09/18/2006 City CouncilSeptember 18, 2006
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding potential litigation, the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t'' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Deanna Dawson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Kisa Nishimoto, Student Representative
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
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
Change to I Agenda COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF
THE REMAINDER OF THE OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE TO THE
AGENDA AFTER AUDIENCE COMMENTS AS ITEM 6B.
Councilmember Moore advised four Councilmembers had agreed to add this to the agenda.
Council President Dawson preferred to schedule the discussion prior to Audience Comments as it had not
been advertised as an agenda item. She explained in discussion with Council President Pro Tem Olson,
they agreed this issue had been discussed and voted on a number of times including a 4 -3 vote to pursue
the purchase of 5.5 acres of the site and not purchase the entire 11 acre parcel. She had advised the
Council if a Councilmember wished to change his /her vote, it could be scheduled as an agenda item. That
did not happen and it was not scheduled as an agenda item. She felt it inappropriate to schedule the
discussion following Audience Comments, resulting in basically an unadvertised, improperly noticed
public hearing. She summarized she would not support the motion to add this discussion following
Audience Comments but would support a motion to add it prior to Audience Comments.
Councilmember Plunkett objected to Council President Dawson's use of "improper," commenting the
Council had the authority to add this as an agenda item. Council President Dawson reiterated it was
improper as it could have been added as an agenda item last week but was not because none of the
Councilmembers who voted in the negative indicated an intention to change their vote.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 1
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS AND
MOORE IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS
MARIN, OLSON AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF
THE REMAINDER OF THE OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE TO THE
AGENDA BEFORE AUDIENCE COMMENTS AS ITEM 5B. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved
are as follows:
Approve (A) ROLL CALL
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2006.
Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #90310 THROUGH #90434 FOR AUGUST 24, 2006, IN
Checks THE AMOUNT OF $691,247.70, CHECKS #90435 THROUGH #90618 FOR AUGUST 31,
2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $510,229.71, CHECKS #90626 THROUGH #90735 FOR
SEPTEMBER 7, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $256,601.33, AND CHECKS #90738
THROUGH #90889 FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $524,419.93.
APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #43721 THROUGH
#43822 FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 16 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2006, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $783,078.22.
Claims For (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM SNOHOMISH
Damages COUNTY P.U.D. NO. 1 ($1,880.49), RODNEY JUNTUNEN, DBA PLANTING DESIGN
($894.97), AND ROSE LANGFORD ($52.27).
Fire- Rescue
Boat Interlocal (E) APPROVE FIRE - RESCUE BOAT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH
Agreement COUNTY.
Truck s Fire (F) DECLARE A 1991 DARLEY FIRE TRUCK (UNIT #463) SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE
THE MAYOR TO SIGN CONSIGNMENT CONTRACT WITH FIRE TRUCKS PLUS.
Meter A (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED ON AUGUST 21, 2006, FOR THE METER A
Rehabilitation REHABILITATION PROJECT AND AWARD TO INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION, INC
Project
FOR THE AMOUNT OF $95,832.
Citywide Storm (H) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 29, 2006, FOR THE 2006 CITYWIDE STORM
Improvements IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO EARTHWORKS
Project ENTERPRISES, INC. ($219,683.99).
orth City Taxi
License (I) APPROVAL OF 2006 TAXI OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR NORTH CITY TAXI.
Chattel Deed - (J) COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF CHATTEL DEED QUIT- CLAIMING TO THE CITY OF
File 5 -93 -152 EDMONDS OWNERSHIP OF A PORTION OF A STORMWATER LINE BY PROPERTY
OWNERS OF HOLLAND SHORT PLAT FILE NO. 5 -93 -152.
Tidelands
Donated by (K) ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATION FOR TIDELANDS DONATED BY THE
Haines Family HAINES FAMILY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 2
New Student 13. INTRODUCTION OF NEW STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE KISA NISHIMOTO FROM
Representative EDMONDS- WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL
Council President Dawson introduced Kisa Nishimoto, a senior at Edmonds - Woodway High School, and
described her background. Ms. Nishimoto thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve as Student
Representative.
IIraft BD — 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT "BD - DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES" INTENDED TO BE
Downtown APPLIED TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Business zones THE HEARING IS ON: (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW CHAPTER 16.43 ESTABLISHING
"BD - DOWNTOWN BUSINESS" ZONES IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE, AND (2) APPROVING A NEW ZONING MAP FOR DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES (FILE
NO. CDC -06 -37 / R- 06 -50).
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was a public hearing on the recommendation from the
Planning Board on a proposed new zoning scheme for downtown. This began with the update to the
Comprehensive Plan in March 2005; zoning was a follow -up to implement planning. The Planning
Board's recommendation includes proposed zoning and zoning maps for properties in the downtown area.
He reviewed recent Council action including a series of workshops with design professional Mark
Hinshaw in 2005 to discuss a variety of issues associated with implementing the Comprehensive Plan,
follow -up discussion in March 2006, and direction to the Planning Board for development of the zones.
The current zoning proposal was based on Council discussions that followed adoption of the downtown
plan. Modifications can be made to the zoning proposal and potentially the plan to address issues that
arise during the zoning process.
Mr. Chave displayed two maps of the downtown area, one that reflected the Council's March 2006
proposal and the other the Planning Board's zoning proposal. The Planning Board's proposal was similar
to the Council's, identifying minor differences including changing the zoning of the property across the
street from the Public Safety Complex from BC to RM 1.5.
Mr. Chave reviewed key sections in the BD chapter including a use matrix and site development
standards for ground floor, building heights and exceptions, parking, open space for larger lots and
buildings and exceptions for historic buildings. He reviewed issues addressed by the Planning Board
including how the arts corridor should be configured relative to other areas of downtown, how the new
standards would apply to existing buildings particularly if additions were proposed, how the ground floor
should be handled, whether the height exceptions (incentives) were the right ones, whether the open space
requirement was appropriate, how small lots were dealt with and how complex the regulations should be.
He highlighted key concepts including no change in the way height was calculated — it was still based on
average level or average grade — 25 feet is the base with rules on how 30 feet could be obtained which
vary by zone. Height exceptions provide incentives to obtain certain design features the Planning Board
felt would be positive additions to buildings. Minimum ground floor heights in commercial areas
encourage commercial uses. He recalled the City's former Economic Development Director stressed the
importance of a 15 -foot ground floor height in an effort to protect and enhance the retail core. He
emphasized 15 feet would not be the ceiling height, it was the height between the first and second floor
which must also accommodate mechanical equipment, structural elements, etc., thus the ceiling height for
a 1.5 -foot first floor would be approximately 12 feet and the ceiling height for a 12 -foot first floor would
be 9 -9'/z feet, possibly 1 additional foot with exposed mechanical equipment. He referred to a retail study
done for the City of Falls Church that cited the importance of floor to ceiling clear heights of at least 14
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 3
feet for quality retail space. He noted real estate advertisements for commercial space also consistently
refer to 14 -16 feet ceiling heights.
Mr. Chave displayed a drawing illustrating a step -back, explaining the step -back was 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 and described an uphill and a downhill example. He displayed examples of how the step -
back would have applied on existing buildings including the Wiggins building and the historic
Chantereile building. He reviewed photographs of several downtown buildings, commenting the
buildings on streets perpendicular to Puget Sound and below 5th were broken up consistently by alleys
which created 120 foot block sections, one of the rationales for the Planning Board's selection of 120 foot
frontage for the open space requirement. The Planning Board was concerned anything smaller would
eliminate the consistent block face along the retail streets. He noted the same pattern was not present on
the streets parallel to Puget Sound due to the absence of alleys which has allowed the combination of
smaller lots and construction of larger buildings.
Mr. Chave pointed out zoning was only one way to implement the Downtown Plan; the streetscape
provisions would be key for the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor. He explained the Planning Board's
recommendation was not a final ordinance; the zoning and map would need to be approved by Council.
He suggested holding the public hearing in two parts, first focus on the draft text of the BD zones and
then focus on the map and where the zones would be applied.
