01/16/2007 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
January 16, 2007
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding real estate and legal matters,
the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauni Moore, Councilmember (via telephone)
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager
Don Sims, Traffic Engineer
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Approve COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
agenaa APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
Approve
Minutes B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2007
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #93003 THROUGH #93164 FOR DECEMBER 21, 2006
IN THE AMOUNT OF $728,556.89, CHECKS #93166 THROUGH #93206 FOR
C1alm
, DECEMBER 28, 2006 IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,337.51 AND CHECKS #93207
Checks THROUGH #93359 FOR JANUARY 4, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,751,004.12.
APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44291 THROUGH
#44342 FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 15, 2006 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $888,506.49 AND DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #44343 THROUGH
#44392 FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 16 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2006 IN
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 1
THE AMOUNT OF $666,345.13. APPROVAL OF POLICE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
CHECKS #44394 THROUGH #44423 FOR JANUARY 5, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF
Recycling
$7,578.11
Coord.
Interlocal
Agreement D. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR JOINT
FUNDING OF THE RECYCLING COORDINATOR
seashore E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT FOR THE SEASHORE
Transport.
Forum TRANSPORTATION FORUM
Agreement
F. ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED FROM SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC
UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR PORTIONS OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Acceptance TRACTION COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTION,
Quitclaim OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE INTERURBAN TRAIL PROJECT
WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY CLERK
TO RECORD SAID QUITCLAIM DEED
Patton &
G. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS
Boggeement s
Agr
AND PATTON BOGGS, LLC - UPDATE AND ADDENDUM #1
ordinance
H. ORDINANCE NO. 3622 RATIFYING A CHANGE TO THE MAYOR'S SALARY
N°. 3622
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006 AS APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON MAY 16, 2006
I. ORDINANCE NO. 3623 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO
ordinance
CONTRACTING INDEBTEDNESS; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO
N°. 3623
EXCEED $5,500,000.00 PAR VALUE OF LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS, 2007, OF THE CITY FOR GENERAL CITY PURPOSES TO PROVIDE FUNDS
WITH WHICH TO (A) REPAY AND REDEEM THE CITY'S WATER AND SEWER
REVENUE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE, 2005 AND ITS LIMITED TAX GENERAL
OBLIGATION BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE, 2006; (B) PAY OR REIMBURSE THE
CITY FOR HVAC IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY FACILITIES; (C) PAY OR REIMBURSE
THE CITY FOR THE ANDERSON CENTER SEISMIC PROJECT; (D) PAY OR
REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES; (E) PAY OR
REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS (COLLECTIVELY, THE
"PROJECTS") AND (F) PAY THE COSTS OF ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE BONDS;
FIXING THE DATE, FORM, MATURITIES, INTEREST RATES, TERMS AND
COVENANTS OF THE BONDS; ESTABLISHING A BOND REDEMPTION FUND AND
CONSTRUCTION FUNDS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLIC SALE OF THE
Glen -Daley
BONDS
Alley
Project
J. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE GLEN-DALEY ALLEY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
3. CONTINUED DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 3624 ADDING A NEW
Noara6a4e CHAPTER 16.43 ESTABLISHING BD -DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES AND AMENDING THE
CITY'S ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY SPECIFIED THEREIN TO BD
CATEGORIES. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED
Councilmember Dawson recalled last week there was a motion to bring forward an ordinance for
additional public comment that contained the items the Council approved. Staff also incorporated several
items in the ordinance based on comments by the Council at the last meeting such as the transparent
railings for roof decks.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 2
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the following five items were included in the draft ordinance
contained in the exhibit, noting several were also included in an earlier alternative ordinance:
1. An update to the footnote at the top of page 7, incorporating language from the International
Building Code to define the height of the ground floor as "floor -to -floor" distance.
2. Updated language under "b" on page 10, suggested by Councilmember Wambolt to address
height in the BD zone.
3. Updates recommended by City Attorney Scott Snyder on pages 13 and 14 to remove unnecessary
"notes" from the ordinance.
4. Updated language on page 12, Section D, to extend the parking requirement for residential uses to
the BD1 zone. An earlier version of the ordinance did not have a parking requirement for
residential uses in the BD 1 zone.
5. Updated language on page 12, Section CA.b to allow transparent railings within required building
step -backs.
Councilmember Orvis asked the difference between "floor -to -floor" and ceiling plate. Mr. Chave
recalled there was concern that the reference to ceiling plate was not clear. He referred to the diagram,
explaining the intent was always to be the measurement between the base of the floor up to the same
place on the floor above. Councilmember Orvis observed the measurement was to some point above the
beam. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the confusion was with equating ceiling to what a person visually saw as
the ceiling of a building; dropped ceilings were not part of the floor -to -floor measurement which included
all the structural elements. Councilmember Orvis asked the difference in the measurement of floor -to -
floor versus floor to the top of the ceiling plate. Mr. Chave answered very little, the intent was for it to be
the same.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of this item.
Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, remarked although she was concerned with the 15-foot step -back and the 15
and 12-foot ceiling heights, the market would likely take care of those issues. Her biggest concern was
the lack of parking for commercial uses. She explained many business people in the city were concerned
because parking was so crowded now. The parking study was 4-5 years old and 4-6 new buildings had
been constructed since the parking study was conducted. She questioned where commercial customers
would park if there were no parking provided on site.
Bob Smith, Edmonds, explained clients visiting their business at 2nd & James often found it difficult to
park within a block. He noted the handicapped space in front of their building provided some assistance.
He was surprised to learn of the plans to have no parking requirement for commercial spaces, noting there
needed to be parking provided for employees as well as clients/customers. He explained parking was
very difficult between Main and Dayton on 2nd Avenue due to three new buildings built in that area in the
past five years, likely since the parking study was conducted. He did not support eliminating the parking
requirement for commercial and recommended the Council consider a reasonable off-street parking
requirement for commercial space.
