12/15/2009 City CouncilDecember 15, 2009
At 6:45 p.m., the City Council interviewed the following candidates for the Historic Preservation
Commission and Planning Board: John Dewhirst, Lois Broadway and Todd Cloutier. Mayor Haakenson,
and Councilmembers Plunkett, Bernheim, Orvis and Wambolt were present at 6:45 p.m.
Councilmembers Peterson and Wilson arrived at 6:50 p.m.
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`h 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
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Gina Coccia, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Wilson requested Item O be removed from the Consent Agenda, Councilmember
Plunkett requested Item R be removed, and Councilmember Wambolt requested Item U be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 1, 2009.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 1
C. APPROVAL OF CORRECTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 2, 2009.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #115584 THROUGH #115605 DATED NOVEMBER
24, 2009 FOR $42,169.66, #115606 THROUGH #115801 DATED DECEMBER 3, 2009 FOR
$628,698.00 AND #115802 THROUGH #115936 DATED DECEMBER 10, 2009 FOR
$577,575.76. APPROVAL OF KELLY DAY BUY BACK CHECKS #48790 THROUGH
#48820 DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2009 FOR $33,005.84, AND APPROVAL OF HOLIDAY
BUY BACK CHECKS #48821 THROUGH #48913 DATED NOVEMBER 23, 2009 FOR
$224,035.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #48914
THROUGH #48954 FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 16 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30,
2009 FOR $914,791.67.
E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM ERIC THUESEN
CUSTOM HOMES ($47,393.00), AND ELEANOR CORNER ($588.00).
F. APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD,
DECEMBER 2009.
G. REAPPOINTMENT OF LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
2010. .
H. LIST OF RETIRING BOARD MEMBERS, COMMISSIONERS, AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS.
L AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT FOR THE SEASHORE
TRANSPORTATION FORUM.
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 4 WITH
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
UPGRADES WITH RESPECT TO THE BNSF DOUBLE TRACK PROJECT.
K. 2010 HOURLY POSITIONS BY PAY GRADE, TITLE AND WAGE.
L. 2010 . NON - REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE PAY SCHEDULE.
M. 2010 ADDENDUM TO PRISONER DETENTION AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
LYNNWOOD.
N. KENNELING SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN ADIX'S BED AND BATH AND THE
CITY OF EDMONDS.
P. SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING, INC. FOR SERVICE
YEARS 2010 - 2012.
Q. 2009 -2010 FIRE DEPARTMENT WORK PLAN UPDATE #1.
S. ORDINANCE NO. 3766 - ADOPTING A NEW COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
ELEMENT.
T. ORDINANCE NO. 3767 - AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN IN ORDER TO UPDATE THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND THE
INCORPORATED WALKWAY AND BIKEWAY PLANS.
V. RESOLUTION NO. 1212 - THANKING COUNCILMEMBER RON WAMBOLT FOR HIS
SERVICE ON THE CITY COUNCIL
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 2
W. CONFIRMATION OF NEW HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMBER.
ITEM O: WOODWAY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES.
Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon explained after forwarding the contract to the City Attorney, they
advised Ogden Murphy Wallace represents both Edmonds and Woodway. The contract was then
reviewed and approved as to form by the law firm Weed Graafstra & Benson. ACOP Gannon read
Section 7 which was added to the contract after it was reviewed by the Council Committee, "Pursuant to
RCW 39.34.040, this agreement shall be filed with the Snohomish County Auditor or alternatively listed
by subject on the website of either party hereto or on other electronically retrievable public source."
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO APPROVE ITEM O. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM R: ORDINANCE NO. 3765 — AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
UPDATE THE " EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN."
Councilmember Plunkett asked if this was an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. City
Attorney Scott Snyder responded the Comprehensive Plan included several separate elements; the
Council typically amended the Comprehensive Plan element by element.
COUNCILMEVIBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM R.
ITEM U: ORDINANCE NO. 3768 — CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.4) TO SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -8)
ALONG A PORTION OF 215TH STREET SW.
Councilmember Wambolt explained he pulled this item to vote against it.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM U. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT VOTING
NO.
3. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION TO COUNCILMEMBER RON WAMBOLT FOLLOWED
BY A RECEPTION.
Council President Wilson read a resolution commending, thanking and recognizing Councilmember
Wambolt for his service on the City Council from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009. He also
presented him a plaque in recognition of his service.
Councilmember Wambolt commented his four years on the Council had been a very good education. A
few years before joining the Council he did not know what issues were the responsibilities of the Mayor
and which were the Council's responsibilities. He found the committees he served on very rewarding and
planned to remain on the Downtown Parking Committee, the Hwy. 99 Task Force and the Community
Technical Advisory Committee. He will miss working with the Council, City staff, Port staff and
Commissioners, as well as the interaction with citizens.
Councilmember Plunkett commented all Councilmembers bring a certain skill set to the Council;
Councilmember Wambolt was an excellent example of hard work and diligence. He recognized
Councilmember Wambolt for his ability to work with other Councilmembers as well as the ability to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 3
debate and kid with him. He had enjoyed working with Councilmember Wambolt due to both his spirit
and his work habits.
Councilmember Peterson commented it had been a pleasure to work with Councilmember Wambolt; his
work ethic was without parallel. He also appreciated Councilmember Wambolt's excellent sense of
humor, remarking he would be deeply hissed. He looked forward to Councilmember Wambolt's
continued involvement in the community.
Council President Wilson commented Councilmember Wambolt had been a tremendous resource and
asset to him and he appreciated his wisdom and guidance.
Councilmember Bemheim recalled Councilmember Wambolt's and his initial contact was on a citizens
group. He looked forward to the role Councilmember Wambolt would continue to play in the
community.
Councilmember Orvis thanked Councilmember Wambolt for bringing sanity to the Council, recalling he
challenged the incumbent and his election allowed the Council to keep lower heights downtown.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation for Councilmember Wambolt's willingness to change his
mind on an issue. He also appreciated Councilmember Wambolt's preparation for Council meetings.
Although Councilmember Wambolt and he had not always agreed on issues, he had the utmost respect for
him and would welcome him back on the Council at any time.
Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a brief reception in Councilmember Wambolt's honor.
4. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE COUNCIL VALUES AND DIRECTION REGARDING
TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED ON THIS
MATTER.
Council President Wilson explained at the Community Services /Development Services Committee
meeting Councilmember Orvis and he spoke with staff regarding the lack of a process in the current code
for permitting a temporary homeless shelter, whether a few days in a church or a tent city. They agreed
an interim ordinance would be appropriate to establish a process followed by further review and
discussion by the Planning Board and staff. He explained the intent of the resolution was to provide
direction to staff regarding the Council's values to assist in developing a permanent process. He
explained the resolution was developed with the assistance of homeless shelter advocates in South
Snohomish County. He summarized the interim ordinance was not perfect but a starting point.
Charlotte Lawson explained she had been volunteering at a homeless shelter for approximately two
years. She explained homeless people exist everywhere and they often arrive at the shelter cold and
without adequate coats, gloves, hats. During the past 11 days when they offered shelter, the Edmonds
Police Department called four times to inform her of people they discovered living in their cars. She
described the importance of providing shelter for the homeless during emergency weather situations. She
commented on how easily people can become homeless through circumstances beyond their control.
Reverend Barry Keating, Maplewood Presbyterian Church, requested the Council allow churches
freedom from the ordinance that requires churches to have a sprinkler system and a monitored fire alarm
system. He commented groups of 100+ people are at the church each day without a sprinkler or
monitored fire alarm system. As written, the ordinance would not allow him to bring someone inside the
church that he found sleeping in front of the church on a frigid night. During the current economic
climate when it was difficult for government to provide these services, a group of volunteers and warm .
buildings were available to provide emergency shelter. The ordinance seemed to indicate it was better for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 4
the homeless to remain outside in frigid temperatures than take the risk of being inside a building that
lacked a sprinkler system and a monitored fire alarm. He assured there were homeless people in the
Edmonds /Lynnwood area, remarking it would have been difficult during last year's four weeks of frigid
weather to obey the City's ordinance. He urged the Council to consider waiving the ordinance for
churches.
Reverend Eileen Hanson, Trinity Lutheran Church, explained the Emergency Cold Weather Shelter
Network was a grass -roots coalition. Last year they provided 474 beds over 34 nights; this year they
provided 200 beds during the recent 11 days of cold weather. She commented on the diversity of their
guests; they include veterans, youth and pregnant women. The Shelter Network is a coalition of seven
faith communities with tremendous community involvement from approximately 200 volunteers. She
encouraged Council to look at this issue not from a stereotypical point of view but understanding the
diversity among the homeless and the under - housed (living in RVs and cars).
