08/22/2006 City CouncilAugust 22, 2006
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a legal matter, the Edmonds
City Council meeting was called to order at 7:03 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
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Don Sims, Traffic Engineer
Scott Snyder, 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 MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
8/15/06 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2006.
Minutes
Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #90173 THROUGH #90309 FOR AUGUST 17, 2006, IN
Checks THE AMOUNT OF $296,531.13. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND
CHECKS #4361.3 THROUGH #43720 FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1 THROUGH
AUGUST 15, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $852,858.68.
Sewer Cleaner
Jet Truck (D) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JULY 25, 2006, FOR A SEWER CLEANER JET TRUCK
AND AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO TITAN SALES GROUP IN THE AMOUNT OF
$152,622.44.
92nd Ave. W /
234th St. SW (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 8, 2006, FOR THE 92ND AVENUE W /234TH
Intersection STREET SW INTERSECTION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD
OF CONTRACT TO DENNIS R. CRAIG, INC. ($47,880.25).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 1
Water Resource
Inventory Area (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
8 (wRIA 8) WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 8 (WRIA 8).
Skateboard
Park (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE SKATEBOARD PARK
Construction CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
Community
Transit 3. PRESENTATION BY COMMUNITY TRANSIT ON SR99 BUS RAPID TRANSIT.
Presentation
Traffic Engineer Don Sims reported Community Transit was currently in the early stages of a sizable
transit investment on the SR99 corridor and had begun working with local agencies along the corridor on
design and planning elements. He introduced Todd Morrow, Director of Public Affairs, Community
Transit.
Mr. Morrow expressed their appreciation for the strong relationship Community Transit enjoys with
Edmonds due to the active participation of Councilmember Marin on the Community Transit Board, the
support of Councilmember Moore, as well as the good work of both staffs. He introduced June DeVoll,
Manager of Strategic Planning & Grants and Project Manager for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project.
He briefly described Ms. DeVoll's background that included Project Manager for Las Vegas' Bus Rapid
Transit program, MAX.
Ms. DeVoll explained BRT was touted by the Federal Transit Administration as having the performance
of rail using a bus. She reviewed elements of a BRT system including vehicles, running ways, stations,
fare collection methods, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The purpose of deploying BRT
was to move more people in less time. Buses are perceived as slow and cumbersome due to travel time,
numerous stops and dwell time (time spent at each stop to board and deboard customers). Travel time
delays were caused by congestion; intersections delays for turns, traffic signals and pedestrians; and
number of stops or stations to be served. She estimated over 40% of the total travel time of a bus was due
to dwell time. BRT addresses congestion/travel time via designated lanes and Transit Signal Priority
(TSP) /queue jumps, fewer stops, and reducing dwell time via fare collection methods, multiple door
entry, and level boarding.
Ms. DeVoll explained BRT was viewed at the federal level as a cost savings and a way to stretch funding
as well as a viable alternative to rail. Locally, rail is viewed as innovative, a way to attract new riders,
opportunity to change transit's image and provide flexibility. For the customer, BRT is faster, more
reliable, understandable, and having rail -like qualities.
She described five BRT demonstration projects around the United States including Rapid in Oakland,
California, the Boston Silver Line, Lane Transit in Eugene, Oregon, Metro Rapid in Los Angeles, as well
as the Las Vegas MAX system.
The SR99 BRT project, Swift, will be a faster, more convenient transportation option that is sleek,
modern and user friendly. In the Highway 99 corridor, Swift will be a high quality, train -like service with
the cost and flexibility of a bus, offer high capacity, frequent service with approximately ten minute
frequencies throughout the day. Swift will have fewer stops, faster boarding, TSP, and will utilize
Business Access and Transit (BAT) lanes where available. The first phase in the corridor is 16.7 miles
with approximately 14 -18 stations in each direction.
Ms. DeVoll explained Swift vehicles would be 60 -foot articulated vehicles with a modern, sleek design.
She displayed artistic renderings of the vehicles. The Swift stations would be a unique design with
upgraded passenger amenities including next bus signage. Bus schedules would not be printed as the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 2
customer would know a bus would arrive within ten minutes. She displayed examples of standard and
stylized shelters used in other systems' BRT stations. She described station elements including seating,
shelter, dynamic passenger and customer service signage, lighting, artwork, raised curbs, and ticket
vending machines.
Ms. DeVoll explained station locations will be determined in collaboration with local jurisdictions. She
displayed a map that identified current ridership patterns on SR99 with existing service, explaining those
would likely not be the exact locations of the stations. Consideration for siting the stations would include
right -of -way, redevelopment opportunities, traffic impacts, adjacent land use and ridership potential. She
advised a decision had not yet been made with regard to a fare collection method — off board or on board.
Off board was viewed as far faster and more convenient for the customer but had ongoing and continuous
costs for the agency.
Ms. DeVoll advised the cost of the entire 16.7 mile project was estimated at $20 million; over 50% of the
cost was for new vehicles. The exact cost will be refined when final station design and locations are
determined. The project is funded by grants, partnerships, and Community Transit local revenue streams.
She reviewed the status and timeline, explaining three technical advisory committees were assisting with
the project; Community Transit was working with transit partners to integrate services as well as working
with jurisdictions to develop station locations and design. Vehicle procurement will take place in late
2006 for delivery in approximately September 2008. Final design of stations is anticipated by the end of
2006 with permitting, right -of -way acquisition and construction activities to begin in 2007. She
anticipated service would begin in late 2008.
Council President Dawson thanked Community Transit for the presentation, anticipating BRT would be a
great addition for this region. She asked whether there were any Park & Ride facilities planned with any
of the stops. Ms. DeVoll answered the service would be anchored by Park & Rides on both ends, Everett
on the north and the Aurora Village transit center at the south. She explained BRT were generally used
for short rides and few riders rode from one end to another. She advised Park & Ride locations had not
been yet identified but adjacent Park & Ride facilities would be a consideration in station location.
Councilmember Olson inquired about Community Transit's efforts with King County Metro, commenting
it would benefit Edmonds residents if they could use BRT to reach Seattle. Ms. DeVoll advised
Community Transit had regular, ongoing meetings with King County Metro to discuss how the two
systems could meet at one location or integrate the two services to cross county lines. She advised
Community Transit's BRT would be implemented sooner than King County Metro's system.