James Claussen, Edmonds, remarked the Council's decisions with regard to zoning and development
would determine whether Edmonds attracted healthy businesses and retail, an important part in
maintaining the City's economy and livability as well as maintaining property values. He pointed out
Edmonds had a choice how to move forward — status quo with little or no redevelopment ultimately
leading to a stagnant and deteriorating city — or promote redevelopment and a viable city and economic
climate. He was troubled by the attitude expressed by Councilmembers Dawson, Wambolt, Plunkett and
Orvis who appeared to be influenced by ACE and were not open to the opportunity for change. He was
particularly concerned about comments made by Councilmember Dawson at the December 12, 2006
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 3
meeting and read from a verbatim transcript he had had prepared: "You know if we're talking about
wanting to preserve buildings like Chanterelle's, why don't we talk about actually preserving
Chanterelle's because the best way that we can preserve existing buildings in the BD1 is to make it
financially not feasible to redevelop buildings. Let's just call it what it is." He summarized eliminating
future development potential for downtown properties would devalue Edmonds property 75-100%.
Bill McConnell, Edmonds, partner and tenant in the 110 James Building, agreed parking was a problem
in downtown Edmonds. He noted his employees often have to park three blocks away and they could
only obtain a limited number of parking permits. He anticipated the parking problems would become
catastrophic if businesses were not required to have parking.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented although the Planning Board discussed parking, there was little
to no public comment at that time. With regard to the need for curb cuts to provide access to parking, he
pointed out alleys in the BD zone could be used to provide access. He noted although the average retail
business owner did not get involved in the process, most would not want parking requirements for
commercial eliminated in the BD1 zone. Referring to the Council's recognition that parking should be
required for residential uses, he recommended parking also be required for commercial uses in the BD1
zone. He agreed with not requiring any new parking for historical buildings. Next, he referred to
parapets and cornices, pointing out the straight line provided via a parapet at the top of the building was
necessary to hide roof -top equipment. He relayed a conversation with a person who installs roof top
gardens who indicated they were a separate structure built on top of the roof and set back from the edge of
the building. He recommended the Council seek the advice of experts regarding issues such as roof top
gardens. He recommended additional public hearings to get more people involved.
Strom Peterson, Edmonds, commented requiring parking for retail in the downtown core would make it
prohibitively expensive for small, local merchants to locate downtown. He recalled when he presented
the Chamber's position and ACE presented their position in February 2006, there was some kind of
agreement reached, yet it was now a year later and no decision had been made. He urged the Council to
vote on this issue tonight in order to attract new businesses and prevent existing businesses from moving
away in frustration.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of this item.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the proposal was not to require parking for commercial uses only
in BD 1. Mr. Chave answered no, there would be no parking requirement for commercial in all BD zones.
He recalled there were a number of reasons discussed by the Planning Board, including that parking was
unlikely to be underground, it would encourage more commercial space, and it was better not to require
onsite parking to encourage flexibility. He pointed out the standards in the code were minimums; he
anticipated the market would dictate some parking be provided. The Planning Board was concerned that
mandating parking would require curb cuts and they recognized there were some locations where parking
would not be necessary.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Chave's earlier memorandum regarding the reasons the
Planning Board recommended not requiring parking in the BD zones. Mr. Chave pointed out the
requirement for residential parking in the BD zone was reinstated by the Council last week.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out there was no definition for transparent and asked whether a railing
could be tinted and/or decorative whereby some but not all of it would be transparent. Mr. Chave replied
colored glass could still be essentially transparent. He explained the intent taken from the Council's
discussion last week was that the railing could be seen through; therefore, darkly colored glass that was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 4
not see -through would not meet the definition. If the Council wanted, a more definitive definition such as
a formula could be developed in the future but he did not feel it was necessary.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the dictionary definition of transparent, which was close to translucent.
Mr. Chave advised if an interpretation was necessary, it would be presented to the Council.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained transparent had a common, dictionary definition. The way it would
be presented to the Hearing Examiner would be via an ADB appeal; there would be a factual record made
with regard to whether the railing was transparent. He pointed out any vagueness or ambiguity would be
resolved in favor of the property owner which would be a broader definition of transparent. He
summarized the decision would be made on a case -by -case basis by the ADB, appealable to the Hearing
Examiner and to Superior Court based on a dictionary definition which was generally construed in favor
of the property owner — if light could pass through, regardless of whether it was colored, it would
probably be deemed transparent.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the Council had not agreed to rooftop decks, the new wording
referred to deck railing within the step -back area.
Councilmember Wambolt disagreed with a comment from the audience that heights were being reduced,
pointing out heights were not being reduced, they were just not increased to the extent some people
wanted. He pointed out the heights were established at a level that a majority of the citizens supported as
indicated by the last election. He referred to the subject of several letters that a 30-foot building should be
allowed to be as many floors as could be obtained. He explained in the BD zone, there were a total of 48
buildings; 29 one-story, 18 two-story and only one three-story building. He concluded allowing three
floors in the BD 1 zone would change the character of the downtown area.
With regard to comments that Councilmembers were not architects or designers, he explained
Councilmembers were generally not experts and there were staff and/or citizens with more expertise. The
role of the Council, like senior management in a business, was to make decisions with the support of
knowledgeable staff. He summarized the Council did their best to consider all the facts and use their
judgment to make the right decision for the City.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
TO RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE BD1 ZONE, NO
PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE BDI. ZONE. WITHIN
THE BDI ZONE NO CURB CUTS ARE PERMITTED ALONG 5TH AVENUE OR MAIN
STREET.
