07/27/2010 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
July 27, 2010
At 5:33 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
pending litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes
and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley -
Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, and Peterson. Councilmember Wilson joined the executive session at 5:48
p.m. Others present were Special Counsel Grant Weed, Weed Graafstra & Benson, and Recorder Jeannie
Dines. The executive session concluded at 6:50 p.m.
Mayor Cooper reconvened the executive session regarding pending litigation at 7:00 p.m. He stated that
the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 5 minutes and would be held in the Jury
Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Elected officials present at the executive session
were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso,
Peterson and Wilson. Others present were Special Counsel Grant Weed, Weed Graafstra & Benson, and
Recorder Jeannie Dines. The executive session concluded at 7:07 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Associate Planner
John Westfall, Fire Marshal
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER WITH THE
ADDITION OF AGENDA ITEM 2A, AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ERIC THEUSEN, KEN REIDY AND THE CITY. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 1
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #120179 THROUGH #120330 DATED JULY 22, 2010
FOR $2,027,444.99. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#49539 THROUGH #49607 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1 THROUGH JULY 15, 2010 FOR
$751,071.01.
D. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
— JULY, 2010.
F. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT.
ITEM E: AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR EDMONDS HISTORICAL MUSEUM
EXTERIOR REPAIRS PROJECT.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO
ABSTAINED.
2A. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WITH ERIC THEUSEN KEN REIDY AND THE CITY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH
ERIC THEUSEN, KEN REIDY AND THE CITY IN THE FORM REVIEWED IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. SOUND TRANSIT UPDATE
Ric Ilgenfritz, Executive Director, Planning & Project Development, Sound Transit, displayed a map
of the tri- county Sound Transit system, explaining the system extends from Everett to Dupont in Pierce
County and includes the urbanized areas of Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties. Sound Transit operates
three different lines of service: light rail, commuter rail (Sounder) and ST express bus service. They carry
approximately 3.3 million people a year and ridership continues to grow. There are three Sound Transit
Board Members from Snohomish County: Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon, the Board
Chair; Joe Marine, Mukilteo's Mayor; and Paul Rogers, Everett City Council. He recognized past Board
Members from Edmonds: Dave Earling, Deanna Dawson and Richard Marin.
He displayed a chart illustrating growth 1999 -2009. The light rail system that began in Seattle a year ago
now carries over 24,000 riders per day. They are experiencing much higher than expected ridership on
weekends and generally to /from the airport station. He highlighted projects in the past ten years in the
north end including construction of the Ash Way and Lynnwood transit center parking facilities and direct
access ramps, improvements at Everett Station, and the Mountlake Terrace facility. Sounder ridership
continues to increase. Orders will be submitted for additional rail cars later this year to expand the fleet,
operate large trains and accommodate demand as it grows. Bus service will continue to grow; Sound
Transit has been phasing in an approximately 17% increase in ST express service in the north end since
the ST 2 plan was approved by voters.
Mr. Ilgenfritz announced a tentative date of August 18 for the groundbreaking on the permanent Edmonds
station. He referred to a site plan for the station that includes improved parking, pedestrian/passenger
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 2
facilities, and turning the temporary station into a more attractive and better integrated facility for the
community. Final design of the station is complete and work will begin in August and be completed by
spring 2011.
In 2008 voters approved ST 2, a plan to expand the Sound Transit system by adding approximately 36
miles of new light rail, additional Sounder trips and new bus service. Sound Transit is struggling with a
fairly substantial hit to forecasted revenues as a result of the recession. ST 2 was an $18 billion capital
and operating program over 15 years. Sound Transit is now projecting a $3+ billion or 15% reduction in
forecasted revenues. There was an approximately 15% cushion in the plan so the reduction can be
absorbed. All projects and services will be managed with more than the usual attention to detail with
regard to controlling scope, managing costs and adhering to schedules. A comprehensive review has been
done of the plan to develop strategies for addressing issues. The Sound Transit Board commissioned
development of a white paper that identifies tasks for staff and the CEO that looks primarily at controlling
operating costs whenever possible. Staff expects to submit a reduced budget this year. They will be
advancing some project development work including on the north corridor. Sound Transit adopted a new
scope control policy to help keep tight control on add -ons.
Mr. Ilgenfritz explained the light rail line is open and operating over a 16 mile alignment between
downtown Seattle and SeaTac International Airport. Construction is underway; approximately 20%
complete, on the first extension north, a pair of tunnels from Westlake Center to the University of
Washington serving Capitol Hill. That project came in approximately $150 million under the engineer's
estimate, an indicator of the market in this economy.
The North Link project extends from the UW to Northgate, a combination of tunnel, surface and elevated
projects. That project recently moved into final design and is almost at 60% design. The goal is to open
that section for service in 2020 and the UW project in 2016.
Sound Transit is beginning work on an alternatives analysis for transit expansion from Northgate to
Lynnwood Transit Center, a 9 -mile corridor. They envision four station stops at 145`", 185`", Mountlake
Terrace and Lynnwood Transit Center. Sound Transit has been successful in obtaining federal grants
including an FTA grant for the first project of $500 million, an $800 million grant for the UW project and
will be seeking approximately $600 million for the extension to Lynnwood. One of the steps in obtaining
federal funds is an alternatives analysis to consider different project alignments and how the rail system
compares with other modes. Sound Transit will create a new analysis of transit performance by mode
between light rail, bus rapid transit and basic bus service. At the conclusion of that process, a report is
created with technology review and a series of potential alignments that inform the EIS scoping process.
