Loading...
06/20/2006 City CouncilJune 20, 2006 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Deanna Dawson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauni Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Thomas Tomberg, Fire Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Brian McIntosh, Parks and Recreation Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Approve (A) ROLL CALL M Minute Minute s 6 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2006. Approve I (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #88514 AND #8851.7 THROUGH #88707 FOR JUNE 8, Claim Checks 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $797,995.33, AND #88708 THROUGH #88870 FOR JUNE 15, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $279,472.60. surplus City Vehicle (D) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO SURPLUS A CITY VEHICLE. Purchase a I (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A Medic Unit MEDIC UNIT WITH BRAUN NORTHWEST, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $132,867. Design of (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 5 TO 220th St. sw THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PERTEET, INC. FOR THE Improvements DESIGN OF 220TH STREET SW IMPROVEMENTS (9TH AVENUE SOUTH TO 84TH AVENUE WEST) PROJECT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 1 Meadowdale Beach Rd. (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 13, 2006, FOR THE MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD Drainage DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO Ord# 3599 EARTHWORK ENTERPRISES, INC. ($91.,857.15, INCLUDING SALES TAX). Recreational Vehicles (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3599 REGULATING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND Technology RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS. Initiative Appropriation (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE APPROPRIATION. Police Dept. Staffing ( J ) AUTHORIZATION FOR MID -YEAR POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING ADDITIONS. Additions Edmonds 3. EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS UPDATE Center for the Arts update Executive Director Joe McIalwain thanked the Council for their vision and support of the Edmonds Center for the Arts, remarking the Center would open in a few months with performances by many local arts groups as well as presentations from music, theater, dance, comedy, and lectures from throughout the world. He also thanked Community Services Director Stephen Clifton, Executive Assistant Cindi Cruz, Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin, Administrative Services Director Dan Clements, Assistant Administrative Services Director Kathleen Junglov and Accountant Erin Anderson for their support of the project and of him as the new Executive Director. He also thanked the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Members Terry Vebrs, Jan Conner, Kay Mahaffey, Dave Farling and John McGibbon for their vision, support, and guidance. Mr. McIalwain announced the hiring of two Edmonds Center for the Arts staff members, Diane Gordon, Director of Operations, and Jan Steadman, Marketing Director, and briefly described their backgrounds. He prefaced his presentation by reading the Center's mission statement — a cultural resource for the entire region, Edmonds Center for the Arts inspires creativity, learning and growth through performing arts presentations, community partnerships and education outreach programs. Mr. McIalwain reviewed the current project timeline, advising renovations would be complete by September 30, 2006 and the first performance, Cascade Symphony Orchestra, was scheduled for October 23, 2006. The grand opening celebration in January 2007 will include a big -name artist followed by a community -wide celebration throughout January that will include tours and community events. He provided several photographs of the facility prior to renovation and during construction, advising the project was 75% complete. He highlighted the stage left wing expansion, orchestra pit expansion, orchestra pit cover, intimate atmosphere in the 700 seat theater, catwalk system, new HVAC ductwork, retention of the original fir ceiling, liner walls that create the box seating, lobby and concession area, exterior building color, and the new addition that houses restrooms on each level, a new elevator, a loading area, and dressing rooms. He anticipated 25 -30 artists performing in the Center per year from around the world providing theater, music, dance, comedy, lectures as well as local and regional groups. Local and regional groups that have booked dates in the 2006 -2007 season without marketing the space include Cascade Symphony Orchestra, SnoKing Chorale, Olympic Ballet Theater, Choir of the Sound, Storybook Theater, Seattle Opera's Young Artist Program, two plays by Edmonds Community College, Friends of Frank DeMiero Jazz Festival, Lynnwood Jazz Festival, Jazz Connection, Seattle Children's Chorus, Cascade Youth Symphony, Barkley Shelton Dance School and Rick Sieves. He anticipated the Center would be occupied by an event or performance 250 -275 days per year. Mr. McIalwain described educational outreach programs including arts connections that would bring artists into the schools, student matinees, the Spotlight Schools Program intended to generate support from foundations and corporations to cover the cost of schools using the Center for their school plays, and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 2 partnerships with Edmonds Community College that would include internships. He described the intended use of the Center for performance, dialogue, and community celebrations, concluding the goal was to maintain a balanced, stable and viable organization. He described the cultural and economic impact the Center would have on the community including serving more than 80,000 - 100,000 people each year, providing an entertainment alternative and anchor for tourism. He reviewed total project costs of $18.5 million which includes property acquisition, architectural and engineering, construction and soft costs. He advised $14.6 million had been generated to date via a combination of public and private funds. He announced recent gifts including $100,000 from the McNaughton Foundation and $10,000 from the Hubbard Trust. He described potential funding opportunities, explaining the Center would make a presentation on Friday to the Building for the Arts Program Advisory Board; the total amount per request is $2 million, and 26 projects have applied for a total of $12 million. He announced the availability of naming rights throughout the building including the building itself as well as the seat campaign. He anticipated fundraising for the project would be complete by June 2007. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. McIalwain explained the naming rights were areas of the building available for sponsorship including the theater itself. Councilmember Plunkett thanked Mr. Mclalwain for his presentation, commenting it was inspiring to see the fruition of a vision. Councilmember Moore thanked Mr. Mclalwain as well as staff for their efforts. She reiterated the project was on time and on budget. She referred to the school programs, asking whether there would be daytime performances as well as evening performances. Mr. Mclalwain explained many presenting artists have educational programs integrated into their performances. He also envisioned daytime matinees for Storybook Theater and daytime rehearsals for Edmonds Community College performances. Councilmember Moore commended him on his openness to performances that would appeal to high school and college -age members of the community. Councilmember Marin congratulated Mr. Mclalwain and the others involved in making the Center happen and wished him luck on the presentation to the Building for the Arts Advisory Board. Councilmember Wambolt commended the PFD Board for selecting Mr. McIalwain, recognizing his enthusiasm and competence. He urged care in allowing the naming rights of the theater. He asked about the finish on the exterior of the old building, whether it would be resurfaced /painted to match the new addition. Mr. Mclalwain advised it would be repainted, explaining the intent was to renovate the interior space while preserving the historical structure. PSRC vision 4. DISCUSSION REGARDING PSRC VISION UPDATE DRAFT EIS Update Draft EIS Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) has begun an update process to the regional plan. The last update was completed in 1995; the original plan was adopted in 1990. The mechanism for the update is an expanded environmental review process to analyze a number of alternatives to potentially arrive at a preferred alternative that would be adopted as the regional plan. The purpose of the update, as stated in the EIS release in late May, is to extend the vision to 2040 and respond to the needs of a 1.6 million increase in the region's population and an additional 1.1 million jobs. The update will also include a public discussion regarding growth and impacts, strengthening strategies and policies, adding more detail and clarity and making monitoring and implementation easier. The update will also support related regional goals and initiatives for growth management. The intent is to also keep the update current and relevant to decision makers and the public. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 3 He explained the projected 1.6 million population represents approximately a 50% increase in the population. PSRC's analysis identified several alternatives but maintains concepts throughout the alternatives. For example they developed regional geographies, groupings of cities or like entities, and vary the amounts of population and employment that would locate in each area. PSRC identified metropolitan cities, core cities, larger cities (which includes Edmonds), smaller cities, unincorporated Urban Growth Areas (UGA), rural areas and natural resource areas. Metropolitan cities include Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma and Bremerton; core cities are those identified as regional growth centers such as Redmond, Renton, etc. Edmonds is identified as a larger suburban city; others include Bainbridge Island, Des Moines, Issaquah, Kenmore, Marysville, Mercer Island, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo, Sammamish, Shoreline, University Place and Woodinville. He pointed out there was a great deal of variety between these cities; one of the similarities was these were closer -in, larger suburban that did not identify as important growth centers under current plans. Smaller suburban cities were broken into three groupings of outlying cities such as Duvall and Monroe; residential smaller cities such as Woodway; and small cities within the urban framework. He displayed a map of the urbanized area in 1950 and 2000, identifying Edmonds on both. Mr. Chave displayed and described the four regional growth alternatives: • Growth Targets Extended Alternative— intended to be an extension of current plans to 2040 • Metropolitan Cities Alternative — focuses growth in metropolitan areas and core cities • Larger Cities Alternative — larger suburban cities future population and employment growth • Smaller Cities Alternative — urban growth areas growth accommodate a substantially larger share of and smaller cities accept a larger share of the Mr. Chave reviewed a chart comparing the shares of population and employment growth by region within the regional growth alternatives 2000 -2040. He explained the conclusion of the draft EIS appeared to be that the Metropolitan or Larger Cities alternative had slightly less environmental impacts than the other two alternatives. In the Metropolitan Cities alternative, Edmonds is in the group of cities targeted to have a 15% share of the overall growth in the region. In the Larger Cities alternative, Edmonds would be targeted to receive a 30% share of the overall growth, a substantial increase. Mr. Chave noted the PSRC Vision Update EIS was a very large document, over 700 pages. He suggested the City comment on what type of regional growth pattern was desirable and identify aspects of the alternatives the City would like to have included in a preferred alternative as it was likely the preferred alternative would be a combination. He also recommended local impacts be highlighted. Mr. Chave explained the Metropolitan Cities and Larger Cities alternatives identified a share of population for the grouping of cities as well as a specific population increases for each jurisdiction. The population increase anticipated in the Metropolitan Cities alternative translates to a 70% increase in Edmonds' population and a 141% increase in Edmonds' population under the Larger Cities alternative. Mr. Chave compared larger cities, core cities and metropolitan cities throughout the region and in Snohomish County. He compared and contrasted the share of population distribution in the Metropolitan Cities and Larger Cities alternatives, concluding the Larger Cities alternative had the largest proportionate impact in the group of larger cities versus a more evenly distributed impact in the Metropolitan Cities or Growth Targets Extended alternatives. He suggested that be addressed in one of the city's comments on the EIS. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Chave explained although theoretical growth alternatives help frame the issue, they produce difficulties when the regional conclusions were applied locally. A possible approach would be to identify what the City liked about the alternatives as well as point out local limitations and issues. For example, he questioned how a City such as Edmonds that was virtually built out, would finance or encourage redevelopment to the extent envisioned in the Larger Cities or Metropolitan Cities alternatives. He recommended the City closely follow the PSRC process, specifically governance and policy issues as well as implementation. He recalled discussion in 1995 regarding development and implementation of the regional vision and the ultimate result that less emphasis was placed on specific numbers and more emphasis was placed on centers, how centers would be organized, etc. He commented on the dangers of relying on modeling and developing targets, monitoring, etc. based on the models. Mr. Chave recommended working with regional partners such as Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) on