For Councilmember Wambolt, Ms. DeVoll explained "semi- dedicated lanes" referred to Business Access
and Transit (BAT) lanes that existed along approximately 7.5 miles of the corridor. She commented BRT
was very flexible and could operate either in mixed flow traffic or in an exclusive, dedicated right -of -way.
Councilmember Marin commented he had seen all the technology Ms. DeVoll described and had even
driven one of the buses. He commented if he could have used BRT this morning, it would have
substantially reduced his ride time to reach a meeting in Everett. He looked forward to the BRT service.
Councilmember Moore asked whether there would be locations on BRT where riders could transfer to
express buses. Ms. DeVoll answered existing routes and connections would be one of the critical
considerations. Councilmember Moore commended the Community Transit design department for the
Swift design.
Mayor Haakenson recognized Snohomish County Councilmember Gary Nelson and his wife Joanne
in the audience.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 3
Downtown 14. PRESENTATION ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON DOWNTOWN
Zoning ZONING.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the material in the Council packet was the recommendation from
the Planning Board. Planning Manager Rob Chave answered it was.
Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board's recommendation included five new Downtown Business (BD)
zones as well as a recommendation on how the zones would be applied in the downtown area. This will
be the subject of a public hearing scheduled for September 18. He explained the starting point for this
effort was the Downtown Plan which was adopted in 2005; zoning is a follow -up to implement planning.
It may also be necessary to make minor adjustments in the language of the Downtown Plan_ Mr. Chave
reviewed Council action related to downtown including discussions with Mark Hinshaw in 2005, follow -
up discussions in March 2006 and agreement on parameters for the Planning Board's consideration
which, along with the Comprehensive Plan, formed the framework for the Planning Board process.
Mr. Chave displayed two maps of the downtown area, one that reflected the Council's action in March
2006 and the other the Planning Board's zoning proposal. The Planning Board's proposal was similar to
the Council's. He identified differences including changing properties across the street from the Public
Safety Complex from BC to RM 1.5, which the Planning Board recommended following public testimony
as well as discussion among board members. Another change as a result of testimony was to combine the
zoning of two properties that originally had split zoning on the Council's map. The only other change
was to extend BD5, the Arts Corridor zoning, closer to Main Street which reflected discussion in the
Comprehensive Plan regarding connecting the arts center to Main Street. The challenge with that was it
was a mixed area with multi family zoning at the north, commercial - oriented properties to the south and
the area between a mix of uses. He noted the language provides choices for property owners,
commercial, residential or live /work.
Mr. Chave reviewed key sections in the BD chapter including a use matrix, site development standards,
heights, height exceptions, exceptions for historic buildings, parking, and open space for larger lots and
buildings. He commented there was some testimony to the Planning Board that the BD zone was overly
complex; the option for the Council was to keep zoning simple although he cautioned if the code was too
simple there was not enough direction and the potential risk of not getting what the Council wanted. If
the code was overly complex, it was confusing for staff and developers. The Planning Board concluded
the proposed framework was their best effort. He noted the Council had the ability as a result of
testimony to make changes in the language that did not change the intent. He summarized the language
provided was not the final ordinance.
Mr. Chave highlighted key concepts, explaining there was no change in the way height was calculated — it
was still based on the average grade. The base height is 25 feet; the code includes rules that vary by zone
that describe how 30 feet could be obtained. There were also height exceptions which were intended to
provide incentives for design features such as a decorative cornice. He recalled the Planning Board
discussed views of the bowl from above, concluding the view was of roofs not facades. Several members
of the Planning Board were interested in encouraging different roof types, hence the incentive for pitched
roofs, green roofs combined with elevators, etc.
Mr. Chave explained step backs were intended to relate the building to the streetscape, to provide the
appearance of a 25 -foot, 2 -story building at the street level. He displayed an uphill and a downhill
example. He displayed examples of how the stepback would have applied on existing buildings including
the Wiggins building and the historic Chanterelle building. He noted the reason the Planning Board
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 4
included exceptions for buildings on the City's Historic Register was due to the difficulty with requiring a
setback on an historic building.
Mr. Chave provided examples of issues the Planning Board considered, first how the Arts Corridor should
be configured relative to other parts of downtown. The Planning Board initially wanted to require
buildings to be setback from the street and property lines. Property owners in the Arts Corridor felt they
were not allowed to do things that other areas of downtown could do, which was the reason there were
options for development in the Arts Corridor. Another issue was how the new standards would apply to
existing buildings, particularly if an additional story were proposed. This would be a nonconforming
structure issue and because the Planning Board did not have the nonconforming use provisions for review,
they included a placeholder in the site standards table in the fourth footnote of Section 16.43.030, adding
language that allows existing buildings to be added on to or remodeled without adjusting the existing
height of the ground floor and adding a provision regarding the percentage of remodeling.
Other issues the Planning Board considered included whether the height exceptions (incentives) were the
right ones with the right numbers, whether the open space requirement appropriate, and how small lots
would be dealt with. He explained the issue of small lots arose during public testimony when it was
pointed out there were small lots where the step back requirement may not be feasible. The Planning
Board attempted to address this via maintaining the step back on main streets such as 5t" Avenue, Main
Street, etc. and giving some latitude on a side street step back for a particularly small lot.
Mr. Chave pointed out zoning was only one way to implement the Downtown Plan; the streetscape
provisions would be key for the Arts Corridor regardless of the zoning provisions and this was the reason
the Planning Board was willing to provide options for development in the Arts Corridor. He suggested
the public hearing be held in two parts, first to discuss the draft text of the zones and then the map, where
the zones would be applied. The Planning Board experienced the most testimony on the zones.
Mr. Chave referred to additional requirements for conditional uses. The testimony to the Planning Board
referred to a prospective bank downtown with a drive through. A majority of the Planning Board felt
drive through businesses should not be allowed in the BD I; the minority felt a drive through could be
possible for a bank as a conditional use. He explained the Planning Board was briefed on the Council
discussion regarding single family uses downtown and concluded single family uses would be allowed
but must meet RS -6 standards.
