01/24/2006 City CouncilJanuary 24, 2006
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Deanna Dawson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauni Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Michael Bowker, Intern
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Haakenson requested Item H (Ratification of Employment Offer for Traffic Engineer) be removed
from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Plunkett requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
APPROVAL OF 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 JANUARY 17, 2006.
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #85178 THROUGH #85313 FOR THE WEEK OF
JANUARY 16, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $275,794.04. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #42469 THROUGH #42554 FOR THE PERIOD OF
JANUARY 1 THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2006 IN THE AMOUNT OF $760,828.01.
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JOHN J. WINTERS,
JR. ($1,252.35), AND GLENN AND WENDY WERNER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 1
(E) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT — JANUARY 2006.
(G) LIST OF RETIRING AND REAPPOINTED BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.
Item F: Economic Development Department Quarterly Report
Councilmember Plunkett advised he had heard from a second merchant that they located their business in
the City because of Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend. Councilmember Plunkett
commented the Economic Development report was now divided into the priorities Ms. Gerend identified
last fall — land use issues, business recruitment, marketing and results - oriented permitting. He referred to
the Land Use section, specifically review of CG and CG2 zoning and proposed BR zones on Hwy. 99 and
existing BN zoning in Neighborhood Districts and requested the report include the conclusions Ms.
Gerend reached as a result of her review.
Ms. Gerend responded the memorandum that the Hwy. 99 Task Force, staff and she recently drafted that
was forwarded to the Planning Board contained her review of the CG and CG2 zoning. She anticipated
being involved during the Planning Board's review and discussion. With regard to the BN zoning, that
would be discussed at the upcoming neighborhood meetings on January 26 for Firdale Village and
January 30 for Five Corners. She offered to provide a summary of those meetings. Councilmember
Plunkett requested the summary be included in her report, commenting the Council needed further
information to gain insight into her review of land use issues.
Next Councilmember Plunkett recalled he had previously asked for information regarding what
businesses did not locate in Edmonds and why. Ms. Gerend referred to her comment at the bottom of the
first page of the quarterly report regarding incidences where a business was looking at the City but did not
immediately take a space. She preferred not to name businesses as that was proprietary information.
Councilmember Plunkett reiterated the Council needed to know if marketing efforts were not successful.
With regard to marketing, Councilmember Plunkett asked what Team Edmonds had done during the last
quarter. Ms. Gerend referred Councilmember Plunkett to Chamber of Commerce Executive Director
Chris Guitton for information regarding 2005 activities.
With regard to permitting, another of Ms. Gerend's priorities, Councilmember Plunkett pointed out there
was no reference to actions taken to consolidate timelines, eliminate unnecessary steps or improve
customer service. He suggested her report address historic permitting including historic /older buildings,
adaptive reuse, and nonconformance. Ms. Gerend commented on the review of 4th Avenue and how to
enable the historic buildings in that area to convert to a commercial use. Councilmember Plunkett asked
that more of Ms. Gerend's knowledge be reflected in her report.
Councilmember Orvis commented on the feedback provided in the report regarding the size of
commercial space on Hwy. 99, noting that type of specific information was helpful and suggested Ms.
Gerend's reports contain more specifics. Ms. Gerend advised discussion of these points was also
occurring in the draft Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as
follows:
(F) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
City Attorney Scott Snyder referred to Councilmember Plunkett's request to receive copies of land use
information, explaining the Council was entitled to information regarding legislative decisions, code
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 2
changes and Comprehensive Plan changes. However, anything related to a quasi judicial proceeding
needed to be handled carefully. He recalled Ms. Gerend's somewhat controversial recommendations in
the past that led to challenges of Councilmembers and the Mayor. He suggested for information
regarding a matter that could result in a quasi judicial review by the Council, those reports could be
tracked and entered into the record at the time they occurred or Ms. Gerend could present her testimony
along with citizens and groups at the public hearing. He emphasized the importance of placing the
information into the record so that proponents /opponents could address it. He cautioned the Council was
limited in the feedback they could provide to Ms. Gerend on a matter that could be quasi judicial to avoid
the appearance of prejudgment.
3. INTRODUCTION OF JOE McIALWAIN EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS EXECUTIVE
ARTS DIRECTOR.