a coordinated response. He anticipated SCT would have this issue on their July meeting agenda so that a response could be developed within the DEIS comment period. He advised PSRC planned an additional process for developing a regional plan. He reviewed next steps, advising comments on the DEIS were due by July 31, the supplemental DEIS with a preferred alternative would be developed as well as revised multi- county planning policies that would accompany the supplemental EIS due mid -2007. The final EIS and final vision document would follow in 2008 after additional public review on the supplemental EIS, additional environmental review, etc. The PSRC's general assembly would adopt the document in late 2008. He advised a representative from PSRC was scheduled to make a presentation to the Council on July 18. Councilmember Wambolt asked how the population and employment increases were developed. Mr. Chave anticipated they were developed via modeling as well as long range projections by the State Office of Financial Management. For Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Chave explained the 70% growth in Edmonds population via the Metropolitan Cities alternative was determined by the 30% share of the overall regional growth that Edmonds would be required to accommodate under that alternative. Councilmember Wambolt referred to the comment in the staff report that Edmonds' share of regional growth by year 2025 was 5,420 additional residents which the land capacity analysis indicated could be accommodated. He clarified this would be accomplished via infill and/or redevelopment, often resulting in one home replaced by 2 -4 homes, condominiums replacing single family residences, etc. He pointed out it was also necessary to balance retention of open space with accommodating population increases, referring to the development of 330 condominiums on the Unocal property, a site that some advocated be retained as a park. He commented Edmonds' average density was over six families per acre. Councilmember Moore inquired about Lynnwood's family per acre density. Mr. Chave was not aware of their family per acre density. She pointed out many neighboring cities were on the list of Larger Suburban cities including Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo and Shoreline and suggested Edmonds confer with those cities. Mr. Chave agreed, recognizing the cities shared many issues. He planned to meet with the Snohomish County Planning Directors via the Snohomish County Tomorrow's planning advisory group later this week to discuss the DEIS and prepare an issue paper for Snohomish County Tomorrow. Councilmember Moore urged staff to also confer with Shoreline with regard to the alternatives. She noted population and employment increases would not only put pressure on the land but also on the City's infrastructure. Councilmember Moore asked whether the Larger Cities alternative placed most of the burden for accommodating growth on Snohomish County. Mr. Chave advised the percentage of increase for Snohomish County cities was similar to the percentage of increase in larger cities region -wide. Councilmember Moore referred to the Smaller Cities alternative which addressed redevelopment in small Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 5 downtowns to produce more significant local employment centers throughout the region that could also develop with apartments, condominiums and townhouses. The local employment centers fit with the vision to have residents work, live and recreate in the same area but that local employment centers was not contained in the other alternatives. Mr. Chave advised the conclusion appeared to be that the Growth Targets Extended as well as the Small Cities alternatives produced the worst transportation situation. Councilmember Moore suggested staff consider the acreage in the alternatives relative to the projected population growth. She pointed out the Metropolitan Cities consisted of 216 square miles, core suburban 197 square miles and Larger Suburban Cities 131 square miles. Mr. Chave answered the percentage of increase in the Larger Suburban cities alternative increased so significantly due to the smaller geography. He advised the PSRC's environmental review would include discussions regarding assumptions about concentrating population and jobs. Councilmember Orvis asked whether changes to the Urban Growth Boundary had been factored into the alternatives. Mr. Chave answered the only alternatives that placed any significant growth into the UGA were the Growth Targets Extended and Smaller Cities alternatives. He noted the Metropolitan and Larger Cities alternatives did not fill in the existing UGA. Councilmember Orvis preferred to extend the UGB rather than rezoning within the City's boundaries to accommodate additional growth. Mr. Chave suggested discussing that concept with the PSRC representative next month. Councilmember Orvis asked how the City's comments would be submitted. Mr. Chave suggested the Council meet with PSRC on July 18 and staff present a document outlining the City's response at the July 25 Council meeting. He offered to provide a memo to the Council regarding discussions with neighboring cities, etc. prior to the Council's July 18 meeting with PSRC. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Chave described the composition of the PSRC — the general assembly is comprised of representatives from all jurisdictions, policy boards are comprised of subsets of the general assembly, technical committees are comprised of staff. He explained PSRC was the metropolitan planning organization for the region, a required entity to accept federal transportation funding. Their mandate is the regional transportation plan and distributing federal funds via grant processes. PSRC's recent efforts have been to combine transportation planning with land use. Councilmember Marin reported following a PSRC presentation at a recent SCT Steering Committee meeting, materials were distributed indicating the growth target for 2040 in Edmonds was 55,000 additional residents. As a result, he invited a PSRC representative to make a presentation to the Council. Councilmember Marin invited Mr. Chave to attend a meeting with the PSRC representative on June 22. Councilmember Marin commented on the need to explore realities that did not fit within the selection of one of the four growth alternatives and implications of reallocating population between Metropolitan and Larger Suburban Cities. Councilmember Plunkett commented regardless of what alternative was selected, the City would be compelled to accept population growth. To what extent the City had to be consistent with PSRC's 2020 plan, Mr. Chave explained the DEIS cites a reference to a court of appeals case Des Moines v. PSRC, a challenge by south King County cities with regard to the third runway, that their local plans took precedence and the regional plan had to acknowledge their plans. The court decided in favor of PSRC and in the court's opinion in a case where an adopted regional plan conflicted with a local plan, the regional plan took precedence. Therefore, it was critically important that the City follow and comment on the regional plan to ensure it reflected local goals. He recommended discussing with the PSRC representative to what extent PSRC envisioned numbers and targets being part of the final plan framework as specific numbers were not adopted in the 2020 plan. He clarified the percentage of growth numbers were taken from the appendixes, the DEIS document addresses only shares of growth. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Chave explained PSRC certifies local Comprehensive Plan transportation elements. If Vision 2020 was adopted and the City's land use and transportation plans were not consistent with Vision 2020, PSRC could potentially withhold all federal transportation funds. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the Growth Management Hearings Board could invalidate the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and require a response by the City within a specified period of time. Councilmember Olson clarified PSRC was comprised of Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish and King Counties. She asked what growth the Esperance area would be required to accommodate. Mr. Chave answered as part of the unincorporated Urban Growth Area, under the Metropolitan and Larger Cities alternatives, little growth would be accommodated in those areas. Under Smaller Cities and Existing Targets Extended alternatives, more growth would be accommodated by the Urban Growth Area. Council President Dawson thanked Mr. Chave for his presentation and Councilmember Marin for inviting the PSRC representative to speak to the Council. She pointed out the City could rezone property but property owners could not be forced to redevelop, thus it would be nearly impossible to achieve the proposed population increases. She pointed out the alternatives did not consider the unique characteristics of each city or area such as the demographics, property values, topography, environmental issues, etc. Mr. Chave recommended the lack of uniform conditions in jurisdictions throughout the region be addressed in Edmonds' comment on the DEIS. Council President Dawson commented although this was a regional planning process, it grouped cities by size rather than proximity. She suggested consideration be given to a group of neighboring cities such as Lynnwood, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace and parts of unincorporated Snohomish County and identifying an acceptable growth target for that area as a whole. Mr. Chave answered that was the process used in 1995. He anticipated once a preferred alternative was identified, jurisdictions would be grouped together in an effort to accommodate growth. Council President Dawson commented what was considered a small city by today's standards may be twice the size of Edmonds by 2020 due to rapid growth occurring in those cities. She questioned whether that had been considered in the DEIS. Councilmember Moore pointed out PSRC was made up of elected officials from throughout the region and had won numerous awards. She agreed it was a balance to accommodate growth while preserving the environment, currently lifestyles, etc. She pointed out it was not "us (current residents)" versus "them (future residents)" as the future residents were today's children. She urged the Council to consider this our plan and not just their plan. Councilmember Wambolt observed the original 2020 plan was for the period 1990 to 2020, yet the City's Comprehensive Plan addresses accommodating an additional 5,000 residents by 2025. Mr. Chave answered 2025 was the growth planning horizon in GMA. PSRC was looking further because their transportation planning extends further. Councilmember Wambolt observed even the most conservative growth alternative would require the City to accelerate its population growth between 2020 as 5,000 would not be adequate. Mr. Chave advised it would likely be possible to accommodate the growth in the slower growth alternatives but the city's ability to accommodate the growth in the higher growth alternatives was questionable. For Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Chave advised PSRC's region -wide estimates have been fairly accurate although their estimates for specific cities were less accurate. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Council President Dawson's suggestion to group cities. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 7 Mr. Snyder suggested a long term cooperative strategy that ensured each city was appropriately classified to recognize unique geographical constraints. Tools such as annexation procedures, revenue sources and taxation to plan for growth were also necessary to the discussion. He noted population growth along transportation corridors was a key component and there were areas of Edmonds that met that criteria. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3581 - A MORATORIUM ON MPOR zone APPLICATIONS TO REZONE, CONTRACT REZONE OR OTHERWISE DEVELOP Moratorium PROPERTIES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.6.77, MPOR ZONE. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the moratorium was implemented via passage of Ordinance No. 3581 in January 2006 and the required public hearing was held on February 7, 2006. The matter was then referred to the Planning Board for review and recommendation. The original purpose of the moratorium was to allow the City to study the MPOR zone criteria. The Planning Board has scheduled discussion regarding the MPOR zone for June 28 with a tentative public hearing on July 12. He anticipated the Planning Board could provide a recommendation to the Council in August/September. With regard to the concerns expressed by Mr. Drew in his letter, Mr. Bowman advised the Council had the option not to extend the moratorium and implement the MPOR zone as currently proposed. He advised the extension was for a period of six months. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council had received a letter from Don Drew. Sean Drew, Seattle, co -owner of the vacant lots north of 111 Sunset Avenue, in the MPOR zone, encouraged the Council not to extend the moratorium and adopt the MPOR zoning. Assuming that would not occur, he agreed it was reasonable to extend the moratorium pursuant to the Planning Board's June 28 review. He encouraged the Council to approve the MPOR zone as soon as possible as it had effectively placed the land in a state of limbo for the past six months and he feared an extension of the moratorium would result in another six month delay which he considered unreasonably restrictive. In an effort to create a hybrid zone to accommodate a variety of situations throughout the City, the current MPOR zone was created by the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Board with broad language to accommodate the City's desire for a flexible zoning designation to be used in unusual circumstances such as this property. He commented the current moratorium was driven by concerns that MPOR zone was too vague. He noted the lack of specificity in the MPOR zoning regulations was mitigated by the need to have a master plan approved by the Planning Board and the City Council. He concluded flexibility for unusual circumstances required broad language. In response to suggestions to use properties' previous zoning regulations, he explained this would