Councilmember Orvis recalled the Council's direction to the Planning Board included three elements for
BD1 — 15 foot first floors, allowing for 30 -foot buildings and a two floor maximum which he noted was
not included in the current proposal. He explained the reason 30 -foot buildings would be allowed in the
BD1 zone was due to the 15 foot first floor requirement. He displayed an example of a downhill lot,
explaining if the building were restricted to 25 feet with a 15 -foot first floor, only a one story building
could be built on downhill lots. He noted a two floor maximum was considered to eliminate the potential
for a building on an uphill lot to achieve three floors with a 30 -foot height limit. Mr. Chave suggested an
alternative would be to require the step -back in the BD zone at 30 feet.
Mr. Chave displayed the map of proposed new downtown zones, identifying the boundaries of each zone.
He explained the BD 1 zone was essentially the retail core, where buildings could be 30 feet from average
grade with a 15 foot ground floor. The BD5 zone was the Arts Corridor /4`h Avenue Corridor, intended to
link the Edmonds Center for the Arts with downtown. In the Arts Corridor, property owners could
develop similar to downtown or with more residential -type uses via live /work units. The BD3 zone is the
one area downtown where auto - oriented uses would be allowed such as the existing uses Baskin &
Robins, Petosa's Grocery, etc. He noted another reason for allowing auto - oriented uses was the distance
of this area from downtown. The BD4 zone recognizes that most of the uses in that zone are already
residential. Development in the BD4 zone could be traditional commercial /mixed use or a multi family
building using the multi family provisions of the code. The BD2 zone is closer to the traditional BC
zoning in that setback rules apply and uses are a mixture of commercial and residential but the ground
floor must be commercial. The one exception was the opportunity for residential on the ground floor
beyond a 60 foot depth.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council
received correspondence from:
1) Larry D. Stout, government affairs /legal department of Washington Realtors, expressing
support for the intent of the proposed zoning to be flexible in use but restrictive in appearance
in the BD1 zone and for allowing commercial office and retail activities in the BD1 zone.
2) Law Offices of William Hochberg, expressing support for the new BD2 zone and urging the
Council to adopt the BD2 zone as recommended.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 4
3) David Page, local realtor, urging Council not to restrict zoning in the retail core to retail only.
4) Larry and Anne Temple, urging consideration of the impact that height limit exceptions
could have on adjacent property and ensuring only a single architectural element to qualify
for the additional 5 feet.
5) Paul C. Sorensen, S & E Partners, opposed to not allowing offices in the BD 1.
Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, commented there were positive elements in the proposed ordinance as well
as areas in need of improvement. As a property owner in the BD5 zone, he noted one of the allowed uses
was residential. He asked whether the 12 -foot first floor height requirement applied to residential uses.
He pointed out the site development standards referred to a maximum height of 25 feet and a minimum
15 -foot ground floor height, yet later in the code heights of 30 feet are allowed. He referred to a height
exception in Section 5 that allowed an additional 5 feet for a pitched roof and asked whether that was in
addition to the 30 -foot building height. He supported the open space requirements for jumbo
developments, the step -back for buildings over 25 feet particularly for the backside of properties, street
level retail, the guidance provided by the zoning for neighborhood development, connecting the Arts
Corridor to downtown, and historic property incentives.
John Reed, Edmonds, on behalf of ACE, advised the Council packet included the presentation they
made to the Planning Board on May 24 as well as a memo dated September 1.5. He expressed concern .
that the issues they expressed to the Planning Board had not been adequately addressed by the Planning
Board. He relayed ACE's support for the following: the step -back for heights over 25 -feet, the tradeoff
of a setback in exchange for a step -back, the Arts Corridor, ground floor rules including 60 foot
commercial depth, RM 1.5 zone and requiring setback between commercial and residentially zoned
properties. He enumerated ACE's concerns /suggestions, 1) the uses section is too complex, looks toward
existing uses rather than what was desired. Consider whether five zones were needed — could there be a
retail core, Arts Corridor and the remainder in one zone, 2) require step -back for all buildings downtown,
3) height exceptions allow height creep above the 25 -foot base and 30 -foot maximum and some are based
on percentages that could allow excessive space and a square footage limitation would be a more
reasonable alternative, 4) setback avoids the tunnel affect, 5) too little open space required, and 6)
consider pros and cons of insufficient parking downtown. He summarized ACE's perception that the
proposal did not fully address the direction provided by the Council and there was significant work to be
done to finalize the ordinance to maintain the 2 -story look and feel of downtown.
Mayor Haakenson acknowledged the Council received the correspondence from ACE that Mr. Reed
mentioned as well as correspondence from Chris Fleck who was opposed to limiting the BD1 zone to
retail uses only and from Paul Weller who was opposed to the proposed BD concept.
Gary Schmitt, representing the customers and employees of Bank of Washington, referred to not
allowing financial drive - throughs in the proposed BD1 zone, explaining a healthy downtown core
required a healthy financial district. He noted over 30% of a bank's customers traveled over 5 miles to do
their business, 20% traveled 2 -3 miles, and 50% traveled 0 -2 miles. Bank customers often visit other
downtown businesses. He explained many pedestrian friendly cities with a strong retail environment such
as Carmel, California, did not allow general drive - throughs but did allow bank drive - throughs. He
proposed not allowing general drive - throughs in the BD1 but allowing financial drive throughs as a
conditional use. He noted bank drive - throughs were of great assistance to customers and increased the
availability of parking in downtown.
Tim Stensland, Edmonds, provided a letter regarding the B135 and BD 1 zones. While he applauded the
City's efforts to incorporate arts into the community, he was concerned the requirements proposed for the
B135 zone were too restrictive and lacked detail. He noted the live /work spaces needed to be eclectic,
flexible and market responsive. He recommended a further discussion regarding flexibility of units as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 5
well as building massing. He concluded the regulations limited the potential for good building design in
the Arts Corridor.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, recommended the BD1 zone on Main Street end east of the Shell Creek
restaurant, and the west end be extended to Railroad Avenue. She also recommended amending the uses
to make the BD1 primarily pedestrian retail with two floors of retail and no residential. She
recommended the first floors have 12 -foot finished ceilings and uses that attracted strolling, shopping and
eating; the second floors could accommodate a broader range of retail including offices. She recalled a
concentration of retail on one street such as Main on two floors was recommended by three consultants.
With regard to her suggestion to extend BD1 zone to Railroad Avenue, she explained the goal of the
Downtown Waterfront Plan was to integrate the downtown core with the waterfront by encouraging
pedestrian access. She noted the west end of Main currently had severe visual issues.
John Heighway, Edmonds, suggested the proposed zoning address the restoration and maintenance of
existing buildings in the BD zone. He recommended the City post for the public any work to be done on
buildings downtown such as the Yost Building. He noted existing properties may be purchased and/or
consolidated, leading to the potential for phased construction. He noted many Conditional Use Permits
were handled administratively and he preferred they be subject to public scrutiny. He recalled the person
constructing the Gregory included bay windows on that building because he liked the bay windows on the
Yost building, yet he now proposed removing the bay windows from the Yost building. He objected to
the ability for an elevator to cover no more than 5% of the roof area and to extend a maximum of 12 feet
above the specified height limit. He envisioned the result could be larger than anticipated.
James Clauson, Edmonds, commercial real estate broker, recalled there had been numerous discussions
regarding retail versus office in the retail core. He commented there were new buildings with floor space
that interested major retailers, however, allowing office uses in the core area diluted the retail focus of the
retail core. Most property owners in downtown Edmonds received $8 -12 /square foot gross rent compared
with retail in Mill Creek where owners received $32.50 /square foot net. He cited numerous studies and
seminars that stress retail as the heart of revived city cores. He urged the Council to require retail uses in
the downtown core.
Bob Gregg, Edmonds, agreed with encouraging retail in the BD1 zone but did not support mandating
retail. If the Council mandated retail, he recommended it be only on the first floor. He recalled Mark
Hinshaw's indication that retail on the second floor did not work. He also recommended the City clarify
the definition of restaurant to ensure they were not excluded from the retail zone. He did not object to
requiring a 15 -foot step -back above 25 or 30 feet in the BD1 zone.
Cary Adams, Edmonds, commercial real estate agent, objected to the two floor maximum, noting much
of the profitability for developers was in the third floor. A two floor maximum made it difficult to
develop property and could also decrease a property's value. He recommended the City focus on
incentives rather than restrictions; using incentives to achieve desired development. He remarked that
although the different zones were effective on some levels, they were not on others as they restricted
property owners to certain types of development rather than allowing the market to dictate development.
