11/17/2009 City CouncilNovember 17, 2009
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
D. J. Wilson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic
Development Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Ann Bullis, Building Official
Bio Park, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Haakenson commented the City lost a good friend in the recent passing of Councilmember Peggy
Pritchard Olson. A memorial service will be held November 18 at 2:00 p.m. at Edmonds Center for the
Arts. Following a moment of silence to remember Ms. Olson and her family, Mayor Haakenson
summarized Ms. Olson would be missed.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Haakenson requested the addition of a 15- minute Executive Session regarding a legal matter to
begin at 8:00 p.m. as one of the attorneys would be participating by phone.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Haakenson requested Item K be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM K. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2, 2009.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #115133 THROUGH #115315 DATED NOVEMBER 5,
2009 FOR $884,683.70, AND #115316 THROUGH #115434 DATED NOVEMBER 12, 2009
FOR $217,299.66. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #48714
THROUGH #48753 FOR THE PAY PERIOD OCTOBER 16 THROUGH OCTOBER 31,
2009 FOR $806,065.43.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 1
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM BOB HOVDE
($2,563.70), MARK J. JOHNSON ($5,313.69), RICKY ARNTSEN (AMOUNT
UNDETERMINED), AND SON NGUYEN ($1,500.00).
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS
FOR BUILDING CODE PLAN REVIEW WITH EAGLE EYE CONSULTING
ENGINEERS, INC., SCBC ENGINEERING, PLLC, AND CG ENGINEERING, PLLC.
F. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TERMINATION OF THE ESPERANCE AGREEMENT FOR
FIRE AND EMS SERVICES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2010.
G. CONTRACT FOR JAIL SERVICES WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE.
H. CONTRACT WITH THE S. MORRIS COMPANY FOR ANIMAL DISPOSAL SERVICES.
L RENEWING THE TOWING CONTRACT WITH PAULSON'S TOWING, R &R STAR
TOWING, SHANNON TOWING, AND WALLY'S TOWING.
J. AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS ONE (1) SEWER TV TRUCK UTILIZING A SEALED
BID PROCESS.
L. ORDINANCE NO. 3762 — REPEALING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE
2.10.040, FIRE CHIEF, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 2.12 RELATING TO THE DUTIES
OF THE FIRE CHIEF, FIRE MARSHAL AND OTHER REFERENCES TO THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT THROUGHOUT THE CITY CODE, REPEALING CHAPTER 3.09 AND
3.15 AND PROVIDING FOR DISPOSITION OF THE FUNDS HELD.
ITEM K: ORDINANCE NO. 3761 — REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3706 CODIFIED AS
CHAPTER 5.65 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, AND ENTITLED EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICE TRANSPORT FEE CHARGES, PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION
OF FEES INCURRED.
Mayor Haakenson explained the effective date in Section 2 needed to be changed from five days after
passage of the ordinance to January 1, 2010.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM K AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVING TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF THE FRANCHISEE (VERIZON NORTHWEST,
INC.) TO FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION. (PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE
RECEIVED.)
Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the Council packet
included three items not contained in the packet for the November 2 workshop: an email from Elana
Zana, Ogden Murphy Wallace, dated November 3, 2009; a letter to the consortium from Stole Rives dated
November 6, 2009 and a memorandum from Peter Camp to the Snohomish County Council dated
November 6, 2009. Public comment will be accepted at this public meeting and this item is intended as a
follow -up to the November 2, 2009 workshop.
Mr. Clifton reviewed the history of the transfer:
• August, 2008 - City authorized and granted a Franchise Agreement to Verizon. Northwest Inc.