Councilmember Wambolt commended Mr. Chave and the Planning Board for doing an excellent job,
noting the Council received the full impact of the work they had done when they received all the materials
at the same time. He recalled the direction the Planning Board was provided left them little latitude in
some areas and there were also issues that the Planning Board did not agree with. However, the materials
and the Planning Board's minutes reflected the careful consideration they gave the issues and described
how they reached their conclusions. He asked about the method of measuring height, recalling
historically height was measured by averaging the four corners of the smallest rectangle on the lot where
the building would be constructed. The materials indicate height would continue to be measured in that
manner but adding the possibility of 25 feet from a curb. Mr. Chave explained the basic method for
measuring height would remain the same. He displayed the uphill example, identifying the average grade
used for height calculation. The issue of 25 feet from the curb arose when it was being determined
whether a step back was required and how much of a step back would be required. At the street front, the
developer received the lesser of the height calculation of 30 feet or 25 feet above the street grade. In the
uphill example, 30 feet was at 32'/2 feet above the street grade; because that was higher than 25, the
developer was required to do a 15 -foot step back to reach the higher height. The same would be true for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 5
the back side of the property. He noted this did not mean a notched building, the step back could extend
across the entire building, halfway across, etc.
Mr. Chave displayed the downhill example, explaining because of the slope the average level at the street
was below 25 from the street front. In this example a step back would not be required but the overall
building would be lower than 25 feet. Councilmember Wambolt clarified 25 feet was only an issue with
regard to figuring step backs. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining the intent was to maintain pedestrian scale.
Councilmember Wambolt asked about conditional uses. Mr. Chave explained conditional uses were
generally permitted uses but with special conditions intended to mitigate impacts. He explained a
conditional use required a hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued findings, etc. He noted the special
conditions were added for conditional uses in the downtown zones in addition to the usual conditions to
ensure the use would fit the streetscape environment.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the height exceptions /incentives, commenting it was his understanding
some could extend as high as 35 feet based on the current height calculation. Mr. Chave agreed, but only
for design features. Councilmember Orvis referred to drawings in a presentation he had prepared. His
drawing referred to height exception D and steep roofs. Based on the language, he developed a design
with a sawtooth roof because it only required the portions of the roof with a certain pitch or greater be
over 5 feet. Mr. Chave acknowledged this was a provision where a picture would be essential, assuring
the sawtooth roof was not what the Planning Board had in mind. He agreed the language may need to be
tweaked to ensure the result was what the Planning Board intended.
Councilmember Orvis' next example had a number of smaller sawtooth extensions. Again, Mr. Chave
acknowledged the language may need to be modified. The next example was a modulated cornice
concept. Councilmember Orvis referred to the language, "overall appearance that is not a single, flat
uninterrupted surface along the face of the building." He referred to another example whereby the
building was modulated and asked whether that would be potentially allowed by that language. Mr.
Chave answered no, the language was specific about the elements that must be included such as
decorative patterns, layering, scrolling, and repeating of the elements. Councilmember Orvis' last
example was a castle, depicting the "decorative architectural elements." He pointed out the language did
not appear to preclude more than one decorative element and it could be combined with a pitched roof,
cornice or parapet wall. Mr. Chave agreed, noting they would not be allowed any more than a total of 5
additional feet. Councilmember Orvis asked whether staff was confident the language would only allow
one decorative element. Mr. Chave answered if a single element was desired, the language should
include that restriction.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the use tables, recalling it was the Council's intent to only allow
retail in the BD1, however, it appeared offices were also allowed. Mr. Chave answered if spaces that
were conducive to retail were required, it was likely retail would be the result. There was some concern
during testimony to the Planning Board if uses were too strict, such as permitting only retail, if there were
no retail uses interested in leasing the space, it would be better to have an office or other use than a vacant
space. He noted the language required windows to be transparent so even an office use would be
conducive to the streetscape. He pointed out the provision in BD1 that allowed 30 feet with a 15 -foot first
floor without a step requirement.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the intent was retail only. Mr. Chave agreed that would be the
preferred use. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the chart allowed office and did not make it
conditional. Mr. Chave recalled there was strong feeling via testimony at the Planning Board regarding
the code being overly restrictive via a requirement for retail. The intent was to be flexible in use but
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 6
restrictive in appearance, height of the ground floor, etc. to make it as conducive as possible to retail uses.
Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to identify the restrictions on appearance in the code.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to conditional uses in BDl including dry cleaning and laundry plants,
printing, publishing and binding, assuming they were conditional due to the chemicals. Mr. Chave
answered yes, recalling there was concern that those businesses would not typically be designed in a
manner that was conducive to a pedestrian- oriented environment. While the use may be appropriate, they
would be required to abide by the additional conditional use criteria.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to drive -in businesses, recalling an applicant that was vested to apply
for a conditional use permit. He noted the Council's approval of the use table would not affect that
application. Mr. Chave agreed, as long as the applicant was vested under the current rules.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why museums, art galleries, zoos and aquariums were in the same
category, why museums and art galleries were a conditional use and why zoos or aquariums would not be
a prohibited use. Mr. Chave answered the existing code combined those uses. He noted zoos and/or
aquariums were unlikely to locate downtown. The intent of requiring a conditional use for museums and
art galleries was to acknowledge those uses did not necessarily design according to the streetscape
environment. He pointed out those uses were permitted outright in the BD5, the Arts Corridor.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to aircraft landings as a conditional use, inquiring why aircraft landings
would not be prohibited in downtown. Mr. Chave answered it was an artifact from the existing code,
likely related to emergency services. Mr. Chave pointed out it was conditionally allowed as a secondary
use, not a standalone business.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the moratorium could be lifted if the height exceptions were
allowed only for vents and elevator penthouses and the Council continued to work on other exceptions as
a separate item. Mr. Chave answered the moratorium was within the Council's purview; if the Council
adopted regulations, the moratorium could be lifted. Councilmember Orvis asked whether elevator
penthouses were used any longer. Mr. Chave answered the building department had inquiries about
elevator penthouses but none had been built, primarily due to exiting requirements as an elevator was not
sufficient to meet exiting requirements, a stairway was also required.
Councilmember Moore referred to the use chart that allowed offices in the BD1, recalling the former
Economic Development Director recommended first floor retail be mandatory in the downtown core. She
suggested distinguishing between first floor and second floor to allow office and service uses on the
second floor and only retail on the first floor. Mr. Chave suggested if that was the Council's intent, it be
described in the preamble to the public hearing and request public input on that issue.
Councilmember Moore asked the difference between permitted primary use and permitted secondary use.