He preferred the existing one zone downtown that allowed the market to dictate development to create a
vibrant downtown. He recommended the definition of retail be clarified as many businesses currently in
the BD 1 zone were a combination of office and retail. He summarized the City needed to consider what
would be best for the future and not just keep everything the way it was.
Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, echoed Mr. Adams' preference for a one zone downtown, commenting the
proliferation of zones would require more staff time to review applications. With regard to 15 -foot
ceiling heights, he disagreed the record showed there was any literature other than comments by local
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 6
merchants supporting 15 -foot ceilings. He recalled his research about 15 -foot ceiling heights found only
one article regarding shops in downtown San Francisco. As a property owner in the current BC zone, if
he redeveloped his property, he preferred not to construct 15 -foot first floors due to the cost of heating the
increased space. He questioned why developers who provided a 15 -foot first floor height rather than a
12 -foot first floor would be allowed an increase of 5 feet rather than only an additional 3 feet.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, asked whether the city wanted notched buildings on east and west streets,
envisioning notches on buildings would not be uniform as they were dependent on the average grade. He
pointed out notches did not protect views and a 5 -foot setback was preferable to a notch and provided
more open space. He asked whether the proposed zoning would prevent land owners from using their
property via restricting to whom they could rent their property. He agreed with the need for a retail core
but questioned whether the City could restrict to whom a property owner rented. He questioned if the
proposed zoning would allow construction of buildings like the Chanterelle or movie theater in the future.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, found the proposed five zones excessive, commenting staff had enough .
difficulty making decisions with the existing one zone. He objected to the lack of parking requirements
for any use in the proposed in the BD1 zone, no parking requirements for commercial uses in B132, B134
or BD5, and no parking requirements for any building with a footprint of less than 4800 square feet. He
objected to allowing balconies in the public right -of -way. He commented massing was not addressed in
the proposed document, expressing concern with the consolidation of lots that could result in a long wall
and /or massive buildings. He recalled a formula used in the past for mixed use that required 51% of the
building be developed commercial. As an option, he suggested the proposed document could limit mixed
use residential to a floor above.
Bruce Nicholson, Edmonds, referred to the Bank of Washington's request, commenting the conditional
use process worked well. He described his construction of a building on an RM zoned property which
required he meet the condition of a CUP. The building now houses a company with 20 employees and its
location outside of the business district does not impact downtown parking. He encouraged the use of a
CUP for bank drive - throughs.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Chave responded to questions /issues raised by the public. With regard to whether the 12 -foot first
floor height in B135 applied to single family development, Mr. Chave answered no, pointing out the code
required single family be developed in accordance with the RS -6 zone. He agreed a minor correction
needed to be made to address the conflict between the statement that the basic height limit was 25 feet
and the 30 -foot building height allowed with a 15 foot first floor height. With regard to the multiple
zones, he explained the distinctions between zones were subtle but important. For example, without the
B133 zone, drive - through businesses would be allowed throughout downtown or all drive- through
businesses would be nonconforming. Without the BD4 zone, multi family building could be allowed
throughout downtown or all existing multi family buildings would be nonconforming. He summarized
the Comprehensive Plan differentiated parts of downtown. He anticipated the upcoming code rewrite
would simplify the code, particularly the use patterns.
With regard to the 15 -foot first floor height, he explained that was essential to economic development and
the Planning Board felt if retail was not mandated in the retail core, the only thing that would encourage
retail uses was to require space that accommodated retail uses. With regard to whether to mandating only
retail /services uses rather than office, he referred to the pros and cons expressed by the public. He
acknowledged the City wanted to encourage retail uses, however, without a strong retail market, those
spaces could remain vacant. He emphasized a strong retail core could not be obtained via only zoning, it
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 7
also required a strong economic development effort, strong Chamber of Commerce, and mechanisms to
work with retailers to ensure downtown was economically healthy.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether restaurants could locate in the core. Mr. Chave answered yes,
restaurants were considered a service use which was permitted in the BD 1 retail core. Councilmember
Plunkett referred to the comment that the Arts Corridor was not flexible enough, explaining he wrote code
language via the Historic Preservation Commission to ensure the Arts Corridor was as flexible as
possible. Mr. Chave explained that area would be considered in the discussion regarding the
nonconforming regulations. Public improvements would likely have a great deal of impact on
development of the Arts Corridor. Councilmember Plunkett clarified this was the beginning of
developing regulations for the Arts Corridor, not the end. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board's
intent was to provide some flexibility in use.
Councilmember Plunkett requested staff address the issue of drive - throughs. Mr. Chave explained the
Planning Board voted 4 -3 in favor of not allowing drive - throughs in the BD1 zone. The majority of the
Planning Board felt drive- through uses including banks should be prohibited in the BD1 zone. The
remainder of the Planning Board felt drive - throughs for banks could be approved via a CUP.
Councilmember Plunkett supported a bank, pharmacy, etc. having the option of a drive - through via a
CUP. He asked what standards a business had to meet to have a CUP approved. Mr. Chave answered
CUPs were reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. He referred to additional conditions any Conditional Use
in the BD1 zone must meet including pedestrian access from the sidewalk, vehicular access, landscape
design, etc. The Planning Board's primary concern was that too many drive - throughs resulted in multiple
curb cuts which lead to the loss of on- street parking as well as conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether massing had been adequately addressed. Mr. Chave answered
yes, via the combination of open space and step -backs as well as building heights. He commented the
source of the massing discussion referred to by Mr. Reed was the draft design guidelines the Planning
Board worked on in 2000 -2001 that included specific requirements for buildings over a certain size. He
noted the step -back and open space requirements were very similar to those massing requirements
because the step -back created two masses and an open space would create a third.
City Attorney Scott Snyder commented there was a limit to how much massing could be addressed via
bulk requirements such as setbacks and notching. At some point it became a design guidelines issue. If
the approach became any more sophisticated, he suggested it was an issue best addressed by the
Architectural Design Board (ADB) via definitional requirements. Mr. Chave cautioned a threshold for
open space could have unintended consequences as typically in a downtown retail area, there were few
breaks in the storefronts. If the threshold were too small and applied to buildings in the downtown, there
could be holes created in the retail environment which could have a negative impact.
Councilmember Orvis asked if the difference between BD3 and BD2 was auto - oriented were prohibited
in BD2. Mr. Chave advised auto - oriented uses were only permitted in BD3; drive - throughs were
considered an auto - oriented use.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the bed & breakfast on 3'd & Dayton in the BD4 zone would be
allowed. Mr. Chave answered yes.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the 15 -foot first floor height was only required in the BD1 zone. Mr.
Chave agreed, advising that the other zones required a 12 -foot first floor height other than residential
development. Councilmember Orvis asked why elevator penthouse would be allowed. Mr. Chave
answered the Planning Board was interested in roofs that functioned as gardens. Councilmember Orvis
asked whether elevator penthouses could be eliminated with the use of a piston style elevator. Mr. Chave
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 8
answered he was not familiar with that technology; an alternative could be to require the elevator be
combined with a design element such as a clock tower.
Councilmember Moore asked why some Planning Board Members felt an exception could be made for a
bank drive - through and not a pharmacy or other use. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board did not
discuss other drive - throughs; their intent was to limit the number of drive- throughs. A minority of the
Planning Board felt a bank was part of the retail fabric as shoppers needed money to visit retail stores.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Ms. Shippen's suggestion to expand the downtown retail
core to Railroad Avenue. Mr. Chave agreed there was potential for retail in that area but it was long term
and the Council may want to consider it when the ferry terminal was relocated or significant development
occurred that would encourage retail development in that area. He noted the intent of the 12 -foot first
floor heights in that area was to encourage retail uses.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Mr. Adams' comment regarding incentives versus
restrictions, asking whether sufficient incentives were provided. Mr. Chave answered parking was the
primary incentives other than incentives to obtain design features. He acknowledged there were few
incentives that could be provided due to the restrictions in bulk and height. Councilmember Moore asked
whether requiring less parking downtown was intended to encourage downtown to be pedestrian friendly.
Mr. Chave agreed, explaining the limited commercial parking requirement was intended to provide an
incentive for construction of commercial space. He noted the height restrictions limited how parking
could be provided on smaller sites, the reason for the 4800 square foot threshold for parking.
