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