He displayed the project schedule, an 18 month process for the alternatives analysis that will include
engaging the public in north King County and Snohomish County this fall to discuss potential alignments
and service configurations. Based on information from the public, the alternatives analysis will be
conducted over the winter and reported to the Sound Transit Board. At that point Sound Transit will begin
to seek funding from the federal government and begin the EIS process. He reviewed the timeline for the
EIS and preliminary engineering process, beginning now and extending approximately 41/2 years. He
offered to return to the Council this fall and/or hold an open house to engage Edmonds citizens.
The East Corridor project is a 14 mile extension of the system from downtown Seattle via I -90 to Mercer
Island into Bellevue and ultimately to Redmond. Sound Transit has been working with cities, WSDOT,
the federal government and many other stakeholders during preliminary engineering and to identify a
preferred alternative. The schedule is to complete preliminary engineering by the end of 2010, complete
the EIS by April 2011 and have the Board act between April and July 2011 to adopt the project to be
built. Bellevue has expressed their preference for a tunnel through downtown and Sound Transit has
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 3
emphasized that a tunnel is not part of the voter - approved budget. Sound Transit will work with Bellevue
to identify a tunnel alignment provided that the City is able to participate financially in the project in a
way that makes it cost neutral.
Councilmember Wilson commented the Swift Bus Rapid Transit has had unexpectedly high usage and
popularity. He asked whether Sound Transit had considered ways to integrate that success into its longer
term vision. Mr. Ilgenfritz commented it was a great case study for all transit systems in the region. Sound
Transit is looking at increasing its level of service in many corridors particularly those not served by rail
such as the 522, 527 and 167 corridors. Their goal is a complimentary, interlocking grid of services that
provide opportunity for connections. Sound Transit is looking at what they can do to increase reliability
and making buses attractive to riders in order to attract traditionally transit- dependent users as well as
elective riders. Elective riders are typically interested in reliability, safety, and a comfortable, productive
experience.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about service cuts. Mr. Ilgenfritz responded Sound Transit overall is not
contemplating any service cuts. They adjust service annually as part of their budget process via their
service implementation plan. Sound Transit typically does not have enough service to meet demand and is
in a gradual upward trajectory of adding more service hours. There will be more significant adjustments
in bus service as the rail system expands such as on the eastside. Sound Transit's highest performing bus
route is the 550 that serves Bellevue; he expected that service to be phased out as rail comes on line and
those service hours used elsewhere. The same would be true in the north corridor as the rail system moves
north.
Councilmember Wilson appreciated that there were no subarea equity implications from the tunnel in
Bellevue. Given the funding mechanism of sales tax revenue and accrual necessary to fund such as
project, he asked whether there were implications in the short or long term because a large capital project
requires more funds. Mr. Ilgenfritz assured the financial plan must balance annually. The Snohomish
County subarea is in robust financial condition. Sound Move finished with a surplus in Snohomish
County and the capital investments in Snohomish County as part of Sound Transit are in the second half
of the program. Right now, he was confident about the schedule in the north corridor.
4. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE PRESENTATION REGARDING REPLACEMENT OF
THE EDMONDS MAIN STREET POST OFFICE.
John Logan, United States Postal Service, explained this is a follow -up to the letter regarding the
USPS's intent to replace the existing downtown post office with a more appropriately sized facility in the
downtown or as close as they can get to the existing facility. The existing facility is approximately 8,000
square feet; they plan to replace it with approximately 4,100 square feet. This meeting is part of the
community contact process that the LISPS has initiated to ensure the community and City is informed,
there are no conflicts and the result is a project everyone is happy with.
Following tonight's meeting, the LISPS will wait 15 days to accept comments from the City and the
community. The USPS will then advertise for space and provide the City a list of spaces that has been
offered. A 60 day comment period will follow. The USPS will then evaluate those sites, conduct a site
selection process and select a favorable site. The USPS will then return to the City with that selection and
allow another 30 days for comment before proceeding with development of the project. The initial
decision - making stage is approximately 3 -4 months to ensure they understand the desires of the
community.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 4
Councilmember Plunkett asked why the USPS did not simply use the site they already own. Mr. Logan
answered the LISPS leases the current site. The building has been purchased; the current owner intends to
redevelop the site and there is a possibility the post office could be part of that development.
Councilmember Petso asked if any of the services /facilities will be lost when the facility is downsized.
Mr. Logan answered nothing would be lost. The carriers in that facility were moved out because it was
not big enough for that function. All the retail services will remain and be provided in a nicer facility.
Councilmember Petso requested any future facility have comparable parking to the existing facility and
have a drop box. Mr. Logan assured they would do both.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Colin Southcote -Want, Edmonds, explained he just came from the Edmonds Conference Center where
the project at Pt. Wells is being presented by the developer. While talking with Richmond Beach
residents, he learned one of their concerns with the proposal was the estimated 2400 car trips per day on
Richmond Beach Road and the determination that this was not significant. He raised this issue because
later on the agenda the Council will be discussing potential changes to Edmonds' SEPA regulations. He
urged the Council not to weaken the City's environmental protections. He commented it often seems the
City treats this as proforma, someone completes forms, a determination of non - significance is made and
appealing that determination is very difficult.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, congratulated Mayor Cooper. With regard to his report at the July 6 meeting
that it took 11 minutes for Fire District 1 to respond to a car fire near Old Mill Town, he relayed the Fire
Chief determination that it took 7 minutes and 22 seconds. With regard to SEPA regulations, he expressed
concern that the proposal had gotten this far. He referred to staff's indication that the SEPA regulations
had not been changed in a number of years and needed to be updated. He questioned why the SEPA
regulations needed to be changed when they seem to have done their job. He was opposed to any changes
that would eliminate environmental protections. Due to the proximity of the Highway 99 Corridor to Lake
Ballinger, he feared flexible SEPA regulations in that area would impact Lake Ballinger. He referred to
the SEPA flexible exemption level map in the packet, expressing concern that the Medical Activity
Center zone extended into single family neighborhoods. He recommended the Council consider amending
the boundary of the Medical Activity Center zone.
6. INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSED UPDATES TO ECDC 20.15A SEPA REGULATIONS.
Associate Planner Kernen Lien explained Washington State's Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was first
adopted in 1971. Among other things, the law requires all state and local governments within the state to:
• "Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the
natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making
which may have impact on man's environment," and
• Ensure that "...environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in
decision making along with economic and technical considerations..." (RCW 43.21C.030(2)(a)
and (2)(b)
He explained any governmental action may be conditioned or denied pursuant to SEPA. The
environmental process in SEPA is designed to work with the other regulations to provide a
comprehensive review of a proposal. Where most regulations focus on a particular aspect of a proposal,
SEPA requires identification and evaluation of probable impacts of all elements of the environment.
Proposals can be project proposals such as fill and grade, new development, etc.; or they can be non -
project proposals such as Comprehensive Plan changes, rezones, adoption of regulations, etc.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 5
The City of Edmonds SEPA regulations are codified in Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) 20.15A. The City's first SEPA regulations were adopted in 1976. In 1984 the City adopted
Ordinance No. 2461 which created ECDC 20.15A in order to come into compliance with new SEPA rules
in WAC 197 -11 and model SEPA ordinances in WAC 173 -806. ECDC 20.15A the City uses today is
essentially the same ordinance that was adopted 25 years ago having undergone only minor amendments
during that time. Due to changes in WACs, RCWs and the City's own code since the SEPA ordinance
was adopted, it was appropriate to adjust the City's SEPA regulations to be in compliance with the State's
rules and regulations.
The City and the Planning Board reviewed a number of issues:
• ECDC 20.15A adopts by reference significant portions of WAC 197 -11, the State's SEPA rules.
Sections of 197 -11 have been added or removed since the City adopted its SEPA regulations in
1984 particularly in regard to SEPA -GMA integration; GMA was not in place when the City
adopted the current SEPA regulations. This update reviewed the changes in WAC 197 -11, the
adopted list in 20.15A to ensure the City is up -to -date and compliant with the State's regulations.
• ECDC 20.15A is largely based on the State's model code in WAC 173 -806. There have been
changes to the model code since 1984. This update reviewed the model code and made changes to
the City's SEPA regulations where appropriate to ensure the City is up -to -date with the State's
regulations.
• The City's code has undergone a number of amendments since 1984. This update ensured the
SEPA regulations are consistent with the rest of the City's development regulations.
• The State's rules allow local jurisdictions to modify the categorically exempt flexible threshold
levels for certain minor new development. Once the threshold is reached, a SEPA review is
required.
• The City's Climate Action Team SEPA Implementation Working Group released a report in 2009
in an attempt to clarify how consideration of climate change should be incorporated into
environmental review and decision making. That report included strong consensus from the Work
Group but few recommendations other than the Department of Ecology should consider the
matter and develop guidelines. DOE released draft guidelines on addressing greenhouse gas
emissions in May 2010; the guidelines refer SEPA practitioners to studies and analyses conducted
across the United States and do not provide any clear standard of analysis.
The City has begun groundwork to develop SEPA regulations through the adoption of the
Sustainability Element in the Comprehensive Plan as well as development of a Climate Change
Action Plan. Within those Plans, the City is developing policies that establish the foundation for
the City to begin developing SEPA regulations to evaluate and mitigate impacts of climate
change. The City recently participated in a conference call with other jurisdictions around the
state regarding addressing climate change through the SEPA process. Staff will follow up with
other jurisdictions who participated in the call to see how they are addressing climate change
through their SEPA processes. Developing a program for Edmonds will be very technical and
data intensive and as a result will take a great deal of time to develop. It is not part of this update
and will be incorporated into 20.15A in the future.
Mr. Lien reviewed the Categorical Exemptions Thresholds in WAC 197 -11- 800(1) where the City could
adjust the thresholds:
• The construction or location of any residential structures of four dwelling unit — Can be modified
up to 20 dwelling units.
• The construction of a barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage building, produce storage or
packing structure, or similar agricultural structure, covering 10,000 square feet, and to be used
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 6
only by the property owner or his or her agent in the conduct of farming the property. The
exemption shall not apply to feed lots — Does not apply in Edmonds.
• The construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage building with
4,000 square feet of gross floor area, and associated parking facilities designed for 20
automobiles — Can be modified up to 12,000 square feet and 40 automobiles.
• The construction of a parking lot designed for 20 automobiles — Can be modified up to 40
automobiles.
• Any landfill or excavation of 100 cubic yards — Can be modified up to 500 cubic yards, and has
been at 500 cubic yards since 1984 when the City adopted the ordinance that established 20.15A.