Catherine Roper, Lynnwood, an elder in the Maplewood Presbyterian Church, thanked Edmonds for
their concern about the safety of people in churches. She commented on the importance of community
shelters to provide safe, warm and dry emergency accommodations. Until communities are able to
provide shelter and/or employment conditions improve making emergency shelters unnecessary, churches
are providing a piecemeal, minimal temporary shelter. Until Edmonds was able to provide shelter, she
requested the temporary ordinance waive the requirement for sprinklers and a monitored fire alarm
system. She planned to also urge the Lynnwood City Council to provide temporary emergency housing.
Bill Ellis, Edmonds, representing Edmonds United Methodist Church and accompanied by two church
elders, commented although many believe Edmonds is a prosperous city, there are various types of low
cost housing and a wide mix of income levels. Snohomish County's 10% unemployment rate is higher
than the State or national rate. The consequences of high unemployment are evident at the food bank; the
food bank served nearly twice the number of people this year compared to last year. Today they served
425 families which represent approximately 2,000 people; their recent toy shop distributed 1,060 toys.
Homelessness is one aspect of the economic crisis and results from unemployment, loss of insurance, and
severe physical and psychological suffering. He commented the homeless includes the near homeless,
people who are living in a car or van or stay with a neighbor or friend. The temperature that activates the
Emergency Cold Weather Shelter Network is 33 degrees. He summarized although there were not huge
numbers of homeless people in South Snohomish County, there were very few facilities. The coalition of
churches is striving to fill that need.
Brooke Burdick, Edmonds, explained he had became involved with the Cold Weather Shelter as a result
of his son's Eagle Scout Project to collect food, cash and equipment donations to provide for those in
need this winter. Many of the people he met at the shelter while volunteering were not the stereotypical
person staying at a shelter. His son and he attended last week's Lynnwood City Council meeting and
were discouraged because they were not interested in participating in a solution. He encouraged the
Edmonds City Council to show leadership in Snohomish County by acting swiftly to help the community
provide shelter for the homeless this winter.
Marilyn Nadeau, Edmonds, requested the Council's support for the ordinance or any other action to
facilitate a shelter in Edmonds. A co- founder of the South Snohomish County Shelter for the Homeless
that was started at Trinity Lutheran, she enlisted the help of several other churches in the area. Their
criteria is 33 degrees or below for 4 hours or more. They only seek to offer a safe, warm environment for
the homeless who include men, women and children. This year they have been open for 10 nights and
housed approximately 200 people including several women. They expect to continue this somehow,
somewhere. She invited Councilmembers to visit the shelter the next time it is open.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 5
Council President Wilson explained he learned by talking with homeless advocates that Edmonds has the
stigma of thinking no homeless people exist in Edmonds and if there were any homeless in Edmonds,
they would be promptly sent out of town. He assured that did not reflect the Council or the community's
values. Although there are legitimate reasons some buildings could not be allowed to house homeless
people such as if they do not meet the State building code that requires sprinklers, there is a federal law
that allows the land use of religious facilities to override the State Building Code. He anticipated this
would be one of the only Council votes that would save lives. The resolution directs staff to be as flexible
and as aggressive as possible in waiving certain requirements to adhere to federal law.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City has taken two steps already, 1) the City for years has had a
reasonable accommodation process that provides for a waiver of any land use provisions to prevent full
use of property by disabled persons and the homeless community contains a large number of disabled
persons, and 2) the City adopted Ordinance 3730 that adopted the exemption process permitted under the
State Building Code. He explained the City was obligated to enforce the State Building Code and could
not amend the substantive provisions of the State Building Code without the State Building Council's
approval, a process that takes 6 -8 months. The provision for sprinklers is in the State Building Code. Via
adoption of Ordinance 3730, the City exempted existing buildings that would be used for indigent
emergency shelter from change in use requirements such as installing sprinklers. The State Statute
requires that code deficiencies that are exempted pose no threat to human health or safety and the
proposed emergency temporary housing must be less hazardous than the existing use.
Passing the interim ordinance will remove all impediments in the City's zoning code in addition to the
previous adoption of the State's Building Code provision and the reasonable accommodation process.
The Fire Marshal community's position is exempting any use from the sprinkler requirement poses a
threat to health and safety. As attorney Bio Park discussed with the Council committee, that raises legal
issues. Washington State Constitution is broader than the Federal Constitution and Federal statutory
provision and requires, 1) the City's enforcement of building codes and other requirements be flexible,
and 2) consider reasonable alternatives. He recommended continuing to explore what could be done
within the context of the State law and to assess the risks.
Councilmember Wambolt commended all the speakers for their work on this issue. He acknowledged
there was a problem and the citizens involved in that effort need the City's assistance. He suggested
consideration be given to using the Senior Center for temporary emergency shelter.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked everyone involved in this effort. He described his past involvement
with the food bank and looked forward to the Council's effort with regard to this matter.
Councilmember Peterson commented this resolution was the most important page in tonight's 1,036 page
Council packet. He thanked Council President Wilson for bringing this issue to the Council. The
resolution and interim ordinance are important steps toward raising awareness of the problem in South
Snohomish County.
Council President Wilson thanked everyone involved in providing emergency shelter for the homeless.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1213 REGARDING THE COUNCIL VALUES AND
DIRECTION REGARDING TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS AND
ENCAMPMENTS
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the intent of the ordinance was to remove all doubt that homeless
shelters were a permitted use in the City's zones. The interim ordinance will be in effect for six months
while the Planning Board considers the matter and a public hearing is required within 60 days.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 6
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3769 RELATED TO
TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS AND ENCAMPMENTS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RESOLUTION ON RENAMING KAIREZ DRIVE.
Council President Wilson explained the Vista Del Mar Homeowner's association President contacted him
with a request to rename Kairez Drive. There are two processes, one that costs thousands of dollars and a
second virtually no cost option where Council can direct staff to rename the street.
Ross Marturano, President, Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association, identified five residents of Vista
Del Mar in the audience. He explained there are nine existing homes in Vista Del Mar, two pending sales
and several undeveloped lots. Of the 15 lots, 13 voted in favor of the name change, 1 abstained and 1
voted no. He explained the name Kairez has negative connotations in the neighborhood particularly with
the Police Department. The street was originally known as 92nd Place West and changed to Kairez; the
plat is known as Vista Del Mar. A vote was taken in accordance with the Vista Del Mar Homeowner
Association's CC &Rs and they are petitioning the Council to change the name. There is no implication
with the title company other than the City must file the name change with Snohomish County.
Council President Wilson inquired about a private road versus public road. Mr. Marturano replied they
are willing to have the road public or private. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this only initiated the
process and set the public hearing. Staff will provide a response by the public hearing regarding the
public versus private road issue. He requested a copy of the Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association
CC &Rs.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1214 INITIATING THE PROCESS TO RENAME KAIREZ
DRIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN ORDER
TO IMPLEMENT A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS "FIRDALE
VILLAGE" FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS" (BN) TO THE "FIRDALE VILLAGE
MIXED USE" (FVMU) ZONE AND ESTABLISH A TREE RETENTION BUFFER.
Planner Gina Coccia explained Firdale Village is located at 9617 Firdale Avenue, contains 3.2 acres and 8
parcels. The buildings were constructed in 1942, annexed into the City in 1997 and the site is currently
zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). The City received one public comment that is included in Exhibit 1
of Attachment 10. No public testimony was provided at the Planning Board public hearing.
She explained this item included a rezone and development agreement. The Planning Board
recommended approval of both the rezone and development agreement. The Planning Board's draft
minutes are attached in Exhibit 2. In 2006 the Comprehensive Plan was amended to add goals and
policies for this neighborhood. A code amendment establishing a Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone
(FVMU) and corresponding design standards was approved in October 2009.
Ms. Coccia explained this was two separate actions, 1) a public hearing on the proposed development
agreement and 2) a closed record review of the proposed change in zoning from BN to FVMU. The
application requires compliance with ECDC 20.01 Types of Development, 20.08 Development
Agreements, 20.40 Rezones as well as with the Comprehensive Plan. She explained the development
agreement is a Type V legislative application. The Planning Board conducts an open record public
hearing and forwards a recommendation to the Council for final decision. The City Council may hold its
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 7
own public hearing. The rezone is a Type IVB application; the Planning Board conducts an open record
public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council for a final decision. The Council
holds a closed record review which is being done tonight.
Ms. Coccia referred to Exhibit 3, the development agreement, explaining the City recently adopted a
development agreement process, ECDC 20.08, which functions similar to a contract rezone process where
the property owner deliberately enters into an agreement offering mitigation for the zone change. In this
case, the owner has offered to retain a large stand of mature trees along the north property line which
would ease the transition between the single family neighborhood to the north and the proposed mixed
use site at Firdale Village.
Factors for the Council to consider in a rezone are consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning
consistency, relationship of the rezone to nearby property, changes in the surrounding area or policy,
economic and physical suitability, and the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared
to the potential increase /decrease in value to the property owners,
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would first hold the public hearing on the development agreement
followed by the closed record review.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Tony Shapiro was the applicant for both the development
agreement and the rezone. Ms. Coccia answered he was.