Mayor Haakenson clarified Councilmember Wambolt's motion was to reinstate the language proposed to
be deleted on page 12, Section D (amendment #4 described by Mr. Chave above).
Councilmember Dawson commented the market would address the parking as it was unlikely anyone
would purchase a condominium that did not have parking. She pointed out the ordinance did not require
the parking be onsite, only that parking be provided for the residential uses. She preferred the parking
requirement for residential uses be consistent in all BD zones.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT AND MOORE
IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT,
MARIN, DAWSON AND ORVIS OPPOSED.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 5
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO.3624 AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING.
Councilmember Orvis commented although he did not agree with everything in the ordinance, because it
was a big piece of legislation, he looked at the big picture — whether this was pushing development closer
to what the people of Edmonds wanted to see — which he felt it did overall. He referred to his
presentation last year regarding what he wanted the ordinance to accomplish: 1) quality commercial, 2)
third floor setback, and 3) open space, and compared these items in the old ordinance to the new
ordinance. With regard to commercial requirements, the old ordinance allowed subterranean commercial
space; the new ordinance requires the first floors to be at street level. In the old ordinance there was no
ceiling height requirement; the new ordinance requires 12 and 15 foot first floor ceiling heights depending
on the zone. The old ordinance had a 30-foot depth requirement, the new ordinance has a 60-foot depth
and in the BD1 it requires the entire depth. He summarized the new ordinance had better commercial
requirements than the old ordinance.
With regard to third floor setback, Councilmember Orvis explained there were no third floor setbacks in
the old ordinance, in the new ordinance staff developed a step -back concept for the BD2 — 4 and
sometimes BD5. He noted this was a positive step as it would give a three-story building built on an
uphill lot the appearance of a two-story building and allow additional light to downtown. With regard to
open space requirements, Councilmember Orvis commented that although he would have preferred more
open space requirements, he was unsuccessful. However, there was an open space requirement for large
buildings and the situation was not any worse under the new ordinance.
Councilmember Orvis displayed two photographs of what he termed "old code buildings," explaining
both had a three story appearance and were 30 feet in height; one building achieved 30 feet via
modulation (left picture) and the other via a pitched roof (right picture). In the new code the building on
the left would be required to have commercial at the sidewalk level and step -back the third floor, making
it difficult to see the third floor from the sidewalk. For the building on the right, the new code would
require the subterranean commercial space to be at the sidewalk level and could only be two stories,
although there was the potential for three stories on the back side, and the commercial space would need
to be 60 feet in depth. He summarized overall those were improvements to the buildings via the new
ordinance.
Councilmember Orvis acknowledged there were things in the new code that he did not like, but they
would not stop him from approving the ordinance. For example, he did not like the 30-foot flat roof in
the BD 1 zone. He provided a photograph of two 30-foot buildings, first, a building with a flat roof and a
15-foot first commercial floor, commenting although it was essentially a tall, square, flat, two-story
building it looked very nice because it had historic architectural features. The second picture was a
building that was allowed by the old code — a sunken first floor with two stories of condominiums with a
pitched roof. If he had a choice between the two buildings, he preferred the building depicted in the first
photograph, noting that building could likely be constructed with a lower height requirement but even at
30 feet it looked better than the three-story pitched roof building.
Councilmember Orvis was concerned there was one site in the BDl where a tbree-story building with a
15-foot first floor could be accomplished; however, under the old code, the site could be developed with
essentially four stories via a sunken first floor and three stories of condominiums.
Councilmember Orvis advised he would also have liked to have had better historical requirements in the
BD1, but that was not contained in the old code, so it was not a reason to delay approval of the ordinance.
He also wanted a better definition of live/work in 13D5, such as floor space requirements to ensure the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 6
result was not a commercial level on the ground floor. He summarized none of these issues would deter
him from voting in favor of the ordinance as it was a step in the right direction.
Councilmember Marin commented it had been a long, tedious, three-year process to reach this point and
was excited that it appeared there would be a unanimous decision to pass the ordinance. He commented
the major driver for him three years ago was ensuring there was viable retail space in the downtown retail
core. He recalled consultants informed the Council that increasing the ceiling height in the commercial
space downtown was essential for retail space. He acknowledged there had been trade-offs in the process,
such as the loss of the third floor via the new ordinance. The old code allowed a developer to squeeze
three floors into 30 feet, but it was done at the expense of what was hoped to be retail space but ended up
being office space. He noted although the process seemed painful at times and people had been grumpy
with each other at times, there had been good dialogue over the past years and, via this public process, the
Council arrived at a good compromise and a good solution.
Council President Olson advised she would vote in favor of the ordinance because she was thrilled the
Council was finally moving forward. She was not happy that there would not be any roof gardens or
parapets or cornices to hide the mechanical equipment and feared the result would be unattractive
buildings. She hoped those issues could be addressed at a later date as those elements would be an asset
to the city.
Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Marin's summary of the last three years. She
disagreed it was a compromise and would support the ordinance for the practical reason the city needed to
adopt the ordinance and repeal the moratorium. She pointed out the requirements in the ordinance were
not in touch with the economic reality. She asked the Council what vision this code supported, observing
it seemed to be more about what the majority of the Council did not want for downtown rather than a
vision for an economically viable future. She reiterated she would support the motion out of practicality,
not because she liked it.