• May 13, 2009 - Verizon announced plans to divest its local wireline communications system to
Frontier Communications Corporation
• May 19, 2009 - City received a Request for Transfer of Control (Verizon to Frontier)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 2
• Set in motion certain federal requirements and deadlines:
• City (Franchise Authority) has 30 days in which to review Form 394 to determine whether all
necessary information has been provided and is complete
• City Council has 120 days to take action on request
• Determine if the Transferee is legally, technically, and financially capable to operate a
Franchise
• June, 2009 — A Multi - Jurisdictional Consortium was formed
• Share in legal and technical expertise to analyze transfer of the franchise
• Edmonds City Council authorized contracting with River Oaks Communications Corporation
and Ogden Murphy Wallace. The Council packet contains an August 21, 2009 report from
Ogden Murphy Wallace and a template transfer ordinance.
• Consortium requested and reviewed extensive legal, technical and financial information from
Verizon Northwest and Frontier Communications Corporation
• Due to the amount of information under review, the decision deadline was extended to November
30, 2009
Under the transfer:
• Frontier Communications Corporation will acquire Verizon NW Inc.
• Control of Cable Franchisee will transfer from Verizon Communications to Frontier
Communications Corporation
• Completion of the transaction is expected in April 2010
• The local jurisdiction's request to transfer control of cable franchise is one piece of the
transaction
• Awaiting authorization from local, state and federal regulatory authorities
He provided facts related to financing of the transaction:
• Total Cost of Transactions $8.6 billion
• Financed through transfer of stock and debt issuance
• Sell unsecured notes, less than 9.5% interest
• Transfer does not include increasing cable rates to the customers; subject to future changes based
on market conditions
Mr. Clifton explained franchise commitments and obligations will be met by Frontier Communications
Corporation. All terms in the Franchise Agreement will remain the same including calculation of gross
revenues as well as build out requirements. Installation of fiber within the City is more than 85%
complete. Government and education channels will be provided at no cost to the City and School
District; Edmonds government channel is currently Verizon channel 39 and the education channel is 38.
Mr. Clifton reviewed Frontier's commitment to customer service:
• Appoint multiple General Managers within Washington State
• Empower local supervisors and general managers with authority to resolve issues to the
customer's satisfaction
• Maintain Call and Customer Dispatch Center in Everett
• Retain most Verizon customer service personnel
• Hire additional personnel to handle customer service
With regard to Frontier's technical capabilities:
• Signals will be transported from Florida to Illinois
• A transport network will be launched from Illinois to Indiana
• From Indiana the signal will be transported to Washington and Oregon
o Lease existing transport capacity from third party providers
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 3
o Configure network- install off the shelf equipment to transport video
Retain most Verizon personnel
Unknowns include the following:
• Programming: Process of securing content agreements is still being completed
• Although Frontier is detennined to make this transaction successful, risks include:
• Transport and content agreements are not for the length of franchise agreement
• Frontier has not secured financing
• Frontier Communications Shareholders Approve Acquisition of Verizon Wireline Operations in
14 States
• Could scale back business or cease business
• No guarantees
• Frontier does not currently operate a cable system
The Consortium and the City Attorney's Office recommend the following:
• Consent be given to the transfer of control of Verizon Northwest Inc. to Frontier subject to a
mutually acceptable Transfer Resolution or Ordinance
• Frontier's and Verizon Northwest Inc.'s responsibility to make this transfer of control and
acquisition successful from a business, technical, financial and customer standpoint.
• By consenting to the transfer of control, local governments are not opining as to whether
Frontier will ultimately be successful from a financial, technical or business standpoint.