Councilmember Moore referred to the definition of retail, noting many service businesses also sold
products. Mr. Chave acknowledged most business were a mixture, the predominate character of the
business determined how it was classified. For example an office was an office regardless of whether it
had a walk -in sales component; a restaurant may also have a catering service but was still a service
business. Councilmember Moore asked whether a real estate office was considered retail because they
sold houses. Mr. Chave answered no. He noted all zones currently allowed retail stores, offices and
services. It only became an issue if the Council wanted to be more restrictive with regard to uses.
Councilmember Moore referred to Mr. Kreiman's question whether the proposal would prevent the
construction of a building like the Chanterelle or the Edmonds Theater. Mr. Chave answered it would
depend on the zone; the Chanterelle, currently approximately 30 feet in height at the street, could be
constructed in the BD zone, the BD2 zone would require a step -back. He noted there were provisions in
the code that would allow restoration of a building similar to the Chanterelle. Councilmember Moore
commented that would be a good argument for extending the BD I zone to Railroad Avenue.
Councilmember Moore inquired about the Planning Board's vision for the 4th Avenue Corridor. Mr.
Chave answered the Planning Board felt the driver for the 4th Avenue Corridor would be the public
improvements. The Planning Board tried an initial concept for the entire corridor, but concern was
expressed by property owners that their options were restricted much more than downtown properties.
The Planning Board then decided to provide options for property owners in the corridor — construction of
a traditional commercial building, renovating one of the existing homes, or construction of a multi family
building that provided a live /work component. The Planning Board felt until the public improvements
began to occur, it was too soon to prescribe anything specific for that corridor.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 9
Councilmember Moore referred to setback versus step -back, recalling the argument against mandating
setback was that without a comprehensive redesign of Main and 5 , the result would be buildings that
jutted in and out. Mr. Chave agreed that Mr. Hinshaw was concerned that requiring a setback that pushed
new buildings back from the sidewalk would create an uneven fagade. When the Planning Board
discussed this previously, they were interested in obtaining additional sidewalk regardless.
Councilmember Moore commented she could support setbacks in some areas but not in the retail core as
there were several buildings in that area that were unlikely to redevelop. Mr. Chave agreed it would be
unrealistic in the retail core; there may be opportunities via redevelopment in other zones.
Councilmember Olson commented even with a 15 -foot first floor height, the mechanical equipment, etc.
would result in a first floor ceiling height of 15 feet. She asked if the ceiling height would be greater if
the mechanical equipment was exposed. Mr. Chave estimated exposed equipment could create ceiling
heights of 13.5 -14 feet maximum. Councilmember Olson recalled Planning Board Member Guenther
mentioned there were new procedures to resolve concerns with energy consumption with higher ceiling
heights. Mr. Chave stated Board Member Guenther's point was heating had more to do with insulation,
building design, and circulation and less with total space.
Councilmember Wambolt questioned the likelihood and /or desirability of new automobile sales and
service locating downtown. He suggested it be changed to only used automobile sales and service, noting
there was an auto service shop in the Petosa's building. Mr. Chave answered it was one of the historic
listed uses. Councilmember Wambolt suggested including a definition of primary and secondary uses.
Mr. Chave advised the definitions were in the definition section of the development code.
Councilmember Wambolt suggested the code state that within the BD zone the maximum height was 30
feet with no more than 2 floors about the street level and the ground floor must be at least 15 feet in
height. He pointed out Section 16.43.030.C.2 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," but did not state that the first floor
must be 15 feet in height. Mr. Chave noted this was what Mr. Marmion was referring to during the public
hearing. He acknowledged this would need to be clarified to state the 1.5 -foot first floor was a
requirement in the BD zone, not an option.
Councilmember Wambolt commented if it was agreed that buildings would be restricted to two floors,
why not state two floors above the street level. Mr. Chave answered properties on a downhill slope may
have three floors due to the slope. He noted the step -back would accomplish the same goal.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Kreiman's comment regarding notched buildings on east -west
streets. Mr. Chave envisioned the only place in the BD 1 zone where there would be the possibility of an
additional floor was the east side of 5th due to the slope. He noted there was a provision in the code that
allowed entrances to be staggered to accommodate a building that stepped down the slope.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Section 16.43.030.C.5 regarding architectural features,
recommending the language read a "single" decorative element.
Councilmember Orvis asked if the open space requirement was the same for all zones. Mr. Chave stated
it applied to all buildings in all zones. Councilmember Orvis asked if the open space requirement could
be tailored to each zone. Mr. Chave agreed it could as long as reasoning /logic was provided.
Council President Dawson questioned whether the protections for historic buildings in the BD1 zone
should be expanded beyond buildings on the historic register to include buildings that were part of the
downtown fabric. Mr. Chave answered the reason for linking the protections to the Edmonds Register of
Historic Buildings was it was difficult to define a historic building without a mechanism to declare it
historic. The Edmonds Register was in the code, was a voluntary measure property owners could take
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 10
and provided a mechanism for identifying a building as historic. He agreed there was the risk that a
building that was not on the Register could possibly be lost.
Council President Dawson envisioned a scenario where a building that the Council wanted preserved but
the property owner wanted to sell for redevelopment, the property owner could refrain from having the
building added to the register. She observed there was a disincentive for property owners to place their
building on the Register. Mr. Chave answered the Edmonds Register of Historic Building was strictly
voluntary; without a mandatory listing, property owners could place their buildings on the register and
later remove it from the register to sell /demolish it. Mr. Snyder commented a draft of the nonconforming
provisions would be presented to the Council shortly. Those provisions address the void between a
building that is truly historic and commercial/residential reuse.
Council President Dawson commented allowing construction of a building to 30 feet in the BD1 did not
give as much incentive to remodeling an existing building if it could be replaced with a new 30 foot
building. Mr. Chave referred to the Heartland study which found the income /investment in many of the
buildings downtown was so high that it would be difficult to create an economic incentive to demolish the
building. Council President Dawson commented one incentive would be requiring 1 -story or 25 -foot
buildings in the BD 1 zone.
In regard to the question whether a building like Chanterelle could be constructed, Council President
Dawson pointed out a new building could look like Chanterelle but could not be as tall. Mr. Chave
displayed the facade of the Chanterelle building, identifying where the 25 foot height would be if
buildings were not allowed to achieve 30 feet.
Council President Dawson asked whether the Planning Board discussed the concept of allowing a 30 -foot
building height with a 15 -foot first floor versus allowing 28 feet for the additional 3 feet of first floor
height. Mr. Chave answered it would be difficult to provide two floors with a 25 foot height. He noted
the building height often depended on cornices; if decorative cornices were allowed, 28 versus 30 feet
was less of an issue. If cornices were required to be below the height limit, then it was a bigger issue
because a 15 -foot first floor height and a 3 -foot cornice would allow only another 12 -feet for the second
floor which would make it difficult to accommodate a commercial space. He noted the buildings in the
BD 1 were among the most elaborately decorated.
Council President Dawson observed the additional height appeared to be for decorative elements and not
the building itself. Mr. Chave answered it allows flexibility in design. Council President Dawson noted
there was no requirement that the additional feet be used for decorative elements in the BD1 zone and
asked whether that could be required. Mr. Chave answered it could be required; staff would need to
develop appropriate language. He noted the difference between 28 and 30 feet would not provide usable
space, only additional opportunity for embellishment /decoration. Council President Dawson questioned
whether that should be required if that was the intent or whether that was a feature of design guidelines.
Mr. Chave agreed it may be more appropriately considered in the design guidelines.
Council President Dawson asked whether the Planning Board or staff had discussed a requirement for a
building to provide 51% commercial space in the BD1. Mr. Chave answered the 51% was eliminated
from the code because 51% required not only the ground floor but also a portion of the upper floors be
commercial which created isolated offices in a mixed use building. Another issue was that requirement
pushed commercial space to the upper floors in buildings where parking was provided on the first floor.
Council President Dawson recalled the City reduced the parking requirement for residential uses
previously using the rationale the parking could be used by retail during the day. She questioned whether
consideration would now need to be given to increasing the parking requirements for residential if the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 11
parking requirement for commercial uses was reduced. Mr. Chave agreed it may be necessary to
reconsider the parking requirements once the City had some experience with development under these
regulations. The reduction in parking was one of the few incentives provided to developers. He
commented one space for smaller units was adequate; however, it may be appropriate to increase the
parking requirement for larger residential units as they were more likely to house more people and have
more cars. Increasing the parking requirement for larger units may encourage smaller, more affordable
units to be built. He suggested talking with lenders regarding their requirements for lending construction
funds. Council President Dawson supported decreasing the parking requirements for retail /commercial
with a corresponding increasing in the residential parking requirement.