Councilmember Dawson commented it appeared no one's heart's desire was met by the new code and
everyone had things they would have rather have had in the code but that was the legislative process. She
was originally uncertain whether she would vote in favor of the ordinance because there were a lot of
issues she found troubling. She recalled Mr. Hinshaw recommending a 25-foot height restriction in the
BD zone because that area was so precious it needed to be preserved. She was disinclined to support the
ordinance because 30 feet without any incentives for preservation was too much. She was persuaded by
Councilmember Orvis' comments and agreed the city was moving in a direction that would preserve the
downtown as the place that everyone loved. She noted the process, although painful and drawn out at
times, resulted in wins and losses for each Councilmember, but that was the result of different opinions on
the Council and working through to a consensus. She would support the motion in order to move past
some of the animosity that had taken place on the Council and move forward with preserving the
character of downtown Edmonds.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ora name 4. ORDINANCE NO. 3625 REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3608 ESTABLISHING A
No. 3625
MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY'S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Mayor Haakenson recalled a motion was made to table this item and asked whether a motion to remove it
from the table was necessary. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained it was not because it was tabled to a
date certain.
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this ordinance would repeal the current moratorium.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 7
Councilmember Dawson recalled discussion regarding historic preservation design guidelines. Given the
current basis for the moratorium and the Council's action to address the issues that were the basis for the
moratorium, Councilmember Dawson asked whether the Council was required to repeal this moratorium.
Mr. Snyder explained the record for extending the moratorium was based on the need to amend the BD
zone which had been accomplished. He suggested if the Council wanted to enact a moratorium to
preserve certain structures downtown that it be done via a separate action with a separate legislative
record as there was nothing in the record currently to support such a moratorium. He pointed out the
current moratorium did not prevent the demolition of structures; it was solely a moratorium on structures
over 25 feet that utilized modulated design; therefore, the record would not support the moratorium as it
exists or a moratorium on historic structures.
Councilmember Dawson clarified there was no basis in the record to continue the current moratorium.
Mr. Snyder agreed there was not. Mr. Chave pointed out upon the effective date of the ordinance, there
would no longer be a BC zone. Councilmember Dawson pointed out there were other areas of the code
where reference to the downtown BC zone would need to be amended.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3625, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3608 THAT
ESTABLISHED A MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY'S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he would support the motion. He noted some people hoped the
moratorium would not be lifted as there were two remaining issues to be address — historic design
standards and an issue with the arts corridor. He explained historic design standards would be presented
to the Council from the Historic Preservation Commission that potentially could be incorporated into the
code for BDl . With regard to the arts corridor, he noted the resolution of that issue would require review
by the Planning Board.
Councilmember Orvis commented that prior to the explanation by Mr. Snyder he was planning to vote
against the motion as he wanted to retain the moratorium on the BD until historic design standards were
in place and the issues in the BD5 were addressed. He recommended moving forward on those issues
quickly.
Councilmember Dawson shared Councilmember Orvis' concerns, commenting it would behoove the
Council to move forward on those issues as soon as possible.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY AN
APPLICATION BY TONY SHAPIRO TO CREATE TWO NEW ZONES FOR THE EDMONDS
WAY CORRIDOR
As this was a quasi judicial matter, Mayor Haakenson asked whether under the Appearance of Fairness
Request for on
Zoning Doctrine any Councilmembers had any ex parte or conflicts to disclose.
Zoning
Edmonds
Way
Corridor Councilmember Orvis disclosed Mr. Shapiro contacted him by telephone but he made no commitment
either way.
Councilmember Plunkett disclosed Mr. Shapiro contributed $300 to his reelection campaign in 2001.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 8
Councilmember Dawson disclosed that all Councilmembers had received a substantial amount of
correspondence on this issue.
Councilmember Wambolt advised Mr. Shapiro called him a few weeks ago, they had a brief conversation.
before he presented to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether consideration of a new zone was legislative. City Attorney Scott
Snyder explained rezones were unique; this portion of the Council's decision was legislative. He
requested Mayor Haakenson ask Councilmembers to reveal any ex parte contact or conflicts to place them
in the record because this two-step process was a mixed legislative and quasi judicial process.
Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any objections to the participation of Councilmembers Orvis,
Plunkett or Wambolt. There were no objections voiced and Mayor Haakenson advised all
Councilmembers were approved for deliberation.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the applicants originally requested a new zone and a rezone for a
specific property. During the Planning Board process, the applicant withdrew the site specific rezone and
elected to reconfigure and bring forward the new zones on their own merits. The Planning Board public
hearing on the new zones was held on December 13, 2006 and a majority of the Planning Board (3-2
vote) recommended the new zones not be created. Staff recommended approval, finding the new zones a
better fit versus the current zones and that they had the potential for successful application.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave advised that up to 2020, the City had the capacity to meet its
growth targets.
Mr. Snyder advised because this was a legislative action, the applicant had the burden of persuasion and
there was no opportunity for rebuttal.
Applicant
Kevin Grossman, Valhalla Partners LLC, explained they were interested in creating homes for families
and spaces for small businesses. He explained their application was a request to create two new zones —
RM Edmonds Way and BC Edmonds Way. He explained they had been involved in this process for
approximately eight months, a process that included many meetings with neighbors, informal and formal
meetings with the Planning Board, formal meeting with the ADB, and numerous meetings with planning
staff. Staff recommended approval to the Planning Board of the two new zones. The Planning Board did
not recommend approval; their most articulated reason was whether they had direction from the Council
to create additional zones. There were also concerns expressed with regard to whether the additional BC
height was appropriate. Planning Board members also voiced support with regard to the goals of the new
zones, such as assisting with affordability, codifying environmental requirements, and focusing growth
along a high traffic corridor where it had the least impact on established neighborhoods. He noted the
Planning Board minutes in the Council packet contained further detail regarding the Board's discussion.