effectively render the MPOR zone meaningless. He pointed out if nothing had been built on the property during the past 50 years under the existing single family RS- 6 zoning, adding commercial uses would not provide any incentive for development, particularly with the added parking requirements for commercial development. John Marts, Edmonds, asked if the six month extension was from the conclusion of the original six month period or six months from tonight. He requested Council to lift the moratorium to allow him to make application to operate a law office from his existing residence in the MPOR zone. He agreed the City had effectively held Mr. Drew's property in limbo for a period of time at great expense to the Drews and the loss of the Hotel Group to the community. He encouraged the City to make a decision one way or another. Eric Sonnett, Edmonds, welcomed the opportunity for the public to comment on the Planning Board's review of the MPOR zone criteria. He was disappointed the City had not accepted residents' offer to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 8 work with Mr. Drew and the City Attorney to develop mutually acceptable criteria. He noted comments made in the past that the Council had the power to determine whether properties in the MPOR zone developed were false, pointing out it was unlikely the property would be sold at the current asking price that was 169% of the assessed market value. He pointed out there were five residences on the west side of the street including four to the north of the Drew property. He reiterated their offer to work with the City and the Drews. He concluded vague zoning ordinances wasted the time of staff, the Council and residents. Ray Martin, Edmonds, referred to the MPOR zone as a spot rezone for the benefit of an individual or small group of people, not the benefit of the overall city. He opposed the MPOR zone, preferring to allow commercial uses although without a large building. He viewed the MPOR as an attempt to raise building heights for that property and downtown. He read an email dated November 16, 2005 from Mayor Haakenson to the City Council stating the Mayor's strong dissatisfaction /disappointment in the Council's November 15 decision /tie vote related to a proposal by the Hotel Group for property on Sunset. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed the MPOR rezone was an attempted spot rezone and poor planning as the criteria was too vague and failed to address Mr. Marts' request to establish a law office in his residence. He suggested the Council offer their suggestions to the Planning Board with regard to what they wanted the MPOR zone to accomplish and consider accommodating Mr. Marts' request via a Conditional Use Permit. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. In response to Mr. Marts' question, City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the ordinance was effective five days after publication which would be approximately Friday, June 30 and would expire six months after the effective date but could be lifted by the Council at any time once a new MPOR ordinance was adopted. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Bowman advised the Planning Board had not yet had an opportunity to consider the MPOR zone criteria. He invited Mr. Sonnett and other members of the public to participate in the process via providing input to the Planning Board, testifying at the public hearing and providing input when the Planning Board forwarded a recommendation to the Council. Councilmember Moore expressed interest in an extension of less than six months, commenting it had already been six months with no action. Mr. Snyder answered the moratorium could be lifted at any time in the future when a new MPOR ordinance was adopted. He agreed with Councilmember Moore's discomfort with repeatedly extending the moratorium absent an adopted work plan. Councilmember Moore asked whether Mr. Snyder recommended extending the moratorium to allow the Planning Board to review the issue. Mr. Snyder answered the difficulty with the current MPOR zoning was it was difficult to deny a proposal because the criteria were so vague. Councilmember Wambolt expressed concern that no action had occurred during the six month moratorium due to the volume of the Planning Board's workload. He noted approximately 90% of the issues being reviewed by the Planning Board required their review by State law. He suggested increasing the number of Planning Board meetings per month. He agreed with the suggestion to adopt an extension of shorter duration. Councilmember Moore commented the shorter extension would be largely symbolic and not intended to urge the Planning Board to accelerate their decision as she recognized they were already working as quickly as possible. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 9 Councilmember Wambolt asked whether Mr. Marts' request could be expedited. Mr. Snyder advised it would require a Planning Board public hearing and recommendation to the Council. An alternative would be an interim zoning ordinance to address the property although that may appear to be a special law or spot rezone. Councilmember Wambolt commented the Drew property was not priced at 1.69% of the appraised value; it had recently been reappraised at $1.5 million. He empathized with the property owner that nothing had happened with regard to the zoning of the property for the past six months. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Bowman anticipated the Planning Board's recommendation could be forwarded to the City Council in late August if the proposed schedule were maintained. Councilmember Plunkett commented shortening the duration of the moratorium would not compress that process. Mr. Bowman agreed, noting the Planning Board was currently working on downtown regulations and design guidelines. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3600, ENACTING A ZONING MORATORIUM IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AUTHORIZED BY RCW 36.70A.390 REGARDING APPLICATIONS TO REZONE OR OTHERWISE DEVELOP PROPERTIES PURSUANT TO ECDC CHAPTEAR 16.77 MPOR ZONE. Councilmember Marin looked forward to having this issue resolved as soon as possible. Councilmember Olson reluctantly agreed to vote for the motion, and urged the Council commit to addressing this issue as soon as possible. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER MOORE OPPOSED. 75th/76th 6. DISCUSSION ON FUNDING OF 76TH AVENUE WEST /75TH PLACE WEST WALKWAY Walkway and PROJECT AND 164TH STREET SW WALKWAY PROJECT. 