Councilmember Orvis referred to Exhibit C which is referred to in the development agreement as the
Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) which refers to an Exhibit A. Ms. Coccia answered Exhibit
A refers to the site map attached to the development agreement. She explained the NGPE is the setback
along the north side of the property. Councilmember Orvis observed the development agreement did not
specifically refer to a NGPE on a map. Ms. Coccia advised the NGPE was also identified on Exhibit C.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the development agreement indicates a document in substantially
the form shown needs to be recorded within 60 days or the agreement is not valid. The developer needs
to return with a signed copy ready for recording and at that time a legal description would be provided
that matched the map so that the recorded document would have its own Exhibit A that identifies the
NGPE. Councilmember Orvis observed the Council was voting on a NGPE that was not identified. Mr.
Snyder explained if the Council approved the rezone ordinance, before it is placed on the Consent Agenda
for approval, staff would have a recorded document that matched the exhibit. Ms. Coccia displayed
Exhibit A and identified the location of the NGPE.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether there was any legal obligation to replace a tree that fell in the
NGPE. Mr. Snyder answered there was no replacement requirement; a provision requiring replacement
could be added. Councilmember Orvis responded he would like to include such a provision.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, urged the Council not to vote on the development agreement until it was in its
final form. The development agreement failed to require that commercial development accompany
residential and feared the result would be residential development similar to Pt. Edwards. She anticipated
the developer would develop the residential portion and then say the commercial was not feasible which
would result in the loss of a neighborhood business district. She questioned whether the development
agreement was a mechanism to avoid SEPA. She recalled being told in October that the traffic,
intersection level of service, would be addressed in the SEPA review. However, the same SEPA used
earlier in the process was being used for the rezone and development agreement. She cited answers to
questions in the SEPA checklist: what percentage of the site would be covered with impervious surface -
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 8
none; will any structures be demolished - no; how many parking spaces will be created or eliminated -
unknown; and how many vehicle trips per day will be generated - unknown. She urged the Council not to
adopt the development agreement.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Council President Wilson recalled the development agreement was deemed the best mechanism for
retaining the trees. Mr. Snyder agreed, explaining the initial ordinance imposing a tree buffer did not
comply with recent Washington case law; there was no legislative record that established the need and
why the tree buffer was the appropriate amount. He suggested retaining the trees via establishing a NGPE
in a development agreement.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Snyder explained the property owner can remove dead or diseased trees in
the NGPE and the City has the right but not the obligation to replant and restock plants or animal habitat
or any other actions appropriate for preservation. The Council could require the property owner to replant
and restock.
With regard to SEPA, Mr. Chave explained this was not the end of the process. The project level SEPA
would occur later in the process at the time of design review.
Councilmember Orvis recalled during the development of the code to create the zone, there were
stepbacks incorporated on portions of the site where there was no buffer. He observed the stepbacks were
not required in the area where the trees would be retained. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining the intent of the
development agreement was to ensure the trees were retained in the buffer. The zone specifies stepbacks
in the areas where the buffer does not exist.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
Council President Wilson explained this put in place the zoning criteria and the design standards the
Council adopted via a 6 -1 vote in October and this was the appropriate next step to retain the trees on the
site.
Councilmember Orvis recalled he voted against the zone, commenting the buffer was the key piece and
allowed the Council to approve a 50 -foot building within 20 feet of a residential zone. He was not
convinced the development agreement would establish a NGPE because there was no map that identified
the area and it put the onerous on the City to plant the trees. He preferred the developer be required to
replace and maintain the trees in the buffer. He did not support the development agreement.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the applicant whether the developer would take responsibility for the
trees. Tony Shapiro responded a survey was done of the site that shows the exact location and size of the
trees. The trees are substantial firs that range from 50 to 100 feet tall and are 50+ years old. He assured
20 feet was more than enough to protect the trees and the criteria require that no construction occur under
the trees. The trees are located at the top of a bank; the site slopes from the north property line to Firdale
Avenue and much of the grade change occurs at the north property line. The 20 foot area where the trees
are located is essentially a plateau and there is a rockery in some areas that drops away 12 feet or more
where the construction would occur.
Mr. Shapiro disagreed that a 50 -foot building would be located adjacent to the setback because the height
calculation is based on the average grade from the four corners. This takes into account the lower portion
of the site and results in a 2 -3 story building adjacent to the single family development. He noted there
were no zones in the city that required more than a 15 -foot rear -yard setback; they proposed 20 feet to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 9
protect the trees. He did not anticipate his client would object to the Council including a maintenance
clause that would require replacement of a tree that died. He questioned the survivability of a small
replacement tree due to the high tree canopy.
MOTION CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Mayor Haakenson advised the closed record review on the rezone was a quasi judicial matter. The parties
of record are Mr. Shapiro, representatives of WNS Property Investment and Tamara Ancona who
submitted an email. Only Mr. Shapiro is present. He invited Councilmembers to make any disclosures
with regard to those parties of record.
Councilmember Wambolt disclosed he received a small contribution from one of the owners of Firdale
Village.
Councilmember Plunkett disclosed one of the owners sent him a campaign donation which he returned.
Council President Wilson commented he had been extensively involved in the zone rewrite for the past
four months. He had not received any political donations from any of the parities. He asked whether he
needed to recuse himself due to his involvement in the zoning rewrite. Mr. Snyder responded Council
President Wilson's involvement in a legislative process did not disqualify him from participation. The
only reason for disqualification was if he had communications that were not summarized in the last
process or that he had already made up his mind about the action, pre judgmental bias. Council President
Wilson recused himself because of the perception that he may have prejudged the matter. Council
President Wilson left the dais and the room.
Mayor Haakenson asked Councilmember Wambolt and Councilmember Plunkett whether they were able
to review and make a fair decision on the matter. Both answered they could. Mayor Haakenson asked
whether Mr. Shapiro had any objection to Councilmembers Plunkett or Wambolt participating in the
closed record review. Mr. Shapiro responded he did not object to their participation.
Ms. Coccia advised Exhibit 1, the staff report, includes an analysis of the rezone criteria as well as the
ordinance establishing the FVMU Zone. Mr. Snyder explained the Council would be making a
conceptual approval; when a development agreement in a suitable format with the NGPE is recorded,
staff would schedule the ordinance rezoning the property from Neighborhood Business (BN) to FVMU
on a future Council's agenda.
Mayor Haakenson observed the FVMU zone and corresponding design standards were approved by the
Council on October 6 and the ordinance adopted on October 27. This is a continuation of that process.
Ms. Coccia agreed.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Planning Board had reviewed the rezone. Ms. Coccia
answered they had; the draft Planning Board minutes were included as Exhibit 2. Only the applicant and
staff spoke at the Planning Board public hearing.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether in the FVMU zone approved on October 6, the language in the
zone would not be changed for five years. Mr. Snyder agreed.
Tony Shapiro referred to Attachment 7 on page 6, Section 16.100.040.A, addresses 25% of the heated
space of the built area must be in commercial. This was included in response to concern expressed by the
community that the development would be entirely residential. The materials provided to the Planning
Board also reviewed how the proposed rezone complies with the six criteria.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 10
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO RETURN WITH AN ORDINANCE ON A FUTURE AGENDA THAT REZONED THE
PROPERTY FROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) TO FIRDALE VILLAGE MIXED USE
(FVMU).
Councilmember Bernheim commented he was uncomfortable with some of the language in the zone
particularly the modulated building design allowing for greater building height. However, due to the need
to make progress on neighborhood redevelopment, although it may not be perfect, the City could leam .
from any mistakes in future neighborhood developments.
MOTION CARRIED (4 -1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS VOTING NO. (Council President Wilson
did not participate in the vote.)
(Council President Wilson returned to the dais.)
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FINAL ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 BUDGET:
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED
TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained the budget amendment was presented to the Finance
Committee on November 17 and remanded to Council for review.
For Councilmember Bernheim, Mr. Hines explained this agenda item contained Exhibits A, B and C and
a General Fund Summary and an Other Fund Summary. Councilmember Bernheim observed the Other
Fund Summary was entitled City of Edmonds Ordinance Amendments 11/17/09. He pointed out the
agenda memo refers to three attachments, 2009 Final Budget Ordinance, 2009 Other Fund Summary and
General Fund Summary. Mr. Hines advised the agenda memo included the General Fund Summary and
the Other Fund Summary. Councilmember Bernheim commented on the difficulty determining which
documents were referred to in the agenda memo when the title of the document was different. Mayor
Haakenson assured staff would label them more appropriately in the future.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed concern that he was unable to adequately review the information
because the attachments were not properly identified in the materials. Mr. Hines commented the
documents had been available to the Council since November 17. He noted he had been unable to
respond to Councilmember Bernheim's Monday email.