Mr. Grossman described the neighborhood participation, advising there were seven formal meetings and
numerous ad hoc meetings. Staff s recommendation includes substantial mitigation to respond to the
neighbors' concerns and substantial benefits to the community via the proposed revision to the BC and
RM zones in the Edmonds Way Corridor. He explained the new zones allowed a property owner to better
meet the needs of Edmonds' citizens by providing housing alternatives, affordable home ownership,
apartment home options and spaces for businesses along Edmonds Way.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 9
He described how the new zones met the Comprehensive Plan goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor,
including locating density on arterials, heights consistent with adjacent properties except where there are
topographic or vegetative buffers, protecting views and residential privacy, avoiding stereotype boxy
residential units, encouraging neighborhood and service businesses, discouraging strip retail, and
providing a range of housing alternatives. He pointed out the primary problem with the current RM zone
was it encouraged boxy apartments rather than townhouse style development. The height available under
the existing zone for a box was greater than allowed for a townhome due to the way heights were
calculated; a box tucked into the hillside allowed a higher building height based on the average lot grade.
Breaking the development into smaller buildings that were distributed around the site lost the advantage
of the additional height. He noted the new zone also addressed tree presentation and landscaping which
were not addressed in the existing zone.
The RM-EW provides for homes on the flat section of the site based on a similar height calculation for a
building set into the hillside. The zone encourages interior parking, which is beneficial not only for
aesthetics but livability, and also encourages substantial tree preservation in buffer areas. He recalled the
issue of tree preservation was raised at the neighborhood meetings. Many of the sites along Edmonds
Way have substantial evergreens; however, the current zoning does not address tree preservation.
Mr. Grossman explained the problem with the current BC zone was that despite the significant grade
change between Edmonds Way and the rear of the property on many undeveloped/underdeveloped sites,
there was no ability to design a functional fourth floor which substantially impacts the affordability for
the businesses and families who would occupy the buildings. Land prices have escalated to the point
where creating homes for rent was very difficult; land costs force development of condominiums on most
sites. The additional height, subject to the grade change, would only occur if it were tucked into a hillside
to minimize the impact on the adjacent neighborhood. The result would be more affordable housing and
business spaces.
The current BC zone encourages boxy buildings that maximize the volume of the building within the
current height limit. In the existing BC zone, properties are constructed to the property line. Their
proposal would require buildings be set back at grade level as well as above the second floor. The BC-
EW also specifies substantial landscaping and building insets to ensure interesting design and does not
allow additional height unless there was a substantial grade change. The natural topography of the
corridor allows both zones to provide additional esthetic, landscaping and environmental benefit to the
families in existing neighborhoods as well as families in the newly constructed homes.
He displayed a conceptual drawing of the project on 232 d that initiated the process and identified the
height visible from the adjacent neighborhood and the height at Edmonds Way. Due to the substantial
grade change, only approximately the top two stories or about 25-30 feet were visible from the
neighborhood. He noted the neighborhoods would not see any more or possibly less than if the site were
developed as BC. The new zone would allow more affordable townhomes in the RM-EW zone and
apartments and business space in the BC-EW.
Mr. Grossman reviewed the process to develop the new zones, including notices mailed to 120 residents
around the original concept project site. The radius required by the City is 300 feet; they mailed to
property owners within 500 feet to invite participation and input from the adjacent neighborhood. Five
large space formal meetings were held as well as two smaller meetings with property owners with specific
concerns such as traffic. Meetings were also held with the traffic engineer to address concerns specific to
232°d. He explained locating this project on Edmonds Way directed the majority of the traffic to a high
traffic existing corridor.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 10
He provided a list of outreach meetings with the public and staff since May 2006. He explained concerns
raised by the neighbors included traffic, trees, height and density. Two immediate adjacent neighbors to
the potential project on 232nd, who although they preferred nothing be built on the site were aware the site
would be developed, were in favor of the solutions proposed. One of the adjacent neighbors still had
concerns and submitted a letter contained in the Council packet. He commented at last count there were
11 letters of support and eight letters expressing opposition. He noted the number of letters in the packet
were misleading as some households provided multiple letters.
With regard to traffic, Mr. Grossman explained locating additional density on Edmonds Way was
appropriate because of the existing arterial infrastructure; Edmonds Way was a high capacity,
underutilized arterial with tremendous capacity. Most of the traffic from development in these zones
would enter on to Edmonds Way. The project that initiated this issue also had some traffic existing on to
the side street which caused concern for the neighbors because 232nd was a fairly quiet street. He noted
due to a misunderstanding, several of the neighbors' letters addressed a 25% increase in the traffic from
this one project. The traffic engineer anticipated a 2.5% increase in traffic per year over ten years,
independent of the project. The traffic impact on 232nd associated with the specific project was 7% or 9
peak hour trips.
Their traffic engineer and the city's traffic engineer were in agreement with regard to Edmonds Way
access and safety. He noted most projects that would utilize the new zone would decrease the number of
curb cuts, thereby improving the safety of access onto Edmonds Way.
Another concern voiced at the neighborhood meetings was tree preservation. He explained there were
currently no requirements for tree preservation. Their proposal would retain trees and codify the
requirement for tree preservation in setback areas. They also included a requirement for low impact
development where feasible.
With regard to concerns voiced about building height, he explained the additional height would be limited
to locations with substantial topographical changes where buildings were tucked into the hillside,
minimizing the impact on the adjacent neighborhood. He displayed a drawing of a conceptual four-story
building, illustrating the grade change between Edmonds Way and the adjacent neighborhood. He noted
in the current concept for the specific site, the amount of the building visible to the adjacent neighborhood
was less than the height of most of the two-story, pitched roof homes in the neighborhood.
With regard to setbacks, in the BC-EW zone at -grade setback would be required in addition to a setback
above two stories. The intent was to soften the visual impact to pedestrians and vehicles on. Edmonds
Way. The impact from the street would be less than if development occurred under the current BC zone
which allows buildings 30 feet straight up at the property line. He displayed a drawing illustrating how
the setback minimized the appearance of height.