Determining the environmental impact of a development involves context, intensity of the development
and does not lend itself to a quantifiable test. The context may vary by physical setting; intensity depends
on the magnitude and duration of the impact; the same proposal may have a significant impact in one
location and less in another. For instance a 12,000 square foot commercial development in a
neighborhood zone such as Five Corners or Westgate would likely have a greater impact on the
surrounding neighborhood than the same scale commercial development along Highway 99. With this in
mind the Planning Board reviewed the flexible threshold levels for categorical exemptions and discussed
a number of options:
• Leave the levels at the minimums established by WAC 197- 11- 800(l)(b)
• Increase all, or a portion of the levels, for the entire City
• Establish different threshold levels for different Comprehensive Plan designations
• Establish different threshold levels for different zones
• Establish different threshold levels considering zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation
After considering the above options, the Planning Board recommended the following:
• Increase flexible threshold in the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
as follows:
o Residential units: 20 units
• New construction: 12,000 square feet
• Parking: 40 spaces
• Landfill or excavation: 500 cubic yards (no change)
For landfills and excavations in WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(b)(v) maintain 500 cubic yards in all
locations through the City
The Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian and
transit oriented area focused on two Master Plan developments, Stevens Hospital and Edmonds -
Woodway High School, along with related high intensity development in the Highway 99 corridor. One
of the goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is to
expand the economic and tax base of the City by providing incentives for business and commercial
redevelopment in the planned Activity Center. The Highway 99 corridor is a narrow strip of commercial
and retail uses with some multi family development on the fringes of the corridor. Like the
Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center, in the Highway 99 Corridor area of the City is looking to
encourage economic development and raising the threshold levels that trigger SEPA review may be one
way to simplify the process for developers within these two areas.
When the Planning Board was considering these flexible thresholds, they raised several questions
including the effect of increasing the thresholds. He researched SEPA reviews the City conducted since
2004 and found there have been a total of 193 SEPA reviews since January 2004. Of those 113 would be
subject to the flexible thresholds. With the proposed increase in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center,
2 projects since 2004 would have been exempt from SEPA review under the proposed changes. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 7
pointed out there are other regulatory requirements; SEPA is only one part of the review. The City has
other processes and regulations to control issues that would be considered such as transportation impacts
and Critical Areas regulations. SEPA cannot control the level of development of a property; it can only
condition development based on impacts that are not otherwise addressed in the code. There are some
residential areas in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center; SEPA has very little impact on development
in single family zones. For example the subdivision of five or more units requires a public hearing process
and approval by the City Council. This requirement would not change as a result of changing the SEPA
flexible threshold. SEPA as well as many other processes have a public notice requirement and hearing
opportunities. He referred to the tables in Title 20, Type IN uses, II -V require public notice.
Councilmember Petso offered to work with staff on some areas in the ordinance that do not appear to be
in the model ordinance, 1) the .025 provision, reliance on existing plans and regulations, and 2) the
provision that would allow a developer to request the City complete the SEPA checklist. With regard to
the .025 provision and reliance on other regulations, Mr. Lien explained that was in WAC 197 -11 and
rather than adopt that WAC or insert a reference to WAC 197 -11, he included a reference to the section
within Title 20 that is essentially the same as WAC 197 -11. With regard to the ability for a developer to
request staff complete the SEPA checklist, Mr. Lien advised that is in the current SEPA regulations. He
explained often the City has more information than the person completing the checklist. One of the most
frequent triggers for SEPA review is fill and grade; 95 of the 193 SEPA reviews were fill and grade and
many of those are for single family residential development. Often they do not have all the information
and staff completes the blanks as a way to assist the citizen. There is also a provision that developers can
be charged for staff completing the SEPA checklist.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how it was determined whether a developer was charged. Mr. Lien
answered there is not a description of how a developer would be charged. Since he has been employed by
the City, no one has asked staff to complete the SEPA checklist. Typically if there is a N/A when he
reviews a SEPA checklist and information should be included, he will fill in the information such as the
zoning, Comprehensive Plan designation, etc.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the City was potentially liable if staff was filling out portions of
the SEPA checklist. He asked whether staff had been doing that and whether it was a common practice.
Mr. Lien responded in all the places he has worked, staff typically filled in missing information. The
SEPA checklist also includes a space for staff comment. With regard to liability, there is a SEPA appeal
process; if staff completed the checklist, the applicant could appeal the determination based on the way
the checklist was completed.
Councilmember Plunkett observed under the proposed changes there would have only been two instances
were neighbors surrounding the structure would not have had the benefit of SEPA review. He asked the
rationale of not allowing two groups of neighbors the benefit of a SEPA review. Mr. Lien explained one
of the primary reasons for selecting the Highway 99 Corridor and the Medical /Highway 99 Activity
Center is those are two areas where the City wants to promote economic development. The Planning
Board felt by removing one of the hurdles, SEPA review, it may be more attractive for development. He
reiterated SEPA was only one of the processes. He did not research what other public notice requirements
may have been required for those two developments.
Councilmember Plunkett concluded the rationale was the neighbors would not have the benefit of SEPA
because they lived in a neighborhood that was more industrial oriented. Mr. Lien explained impacts are
different in different areas; a 12,000 square foot commercial development in Five Corners would have the
potential for greater impacts than the same development on Highway 99. That was one of the reasons the
State allows jurisdictions the flexibility to adjust those thresholds. Denying anyone the SEPA process was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 8
not discussed as a reason for adjusting the flexible thresholds, it was viewed as a way to promote
economic development in these two areas by removing one of the regulatory hurdles.
Council President Bernheim acknowledged since it had been 25 years since the SEPA regulations were
adopted and other things are changing, it may be necessary to ensure consistency. He was concerned with
changing policy as part of a statutory update. He asked the impetus for changing the SEPA requirement to
make it more developer friendly. Mr. Lien responded when he presented the update to the Planning
Board, the flexible threshold was the one area the City could change. The Planning Board requested he
provide proposals for the flexible thresholds. His first proposal was changing thresholds in zones
throughout the City. The Planning Board then directed him to look at the corridors. His next proposal was
for four corridors in the City. The proposed changes are what the Planning Board recommended.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether other jurisdictions have adopted these flexible thresholds. Mr.