Public Facilities District Board Member Jan Conner introduced Executive Director Joe McIalwain and
described his education in arts, drama and theater management, his background as an assistant professor
in theater management, managing director of the Cincinnati Shakespearean Festival, and development
director for the Kirkland Performing Arts Center. She commented on his fundraising experience at
Kirkland Performing Arts Center. Ms. Conner explained Mr. McIalwain would be busy in the coming
months with fundraising, construction issues, developing policies and procedures, meeting with local art
organizations, and marketing, programming and booking the facility. Ms. Conner expressed the Public
Facility District's pleasure with hiring Mr. Mclalwain and the energy he would bring to the project,
anticipating he would be an asset to the Edmonds Center for the Arts and the community.
Mr. McIalwain described his pleasure and honor to be in Edmonds and thanked the Council for their
generous support of the Edmonds Public Facilities District. He envisioned when the project was
complete, the city would have a beautiful performing arts facility that would add tremendously to the
cultural and economic vitality of the city. He commented on the preservation of an historical structure
and looked forward to bringing the vision to life with music, dance and theater from around the world.
He thanked the Public Facilities District Board for their faith in his ability and the opportunity to serve the
community, and looked forward to welcoming the Council and the public to the grand opening of the
Center.
4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL MENTORING MONTH AND A
PRESENTATION ON THE BIG BROTHERS AND BIG SISTERS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY.
Council President Dawson read a proclamation declaring January 2006 as National Mentoring Month in
Edmonds. She presented the proclamation to Suzan Thompson Forrest, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of
Snohomish County, who reported in 2005 Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Snohomish County served over
525 children, currently had 382 active matches and 131 children on the waiting list for a mentor, 102 of
which were boys. She explained their goal in 2006 was to serve over 660 matches. She explained while
Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America had been in existence for over 100 years, Big Brothers and Big
Sisters of Snohomish County began in 1987; by 1997, they had 144 community based matches and 6
school based, by 2006, they hoped to have 400 community matches, 300 school based for a total of 700.
She commented Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Snohomish County was one of a handful of agencies that
had double digit growth in program matches and fundraising.
Ms. Thompson Forrest explained in their community based mentoring program, they served youth
between the ages of 6 and 18, most from single parent homes, all in Snohomish County, and over 80%
living below standard poverty guidelines. The school -based mentoring program supported children
selected by school personnel based on poor academic performance, classroom behavioral issues or
situational misfortune. She commented on the lack of men involved in mentoring, pointing out the 103
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 3
boys on the waiting list illustrated the need for more male mentors. She referred to the most common
reasons people do not get involved in mentoring — the belief they did not have the time or that they were
not good enough. She quoted from comments made by children seeking a big brother or big sister — "I'd
like a big sister because they're nice and because sometimes my daddy has meetings, if I had one wish it
would be to be normal, I would like to have a big brother to ask me how I'm doing and actually care
about me, I'd like a big brother because I don't have a big brother to look up to and a boy to do boy things
with, I'd like to make my mom proud." She summarized these were simple wishes, simple things that a
mentor could help to provide.
She explained the school -based program was fairly well established in the Edmonds area with programs
at Mountlake Terrace, Beverly, College Place and Meadowdale Elementary schools with several children
on waiting lists at each school. She noted many mentors begin in the school -based program, meeting one
hour per week at the school in a supervised setting, later transferring to a community -based program so
that they could do more with the child. The average match in the school -based program lasted
approximately nine months and two years for the community -based program, most often ending due to
the child or adult moving. Many mentors indicate they began to do something for the children but found
they got more out of it than the child. She commented on a growing group of mentors — big couples.
Ms. Thompson Forrest advised of the upcoming kick -off "Mentoring Men Matter," focus groups to
determine how to encourage men to be mentors, funded via a $12,000 grant. Big Brothers and Big Sisters
supported itself completely via donations, foundation grants, business grants and fundraising. For those
not able to be a mentor, she suggested sharing flyers at their workplace, participating in the annual Invest
in Youth Campaign, organizing a team for Bowl for Kids Sake, donating items to the annual Dream
Builders auction, or sponsoring a table or the event.
On National Mentor's Day, January 25, she challenged everyone to thank the person who mentored them
and pass it along to a child in the community.
