Loading...
11/21/2006 City CouncilNovember 21, 2006 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Deanna Dawson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Kisa Nishimoto, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager Steve Bullock, Senior Planner 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 Plunkett requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL Approve Minutes B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2006. Approve Claim C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #92059 THROUGH #92229 IN THE AMOUNT OF Checks $354,030.01 FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2006, AND #92230 THROUGH #92347 IN THE AMOUNT OF $213,715.89 FOR NOVEMBER 16, 2006. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL HOLIDAY BUY BACK CHECKS #44062 THROUGH #44164 IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,248.52 FOR NOVEMBER 15, 2006. Claim for Damages D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM FINIS G. TUPPER ($600.00 +). Ord# 3611 Salary E. ORDINANCE NO. 3611 — 2007 NON - REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE SALARY Ordinance ORDINANCE. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 1 Ord# 3612 Amend 2006 G. ORDINANCE NO. 3612 — 2006 FINAL BUDGET AMENDMENT. Budget Meadowdale H. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE MEADOWDALE BEACH Beach Rd. ROAD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF Drainage PROJECT. 2004 waterline I, REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 2004 WATERLINE Replacement Project REPLACEMENT PROJECT /PHASE III AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. City -wide J. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) TO ESTABLISH A CITY -WIDE BROADBAND Broadband NETWORK. '!Network RFI ater Rate ITEM F: WATER RATE ORDINANCE Ordinance Councilmember Plunkett pointed out this ordinance would enact a 3% increase in utility rates. He inquired regarding the Council's interest in scheduling a public hearing regarding the utility rate increase. It was the consensus of the Council to remove the Water Rate Ordinance from the agenda and schedule it for a public hearing, possibly on December 5. Mayor Haakenson recognized long -time Edmonds Councilmember John Nordquist in the audience who served as a Councilmember for over 30 years. Councilmember Plunkett recalled when he came of age to vote in approximately 1972, his mother encouraged him to always vote for Snohomish County Councilmember Gary Nelson and John Nordquist. He commented on his pleasure serving with Mr. Nordquist for five years, noting he always brought a lot to Councils meeting in a dignified and respectful manner. Mr. Nordquist recognized former Councilmembers Natalie Shippen and Norma Bruns also in the audience. 2007 -08 Budget 3. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2007 -08 BUDGET AND ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET Public Hearing A. PUBLIC HEARING Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained this item had two parts, first the public hearing; the packet contained staff's fourth response to Council questions as well as a list of proposed Council amendments. The second part, if the Council chose to adopt the budget tonight, the packet contained a budget ordinance and property tax ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Utility Engineer position would be paid from existing rates and there was an inference that this position would save the City money as a consultant would not be hired to do the work. Mr. Clements answered that was potentially correct. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the position would not be filled until 2008; he preferred to bring it back as a mid -year budget adjustment if a determination was made to add that position, thus it was not necessary to include it in the proposed 2007- 08 budget. Council President Dawson asked staff to comment on the compensation consultant. Mr. Clements explained this was a Council initiated concept. When reviewed by the Finance Committee, it was deemed necessary due to the number of years since a classification /compensation study had been conducted as well as the desire to link compensation with a performance measurement via a corporate work plan which would require a consultant. Council President Dawson inquired about the funding source for the compensation consultant. Mr. Clements answered the proposal was for the majority of the cost to be funded from the General Fund as well as funds from Utilities and Fleet Management based on the number of employees. Council President Dawson asked how adding $61,500 to the General Fund would impact Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 2 the 2007 -08 budget. Mr. Clements acknowledged it would reduce the ending balance by that amount. Council President Dawson asked his level of comfort with that proposal. Mr. Clements answered this was a policy decision for the Council. He recalled discussion by department heads whether it was cost justified when the cost of the study exceeded the amount of the compensation increases. He recalled the Finance Committee's discussion, that because a compensation/classification study had not been done for ten years, the actual annual cost was not as significant. Mayor Haakenson recalled an email he sent to Councilmembers stating the cost of the compensation consultant, originally estimated to be $100,000 although that amount had been reduced to $75,000, was more than would be spent on the salary increases proposed in the replacement plan for the