Lien answered most jurisdictions have increased the thresholds. In his previous position, all the thresholds
were maxed out except for agricultural buildings. Seattle raised thresholds in different zones throughout
the city. He did not research other jurisdictions but found it unlikely that all were at the minimum
established by SEPA.
Councilmember Peterson acknowledged SEPA was not the be all and end all of public notification or
environmental regulation. He assumed any City code changes below this would trump SEPA regulations.
For example if the threshold was 40 parking spaces and the City only allowed 30 spaces in the zone, the
specific zoning would trump the SEPA threshold. Mr. Lien explained SEPA does not set the intensity of
zoning, if a zone only allows a parking lot for 30 automobiles, 30 would be the limit. If it was below the
40 space threshold, SEPA would not be done but the parking lot could not be larger than 30 parking
spaces if that was specified by the zone.
Councilmember Peterson commented he was a fan of SEPA regulations and review, finding it served the
City, citizens and State well. If the Council and City were more proactive in defining zones and
environmental regulations, SEPA may play a smaller role. Mr. Lien agreed SEPA played a smaller role
today than when it was first adopted in 1971.. For example when SEPA was first adopted, there was no
GMA, no Critical Areas Ordinance, Traffic Impact Fees, etc. to address potential impact from
development. When an application is received, staff reviews it to ensure it is consistent with the City's
development regulations. If all the impacts cannot be mitigated through existing development regulations,
conditions can be added via the SEPA process.
Councilmember Wilson commented this was not a limiting of SEPA regulations but an effort to remove
hurdles for economic development. To the question of who has given that policy direction, he answered
the Council has expressed support for incentivizing development on Highway 99 and development in the
area surrounding Stevens Hospital. If Council did not support the proposed thresholds, they should be
clear about what they want from the Planning Board to foster economic development in those areas or
change the Comprehensive Plan. He recognized there may be more concern with the proposed change in
the northern Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, recalling the Council declined a recent opportunity to
change the zoning in that area.
If the Council was sensitive to changes in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, Councilmember
Wilson suggested it may be appropriate to bring changes to the thresholds in that area to Council
separately from changes to the Highway 99 area. Mr. Lien answered one option would be to have three
proposals at the public hearing, 1) keep the flexible threshold levels as they are, and 2) the proposal
recommended by the Planning Board, 3) remove the Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center and only
increase the thresholds for the Highway 99 corridor.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 9
Councilmember Wilson pointed out if the Council did not support incentivizing development in the
Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center, the definition of the Activity Center may need to be changed to
focus development around the commercial area and not impact the residential areas. He suggested having
separate public hearings for Highway 99 and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. Mr. Lien
suggested it may be more appropriate to have the public hearings together because increasing the
thresholds was only part of the update.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the 40 parking spaces and 12,000 square feet were determined. Mr.
Lien answered WAC 197 -11- $00(1) is the section that contains the flexible thresholds; 40 parking spaces
and 12,000 square feet is the maximum.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether consideration had been given to a flexible threshold that could
be waived on a case -by -case basis based on the project. Mr. Lien answered that would be difficult to
implement for the City and the developer.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas referred to the red area on the SEPA Flexible Categorical Exemptions
Level Map, noting it increases the SEPA thresholds into residential neighborhoods 6 -10 blocks off
Highway 99 and in the south section, up to 12 blocks off Highway 99. She asked how that area was
selected. Mr. Lien answered the red area is the Highway 99 corridor as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked the impact to development and economic development if the
nothing was done. Mr. Lien answered the proposed changes would have only exempted 2 developments
out of 193 in the past 6 years. If nothing is done, only 2 proposals would have benefited from the change.
Councilmember Wilson commented the answer to Councilmember Fraley - Monillas' question was
unknown because although two projects would have been exempt, it is unknown how many would have
been proposed although he anticipated the requirement for a SEPA review would typically not be a deal
breaker for a developer. Mr. Lien explained of the 193 proposals, 12 were within the CG or CG2 zone for
which 2 would not have required SEPA review under this proposal.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSAL AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE PLANNING BOARD.
Councilmember Plunkett supported the premise that the City needed to be consistent with WACs and
RCWs. With regard to Councilmember Fraley - Monillas' comment about doing nothing, he pointed out
the update was required to be consistent with those regulations. He did not support the concept of
lowering neighborhood standards.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE ORDINANCE THAT ALL INCREASES IN SEPA THRESHOLD LEVELS BE
REMOVED, THEREBY LEAVING THE LEVELS AT THE MINIMUM ESTABLISHED BY THE
WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
Councilmember Wilson asked what would be left for the public hearing if those change were removed.
Mr. Lien asked for clarification whether the motion removed the increase in the SEPA threshold that was
done 25 years ago. Councilmember Plunkett clarified only the increases in the Planning Board's
recommendation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 10
Councilmember Wilson suggested if the Council did not want the policy to reflect what was in the
Comprehensive Plan, more research should be done with regard to the boarder policy question.
Councilmember Plunkett responded the Planning Board's recommendation with regard to meeting
consistence complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Their recommendation also complies with reference
in the Comprehensive Plan to encouraging economic development in this area. He did not anticipate that
because a developer was required to complete a SEPA checklist, they would be prevented from seeking
an economic development project.