5. UPDATE ON THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD 2006 WORK PROGRAM
Janice Freeman, Planning Board Chair, advised the Planning Board wanted to provide the Council an
update on their 2006 Work Program and their consensus on priorities. She recalled in 2005 the City
completed a significant update to the Comprehensive Plan and adopted a new budget, and both
highlighted the need for economic development to support the high standards citizens have come to
expect. Without economic development, the city faces the prospect of declining revenue streams which
will result in increased pressure to cut services and the quality of life enjoyed by the community. Noting
the problem had been highlighted and plans adopted, she relayed the Planning Board's concern that there
did not appear to be consensus on the Council with regard to implementation of policy direction as
evident in the split decisions in some of the Comprehensive Plan directions and issues related to
redevelopment and standards for downtown. The Planning Board also notes design guidelines which
would do much to resolve these issues have yet to be adopted. She explained the update was intended to
provide the Council an opportunity to provide feedback and guidance to the Planning Board. The
Planning Board requested the Council consider the items identified as their 2006 priorities because they
would have the most direct influence on future economic development and land use.
Ms. Freeman listed the Planning Board's six priorities, Downtown Plan implementation, Hwy 99
implementation, Neighborhood Center Plan, 2005 -2006 Comprehensive Plan amendments, Shoreline
Management Program update, and Community Development Code rewrite. She explained these were not
in order of priority other than the first, Downtown Plan implementation, the Board's highest priority. She
pointed out there were two aspects of the Downtown Plan implementation — zoning and height and design
overlays — interrelated items that the Planning Board believed were the highest priority. The Council's
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 4
most recent direction was forwarded to the Planning Board for review in the second half of 2005 with a
series of 4 -3 votes in the form of maps illustrating heights and zoning districts for downtown. With the
change in Council membership, the Board assumed the Council planned to revisit these issues. She
requested any revisions the Council identified be forwarded to the Planning Board as soon as possible,
otherwise the Board intended to proceed with developing new zones downtown. She explained without
completing the work on downtown, there was no closure to the issues under discussion and the zoning
moratorium remains in place.
Ms. Freeman highlighted two other priorities, Hwy. 99 implementation and Neighborhood Center Plan.
With regard to Hwy 99 implementation, she explained there were two issues, business and residential
zones and commercial general and other commercial zones. She noted potential code amendments would
be required to change the zoning to implement the Comprehensive Plan, and new direction to implement
the Hwy. 99 activity center and Hwy. 99 corridor. She pointed out that because these changes were
needed to encourage development, they were a high priority and would consume a great deal of the
Board's time in early 2006.
With regard to Neighborhood Center Plans, she explained neighborhood centers had been neglected
during the recent planning efforts of downtown and Hwy. 99. Neighborhood -based plans for Firdale and
Five Corners and possibly Westgate would be explored during the first quarter of 2006 with potential
plans and /or code amendments developed for the Council's consideration. She noted Westgate was added
to the list of neighborhood -based plans due to the recent closure of Albertsons.
With regard to the remaining three priorities, 2005 -2006 Comprehensive Plan amendments, Shoreline
Master Program, and Community Development Code rewrite, Ms. Freeman explained Comprehensive
Plan amendments were always a high priority. She anticipated the Shoreline Master Program update and
the Community Development Code rewrite update would be multi -year projects and the Board expected
to do only preliminary work on those two issues in 2006.
Ms. Freeman emphasized the three priorities the Planning Board highlighted, Downtown Plan
implementation, Hwy 99 implementation, and Neighborhood Center Plan, reiterating all three were
connected to economic development. Without additional economic development and the revenue it
produced, the city was increasingly pressured to cut services. She quoted from a statement by Mayor
Haakenson in last week's Seattle Times, "The bottom line is that there is no way a municipal government
without a significant retail sales tax base can continue to provide the quality and quantity of services to its
citizens with the drastic revenue losses that have occurred over the past six years."
Ms. Freeman urged the Council once they had the necessary policy discussion, to consider the Planning
Board's priorities in light of the policy. She relayed the Planning Board's need for clear policy direction
from the Council.
Council President Dawson agreed the Council wanted to provide the Planning Board further direction.
She had intended to schdule a discussion item regarding downtown issues for tonight or next week but
due to Council absences, it had been postponed until February 21.
Councilmember Orvis suggested the Planning Board defer work on the Downtown Plan until the Council
provided further direction.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with the priorities identified by the Planning Board and was anxious to
revisit the downtown zoning maps and finalize the zoning so that the moratorium could be lifted as
quickly as possible.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 5
Councilmember Marin inquired about the status of the design guidelines. Planning Manager Rob Chave
answered the Architectural. Design Board (ADB) had nearly completed their review of the guidelines and
had made some suggested changes. He offered to provide the Council a memo summarizing the ADB's
review at the Council's next meeting and schedule a date for a report from the ADB. Councilmember
Marin inquired if the changes were significant enough that it would require the Planning Board's review.
