did not support staff s recommendation to allow a PRD on any subdividable property. Council President Earling commented although he still had reservations about reducing the number of lots, he was more comfortable when there were critical areas on the site due to the possible need to rearrange dwellings on the property. Further, the addition of design criteria would assist with the development of quality projects that would integrate with the neighborhood. He commended staff on the development of the design criteria. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF FOR ITEM #1 TO INSERT ALTERNATIVE B IN THE ORDINANCE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council President Earling suggested the Council reach consensus on the ten issues rather than having motions on each. Option A (leave as proposed, PRD's apply to any property that can be subdivided) was the consensus of the Council for Issue 1. Issue 2: Should attached units be allowed? Mr. Bullock recalled there had been a great deal of discussion at the last two Council meetings regarding whether. attached units should be allowed and, if so, where and under what circumstances. He referred to the table on page 3 of the ordinance that indicated attached units would be permitted if 25% or more of the site was impacted by a critical area. He pointed out a critical area often was not located on the perimeter of a property; a critical area in the center of a property had serious implications on development of the site due to buffer and setbacks from the perimeter as well as the critical area. Options included a) leaving as originally proposed (25% threshold) [staff recommendation], b) increasing the threshold, or c) not allowing attached units in PRD's in single family zones. Councilmember Petso asked what the difference was between allowing attached units in a single-family zone and rezoning to multifamily. Mr. Bullock explained with a PRD, the density of the entire lot was limited to what was permitted by the underlying single-family zone. Councilmember Petso asked whether the proposal would allow multifamily dwelling in a single-family zone. Mr. Bullock responded it would allow attached units. Councilmember Petso asked whether that was multifamily. Mr. Bullock said the American Planning Association classified duplexes as single-family dwellings. Councilmember Petso did not support allowing attached units in a PRD and indicated her support for Option C (not allowing attached units in PRD's). If a critical area existed on a property, she assumed the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 12 owner would have been aware of it when the property was purchased. Councilmembers Orvis and Plunkett supported Option A. Option A (leave as proposed — two -unit buildings are allowed in PRD's that have more than 25% of their gross lot area constrained by critical areas) was the consensus of the Council for Issue 2. Issue 3: Should accessory dwellingunits nits (ADU's) permitted in PRD's? Mr. Bullock explained the options were a) leave as currently drafted which prohibits ADU's in buildings that have two units [staff recommendation] or b) prohibit ADU's in PRD's. He clarified single-family detached buildings in the PRD could propose an ADU consistent with the ADU chapter of the code. Councilmember Petso recalled one of her concerns with the ADU ordinance was the impact on parking, particularly in cul-de-sacs. In that PRD's may have smaller lots thus greater parking problems, she asked whether adequate parking was required by the ADU ordinance and whether this could be waived in the PRD process. Mr. Bullock answered it could not be waived in the PRD process. He did not envision an ADU would be requested in conjunction with a PRD, rather an ADU would be applied for in the future. He explained single-family zones required two onsite parking stalls for each single-family dwelling unit; with an ADU, three onsite stalls would be required. Councilmembers Petso, Orvis, and Plunkett indicated their support for Option A. Council President Earling did not support Option A. Option A (leave as currently drafted, which prohibits ADU's in buildings that have two units) was the consensus of the Council for Issue 3. Issue 4: Should Special Needs Housing be included? Mr. Bullock explained because the City will be doing a major update of the Comprehensive Plan, including an in-depth review of the City's housing needs, this section could be eliminated from the PRD ordinance until the Comprehensive Plan update was completed. Options were a) eliminating until the Comprehensive Plan update is complete or b) leave the provision as originally drafted. Council President Earling asked whether excluding this provision from the ordinance could be interpreted as an attitude of the City toward special needs housing. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered because of concurrency requirements, special needs housing must be included in the assessment of the community's needs and taking a statistical approach during the Comprehensive Plan update was appropriate. He clarified the Council was deferring this issue to the Comprehensive Plan update process. Mr. Snyder noted the City's ordinances contained a provision that acknowledged the City's obligation to make special accommodation in its rules and practices to accommodate housing for the disabled on an individual application basis. Option A (deferring inclusion of the special needs housing section until the Comprehensive Plan update process is complete) was the consensus of the Council for Issue 4. Issue 5: Clarification of Compatibility Criteria Mr. Bullock explained concern had been expressed that the criteria in this section were not measurable. The criteria has been revised to be more measurable and a differentiation made between this criteria and the criteria for approving a PRD. Options are a) include the more measurable standard/criteria [staff recommendation] or b) leave as originally drafted. Option A (include the more measurable standard/criteria) was the consensus of the Council for Issue 5. