Loading...
02/21/2006 City CouncilFebruary 21, 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 Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Michael Bowker, Intern Brandon Schmitt, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager Phil Olbreehts, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 2/7/06 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7, 2006. Minutes Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #85682 THROUGH #85855 FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2006, Cheeks/Payroll IN THE AMOUNT OF $567,037.23, AND #85867 THROUGH #86078 FOR FEBRUARY 16, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $226,687.41. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #42615 THROUGH #42667 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $758,657.68. Claims for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM IRMA MONTOYA Damages (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), PAUL HOUVENER ($3,363.25), ARTHUR STONE ($343.68), STEPHEN ROSS ($270.00), AND WILLIAM PHILLIPS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). orth End Taxi License (E) APPROVAL OF 2006 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR NORTH END TAXI. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 1 Westgate (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN Elementary Playground CITY OF EDMONDS AND EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15, WESTGATE Improvements ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS. Interurban Trail (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 2 TO Proj ect THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE INTERURBAN TRAIL PROJECT. Traffic Engineer (H) RATIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT OFFER FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER. ord# 3583 (I) ORDINANCE NO. 3583 - AMENDING ECC 2.35.030, VACATIONS, TO ADJUST THE acrual ccruaVACATION ACCRUAL OF DIVISION MANAGERS TO INCLUDE THE TITLE OF SUPERVISOR. old Woodway Elementary _Update on Negotiations Between the City and the Edmonds School District on the Old Woodway School Property Elementary School Property Mayor Haakenson advised the Edmonds School District has given potential purchasers of the old Woodway Elementary School property until March 1, 2006, to submit offers for the School Board's consideration. The City has worked with the District for quite some time and they are aware of the City's desires for a park of substantial size to be created on the property. The District is also aware that the City desires any potential residential units that may be built on the property utilize the existing neighborhood zoning of RS -8, the same zoning that surrounds the school. There are at least 23 bidders on the property which is estimated to bring in approximately $7 million to the District. The District will consider offers and advise the City of the status by mid-April. Mayor Haakenson advised any negotiations with regard to property acquisition were sensitive and clearly could not be negotiated in public. He assured the City had met the District's deadline requirement and would make an announcement when appropriate. With regard to the future of Pacific Montessori currently located at the site, he explained that was a private business and their future was in their own hands although the City continues to look for suitable locations for the school to continue their valuable contribution to the community. As public comment was scheduled much later on the agenda, he offered to anyone wishing to speak regarding the park or Pacific Montessori but was unable to wait for public comment, to leave written material with the City Clerk and Council President Dawson would read the material into the record during audience comments. Mayor Haakenson advised the statement above was his prepared statement but he would provide a further explanation at the risk of irritating the School District due to the increased public awareness of the project. Although this would possibly breach confidence the District had placed with the City through negotiations, he explained it was important for the public to know what the City Council has decided they would like to have on the site. He relayed the Council's instructions to him to negotiate with the District to ask for at a minimum a 4 -acre park on the site with the land and improvements donated to the City by any developer working with the District. He clarified the request was for land and development of the park to be donated as a City park, not as part of the development and not for the private use of any residences that may be constructed. The Council also desires to have development occur consistent with the existing zoning in the neighborhood so that no developer would request any change to that zoning. Mayor Haakenson summarized the request to the District was to find a developer who would provide the land, park improvements and utilize the existing zoning in the neighborhood. If at the end of April the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 2 District relayed that none of the developers were willing to provide what the Council requested, the Council would have to decide whether to purchase the entire parcel. Councilmember Moore, who did not attend the meeting where Council gave direction, stated her understanding was that the direction the Council gave did not preclude the City making an offer along with the developers. She asked whether the Council agreed not to submit an offer on the 11 -acre parcel. Council President Dawson responded the direction the Council gave was for Mayor Haakenson to negotiate the terms as he described as a priority. Councilmember Moore asked whether the City could still submit an offer if a developer was found. Council President Dawson reiterated the direction of a majority of the Council was the option Mayor Haakenson described as it was felt the City could not afford the entire parcel as a first option. If what the Council requested could not be attained, the Council would consider identifying appropriate funding. Councilmember Moore asked how the Council knew the City could not afford the property without making an offer. She noted it was appropriate to discuss property acquisition in open session as long as price was not being discussed. City Attorney Phil Olbrechts agreed. Councilmember Moore asked whether the Council precluded malting an offer to the School District for the entire I 1 acres. Council President Dawson answered that although no action was precluded, the direction of a majority of the Council was as Mayor Haakenson described. Councilmember Moore asked whether the Council would accept what a developer offered if it met the specifications Mayor Haakenson described without considering submitting an offer. Council President Dawson advised there had not been any formal decision made but that was the direction the Council asked Mayor Haakenson to pursue. Councilmember Moore questioned because Mayor Haakenson had been opposed to purchasing any land in that area, would it be appropriate to have another negotiator who did not have a conflict of interest? Mayor Haakenson responded he was not opposed to buying land in that area. He has been on the record from the beginning stating a community park would be built in that neighborhood and the City would buy the land to provide it. The question has always been the size. With regard to any conflict of interest, Mayor Haakenson assured he had done exactly what the Council asked him to do with the School District. Council President Dawson asked whether Councilmembers felt someone else should negotiate with the School District and Councilmembers indicated they did not find there was any conflict of interest. Community Technology 3. COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CTAQ REPORT Advisory Committee Councilmember Moore commented Edmonds was on the brink of new possibilities in technology and tax revenue. If the Council approved the recommendations presented tonight, it would be possible to launch a communications revolution that has swept the nation including Seattle and position Edmonds as the Snohomish County leader in the effort to benefit residents, businesses and children. She explained about ten years ago, the City of Edmonds drafted an ordinance and granted a cable television franchise to a regional cable TV company. The elected officials and staff that drew up and signed the cable franchise had no way of knowing that the ten years from 1996 to 2005 would see the most radical change in communication technology in the history of the world. Ten years later, the Edmonds cable franchise has changed hands three times, each time to a larger and more distant conglomerate. The city has no public access channel other than Channel 21. The city imports most of its public, educational and government channels from the Seattle Community Access Network, which includes a channel devoted entirely to the King County Council, and Channel 21 has no funding support for remote broadcasts or any community programming beyond City Council meetings. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 3 Had city officials been able to foresee the rise of the Internet, the growth of the World Wide Web, the emergence of e-mail and e-commerce as bedrock activities of modern life, they might have tried to take advantage of the decade's communication revolution to improve the civic, social and economic life of our community. Councilmember Moore commented city's leaders did not have the advantage of crystal clear hindsight that we enjoy today, but a key lesson from the past decade was that a communication revolution has already dramatically changed the way we communicate and this revolution is still unfolding. The fixture of communications is not at all certain, but it is clear that there will be more modes of communication covering more devices with more services in the very near future. As technologies evolve, it will benefit the citizens of Edmonds if there is an open standards based data network available for the development and deployment of these advanced services. Councilmember Moore explained CTAC assigned itself the task of attempting to look ahead ten years down the road and do what city officials were unable to do ten years ago — try to predict the outcome of this dramatic, far-reaching set of communication changes and try to take advantage of these changes in a way that improves the life of our community. She pointed out there is specific urgency to address the impact of new technology on the city's tax revenue. City revenues from utility taxes are forecast to decline as people switch from conventional, taxable telephone and TV services, to services that are Internet -based and exempt from taxation. The Internet has sparked a communications revolution that will accelerate as advanced voice, data and video services emerge. Interactive, high-speed broadband networks with the capacity to deliver next - generation applications will become essential to businesses, schools, health care providers, government and individuals. If Edmonds is to remain competitive in a regional and global economy dominated by a new world of enhanced communications, Edmonds must have an affordable, open, universally available, state -of- the -art broadband network. Bart Preecs, Chair, CTAC, explained the CTAC believes there is a window of opportunity currently available for the City to take advantage of technology trends, evolving business models and new regulatory postures to build a community broadband network, a powerful tool that will strengthen economic development and the community for years to come. If the City did not act promptly, decisions regarding community networks and broadband services would be outside the City's control. Mr. Preecs summarized the activities of CTAC included creation of CTAC in November 2004, fiber backbone provided by WSDOT from the ferry dock to Hwy 99 (212th), working with other agencies to link the network to a regional hub in Seattle and efforts are underway to build a fiber network from 212th to 238th. This effort would build a foundation for a community broadband network. Mr. Preecs described driving forces for establishing a community broadband network including declining City utility revenue, growth of the digital economy, need for interconnected public safety network, existing franchise agreements with communication providers that will expire soon, legislative efforts to preclude municipally sponsored community broadband network, and public dissatisfaction with declining quality and escalating cost of monopoly services. Rick Jenness, CTAC Member, acknowledged the efforts of all. CTAC members and thanked Mayor Haakenson and his staff for their assistance. He disclosed he had been engaged by the City since 1977 and as recently as August 2005 to provide technical expertise on a paid basis; tonight he was speaking as a citizen member of CTAC and had no professional interest in the outcome. He described the vision of a community broadband network —100+ mbps digital infrastructure to every home and business in the City capable of carrying voice, video, data (triple play) to each home, public safety and community Wi-Fi, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 4 with a City controlled infrastructure whose costs would be shared by competing service providers. Each provider currently owned their own network; the proposal was a single higher capacity network that all providers could use and that could be offered to other providers on a shared and competitive basis. Mr. Jenness listed content providers of phone, cable (video) and data (internet) services. He noted future content providers could include high definition teleconferencing. He requested the Council first consider and endorse the vision to build the broadband network in three phases, 1) pilot backbone, 2) citywide backbone ring, and 3) neighborhood fiber rings and premise endpoints, noting there were incremental steps within each phase. He described the pilot project — complete the backbone from the ferry to Seattle and install a Wi-Fi network covering portions of the waterfront/downtown area and possibly 3-4 public sites for demonstration. He noted the objective of the pilot would be to gauge the economic magnet effect, public interest and public safety applications. Mr. Jenness requested the Council consider CTAC's vision and roadmap. He requested Council direction on launching the pilot project and engaging staff in a feasibility study. Councilmember Marin stated a market feasibility study would be crucial due to the amount of competition and the proposal to take market share from those competitors. He suggested exploring the propensity of citizens to drop their existing service in exchange for this new service. He also wanted further detail regarding projected declines in utility tax revenue and income projections as a result of a community broadband network. Mr. Jenness stated the addendum to the Council packet contained revenue projections. With regard to taking market share and establishing the City as a competitor to existing providers, he explained CTAC did not envision the City being a competitor; the City would be providing a single high speed network to providers with more capacity than they had currently and granting access to the network on a per subscriber basis. He estimated for a provider to build, support and maintain a network like this would be $15-$18 per month per subscriber; the City's network would be made available to providers for approximately $7 per subscriber, with several providers using the same network. It would be beneficial to Comcast and Verizon and provided an opportunity for other providers who did not have a franchise agreement with the City to provide service. He concluded the cost to existing providers was lowered and provided opportunity to additional providers. He clarified the City would never be a content provider. With regard to citizens changing service, he acknowledged citizens may be resistant to change but economics would drive change. He provided his personal example, telephone service from Verizon, basic cable via Comcast and Comcast internet service, a total monthly cost of $135. Fiber to his home via a community broadband network could provide superior service at a cost of less than $90 per month. Councilmember Moore thanked CTAC and staff for their efforts, noting it had been a wonderful learning experience for her. She noted Administrative Services Director Dan Clements had a great deal of financial information to assist the Council. Councilmember Olson recalled an analogy that the community broadband network was like an airport; the City would own the airport but not the planes. Councilmember Wambolt commented this was a big departure for the City and for it to be successful it would be helpful to have someone championing it. He asked if there was a staff person championing it. Mr. Jenness advised staff was awaiting direction from Council regarding endorsing the vision. He suggested Council discuss the vision at their retreat and consider endorsing the vision and the roadmap. Councilmember Plunkett commented next week the Council would be discussing the inclusion of the Economic Development element into the Comprehensive Plan, pointing out this was a component of the Economic Development element. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 5 Council President Dawson expressed concerns with some of the recommendations, specifically the ability for restaurants to send out coupons within a certain distance, a service she did not want. She asked whether CTAC was asking for the Council's endorsement at that level. Mr. Jenness answered CTAC was seeking direction from the Council regarding endorsing the vision for Edmonds broadband by 2016. Council President Dawson acknowledged there were many intriguing ideas but she needed further information regarding other cities' experience with a community broadband network. She referred to the projected revenue versus costs that indicated the infrastructure would be paid for via user service fees in 20 years. She asked the sense of CTAC that today's technology would still be in use in 20 years, noting some things being used today were never envisioned 20 years ago and some of the technology the City might have invested in 20 years ago might be useless now. Mr. Jenness answered fiber optic cable had the capacity for 1000 times the initial 100 mbps. He recalled CTAC's initial consideration was a wireless distribution but they learned that wireless was rapidly running out of capacity whereas fiber optic cable had enormous excess capacity. Council President Dawson asked whether fiber optics was a generally accepted notion. Mr. Jenness answered Seattle, the 11 -city utopia project in Utah, San Francisco, and Chicago have endorsed fiber optics. Mr. Preecs noted the fiber optic cable had an expected lifespan of 30-50 years; the changes/innovations were connections, software and hardware that was above ground. Mr. Jenness acknowledged the fear of obsolescence was valid; but anticipated what would change would be on the ends of the fiber network. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO ASSIGN THE CTAC VISION AND DRAFT PROPOSAL TO THE COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER STUDY AND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Building 4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE BC ZONE Heights in the BC Zone Council President Dawson explained the Council did not envision this would be the end of the discussion but rather a presentation of different viewpoints to determine where there was common ground. She pointed out the building heights issue is a small piece of the puzzle regarding development in the downtown BC zone. She requested presenters and people making public comment keep the rhetoric to a minimum and remember people who wanted taller buildings downtown were not bad people who wanted to destroy Edmonds and people who wanted lower building heights were not stupid people who wanted to destroy the economic vitality of Edmonds; everyone was trying to do what was best for Edmonds. She advised there would be a presentation from the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE), the Chamber of Commerce and two Councilmembers, followed by public comment. The Council would then hold a work session on this topic at next week's meeting. She thanked ACE and the Chamber for agreeing to make presentations. Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds Presentation John Reed, ACE President, advised their comments only addressed the downtown BC zone and not the City as a whole, outlying economic centers or Hwy. 99. He introduced Rowena Miller, a founding member of ACE. Rowena Miller, ACE Member, stated she had lived in Edmonds since 1967 and her children attended Edmonds schools during a time when there were horses, sheep, chickens and cows and a lot of streams, trees, green and light in Edmonds. She acknowledged after 40 years, many changes could be expected although some were more difficult to accept than others. A resident of the Seaview area who accessed downtown via 3rd Avenue, a few years ago she found old residences, lawns and trees on the east side of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 6 3rd being replaced with massive, lot line -to -lot line buildings, providing an experience that was not as inviting or inspiring. She worried that redevelopment on the west side of 3rd would result in an area that was not welcoming to visitors. She then became aware of development and so-called revitalization in the downtown core and became concerned about the impact on the environment as well as the character of the city. She began attending and speaking at City Council and Planning Board meetings, feeling alone and finding city procedures complex and often unfathomable. Learning of other Edmonds residents equally distressed at the kind of development that was occurring, ACE was formed in an effort to work together and be informed about downtown and neighborhood issues. ACE membership was open to anyone interested in working together to encourage development that enhanced rather than destroyed the charm and beauty of the City. Via ACE, members educated themselves and ACE, shared research, and provided a guide to city procedures. Many concerns came to their forum but the most urgent issue was building height and design in the downtown retail core. She urged the Council to listen to and consider ACE's ideas and make decisions that would preserve Edmonds' natural environment and unique small town atmosphere. Mr. Reed explained earlier this month ACE held a special meeting to discuss the members' vision for downtown. He summarized the comments made with regard to vision: maintain the small town look and feel; maintain the character and charm; support for a healthy business climate; consider light, water and mountain visibility in design guidelines; maintain an open, accessible waterfront; retain, add and plan for green space in the development of downtown; preserve historical structures; encourage pedestrian access and activities; emphasize arts throughout downtown; and provide adequate parking. He noted last night ACE compared these comments to the Comprehensive Plan and found without fail all were in the Comprehensive Plan. With regard to building heights, Mr. Reed relayed ACE's support for a basic height limit of 25 feet, only allow limited additional height of 1-5 feet in exchange for well thought out incentive options, and stressing low level architecture. With regard to measurement, ACE supports results that are consistent with surrounding buildings; establishing a maximum height on the front, rear and side; and consideration of the 2 -story character of downtown. With regard to incentives/design, Mr. Reed recalled the comment by an ACE member, if the height increases from the basic height, then the incentives available should bring the overall appearance of the building down. He relayed ACE's support for incentives related to front, rear and side setbacks; upper floor setbacks; avoiding massing; promoting activity on the sidewalk; courtyards and recessed entries; entries no lower than sidewalk level; sensitive to existing views; and avoiding cookie -cutter approaches. ACE favors design guidelines that encourage variety and provide for controlled flexibility. He urged the Council not to delay adoption of design guidelines due to their importance. Steve Bernheim, ACE Member, displayed photographic examples of building design that ACE liked in the downtown area, commenting on design features that could be incorporated into restored buildings or new construction. Mr. Bernheim reviewed design guidelines developed by ACE that included objectives and addressed maximum lot size, maximum foot print, maximum floor area, maximum building and roof heights, ground floor rules, alleys, utilities, trash/dumpsters, lighting, trees, definitions and design review procedures. He reviewed the objectives developed by ACE that avoided out of scale construction, created a village atmosphere, low level architecture, encouraged originality, human scale, natural materials, preserve and restore historic buildings, and strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles. He emphasized the need to ensure design guidelines were followed once they were adopted. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 7 Mr. Bernheim reviewed proposed language for each element of ACE's proposed design guidelines pointing out the specific numbers had not been included. With regard to maximum building and roof heights, he pointed out the requirement that 3 -story buildings provide a substantial setback and that 4 - story buildings would not be allowed. He noted a standard of review would be that a project constituted an improvement. Throughout his presentation, Mr. Bernheim provided examples of buildings and features that ACE felt represented good and poor design. Mr. Reed concluded ACE was not opposed to change, development, redevelopment, modernization or creativity in the downtown area; ACE wanted that but within the ground rules established for downtown to retain the character of downtown. ACE was also well aware that economic development was a significant issue in view of future budget projections but did not want design decisions made on the basis of revenue generation but in consideration of all issues. He advised ACE wanted to retain the 2 -story appearance of downtown with high standards. Although it had been said that 2 -story buildings could not be built profitably, that assertion had never been confirmed. Councilmember Moore thanked ACE for their presentation, noting ACE's vision statement closely mirrored the Council's vision for downtown. She acknowledged the devil was in the details due to the difficulty defining "attractiveness" or "quaintness." She also supported adoption of design guidelines, believing that eventually the Council would vote on design guidelines and move on. Council President Dawson recalled several ACE members have said they oppose flat buildings, yet several of the photographs depicted flat roof buildings. She asked ACE's position with regard to flat roof buildings. Mr. Reed responded ACE was a very diverse group and there was not a consensus with regard to flat roofs. Council President Dawson asked whether there was a consensus that building heights should be 25 feet with up to an additional 5 feet with incentives. Mr. Reed answered ACE agreed on a maximum additional height of 5 feet and supported standards that considered topography. Councilmember Orvis thanked ACE for the terminology they provided. Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Presentation Police Chief David Stern, President, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, advised several subject matter experts among the Chamber's membership would provide portions of the presentation. Strom Peterson, Chamber Boardmember and President of the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, presented the Chambers' official policy statement: A nearly 100 year old organization composed of almost 400 members many of who also make Edmonds their home. As an organization, we represent a wide diversity of businesses including retailers, developers, property owners, service providers and professionals. As such different segments of our membership may have differing priorities as they pertain to the issue of building heights in the downtown core. The one thing we all share is a commitment to promoting the economic vitality of our business community. That is an important part of the Chamber's mission statement and in our opinion should be the overriding concern of the City Council on this issue. The citizens of this nation, state and city have made it clear time and time again that they do not want increased property taxes to pay for public services. As it stands the only other viable alternative is sales tax revenue that comes primarily from retail sales. Everyone in the community including the Chamber of Commerce is concerned about the quality of life in Edmonds. The Chamber has a long history of being a part of community life and working in the interest of all our citizens. Our involvement and leadership in community events like the 4"' of July parade and fireworks, the car show, downtown Halloween event and tree -lighting ceremony are clear evidence to our commitment to Edmonds but quality of life cannot exist without economic vitality and surely will be damaged if we do not come to some reasonable compromise on building and redevelopment. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 8 Early last year the Chamber endorsed a proposal by the Planning Board and felt then and still believes that the issue was not some specific number of feet in height that is important but it is a policy that allows for the building and redeveloping of structures that create an environment that fosters viable economic enterprise in downtown. In order to accomplish economic vitality, a minimum 12 -foot first floor height at ground level is needed to attract and retain retail businesses. The few existing spaces that contain this feature are filled and those lacking these features are vacant throughout downtown. The first floor space in buildings downtown is where the sales tax revenue is generated. Once that hurdle is cleared, whatever structures are built or redeveloped must be economically viable to build. Our membership clearly believes that means three floors of mixed use space. Whatever combinations of mitigation factors such as setbacks, open space, view corridors, etc. that would make such buildings possible would be supported by the Chamber and these are the decisions the City Council must make. The Edmonds community is in competition with other local communities to attract retail business; cities such as Mill Creek, Woodinville and Lynnwood are creating new town centers and lifestyle villages that attempt to mimic authentic downtowns such as Edmonds. In the last year a number of existing retailers have been aggressively recruited to relocate to neighboring cities. The bottom line is that the current stagnation in building and redevelopment, vacancy levels, lack of action on design guidelines and delay cannot help but negatively impact economic vitality and damage the community we all love. Chris Fleck, Chamber Boardmember and Officer, downtown property and business owner, commented the Chamber supported a vital city that included pedestrian access, parking availability and attractive buildings to serve customers. He noted customers included locals and visitors, noting that however great the downtown was, people had a choice where to shop and work. The diversity and quality of downtown businesses brought people from throughout the area. The key to economic vitality was to attract and retain businesses. For businesses to attract customers, the premises must be attractive. He commented on the difficulty for growing businesses to find alternate locations in Edmonds due to low first floor ceiling heights and subterranean first floors. The Chamber recommends the Code provide for a minimum 12 -foot first floor ceiling height for all commercial buildings. He referred to the Heartland study that recommended 12 -foot first floor ceiling heights, street level entrances and 3 -story buildings. Speaking as a property and business owner, Mr. Fleck explained the building he owned was on Main Street close to the fountain, a building that was not pretty, had no historic value and did not add to downtown attractiveness. He advised the building was currently being remodeled by their tenant. With the current 10 -foot first floor ceiling heights and 25+5 foot building heights, he would never be able to develop the property. He referred to the centrally located vacant property previously occupied by AM -PM, questioning whether the property would ever be redeveloped if they were not able to maximize profits. He estimated the cost of the land to be $1.2 million plus building costs, expressing his fear that vital corner would remain empty unless a 3 -story building could be constructed. As a business owner and property owner, he objected to restricting business to retail and retail -compatible to make downtown vital, noting such restrictions would limit to whom he could rent his property and would not allow him to use his property for his business. Mr. Fleck objected to the use of "developer" as a slur, stating that many worked and lived in buildings constructed by developers and that many building owners who wanted to redevelop their property were not money -grubbers but local business owners. Bob Gregg, downtown property owner, commented on financial aspects of building two versus three stories in downtown. He explained the recent fire that destroyed their building under construction and subsequent effort to process the insurance claim provided an extremely good analysis of the cost to build Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 9 in downtown Edmonds in 2005, what the Heartland study described as Scenario 1, a three story mixed use building with two floors of condominiums over mixed use with 8 -foot floors and subterranean entry as allowed by the current code. He commented after they submitted the insurance claim, it was audited and the result certified as accurate. Mr. Gregg referred to Scenario 1 of the Heartland study that used a land cost of $80 per square foot, an interest rate of 6.5% estimated a construction cost (excluding land and including only hard costs) of $165/square foot. The report they submitted to the insurance company had construction cost of $1.76/square foot. Scenario 2 in the Heartland study, a 2 -story condominium over mixed use with a 12 - foot first floor ceiling height, used the same assumptions as Scenario 1. Mr. Gregg advised an international construction company attempting to replicate the building destroyed in the fire found cost increases in 2006 such as 8% for drywall, 5% for flooring/carpet, 14% for steel, 10% for lumber. For anyone with questions about the Heartland study, he offered his books for examination. He concluded everyone was on the same page and he found everything in ACE'S presentation exciting, noting ACE'S proposal was Scenario 3 in the Heartland study. Donna Landborn, Coldwell Banker Bain Commercial, referred to the condominiums at 5th and Holly, built with the lower level on grade and first