City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested amending Section 1 of the ordinance to state that Exhibit A
consisted of 7 pages. Mr. Hines explained the materials that were historically incorporated into the
ordinance were limited to Exhibit A; the other materials were additional information.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Bernheim that the documents should be labeled
more appropriately. Mr. Hines agreed that would be done in the future.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the General Fund Amendment to Revenues, observing some of the new
revenues were pass - throughs such as the WASPC Grant. He asked how many were pass - throughs versus
new revenue. Mr. Hines referred to Other Revenues Augmentations Offset with Related Expenses, noting
funds were shown in that section as well as in Other Expense Augmentations Offset with Related
Revenues. The amendments to budget expenses include $155,000 to the City Attorney and Eliminating
the A -Fund Contributions - ERR fund for October, November and December. Mr. Hines explained the
A -Found Contribution; each fund is required to contribute to the Equipment Reserve Fund. Due to
vacancies and expenditure reductions, the Equipment Reserve Fund is able to maintain an adequate
balance through yearend; therefore, contributions from the other funds are not necessary resulting in a
reduction in the expense.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 11
Council President Wilson echoed previous statements regarding the importance of accurately labeling
documents. He asked why water, sewer and stormwater utility revenue was higher. Mr. Hines answered
all the utilities were increased from 6% to 10% in January 2009. The water utility tax increased from
10% to 18.7% in August 2009 and stormwater rates increased by 6.82% in July 2009. The City budgeted
conservatively for those increases. He summarized the increase was due to both the rate increase and
higher usage due to the dry summer.
Council President Wilson asked when a projection regarding EMS transport fees would be available. Mr.
Hines responded he planned to prepare that information during the first quarter of 2010.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed concern that the format of Exhibit A in Agenda Item 8 did not
match format in Exhibit A of Agenda Item 9; Exhibit A for 2009 has fund numbers and Exhibit A for
2010 does not and some of the funds have different names. Mayor Haakenson commented the only
difference was the 2010 budget identified REET I and lI rather than Park Acquisition /Improvement and
Special Capital Fund. Mr. Hines clarified REET I, Park Acquisition/Improvement, was Fund 125 and
REET II, Special Capital Fund, was Fund 126. Councilmember Bernheim reiterated his concern that the
differences made it difficult for him to review the information.
Council President Wilson shared Councilmember Bernheim's frustration. He commented Mr. Hines was
doing a good job but did not have enough staff. It was reasonable for a Councilmember to ask a question
after reviewing the Council packet and expect an answer prior to the Council meeting. He remarked this
issue was more sensitive because the City's financial situation was of increased interest to the Council,
staff and citizens.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the materials were reviewed by the Finance Committee who are
accustomed to the fund titles, etc.
Councilmember Orvis referred to a breakdown of the increased City Attorney costs and asked the reason .
for the increased expenditures such as the Edmonds GMA. Mr. Snyder responded the Council has been
approaching litigation from a contingency point of view rather than appropriating litigation costs at the
level they have been historically. The total amount is not greater than it has been in prior years. He
explained the GMA appeal was very complex; briefings in response to the approximately 40 points Ms.
Petso raised with the Growth Management Hearings Board were 50 -100 pages each. Another large
expenditure was the LUPA appeal of engineering requirements.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the Breske litigation. Mr. Snyder explained it was resolved in the
City's favor; a lot sold to a property owner burdened by a stormwater retention system. The owner
wanted to develop the lot and felt the City had an obligation to move the system. Councilmember Orvis
observed that matter cost the City $30,000. Mr. Snyder advised the Alderwood Water Agreement was a
40 -year agreement; the Transportation Benefit District was another large one -time project. All other
items on the list were defense cases; the City did not initiate any of the matters. He has periodically
reported to the Council in Executive Session as well as provided detailed monthly billings.
Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the ending cash balance in Exhibit A of Agenda Item 8, the 2009
budget, did not match the beginning cash balance in Exhibit A of Agenda Item 9, the 2010 budget.
Mayor Haakenson suggested he pose that question during Agenda Item 9.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, questioned why the REET revenue in Fund 126 was only $369,000 when she
learned that REET revenue through September was over $450,000. She anticipated through yearend
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 12
REST revenue would be at least $600,000 particularly when real estate sales increased substantially in
November, possibly even as high as $700,000. She questioned the legal effect of a 2009 yearend budget
amendment that understates REET revenue. She questioned why the Council would adopt a yearend
budget amendment that did not reflect year -to -date receipts.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested the Council review the cost and product of professional services.
He pointed out the budget for the City Attorney through September 30 was $510,000 and expenditures
were $415,000; he assumed the remainder would be expended before yearend. He questioned whether
the unused amounts in other funds would be carried over into 2010. He questioned the $3 million in
revenue and the $3 million in expenditures in the Multimodal Fund and the $339,000 expenditure and a
$22,000 interfund transfer reflected in the September 30 report.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether Exhibit A included fourth quarter REET revenue. Mr. Hines responded
it included the last estimate made with regard to REET. This budget amendment reflects only a $5,000
change to the REET funds. If the revenues need to be amended to reflect additional activity, those
amendments will be made in the first quarter of 2010. No amendment is deemed necessary at this time
because REET revenues receipts are similar to projections.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out this represents the third quarter budget amendment. The Finance
Committee reviewed the amendment at their November 10 meeting; it should have been reviewed at the
October Finance Committee meeting which was cancelled due to the meeting with Fire District 1. Mr.
Hines explained these are changes to the spending plan approved by the Council in 2008. Staff presented
adjustments to that spending plan in October and this represents another adjustment. Amendments are
necessary to reflect higher expenditures to provide additional spending authority to address the costs. For
example, without the amendments, he did not have the spending authority to address the City Attorney's
November or December bills or any other unanticipated legal costs.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Mr. Hertrich could meet with Mr. Hines to review the
expenditures for professional service, City Attorney expenditures, and in the multimodal fund. Mr. Hines
agreed he could.
Mr. Hines explained the budget establishes the level at which revenues can be collected and funds
expended. A budget amendment is required to change those levels. In response to Mr. Hertrich's
comment regarding the Multimodal Fund, Mr. Hines explained there was revenue authority to collect $3.1
million and authority to spend $3.1 million. The reality is approximately $761,000 has been expended
from the Multimodal Fund in 2009 and $807,000 has been collected. The third quarter report reflects
those figures.
Mayor Haakenson explained in response to Council questions, detail regarding the additional $150,000 in
City Attorney fees had been provided. He encouraged Councilmembers to share that information with
constituents who inquire. With regard to the Multimodal Fund, he explained a full report was prepared in
response to Finis Tupper's public record request for an itemization of all Edmonds Crossing expenditures.
He suggested Mr. Hertrich obtain that information from Mr. Tupper.
Councilmember Orvis commented his understanding was the budget was a cap on the expenditures for
each fund and not necessarily a cap on revenue collected. Mr. Hines answered the cap was on revenue
collected as well as expenditures. Councilmember Orvis asked why the ending cash balance in 2009 did
not match the beginning cash for 2010. Mr. Hines explained the 2010 budget was developed in 2008
along with the 2009 budget. Initial amendments were being made to the 2010 budget and he would return
to the Council with additional amendments following his analysis to true up the 2009 budget to the 2010
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 13
budget. Councilmember Orvis observed the next agenda item was to provide enough expenditure and
revenue authority to function. Mr. Hines agreed, noting the intent in 2010 was to provide a budget
amendment every quarter if needed.
Councilmember Wambolt advised the REST projection provided at the December Finance Committee
meeting is $548,000. As only one month remains to receive REET revenue, he did not anticipate it would
reach $750,000. The 2010 REET revenue is projected at a higher amount because that reflects the
amount budgeted in the original 2009 /2010 budget. Mr. Hines commented that would likely be adjusted
when he completed his analysis of the 2009 ending fund balance.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3770, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF
UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
Council President Wilson expressed his appreciation for Mr. Hines' clarifying comments. He recalled the
adopted 2009/2010 budget included a note that the Council would pursue a levy because the Council was
concerned with the 2009/2010 budget without a fix such as a levy. However, the Council did not foresee
the Fire District 1 contract. Those two changes were so important to this budget that before he could
approve the amendments, he needed to spend more time reviewing the implications of the 2009 budget on
2010 as well as have a Council - driven conversation about the 2010 finances. For that reason he planned
to vote against the motion.
MOTIO11 CARRIED (4-2), CO11_?1CIL PRESIDETIT
BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MID - BIENNIAL BUDGET REVIEW AND MODIFICATION:
ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE 2010 BUDGET AS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN
ORDINANCE NO. 3711.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained this was the introduction to the 2010 fiscal year. This
represents the 2010 budget passed as part of the biennial budget approved in 2008 with two adjustments,
1) a $12,000 reduction in property taxes and 2) to reflect the Fire District 1 savings of $1.9 million.