Mr. Clifton pointed out the proposed ordinance states if approval is not granted by state or federal, the
City Council's approval is void. He pointed out although the Washington Utility Transportation
Commission staff recommended not approving the franchise agreement, they recommended approving the
telephone lines but not the cable franchise. He introduced representatives from Verizon and Frontier who
were present to answer questions.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the audience present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public
hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3763 — APPROVING TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF
THE FRANCHISEE (VERIZON NORTHWEST, INC.) TO FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION. MOTION CARRIED (5 -0). Councilmember Orvis was not present for the vote.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: (1) RESOLUTION FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL NEED
AND JUSTIFYING INCREASING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR THE CITY REGULAR
PROPERTY TAX AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE LEVIES FOR 2010 AT A RATE OF
OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
2) ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING THE
REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT THEREBY
LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $9,383,000, EMS LEVY OF
$3,911,000 AND LEVYING $853,084 FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMPLEX
Mayor Haakenson explained this increase would generate an additional $140,000.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained State law allows for an increase in property tax of 1.01% or
100% plus or minus inflation. This year's inflation rate as calculated by Snohomish County is 0.848 %.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 4
With the passage of a Resolution of Substantial Need, the City can levy 101 %. The substantial need is
based on lack of sales tax and projected continued lower rates of sales tax generation.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the audience present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public
hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1211 — FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF
SUBSTANTIAL NEED AND JUSTIFYING INCREASING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR
THE CITY REGULAR PROPERTY TAX AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE LEVIES
FOR 2010 AT A RATE OF 1.0% OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
Council President Wilson referred to Section 2 of the resolution which states the resolution was enacted
by a majority vote plus one of the Council. City Attorney Bio Park responded a super- majority of the
Council was required for this resolution.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3764 — PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY
BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CURRENT 101% LEVY
LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF
$9,383,000, EMS LEVY OF $3,911,000 AND LEVYING $853,084 FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS
FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE DRAFT COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT IS BEING PROPOSED AS A NEW
ADDITION TO THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SUSTAINABILITY IS DEFINED AS
THE ABILITY TO "MEET THE NEEDS OF THE PRESENT WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE
ABILITY OF FUTURE GENERATIONS TO MEET THEIR OWN NEEDS." THE SUSTAINABILITY
ELEMENT WILL ESTABLISH A FRAMEWORK FOR LINKING LONG -RANGE CITY GOALS TO
MID -RANGE STRATEGIC PLANNING AND SHORT -TERM DECISION - MAKING (INCLUDING
CITY BUDGETS AND PROGRAMS) AND WILL ADDRESS BROAD SUSTAINABILITY POLICY
ISSUES WHILE EMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE,
COMMUNITY HEALTH, AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. THE CITY COUNCIL HAS
ADOPTED A NUMBER OF RESOLUTIONS EMPHASIZING VARIOUS ASPECTS OF
SUSTAINABILITY AND RESPONSES TO POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE. THE
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT IS INTENDED TO BE THE NEXT STEP IN
INTEGRATING THESE EFFORTS INTO LOCAL PLANS AND DECISION - MAKING.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the City's Comprehensive Plan contains several elements, most
are required by the GMA; this element is not required. He explained this element was the result of
several Council discussions and resolutions as well as the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee. The
Planning Board has had several presentations and discussions regarding this element as well as met with
the Economic Development Commission. This element addresses broad sustainability issues and
provides a framework for future planning. He envisioned the Sustainability Element would be used to
focus and review Comprehensive Plan amendments /updates for consistency. He explained 2010 and
2011 would be key years for City planning as a mandatory 7 -year update is due in 2011. As part of that
update, the City will be considering the Puget Sound Regional Council's update to Vision 2040, a
regional planning effort also considered sustainability, climate change, etc. This element is the first step
in integrating these issues into local plans.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 5
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the audience present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public
hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE DRAFT COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT AND DIRECT THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE ELEMENT AS PART OF
THE CITY OF EDMONDS' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Council President Wilson asked Mr. Chave whether there were any weaknesses in this element. Mr.
Chave answered the weakness or next step would be including detail in the element. As staff updates
various plans, they will need to be measured against the goals and policies in the Community
Sustainability Element to ensure consistency. The City will also need to pay more attention during
budgeting and day -to -day decisions to ensure consistency with strategic planning as well as ensure that
current and short term decisions were still achieving longer range, 25 -30 year, comprehensive planning
visions. In the past strategic planning has been done but the more difficult work of revisiting /modifying
the strategic plan each year has not been accomplished.
Council President Wilson commented most of the details would be the result of reviewing other elements.
Mr. Chave agreed, recommending the Council's annual retreat focus on strategic goals for the current as
well as succeeding years. Further, when considering codes and ordinances, keep in mind how they relate
to the overall economic development goals, strategic planning, etc. The Strategic Plan should be
reevaluated and updated each year.