floor ceiling heights of slightly greater than 7 feet. She explained when the building was constructed in 1995, it took five years to find a tenant for the first floor and seven years to find an investor to buy the lower floor. She noted that investor was her client and after 2'/2 years she leased the south portion to a chiropractor and have been trying for over seven months to lease or sell the north portion. A dentist considering the space is unsure whether the ceiling heights will accommodate their equipment. She cited a new building on 4th Avenue as an example of a lowered ground floor as an alternative to lower ceiling heights. She commented although this was a beautiful building, they were unable to sell the lower floor as retailers did not want to locate in the space due to the 8 -foot ceilings and 3-4 feet below grade level and office users objected to the view of only the feet of passersby. With regard to ACE'S support for 2 -story buildings, Ms. Landborn explained land and construction costs made this infeasible. She noted Edmonds had a reputation that buyers in Edmonds did so because they wanted to be in downtown Edmonds and were not true investors interested in a return on their investment. She agreed with ACE's concepts to retain the city's small town character, but stressed the need for viability as well. Dave Arista, Chamber Boardmember, Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association Member, and downtown business owner, agreed with Mr. Gregg that the Chamber's and ACE's ideas were not far apart. He expressed his support for the Chamber's statement read by Strom Peterson, stressing the need for 12 -foot first floor ceiling heights and two additional floors in the downtown business district. He tasked the Council with determining the building height necessary to achieve this. When considering locations for their business 81/2 years ago, they considered Redmond, Kirkland and Woodinville but chose to locate their business in Edmonds and two years later became residents of Edmonds. He described their experience two years ago when they moved their business to a vacant building on 5th Avenue South with 12 -foot ceiling heights. He noted this property allowed them to continue to grow their business, noting without this building, they may have chosen to move their business out of the Edmonds area. Finding adequate space was a challenge for many successful merchants in. Edmonds who want to grow but due to the lack of viable retail space along with the uncertainty with building heights and redevelopment were considering moving out of downtown Edmonds. Before the City lost any merchants, he encouraged the City to make a decision regarding Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 10 building heights. He urged the Council to consider the Planning Board's previous recommendation, supported by the Chamber of Commerce, and identify the vision for the City to ensure a vibrant downtown district. Councilmember Moore thanked the Chamber members for their presentations. She asked whether the Chamber felt the lifestyle villages were a threat to Edmonds and whether any businesses had relocated to one of these lifestyle villages. Chief Stern answered several indicated they had been actively recruited but he was unaware of any specifics. Councilmember Moore observed Arista Wine Cellars was separate from the 5" & Main business area and asked how the lack of synergy from other retailers affected their business. Mr. Arista answered their and their partner's strong customer bases made them destination retailers and they were able to notify customers of their move. He acknowledged some business was lost due to the distance of their store from 5th & Main. Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Peterson if there was adequate space in Edmonds to grow his business. Mr. Peterson answered there were currently 1-2 vacant spaces that could be viable options, noting the space in Mr. Gregg's building was not a viable option for retail due to the subterranean entry. He commented on the difficulty to recruit other retailers to locate in Edmonds due to the lack of viable space. Council President Dawson asked whether the Chamber supported a retail core in the BC zone that was narrower than the entire BC zone. Chief Stern answered the Chamber had not taken a direct position on that issue at this time because their membership represented a variety of businesses. He explained the Chamber consisted of 75% service members; and although retailers were an important part, they were a smaller percentage of the membership. If it was assumed there would be a more defined retail core and retail would be required on the ground floor in certain areas, Council President Dawson asked whether the areas not in the retail core would need 12 -foot first floor ceiling heights and if not, what ceiling heights would be appropriate for non -retail space. Mr. Fleck, a service provider, advised the ceilings in the building where his business is located are 10 feet, any lower ceiling heights would be claustrophobic. He concluded 10 feet was low for a non -retail business. Council President Dawson asked if there was a consensus by the Chamber on a ceiling height for non -retail businesses. Chief Stern answered there was not. Mr. Gregg advised the national standard was 12 feet for retail and 10 feet for commercial. Council President Dawson asked whether restricting buildings to two stories would affect the price of land in downtown Edmonds. Mr. Gregg commented with rare exception, commercial real estate values had plateaus and peaks, never valleys. He acknowledged prices should have gone down with the Council's adoption of a building moratorium; however, property owners were willing to wait out the moratorium. He noted Edmonds was unique in that there were only a few owners of the property in the retail core. As the Heartland study pointed out, with that unique situation the net operating income was so good that there was no incentive to redevelop the property. Councilmember Olson inquired about Mr. Gregg's comment at Rotary regarding developing 2 -story buildings. Mr. Gregg stated if development was restricted to 2 -story buildings, the Council would need to find ways to significantly reduce costs. The Heartland study was correct with regard to developing a 2 - story building under the existing codes; it would not be feasible unless costs were significantly reduced. He urged the Council to craft regulations so that the private sector could do their job. Councilmember Moore inquired about low level architecture. Mr. Reed answered it was a 2 -story look and feel such as currently existed in the downtown core. Councilmember Moore asked whether the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 11 photographs displayed by Mr. Bernheim of architecture that ACE liked reflected low level architecture. Mr. Reed answered not necessarily as those photographs were intended to depict well designed buildings. Presentation by Councilmember Orvis Councilmember Orvis provided a presentation entitled, "What Should +5 Mean." He explained +5 was an incentive intended to allow the public and the developer to get something; the public gives 5 feet and in return the developer, prior to the moratorium, provided a modular design. Although there were differing opinions regarding what a modular design meant, he stressed vagueness was not the issue, the issue was what the public received in return. Councilmember Orvis supported requiring quality commercial space in downtown Edmonds including 12 -foot ceiling heights, floors near sidewalk grade, sufficient depth, and ability to support retail and restaurant establishments. He suggested the additional 5 feet be allowed for providing open space rather than modulated design, finding open space a better mitigation for view. Building economics such as higher commercial ceilings, additional floors, and higher residential ceilings drove building heights. Councilmember Orvis displayed a drawing of a building with two floors of condominiums, subterranean commercial floor and parking in the rear, pointing out eliminating the +5 incentive would result in this type of building. He displayed a photograph of a building constructed on a downhill sloping lot, with subterranean commercial in front, parking behind the commercial and residential on the upper two stories. He displayed how this building could have been constructed if higher ceiling heights and increased depth were required for commercial space, parking below the commercial and residential behind the commercial. He described features of this building including two stories on the street frontage, commercial space with higher ceiling heights and more depth and at sidewalk level and potentially as much residential. He concluded only the codes precluded such a building, not the height limit. He listed policy issues for quality