With regard to concern with increased density, he acknowledged there may be some increased density
possible in BC-EW zone; however, in the RM-EW zone, there was no increase in density, just design
flexibility to avoid a boxy building. He noted the BC-EW would allow provide sufficient height for a
fourth floor for residential use rather than squeezing in a pseudo fourth floor loft space under the current
BC zone, more units could be provided more comfortably. He noted there was nothing under the current
BC zone to preclude the development of just as many very small, less livable units.
He displayed a comparison of RM-EW with RM 1.5 and BC-EW with BC, noting the BC-EW allowed a
45-foot height if it was tucked into the hillside. He displayed an example of an existing, three-story,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 11
pitched roof project in the Edmonds Way Corridor that was approximately 50-55 feet above the
street/sidewalk grade.
Mr. Grossman summarized their goal was to minimize the impact on the neighborhood, yet maximize the
opportunity provided by the Edmonds Way arterial and topography changes and recognize Edmonds Way
as a logical place for new development. As staff indicated in their recommendation to the Planning
Board, they believe the proposed zones provide substantial benefit to the community via imposing
additional requirements and the height increases are modest relative to the additional benefits. He hoped
the Council would agree that the tree preservation, sustainable building, increased affordability, flexibility
in the variety of housing types, and additional small businesses spaces represented a better solution to
meet the City's GMA targets and was consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Haakenson clarified this was not a site specific application or a design review; the photographs
Mr. Grossman displayed were only examples of development that would fit within the zones they
proposed.
Councilmember Dawson referred to Mr. Grossman's comment that Edmonds Way was a substantially
underutilized traffic corridor, asking whether there was any information in the Council packet to
substantiate that claim. Mr. Grossman advised it was the result of conversations with their traffic
engineer with regard to the capacity of SR 104 compared to its current utilization. Councilmember
Dawson commented it did not seem that Edmonds Way was underutilized and she had seen data
regarding necessary upgrades to the corridor.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why they did not take their application through the Comprehensive Plan
process. Mr. Grossman answered that process was too long.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council
had received numerous letters and emails which were included in the packet. The Council also received
two letters tonight, one from Mary Crane in support of the application and one from James Claussen in.
support of the application.
Charles Naslund, Edmonds, encouraged the Council, as they did with development in the downtown.
corridor, to take adequate time to consider the merits of development in other areas of the city. From his
perspective the impacts of development on SR 104 on the residential communities were not adequately
considered. He encouraged Councilmembers to drive on 232" d SW, which he noted was already being
used as a shortcut between SR 104 and 100th, and he anticipated that by driving on 232 d
Councilmembers would see that a development of this size was not plausible for that area. He was not
opposed to development but wanted it structured to fit within the neighborhood.
Gary Gibson, Edmonds, commented the residents in his neighborhood understood that SR 104 and their
neighborhood was an appropriate place for development as there were a number of vacant lots and lots in
disrepair and they welcomed responsible, measured development in that area. He noted this item was in
regard to the proposed zones although Mr. Grossman spoke about a specific project. He questioned
whether it was appropriate to approve zones that were developed to suit the needs of a developer for a
specific project and spread the zones along Edmonds Way. Although a number of neighborhood
meetings were held, only the property owners within the radius of the specific project were invited to
participate; if the intent was new zones that would apply along Edmonds Way, all property owners
adjacent to Edmonds Way should be invited to participate. He questioned whether the Planning
Department would give the same level of consideration to all developers' request to create new zones to
suit their needs. He commented the challenges/opportunities he experienced developing one property
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 12
were similar to the challenges/opportunities a developer experienced. He questioned how many zones
would be allowed in an area. He advised there were further details regarding his comments in the letter
he submitted today including scenarios where the heights allowed by the two proposed zones, particularly
the BC-EW zone, would obstruct views. He urged the Council to apply height restrictions evenly across
the city.
Susan Brooks, Edmonds, commented she and her neighbors were astonished that 4'/2 stories would be
proposed on the Edmonds Way corridor. With regard to preservation of trees, she referred to the removal
of trees on. Pt. Edwards. She envisioned this type of development would detract from downtown
Edmonds and the draw of this nice quaint area. She did not support the proposed zones.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the applicant's answer to his question about why the applicant did
not go through the Comprehensive Plan process was not a compelling reason to circumvent the
Comprehensive Plan process. He recalled new zones had been created via the Comprehensive Plan
review; this application was a standalone application outside that process. He was unable to consider the
zones' merits until the applicant went through the Comprehensive Plan review process which invites and
engages the entire community, appropriate because zones were applicable citywide. In this instance,
citywide participation has not occurred. He summarized this neighborhood deserved the same attention
and care that was given to downtown. He did not support setting precedence with this application when
the Council had just completed establishing zones downtown via a process that involved the entire
community.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
DENY THE APPLICATION TO CREATE TWO NEW ZONES FOR THE EDMONDS WAY
CORRIDOR.
Councilmember Dawson shared some of Councilmember Plunkett's concerns, pointing out the City had
initiated a process with other neighborhoods in the City, such as Firdale and Five Corners, which would
be appropriate for this area.
Councilmember Marin commented he was intrigued by the possibility of having more affordable housing
in the city. He was hopeful if the proposal was denied it would not be completely killed and would have
an opportunity to return via the Comprehensive Plan process.
Councilmember Wambolt asked how much time the Comprehensive Plan process took. Mr. Chave
answered the deadline to submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment this year had already passed. Absent
specific direction from Council regarding the timeline, it would be 2008 before the applicant could
reapply, a 11/2 - 2 year delay.