Mr. Chave answered primary was the principle use on the property, secondary was an accessory use;
typically primary was the majority of the use, more than half, and secondary was less than that.
Councilmember Moore pointed out off - street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use were
secondary uses. Mr. Chave answered for a secondary use such as parking, the area of parking was not
compared to the area of the building; parking was considered secondary in that it was not to the extent of
the primary use. Councilmember Moore suggested including a definition of primary and secondary use.
Councilmember Moore noted "retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas such as
trailer sales, used car lots" were not permitted in the entire BD zone but parking lots were allowed. She
asked why parking lots would be allowed and storage areas would not. Mr. Chave answered there were
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 7
parking lots downtown due to the absence of a centralized parking facility. Councilmember Moore
questioned why new car sales would be allowed in BD2 and BD3, preferring all car sales be prohibited
downtown. Mr. Chave answered new car sales had historically been permitted in the BC zone. Assuming
they would be permitted somewhere downtown, it was determined BD2 and BD3 would be the most
suitable areas.
City Attorney Scott Snyder referred to Councilmember Moore's earlier question regarding primary versus
secondary uses, advising primary uses was defined by the code as "principle use of a property" and
secondary uses as "a use of a site which is secondary and subordinate to the primary use of the site and
may exist only when a primary use is existing on the same lot. The floor area devoted to all secondary
uses shall be less than that devoted to the primary use."
Councilmember Moore referred to commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise
permitted in this zone which were permitted as a secondary use, questioning what use would have a
commuter parking lot as a secondary use. Mr. Chave answered that arose several years ago with regard to
a church parking lot that was not used much of the week.
Councilmember Moore asked the difference between a hotel and a motel. Development Services Director
Duane Bowman answered typically one drove their car up to the motel room and entered through the
exterior of the building; one entered a hotel through a main entrance with interior access to rooms.
Councilmember Moore preferred to remove motels as permitted uses. Mr. Chave pointed out there was
an old motel in the Arts Corridor.
Councilmember Moore asked whether there was a definition for laboratories. Mr. Chave did not recall
there was a definition in the code, therefore, it was as defined by the dictionary. Councilmember Moore
referred to the use, "fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use," that
was not permitted in BD and asked whether the Mar -Vel Marble Factory currently located in BD would
be prohibited. Mr. Chave agreed, noting fabrication or assembly was allowed associated with an art
studio or gallery. He noted Mar -Vel Marble would be grandfathered.
Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Plunkett's suggestion that museums and art galleries
be outright permitted in all the BD zones. She noted zoos may be interpreted as needing a large amount
of space; however, in Victoria there was a small retail space that was a spider and bug zoo. She supported
separating museums and art galleries from zoos and aquariums. Mr. Chave reiterated the reason
museums and art galleries were conditional was to require they meet the additional conditional use
criteria.
Councilmember Moore asked about the use, "regional parks and parks without a Master Plan" in the BD
zone. Mr. Bowman pointed out there was a park on Sunset Avenue; when the ferry moved, there was the
potential of surplus right -of -way that could become a park. Mr. Chave clarified before a regional park
could be located in any BD zone, the Parks Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended.
Councilmember Moore referred to the use "outdoor storage incidental to a permitted use," allowed as a
secondary use requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Chave answered without that provision, the code
required storage be inside.
Councilmember Moore referred to staff's indication that aircraft landings was an artifact from the old
code and suggested all artifacts be removed. Mr. Chave suggested Public Safety staff review that code
section. Mr. Chave explained if aircraft landings of emergency apparatus were required on a
periodic /intermittent basis, a permanent Conditional Use Permit could be issued that identified when
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 8
landings would occur, how impacts to the neighborhood would be mitigated, etc. Mr. Snyder suggested it
be identified as secondary to a public use.
Councilmember Moore referred to the downhill example where the building was lower than 25 feet on the
right. She asked whether it was possible there could be a ridiculously low building at street level under
this measurement. Mr. Chave did not recall any situations in the City where that would be the result. The
most extreme slopes were on the southern portion of 5th Avenue, on the west side in particular. He did
not envision anywhere where a building that would be less than one story.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to residential uses and asked why single family dwellings would be
allowed in BD1. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board's initial draft prohibited single family
dwellings; however, there was testimony at the public hearing regarding at least one single family use in
BD1. The Planning Board concluded the market, step back requirements and RS -6 requirements would
limit the feasibility of single family uses in BD1. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether allowing
multi family uses in the BD zone would permit condominiums on the first floor in the retail core. Mr.
Chave answered the language regarding ground floor for the BD1 specifically states development on the
ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to building height regulations that stated, "within the BD1 zone, the
maximum height may be increased to 30 feet when the ground floor is at least 15 feet in height,"
suggesting the language state, "the ground floor must be 15 feet." Mr. Chave offered to review the
language, agreeing the intent was to require the first floor be 15 feet.
Councilmember Moore referred to language that within the BD2 and BD3 zones development on the
ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses to a minimum building depth of 60 feet, recalling 60
feet was too deep for some retail uses. Mr. Chave did not recall. Councilmember Moore referred to
language regarding the BD5 zone that required at least one building entrance shall face 4 1 Avenue,
questioning whether that was too restrictive. She noted there were areas where buildings were attractively
designed with a public space in front and the entrance on the side.
Council President Dawson thanked the Planning Board and Mr. Chave for their hard work, agreeing with
Councilmember Wambolt that the Planning Board may not have agreed with some of the direction
provided by the Council; however, they took the direction and provided an excellent recommendation.
She also thanked Councilmember Orvis for his worst case scenario drawings and invited other
Councilmembers and the public to identify any unintended consequences. She agreed with allowing
museums and art galleries as a permitted use. If the Council wanted to require retail uses on the first floor
in BD1, she suggested giving consideration to allowing restaurants as well. Mr. Chave pointed out the
criteria for windows in 16.43.030.B.6.e.
Council President Dawson requested a great deal of notification regarding the public hearing on
September 18, which was a Monday. She requested all the materials be made available on the City's
website including Mr. Chave's PowerPoint presentation.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to the June 28 Planning Board minutes and a comment by Board
Member Crim expressing his belief that the way the current BD1 zoning language was written, there
would be very little redevelopment downtown, a statement the remainder of the Board agreed with.