Mr. Chave answered he did not think so but would not be certain until he received the ADB's final
recommendation. Councilmember Marin thanked the Planning Board for their presentation and agreed
with the items in their Work Program.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Brian Larman, Edmonds, property owner to the south of the 8th Avenue walkway between Walnut &
Alder, read from the minutes of the Community Services /Development Services (CS /DS) Committee
meeting. He expressed interest at that meeting in building a connection so that the public did not walk on
their property, clarifying the advice of the City Attorney was that they would lose their rights to the
property if they allowed the public to use their driveway to access the existing path on the City's right -of-
way between Alder and Walnut. Given the City Attorney's advice and the desire of their neighbors to
have access, agreed it would be appropriate for the City to construct a bridge over the ecology blocks but
did not see the need for further trail construction. In response to the comment in the CS /DS Committee
minutes that the bridge would not address the issues on the north side and that there would likely be
continued enforcement issues, he suggested the City utilize their enforcement powers rather than
constructing a costly pathway parallel to the existing path.
James Martin, Edmonds, property owner to the north of the 8th Avenue walkway, relayed staff's
indication that the City planned to present their recommendation to construct a new walkway between
Walnut and Alder at the Council's February 7 meeting. He preferred the existing, well landscaped view
of the north side of the right -of -way and anticipated the construction of a trail would worsen his view of
the area due to the required retaining wall and removal of a considerable amount of landscaping. He
understood the need for the south portion of the walkway but not on the north as the public could
currently access the pathway via his driveway or the Adams' driveway which were on the City's right -of-
way. He also expressed concern that the neighbor to the east would construct a fence along the walkway,
further impacting his view of the area.
.
Warren Peterson, Edmonds, thanked the Council for the interest they have shown regarding the
pathway between Alder and Walnut. He supported safety improvements such as steps to ascend the
ecology blocks but questioned the need for the construction of a new path when an adequate path already
existed.
Eleanor Bonanno, Edmonds, spoke against the expenditure of $17,000 to build a pathway when all that
was needed was 3 -4 steps from Walnut up to the existing trail.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, urged the Council to listen to the neighborhood and only construct the steps.
Walkway He referred to the Economic Development Department Quarterly Report and suggested Ms. Gerend's
reports to boards or commissions or at a public hearing be as a staff member, not a member of the
audience. In regard to the list of retiring and reappointed board and commission members (Consent
Agenda Item G), he suggested all boards and commissions have term limits to ensure turnover of
members. With regard to the item pulled from the Consent Agenda (Ratification of Employment Offer
for Traffic Engineer) he suggested the City contract with Snohomish County for traffic engineering
services in light of the City's limited transportation funding. He noted the City could then hire a
technician to address lower level issues that required traffic expertise. Next Mr. Hertrich urged the public
Services to vote February 7 for the Edmonds School bond issue.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 6
Mayor Haakenson noted the Edmonds School District asked voters to disregard the instructions to use
only a pencil, as a pen was also acceptable.
Mayor Haakenson suggested the people involved in the February 7 agenda item, "Consideration of
Construction of a Pathway Connecting Alder and Walnut Streets" be allowed to testify at that meeting.
Council President Dawson agreed it would be appropriate for them to speak and respond to Council
questions.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what type of walkway the City was obligated to provide with regard to
walkway safety, etc. now that this pathway had been identified. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered the
Recreational Use Statute allowed any property owner including municipalities who allowed their property
to be used to designate levels of risk, warn people about passage. He explained there were risk
management techniques via property signage to warn users of dangers associated with certain pathways.
Councilmember Wambolt thanked the four citizens who spoke regarding the pathway and invited them to
attend the February 7 meeting.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding the Edmonds School District bond issue, Mr. Snyder
pointed out for free speech purposes, if the Council had a rule, it needed to be uniformly enforced or not
enforced at all — the City could not select which ballot issues it would hear comment on. If the rule was
violated frequently enough, it should be assumed the podium had moved from a limited to an unlimited
public forum. He offered to comment on this further in Executive Session.