164th St. SW Walkway City Engineer Dave Gebert recalled on June 6 the Council adopted a policy to dedicate Real Estate Excise Tax (REST 2) revenues in excess of $750,000 per year to the Street Construction/Improvement Fund 112 to be used for transportation projects beginning in 2006. Also on June 6, the Council discussed providing additional REST 2 funds to the 76th Avenue West /75th Place West walkway in Meadowdale and 164th Street walkway project. He agreed both were high priority walkway projects that staff would support completing as soon as possible. Preliminary cost estimates for the 76th Avenue West/75th Place West walkway project are $950,000 of which $125,000 is engineering costs and $825,000 for construction. On May 16, 2006, the Council appropriated $125,000 from this year's Fund 125 to begin design for the project and the consultant selection process has been initiated. Preliminary cost estimates for the 164th Street walkway project are $270,000. This was identified as a high priority project previously and design was completed in 2003 but construction was not initiated due to the loss of funding as a result of I -776. The City applied unsuccessfully for a $200,000 grant for this project last year and intended to reapply this year. The total estimated cost for both walkway projects was estimated at $1.22 million. The Council packet included a summary of Fund 125 Six Year CIP that includes these two walkway projects. The summary indicates if these projects as well as other projects were funded, the ending cash balance in Fund 125 at the end of 2011 would be approximately $2.38 million. He advised additional background on both projects was also contained in the Council packet. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 10 Staff recommends for the 76th Avenue West /75th Place West walkway project, Council direct staff to include $825,000 in Fund 125 Capital budget for 2007 for construction in 2007 pending completion of design and selection of a preferred alternative and completion of engineering. Staff recommends including $270,000 for construction of the 164th Street walkway project in the 2007 capital budget; if staff is successful in obtaining the grant, fund the local match requirement from Fund 112 and if staff is unsuccessful in obtaining the grant, fund the full project amount for construction in 2007 from Fund 125. Council President Dawson commented the original intent of the policy to dedicate REST 2 revenues in excess of $750,000 per year to the Street Construction /Improvement Fund 112 did not include the use of additional funding from Fund 125. She asked whether Parks was comfortable with this action due to the walkway's relationship to parks. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh responded REST revenues in excess of the projected amount were unanticipated revenues. He anticipated $750,000 per year would be sufficient. He noted the walkway projects connected parks and the 164th Street walkway project included the development of a pocket/overlook park at 162nd. He was comfortable with the proposed projects, remarking they fulfilled several park department goals. Council President Dawson commented she was initially uncomfortable with using the fund balance, but was satisfied these walkways were unique projects that related to parks. She remarked on the speed with which the Council had acted on this recommendation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTION: FOR THE 76TH AVENUE WEST /75TH PLACE WEST WALKWAY PROJECT, DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE $825,000 AS A TENTATIVE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET AMOUNT IN THE 2007 FUND 125 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT IN 2007, PENDING SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED DESIGN OPTION AND COMPLETION OF ENGINEERING. FOR THE 164TH STREET SW WALKWAY PROJECT, DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE $270,000 IN THE 2007 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, AND EITHER: A) IF STAFF IS SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING GRANT FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT IN 2007, APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE REQUIRED LOCAL MATCH FROM FUND 125, OR B) IF GRANT FUNDING IS NOT OBTAINED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT IN 2007, APPROPRIATE THE FULL AMOUNT OF FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION FROM FUND 125. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out these walkway projects had been on the Walkway Plan for quite some time. He complimented engineering staff for their efforts as well as the Parks Department for their open mindedness in regard to the use of funds in Fund 125 for these walkway projects. He recognized Councilmember Orvis for his proposal to fund the 76th Avenue West /75th Place West walkway project. He also recognized the residents for their advocacy. Councilmember Marin expressed his support for the motion, remarking one of the difficulties with local government was the inability to accomplish some things due to lack of resources. He was excited these projects could be accomplished using the fund balance in Fund 125. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the reason funding was available was the recent increase in REST revenues as a result of property sales in the City. He recognized previous Councils may have wanted to construct these walkways but the funds were not available. Councilmember Moore expressed her support for the motion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 11 Councilmember Orvis remarked the pocket park was a great bonus. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Code Rewrite T DISCUSSION ON CODE REWRITE AND NON - CONFORMING REGULATIONS. and Non - Conforming Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained staff and the City Attorney have been working Regulations on the schedule for the code update. He recalled when staff discussed the update with the Council earlier this year the intent was to keep the structure of the code basically the same. However, staff discovered it will be necessary to shift some code sections and renumber sections for consistency purposes. One specific section is the process and procedures portion of the code which is very out -of -date. He referred to a draft procedures chapter in the Council's packet. City Attorney Scott Snyder commented one of the difficulties with the current procedures was they covered five different chapters. The intent of the revisions was to utilize a chart and have the procedures for each category the same. He explained non - conforming uses were not favored under Washington law. Staff is seeking direction from the Council regarding whether to continue with the strict non - conforming use requirement that is intended to phase out non - conforming uses over time or consider alternative approaches to preserve certain things such as existing housing stock, affordable housing, a neighborhood look or feel, etc. If the City is required to accept additional growth, it may be preferable to phase out non- conforming uses except in very limited circumstances. One tool that was available to the City was abatement; for obnoxious uses, the City has the ability to establish an amortization schedule to phase out that use. He recalled this had been used for a commercial paint shop in a residential neighborhood. Councilmember Marin asked if strict enforcement of non - conforming uses would result in the loss of the more affordable, older housing stock. Mr. Bowman answered not necessarily; the owner could continue to maintain the home but could not do additions. He referred to a recent interpretation with regard to a carport on a non - conforming use. He commented non - conforming provisions could differ for residential uses and commercial uses. Councilmember Marin asked whether the property owner could repair and remodel a non - conforming use but not expand it. Mr. Snyder provided examples of recent revisions to the non - conforming use provisions to allow modification to non - conforming structures. Councilmember Marin supported proceeding in a manner that did not result in the loss of affordable housing. He recalled a presentation from the Snohomish County Realtors who indicated the only way to provide affordable housing was to maintain older homes. Mr. Snyder commented preserving housing stock and easing non - conforming use provisions could be done in conjunction but could also be at cross purposes. Councilmember Marin stated his interest in retaining affordable houses but otherwise tightening up non- conforming use provisions. Mr. Bowman provided examples of non - conformance such as non- conforming signs, adding a foundation to an older non - conforming home, adding a room which would expand the nonconformity, and areas developed under Snohomish County regulations that are annexed into the City. Councilmember Plunkett commented the stricter non - conformance regulations were, the less likely older residential or commercial structures were to remain economically viable. A less strict non - conforming use provisions increased the opportunity for an older structure to be economically viable. He supported that for commercial structures downtown, noting there were one -story buildings downtown that under the current non - conforming use provisions would be prohibited from adding another story or adding on to the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 12 building. He supported having downtown buildings remain economically viable as long as possible which would require a looser interpretation of non - conformance to provide property owners as much flexibility as possible.. He agreed this could result in unintended consequences which staff would need to assist the Council with identifying. Mr. Chave commented on the interaction between the non - conforming regulations and variance standards. The City currently has very tight non - conforming regulations and very tight variance standards; the combination creates a number of problems — property owners cannot alter a structure due to non- conforming regulations but are not allowed to pursue a variance because it would be a created hardship. If the Council supports loosening the non - conforming regulations, there should be less need for variances; conversely, very tight non - conforming regulations push property owners toward variances. He noted communities relying on infill needed to encourage property owners to enhance existing structures and uses and not put them in the situation where demolishing and reconstruction was the only option. Councilmember Plunkett urged the Council to do everything possible to make older structures viable into the future so that they would be preserved rather than demolished. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Plunkett, recalling downtown buildings that would have been reused if the non - conforming regulations were loosened up. Councilmember Orvis agreed with loosening the non - conforming regulations if the result would be retaining older structures. Mr. Snyder remarked the increasing value of property often results in tearing down older structures. Councilmember Moore supported loosening the non - conforming use regulations to allow non - conforming uses to continue and modifications to the structures within a certain limit. She asked staff to provide guidance on an acceptable amount of modification. Council President Dawson summarized the Council wanted staff to allow the good non - conforming uses to continue but not the bad non - conforming uses. She suggested consideration be given to non- conforming regulations on a by -area basis, avoiding the teardown syndrome and building of McMansions, and avoiding the destruction of unique architecture. Councilmember Olson supported development of non - conforming regulations for specific neighborhoods. At Mayor Haakenson's request, Mr. Bowman described the timeline for the code rewrite, explaining it was a two year process. Mr. Snyder and he planned to forward the procedures and non - conforming regulations to the Planning Board late this summer. The definitions section would be the next big task. Councilmember Moore asked whether staff was using other cities' codes as models. Mr. Bowman answered staff was adapting other cities' codes to fit Edmonds. Mr. Snyder advised he began with Port Townsend's procedures chapter. His goal with the procedures chapter was that it would be understandable to most citizens. Mr. Snyder suggested holding and taping a citizen land use class with the Hearing Examiner, planning staff, and legal staff to discuss how to effectively use the land use process. Councilmember Moore commented Auburn recently rewrote their code with the assistance of a stakeholder's group. Mr. Snyder advised the intent of the code rewrite was to clean up the code rather than totally rewrite it. For sections Council desires changed, he agreed that was an appropriate process. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Timothy Herrigan, Edmonds, commented the greatest commodity Edmonds has is sunlight, water, views and ace and suggested incorporating more decks on downtown restaurants. He suggested non- conforming p gg � g gg Regulations conforming regulations include an appeal process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 13 Eric Sonnett, Edmonds, suggested the City encourage PSRC to focus population growth in employment esRC- areas or ensure adequate transportation was available to employment areas. He suggested if the intent Population g p gg GroWtn was affordable housing, whether or not an existing structure was torn down made little difference unless the property owner was encouraged or required to build higher density housing. Non- Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed support for moving forward with the non - conforming regulations, c °nf °rr"i "g anticipating it would be instrumental in preserving the historic appearance of downtown Edmonds. With Regulations regard to the funding of walkway projects, he noted the increased REST revenue was due to inflation. He Need suggested the development of the Unocal site as a park in combination with condominiums could have ddi for been the most unique development in Puget Sound versus the current residential development that Additional q p g p Parks provides little public access. Next he pointed out increased density also increased the need for parks. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan which called for 30 additional acres of neighborhood parks by 2010, 10 -30 additional acres for community parks and 6 additional acres for regional parks. He disagreed that the City did not need additional park land, pointing out the City was short of park land. Ray Martin, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation for the Council's action on the 764i Avenue West/75th Place West walkway project. He commended the public for raising $25,000 for George and Rayceille Appeal of Mc Cullum, residents of Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. Next Mr. Martin advised a Superior Court Judge Hearing recently ruled in favor of Captain Day, finding the City made a serious error. He suggested the Council Examiner reconsider allowing the Hearing Examiner to hold hearings, preferring the Council hold such hearings. Decision He commented the City will now pursue an issue of livability with Captain Day. Mayor Haakenson recalled the Council made the decision on Captain Day's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. 