When staff completes their analysis of the 2009 aetuals, he will return with an amendment if necessary for
2010 during the first quarter of 2010. Mayor Haakenson asked if the changes in revenue and expenditures
made last spring in the 2009 budget were included. Mr. Hines answered they were not. Mayor
Haakenson pointed out for example the REET revenue had not been adjusted based on the adjustments
made in 2009. He advised the changes made to the 2009 budget would be reflected in the 2010 budget
via an amendment in the first quarter of 2010.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why those amendments had not yet been made. Mr. Hines responded
because 2009 had not yet concluded. In order to make substantive changes, the prior fiscal year must be
completed to allow a complete analysis of revenues and expenditures. Councilmember Plunkett
questioned why the cuts made in spring 2009 had not been factored into the 2010 budget. Mayor
Haakenson answered the cuts made in spring 2009 such as eliminating funding of Yost Pool were not in
the 2010 budget. In addition, there were no furloughs in the 2010 budget.
Council President Wilson asked whether the revenues from the sale of assets to Fire District 1 were
placed into the General Fund for general operations. Mr. Hines answered yes.
Councilmember Bernheim asked why the 2009 ending balance in Fund 001, General Fund, of $1,052,000
did not match the 2010 beginning General Fund balance of $1,273,000. Mr. Hines answered the General
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 14
Fund beginning balance in the 2010 budget was developed and approved in late 2008 and has not yet been
adjusted for activity in 2009. That figure will be adjusted during the first quarter of 2010.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to the 2009 ending balance in Fund 125, REST 11, of $450,000 which
does not match the 2010 beginning balance. Mayor Haakenson explained the 2010 beginning balance for
Fund 125 reflected the number in the 2009/2010 budget when it was adopted in 2008. That number
would be adjusted, likely to the amount in the 2009 budget during the first quarter of 2010. This was the
starting point in the 2010 budget approved by the Council in 2008.
Councilmember Wambolt asked why the Council was considering the 2010 budget. Mr. Hines advised
State law requires a biennial review.
Council President Wilson commented the Council adopted the 2009/2010 budget and had the authority to
amend the budget at any time. He asked whether the Council had the legal authority to amend the 2010
budget during 2009. Mr. Hines agreed the Council could amend 2010 budget but it would not be prudent
because there was no data to substantiate amendments to the 2010 budget. Council President Wilson
asked whether for policy planning purposes, it would be appropriate whenever an ending cash balance
adjustment was made to 2009, it would automatically make a change to the beginning cash of 2010. Mr.
Snyder read the provisions in RCW 35A.34.130 that require a mid - biennial review no sooner than eight
months and no later than the conclusion of the first year. He acknowledged the numbers were soft and
would likely require adjustment in the first quarter of 2010.
Council President Wilson commented the RCW required the biennial review by the end of the year but it
did not require it be done with the prior year's numbers. Mr. Snyder agreed the best numbers available
should be used. Council President Wilson concluded the policy question was what were the best
numbers; in his opinion the best numbers available were not those approved in November 2008.
Councilmember Peterson commented although the 2010 numbers were not good, the current 2009 ending
cash numbers were only slightly better. The Council will be amending the 2010 numbers in the first
quarter. He anticipated that using the original 2010 numbers provided a better picture than if incremental
adjustments had been made to the 2010 budget throughout 2009.
Council President Wilson agreed with Councilmember Peterson, clarifying although the 2010 numbers
were not very good, the 2009 numbers were not perfect and a budget amendment would be required in the
first quarter of 2010. However, he preferred to take the time to ensure the numbers were good and risk
being out of compliance with the State's biennial review requirement.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the State statute required that the mid - biennial review be a public
hearing. Mr. Snyder answered a public hearing was required. He advised the biennial budget process
included a series of reviews and adjustment over that two year period.
Mayor Haakenson advised these were good numbers, they were the numbers adopted by the Council in
the 2009/2010 budget. They simply had not been adjusted yet but would be during the first quarter of
2010.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, reiterated her question why the Council would approve a REST revenue budget
of $369,000 when year -to -date receipts exceeded that amount. She noted that contributed to a false
number at the end of 2009 that would require adjustment to the beginning balance of 2010. She advised
the infonnation regarding the 2009 REST revenue was provided by staff in response to her public record
request. She assured she would not sue the City for using budget numbers that later turned out to be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 15
wrong even if she disagreed that they were reasonable. However, she preferred the City use actual
numbers when the actual dollars have been received. She questioned the benefit of not including accurate
numbers other than potentially misinforming the public.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reiterated his question about the Multimodal Fund, the $361,000
expenditure, the availability of $339,000 in professional services and the $22,395 interfund transfer. He
expressed concern that his question was avoided and he was referred to Mr. Tupper for information.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
In response to Mr. Hertrich's inquiry regarding the Multimodal Fund, Mr. Hines offered to provide Mr.
Hertrich with a copy of staff's response to Mr. Tupper's public records request that explains how all
moneys in the Multimodal Fund were received and expended.
In response to Ms. Petso's questions, Mr. Hines explained in his professional opinion the 2010 numbers
should not be adjusted until further data from 2009 was available. The proposed amendments were ones
that could be made based on the data available.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1),
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Council President Wilson asked if the REET Fund should be updated as stated by Ms. Petso. Mr. Hines
responded he was not aware of the information Ms. Petso obtained via her public records request.
Council President Wilson anticipated the information Ms. Petso obtained was from the Finance Office.
He inquired about the amount of REET collections to date. Mr. Hines answered he did not have that
information available to him tonight. Council President Wilson was frustrated with voting on REET
amounts that he did not have 100% confidence in. Mr. Hines reiterated the numbers could be adjusted in
the first quarter of 2010.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the REET collections were a matter of timing. He agreed it would
be preferable to have updated amounts for the REET fund for 2010. The $369,000 Ms. Petso referred to
was from the 3rd Quarter Report which did not include REET funds collected in the 4th quarter.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3771, MODIFYING THE 2010 BUDGET AS ADOPTED BY
REFERENCE IN ORDINANCE NO. 3711, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Council President Wilson referenced concerns he had expressed previously and added it was a mistake for
corporations, households or a municipal government to place proceeds from the sale of assets into an
operating fund. He was concerned with adopting this ordinance when there was a 25% variance between
the 2009 ending cash balance and the 2010 beginning cash balance. He did not support the motion.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the Council previously approved placing the sale of the Fire Department
assets into the General Fund. Council President Wilson reiterated his disagreement with that policy.
MOTION CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 16
10. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
HEARINGS BOARD FINAL DECISION AND ORDER OF ORDINANCE NO. 3717 THE
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE UPDATED 2001 PARKS RECREATION &
OPEN SPACE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
• PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S REPORT RELATED TO THE ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF THE
OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FACILITY.
• THE 2008 PLAN REVISES AND UPDATES THE CITY'S PARK LAND INVENTORY TO
REFLECT ACQUISITIONS AND DELETE EXPIRED OR TERMINATED INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENTS.
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained with two exceptions the Central. Puget Sound
Growth Management Hearings Board found the City's unanimous decision to adopt the 2008 Parks Plan
valid and within the Council's legislative discretion. In response to the Board's Final Decision and Order,
the City was remanded to, 1) conduct an additional public hearing regarding changes to the Parks Plan
which was accomplished October 20, 2009, and 2) appear before the Hearing Examiner regarding the
consistency of the Parks Plan with the City Comprehensive Plan Policy B, page 2, in regard to park
abandonment.
A hearing was conducted before the Hearing Examiner on November 19, 2009 and the Advisory Report
to City Council outlines the Hearing Examiner's conclusions that the City has demonstrated consistency
with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Staff's recommendation is to accept the Hearing Examiner's
Advisory Report and Conclusions and confirm by adoption of an ordinance confirming the 2008 Parks
Plan and a resolution terminating the 1997 Interlocal Agreement (ILA).
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether accepting the Hearing Examiner's Advisory Report and
Conclusions and confirm by adoption of an ordinance confirming the 2008 Parks Plan and a resolution
terminating the 1997 ILA eliminated the Council's ability to purchase the land west of Hickman Park.
City Attorney Scott Snyder answered it did not.