7. DISCUSSION ON THE PROCESS TO REWRITE THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled the Council allocated $140,000 in the 2006
budget for a rewrite of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) which staff projected
would be a two -year process. The original code was adopted in 1981, had been amended piecemeal over
time and needed to be updated. There are two approaches to the rewrite, 1) a comprehensive clean-
up /update of the existing format or 2) write a completely new code. One of the advantages of a
comprehensive clean -up /update was familiarity with the code whereas a completely new code would
require staff training as well as familiarizing the community with the new code. He requested direction
from the Council regarding issues to be addressed in the rewrite.
Mr. Bowman explained the Regulatory Reform Act passed in the mid -1990s and case law has
consistently moved toward being more specific and providing clear direction. He referred to Anderson v.
Issaquah and the problems presented by the lack of specificity in design guidelines. He recalled the
City's recent case that resulted in the moratorium due to a lack of specificity in the criteria that left the
City open to legal challenge.
Mr. Bowman explained the Council could literally do whatever it wanted legislatively; once a matter
moved into quasi judicial, the Council sat as a judge and was required to consistently apply the rules and
regulations and could not consider public sentiment. Development of clear standards and regulations
provided clear direction to the Hearing Examiner and staff whereas a great deal of flexibility allowed for
interpretation, making the process more difficult.
Mr. Bowman read City Attorney Scott Snyder's wish list: rewrite the appeal procedures and wherever
possible substitute charts for lengthy process descriptions, add/clean -up definition section of the code,
move away from vague criteria and discretionary review processes that include subjective criteria unless
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 7
the criteria /process is created by State law or has a long standing and generally accepted meaning and
application under Washington State law, and maximize the deference given to the Council in its
legislative capacity and remove Council from the process unless required by State law. Mr. Bowman then
read staff's wish list: with clearer standards create more administrative decisions, simplify the code
focusing on regulation the most important items /issues that will have the greatest impact on the
community, clean -up nonconforming regulations, clean -up zoning standards which are outdated, and
revise nuisance regulations.
Mr. Snyder explained the intent of the rewrite was to ensure when the Council made a decision with
citizen input, it was defensible, did not impose liability on the City and what the Council wanted was
clearly stated in the City's rules and regulations. He noted the Council was frequently told by citizens
that they wanted the ability to bring matters to the Council for final resolution. He clarified from a legal
perspective, whether a quasi judicial appeal was heard by the Council, Hearing Examiner, or staff, the
result should be the same and community desire had no weight in the process if the established criteria did
not support it. For that reason, his concerns were more procedure - related. He noted since 1980 there
have been numerous land use law and statutory enactments and the amendments to the City's code have
not kept pace and have resulted in numerous incongruities. He summarized staff did not intend to change
the rules, only ensure the community's vision was clear, defensible and readily explainable in the code.
With regard to definitions, Mr. Snyder suggested doing a text search, highlighting the words that are
defined and considering whether the dictionary definition could be used for undefined words or if a
definitions was necessary. He noted when a code was ambiguous, it would be interpreted by the courts in
favor of common law property rights. This may sound good for a homeowner, however, for the
homeowner who did not like what was being built across the street, they may have to accept something
they did not like. Mr. Snyder reiterated his intent was to ensure the code reflected what the Council and
the community wanted.
Councilmember Orvis relayed his greatest fear was that all the changes would be made and presented to
the Council at once and they would never be adopted. He preferred that any issue that required a policy
decision be reviewed separately such as nonconforming uses or who made the final decision in a quasi
judicial matter.
Councilmember Marin anticipated only 20 -30% of the code needed to be rewritten, therefore, he
supported a comprehensive clean -up so that the Council could review the rewrite in a format that tracked
the changes. He favored making the regulations clear enough so that more decisions could be made
administratively. He agreed with Mr. Snyder that the intent was not to change policy, and wanted to
ensure that tightening the regulations did not add to the perception that it was difficult to build in
Edmonds.
Councilmember Wambolt supported removing all ambiguity in the code, recalling it was ambiguity over
the 25 +5 foot height limit that resulted in the recent Superior Court case. With regard to removing the
Council from the review process, he preferred to have the Council involved in the review process
whenever possible rather than requiring citizens to appeal to Superior Court.
Councilmember Plunkett questioned whether it was the Council's desire to have more administrative
decisions and whether they wanted to remove all ambiguity because that would remove flexibility that
may be necessary for good design. He preferred to review issues individually and questioned how policy
decisions could be separated from the rewrite of the code. He asked whether a consultant had been hired.