Council President Dawson asked whether there was any danger in allowing new car sales subject to a
CUP. She recalled there were retail areas in Seattle with luxury car showrooms. Mr. Chave noted the
proposal was to permit new car sales in the BD2 and BD3. He did not envision a CUP would be needed
in BD3, but possibly in BD2 due to its more pedestrian environment.
Council President Dawson asked whether the size of the elevator shaft should be limited. Mr. Chave
suggested a percentage or square foot limitation, whichever was less. Council President Dawson asked
whether the Planning Board discussed combining an elevator shaft with a decorative element. Mr. Chave
answered no. Mr. Snyder suggested the elevator shaft be the minimum necessary to satisfy the
International Building Code. Mr. Chave compared the description of decorative architectural elements in
Section 16.43.030.C.5.c with the description of elevators or stair openings in 16.43.030.C.5.e.
Council President Dawson asked whether balconies were addressed in this section of the code. Mr.
Chave answered they were addressed in the engineering standards section of the code; changing the
standards would not require Planning Board review but would require a public hearing. Council
President Dawson acknowledged the issue of balconies was a concern for many people.
Councilmember Orvis asked how establishing a first floor height of 14 feet would affect existing
buildings. Mr. Chave stated it would depend on the nonconforming provisions. Councilmember Orvis
observed once a building was damaged beyond a certain amount, they were required to update to the
current code.
Councilmember Wambolt commented there were two different types of elevator shafts, an elevator that
served the number of floors in the building for which the code allowed another 3 feet. The 12 -foot
extension for an elevator shaft was to accommodate an elevator to access the roof.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Marmion's question whether pitched roofs would allow an
additional 5 feet in building height. Mr. Chave commented Mr. Marmion was referencing Section
16.43.030.C.5.d. The Planning Board wanted to encourage pitched roofs on downtown buildings; their
intent was the whole building could not be an additional 5 feet, only the most steep portion of the roof
could extend higher.
Council President Dawson commented it appeared Councilmembers had some amendments they wanted
to make to the Planning Board's recommendation. It was agreed to schedule further discussion /action on
the October 3 agenda. She advised the public hearing had been closed and the Council would not take
additional testimony on October 3.
Council President Dawson recalled Mr. Chave's suggestion that the public hearing be held in two parts.
As the public may have anticipated they would have another opportunity to comment on the map and
where the zones were applied, the public hearing was reopened.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 12
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, reiterated her suggestion to extend the BD 1 zone to Railroad Avenue,
recalling the Downtown Waterfront Plan addressed relating the waterfront with downtown which the
current zoning did not do. She recommended zoning on Main be based on current plans and not on the
Edmonds Crossing project as that was a nebulous project that was unlikely to be completed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
EXTEND DISCSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, commented the zoning map should match existing plans and should extend
the BDl zone to the waterfront. Although he was not opposed to the RM 1.5 zoning, he questioned
whether it was mixing a rezone with the creation of the BD zones.
John Heighway, Edmonds, recommended the Council take the time necessary to consider the issues that
arose tonight including the extension of the BDl zone to the waterfront. He supported taking a broader
view of the zoning so that changes would not be necessary in the near future.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, estimated the ceiling height of the Council Chambers at 15 -16 -feet, noting
that provided some perspective for decision - making on first floor heights.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Shippen's suggestion to extend the BD1 zone to the
waterfront.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, agreed with the suggestion to extend the BD1 zone to the waterfront. He
referred to Mayor Haakenson's comments in the Enterprise regarding the possibility of increasing
building heights in areas on the waterfront. He summarized too many zones made the process too
complex, recommending the use of the KIS (keep it simple) concept.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Council President Dawson asked staff to respond to Mr. Marmion's comment regarding the change to the
RM 1.5 zone. Mr. Chave answered changes in zoning were the subject of this public hearing, creating
new zones as well as rezoning property. Both were advertised at the Planning Board public hearing and
the City Council public hearing.
Council President Dawson asked why the BD1 zone was not extended to the waterfront. Mr. Chave
answered the intent was to focus retail where the strength was and not extend it into areas that might
become retail in the future but was not currently established. Council President Dawson asked the
rationale for the BD1 boundaries. Mr. Chave responded the intent was to focus the retail core into a
small, defined area. It may also be a carryover from the discussion regarding limiting uses; the boundary
was less important if retail was encouraged but not mandated. Council President Dawson noted one of
the differences between the zones was the first floor height requirement. Mr. Chave pointed out also in
the BD1, a step -back was not required to achieve 30 feet. He noted by not extending the BD1 zone to the
waterfront, the step -backs would open the views somewhat. There were also no parking requirements for
any use in the BD1 zone versus no residential parking requirements in the BD2 zone. Council President
Dawson commented the market would likely address residential units without parking.
Councilmember Wambolt recalled at the time of Mr. Hinshaw's workshops with the Council, a
Councilmember recommended extending the BD zone to the waterfront but Mr. Hinshaw convinced the
majority of the Council that it should end at 3rd because there was not enough retail business to occupy a
larger area.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess at 9:40 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 13
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Street vendor 5A. PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET VENDOR REGULATIONS
Regulations
Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled on July 25 the Council discussed a potential
amendment to the street vendor regulations as a result of a proposal by a local business person to operate
concessions from a trailer near the ferry holding lanes. The Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance
that would address the issue as well as research other cities' ordinances regarding street vendors.
Following discussion with the Council on July 25, he reviewed the issue with City Attorney Scott Snyder
who suggested an alternative that would provide the Council the flexibility to address unique
circumstances but maintain the existing street vendor regulations. Mr. Snyder explained the existing
street vendor regulations were developed with a great deal of public input over a 21/2 year period and he
envisioned a more simple method of handling proposals for the use of public right -of -way. He explained
the Council could not grant a permanent use of the public right -of -way and the matter need not be quasi
judicial as it was an issue of Council legislative discretion. He proposed an enabling ordinance that
would allow the Council to consider proposals for use of the public right -of -way with the inclusion of the
specifics in the concession agreement.
Mr. Snyder recommended concession agreements for the use of public right -of -way would be at the
Council's discretion; however, a concession agreement for a park required it be consistent with the
Comprehensive Park Plan for that park. He summarized this approach would be flexible enough to
address the limited number of requests that arise.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, stated his son had a concession trailer and discovered there were a number of
agencies with requirements including the Health District and the Fire Department, as well as the need to
obtain a right -of -way permit. He questioned whether it was appropriate for the Council to consider such
matters and preferred the City establish rules for applicants with the decision made administratively.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Snyder advised the City had a process such as Mr. Hertrich suggested for right -of -way permits for
construction, etc. The proposal was for use of the right -of -way for a concession, therefore consideration
of a lease was an appropriate issue for the Council to consider.
Council President Dawson supported the proposed method. She asked how the Council would decide
who to allow use of the right -of -way. Mr. Snyder commented the City could accept Requests for
Proposal (RFQ) for prime locations. He commented the Council had absolute discretion in the use of the
public right -of -way as long as it did not provide any permanent right to occupy, the traveling public was
accommodated and all handicapped accessibility provisions were observed. He offered to add an annual
RFQ process to the ordinance. He commented although the Council had the legal right to revoke a
concession agreement at any time, he assumed the Council would want a concession agreement that
extended for a period of time.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3604. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The
ordinance reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO ADOPT A NEW CHAPTER 4.04 ENTITLED
CONCESSION AGREEMENTS.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 14
Old woodway 5B. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE OLD
Elementary WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE.
School Site
Councilmember Moore recalled at the last Council meeting she suggested the Council have further
discussion regarding the purchase and this was the first opportunity to do so. She noted the entire Council
at one time had agreed to purchase all 11 acres. She pointed out Councilmember Wambolt was not on the
Council at the time, leaving six of the current members who agreed to purchase all 11 acres and who set a
target price of $7.5 million. The Council backed off from the purchase when rumors surfaced from
unknown sources about a price up to $12 million; even she agreed the City could not afford that price.