Councilmember Bernheim asked if the ILA for the property expired according to its terms. Mr. Snyder
answered there were two ILAs, one expired on its own terms and the other that addressed the City's
obligation to maintain a playfield and use School District property was terminated by the other two
parties, the School District and Snohomish County. The Council's vote to terminate the ILA ended in a
3 -3 tie and did not pass. The Council vote occurred prior to the purchase of the half the property by the
City. Councilmember Bernheim asked the contract term of the second ILA. Mr. Snyder answered it was
indefinite.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented the answers provided to the Council questions were not entirely
correct and she urged the Council not to take action tonight to allow her time to research the Council
questions. She explained the Council was ordered to follow the Comprehensive Plan which requires a
public hearing before abandoning property. The GMHB agreed with her that by writing the park out of
the 2008 Comprehensive Plan it appeared the City was trying to abandon the property. The Hearing
Examiner hearing was not properly noticed and several participants including Mr. Hertrich and she did
not know if they were supposed to address the ILAs or consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. She
observed the Hearing Examiner noted in connection with Comprehensive Plan consistency that on page
62 of the Comprehensive Plan all feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces,
land that would have unique suitability for further recreational uses both passive and active. The Hearing
Examiner also found this property was uniquely suitable for recreation. She pointed out abandonment of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 17
a park was consistent with doing everything feasible to preserve it. She recalled Mr. McIntosh citing the
need for playfields numerous times and that there are no large undeveloped parcels suitable for fields.
Ms. Petso urged the Council not to reaffirm the 2008 Comprehensive Plan amendment and instead pass a
motion stating they did not want to abandon the park and planned to amend the Park Plan to restore
potential acquisition of the park to the plan and to list the playfield in the field inventory. She disagreed
with the finding that staffs recommendation that the 2008 Comprehensive Plan would not impact the
appropriate balance of land uses in the City, pointing out it converted much - needed full size playfields in
unneeded housing. She expressed concern with the second ordinance that terminates the 1997 . ILA for
Madrona playfields via approval of the 2008 Park Plan, pointing out the 1997 ILA covered both
Sherwood Park and Madrona. She referred to the requirement in the Comprehensive Plan to do
everything feasible, pointing out it was feasible to put the park back into the plan. To Councilmember
Bernheim's question, she pointed out the 1997 ILA did not expire on its own terms, it has a 10 year
minimum term and cannot be terminated without the same formalities used to put it into place, approval
by the three legislative bodies.
Colin Southcoat Want, Edmonds, urged the Council not to terminate the ILAs that provide for playfield
usage at the Old Woodway Elementary School. He pointed out when the development company
purchased the property, they knew they were buying playfields and the property description listed the
ILAs. He recalled a few years ago the Council voted not to tenninate the ILAs. He urged the Council to
take a stand to do something special for future generations. To remove the ILAs that protect this prime
playfield property from development would be a travesty. He recommended the Council retain the ILAs
and the option to purchase the land. He commented on the lack of playfields in the City.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented this public hearing was not on the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation on the ILA but the GMHB's finding that there was improper notice and consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan abandonment policy. He pointed out the Hearing Examiner provided a review
and recommendation regarding termination of the ILA; however, it was advertised as a decision on
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The notices were later corrected to reference abandonment.
He recalled asking the Hearing Examiner whether the topic was abandonment or the ILA; she did not
answer his question and made a decision on the ILA. He summarized the notices were incorrect and the
Hearing Examiner mixed and matched the subject which invalidated her determination.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the GMHB's order was that the Council complete its actions by
December 15 and report to the Board. To fill a need in a neighborhood, the City Council purchased a 5+
acre park to replace the temporary arrangement for the use of two playfields. The Council unanimously
approved a Comprehensive Park Plan amendment that confirms that. The GMHB ruled that two steps
needed to be done and the plan was returned to the Council for confirmation. He requested the Council
identify any changes at the October 20 public hearing to allow readvertising; no changes were requested.
With regard to a park or playfield, he explained the hearing was advertised with regard to the City's
interest which was two ILAs. A decision was made not to request reconsideration of the GMHB's
decision. He summarized the notice accurately portrayed the City's interest; it would have been
confusing if the notice stated abandonment of a park where no parks exists.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the plan could be amended to reference potential acquisition of
land west of Hickman Park. Mr. Snyder responded a motion could be made to schedule that for next year.
If the Council wanted to amend the plan, public notification would be required. He explained the Park
Plan, Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Plan must be internally consistent and it was too late to
make piecemeal amendments this year.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 18
Councilmember Plunkett observed any amendments to the Park Plan would require another public
hearing. Mr. Snyder responded if the Council wanted to amend the plan, they should direct him to
petition the GMHB for additional time. Councilmember Plunkett asked what happened if the Council did
not act tonight. Mr. Snyder responded the Council would be in violation of the GMHB's order and he
would need to petition the Board for additional time to hold an additional public hearing. The alternative
would be to consider amendments next year.
Council President Wilson observed the appeal to the GMHB upheld 2 of the 50 counts. The GMHB
required an appropriately noticed public hearing and reaffinnation of the Park Plan. The Council
previously took the position that adoption of the Park Plan also terminated the ILA but the GMHB was
now requesting specific action to terminate the ILA. Mr. Snyder clarified that because there was no
record of the substitution of the park for the ILAs, the Hearing Examiner's review and recommendation
was required.
Council President Wilson commented in reviewing the Hearing Examiner recommendation it appeared
that because it was no longer public property, it could not be used for playfields unless the City purchased
it and because the City did not own it, the City could not maintain it and should not have an ILA for that
responsibility and should terminate the ILA. Mr. Snyder clarified assuming abandonment had occurred
by the wording in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the question was whether abandonment was consistent
with the Parks Plan. The Hearing Examiner's analysis determined it was that because the playfields had
been replaced with a park, and agreements with other agencies were provided for in the Comprehensive
Plan. The GMHB previously confirmed that was within the Council's legislative discretion and the way
the Plan was established, that the City did not obligate itself to purchasing specific parcels.
If the Council affirmed the 2008 Plan, Council President Wilson observed the Council should also
terminate the ILA. If the Council made any changes to the Park Plan such as returning the property to the
list of potential acquisitions, it was still not appropriate to retain the ILA because the City was no longer
maintaining the property. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the School District and Snohomish County were
no longer involved so there was no one to have an ILA with.
Councilmember Bernheim inquired about maintenance of the Madrona fields if this ILA were terminated.
Mr. McIntosh explained the ILA with the School District was for both the old Woodway Elementary and
the Madrona sites. The City still maintains and schedules the Madrona property.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the issue of terminating the ILA was not presented to the Council
prior the sale of the property. When the Council made a decision not to purchase all the property and did
not consider whether to terminate the ILA, it raised the problem of the property had been sold by the
School District but the ILA was never formally terminated. Mr. Snyder pointed out the ILA was
terminated by the other two parties; the City received a resolution from the School District surplusing the
property. The City entered into applications for grant funds with Snohomish County and negotiations
with the School District to purchase the site. He pointed out the assumption that because the City only
purchased 5+ acres it was not preserving open space; staff viewed it as replacing permissive use of
playfields owned by the School District with a 5+ acre park.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed interest in acquiring the remaining property but preferred that be
done via amendment to the Park Plan versus refusing to terminate the ILA.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1215 TERMINATING A 1997 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
AND ACKNOWLEDGING EXPIRATION OF A 1999 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
Councilmember Bernheim proposed a friendly amendment to keep the ILA in place for Madrona School.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 19
Councilmember Plunkett recalled he was in the minor opinion with regard to purchasing the park
property; he preferred to purchase the entire 10 acres. Although it may be easier do next year, he
preferred to state the Council's interest in acquiring the property via the ILA. Therefore, he would not
support the motion.
Mr. Snyder suggested the friendly amendment revise the language in Section 1, line 2 of the resolution
"accepts termination of the 1997 ILA as to the old Woodway Elementary site."
Mr. Snyder advised the School District had already terminated the ILA. He suggested initiating
discussion with the School District regarding a new ILA for the Madrona. Mr. McIntosh offered to
confer with the Edmonds School District regarding whether the ILA for Madrona School had been
terminated along with the ILA for old Woodway Elementary School. Mayor Haakenson summarized if
the ILA for Madrona had been terminated, staff would initiate a new ILA.
MOTION CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND ORVIS VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3772, REAFFIRMING
THE ADOPTION OF THE 2008 PARK PLAN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND
ORVIS VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE
FOR 2010 -2015 TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PROPOSAL UPDATES THE
CITY'S CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO INCLUDE IMPROVEMENTS ADDITIONS
UPGRADES OR EXTENSIONS OF CITY INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION
PARKS STORMWATER SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS ALONG WITH OTHER PUBLIC
FACILITIES NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
INCORPORATES PROJECTS FROM THE RECENTLY UPDATED TRANSPORTATION AND
PARKS PLAN ELEMENTS; ADDS ADDITIONAL CAPITAL PROJECTS WHICH EXTEND
BEYOND 2015, AND SEPARATES THE MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT AND
PRESERVATION PROJECTS FROM THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT AND
INTO A SEPARATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN.
Public Works Director Noel Miller explained the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) was required by the GMA
to identify and plan for capital projects that support the City's plans to accommodate growth.