Mr. Bowman answered a consultant had not been hired as he first wanted the Council's input regarding
the issues to be addressed in the rewrite. He explained consideration had been given to using a portion of
the funds allocated for the rewrite for Mr. Snyder to address certain sections of the code and then hiring a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 8
consultant to consider the rewrite globally. He noted there were certain sections of the code that had been
amended recently but there were other sections that definitely needed work.
Mr. Bowman advised staff planned to submit a grant application for the State to review the City's
regulations with regard to low impact development and smart development. With regard to zoning, he
emphasized any change in the development regulations required consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Snyder explained staff would begin with a clean -up; policy would need to be initiated at the
Council level — if the Council wanted something changed, they needed to inform staff. He noted it may
frequently be a two step process as amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be required.
Councilmember Olson supported clean -up of the code versus writing a new code. She supported a
process that was concluded more quickly than the design guidelines process. She recommended the
rewrite be completed in 1' /z years and not drag out longer than that.
Councilmember Orvis favored the flowchart concept. Mr. Snyder answered staff could provide 1 -4 paths,
however, what subject matters the Council heard would be a policy decision.
Mr. Bowman advised it was staff's intent to present the rewrite in sections, noting the code would also be
considered in a comprehensive manner to ensure the impact of an amendment on another section of the
code was considered.
Council President Dawson requested staff identify ambiguities /conflicts in the code that required a policy
decision. She preferred the Council make policy decisions early in the process and prior to considering
procedural issues. Mr. Bowman provided an example, whether the Council would be the ultimate
arbitrator. Council President Dawson pointed out nonconforming uses was another example, and the
Council's policy would determine the procedures.
Council President Dawson pointed out the Council also needed to address the City's Criminal Code.
Judge Fair and she recently discovered the City did not have some ordinances that the State recognized
and that other cities had. The most recent example was meeting with a minor for immoral purposes; the
City did not have an ordinance precluding that. She planned to have this issue considered by the Public
Safety Committee at their March meeting. Mr. Snyder answered the reason there were a number of
ordinances the City did not have was because the statute was viewed as a serious matter, a State crime
that should be handled at the county level. This was also related to the assignment of a public defender
and the desire to limit the city's liability for public defender services by avoiding matters that had jail
time.
Mr. Bowman invited Couneilmembers to email him additional thoughts /comments regarding the code
rewrite.
8. PROPOSED RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS TO BE
INCLUDED IN SOUND TRANSIT PHASE 2.
Mayor Haakenson explained the resolution the Council was being asked to adopt expressed support for
Sound Transit projects N 2, a planning study from Ash Way to Everett Station in Snohomish County for
Link LRT; N 3, a preliminary engineering study from the King /Snohomish County line to Ash Way
(Snohomish County); N 5, a preliminary engineering study from Northgate to the King /Snohomish.
County line; N 6, a light rail project extension from the University of Washington Station to Northgate of
the Link LRT; and N 23, construction of a new permanent station at Edmonds Crossing for the Sound
Commuter Train.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 9
Councilmember Marin commented Sound Transit was reaching conclusion on many of the projects in the
first phase, Sound Move. Boring for the tunnel on Beacon Hill began yesterday and by 2009 there would
be train service from Pine Street to the airport. Sound Transit has begun identifying projects to be
included in the second phase, ST2. He described the process for narrowing a list of hundreds of projects
to 60 and ultimately to 25 -30 projects in the next step He commented on the importance of some of the
projects surviving the next step when Sound Transit staff presents three tax rate scenarios and begins
assembling projects that could be funded by those scenarios. He noted the projects of importance to
Edmonds were the projects that brought the light rail line from Northgate into Snohomish County. He
stated there was a good probability that Sound Transit would build light rail to Northgate by 2016 and he
wanted to maintain that momentum to bring light rail north into Snohomish County.
Councilmember Marin displayed an aerial photograph of the Northgate area, identifying the location of
the train station adjacent to the Northgate Park & Ride south of Northgate. He described the importance
of Edmonds expressing support for projects N 2, N 3, N 5, N 6, and N 23. He displayed a drawing of the
proposed Northgate station. He anticipated by 2016 Sound Transit will have refined their process,
making it easier and faster to do at -grade and elevated sections, possibly making it possible to construct
the portion to Ash Way in as short as four years.