Councilmember Bernheim commented on economic change that will be necessary for the City to be more
economically and environmentally sustainable in the future. He referred to the statement, adopt a system
of codes, standards that promote development that achieves growth management goals while maintaining
our community character, employing low impact development, transit oriented development, unique
streets, etc., noting this provided a balance between high intensity urban development and maintaining the
City's unique charm. He remarked the objective should not be to refine the plan each year but to
accomplish the goals in the plan such as reducing emissions, improving buildings' efficiency, etc.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the performing arts center became a reality because the
Comprehensive Plan specifically made reference to a performing arts center. When a project with a hotel .
and a convention center via a public /private partnership was discussed, it changed into a performing arts
center because the Comprehensive Plan did not mention a convention center. He summarized it will be
up to future Councils to apply the goals in this element.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Chave advised the City Attorney would draft the ordinance for approval on a future Consent Agenda.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Brian Goodnight, Edmonds, commented on the rooflines in the multi family zone, noting many of the
buildings constructed in Edmonds during the past 10 -15 years have inverted rooflines with drainage in the
center. However, none of the recently constructed buildings meet the code due to the cricket in the center
of the inverted roofline that is used to direct water to the side. With regard to the 25 -foot height
restriction, he pointed out ceilings have gotten taller and floor assemblies wider, but the height limit has
not increased. He pointed out the inverted roofline did not benefit the consumer, noting the drain in the
center of Old Mill Town was leaking into the building. With regard to zoning, he suggested several
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 6
parcels between 76 " & 80th north of 220th could be rezoned from residential to multi family such as RM
2.4 due to the busy street, bus line, and proximity to shopping. He also suggested rezoning the area
downtown on Dayton above 6th. Mayor Haakenson suggested he submit his suggestions in writing to
each Councilmember.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, explained although the City had two REET funds, only one could be used for
park purchases. She pointed out the City's ability to purchase land had been eroded by funding non -real
estate items from the fund that is allowed to be used for real estate and suggested the Council move
capital projects such as the library roof and the Frances Anderson Center seismic upgrade to the other
REET fund. She provided scenarios that would allow the City to purchase the Skipper's and /or Sherwood
Park property. She urged the Council to keep in mind that property values and bond costs were at historic
lows and it would be an opportune time for the City to act. She questioned the difference in the fund
balance in the 2008 Park Plan and the 2009 -2010 budget.
Dave Page, Edmonds, congratulated Councilmembers Plunkett and Peterson for their success in the
election and commended Councilmember Wambolt for his excellent service.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Item 2C (Approval of Claim Checks and Approval of Payroll
Direct Deposit and Checks), commenting Lora Petso received and cashed an $800 check before the
Council had approved the list. Next, he congratulated Ms. Petso for winning her lawsuit against the City
and suggested the Council not appeal that decision. With regard to the Sustainability Element, he
commented it contained a lot of words but none of it was simple or understandable. He referred to
comments in the Element regarding encouraging land use patterns that facilitate use of transit,
commenting many would not like the look of the city with that land use pattern. He referred to statements
in the element regarding redevelopment that enhances Edmonds' character and charm which he
interpreted to mean retaining building heights. With regard to transit - oriented development, he feared
that was what Al Dykes had in mind for the old Safeway property. He suggested the Sustainability
Element could be replaced with only a few sentences.
Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, recognized Kevin Meyers, an eighth grader at Holy Rosary, who spent 10
hours with his parents picking up yard signs.
In response to Mr. Hertrich's comment that Ms. Petso won her lawsuit against the City, Mayor
Haakenson clarified Ms. Petso sued the City on 40 counts; she won 3 counts and the City won 37.
Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the decision of the Edmonds Hearing Examiner was reversed and
the permit granting the housing development was reversed, therefore, the City lost.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about Ms. Petso receiving and cashing a check from the City before the
Council had approved the warrants. Mayor Haakenson explained it was standard practice during a week
the Council did not meet for the warrants to be approved the subsequent week. Finance Director Lorenzo
Hines commented the Council did not meet last week and the City needed to pay its vendors. The checks
were issued with the understanding they would be subsequently approved by the Council. He assured that
process had been in place prior to his arrival and had been the practice of this and prior Councils.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern with that process.