Planning Manager Rob Chave provided historical context, explaining the Edmonds' CIP (Capital
Improvements Program) dates from 1973. The GMA- required CFP dates from the 1995 Comprehensive
Plan. Although the terms CIP and CFP have been used interchangeably, the reasons for doing them — and
the requirements — are different
With regard to the CIP, Mr. Chave explained the CIP identifies improvements tied to a 5 -year project and
funding schedule. It is a budgeting tool intended to tie budget decisions to 5 -year project needs. The CIP
includes capital and maintenance items related to various utility and special funds. The CFP dates from
City's first GMA Comprehensive Plan which was completed in 1995. The CFP identifies improvements
tied to a 6 -year project and funding plan and is in response to a GMA mandate. Since City already had 5-
year CIP, the "easy" solution was to add another year and adopt the CIP as the GMA- mandated CFP.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 20
Mr. Chave identified components found only in the CIP (6 -year maintenance projects with funding
sources), only in the CFP (long range [20 year] capital needs, and in both the CIP and CFP (6 -year capital
projects with funding sources.
He provided a comparison of the CIP to the CFP:
With regard to what's different this year, Mr. Miller explained in the past, the CFP was equal to the CIP.
This year the CFP is being separated to simply address GMA requirements. The CFP now includes long -
range capital projects in addition to the required 6 -year capital funding list. Preservation and maintenance
projects are not part of the CFP, but are still part of the CIP.
He explained the change was necessary because the GMA Capital Facilities Plan procedures are
restrictive and provide less flexibility (e.g. amend only once per year or with budget amendment). The
GMA only requires updating the CFP biennially (WAC 365 -195 -315). The CIP is a financial budgeting
tool and logically should not be tied to a land use /GMA schedule.
Mr. Miller reviewed the ideal annual plan coordination schedule that includes the City Council retreat,
update of the Strategic Plan, budget, CIP, Transportation Benefit District (TBD), CFP and
Comprehensive Plan.
He summarized the CFP element can be amended on an ongoing basis throughout the year as part of an
amendment to the City's budget or an update to other Comprehensive Plan elements. He relayed the City
Attorney's recommendation to adopt the CFP update tonight to make it consistent with the changes made
in the Transportation Plan element approved in October 2009 and the Parks Comprehensive Plan update
approved December 2008. He advised the Council could address any unresolved concerns next year as
part of the next update cycle.
Councilmember Plunkett commented in order to include the Skipper's site, the old Safeway property and
the land west of Hickman Park in the CFP, they must be in the Park Plan. Mr. McIntosh pointed out the
Park Plan already identifies the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Mr. Snyder clarified there was a
starburst on the map that identified a need in that area; specific sites were not identified. Councilmember
Plunkett commented the area west of Hickman Park was not identified in the Park Plan or the CFP. Mr.
McIntosh agreed. Councilmember Plunkett observed projects could be incorporated into the CFP via a
budget amendment in 2010.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether there was enough time to add projects to the CFP if the Council
wanted to ask the voters to increase the TBD vehicle license fee. Mr. Snyder advised all the plans needed
to be consistent and there was not enough time this year to amend the plans.
Because the CFP referenced the TBD, Council President Wilson asked whether a similar plan needed to
be adopted at the TBD level. Mr. Snyder answered no; the TBD adopted a project plan for street
maintenance items that are not on the CFP.
Council President Wilson asked whether the TBD had bonding capacity. Mr. Snyder answered it did.
Council President Wilson commented although there were no plans for a TBD bond, were there any
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 21
CIP
CFP
Mandate?
None
GMA
Reason?
Budget
GMA
Time Frame?
6-year
6 -year, 20-year
Include Capital?
Yes
Yes
Include Maintenance
Yes
No
With regard to what's different this year, Mr. Miller explained in the past, the CFP was equal to the CIP.
This year the CFP is being separated to simply address GMA requirements. The CFP now includes long -
range capital projects in addition to the required 6 -year capital funding list. Preservation and maintenance
projects are not part of the CFP, but are still part of the CIP.
He explained the change was necessary because the GMA Capital Facilities Plan procedures are
restrictive and provide less flexibility (e.g. amend only once per year or with budget amendment). The
GMA only requires updating the CFP biennially (WAC 365 -195 -315). The CIP is a financial budgeting
tool and logically should not be tied to a land use /GMA schedule.
Mr. Miller reviewed the ideal annual plan coordination schedule that includes the City Council retreat,
update of the Strategic Plan, budget, CIP, Transportation Benefit District (TBD), CFP and
Comprehensive Plan.
He summarized the CFP element can be amended on an ongoing basis throughout the year as part of an
amendment to the City's budget or an update to other Comprehensive Plan elements. He relayed the City
Attorney's recommendation to adopt the CFP update tonight to make it consistent with the changes made
in the Transportation Plan element approved in October 2009 and the Parks Comprehensive Plan update
approved December 2008. He advised the Council could address any unresolved concerns next year as
part of the next update cycle.
Councilmember Plunkett commented in order to include the Skipper's site, the old Safeway property and
the land west of Hickman Park in the CFP, they must be in the Park Plan. Mr. McIntosh pointed out the
Park Plan already identifies the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Mr. Snyder clarified there was a
starburst on the map that identified a need in that area; specific sites were not identified. Councilmember
Plunkett commented the area west of Hickman Park was not identified in the Park Plan or the CFP. Mr.
McIntosh agreed. Councilmember Plunkett observed projects could be incorporated into the CFP via a
budget amendment in 2010.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether there was enough time to add projects to the CFP if the Council
wanted to ask the voters to increase the TBD vehicle license fee. Mr. Snyder advised all the plans needed
to be consistent and there was not enough time this year to amend the plans.
Because the CFP referenced the TBD, Council President Wilson asked whether a similar plan needed to
be adopted at the TBD level. Mr. Snyder answered no; the TBD adopted a project plan for street
maintenance items that are not on the CFP.
Council President Wilson asked whether the TBD had bonding capacity. Mr. Snyder answered it did.
Council President Wilson commented although there were no plans for a TBD bond, were there any
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 21
projects in the CFP items that could be funded via a bond. Mr. Snyder answered the TBD would need to
be reconstituted as capital projects were not its current purpose. He explained TBDs were originally
envisioned to fund large projects.
Councilmember Bembeim observed a roundabout at Five Corners in the amount of $1.9 million was
included in the CFP. Observing there may be projects other than the roundabout that he would rather
fund during the next 5 -10 years, he asked whether staff would object to removing the roundabout from the
CFP. Mr. Miller answered the Transportation Plan update also included the roundabout; if it were
removed from the CFP, the plans would not be consistent. He pointed out the roundabout project was
scheduled in 2015 thus there was adequate time for the Council to reassess its project priorities.
Councilmember Bernheim asked how a project could be removed from any of the plans without the plans
being inconsistent. Mr. Miller suggested beginning the process by review of the TBD funding
mechanism next year with the Transportation Committee to develop a list of prioritized projects. If the
public approved an increase in the TBD vehicle license fee, the Transportation Plan and the CFP could be
updated to reflect the changes.
Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton commented if the Council
planned to consider any zoning changes that would intensify development at the Five Corner intersection,
the roundabout was a primary traffic mitigation feature and will be used to allow traffic to flow more
smoothly as development intensified.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Don Fiene, Edmonds, member of the Transportation Committee, commented the CIP /CFP was the most
important plan Engineering prepared. As a primarily built out city, attention needed to be given to the
aging infrastructure. He urged the Council to consider the CFP mid -year so that it could be considered
along with the budget. He reiterated the comments made by members of the Transportation Committee
last week that the Council needed to develop a transportation funding plan whether it was a TBD or other
mechanism. He expressed concern with the overlay cycle and the lack of sidewalks near schools,
commenting Edmonds could not consider itself sustainable if people in certain areas had to drive to leave
their neighborhood such as Meadowdale and Seaview. With regard to stormwater, he referred to two
projects that had been designed but were not being constructed due to a lack of funding. He summarized
water, sewer, stormwater and transportation are services residents depended on daily. Over the last 30
years the City has been doing regular water line replacement; this has not been done for the past 2 years.
With 130 miles of water line with a life expectancy of 100 years, the City needed to replace 1.3 miles
every year. He reiterated the need for funding for these programs and making capital improvements a
priority.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented the Council was being told if they made any changes to the CFP, it
would be inconsistent with the previously adopted plans; however, she felt unless the Council made
changes to the CFP it would be inconsistent with previously adopted plans. For example, the Park Plan
has line items for miscellaneous park acquisition and waterfront acquisition; there is no such project in the
CFP. She pointed out a project could not be funded with REST funds unless it was included in the CFP.
She recalled assurance from Parks staff during the GMHB hearings that the City would acquire parks;
however, if the Council adopted the CFP with no park acquisition, it appeared the City was not planning
to acquire parks. The CFP also needed a needs assessment or a facilities inventory and recommended the
CFP adopted the other plans as part of the CFP so that the missing elements were provided. She referred
to the existing Capital Facilities Element in the Comprehensive Plan that included policies regarding
essential public facilities and hoped the proposed list of projects would not replace the existing element.