commercial space including 12-15 foot ceiling heights, near sidewalk elevations and ground floor residential. Councilmember Orvis provided examples of how open space mitigated views better than roof modulation. Using a drawing of a view, he illustrated how much of the view was blocked with a 30 -foot flat roof commercial building, a 30 -foot commercial building with a 2 -foot modulation, 30 -foot commercial building with a 5 -foot sawtooth modulation, and a 25 -foot building as compared to a multi family or single family structure, pointing out the view blockage was reduced by setbacks and had less to do with the heights and more to do with the setback. He listed issues associated with requiring open space including how much, where and tying it to the design guidelines. Councilmember Orvis explained the current method of measuring heights using the average of the four corners resulted in a building with one 2 -story elevation and one 3 -story elevation on a sloped lot. He displayed photographic examples of such buildings. He explained a third floor setback would preserve the 2 -story look. He illustrated how a third floor setback increased light to the sidewalk. He provided photographs of buildings with third floor setbacks. Using photos, Councilmember Orvis illustrated why a third floor setback was preferable to a stepped building, noting the third floor setback resulted in a lower overall building height than a stepped building. He listed policy issues associated with the third floor setback including how much, corner lots, and alleys. In summary, Councilmember Orvis supported requiring quality commercial space, setback and open space as incentives for +5 feet, and setback for any third floors. Councilmember Moore recalled the developer of the Cooperstone building (Echelbarger) invited the Council to tour the building so that he could point out the problems created by the existing code. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 12 Councilmember Moore inquired about the feasibility of Councilmember Orvis' scenario which had parking in the front of the building rather than accessed via the alley. Mr. Gregg estimated the parking requirement in the City Code would need to be tweaked to accommodate Councilmember Orvis' proposal for the Cooperstone building. He pointed out retailers wanted shoppers to park and visit their business as well as visit other businesses. Council President Dawson suggested the presenters provide their perspective on each others' presentations before next week's work session. Councilmember Moore referred to Councilmember Orvis' presentation, pointing out neither multi family nor single family were allowed in the downtown BC zone. Councilmember Orvis explained the intent of his demonstration was to illustrate the impact that setbacks versus heights had on views. Presentation by Councilmember Marin Councilmember Marin commented on his background as a carpenter and a general contractor as well as in the field of advertising, marketing and public relations. He explained his consideration of this issue had been not with a tape measure but his vision of the community in 20 years. His goal for downtown in 20 years was a viable retail core downtown with thriving businesses as well as increased sales tax revenue to reduce the reliance on property taxes. Councilmember Marin displayed a product lifestyle curve for the opening of a store, identifying the point at which repeat customers were crucial to the store's success. He displayed and described a diagram of a store's draw area, noting Edmonds' draw area was reduced by the coastline as well as competitors in the area. He displayed the negative affect that the reduced draw area and lack of a sold base of repeat customers could have on a store's lifestyle curve. Councilmember Marin displayed a drawing of a 30 -foot building with commercial on the first floor, pointing out in reality approximately 2 feet on each floor was consumed by structural features, leaving the first floor inadequate for retail. He commented another detriment to retail in downtown was narrow sidewalks. He displayed a drawing of a building with taller first floor ceiling heights, wider sidewalks and a third floor setback, summarizing if the goal was a viable downtown core with thriving businesses, the focus needed to be on what retailers needed to be successful. He did not favor eliminating the ability for a third floor due to the importance of density along with commercial space. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He stated be received two emails: (1) Bob and Carol Close who favored limiting buildings heights to 25 feet or less, and (2) Ruth Hayes Arista urging the Council not to limit building heights to 25 feet. John Heighway, Edmonds, commented the Mill Creek Town Center looked a lot like downtown Edmonds but did not have residential above. He noted Edmonds had something many cities were trying to duplicate, something the city should strive to preserve via historical preservation and building heights. He referred to the 2000 Business Journal that reported Edmonds had $131 million in taxable retail sales, third in Snohomish County for retail sales. Dividing that by the population of 39,860 provided a per capita taxable retail sales of $328 per person, 17th out the 19 incorporated cities in Snohomish County. He concluded Edmonds was primarily a residential community with retail secondary. He recommended Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 13 preserving and improving what existed and creating a good business community. He agreed with ACE's proposal to adopt design guidelines this year and move on to budget issues facing the City. Norma Bruns, Edmonds, advised when she met with 20 Edmonds residents today, many who have lived in Edmonds a long time, she learned of their disappointment with changes occurring in Edmonds. She noted many like her did not have a vested interest in developing downtown but wanted to maintain the character of the city. Referring to everyone's disapproval of below grade commercial space, she recalled a charming restaurant, Sylvia's, which was below street level. She noted Pt. Edwards referred to their proximity to Edmonds and showed pictures of how Edmonds looked now, not how it would look in the future. She concluded most people did not want the appearance of downtown to change. Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, property owner in the downtown BC zone, agreed with Councilmember Marin that it was important to consider the vision for the City and not get caught up in the numbers. He noted there had been a vision for the city in the past; however, that vision was not considered when changes have been made to the codes over the past 7-8 years to allow 3 -story buildings. He read from. goals in the Comprehensive Plan that referred to maintaining the existing character in the downtown area, rehabilitation and restoration of older and historic buildings to retain a variety of building styles and continuity, general appearance of 2 -story buildings with common walls close to sidewalks, no setbacks on frontage streets, all parking lots at rear of buildings, storefronts on street level, compact configuration of buildings without large open areas of paving, pedestrian facilities, mini parks, street furniture, architectural capability without eliminating variety, old buildings mixed with new. He supported a general appearance of 2 -story buildings, commenting the benefits were not only to residents but also visitors. He concluded ACE'S and his interests were not opposed to small businesses. He referred to 4th Ave. North, an area designated as a pathway to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, noting the structures in that area were nonconforming because they were under the minimum lot size, a feature most people liked. In contrast, the building at 5`h & Walnut was built on several lots, a scale that most people did not like. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to development occurring in surrounding cities, pointing out Edmonds was in competition with those cities. He referred to the cost of land and draw areas, concluding the solution to building heights was to place the matter on the ballot for voters to decide. Bob Gregg, Edmonds, referred to a picture that had been displayed during ACE's presentation that illustrated the electrical boxes at the Gregory building, explaining they designed a room for the electrical boxes but PUD would not allow them to be located in the room. The electrical boxes would have been screened from view by trellises and landscaping. They have since convinced PUD to locate the electrical boxes inside the rebuilt building. Ray Martin, Edmonds, recalled there had been a building height crisis in 1980 when the Council adopted 25 -foot building heights sloping to 30 feet which remained in effect until approximately 1997. He pointed out Edmonds was a bedroom community, a great place to live, that did not need to mimic any other city. He recommended a building height of 25 feet, sloped to 30 feet and recommended the Council resolve the issue by placing a building height proposal on the ballot in November. He expressed his confidence in this Council to follow the wishes of the people and do what was in the best interest of the city and its citizens. Mike Musterus, Edmonds, referred to a picture in. City Hall of Edmonds taken in 1949, noting where his house is was an orchard at that time. He was a fan of the Gregory building, finding it an example of classic architecture that would stand the test of time when rebuilt that would be historic in 50 years. He observed once the ferry terminal and the train station were moved, there would be three more blocks to redevelop and it would be to the city's advantage to have a policy regarding building heights in place. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 14 concluded building heights should enhance the downtown core and quality of life. He noted there were a lot of great businesses downtown but there could be more businesses and residents. Eric Sonnett, Edmonds, expressed disappointment that staff had not provided depictions similar to Councilmember Orvis' presentation regarding what would be lost/gained with various building heights/features. He urged the Council to request staff provide dotted lines on photographs to visually illustrate proposals. He referred to Councilmember Marin's presentation regarding the city's limited draw area, recommending the city analyze the feasibility of a competitive downtown core before promoting development in the downtown core. He concluded the underlying issue was not heights or quality retail space, the question was what is Edmonds? He recommended the Council determine whether Edmonds was predominantly a residential community or a place that would grow into a large retail core. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, commented everyone wanted what was best for Edmonds; they just disagreed on what that was. He commented on the importance of retail sales tax, shops and restaurants, noting if the amount of sales tax revenue the City collected diminished substantially, it would be difficult to recapture. He feared if the City could not afford services, it would become part of Lynnwood. He pointed out even if Edmonds only had half the draw area, the half it had was beautiful. He encouraged the Council to adapt to the city's strengths, weaknesses, and challenges. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, recalled at the Hinshaw workshop, it was pointed out Edmonds did not have the density to support more retail space. She recalled Mr. Hinshaw recommended a 12 -foot minimum ceiling height for retail, finding mixed use was not a good idea because developers tended to do either residential or commercial well but not both. She recalled Mr. Hinshaw's statement that the new development occurring in the City was the result of developers building two stories of residential because that was what they did well and the first floor commercial was only an after -thought. She recalled Mr. Hinshaw's plan was a compromise with 25 foot height in the center core at Main Street, 25 feet in the preservation zone near the Edmonds Center for the Arts, 30 feet for residential only to increase density and 30 feet with a 3 -foot incentive for 12 -foot first floor ceiling heights for retail. She recommended the Council consider a compromise such as this rather than establishing an overall height limit for the downtown BC zone. She also supported changing the method for calculating heights to prevent excessive building heights on one side of a building. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled mixed use of one story of residential over commercial evolved into two stories of residential over less -than -desirable commercial space. He agreed with the business owners that they needed a good street presence, noting a 2 -story building with 15 -foot first floor ceiling heights could be accomplished. He questioned the assertion that the additional floor of residential would increase retail sales, noting what was needed to increase retail sales was an effort by the Chamber to advertise and the City's beautification efforts such as flower baskets and corner gardens. He noted the Edmonds Center for the Arts would also attract visitors to the City. Because visitors were attracted to the low level architecture and architectural differences in downtown, he supported providing the means for property owners to remodel their buildings without penalties. He concluded the downtown's historic character was the essence of the city which combined with the waterfront and the Edmonds Center for the Arts provided a reason for people to visit the city. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Council President Dawson suggested the Council hold their discussion until next week's work session. She requested one person from ACE and the Chamber of Commerce attend next week's meeting and provide a hardcopy of their presentations for distribution to the Council. She requested staff provide maps of the downtown with overlays. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 15 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Pacific Michelle Corsi, Edmonds, expressed her appreciation for the City's efforts to work with Edmonds M°"tens°" School District, and requested in the meantime the City request the District extend Pacific Montessori Preschool Preschool's lease for another year to allow the preschool to continue to operate and to provide adequate time to find a suitable space to relocate. She noted the previous agenda item demonstrated the City's interest in fostering commercial and retail development and suggested the City be similarly interested in retaining a quality preschool such as Pacific Montessori. She cited the importance of early childhood education, the difficulty finding quality preschools in Edmonds, and the excellent care provided by Pacific Montessori. She advised the same request to extend Pacific Montessori's lease was made at the recent School Board meeting. Pacific Keith Aubrey, Lynnwood, agreed with the comments made by Ms. Corsi. A teacher at Everett Montessori Community College, he found many of the students attending community college did so because they Preschool were under -prepared, taking high school classes in college. He envisioned in the future K-12 education would be expanded to include preschool through grade 12 due to the number of working parents and research that emphasized the importance of early education. He urged the Council to identify a solution that retained Pacific Montessori in the Edmonds community. Paciflc Summer Clark, Edmonds, described the willingness of Pacific Montessori to accept her daughter, who Montessori has Type 1 diabetes, and the excellent care the preschool staff provided. She encouraged the City to Preschool negotiate with the School District to extend the preschool's lease, and since it was not possible for the preschool to remain in that location, to advocate for the preschool in the permitting process. Pacific Wyn Brawner, Edmonds, a resident of the Sherwood area, was glad to hear the City was negotiating for Montessori a park on the site but was disconcerted with apparent lack of a unified conviction by the Council to site a Preschool badly -needed park in that neighborhood. She also urged the City to negotiate for an extension of Pacific Montessori's lease to allow them adequate time to relocate. As an educator at Westgate Elementary, she cited the important contribution of Pacific Montessori to public education. As a parent of two children who attended Pacific Montessori, she remarked on the positive impact the preschool had had on their lives. She relayed her son's comments about how unhappy the children would be without their school. Pacific Lela Eunson, Edmonds, explained they chose Edmonds to raise their children and an important part of Montessori their contentment with Edmonds was Pacific Montessori Preschool. Although she was impressed with Preschool g p the District's efforts to utilize existing assets to relive taxpayers' financial burden, to do so without regard to the preschool located on the site created bitterness. A middle -school teacher and reading specialist, she was aware of the importance of preschool education. She acknowledged Pacific Montessori was not the only preschool providing loving care and excellent instruction, pointing out these two qualities did not always coexist in a locally owned preschool that also provided quality extended care for working parents. cTAc Eric Sonnet, Edmonds, commented he was enthused and dismayed by CTAC's presentation. He Presentation advised his family had four computers to accommodate their family's daily use. He recalled a few years ago Palo Alto, California laid fiber under every street but not enough residents would pay to connect from the street. Before proceeding with fiber optics, he urged the Council to investigate communities where it had been successful. Neighborhood Al Rutledge, Edmonds, provided a petition for a Neighborhood Park (Located at 23700 104th a/k/a Old Park Petition Woodway Elementary a/k/a Sherwood Park). He advised of a meeting he had scheduled with the Assistant Superintendent of the Edmonds School District to discuss issues he raised including the old Woodway Elementary School site. He also planned to visit Snohomish County to determine if there were any grant funds available for the city. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 16 Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented he was interested in the technology presentation but there were Presentation Technology items he needed further information on such as the 100 - mb s digital infrastructure that fiber optics Presentation p g p would provide. He planned to contact Comcast to inquire about the service he was currently receiving. With regard to the comment that the cost could be reduced to $95, he advised that was what he paid now. He was glad to hear Councilmember Moore's comments about the south end parks and thanked Councilmember Orvis for his excellent presentation. He recalled Councilmember Orvis recommended Building Height placing the height issue on the ballot last year which the Council chose not to pursue. Paeife Rosemary Smith advised Nancy Testic and she have owned Pacific Montessori Preschool for the past 19 Montessori years. She thanked the preschool staff and parents for their support. She commented although they knew Preset°ol they would be losing their lease, they were not aware of the timeframe. She pointed out the difficulty moving the preschool and asked for additional time to find a suitable location. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested the Council consider at their retreat what the City could do to Retail space, improve the business climate. He referred to the recommendation in Hinshaw's report to have continuous Parking and retail, noting the space for retail on the first floor of new three story buildings was diminished by the Sidewalks entrance to parking and the building entrance. He noted entrances to on-site parking also eliminated on - street parking versus a full frontage of retail which would not eliminate on -street parking. With regard to wider sidewalks, he pointed out sidewalks could not be widened unless the streets were narrowed; however, sidewalks would seem wider if obstructions such as trees and power poles were removed. He suggested the downtown area could also be enhanced by signage to a public restroom, more gathering areas and places to rest. 6. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 14, 2006 community/ Community Services/Development Services Committee Development Services Councilmember Plunkett advised the Committee was provided a report on funds for CIP projects committee including capital funds that were generally in good shape and difficulties the city faced in Fund 112, Streets, and Fund 116, Building Maintenance. The CIP will be presented to the City Council during a public hearing on March 21, 2006. Finance Finance Committee committee Councilmember Wambolt reported staff briefed the Committee on a recommendation to allow non - represented supervisors to accrue the same amount of vacation as division level managers which was approved on tonight's consent agenda. Next, Mayor Haakenson described administrative concerns in applying the current compensation plan with regard to non -represented salaries, primarily employees who appealed L-5 decisions. Further discussion regarding that issue was continued to the March Committee meeting. Staff then reviewed highlights from the preliminary year-end 2005 budget report, advising the city ended 2005 with more revenue and less expenditures than projected. The final item was an overview of the 2006 Administrative Services work plan. Public safety Public Safety Committee committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee discussed the Public Safety element of the Comprehensive Plan, Chief Stern provided definitions and the Committee requested staff provide examples of other cities' Public Safety elements. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS wrout ' and Mayor Haakenson advised that Police Chief Stern and he, at the request of the ATF, attended the detention hearing in Federal District Court for the two suspects in the downtown arson. One of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 17 suspects, whose parents had not visited him during his 2 -week stay, would remain in custody and the other suspect, who the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) wanted held in jail, was released. Mayor Haakenson concluded it was a disappointing demonstration of the justice system at work. He recommended reading the February 22 Everett Herald for further information. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Pacific To those who spoke regarding Pacific Montessori School, Council President Dawson wished the Council Montesson could provide assurance that the lease could be extended through the next school year; however, the City School did not own the land or the building and did not know the fate of the building at this time. She explained the School Board was the appropriate body to make the request to regarding extending the preschool's lease. She concluded it was not within the City's authority to extend the preschool's lease; however, the City was willing to work with the preschool to find an alternate location and would encourage the School District to continue their lease with"the preschool. `Your Table Councilmember Marin reported an Edmonds citizen, Nancy Fleck, "Your Table is Ready Catering," is Ready received an Excellence in Food Service Award from the Health District for not having an violations in a Catering" g Y ten year period. He noted this was an incredible feat to have no violations during that time period. Pacific Councilmember Moore recalled Ms. Smith had taught her son to read at Pacific Montessori 15 years ago. Montessori She believed the City had some control over the timeline of the preschool's relocation, noting anyone School purchasing the school would need to obtain a rezone, a lengthy process. She suggested Mayor Haakenson, in negotiations with the School District, describe how long it could take to obtain a rezone and encourage the School District to extend Pacific Montessori's lease for another school year. Council President Dawson agreed the City could encourage the School District to extend the lease but the Council would not make any promises regarding the outcome. Student Representative Brandon Schmitt encouraged the public to support the local boys and girls high school basketball teams. 9. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:23 p.m. J�X� ARY AKENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2006 Page 18 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. FEBRUARY 21, 2006 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order/Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2006. C. Approval of claim checks #85682 through #85855 for February 9, 2006, in the amount of $567,037.23, and #85867 through #86078 for February 16, 2006, in the amount of $226,687.41. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #42615 through #42667 for the period February 1 through February 15, 2006, in the amount of $758,657.68. D. Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Irma Montoya (amount undetermined), Paul Houvener ($3,363.25), Arthur Stone ($343.68), and Stephen Ross ($270.00). E. Approval of 2006 Taxicab Operator's License for North End Taxi. F. Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement between City of Edmonds and Edmonds School District No. 15, Westgate Elementary School Playground Improvements. G. Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with KPFF Consulting Engineers for the design of the Interurban Trail Project. H. Ratification of employment offer for Traffic Engineer. 1. Proposed Ordinance amending provisions of ECC 2.35.030 concerning vacation accrual for non -represented employees. 3. (15 Min.) Report from the Community Technology Advisory Committee. Page 1 of 2 1 71 U CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 21, 2006 4. (90 Min.) Public Hearing regarding building heights in the BC Zone. 5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 6. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of February 14, 2006. 7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 8. (15 Min.) Council Comments 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. Page 2 of 2