Mayor Haakenson referred to a drawing from Sound Transit Phase 2 that outlined the area in red around
the Ash Way Park & Ride, noting it was quite a wide area. He asked whether project N 2, a planning
study from Ash Way to Everett Station in Snohomish County for Link LRT, was an I -5 alignment.
Councilmember Marin answered probably. Mayor Haakenson requested the resolution include a
statement that the planning study support an I -5 alignment. He noted the diagram of the project illustrated
a wider area than only an I -5 alignment and the City had been on record supporting an I -5 alignment from
Northgate to Everett and not veering away from the Ash Way Park & Ride.
Councilmember Marin explained there were places where I -5 may not be the perfect alignment as the line
came into Everett. He explained he had gotten the Snohomish County Executive and Sound Transit Vice
Chair to drop the Paine Field discussion and the Snohomish County Executive had dropped the discussion
of Hwy. 99. The 10% work in project N 2 would allow them to consider the best alignment to reach to the
Everett station. He noted the resolution did not commit the City to a particular alignment. Mayor
Haakenson responded the resolution identified what Edmonds wanted and that needed to include an I -5
alignment. Councilmember Marin expressed support for language such as a generally I -5 alignment.
Mayor Haakenson recalled Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood sent letters to Sound Transit opposing N 1,
Everett station to Everett Convention Center, and he questioned whether the resolution should state
Edmonds was not supportive of project N 1. Councilmember Marin explained ultimately they would not
be able to build that project; he preferred to allow them to reach that obvious conclusion versus telling
them what to do. Mayor Haakenson preferred the resolution state Edmonds' opposition to N 1.
Councilmember Marin expressed his opposition to including that language.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1117.
Council President Dawson shared Mayor Haakenson's concern and preferred the resolution state the
Council's opposition to project N 1. She advised she would not vote against the motion if it did not
include that language but she would not support the motion unless it specified an I -5 alignment. She
noted the area identified on the Sound Transit map did not appear to indicate a generally I -5 alignment or
rule out a Hwy. 99 alignment or veering off to Paine Field. She noted an I -5 alignment would allow a
slight deviation from I -5.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 10
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON,
TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO IDENTIFY THE I -5 ALIGNMENT IN SECTION 1.1 TO
READ, PROJECT NO. N 2 — A PLANNING STUDY FROM ASH WAY TO EVERETT STATION
IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR LINK LRT ALONG AN I -5 ALIGNMENT. AMENDMENT
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO SPECIFICALLY OPPOSE PROJECT N 1.
Councilmember Marin requested the Council not include that language as it would undermine the
process.
Council President Dawson asked to suspend the rules to allow staff to speak. She asked for staff's
thoughts on project N 1 and whether stating the Council's opposition to N 1 would undermine the
process. Community Services Director Stephen Clifton remarked he was unsure whether it would
undermine the process; the Council could adopt a separate resolution such as Mountlake Terrace and
Lynnwood did opposing project N 1. He recalled the staff members from Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace,
Lynnwood, Edmonds, Mukilteo who participated in the Snohomish County Technical Work Group
collectively agreed the Lynnwood and Everett link light rail segments were not good choices to pursue.
Councilmember Olson recommended the Council support Councilmember Marin who was on the Sound
Transit Board.
Mayor Haakenson responded the Sound Transit Board needed to know what projects the City supported
and did not support. Edmonds needed to be on record, as Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood were,
opposing N 1. Councilmember Olson suggested this project be allowed to fall apart on its own.
Council President Dawson commented if this project was not a good idea and the City did not support
funding for the project, the City should make that clear. Assuring it was not her intent to undermine the
process, she agreed with staff's recommendation not to support project N 1.
Councilmember Wambolt asked why so many cities opposed project N 1. Mr. Clifton stated it was a
three -mile segment between the Everett Station and Everett Community College and would consume over
$300 million (approximately 1/3 of the funds in the Sound Transit/Snohomish County budget). The
primary reason the technical work group opposed N 1 was their belief that the highest priority should be
to extend light rail northward from Northgate to Snohomish County, then to Ash Way and then to Everett
as quickly as possible rather than building a standalone segment. He commented that if N 1 were
constructed, it would be many years before that segment was connected to Northgate and the work group
believed it was better to have a majority of the population connected to a larger system than constructing
a standalone segment. He noted Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood expressed opposition to N 1 on
January 12, before the last round of project cuts and the Sound Transit Board chose to move forward with
that project anyway. There may be an opportunity in the future to express the City's opposition.