Councilmember Wilson advised he would oppose the amendment because he wanted to hear from the
public. If the amendment fails he would make a different amendment that would separate consideration of
the two areas in hopes it would better address the concerns with protecting residential rights in places
where there are more residences such as the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
Councilmember Petso spoke in favor of the amendment, advising the public hearing could address the
necessary statutory updates as well as other issues such whether staff should be completing the SEPA
checklist for applicants. She was not satisfied with the solution suggested by Councilmember Wilson to
separate the Highway 99 corridor and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center because under the
Comprehensive Plan, both areas include several residential neighborhoods. The Planning Board minutes
indicate the proposed change would have a minimal time and cost savings to a developer. However she
preferred that projects such as a 20 unit residential development in front of another resident's solar
collection panels or a project that technically complies with drainage codes but will impact Lake
Ballinger have a SEPA review. She did not want to facilitate economic development at the expense of
these neighborhoods or at the expense of Lake Ballinger.
Council President Bernheim spoke against the amendment, commenting in the pursuit of economic
development consideration is being given to environmental regulations. Although he did not object to that
in principle as long as the right things were relaxed, he supported having a public hearing about the
Planning Board's recommendation to relax the SEPA standards. The proposal could then be amended
after the public hearing if appropriate.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas did not support the amendment, preferring to have a public hearing
regarding the Planning Board's recommendation. She preferred to have one public hearing because there
are residential neighborhoods in both areas.
Councilmember Peterson did not support the amendment, commenting he did not view the Planning
Board's recommendation as a relaxation of the environmental standards. He viewed it as an opportunity
to reduce the bureaucratic paperwork and number of steps developers are required to complete. He
commented on the importance of hearing from the public and having an open dialogue about
environmental standards.
MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND PETSO VOTING YES.
Councilmember Petso understood the Planning Board's recommended proposal could be amended after
the public hearing. She did not support the main motion because there was a good chance the public
would not support the Planning Board's recommendation.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas spoke in support of the motion to hold a public hearing, commenting it
was important to hear from the public, particularly the residents along the Highway 99 corridor and the
Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 11
Councilmember Wilson asked what it would take for this proposed change to be relevant in a single
family zone. He suggested first a developer would need to be interested in building a commercial
development in a residential which would require a zone change and a Comprehensive Plan designation
change. Mr. Lien answered if there were a proposal for a subdivision of more than 5 lots, although under
this proposal that development would be exempt from SEPA review, it has notice requirements, and it
requires view by the Planning Board and the City Council who ultimately approves /denies a 5 -lot
subdivision. Depending on the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation, a Comprehensive Plan
change would require SEPA review. If a rezone was required, a rezone requires SEPA review. Once the
Comprehensive Plan designation change and rezone were accomplished, if the development was under
the thresholds, SEPA would not be required. If the development exceeded the thresholds, a third SEPA
may be required.
Councilmember Wilson supported protecting single family neighborhood, noting there would already be
two SEPA evaluations before a commercial development could occur in a single family zone. He
summarized neighborhoods are not under threat of having an environmentally damaging commercial
developments occur in their backyard as a result of the Council's consideration of the Planning Board's
recommendations.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S
RECOMMENDATION, ONE REGARDING THE MEDICAL/HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER
AND THE OTHER REGARDING THE HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR.
Councilmember Wilson explained separating the neighborhoods would allow the public to indicate in
which areas they felt the Planning Board's recommendations were appropriate.
Councilmember Peterson spoke in favor of the amendment, commenting a one - size - fits -all approach does
not work well for the City and it may be advantageous to separate the public hearings.
Councilmember Petso supported the amendment to hold two public hearing although she did not expect it
would have an impact due to the presence of single family neighborhoods in both areas. She pointed out
this was not applicable only to commercial buildings. She provided as an example a residential
neighborhood faced with development of perhaps 27 homes and under this proposal that would have
required SEPA review. However if the development only had 17 homes it would have been exempt from
SEPA review. In the 27 home development, staff required 6 SEPA conditions, 3 regarding preservation of
trees, 1 regarding a traffic impact fee and 1 that required onsite parking. She summarized the SEPA
process was what allowed those conditions to be placed on a residential development and that protection
should be available to neighbors surrounding Highway 99 and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas did not want to have neighborhoods on the Highway 99 corridor pitted
against each other. She wanted to maintain unity among the single family residences along the Highway
99 corridor of which she was one.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM,
COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, BUCKSHNIS, WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY - MONILLAS AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Plunkett understood the Council's desire for a public hearing. However, he did not
support the motion because he did not support reducing neighborhood protections to allow major projects
in single family neighborhoods.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 12
Councilmember Petso anticipated the public hearing would result in a different proposal than the Planning
Board's recommendation. For that reason she would not support the motion.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND
PETSO VOTING NO.
As staff prepared for the public hearing, Councilmember Wilson said he would be interested in staff's
response to the Councilmembers' concerns. He suggested staff prepare a couple case studies such as the
Burnstead example cited by Councilmember Petso.
Mr. Lien clarified the intent was to have two public hearings at the same Council meeting.
Councilmember Wilson explained his intent was for one public hearing applying the Planning Board's
recommendations to the Highway 99 corridor and a second public hearing on the same night applying the
Planning Board's recommendations to the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
7. FIRST READING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER
3.65 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT
TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY -SEVEN (37) TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF WALKWAYS, INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS, STREET UPGRADES, TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES, CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, SIGNALIZATION INSTALLATION AND
REBUILD, AND BICYCLE LOOP SIGNAGE WITH THE PROCEEDS OF A FORTY DOLLAR
($40) VEHICLE FEE INCREASE, IF APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, AND SETTING A PUBLIC
HEARING FOR AUGUST 3 2010.