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether this was in reference to the restriction on heights. Mr. Chave
answered yes.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Transportation Don Kreiman, Edmonds, advised Councilmember Plunkett attended a recent Citizens Advisory
committee Transportation Committee meeting to thank them for helping the Council gain the political will to commit
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 9
a portion of REST toward the City's transportation infrastructure and redirect Fund 125 moneys to two
sidewalk projects. As Chair of the Committee, he thanked the Council for the action they had taken with
regard to those items. Next, Mr. Kreiman cited actions the Council had taken because the City did not
have enough money including purchasing only half of the former Woodway Elementary park property,
layoffs in past years, not building a parking structure downtown, and not undertaking numerous projects.
He summarized the City did not have enough money, additional revenue sources were limited, and there
were few additional cuts that could be made in the City's budget as the City already had one of the lowest
employee to population ratios. Paraphrasing from President Kennedy's inaugural speech, he encouraged
citizens to ask not what Edmonds could do for them but what they could do for Edmonds. As the City
Shop Edmonds received $0.01 in sales tax for every dollar spent in the City, instead of raising taxes, he urged citizens to
shop Edmonds first for services and merchandise.
Planned Lori Haugh, Edmonds, referred to a contract rezone in their neighborhood approved in 1999 on property
Residential owned by Dr. Hahn and Regina Park on Olympic View Drive near the Perrinville post office. There had
Development
(PRD) at 194th been numerous attempts to develop this property in the past, and an application was recently filed by the
& 80th McNaughton Group that was in the SEPA determination phase. She recalled the rezone changed the
zoning from R12 to R8 despite this being a critical area with steep slopes and wetlands. She cited three
key provisions of the rezone, the property must be developed as a PRD, the net buildable area is 21%
(gross acreage less right -of -way), and a road must be built that extends 184th Street at 80th Avenue to
Olympic View Drive. Her first concern was the width of the road; she read the language in the contract
rezone, explaining her interpretation was the road width must be 40 feet which she noted was wide
enough for parking on both sides. However, Senior Planner Steve Bullock said it was likely that width
was the right -of -way width and not the road itself. She expressed concern with the potential for parking
on 80th north of 184th that would create significant safety issues. To resolve the issues, she was told by
Mr. Bullock and Mr. Bowman to submit a letter to the ADB and argue her points in front of the Hearing
Examiner. She noted the right -of -way was a significant aspect of the project as the amount of right -of-
way determined the buildable area. She noted there was no revision proposed to the contract rezone
which would require Council approval. She preferred staff rather than the Hearing Examiner address the
width of the road, and requested this project be stopped until these aspects could be sufficiently evaluated.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out this matter would be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner with appeal to
Superior Court. He asked whether there was any aspect of the testimony the Council should not hear.
City Attorney Scott Snyder agreed PRDs were reviewed by the Hearing Examiner with appeal to Superior
Court, and there was no change proposed in the contract rezone. Although citizens had the right to
address the Council, the PRD was vested and there was little role for the Council other than to listen to
citizens' concerns and make revisions to the code as required.
Council President Dawson asked whether staff could investigate if a citizen felt there was an issue the
contract rezone was not in compliance with. Mr. Bowman stated he spoke with Ms. Haugh today and
advised he would investigate and discuss her concerns with Mr. Bullock. The appropriate venue for
responding to the issues raised by Ms. Haugh was at the Hearing Examiner meeting. Staff will provide a
recommendation to the Hearing Examiner with regard to the right -of -way width and the Hearing
Examiner would issue a decision. Typically the language referred to road right -of -way width because at
the time the contract rezone was approved, there was no specific PRD design. As development is
proposed, the road is designed to fit within the right -of -way width. Mr. Snyder referred to Chapter 1.8.80
which establishes right -of -way widths based on the number of units. The right -of -way contained not only
the road but also curbs, gutters, sidewalks and utilities. Council President Dawson requested staff
investigate and report back to the Council.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Ms. Haugh's request that the development be stopped and asked
whether the Council had the ability to stop a development that was vested. Mr. Snyder answered the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 10
Council performed two functions, legislative (develop and enact regulations that were prospective in
nature) and in certain instances sitting as a quasi judicial body to ensure the ordinances were followed. In
this instance the Council had no role; the application was vested at the time it was submitted and must be
reviewed under the ordinances in affect at the time of application. State law prohibits any change in the
vested provisions. He agreed the citizen's review rights were via the appeal process with the Hearing
Examiner and then to Superior Court; the Council had no authority to intervene in the process.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the ADB's decision could be appealed to the Council. Mr. Bowman
advised the ADB was not making a decision, they provided a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner
and the Hearing Examiner made the decision. The Hearing Examiner was also the appellate body for any
SEPA determination made on the project, therefore, a hearing on the PRD and an appeal of the SEPA
threshold determination could be consolidated. Mr. Snyder explained under Regulatory Reform there was
one on- the - record proceeding for an application and the applicant had the right to determine whether they
were consolidated.
Mayor Haakenson summarized staff would consider the road issue and make a recommendation to the
Hearing Examiner based on their interpretation of the language and report back to the Council and
citizens.
PRD at 184th & Pamela Vanswearingsen, Edmonds, was concerned with whether the standards for the PRD were being
80th implemented as the project proceeded through various reviews. She expressed concern that the project
and reviews were proceeding in a "loose fashion" particularly since the PRD ordinance was relatively
new and required a great deal of monitoring as it would set precedence for neighborhoods throughout
Edmonds. While PRDs were intended to promote development and density, they were not intended to do
so without careful scrutiny and compliance with geologically hazardous areas ordinances and State
Department of Ecology wetland and drainage laws. Citizens were unable to obtain information; the
application was in the SEPA determination process, yet there was a variety of documentation that had not
yet been submitted and it had not yet been determined whether an EIS would be required. She pointed
out there were steep slopes as well as a wetland on the site and the City's consultant determined a wetland
exemption to fill the wetland would not be appropriate. There was also no erosion control plan and only a
preliminary drainage plan that lacked downstream analysis. She expressed concern with a proposed
private drainage system that required homeowners be responsible for maintenance, citing her litigation
experience in a situation where homeowners were responsible for a private drainage system.
pRD at 184th & Bob Diegert, Edmonds, commented many Seaview area residents were concerned with development
80th such as the proposed PRD. He expressed concern that Edmonds would become like Kirkland with one
development after another that was able to slide in and the elected and City officials either bent or
overlooked the rules to get the tax base. He objected to the proposed 27 homes in a very small area with
steep slopes and potential that the developer would remove all the trees. He cited several developments in
the area that had removed all the trees, pointing out developers were changing the character of Edmonds.