Councilmember Wambolt questioned why the Council would approve a check in the amount of $800
when the Mayor could approve expenditures up to $30,000. Mayor Haakenson responded the Council
approves all the warrants; it is the Council President's responsibility to review the warrants in detail.
Council President Wilson commented as a small business owner, if his wife who is also his business
partner is out of town, his employees must still be paid. The Council reviews the checks but does not
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 7
actually write the checks. He did not want the City to neglect paying its employees simply because the
Council had not reviewed and approved the checks. Mayor Haakenson agreed he had the ability to sign
checks without Council approval of up to $30,000; however, all the checks the City issues are presented
to the Council for review in the form of claim checks and payroll.
Councilmember Plunkett requested this be added as a topic on the Council's retreat agenda.
Mayor Haakenson explained it was the Council President's responsibility to review the checks; the detail
was not provided to Councilmembers unless requested. Council President Wilson commented he was not
informed of that responsibility by the previous Council President.
EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER.
At 7:50 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a 10- minute break, followed by a 15- minute
Executive Session at 8:00 p.m. regarding a legal matter. The Executive Session was extended twice for
10 minutes each and the meeting reconvened at 8:37 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS,
THAT THE CITY NOT APPEAL THE PETSO V. CITY OF EDMONDS LITIGATION.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the City will benefit for appellant review if it occurs; if not, the
application has been reversed by the Superior Court and it will return to the process. He pointed out a
great deal of money had been spent on litigation and he did not see any advantage in continuing.
MOTION CARRIED (5 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT ABSTAINED.
Councilmember Wambolt explained he abstained because this was something that would be ongoing in
the future and he would not be on the Council in the future; therefore, he preferred not to vote.
7. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON ROOF DESIGN STANDARDS.
Councilmember Bernheim explained Planning Manager Rob Chave, Building Official Ann Bullis and
Council President Wilson worked together to develop the agenda memo. He summarized the problem
was the definition of roof. roof only may exceed 25 feet if certain conditions are met. He referred to Mr.
Goodnight's comments that the code requires an engineering design that developers, left to their own
devices, would never do. He commented the 25 + 5 language in the code that allows the roof only to
exceed 25 feet is highly ambiguous and is found in 5 -6 different areas of the code. He suggested there
were four options:
1) Change the code to a flat building height limit.
2) Allow a certain volume for the roof area above the height limit, such as 33% above the height
limit could be used for the roof.
3) A different kind of code - for example in the BDl zone a 2 -3 story approach versus a 25 or 30
foot height limit.
4) Form -based code which allows less room for interpretation. The example he cited had a height
limit of 2/2 stories, 2 stories for the building and V2 story for the roof.
He explained there was also the potential to have University of Washington Planning School assist the
City with this effort. He summarized the City should not have a code that required an inverted roof. He
suggested adding this to the retreat agenda.
Mr. Chave complimented Councilmember Bernheim on the creative ideas he proposed. He was most
intrigued by a form -based code, noting that was already contained in the City's codes and provided
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 8
potentially the best way to deal with design issues. He pointed out people primarily care about building
design rather than the height; the fourth option provides the best way to address design on a district -by-
district or neighborhood -by- neighborhood approach. He contacted the University of Washington and
learned the City could utilize the service of a group of graduate students with a graduate advisor, a person
he knows who was previously a planning consultant for a major firm, at a very reasonable cost. If the
Council was interested in utilizing their services, he urged them to consider it soon to allow the cost to be
included in next year's budget and work program. He estimated the cost to be $20,000 for 3 -6 months of
work which he noted would be considerably less than a consultant study. He suggested trying the form -
based approach on 1 -2 districts the Council selected and if it worked, use it as a pattern in other areas.