Councilmember Dawson commented there were a lot of excellent things about the proposal, such as
affordable housing. However, there was no information provided that addressed why this would create
more affordable housing other than a four-story building would be inherently more affordable, which she
noted was not necessarily the case. She supported the concept of incentives for green building, but there
was little in the application that defined sustainable building. She also liked the concept of tree
presentation but questioned whether the statement that 35% of existing healthy significant trees would be
preserved was adequate to preserve trees. Although there were a lot of great ideas, there were insufficient
details and the proposal went too far with regard to increased density and not far enough with regard to
tree preservation. Her primary concern was the statement Mr. Grossman made that SR 104 was an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 13
underutilized corridor, which did not correspond with other data regarding needed improvements in the
corridor.
Council President Olson commented the proposal was a great idea and she supported it. She pointed out
the application was for a zone, not a specific building. She supported development that would provide
affordable housing and apartments, noting apartments were being lost in Edmonds. She noted the
Edmonds Way corridor was not that attractive and needed redevelopment. She objected to asking a
property owner to delay their plans one and a half to two years.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the extended timeline for a Comprehensive Plan amendment was the
result of the applicant choosing to hold neighborhood meetings instead of submitting an amendment at the
end of 2006.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he had driven through this area; there were some nice homes and
other areas needed to be redeveloped. He acknowledged no one ever wanted increased density; however,
GMA was a factor to be considered. Although the City currently complied with its GMA targets, Vision
2020 would require the City to absorb additional density. In recent years, the City had the benefit of
developments such as the Unocal site to meet its targets. He agreed more affordable housing would be
possible in this area because the land would not demand the prices of downtown. Even though the land
was less expensive, the cost of building was the same; therefore, increased density was necessary to make
a project feasible. He pointed out the purchase price for residences in that area would be considerably
lower than what was attainable in the bowl area.
Mr. Chave explained this was a proposed amendment to the development code which can be made at any
time. It could be done via the Comprehensive Plan process but it was not required.
Councilmember Wambolt asked the advantages of the Comprehensive Plan process, recalling
Councilmember Plunkett's inference that more people would be involved. Mr. Chave commented people
tend to get involved in more specific issues; it was difficult to motivate people to be involved for an.
amendment in the general corridor. He noted this application generated a great deal of interest because it
began with a site specific rezone. The Comprehensive Plan process is one alternative, a code amendment
process is another. He noted staff encouraged the applicant to seek input from the neighbors and these
applicants did an admirable job in that regard.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out although the Planning Board voted 3-2 to deny the application,
staff recommended approval.
Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Chave to describe the next steps if the Council approved this application.
Mr. Chave explained for staff the basis for approving the application was to better implement the
Comprehensive Plan or at least as well as any other zone. Once the zones were created, individual
applications would be required to rezone specific properties. The same hearing process before the
Planning Board and City Council would occur for a rezone and would consider the specific site, etc.
After the rezone, an applicant would submit a specific building project which would also have a public
hearing process via the ADB. He summarized establishing the zones would be the first in a long line of
potential processes, all requiring public hearings.
Councilmember Marin spoke against the motion to deny the application, commenting Edmonds was one
of approximately 70 cities that were participants in the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRQ, the
municipal planning organization in this region, and as members had been involved in studies regarding
the future of the region. He acknowledged the region would change over the next 20 to 30 years and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 14
rather than retain the old codes that were very limiting and did not work well on certain sites, the
proposed zones would address the specific challenges in this corridor. He anticipated the proposed zones
would be beneficial in controlling new development in ways that were more appealing and more in
keeping with the city's future needs.
Councilmember Dawson commented if there were a requirement that a certain number of housing units
be set aside for affordable housing, she would be in favor of the proposal. The proposal did not do that
and there was nothing to ensure affordable housing would be the result in these zones. She pointed out
there was a tremendous difference between affordable housing and housing that was cheaper than the
downtown bowl, which was some of the most expensive housing the in the region. She noted a $400,000
condominium versus a $1 million condominium did not make it affordable housing — the fact that the
housing would be less expensive did not equate to affordable housing, which was a specific term with a
specific meaning. She would be supportive if there were incentives for green development; however, the
statement that low impact development would be provided where reasonably feasible was not enough
assurance. She summarized there were great ideas proposed but there were not requirements to ensure
they occurred. She concluded she may be able to support the proposal with more detailed requirements.
Councilmember Moore planned to vote against the motion. She acknowledged there was a common
definition of affordable housing, housing that was affordable to low income residents. There was another
type of affordability, housing her children could afford such as a $300,000 condominium. These zones
would provide housing that was affordable on that level.
Councilmember Moore referred to the recommendation from staff and the Mayor contained on the agenda
memo and asked Mayor Haakenson why he recommended approval. Mayor Haakenson noted the letter
submitted by Mary Crane addressed several valuable points. He read from Ms. Crane's letter which
stated she attended three neighborhood meetings and was now familiar enough with the project and the
City's plans for the Edmonds Way corridor to offer her opinion. Although construction and development
did not appeal to her, she understood eventually the Edmonds Way corridor would be developed;
therefore, controlled development did appeal to her. If development must happen and population growth
was inevitable, she preferred it occur on the corridor rather than in her immediate neighborhood. Thin
homes and subdivided properties were a worse problem than urbanizing corridors. Mayor Haakenson
pointed out this Council and previous Councils had done an amazing job of preventing subdivision of
residential lots by creating opportunities for housing growth, such as Pt. Edwards, condominiums
downtown, and on the Edmonds Way corridor.
Mayor Haakenson continued with Ms. Crane's letter, if the new zoning laws could guarantee 35% or
more of the trees would be retained, design the buildings away from the street edge, and buildings above
stories must set back, she was in favor of the new zone. She believed the new zone would provide
developers a greater measure of freedom in design. As much as she believed affordable housing was
important to future generations, she did not like block housing and simple design. She urged the Council
to keep the Edmonds Way corridor looking upscale with creative and interesting building designs.