He relayed the neighborhood's objection to a through road due to the traffic, pollution and the creation of
new environmental issues via flattening the slope and removing the trees. He requested the Council slow
down this process to adequately consider environmental issues including the slopes and tree removal as
well as the number of homes that would be allowed.
p>zD at 184th & John Grimer, Edmonds, expressed concern with the impact the proposed PRD would have on the
Both character and traffic in the neighborhood, particularly on 80th as well as ingress /egress on Olympic View
Drive. His primary concern was the 4 -way stop at 80th & 184th as traffic southbound on 80th would be
required to make an abrupt stop on a blind hill. He suggested either regrading 80th to eliminate the limited
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 11
sight distance or requiring the developer address the issue in some other manner. Another issue was the
lack of sidewalks on 80th. He also recommended a left turn lane be installed on Olympic View Drive.
PRD at 184th & Mark Horn, Edmonds, displayed a map of the area, identifying the proposed PRD and his home and
80th explaining his primary concern was traffic. He questioned why the road needed to be a through street and
why it could not be constructed as a cul -de -sac. He urged the Council to be sympathetic to existing
residents' concerns.
PRD at 184th & Steve Vanswearingsen, Edmonds, recommended staff investigate whether the existing storm sewers in
80th the 80th Avenue area would need to be upgraded as runoff into that low area was likely to cause flooding
during winter storms. He anticipated the cost to update the storin sewers could be substantial.
PRD at 184th & Paul Martinez, Edmonds, whose home was adjacent to the property being developed, referred to a
80th recent article in the Edmonds Beacon about this development and the developer's comment that the
neighbors did not accept change. He assured the neighborhood could accept change but wanted the
Council to ensure the development was an even gain.
Planned Ray Martin, Edmonds, commended Councilmember Orvis' presentation. He expressed concern with
Residential the change to the PRD ordinance that moved review to the Hearin Examiner. He asserted the Hearin
Development g g g
Ordinance Examiner served at the Mayor's pleasure and would do what staff and the mayor wanted him to do. He
also asserted Councilmembers Marin and Olson would do what the Mayor told them to do. He recalled
City Attorney Scott Snyder's recommendation that the phrase "compatibility with the neighborhood" was
not specific enough; Mr. Martin recommended that phrase be returned to the code with more specifics.
He summarized the Council needed to revise the variance and PRD provisions and return review to the
Council.
Arco Property I Bob Gregg, Edmonds, referred to the Arco property at 202 5th Avenue, explaining the Council via
at 202 5th Ave. Executive Session sought access to information regarding the environmental condition of the property,
information he also had available via a confidentiality agreement, making it a difficult subject to discuss
in public. His environmental consultant met with the Department of Ecology (DOE) and obtained the
following public information: the site is listed on both the ecology and leaking underground storage tank
list and the confirmed and suspected contamination site list. Two specific issues of concern are soil.
contamination — the allowable limit for gasoline in the soil is 33 milligrams per kilogram and the
contamination of the soil on that site is as high as 5,300 milligrams per kilogram, over 175 times the
allowable limit. The groundwater contamination is allowed as much as 800 parts per billion, the site has
7,500 parts per billion, 10 times the allowable groundwater contamination. As a result of groundwater
samples they would not be surprised to find raw gasoline floating on the groundwater on that site. He
summarized he was not asking the Council for any action, he only wanted to make this data a matter of
public record and understood staff would be considering options. Mayor Haakenson advised DOE was
responsible for cleanup and staff did not have any options. DOE set the clean up standards and the City
could not allow anything to occur on the site until DOE cleaned the site. Mr. Gregg disagreed that staff
did not have any options.
Old woodway Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Executive Session information he obtained regarding Edmonds
Elementary School District dealings with the City and a $7 million offer made by the Council which was
School Property
Purcha se subsequently refused by the District. He relayed the District suggested the City provide $7 million cash
Purchase
and a contract for the balance. According to the records, the requirement was $7.3 million, $330,000
more to purchase the entire property. Unfortunately Councilmember Moore and Plunkett were not
present at the meeting. Council President Dawson was ambivalent about increasing the offer to $7.3
million and later said it would be a change in the policy and that $7 million was the originally agreed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 12
upon amount, concluding there was no consensus on the Council to increase the offer to $7.3 million. He
suggested for an additional $330,000 the City could have purchased the entire 1 I acres and still could if a
majority of the Council would vote to do so. He asserted Mayor Haakenson had threatened to veto a
higher offer.
Scott Abrahamson, Shell Creek Wine Bar & Grill, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 6, Commercial
commercial g Cookin Woodsmoke � advisin g he first learned of this issue last week and was not aware it had been an
cooking
wnedsmoke ongoing issue. He explained their restaurant had the only wood -fired oven in Edmonds and had operated
it for the past five years. The oven was their primary cooking instrument and utilized seasoned apple
wood specially packaged for food service. The oven was compliant with the City's Fire Department,
Snohomish County Health Department, and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. He preferred
Councilmember Wambolt had contacted him directly rather than discussing his business in a public forum
without his knowledge.
Shirley Wambolt, Edmonds, urged people to respect each other. She agreed the smoke from Mr.
Abrahamson's restaurant stinks.
PRD at 184th Mayor Haakenson asked staff to respond to the comment concerning the PRD at 184th and 80th that staff
and 80th was bending the rules and letting things slide to allow development to occur. Mr. Bowman responded
staff was not bending any rules or letting anything slide. He explained this was a very complex project,
and planned to have a DVD made of tonight's comments so that Mr. Bullock could review the residents'
concerns. He explained Council action approved the contract rezone that established the parameters for
the project including the road connection and the contract could not be changed. He recalled that road
connection was desired by emergency services to provide a connection from Olympic View Drive to the
Seaview area. He noted many of the issues raised would be considered during the review process. He
summarized the established process must be followed with regard to the contract rezone and the Council
did not have a significant role in the contract rezone. If the Council had a role in the review, residents
would not have been allowed to voice their concerns during Audience Comments, but would have been
required to wait until the public hearing.