Council President Wilson complimented the efforts of Mr. Chave, Ms. Bullis and Councilmember
Bernheim. He recalled many of these questions have been raised previously and he hoped to resolve the
issue of roofs and the appearance of the downtown commercial area for the foreseeable future.
Councilmember Bernheim responded there were two issues; the first was the roof crisis. He was
uncomfortable continuing to ignore the roof only language in the code in the RM zone. A second issue is
the appearance of downtown which is a related but different issue. He preferred to pursue the roof issue
immediately. Council President Wilson pointed out all four options had implications on the appearance
of downtown.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he hated to see the Council spend time and money on this issue
next year as it was essentially a non - issue. He agreed buildings were not matching the code; the solution
was to tweak the code. He explained the height limit was originally 25 feet and the result was flat roof
buildings because builders wanted to maximize the living space. Mr. Chave clarified building heights
were significantly higher historically and had steadily been reduced. Although the discussion was in
regard to a 25 -foot height limit, a 25 -foot height limit was never in the code. The 25 + 5 height limit was
developed as a result of discussion regarding a 25 -foot height limit. He summarized the height was
reduced from 35 feet to 25 + 5. Councilmember Wambolt recalled the additional 5 feet was only to be
allowed for a modulated or pitched roof. Mr. Chave agreed it was for a 4 -in -12 roof.
Councilmember Wambolt commented many buildings had been constructed exactly like the 523 Alder
building that raised this issue. The concern with that building was the obstruction of the residences'
views in the building to the east. He noted no one had previously complained about the roofs design;
there were many similar designs throughout downtown including his own condominium building. The
buildings looks like a modulated roof from the street but are flat on top similar to the new yacht club
building. If the intent was to avoid buildings with flat roofs as viewed from the street, simply adding the
words street visible roof above 25 feet needs to have a certain pitch such as 4 -in -12 would solve the
problem. The code would then match what was being constructed.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there had been any complaints regarding the streetscape of
buildings constructed with a cricket prior to construction of the 523 Alder building. Mr. Chave answered
there were no complaints about the streetscape, roof or any other aspects. Councilmember Plunkett
explained the complaint arose due to the realization that staff s interpretation of the code was not as well
aligned as it could have been. Mr. Chave responded 523 Alder highlighted that the way the code had
been applied over the years was not consistent with the plain meaning. He commented the interpretations
had been made by Council, ADB, and staff.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether builders complained about the roof design. Mr. Chave
commented there were no complaints voiced at the ADB and he did not recall any developers
complaining about the way staff was interpreting the code. Councilmember Plunkett commented the
crickets create view corridor which some other options did not. He suggested a fifth option to better
aligning the code with the way buildings have been constructed which would, 1) create view corridors, 2)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 9
provide an acceptable streetscape, and 3) create buildings that are more affordable. Mr. Chave agreed
recognizing existing practice could be an option.
Mr. Chave explained the Council could adopt an interim rule that formalized the current practice in the
code and also considered a formed -based approach via working with the University of Washington
students to develop a longer term fix that would resolve neighborhood character issues that simple roof
regulations did not address. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the post -523 Alder scheme may
eliminate views. When the City took the post -523 Alder position, staff held the builder to a new
interpretation that actually further reduced views. Mr. Chave clarified the builder's solution to the
problem made the views worse for the neighbors.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified the City could adopt a pre -523 Alder ordinance while other options
were considered. Without an interim ordinance, the post -523 Alder scheme may further eliminate views.
Council President Wilson commented the Council stumbled upon the fact that the City had been illegally
permitting buildings for the past 15 -20 years because of a misunderstanding and an interpretation that was
made when an interpretation was not necessary. He explained a cricket did not create view corridors; it
was a runoff feature of one inch per foot. He agreed this was an appropriate item to discuss at the Council
retreat.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the City was acting illegally when buildings over the past 15 -20 years
were permitted. Mr. Chave answered there had been some creep over time, since the mid- 1980s, in the
way the rules were interpreted which ultimately resulted in buildings that did not meet the letter of the
code.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the City's code required a roof slope of 4- in -1.2 above the height
limit. He illustrated in the past that was a 4 -in -12 pitch but in later years had evolved into an inverted 4-
in-12 slope on the top and the sides of buildings. The result was the building appeared from the street to
have a flat roof such as the 523 Alder building. If the Council wished, that could be accomplished via his
first option, a flat height limit. He noted although an inverted roof created beautiful living spaces, it also
resulted in drainage into the center of the building. With a flat height limit, flat roofs would be allowed
and they would be better engineered.