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained if passed, the proposed ordinance would expand the
authorities of the existing Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (TBD) which the Council created in
November 2008. The Charter of the TBD at that time was to engage itself in fundraising and provide
funds for preservation and maintenance of the transportation assets within the City's rights -of -way. The
proposed ordinance would modify those authorities to add to what the TBD can do and specifically
authorize the TBD to seek voter approval of a $40 increase to the local transportation user fee that is now
established at $20. The additional $40 would be allocated toward the completion of a project list that
includes 37 projects of the type outlined in the agenda title. If the ordinances passes with second reading
next week, the TBD would be able to enact an ordinance to place the item on the November general
election ballot, establish voter pamphlet language and a ballot title, and provide voters an opportunity to
approve or reject the proposed additional fee.
Councilmember Plunkett commented this has been discussed by the TBD Board and was now at the City
Council. He asked whether the City Council must approve placing it on the ballot. Mr. Williams
explained because the City Council created the TBD via ordinance, only the Council can change their
charter and give them new authorities. The Edmonds TBD Board can then act as the new authorities
establish.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 3, 2010.
Councilmember Wilson asked if this allowed enough time to hold a public hearing. Mr. Clifton answered
City Clerk Sandy Chase has already issued a public notice for the August 3, 2010 public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 13
8. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THE 1938 FORD FIRE ENGINE.
Greg Jorgenson, President, Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation, explained in 2003 the 1938 Ford fire
engine became available to the City to be used for social events and other activities. The Edmonds Fire
Safety Foundation raised $12,000 to purchase the engine from a retired Edmonds firefighter, Lt. Ron
Barton, and return it to the City of Edmonds. At the Fire Department's 100th centennial celebration in
2004, the Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation presented the 1938 Ford fire engine back to the City. The
engine was then used from 2004 to 2009 for events such as raffle ticket sales, the 4th of July parade,
Waterball competition, the Edmonds car show and to transport Santa Clause to the Christmas Tree
Lighting.
When the Edmonds Fire Department was sold to Fire District 1, Fire District 1 leased the fire stations
from the City. The agreement with the City when the 1938 Ford fire engine was presented to the City
prevented the engine from being sold and the Fire Safety Foundation retained the first right of refusal.
The 1938 Ford fire engine has been stored in a back bay at Fire Station 17. Fire District 1 needed the
space for equipment storage and did not want the responsibility of the engine when it was owned by the
City. The Foundation unsuccessful searched for a permanent space earlier this year and the engine was
moved temporarily to the old Public Works shop on 2 a Avenue. Since it has been stored at the old Public
Works facility, the engine has not been usable /accessible. The Foundation's goal is to find a permanent
home for the 1938 Ford fire engine in Edmonds so that it can continue to be used in displays and events.
The Foundation has met with the South Snohomish County Historical Society and the Arts Commission
and other organizations to discuss the future of the engine.
Mr. Jorgenson presented the Foundation's proposal for storing the 1938 engine. He explained the
Foundation searched for a space at the Old Mill Town building; the ramp on Dayton Street is where the
1938 engine was parked for use by volunteers from 1938 — 1965. That space is not available as it is the
designated space for tenant dumpsters. It was then suggested a storage /display case be located outside
Station 17 such as on the plaza outside the Public Safety building on either the walkway or the parking lot
or near the museum. The building would have a steel roof that matched the Public Safety building's roof
with glass sides, doors and walls such as the glass enclosure in front of Krispy Kreme donuts on
125 /Aurora Avenue. A glass enclosure to house the 1938 Ford is estimated to cost $40,000 with a
concrete foundation, steel corner posts, steel roof and glass on four sides and provide access to the engine
for events, displays, etc.
In the process of developing this idea, the Lieutenant in charge of firefighter volunteers for Fire District 1
spoke with Fire District 1 Chief Widdis who suggested if ownership of the 1938 Ford was given to Fire
District 1 they would store the engine in Fire Station 17 temporarily until a structure could be built. In
addition, Fire District 1 would return the restored 1925 REO to the City. A building to display both
vehicles is estimated to cost $60,000.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether the Fire Safety Foundation would raise the money for the
display case. Mr. Jorgenson answered the Foundation has the capability of reaching that goal. The first
consideration would be whether the City would allow the space outside the Public Safety building to be
used.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Edmonds would give the 1938 Ford fire engine to Fire District 1.
Mr. Jorgenson explained Fire District 1's proposal was for the City to give them the 1938 Ford engine
and they would donate the 1925 REO to the City. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested developing a hold
harmless agreement with Fire District 1 if they stored the 1938 engine and Fire District 1 could use the
engine at events in Snohomish County. Mr. Jorgenson explained Fire District 1 has more resources ability
maintain and move equipment. The City may not have the same capability with regard to the 1938 engine.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 14
The agreement between the Fire Safety foundation and the City required that if at any time the City could
no longer store or maintain the engine, it could not be sold and the Fire Safety Foundation had the first
right of refusal. This was to prevent the engine from leaving the City of Edmonds.
Councilmember Wilson commented none of the Council wanted anything bad to happen to the 1938 Ford
fire engine. He was impressed with the Fire Safety Foundations proposal to raise the money for the glass
enclosure. He asked Mayor Cooper whether he planned to meet with Fire District 1. Mayor Cooper
advised he had a meeting scheduled with Fire District 1 Chief Widdis and Jim Kenny, Chair of the Board
of Fire Commissioners, to discuss a variety of topics. He suggested delaying any action for a few weeks
to allow for further discussions with Fire District 1 regarding a solution.
Council President Bernheim observed Fire District 1 was willing to store the 1938 . Ford fire engine in Fire
Station 17. It is a burden on the City's storage space; and it would be preferable to move it back into the
fire station. He anticipated transferring ownership to the Fire District 1 could be a good thing and the City
could consider alternate storage and display options.