She was also concerned with stormwater projects, noting one of the projects on 238`" appeared to dump
the water into the new facility under Hickman Park and she suspected the overflow would be Woodway
Meadows. She commented the new stormwater system in that area was not working well.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 22
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern that park acquisition was not included in the CFP. He
commented the "purple starburst" identifying the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center did not
adequately describe the boundaries of that area. He expressed concern with several projects in the CFP
including the roundabout at Five Corners, signals at 9th & Walnut, 91h & Main and 9th & Caspers, the cost
range for the aquatics center, and the estimated cost of the civic center playfield. He recommended the
City work with the School District to identify the old Woodway High School as a possible site for an
aquatics center.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
In response to Ms. Petso's comment regarding inconsistency between the CFP and the Parks Plan, Mr.
Snyder explained the City has aspirational goals with regard to park acquisition and identified general
areas /needs. The CFP identifies specific funding projects. The GMHB found that was not inconsistent as
there was nothing in the GMA that requires a city to identify targeted parks; a city can take advantage of
opportunities as they arise. He agreed if the Council wanted to purchase property, the CFP would need to
be amended to add that property as well has have a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
With regard to the stormwater concerns, Mr. Miller explained the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan was
currently being updated and he anticipated it would be presented to the Council for review by the end of
first quarter 2010.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if staff had investigated the 238th stormwater system. Mr. Miller offered
to check the system during the next heavy rain.
In response to Mr. Hertrich's comment that the purple starburst was not defined, Mr. McIntosh agreed it
was not defined in the Parks Plan but it was defined in the Comprehensive Plan as the Downtown
Waterfront Activity Center. He commented the City had been aggressive about obtaining properties in
the past few years including property in Shell. Creek, Old Mill Town, and Hickman. Park. When
opportunities arise, the Council has the opportunity to make purchases if adequate resources or grant
funds are available. For example, the City received $1.7 million in grant funds to assist with the purchase
of Hickman Park, a record amount for a neighborhood park. The emphasis in the Parks Plan, identified
via surveys, the advisory group and recent trends in parks and recreation, is to partner with other entities
primarily the School District to improve existing properties.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson observed the CFP budgeted funds in 2012 for a signal 88th /196th Street
intersection although the consultant stated it did not meet the State's warrants. Mr. Miller responded if
the intersection did not meet the warrants by 2012 other projects would be considered if adequate funding
was available. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss explained the intersection was identified as a
level of service F and an existing concurrency project. Therefore staff will continue to check whether the
intersection meets the warrants in future years.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO APPROVE THE CAPITAL FACILITIES UPDATE.
Councilmember Bernheim explained he would support adoption but planned to review the plan more
closely next year in an effort to prioritize projects, tie them to available funds and include other projects
such as parks. He summarized the projects that he had concerns with were far enough in the future that
there was time to stop them if necessary.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 23
Planning Manager Rob Chave encouraged the Council to conduct a strategic planning process at the
retreat.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson commented he had a number of reservations about the CFP. There were policy
implications in the CFP that the Council had not fully vetted. There was no mention of Yost Pool but
there was mention of a new pool. There was a $150,000 expenditure next year for 41h Avenue when those
funds could be spent on sidewalks. He suggested the Council's review of the CFP occur earlier next year.
12. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES ELEMENT FOR 2010 -2015.
City Engineer Rob English explained this ordinance adopts the Capital Facilities Plan the Council
approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3773, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE
THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT FOR 2010 - 2015 AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mike Cooper, Edmonds, explained four days ago he received a letter from a wireless company stating
their plan to replace a utility pole with an 88 -foot pole that includes 3 antennas and possibly 1 microwave.
He displayed an aerial photograph identifying the location of his home and the location of the pole. He
was told that the same installation was attempted approximately ten years ago at a nearby church property
and was moved to a more appropriate location atop a water tower. He relayed his neighbors' and his
concerns that the installation would lower property values, that it was more appropriate for a commercial
or multi family zone where the height of the pole would be more suitable, and health risks of the RF
signal in the microwave. He referred to an east -west easement on his property along the driveway for a
pipe, advising the proposed installation included a 13x7 foot underground vault. He suggested, 1) the
City revisit the existing codes with regard to installation of antennas in single family residential areas, and
2) the proposed pole be relocated to another area.
Mayor Haakenson explained Clearwire proposed to replace a 70 -foot PUD pole with a wood pole as
required by the code. Clearwire is holding a neighborhood meeting on December 21, also a requirement
in the City's Code. Mayor Haakenson clarified the City could regulate the type of pole (wood), the height
of the pole and the size of the equipment on the top of the pole and the equipment on the ground. He
suggested the neighbors attend the December 21 meeting and request the pole be installed elsewhere.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained federal law prohibited the City from regulating health aspects.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their work and commitment to the issues of the budget,
parks, and the CFP; it was clear the public's concerns had gotten through and there appeared to be an
intent to address their concerns. She echoed the request of the Council to review the CFP earlier in the
year. She was frustrated the GMHB issued a requirement that the Council obtain a recommendation from
the Hearing Examiner; the Hearing Examiner gave a recommendation and the Council was not allowed to
consider it tonight. She reiterated her question regarding how the Capital Facilities Plan affected the
existing Capital Facilities element. She was hopeful the plan was simply added to the existing element.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 24
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Petso's comments about the irregularities with regard to the
Hearing Examiner. He thanked Mr. Clifton for providing him an answer regarding the $361,000 in the
Multimodal Fund.
14. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 8.2009
Community Services /Development Services Committee
Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee was provided a briefing on homeless shelters, an issue the
Council discussed on tonight's agenda. Next the Committee continued its discussion on bikini barista
stands. The Committee discussed dogs and Sunset Beach and determined a person on the beach would
have had to illegally cross the tracks; no action was taken on this item. The Committee also discussed
removing colored utility markings; the Committee will continue to research this matter. Staff provided
the Committee an update on the Stormwater Code. Next steps include State review and SEPA review
before it is presented to the Council in 2010.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee was provided the Third Quarter Budget Report for 2009
as well as the General Fund Report for the month of November. Staff presented the 2010 Non -
Represented Employee Pay Schedule; after conducting a salary survey, it was determined no changes
were necessary. Staff also presented the 2010 Hourly Positions by Pay Grade, Title and Wage; after
conducting a salary survey, several positions were downgraded.
Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Peterson reported the Committee reviewed several end -of -year housekeeping contracts
that were approved on the Consent Agenda including the 2010 Addendum to Prisoner Detention
Agreement with the City of Lynnwood, Kenneling Services Contract between Adix Bed and Bath for
Dogs and the City, Contract for Fleet Services with Snohomish County Fire District 1, and Subscriber
Agreement with Public Safety Testing, Inc. for Service Years 2010 -2012. Fire staff reviewed Fire
Department transition issues with the Committee. The Committee also discussed the City's current
ordinance on barking dogs and whether to reduce the number of complainants from three to two. It was
agreed to leave the number at three and residents were encouraged to call 911 to report a barking dog as
dispatchers prioritize calls.
15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Wambolt for his service and wished him
well.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Wilson echoed Mayor Haakenson's comments to Councilmember Wambolt. Next, he
commented that after requesting information from Human Resources regarding total compensation, he
learned the City provides a 7.5% of salary contribution to their pension fund. He suggested the amount of
the contribution be discussed during the budget process next year. He also expressed his appreciation for
the opportunity to serve as Council President and for the Council's work on sustainability that has made
Edmonds a leader. He looked forward to sustainability being a continued part of next year's agenda. He
commented the Council had also been successful at elevating the City's financial situation to the public.
That will continue next year and he anticipated a return to an annual budget may be considered.
Councilmember Peterson reiterated his thanks to Councilmember Wambolt and his appreciation for his
hard work which was an example to all. He wished the Council and the public a Happy Holiday and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 25
looked forward to a successful 2010 with the Council and the Edmonds community. He emphasized the
importance of homeless shelters and urged the public to reflect on those less fortunate.
Councilmember Orvis thanked Councilmember Wambolt for his service and wished everyone a Merry
Christmas.
Councilmember Plunkett wished everyone Season Greetings and commented he would sincerely miss
meeting with Councilmember Wambolt.
Councilmember Bernheim echoed his earlier comments to Councilmember Wambolt. He thanked
Council President Wilson for his service as Council President, particularly his work organizing the levy
and creating the Economic Development Commission. Both had required a great deal of time and were
very valuable at raising the public's awareness of the City's financial issues.
Councilmember Wambolt thanked everyone for their kind comments, noting he would miss serving on
the Council. He wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Healthy and Successful 2010.
Mayor Haakenson also wished everyone Happy Holidays.
17. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2009
Page 26