Councilmember Orvis commented the new roof type was a lean -to roof that from the outside appears to
be a 30 -foot flat roof. Builders no longer start the roof at the edge of the building but start the roof at 30
feet and go down, a design he recommended be changed. If the Council wanted to avoid flat roofs at 30
feet, the code needed to state the roof starts at 25 feet and goes up. With regard to 523 Alder, he noted the
views from the adjacent building had been eliminated and he questioned how the builder could have made
it worse when attempting to correct the problem.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the 523 Alder building was not legal; there was nothing in the code
that allowed the roof to begin at 30 feet and go down. Most of the other buildings appear to have a
pitched roof that starts at 25 feet and goes up. He reiterated his suggestion to modify the code to reflect
the current practice.
Council President Wilson asked the legal status of the building at 523 Alder. Mr. Chave answered it was
permitted and under construction. As approved today, it met the code. He explained the code does not
state the roof must start at 25 feet at the edge and go up to 30 in the middle; it states starts at 25 and go up
to 30. Starting in the middle and moving out to 30 was not precluded by the code. The goal was to make
the language lead more specifically to the intent which could be done in stages via an interim ordinance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 10
Councilmember Bernheim responded it was the roof only that was above 25 feet and the large bay
windows between 25 and 30 feet were not part of the roof. He commented if this building was his
neighbor, he would likely be in litigation. Mr. Chave responded staff discussed it with the City Attorney
and followed his advice that it met the code.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out if the building did not comply with the code, it had been approved
by the City. The developer did not construct a building without approval. Councilmember Bernheim
recalled the developer's plans were approved and he intentionally deviated from those plans.
8. INITIAL DISCUSSION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LIMITS.
Councilmember Bernheim suggested for Council and Mayor elections in the City, individuals' maximum
contribution to a single candidate be limited to $750 per election cycle. He suggested this because he
foresaw mega- contributions to City Council and Mayor elections when there was a hot issue or a great
deal of money at stake. He anticipated $5,000 - $10,000 contributions to a City Council race could buy
an election, not because of corruption but because of the media -buys that such contributions would allow.
His suggestion was that no candidate shall accept or receive during the election cycle campaign
contributions totaling more than $750 from any person. Companies and partnership could continue to
contribute; couples and their children could contribute $750 each. He proposed a limit on donations
because expenditures were getting out of hand and because it would open the opportunity to more people.
Limiting donations would allow candidates to compete on issues rather than for campaign donations.
Councilmember Bernheim encouraged the Council to consider his proposal and suggested scheduling it
on a future agenda for public comment. If the Council adopted this proposed campaign finance limits,
Edmonds would be one of only a few cities in the country with reasonable limits on increasingly
outrageous campaign expenditures.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about federal limits. Councilmember Bernheim responded the maximum
contribution for a presidential race was $2500 per election.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the limitation per election cycle would allow donations for the
primary and general election. Councilmember Bernheim responded the election cycle was the entire time
from announcement of candidacy to final Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) reporting.
Council President Wilson commented every year Washington State and the PDC were rated as the most
transparent political financing model in the United States with regard to usability and availability of
public information. People use the information provided by the PDC for election purposes; therefore the
public would learn of any candidate that accepted large donations. He commented $750 per election
cycle would be one of the most restrictive limits in the United States and would limit candidates' ability
to raise money and potentially open races to self - financing for which there was no counter - balance. He
agreed with discussing whether there was an appropriate limit but felt a $750 limit was not appropriate.