The Council subsequently agreed to purchase 5.5 acres, not the half she wanted which included the
playfields, but the treed front portion. This left the well - drained, full -size playfields for the Edmonds
School District to sell to the highest bidder. The bidder was revealed recently, Burnstead Homes, and the
price was $4,586,280.60; the City paid $3.2 million for the 5.5 acres it purchased, a total cost of
approximately $7,790,000. She noted this was approximately $200,000 - $300,000 more than the target
price the Council originally set nearly two years ago; the price had not changed much over that time.
Councilmember Moore pointed out these would be the only full -size playfields owned by the City. The
City did not own. Civic Center playfield, the only other full -size playfield within the City limits. The
Civic Center playfields were owned by the Edmonds School District and the lease expired in 17 years. In
17 years the City may need to purchase the Civic Center playfields from the School District. She
explained the City had more demand for playfields and open space than could currently be met. The
City's park acquisition funds have exceeded projections and local real estate forecasts anticipate the
current trend will continue, resulting in the City continuing to collect higher than anticipated REST funds.
For anyone who did not trust that the collection of REET funds would continue to escalate, she pointed
out the City could sell the front portion of the property in the future if necessary.
Councilmember Moore commented the $4.58 million asking price was well within the City's means; the
debt service would be approximately $400,000. The Comprehensive Plan and the Parks Plan supported
the purchase and Snohomish County supported having a park of this size in this area. She summarized
large open spaces and full playfields owned by the public were essential for a flourishing urban life,
particularly in a City that prides itself on parks, supporting healthy family life, and keeping children fit.
As density increased, more open space and park land would be needed.
Councilmember Moore explained the School Board had agreed to sell to Burnstead Homes and the deal
closed at the end of the week. The Council had time to submit another offer on the remainder of the
property. She acknowledged it was unknown whether the School Board would accept the City's offer,
although they had stated the City was the preferred buyer. She also acknowledged it was unknown
whether the School Board would meet in time to consider the City's offer, but that would not be known
unless the Council submitted an offer. She pointed out for Counciimembers who did not think the School
Board would accept the City's offer or meet to consider the offer, there was no risk by voting in favor of
submitting an offer to purchase the remainder of the site.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
SUBMIT A PURCHASE OFFER TO THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $4.8 MILLION FOR THE REMAINING 5.5 ACRES OF THE OLD
WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SITE.
Councilmember Moore explained the price included approximately $150,000 for cost incurred to get out
of the contract with Burnstead Homes and the costs incurred for surveying, soil analysis, inspections,
attorney fees, title searches, etc.
Councilmember Olson explained this had been a very difficult decision for her; she loved parks and
believed they were an incredible asset to the community. However, as the Chair of the Finance
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 15
Committee, she had to do what was best for the entire City. She met with representatives of the
neighborhood group who support the purchase of the entire 1 I acres and acknowledged they had a lot of
good ideas. She also met with the City's Finance Director Dan Clements and Assistant Director Kathleen
Junglov and after talking with them reached the conclusion it was not fiscally prudent to purchase the
remainder of the property. She explained this purchase banked on the idea there would be no problems in
the next few years and left the City with no funds for contingencies such as opportunities to purchase
waterfront property that may become available. She noted there was also no guarantee that the City
would receive any IAC grants to assist with the purchase; a grant request to purchase the first 5.5 acres
was recently denied. She concluded the City was operating on a very tight budget which was anticipated
to continue. The purchase of all 11 acres would require bonding $4.5 million and she was unwilling to
add a commitment for an annual debt service of over $400,000. She did not plan to change her vote
regarding the purchase of the remaining 5.5 acres.
Council President Dawson agreed with Councilmember Olson's comments, pointing out the City did not
receive a recent grant request for $500,000 to assist with the purchase of the first 5.5 acres. That
combined with the developer's costs associated with purchasing the property which she estimated would
exceed $150,000, left the City approximately $1 million below where it was believed to be with regard to
funding the purchase. She acknowledged everyone wanted to purchase this property if the funds were
available; however, purchasing the entire 11 acres would limit the purchase of other park property
elsewhere in the community in the foreseeable future. She appreciated the neighborhood's passion,
concluding this was an issue upon which great minds could differ. She summarized the City could not
afford to purchase the additional property although she regretted that it was not possible.
With regard to waterfront property, Councilmember Moore pointed out the City owned the Senior Center
property and could create a park there if the Council had the will to do so. With regard to acquiring other
open space in the City, she pointed out it would not get less expensive than this and it was unlikely there
would be an opportunity to purchase a parcel of this size or a parcel with well - drained, existing playfields.
She pointed out REST funds would be used to purchase this property which did not affect operating funds
and the front portion could be sold in the future if necessary.
Councilmember Marin commented as much as he would like to purchase the remaining property, he had
not changed his position and would vote against the motion.
Councilmember Wambolt advised he had not changed his position, agreeing the purchase of the
remaining property was not a smart financial move. He commented the price paid by Burnstead Homes
was likely twice the purchase price due to the cost to demolish the buildings on the site. In addition the
contingency amount would likely be several hundred thousand dollars, not $150,000. He anticipated the
total cost to purchase the remaining property plus demolition costs would be approximately $10 million.
He preferred to use those funds for roads and sidewalks, pointing out the City had already committed
REST 2 revenue, over $750,000 annually, to roads and sidewalks. He concluded the current overlay
cycle was 70 years, illustrating the need for additional funding for roads and sidewalks. He also served
on the Finance Committee and agreed it was their responsibility to do what was right for the entire City.
Councilmember Plunkett emphasized the Council could not afford not to purchase this property. The
opportunity to make such a purchase arose only once or twice during an elected official's tenure. He
commented on park purchases Council made in the past including land downtown and a skate park near
Lynnwood, remarking this was an opportunity to purchase one of the last large parcels for a park. He
encouraged Council to support this purchase, to do something for prosperity, families and the future.
Council President Dawson requested staff comment on another park project the City was working on in
south Edmonds. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained the other project in that
neighborhood was a regional park project at the old Woodway High School which must remain school or
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 16
park property in perpetuity due to an underlying DNR lease. He commented the property was currently
under- utilized and had not been improved since the high school was relocated. A lot of political will
would be required to develop the site; Representative Brian Sullivan requested $3 million from the
legislature in the last legislative session which was not approved. He explained it was not unexpected that
the request would be denied, the intent was to raise awareness regarding the project. Representative Hans
Dunshee and Senator Karen Fraser have visited the site and are supportive of the project. Plans are to
request the same amount during the upcoming legislative session. He noted a great deal of community
support would also be required to move this project forward. He summarized this was a great site and
there was no property to purchase, funds were needed only for development.
Council President Dawson urged the community to turn their attention to the development of the old
Woodway High School site. She noted Representative Maralyn Chase had been in the audience earlier
and hoped she would be supportive of that effort.
Councilmember Moore recalled the Council was informed of this opportunity immediately after she
proposed purchasing the old Woodway Elementary School site. She pointed out it was a totally different
project, the fields did not drain well and plans were to have the fields highly developed with stands and
restrooms, and would require reservations and possibly a cost to play on the fields. This was totally
different than a soccer /baseball field that the neighborhood could drop in on. With regard to road repairs,
Councilmember Moore pointed out the funds the Council allocated for road repairs were different than
the funds used for park acquisition. She agreed the Council could not afford not to purchase this property,
pointing out there were no other sites in the City with well drained, full -size playfields that would be for
sale. She commented the waterfront property the City recently purchased for $500,000 with no grant
application was a "postage stamp, an alley way" and could hardly be called a park.
Councilmember Olson commented there would be a couple of fields on the 5.5 acres the City purchased.
Councilmember Moore remarked they would not be full size. Councilmember Olson referred to
Councilmember Moore's question regarding how the park funds would be used, pointing out earlier in her
comments she envisioned the City would need to purchase the civic playfields in 17 years. She pointed
out if the City used all its park acquisition funds and REST funds did not continue to escalate, there
would not be funds available for the purchase of those fields in the future.
Councilmember Olson referred to Councilmember Moore's comment that if necessary the City could sell
the front half of the property, leaving a park on the back half, recalling both the Fire and Police
Departments said that was not a good idea. She urged the community to get involved in the development
of the old Woodway High School site, recalling in her discussions with members of the neighborhood
group that one of most highly desired amenities was ballfields.