For Councilmember Fraley- Monillas, Mayor Cooper assured he intended to ask Chief Widdis and
Commissioner Kenny to locate the 1938 engine in the fire station immediately.
Councilmember Peterson anticipated this could be a phenomenal opportunity. He agreed the best place
for the 1938 engine was in front of the Public Safety building but there may be technical issues related to
the number of required parking spaces, etc. He suggested staff determine where a 10'x40' building could
be located.
Councilmember Petso commented there were arts organizations using space in the old Public Works
facility. She asked whether the Fire Safety Foundation had discussed whether those entities could find a
more suitable space and allow the Fire Safety Foundation to use the vehicle bay. Mr. Jorgenson explained
the bay with the closed door is leased by the Edmonds Arts Festival to store their supplies. Artworks uses
the next bay and Driftwood players use the other end of the building for storage and rehearsal space. The
only suitable space available is where the Edmonds Arts Festival stores their supplies. Councilmember
Petso asked whether that space would be suitable if an alternate space were identified for the Arts Festival
supplies. Mr. Jorgenson answered there was discussion about using that space as a fire museum and that
garage space would be advantageous for accessing the engine for events.
It was the consensus of the Council not to take further action until Mayor Cooper had an opportunity to
meet with Fire District 1..
9. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported the recent Snohomish Health District meeting included
discussion regarding the increase in tuberculosis in the general population nationwide that has not
occurred since the 1950s. She also reported on the Disability Board meeting she attended with
Councilmember Peterson.
Councilmember Wilson reported at the SnoCom Board meeting there was discussion regarding Fire
District 1 not having a seat on that Board. He suggested at the meeting that Edmonds would not object to
Fire District 1 having a full seat on the board. Interlocal Agreements will need to be approved by each
Council to allow Fire District 1 a seat on the SnoCom Board. The Lake Ballinger Forum is developing an
Interlocal Agreement for the next phase of managing the watershed and water quality. That Interlocal
Agreement will be presented to the Council in the near future.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 15
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on the Port of Edmonds Commission meeting. The Port is moving
forward with Phase 1 of the Harbor Square development. She also attended a WRIA 8 meeting where
there was discussion regarding involving the Port. Efforts are underway to move the cleanup of the
Edmonds Marsh from WRIA 8's 10 year plan to their 3 year plan. The Port is also working on an
improved budgeting method and providing financial to their citizens.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on the Economic Development Commission meeting where the
Edmonds Film Festival made a presentation. Representatives from Swedish and Stevens Hospital also
made a presentation regarding their affiliation. They will make a similar presentation to the Council on
August 3. The EDC subgroups reported to the Commission regarding their efforts which include
involving the University of Washington students in a study of Five Corners and Westgate for a very
modest cost. Staff hopes to identify funds in the current budget for that effort.
Councilmember Peterson reported he met with the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee and
participated in a nationwide conference call with several other jurisdictions about ways to challenge
businesses and residences to reduce their carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. He reminded the
reusable bag ordinance goes into effect August 27.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper announced he had selected Barbara Chase to serve on the Levy Committee.
Mayor Cooper expressed interest in meeting with Councilmembers individually to discuss their goals and
provide an opportunity to learn about each other. He invited Councilmember to email him to schedule a
meeting.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Plunkett expressed his appreciation for the way Mayor Cooper conducted business in a
calm, relaxed, respectful professional manner.
Councilmember Petso looked forward to an opportunity to meet with Mayor Cooper.
Councilmember Peterson welcomed Mayor Cooper and commented on his outstanding demeanor tonight.
Councilmember Peterson thanked Mr. Hertrich for correcting the record with regarding to Fire District
1's response to a car fire downtown. He noted Fire District 1, like the Edmonds Fire Department, are
committed fire professionals and among the finest in the State.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported she attended Edmonds Night Out briefly before the Executive
Session. She welcomed Mayor Cooper and looked forward to meeting with him.
Councilmember Wilson welcomed Mayor Cooper, reporting he met with him today. He complimented
Council President Bernheim in his capacity as Mayor Pro Tem during what could have been a contentious
and unstable period. Council President Bernheim rose to the challenge and he has only heard good things
from staff and others in the community.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she met with staff and Mayor Cooper about the Levy Committee.
She provided a PowerPoint regarding the Levy Committee:
• Meet: Thursday, July 29, 2010 (last Thursday)
• Time: 6:00 — 8:00 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 16
• Where: Brackett Meeting Room (City Hall)
• Levy Committee Members: Barbara Chase, John Reed, Jessie Beyer, Darrol Haug, Harry Gatjen,
Bill Vance, and Eve Wellington
• Moderator: Diane Buckshnis
• Public Comment: 3 minutes
With regard how this Levy Committee would differ from the 2009 Levy Committee, she explained this
Levy Committee will review expenses, research and compare salaries and FTEs with surrounding cities,
review the General Fund, review compliance to newly created financial policies, review capital planning,
and establish projections for a sustainable budget to 2015. The Levy Committee plans to be a spectator in
the budget process, research bond financing and /or levy, engage the public in providing their research and
questions, provide presentations to the public, and take their time to provide comprehensive review. With
regard to how the public can help, she encouraged them to get involved; talk about it; give the Committee
their ideas; support staff, the committee and the City Council; and think of how much they are willing to
spend for the City. The Committee also plans to solicit input via the use of Survey Monkey.
Council President Bernheim thanked Andy Eccleshall who was in the audience for painting a superb
mural that adds to the City's ambiance. He welcomed Mayor Cooper and looked forward to their
relationship.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:41 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 17