Councilmember Peterson referred to comments that campaigns in Edmonds were very expensive,
explaining one of the reasons may be because so many Edmonds citizens vote, 60% voted this year.
Snohomish County's average was 45 -50 %. Campaigns are expensive because candidates need to reach
all those voters; limiting campaign contributions would limit candidates' ability to reach a very educated,
enthusiastic electorate. He agreed an unlimited amount may not be appropriate but all donations must be
reported to the PDC and Edmonds voters have availed themselves of that information in the past.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he supported in general a contribution limit, envisioning it would
require candidates to spend less time raising money and send out less mail and spend more time in the
neighborhoods talking to citizens.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 11
Councilmember Orvis commented it appeared the Council was generally in agreement with some limit on
contributions but the specific amount was uncertain. He asked about Seattle's limits. Councilmember
Bernheim answered Seattle's limit per election was $700.
Councilmember Bernheim commented he was interested in hearing from citizens regarding this issue.
Under his proposal, there would be no limitations on a candidate's own resources or the value of
volunteer services.
City Attorney Bio Park clarified there was a difference between campaign contributions and campaign
expenditures; prohibiting campaign expenditures was illegal. To his knowledge in Western Washington,
only King County, Seattle and Issaquah had campaign contribution limits.
Council President Wilson pointed out campaign contribution limits would not limit expenditures and
would take away the candidate's voice which results in negative campaigning.
9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 10. 2009.
Community Services /Development Services Committee
Councilmember Orvis reported staff provided the Committee an update on the construction of sewer
improvements for 13 properties as part of the Olympic View Drive improvement project. Several
properties will be assessed a sewer connection charge at the time improvements are made, others will be
deferred until further improvements are made. This item will be presented to the full Council at a public
hearing. The Committee also discussed bikini barista stands regulations.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Wambolt summarized items reviewed by the Finance Committee:
A) Report on Water Supply Contract with Alderwood Water. Committee requested an update at the
January 2010 Finance Committee meeting. No Council action required.
B) Final 2009 Budget Amendment. Forwarded to the full Council for public hearing.
C) General Fund Report for the month of October 31, 2009. He noted a third quarter budget review
will be provided to the Finance Committee at the December meeting. REET revenues as of
September 30 are 38% below the same time last year and 69% below 2007 or $760,000 below
two years ago September YTD. The original REET budget was $750,000; year end projections
are $445,000. Sales tax is approximately $1 million below budget. The amount collected in
October was the highest YTD which may be due to Cash for Clunkers Program. Utility taxes are
13% over budget and telephone utility taxes are over budget by 8.3 %.
D) Mid - Biennial Budget Amendment for 2010. Forwarded to the full Council for public hearing on
December 1.
E) Resolution Finding of Substantial Need and Property Tax Ordinance were acted on earlier in the
meeting.
Councilmember Wambolt emphasized the need for a levy lid lift next year. He pointed out the scenarios
discussed by the Port for redevelopment of Harbor Square did not generate an enormous amount of
revenue.
Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Bernheim summarized items reviewed by the Committee and forwarded to the full
Council on the consent agenda were:
A) Contract for Jail services with Snohomish County Sheriff's Office
B) Contract with S. Morris Company for Animal Disposal Services
C) Towing Contracts
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 12
D) Repeal Ordinance 3706 and Code Chapter 5.65, EMS Transport Charges
E) Ordinance Modifying Certain Fire Provisions in the City Code
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reminded the Council would not meet next week, November 24, and their next meeting
will be December 1.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Wilson advised the City would accept applications for the Council vacancy through the
end of the year. Applications were available at City Hall. He requested staff schedule interviews for the
second Tuesday, January 12, 2010. This would allow the Council to make the appointment and invite the
new member to join the Council at the January 19 meeting. He explained the Council had 90 days to
complete the process; if it was not completed within 90 days of November 10, the Snohomish County
Council would select the new member.
Councilmember Wambolt recalled the last time an appointment was made, candidates were interviewed
on a Saturday.
Mayor Haakenson wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 13