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 13 Issue 6: Added criteria for modifying standards Mr. Bullock explained a reduction in the impervious surface criteria had been added to the criteria. He explained a shared driveway could be a reason to request a reduction in a setback requirement. Councilmember Petso questioned whether this had the potential to impact adjacent property owners. Mr. Bullock answered no, commenting it was unlikely a PRD that placed a driveway next to an adjacent property would be approved. Councilmember Petso pointed out the potential for impact on the existing house if a PRD were allowed on a flag lot. Mr. Bullock pointed out this could currently occur with a subdivision. The PRD would provide the ability to potentially require greater separation, additional landscaping, buffer, to mitigate that situation, which could not be required with a subdivision. Council President Earling commented the tradeoff was accomplishing one of the goals which was to eliminate impervious surface. Councilmember Petso indicated she did not support including the impervious surface criteria. Council President Earling and Councilmembers Orvis and Plunkett were supportive of Option A. Option A (include impervious surface criteria in the criteria for modification) was the consensus of the Council for Issue 6. Issue 7: Clarification of Design Criteria Mr. Bullock explained several revisions were made to this section to address concern expressed by the Council. Options included a) eliminate the results that appear too easy to achieve (#2 —providing housing types that effectively serve the affordable housing needs of the community and #8 — incorporating energy efficient site design or building features) and clarify #5 and #6 by indicating those criteria are over and above the minimum PRD criteria, b) raise the number of results that must be achieved to meet the Design Criteria to 3-4; or c) leave as originally drafted with the eight criteria. Councilmember Petso expressed her appreciation for staff's efforts to modify the ordinance in response to Council requests. She questioned why subparagraph 3 (minimizing the use of impervious surfacing materials) was a goal of sufficient value to approve smaller lot sizes via a PRD. She noted smaller lot sizes would likely increase impervious surfaces via increased density in the PRD. Mr. Snyder said the City, by state mandate, has incorporated a requirement that no further water leave a lot from rainfall and other natural sources than occurs in its natural state. The more impervious surface, the more water that is gathered and enters the City's storm sewer system and the more money citizens must pay to treat and dispose of the water. He summarized the less impervious surface, the less water gathered. Councilmember Petso commented even less water could be accumulated by not allowing a PRD because there would be less overall density, fewer homes, and "more water soaking into big lawns." Councilmember Petso questioned why she should value minimizing impervious surfaces over allowing significant financial gains in the form of increased density and other benefits as infill development occurs. Mr. Bullock emphasized a PRD did not give a developer the opportunity to increase density; the density was the same as allowed by the underlying zone. He explained there are five design criteria that must be addressed for any PRD, a) design criteria, b) public facilities, c) perimeter design, d) open space and recreation, e) streets and sidewalks. To address A, an applicant must comply with the City's Urban Design Guidelines established in subparagraph 1 and provide two or more of the results set forth in subparagraphs 2-6. Councilmember Petso expressed concern with the minimizing of impervious surface criteria (0) as well as the improving circulation criteria (#2), commenting those items were not nearly as valuable to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 14 neighboring property owners as increasing open space or recreation facilities (#4), increasing landscaping, buffering, or screening (#5); or preserving, enhancing or rehabilitating natural features (#6). By allowing applicant to choose two, she feared an applicant could choose the easiest two, thus the benefit to the public would be quite minimal. Mr. Bullock stated improving circulation patterns was not confined solely to vehicular circulation but was broad enough to address vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, etc. circulation. This could include pedestrian trail connections, which was a benefit to the community. Mr. Snyder commented the Snohomish County Court of Appeals held that jurisdictions could not require the building of through roads in a subdivision or PRD. Previously it was standard practice that a road on the official street map had to be extended to the subdivision boundary. The Court of Appeals held this constituted a taking because the circulation pattern benefited the general public. The vehicular circulation provision would allow the City to gain the benefit of connecting subdivisions or providing through circulation patterns, thus it was a tool to encourage an action that could no longer be required. Councilmember Petso referred to a recent proposal to provide a walkway in an alley adjacent to a neighbor's backyard, which the neighbor did not consider an amenity. How could neighbors be protected from a potentially detrimental improvement in circulation? Mr. Bullock explained the circumstance referred to was the result of a developer proposing a benefit/amenity using land that was not under their control. He explained in the proposal, the property would be under the control of the applicant and would allow the City possibly to make connections that would be beneficial to the community. Councilmember Petso inquired again about the difference between subdivision and PRD and how streets were measured. Under the proposed PRD, streets would be counted as lot area but in a subdivision, streets would be subtracted from the lot area. Mr. Bullock explained the total lot area would be used by the applicant to determine the number of lots, which would be reviewed during the PRD process. Councilmember Petso commented Bellevue required either the street area or 20% be subtracted. If 20% could be considered as the typical allocation for roads, she questioned whether a PRD would be increasing the density by 20%. Mr. Bullock acknowledged the number of houses that could potentially be achieved via a PRD may be slightly greater (than via a subdivision) although the density of the underlying zone was the same. Councilmember Petso preferred Option B, raising the number of criteria to 3-4. Mr. Bullock said if the Council's preference was Option B, staff would prefer all eight criteria be retained. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 1.5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bullock clarified staff's recommendation would be Option A, eliminate #2 and #8 and require an applicant to comply with the City's Urban Design Guidelines set forth in subparagraph 1 as well as two of the remaining five subparagraphs. Council President Earling, Councilmember Petso, and Councilmember Plunkett supported Option A. Option A (eliminate #2 and #8 and require an applicant to comply with the City's Urban Design Guidelines set forth in subparagraph 1 as well as two of the remaining five subparagraphs) was the consensus of the Council for Issue 7. Issue 8: Buffer and Landscape Criteria Mr. Bullock recalled there had been concern expressed that this criteria was not measurable. He pointed out changes made to Section 20.35.060 that had been referenced in Section 20.35.050. He clarified for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 15 PRD's with five or more lots, at least 10% of the gross lot area shall be developed as "Usable Open Space" which did not include critical areas. He noted the list of examples of usable open space was a not exclusive list to allow consideration of other types of open space. Councilmember Petso asked if this provision would eliminate fenced detention ponds being considered open space. Mr. Bullock answered yes. Councilmember Petso commented the references in Section 20.35.050 may not be detailed enough to lead the reader to the specifics in Section 20.35.060. Option A (clarifying the standards for buffers and open space) was the consensus of the Council for Issue 8. Issue 9: Single Family Design Criteria Mr. Bullock explained the addition of this section (20.35.060) was the most significant change to the proposed chapter. He explained the intent was to develop general design criteria to provide direction to potential applicants, particularly when attached homes may be allowed, so that it fit with the single family character of the neighborhood. The design criteria was also intended to improve and upgrade the overall design of single-family detached homes in a PRD. He explained this design criteria was intended to move away from "garagescapes" and create neighborhoods that feel more residential. Councilmember Orvis recalled the existing ordinance required ADB review. Mr. Bullock pointed out that although the ADB reviewed PRD's, there were no single-family design criteria in the Urban Design Guidelines. This would give the ADB criteria to use when reviewing single-family design during a PRD review. Councilmember Orvis observed the criteria would lead to more objective and consistent rulings from the ADB. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Petso asked if the Planning Board had an opportunity to review and comment on the suggested design criteria. Mr. Bullock explained he forwarded the criteria to the Planning Board Chair John Dewhirst for review. Mr. Dewhirst had some suggestions but most had already been incorporated during staff s internal review. Councilmember Petso asked if the review of the criteria was conducted at a Planning Board meeting. Mr. Bullock answered no, only the Chair had reviewed the criteria. Council President Earling requested the design guidelines be reviewed by all Planning Board members. Councilmember Petso suggested the Planning Board review the criteria at a meeting to allow the public to comment. Councilmember Plunkett asked how Planning Board review would impact the schedule. Mr. Bullock explained the next Planning Board meeting was November 14, which would push the Council's public hearing to late November or early December. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the design criteria could be placed on the Planning Board agenda for review but not hold a public hearing. Council President Earling pointed out a public hearing before the Council was scheduled for November 27; accepting public comment at the Planning Board as part of the agenda was acceptable to him. Option A (inclusion of criteria by which single family development, including two -unit buildings, can be judged) was the consensus of the Council for Issue 9, with review of the criteria by the Planning Board at a public meeting. Issue 10: Clarification of the final PRD process Mr. Bullock explained the reference in Section 20.35.080 to a PRD constituting a zoning map amendment was an unintended holdover from the existing code and should be deleted. The proposed changes to delete this language made the process consistent as it is outlined earlier in the same section. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 16 Councilmember Petso preferred more Council review of PRD's, which was lost in this process. The proposed change was acceptable to the Council for Issue 10. Mayor Haakenson commended staff for their presentation, noting the Council's decision on all ten issues was Option A which were all staff recommendations. Council President Earling explained the purpose of this review was to develop an ordinance for public comment but that was subject to further revisions as a result of public comment. Councilmember Petso distributed a copy of the existing ordinance, which included staff s request to move the provisions regarding group homes to a more appropriate section. She recalled she was invited by Councilmember Plunkett to provide a proposed ordinance for consideration side -by -side with staff s proposal. She pointed out what would be lost under staff s proposed ordinance: 1) the requirement for detached public housing, 2) preliminary review by the Council, 3) restriction of PRD's to property with unusual circumstances and/or critical areas, and 4) five -lot minimum requirement which protects from unintended consequences of the PRD applying to small lots or flag lot developments which cannot confer public benefit by the nature of their small size. Further, staffs proposed ordinance increases density by increasing the number of dwelling units by not requiring streets to be deducted from the lot area. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern that the Council had not had adequate time to review Councilmember Petso's proposal and could not make a determination tonight whether it was appropriate to consider it at the public hearing. Councilmember Petso pointed out this was the existing ordinance. Council President Earling commented any alteration in an ordinance was weighed against the existing ordinance. He did not see the need for a side -by -side comparison/discussion as Councilmember Petso's proposal was the existing ordinance. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson welcomed Chief of Police Stern, commenting he would be a great addition to the staff. 10. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS dmonds Council President Earling requested before Councilmembers left the meeting that they review the draft rossing letter to Governor Locke requesting the Governor's supplemental budget include a $2.2 million ro ect appropriation for the Edmonds Crossing project. Historical Councilmember Plunkett advised the Edmonds Historical Preservation Commission planned to bring an Preservation ordinance to the Council before yearend establishing a permanent commission. He explained this would ommission result in the City having access to grants, staff training regarding historical preservation, and tax incentives for property owners who choose to participate in the program. olleMiddle a Place Councilmember Petso congratulated the College Place Middle School 7`h grade girl's softball team on a Middle g g g g� School fantastic season. Lodging Tax Councilmember Petso reported on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, explaining that unfortunately, Advisory due to the events of September 11, a decline in tourism was anticipated which would impact the lodging Committee Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 17 tax revenue the City received. As a result, applications ' for funds from the lodging tax received allocations that were lower than requested. These items would be reviewed by the Council during their budget review. She explained there were also several projects that were not funded including an aquarium feasibility study, proposed by the Alliance, and promotional brochures for the Brackett Landing parks, proposed by the Parks and Recreation Department. She referred to a stakeholders' letter in the Council mail that was likely eligible for lodging tax funds in the future. She noted this had not previously been presented to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee but would be presented at the November 11 meeting if that was the desire of those who provided the letter to Mayor Haakenson. Councilmember Petso noted there was no request from the Public Facilities District (PFD) for lodging tax funds. If the PFD was interested in receiving lodging tax funds, she pointed out there was a statutory requirement that the item come before the committee 45 days prior to final action by the City on that request. Councilmember Petso announced the Council's budget workshop on Saturday, October 27 in the Brackett Room was open to the public. Mayor Haakenson asked how much was anticipated to be disbursed from the Lodging Tax fund. Councilmember Petso replied approximately $51,000. Executive 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER Session At 10:03, Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a ten-minute Executive Session regarding a legal matter. He did not anticipate any action would be taken following the Executive Session and advised the Council would adjourn upon its conclusion. ARYVKENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 23, 2001 Page 18 AGENDA " EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. OCTOBER 23, 2001 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 October 16, 2001 (C) Approval of claim checks #51344 through #51494 for the week of October 15, 2001, in the amount of $253,302.41. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #3371 through #3464 for the period October 1 through October 15, 2001, in the amount of $779,427.01. (D) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board (E) Quarterly Report Regarding Grants (F) Authorization for Mayor to sign Professional Services Agreement with Bucher, Willis & Ratliff (BWR) for the Transportation Element Update (G) Proclamation in honor of Make a Difference Day, Saturday, October 27, 2001 3. (20 Min.) Swearing -in of Chief of Police David Stern (reception following) 4. (is Min.) Annual Report by the Library Board 5. (ismin.) Annual Report by the Cemetery Board 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) Page 1 of 2 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA October 23, 2001 Page 2 of 2 7. (30 Min.) Presentation of Preliminary 2002 Budget S. (60 Min.) Work Session on proposed amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.35 (Planned Residential Development) and Title 21 (Definitions), providing for new purposes, standards, criteria, and a revised review process for approving Planned Residential Developments (File No. CDC- 2000-132) 9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports/updates on outside Committee/Board meetings ADJOURN 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 as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT&T Cable, Channel 21.