Councilmember Marin commented this was part of the process that allowed them to get Paine Field off
the table. This allowed Everett to think they were going to get something without waiting 40 years to
encourage them to support ST2. There was a perception in Mountlake Terrace and Mill Creek that
Everett got more than their share in Sound Move; however, his research revealed there was not an
imbalance in favor of Everett. In reality, this project was too expensive and would not happen; rather
than not allowing Everett to have anything, he preferred to allow the process to proceed and this project
would eventually drop off the list. He urged the Council not to express their opposition to N 1 in the
resolution.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 11
Council President Dawson questioned why if the project was not going to happen Everett was being given
false hope.
AMENDMENT CARRIED(4-2),COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN AND OLSON OPPOSED.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
10. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS.
SnoCom Council President Dawson reported the first SnoCom meeting of 2006 was held last week. She will be
meeting next week with the SnoPac Chair to discuss future projects between the two communication
centers. She advised the Economic Development element of the Comprehensive Plan would be a topic of
Economic
Development discussion at the February 7 Council meeting. She relayed Economic Development Director Jennifer
Element Gerend's request that Councilmembers forward any comments/questions to her in advance.
No Council Council President Dawson advised there was no Council meeting scheduled for January 31. She advised
Meeting on several Councilmembers would be attending the AWC Conference next week. She inquired whether any
1/31 Councilmembers were interested in attending the National League of Cities Conference in March.
SeaShore Councilmember Olson reported the SeaShore Forum was provided an update from Sound Transit. She
Forum expressed frustration that the bus rapid transit lanes would end in the Aurora Village area and would not
connect with Metro service.
Lodging Tax
Advisory Councilmember Orvis advised the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee was meeting on January 26.
Committee
Port Councilmember Wambolt stated the Port Commission elected Jim Orvis President and Bruce Faires as the
Commission liaison to Edmonds. The Commission's primary discussion was the acquisition of Harbor Square
buildings. They also reviewed the Harbor Square management agreement and in an effort to ensure a
seamless transition, planned to use Associated Management to manage the facilities. Councilmember
Wambolt advised the timeline for funding the purchase was extended until the end of March.
Historic Councilmember Plunkett reported the Historic Preservation Commission had not gotten many properties
Preservation on the Edmonds Register of Historic Sites but two new board members were actively seeking applicants.
Commission He recalled Ms. Gerend requested the Commission consider how to keep the historic structures along the
4th Avenue Corridor viable and commercially active so that as the corridor develops, those older homes
were not lost. He advised the Commission would also be involved in the nonconforming aspects of the
code as they related to historic preservation.
Parking Councilmember Plunkett reported the Parking Committee was asked to consider the 4th Avenue Corridor
Committee as the three plans being considered eliminated parking in the corridor. The Parking Committee will be
involved in the code rewrite in regard to commercial and residential parking. The Committee will also be
considering parking fines and in response to a request from Rick Steves,parking during special events.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
GARY HAAKENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24,2006
Page 12
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
JANUARY 24, 2006
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2006.
(C) Approval of claim checks #85178 through #85313 for the week of January 16,
2006, in the amount of $275,794.04. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #42469 through #42554 for the period January 1 through January 15,
2006, in the amount of$760,828.01.
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from John J. Winters, Jr.
($1,252.35), and Glenn and Wendy Werner (amount undetermined).
(E) Community Services Department Quarterly Report.
(F) Economic Development Department Quarterly Report.
(G) List of retiring and reappointed boards and commission members.
(H) Ratification of employment offer for Traffic Engineer.
3. ( 5 Min.) Introduction of Joe Mclalwain, Edmonds Center for the Arts Executive
Director.
4. (10 Min.) Proclamation in honor of National Mentoring Month and a presentation on the
Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Snohomish County.
5. (30 Min.) Update on the Edmonds Planning Board 2006 work program.
6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. (20 Min.) Discussion on the process to rewrite the Edmonds Community Development
Code.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JANUARY 24, 2006
8. ( 5 Mina Proposed Resolution expressing support for certain projects to be included in
Sound Transit Phase 2.
9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
• Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
• A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television-Government Access Channel 21.
• Visit the city's website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us to view copies of all documents for this agenda.
Page 2 of 2