Mr. Bowman clarified the Hearing Examiner did not serve the Mayor, he served the Council. If the
Council did not like his decisions, the Council could decide not to renew his annual contract. Council
President Dawson requested staff follow up with the Council on all the issues raised. Mr. Bowman noted
much of the information would be included in the staff report regarding the SEPA determination. Council
President Dawson requested staff copy the Council to reassure them the issues had been addressed.
Mayor Haakenson asked staff to address the comment that citizens could not get information from staff.
Mr. Bowman answered anything in the City's records was public information; residents come in often to
obtain information. With regard to the EIS, Mr. Bowman explained the EIS was part of the SEPA
determination. A Determination of Significance would indicate there were issues that needed to be
addressed and insufficient information was available to address certain impacts; typically the scope of the
EIS was limited to those issues. If staff determined enough information was provided by the code and/or
the applicant, a Determination of Non- Significance could be issued or a Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance which would require specific conditions be imposed by the Hearing Examiner.
With regard to drainage plans and storm sewers, Mr. Bowman advised the Hearing Examiner would
consider those issues in his review process. He clarified a preliminary PRD would not include final
engineering, only enough to determine whether the existing systems had sufficient capacity to handle the
additional volume; final engineering would be done at the time of the final PRD.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 13
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Hearing Examiner had the ability to require the road not be a
through road. Mr. Bowman answered no, as that was a specific term in the contract rezone that was
approved in 1999.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether a change was contemplated to the contract rezone. Mr. Bowman
answered a change had been contemplated at one time but the current owner, McNaughton Group,
planned to proceed with the contract rezone as approved. Councilmember Orvis pointed out the 2002
minutes indicated the original rezone was approved via a 3 -2 vote and asked whether that was valid. Mr.
Snyder advised certain matters required a vote of four members of the Council and others required a vote
of a majority, the contract rezone required only a majority.
With regard to the comment that the Hearing Examiner reports to the Mayor, Mayor Haakenson explained
the City Attorney, Hearing Examiner and Public Defender are contract employees and their contracts are
approved by the Council annually. Although he could make a recommendation, it was the Council who
could hire or fire those individuals.
Arco Property Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Gregg to describe why he felt the City had some authority with regard
to the contamination on the Arco property. Mr. Gregg agreed the method Mayor Haakenson described,
self attenuation, is one of the methods for cleaning up the site although it would take many years. He
advised there were other approaches such as a developer cleaning up the site via removing soil from the
site.
Commercial 6. COMMERCIAL COOKING WOODSMOKE
Cooking
Woodsmoke
Councilmember Wambolt explained this issue was discussed by the Community /Development Services
Committee at their August 8 meeting and no action was taken. Staff received a complaint from him
regarding the use of wood for cooking in a commercial restaurant downtown. He explained he submitted
the complaint because he lives nearby but the complaint actually originated from another citizen and two
other citizens voiced their displeasure with the odor at the August 15 Council meeting. The complaints
centered on the odor of the burnt wood. Staff contacted the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCA)
regarding the matter and were told they did not enforce commercial cooking for restaurants. City
regulations governing smoke and odors are found in Chapter 17.60.010.E and F. One remedy would be to
pursue a code amendment to ban commercial cooking with wood that would apply to all restaurants.
Councilmember Wambolt disagreed with Mr. Abrahamson that the first he learned of this concern was
last week, pointing out the City sent a letter to him on June 1.3 notifying him of the situation and other
neighbors had spoke with Mr. Abrahamson about the situation including the now - deceased owner of the
Antique Mall. Councilmember Wambolt clarified he did not recommend Mr. Abrahamson cease cooking
with wood but requested the Council direct staff to investigate what remedies are available and the cost to
eliminate the smoke or its odor to include how other cities addressed this issue.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he would be interested in staff investigating available remedies and how
other cities address it.
For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Bowman explained Code Enforcement Officer Mike Thies emailed the
members of Washington Association of Code Enforcement Officials describing the issue and asking them
to respond if they had a regulation that governed that issue. Only Kirkland responded and provided their
code section; Edmonds' code was much stronger. Kirkland indicated they had only used the provision
once for a restaurant whose cooking created a large plume of smoke. That business was required to install
a scrubber to eliminate the smoke. He commented the City of Seattle's regulations were very general and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 14
would be difficult to enforce. With regard to the cost, PSCA estimated $1500 -1700 for a device to scrub
the air. He noted there would be additional costs associated with permitting and installation.
City Attorney Scott Snyder assumed the Council was only interested in regulating commercial cooking
woodsmoke and not home barbeques. He noted the Seattle code was a nuisance ordinance and addressed
both. Councilmember Wambolt advised his focus was on commercial woodsmoke.
Councilmember Moore did not favor any regulation, commenting this was a very personal issue, and the
City did not have adequate staff to investigate personal issues between a Councilmember and a restaurant
owner. She preferred to have Councilmember Wambolt resolve the issue with the restaurant owner.
Councilmember Marin agreed with staff investigating the issue simultaneously with the restaurant owner
determining if the operation had changed after five years to now generate complaints. Mayor Haakenson
commented the residences were not there previously. Councilmember Marin reiterated his request that
the restaurant owner investigate with the manufacturer whether there was new technology that would
eliminate the odor or whether there was something about the maintenance or operation of the oven that
could solve the odor issue.
Council President Dawson expressed appreciation for the information staff provided. She suggested
Councilmember Wambolt speak with the restaurant owner, anticipating Mr. Abrahamson would be
willing to invest in a scrubber in an effort to be a good neighbor. She pointed out the fact that
Councilmember Wambolt was a Councilmember did not preclude him from raising concerns, noting
Councilmember Moore had asked Mr. Gregg to provide additional information regarding contamination
on the Arco property because that was an issue she was interested in.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Marin's suggestion. He noted although this was
the first time the odor from the restaurant's woodsmoke had been brought to the Council's attention, it
was not a new issue as the employees and the now- deceased owner of the Antique Mall had raised this
issue with the restaurant for several years.
Mr. Bowman suggested Mr. Abrahamson work with the manufacturer to determine whether there was
something that could be done and how much it would cost. That would be much more efficient than staff
investigating scrubbers, etc. He noted the oven burned very clean and the smoke was not visible although
one could tell when it was operating, primarily during lunch and dinner.