Councilmember Wambolt acknowledged REST 1 was used for park acquisition and there were funds
available. The Council had agreed to allocate REET 2 funds in excess of $750,000 annually to roads and
sidewalks. He pointed out REET 2 had not been used for roads and sidewalks until the Council's recent
decision; the Council could make a similar decision with regard to the use of REET 1 funds.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, ORVIS, AND
PLUNKETT IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS
WAMBOLT, OLSON, AND MARIN OPPOSED.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Conversion of Norma Bruns, Edmonds, commented on the conversion of rental properties to condominiums. She
Rental described their experience with receiving a written order to vacate their apartment in 90 days which did
Properties to not include an offer to assist with relocation or any acknowledgement of the difficulties the order to
Condominiums
vacate might cause. She referred to a recent AARP article entitled "Surviving the Condominium Craze"
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 17
that described the havoc such a move caused seniors. She noted some jurisdictions had regulations with
regard to conversions such as mandating that financial assistance be offered, allowing extensions for
seniors or placing moratoriums on conversions. She commented on the impact that condominium
conversions had on the community's demographics and on the ability for people of limited means to find
affordable housing. She cited a Snohomish County statistic that 244 units had been converted in 2004,
pointing out approximately 100 had been converted in Edmonds this year. She urged the Council to
consider rules to ease the transition for tenants such as requiring financial assistance for tenants who must
relocate or requiring a percentage of rental units remain available in the community.
old woodWay Heather Marks, Edmonds, a member of the community fighting for the park, expressed her
Elementary disappointment with the Council's decision, particularly Couneilmember Olson and Council President
School Site
Dawson, questioning their sincerity that they wished the City could purchase the property. She expressed
frustration with the emphasis placed on roads, pointing out the importance of human services. She was
also frustrated that the Council appeared to be a wall that did not listen to the citizens. She distributed
information that described good public servants as people who did not manage their constituents but
listened and responded to the community, recognized the community's assets were the citizens, and did
not replace the work of the citizens. She concluded the Council was underestimating the neighborhood
association; they would not support the development of fields at the old Woodway High School site as
they would not fulfill their needs.
old Mill Town Elisabeth Larman, Edmonds, recalled the editor of the Edmonds Beacon referred to the Old Mill Town
complex complex as the Town's oldest and most iconic property in Edmonds and many subsequent articles
indicated the complex would be lovingly restored by Mr. Gregg to retain its sense of history. She referred
to an Enterprise article quoting Mr. Gregg's architect's comment that the planned renovation would treat
the building's history with respect and Mr. Gregg's comment in the Beacon that the renovation would
please a lot of people including the Historic Society and would preserve the historic architecture. After
obtaining a copy of the plans, she was astounded to learn of Mr. Gregg's plans and appeared before the
Architectural Design Board who, without addressing her concerns, approved a building that did not
respect their guidelines. She commented it appeared the building was approved prior to the meeting as it
was approved within minutes of the presentation and without discussion. She encouraged citizens to take
an interest in the renovation, commenting adjectives used to describe Old Mill Town such as cute, small,
quaint, human scale, historic, fun, different, and charming would be replaced by huge, cold, uninviting,
industrial - looking, stucco, beige tiles, weirdly shaped metal awnings over the main entrance, and 6 -foot
wide fiberglass awnings. She advised four of the five ADB members present voted in favor (Board
Member Michel voted no) of the huge, 2- story, completely filled in, block long, monolithic building
crowned with a steel channel cornice that contained more office space and less retail space. She
concluded the new building would have no sense of history and would visually tie in with the office
buildings to the south rather than the old retail buildings to the north. She noted fewer stores reduced
tourism and the desirability to visit downtown and eventually lessened the desirability of living
downtown. She concluded if the City continued to allow larger buildings, Edmonds' identity would be
lost. Ms. Larman also submitted a letter from Barbara Chase, Edmonds.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, relayed "Honolulu City Council Tells Admirals to Move Pearl Harbor to the
Te m na at Pt. North Shore," the first chapter of a "ferry tale" entitled "The Ferry Terminal Farce." She recalled the
Edwaras Edmonds City Council asked the State Ferry System to build a new ferry terminal at Pt. Edwards and
consultants were hired to study the relocation who determined Pt. Edwards was exposed and unprotected
from winds and waves. The consultant's findings stated the exposure would make docking a challenging
exercise and additional protection would be required due to the exposure to wind and waves. Despite the
cautionary tone of the first report, Edmonds hired another consultant whose findings also referred to the
exposed setting and potentially extreme wave action. A consultant who asked ferry captains about
docking at the Pt. Edwards site relayed the captains' concern about their ability to dock at a facility
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 18
constructed at Pt. Edwards due to wind and wave exposure. She advised the next chapter, "The Oregon
Trail Revisited" would address dimensions and distances. In the meantime, she recommended the
Council visit the ferry terminal which was 600 feet from Railroad Avenue.
Old Woodw ay Susan Marsen, Edmonds, commented her first foray into active city government had been a huge
Elementary disappointment. She advised the community had been asking the City to purchase this property for the
School site
past 13 years. The last two years had been marked by an absence of transparency and goodwill by the
Council.
commercial Robert Rhine, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Wambolt's remarks in the press recently,
w °odsmokc commenting if he was unhappy with his condominium, he could sell it and move. He objected to
issue
Councilmember Wambolt picking on the restaurant owner and urged him to stop.
Recognition of Don Kreiman, Edmonds, recognized Starbucks for their numerous generous and significant
starbucks contributions to the City including $15,000 to assist with construction of the new bandshell constructed in
contributions City Park in celebration of the Rotary's 100`h anniversary and $15,000 to the construction of a skate park
for younger skaters behind the Boys & Girls Club. He also recognized Starbucks' employees for assisting
with various community events, advising for every hour one of their employees volunteered, Starbucks
contributed $10 to the cause. He reminded that for each dollar spent in the City, the City received $0.01 .
in sales tax to keep property taxes down and services intact. He relayed the thanks of the Edmonds
Daybreakers Rotary to all local businesses and especially Starbucks.
Old Woodway John O'Leary, Edmonds, commented the residents who live near the old Woodway Elementary School
Elementary 11 site have streets in poor condition and no sidewalks et the were here supporting the ark. He
School site p � Y Y pp g p
concluded they would rather have a park than nice sidewalks and roads.
Old Mill Town I Don Jensen, Edmonds, commented the south anchor of the downtown core was Old Mill Town. He was
disturbed to learn that the renovation of Old Mill Town would not reflect the vision for the retail core. He
urged the Council to take a serious look at what was happening to Old Mill Town, in particular how
decisions were arrived at by other bodies within the government.
old woodway Frank Stiger, Edmonds, submitted a Seattle Times article regarding the value of parks. He pointed out
Elementary Councilmember Olson turned down an opportunity to purchase the remainder of the old Woodway Park
school site property in favor of development of Woodway High School which was not a sure thing. He urged
Councilmember Wambolt to consider the impact new housing on that site would have on the City's
services and infrastructure. He hoped the Council would live to regret their decision. He pointed out the
Council had no way of knowing what would happen in the intervening 17 years until the City's lease was
up on the civic field and was disappointed the Council would give up this opportunity for an unknown.
old Wodway Rob Trahms, Edmonds, a member of the Southwest Edmonds Neighborhood Association, relayed it had
Elementary been a very frustrating and disappointing evening for many residents. He thanked Councilmembers
School Site
Moore, Plunkett and Orvis for their vision and their appreciation for a diamond in the rough and was
disappointed the remainder of the Council did not share their vision. He summarized southwest Edmonds
would continue to fight for that vision. He advised of the Southwest Edmonds Neighborhood
Association's website, www.southwestedmonds.org.
old woodway Scott Chapman, Edmonds, anticipated the Council's decision tonight as the Council had not changed
Elementary their minds over the past nine months despite the neighborhood's efforts. He thanked Councilmembers
School Site
Moore, Plunkett and Orvis for their vote. He questioned what guarantee residents had with regard to the
future development of the site, expressing concern with the lack of public input on development of this
size. He noted there were several PRDs approved by staff in the past and residents had no guarantee the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 19
development would adhere to the RS -8 zoning. He expressed concern with potential mitigation the City
would allow for trees and to address storm drainage issues on the property. He asked to be a party of
record on any development application. Next, he pointed out the reason there had not been any retail
development in the downtown core was because it was not economically feasible.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed dismay with the disservice to the City via the decision made by
Old Woodway
Elementary Councilmembers Olson, Dawson, Wambolt and Marin and congratulated Councilmembers Moore,
school site Plunkett and Orvis. With regard to the redevelopment of Old Mill Town, he commented during a recent
old Min Town ADB meeting, following audience comments and a brief discussion, the ADB made their decision with
review by the little change to the proposal other than a small change staff recommended. He objected to Mr. Chave's
ADB suggestion to leave decisions to the ADB, advising the current ADB followed staff's recommendation and
did not make their own decisions. He concluded the problem was that staff was not doing their work.