9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JUNE 13 2006 Finance I Finance Committee Committee Councilmember Wambolt reported the Community Technical Advisory Committee requested an appropriation of $85,000 to complete phase 1 of the fiber optics link from the county line to 21241. The Committee recommended approval and it was approved on tonight's consent agenda. Next the Committee was provided an update on the L -5 compensation plan and will be provided another update at the Committee's July meeting. The final item was Police Officer staffing additions; the 2006 budget included funding for three additional police officers. The Committee recommended approval and this item was approved on tonight's consent agenda. eUb1i °safety Public Safety Committee Committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee discussed replacement of the medic unit which was approved on the consent agenda. Next the Committee discussed adding Public Safety to the Strategic Plan which will be scheduled on a future Council agenda. The Committee then discussed the EMS supply agreement with Lynnwood Fire Department and agreed to continue with Lynnwood annually administering the purchase of medical supplies. The Committee will be provided an interlocal agreement for review at a future meeting. The Committee extended its sympathy to the friends and family of Puyallup Battalion Chief Dave Potter who recently suffered a line -of -duty -death caused by liver cancer secondary to hepatitis C contracted while serving as a paramedic. Mr. Potter was an original member of Medic 7 and served with distinction and was highly thought of throughout the Puget Sound area as a professional Firefighter /Paramedic, and a leader in the delivery of emergency medical services. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS George and Mayor Haakenson thanked the community for their generosity, reporting in excess of $25,000 was raised e c mCullu m for George and Ra ceille McCullum of Bay St. Louis , Mississi pp i He reported the McCullums enjoyed their stay in Edmonds and Port Townsend. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 14 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Dawson wished her husband happy anniversary tomorrow. She said hello to her parents who would be visiting this weekend and enjoying their favorite activity, watching City Council meetings. Parking Councilmember Plunkett recalled at a previous meeting two downtown residents expressed concern with committee the parking restrictions downtown and requested they be allowed to park downtown after 6:00 p.m. He advised the Parking Committee would be discussing their request at an upcoming meeting. Councilmember Moore thanked Mr. Hertrich for his defense of parks and the acquisition of parks. She rk for agreed as density increased the need for arks also increased. She supported the use of ark funds for Parks g Y � P l�l� P walkways, remarking walkways were parks and provided an opportunity for recreation. She reported on Prosperity PSRC's Prosperity Partnership Economic Development District Board of Directors meeting, explaining Partnership Economic their hope was to create 100,000 new jobs by 2010. She advised the Board was provided a presentation Development by the Higher Education Working Group whose goal was to produce more students with degrees. The Group plans to take a proposal to the legislature this year. She noted maintaining the current capacity of students will cost the State $53 million more. She concluded education led to jobs and entrepreneurship. Councilmember Moore reported the Prosperity Partnership Economic Development District Board of Directors was also provided a presentation from the Tax Reform Steering Committee. She advised Washington was not competitive with other states in regard to business; a high percentage of the taxes paid in this state were paid by businesses. The Steering Committee planned to recommend a Net Economic Activity Tax (NEAT), a value added tax, to the legislature which would be very helpful to small businesses. She advised the Steering Committee also wanted to eliminate "pyramiding of taxes," explaining for example food in the grocery store has already been taxed an average of seven times compared to a wood product in the State that was taxed four times and retail that was taxed 1.6 times before the product reached the consumer. She noted the agriculture industry in the State pays no B &O taxes because when the tax code was written, agriculture was viewed as a lifestyle rather than a business. She planned to attend the Snohomish County Economic Development Task Force tomorrow. chmatc Councilmember Moore recalled Mayor Haakenson signed the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement last Protection year. She urged the Council to support implementation of the agreement which will include an inventory agreement of global warming emissions, setting reduction targets and creating an action plan, and adopting and enforcing land use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact walkable urban communities. She advised these were not mandates but suggestions and Mayor Haakenson planned to develop a committee process. Mayor Haakenson advised several citizens had contacted him to participate on the committee and he invited other interested citizens to contact him. Community Councilmember Moore reported the Community Outreach Committee met to discuss Channel 21 policies Outreach and had two guests, the editor of the Edmonds Beacon and a high school teacher from Edmonds- Committee Woodway High School who displayed their work. She hoped to bring a proposal regarding Channel 21 programming to the Council soon. Councilmember Moore recognized Ken Chandler of Premiera Blue Cross and Dorothy Saks, a retired public relations professional, for their efforts on the Community Outreach Committee. Councilmember Moore reported on graduations she attended this week, two high school graduations and two community college graduations, finding all very inspiring, particularly the graduation at Scriber Lake High School where she was mentoring a student and at Monroe State Prison where Edmonds Community College assists in turning lives around through education. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 15 Councilmember Wambolt reported the Finance Committee would be reviewing the State's audit of the City. He clarified his remarks with regard to parks, advising he did not say the City did not need more parks, rather he did not agree with citizens who felt all open space in the City should be a park. Councilmember Olson reported on the benefit concert for the McCullums, finding the music by the Mosaic Choir and Edmonds - Woodway Orchestra awe inspiring. Further, she urged the public to visit the weather station on the waterfront. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 16