Councilmember Moore concurred with the comments made in Ms. Crane's letter.
Councilmember Wambolt clarified if he said affordable he misspoke, he meant more affordable. He
pointed out the Comprehensive Plan contained goals that were not achievable. For example, a goal for
Edmonds Way corridor was the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not
interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into the adjoining established community. He advised
he would vote against the motion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 15
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON, ORVIS, AND
PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, MARIN, MOORE AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
APPROVE THE CREATION OF TWO ZONES WITH THE MODIFICATIONS
RECOMMENDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION.
Councilmember Dawson suggested the Council require more specific language than 35% of the existing
healthy significant trees will be retained, such as preserve 35% of the existing healthy trees. Mr. Chave
clarified in the RM zone significant trees were defined as any tree with a caliper greater than 6 inches
measured 4 feet above grade. There was also language regarding where it was not feasible for the
applicant to retain 35% of the trees. Councilmember Dawson commented the language sounded like what
happened on the Pt. Edward's site, it was not enough protection.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the developer of the Unocal site had the permission to remove the trees but
did it at the wrong time. He suggested the Council not make comparisons to that situation.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, MARIN, AND
WAMBOLT, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
ORVIS, DAWSON, AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Andience Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked Mayor Haakenson to clarify what he said with regard to the removal
comments of trees on the Unocal property. He considered it wrong to rape the hillside and questioned why the
developer had been required to pay a fine if they were allowed to remove the trees. He asked Mayor
Haakenson to explain why he was trying to "bamboozle" the crowd.
Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, disagreed the Comprehensive Plan process would result in more involvement
by the community. They had had extensive meetings with the neighborhood and welcomed and
encouraged input from the neighbors. The proposed zoning responded to the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Edmonds Way Corridor that was created in 2001, a designation that never had any specific
zoning created for it. He disagreed with the idea that they created a zone that did not have an applicable
Comprehensive Plan designation, pointing out the opposite was true — there was a Comprehensive Plan
designation with no specific zoning. He concluded they worked with staff and the community to propose
zoning that responded to the needs of the Edmonds Way Corridor and the city. He was surprised by the
assertion they were not doing due diligence via working with the neighborhood. He looked forward to
further discussion with the Planning Board, the Council and the neighbors via this process.
7. REPORT ON CITY COUNCILL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Street Councilmember Marin advised staff provided a report on the cost of street lighting on. Main Street
Lighting
between 5`h and 6`h. He recalled during the budget process the Council approved $75,000 for the street
lighting; the engineer's estimate for the entire project was $242,000. The Committee asked staff to
continue to study the project and retain the $75,000 for the project in the future.
Finance Committee
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 16
Councilmember Orvis reported he was selected to Chair the Committee. The Committee discussed the
upcoming General Obligation Bond; of special interest was the 2007 Energy Conservation Project that
would change traffic lights to LED bulbs which use less energy and require less frequent replacement.
This was approved on tonight's consent agenda. Next the Committee discussed changes to the utility
code including suspension of billing for vacant dwellings, low income definition and delinquency
charges. These will be presented to the full Council at a future meeting.
E�►l /\•(�77i.YK�7►y 1►l 1 �1►(I IF.y
Mayor s Mayor Haakenson suggested anyone could go to the Planning Department and look at the report
Comments
regarding the trees that were cut on the Unocal site. He explained the City approved an arborist report
that allowed the developer to remove the trees at a certain point after replanting occurred. The developer
removed the trees ahead of schedule, before replanting had occurred, and they were fined.
Mayor Haakenson relayed it had been a difficult few days for Public Works crews. He explained de-icer
could only be applied when the roads were dry and could not be applied on top of snow, ice, sleet or rain.
Sanding occurred according to the City's priority schedule which resulted in many residential streets not
being sanded. He commended the Public Works crews who worked day and night under difficult
conditions. He explained the sanding truck could not get up steep streets that were iced over. When the
snow was gone, staff would reassess the priorities. He commented this was the longest stretch of snow
and ice on the ground in 30 to 40 years.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Winter Council President Olson commented after watching Public Works Director Noel Miller on the news and
Storm
Response his offer for residents to call the City to request their street be sanded, her husband called and Public
Works arrived an hour later to sand their street. She assured her husband identified himself only as Mr.
Olson and did not receive any special treatment.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the City did a good job of snow/ice removal and citizens would not
want to pay the taxes that would be required to provide the resources to address the entire City when a
storm like this happens only every 20 to 30 years.
Mayor Haakenson commented on emails he had received from residents that their taxes paid for the
services. He invited them to review the City's budget to see how their tax dollars were used; property
taxes did not even cover fire and police services. He commented everyone would be shocked by their
PUD bills because PUD would recoup the costs of restoring power following the windstorm.
Councilmember Orvis expressed his thanks to staff.
In response to Councilmember Dawson's comment about tree preservation, Councilmember Marin
described his experience building a house in Kent that required tree preservation. He was certain after the
Preserving house was built the owner would have to remove several of the trees because they were too close to the
Trees
house. He commented on the importance of consulting an arborist to determine what trees were
appropriate to retain on a site.
Councilmember Dawson commented the Council either needed to get real about tree preservation or not.
If the Council did not want to preserve trees, there should not be any requirement for tree preservation in
the code. If the Council wanted to preserve trees, the preservation requirements needed to be realistic and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 17
specific. She also did not want to call something affordable housing if it was just a cheaper version of an
expensive place to live. She did not want to refer to green building if there were no specific requirements.
Councilmember Moore thanked the Council, Mayor Haakenson and staff for allowing her to participate
via telephone.
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 16, 2007
Page 18