For example, during a recent request to the ADB to change the roof heights on one of the buildings at Pt.
Edwards, the ADB found staff had not provided elevation drawings. He concluded the problem with staff
would be exacerbated by multiple zones downtown.
old wooaway Corinne Bushey, Edmonds, commented on the destruction and removal of nature that had occurred in
Elementary Edmonds during the two years since she has moved here. She cited Port Townsend as a city that had
school site retained its charm. She recognized Councilmembers Moore, Plunkett and Orvis for their political
decency.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PROPOSED RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL ON EMISSIONS
Res# Support Kyoto
Support 1129 ENDORSING THE U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT AND
S
Protocal on REQUESTING PERIODIC REPORTS REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE CITY TOWARD
Emissions IMPLEMENTING THE U.S. MAYOR'S PROTECTION AGREEMENT
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1129 IN SUPPORT OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL ON
EMISSIONS, ENDORSING THE U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT AND
REQUESTING PERIODIC REPORTS REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE CITY TOWARD
IMPLEMENTING THE U.S. MAYORS PROTECTION AGREEMENT.
Council President Dawson explained in May 2005 Mayor Haakenson joined with 266 other mayors in
signing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. In conjunction with Mayor Haakenson's signing
of that agreement, the Council proposed a resolution endorsing and adopting the U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors Meeting.
Councilmember Moore expressed her support for the resolution and was pleased progress was being
made.
Councilmember Marin expressed his support for the resolution, urging the Council and staff to be
reasonable in their expectations as the efforts could be costly and time consuming.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Committee on 8 UPDATE FROM THE CITIZENS COMMITEE ON U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION
US Mayors
Climate AGREEMENT.
Protection
Agreement J Mayor Haakenson explained the committee had met three times since the inaugural meeting on August
10. The first meeting was spent getting to know each other, discussing the Mayors Agreement, and
brainstorming about ways to proceed. They determined the mission to be four -fold in nature: 1)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 20
encourage citizens to be a part of the solution, 2) encourage city staff and citizens to conserve current
resources, 3) work with the City Council to implement ideas, and 4) address effectively the future impacts
of climate change.
Mayor Haakenson advised he met with staff from ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental
Issues) who is a great resource for cities in their endeavors to reduce and mitigate climate change. In
order to join their organization, he asked Council to approve an additional resolution of support which
along with information about ICLEI was included in the Council packet. Mayor Haakenson explained
passage of the resolution would allow the committee to take their first measurement steps by obtaining
their "tool kits" in order to figure baseline and set reduction targets. Also included in the Council packet
was a preliminary list of the actions taken by the City of Edmonds to slow the climate change, many of
which match up with the actions listed in the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The ICLEI
representative was impressed with the level of response from the City of Edmonds in regard to actions
already taken in this area.
Mayor Haakenson advised the committee had many valuable ideas and he looked forward to working
with them as they continued to look for ways to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions in the future. As
requested, he planned to continue to update the Council on the committee's progress.
Res# 1130
Support ICLEI COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
Membership APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1130 SUPPORTING THE CITY OF EDMONDS' REQUEST
FOR MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION IN THE ICLEI CLIMATE PROTECTION
CAMPAIGN.
At the request of Councilmember Moore, Mayor Haakenson offered to provide the Council a list of
committee members. Councilmember Moore was thrilled with the initial list of actions. She commented
there were parking lots in the City whose lights were on all night such as the Edmonds Center for the
Arts. Mayor Haakenson offered to investigate.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Finance I Finance Committee
Committee Councilmember Olson reported the Committee discussed the Non - Represented Compensation Policy and
after reviewing the pros and cons of various options, there was consensus that neither of the plans brought
forward were acceptable and that an updated approach needed to be developed. Factors cited for this
conclusion included existing job descriptions that have not been updated since 1997, the compensation
system had not had a major review /overhaul since 1997, neither of the two plans were linked to an overall
city business plan with measurable outcomes and the existing L5 plan resulted in numerous employees
not receiving a COLA or merit increase. The Committee recommended the L5 plan be retained until a
new plan was adopted, all non - represented employees be entitled to a COLA, staff will recommend a
merit increase to be included in the 2007 -2008 budget, and funding for a comprehensive compensation
and classification study should be included in the 2007 -2008 budget. The committee will discuss the
Non - Represented Compensation Policy again at their next meeting.
Public Safety Public Safety Committee
Committee Councilmember Marin reported the Committee discussed enforcement options related to barking dogs and
cats on private property; staff will provide options at next month's meeting. Next, the Committee
discussed the implementation timetable for Substitute House Bill 1756 regarding establishing response
times for fire flashover and brain damage associated with advance life support. The Committee also
discussed a proposed parking restriction on 220th and the potential connection of 184th Street SW to
Olympic View Drive.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 21
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson requested Council retain their materials regarding Agenda Item 4 for further discussion
Economic on October 3. He next reported on the hiring status of a new Economic Development Director, advising
Development the market was quite limited at this time. He explained when the City hired Ms. Gerend, Edmonds was
Director
one of the first cities in the State to hire an Economic Development Director. Since that time many cities
have hired Economic Development Directors and only 7 -8 applications were received. He planned to re-
advertise the position.
In response to a citizen comment that he planned to raise heights in the downtown area, he pointed out
that was not possible as he did not have the authority to raise heights without the Council's support.
lointMeeting Likely the citizen was referring to the Council's plans to hold a joint meeting with the Port on September
ith the Poirt 26 at 6:00 p.m. to receive an update from the Harbor Square Redevelopment Committee. He noted height
c °`nmiss'on was anticipated be an issue with redevelopment of Harbor Square as it was impossible to go underground
on that site.
it. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Economic and Council President Dawson reported at the Governor's Conference on Economic and Workforce
workforce Development she attended last week, she had a conversation with the Snohomish County Economic
Deveropment Development Director who offered to pass on leads for a boutique hotel. Mayor Haakenson advised a
boutique hotel was one of the ideas the Harbor Square Redevelopment Committee was interested in.
Council President Dawson advised Student Representative Nishimoto had to leave due to the late hour but
left a note thanking the Council for including her in this important Council meeting, finding the
discussion regarding the BD zones very interesting and expressing her appreciation for the Council's
welcoming attitude. She also advised of the Edmonds - Woodway High School versus Lynnwood High
School football game on Friday, September 22 at Edmonds - Woodway High School at 8:00 p.m.
Councilmember Moore expressed her deep condolences to Dan Clements and his family for the loss of
their son.
Councilmember Moore advised the Hotel Bellweather was interested in possibly locating in Edmonds.
She next expressed her deep disappointment in the vote taken tonight with regard to the purchase of the
Old woodway remainder of the old Woodway Elementary School property. She pointed out it was appropriate for her to
Elementary be disappointed because this was her passion and she mistakenly believed it was the passion of the
Council and was part of the City's mission and values to acquire more park land when the opportunity
arose. She regretted the result of the vote, commenting it had been a fiasco for a long time because the
City drug their feet. She was disappointed in Council President Dawson and Councilmembers Olson and
Marin. She felt the Council operated in too much secrecy during the process and urged the Council not to
do so in the future. She commented most of the Executive Sessions were not about price but rather
whether to purchase the property and the public was not included in those discussions. She looked
forward to Councilmembers' proposals in the near future regarding park land they planned to acquire.
Councilmember Olson pointed out the City did purchase 5.5 acres and she hoped the neighborhood
appreciated the park land they would get.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:26 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 18, 2006
Page 22