Mr. Abrahamson described how the oven worked, explaining it cooked in a unique fashion and had its
own venting system separate from other equipment in the restaurant. Scrubbers were not generally used
on wood fires as they allowed smoke to condense and created an increased fire hazard. He commented
the catalytic converter for their coffee roaster cost $9,000 uninstalled; he assumed a much larger unit
would be required for the oven. He noted further information about when the odor was bothersome
would be helpful. He reiterated he had never been personally contacted regarding a complaint about the
smoke or odor.
Council President Dawson commented the Council had been provided staff's research and there now
needed to be further exchange of information between Councilmember Wambolt and the restaurant
owner.
Councilmember Wambolt requested Mr. Abrahamson investigate whether there was something that could
be done and how much it would cost. He disagreed the exhaust from the oven was invisible and advising
the primary problem was the odor.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 15
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
City Clerk Mayor Haakenson read a letter from the Administrator of IIMC, announcing Sandy Chase, CMC, City
Recognition Clerk, qualified for first level membership in the IIMC Master Municipal Clerk Academy. The purpose
of the Academy was to provide professional educational opportunities to Municipal Clerks to extend
beyond their present levels of development and to enhance their skills to meet the challenges of the Office
of Municipal Clerk. Every 1 -4 years Academy members are required to demonstrate they have actively
engaged in educational and professional participation that keeps them current in changing events in the
local government scene. Ms. Chase has demonstrated that she has planned and obtained the career
development goals that will aid her in obtaining and maintaining the quality of excellence required of
today's public officials and administrators.
Administrative Mayor Haakenson also read a letter from the Chair of the Washington Finance Officers Association
services advising Administrative Services Director Dan Clements earned the Professional Finance Officer Award
Director Award
for the State of Washington by the Washington Finance Officers Association. This award requires
ongoing educational and professional excellence on the part of each individual and is not automatically
awarded. Mr. Clements is committed to achieving educational and professional excellence acknowledged
via receipt of this award.
E2�1110111i/ I 711_ 1[KIIN0141Ia 7901 t711F.KIME91 111 10 111 9CK41►5 ►/1(1aIDoPQCi47_3117u1NNI WRO
o Council Council President Dawson announced there would not be a Council meeting on August 29 as it was the
Meetings on fifth Tuesday. She suggested canceling the September 5 Council meeting as there were no time sensitive
si29 and 9is issues on the agenda and to avoid the expense of holding a meeting. She noted many Councils scheduled
a break in the summer, something Edmonds did not do in an effort to address issues as they arose. It was
the consensus of the Council to cancel the September 5 Council meeting.
PnblioFacilities Councilmember Olson reported the PFD hired a Technical Director, Jeff Vaughn. She advised the PFD
o's�1Ct applied for a State Building for the Arts grant and received notification that the Building for the Arts
Grant Board recommended inclusion of $1 million for the project in the Governor's 2007 -2009 capital
budget. The grant will not be awarded until the Governor approves the capital budget. She relayed
comments from today's PFD meeting that it was fortunate the project began when it did because if they
had waited until all the funds had been raised, they would not have been able to proceed due to significant
increases in construction costs.
Councilmember Moore commented this was the first she had heard about the issues associated with the
contract rezone and was glad staff would be investigating and reporting to the Council. She thanked Mr.
Old woodway Kreiman for his message regarding shopping in Edmonds. With regard to the park acquisition issue
Elementary raised by Mr. Hertrich, she questioned what had happened to the Council's will to purchase all 11 acres,
School Property
noting the will appeared to disappear when she was out of town. She recalled when she returned, the
rumored estimates regarding the cost of the land were up to $12 million. Now the price of the other half
of the property was known and it was within the City's reach. She suggested the Council revisit the
purchase of the remaining acreage, pointing out the price for the property was the same as it was last year;
the City could afford it then and could afford it now using REST funds. She concluded this was an
opportunity to preserve the entire 11 acres of open space.
Councilmember Moore took issue with Council President Dawson's comment that she had raised a
personal issue, pointing out groundwater contamination up to ten times the allowable level was not a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 16
personal issue, it was an issue for the entire City. She had no personal issue in the property, only an
interest in protecting the public from contaminated groundwater. She also did not want there to be an
impression that Mayor Haakenson was incorrect in his reply to Mr. Gregg.
Excused COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
Absence EXCUSE COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON FROM THE AUGUST 15 MEETING. MOTION
CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON ABSTAINED.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the Council knew the price of the former Woodway Elementary
School site when they voted against purchasing it. Next, he objected to the Council not meeting for four
weeks, anticipating there were some issues that the Council could be discussing. He suggested the
Edmonds Council be compared to excellent Councils rather than mediocre Councils.
Port Councilmember Wambolt reported the August 14 Port Commission meeting included discussion.
Commission regarding an increase in guest moorage to $5.00 per day. A report was provided on the operations of
Harbor Square, revenues exceeded expenses even with occupancy at 80 %. The additions to the Athletic
Club will not begin until summer 2007. A quarterly report was also provided that illustrated moorage
terminations had increased, more boats were for sale and new applications for wait -list were down, all due
to high gasoline prices. The Port had a work session to update regulations for dry storage. Executive
Director Chris Keuss planned to present the Port's Comprehensive Plan to the Council on October 3.
Snohomish Co.
Councilmember Marin reported the Snohomish County Health District had an excellent tobacco cessation
Health District program but had had a difficult time advancing a policy of not hiring smokers to work at the Health
District as the policy had never made it through the Policy Committee. As the Chair of the Policy
Committee, he reported the policy was approved by the Committee and passed by the Health District
Board 8 -4 last week.
Council President Dawson clarified her comment that some Councils scheduled a break in the summer
was intended to reflect positively on the Edmonds Council who did not schedule a Council break during
the summer. She reiterated there were no items scheduled for the September 5 meeting other than the
introduction of the new Student Representative. She found it wasteful for the Council to meet only for
the sake of meeting and to pay the Council $50 for the meeting as well as for staff time. She noted if an
issue arose that required Council action, the Council would meet on September 5. Councilmember
Wambolt commented there must be something that could be scheduled for that agenda. Mayor
Haakenson pointed out public hearings required advance notice and there was not adequate time to
schedule a public hearing for September 5 and none of the items Council requested from staff were ready.
Downtown Mayor Haakenson reminded the public hearing on downtown zoning would be held on Monday,
zoning September 18 due to the primary election on Tuesday, September 19.
9. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 22, 2006
Page 17