L -5 salary plan. He suggested the Council again consider the proposed salary compensation plan that staff developed rather than spending $75,000 for a consultant. Mr. Clements commented on the difficulty to cost out the study; when a consultant was hired, the scope would need to be specific. Mayor Haakenson advised the memo in the packet indicated funding for the Main Street pedestrian lights would be from Fund 112 and 125. He noted taking funds from 112 and 125 reduced the amount that could be used for walkways, street improvements, stabilization, and citywide pedestrian lighting. He commented although these expenditures may not sound like a lot individually, they represented a significant amount when added together. Councilmember Wambolt referred to the comment that the cost of the classification /compensation study was more than the increases, pointing out that was for the increases for two years. He suggested since a compensation study had not been conducted for ten years, the amount of increases would need to be multiplied by the number of years since a study had been done. Councilmember Plunkett asked how the issue of a compensation study arose. He did not recall a Council - proposed amendment or any written materials with regard to the study including pros and cons other than comments by Mayor Haakenson and members of the Finance Committee. Mr. Clements recalled a long process of considering non - represented compensation, including a number of meetings with the Finance Committee and a special Finance Committee meeting that included Councilmembers Orvis, Wambolt and Olson and staff. The Finance Committee proposed a compensation consultant due to concerns with the replacement plan to the L5 salary policy that was developed by staff. He advised the documentation of those discussions was contained in the October Finance Committee minutes and the background information was contained in the first response to Council questions regarding the budget. He recalled proposed funding for the study was $61,500 from the General Fund, $11,700 from Utilities and slightly less than $2,000 from Fleet Maintenance. Mayor Haakenson recalled that due to concerns with the L5 salary policy, the Finance Committee directed the Human Resources Department to develop a new plan to replace L5. When staff presented the replacement plan to the Finance Committee, it was summarily dismissed and a suggestion was made to hire a consultant. Councilmember Plunkett agreed, noting that was the last that had been said about a compensation study, yet now it was proposed as a one -line budget amendment without further explanation. He asked whether Mr. Clements was proposing /advocating for the compensation study. Mr. Clements answered he was not; he was presenting and tracking proposed changes to the budget. Councilmember Orvis recalled the intent was to put in place a stop -gap policy to provide raises for non - represented employees and hire a compensation consultant to compare the City's salaries with other cities from an independent viewpoint which would require the use of a consultant. He recalled the current policy for non - represented employees was put in place with the hope that a compensation consultant would be hired to study non - represented employees' salaries. Mr. Clements recalled the intent was also a fundamental shift to a pay- for - performance system geared to a work plan. Mayor Haakenson asked Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 3 whether that discussion went beyond the Finance Committee to the City Council for full discussion. Councilmember Wambolt recalled it had. Councilmember Marin recalled when staff presented a replacement plan for the L5 salary policy, some Councilmembers had concerns about the proposed plan. He recalled the issue was deferred pending further study. He felt staff made a good recommendation for replacing the L5 salary policy; however, some Councilmembers wanted additional study. Councilmember Plunkett presented his proposed amendments, first $75,000 for lighting on Main. Street between 5th and 6th. He explained the merchants in this area feel they need lighting for safety reasons. This area had not received the same attention that other areas had received; providing an example of the bulbs and streetscape south of 5th & Main, wider streets and pavers south on 5th, and the 4th Avenue Corridor north on 5th. He summarized the area that remained the same was Main Street between 5th and 6th. He advised the Council packet contained a recommendation for funding; he preferred not to reduce funding to other projects in the City, his proposal was to use ending cash balance. Councilmember Plunkett's second proposed amendment was $4,000 for plaques for the Historic Preservation Commission, $2,000 in 2007 and $2,000 in 2008. He explained the Historic Preservation Commission has operated from two grants obtained by Planning Manager Rob Chave. The Commission has not previously sought any funding from the Council. He advised approximately eight properties that wanted to be recognized as historic properties would be presented to the Council in January and potentially another 5 -10 properties the following year. The plaques would be installed to recognize historic buildings and sites. He identified several of the historic properties /sites including the old Stevens Hotel (now a condominium), the International Order of Odd Fellows, the log cabin, First Congregational Church, a pioneer house associated with development in early 1890, and Brackett's feed barn which was also the first school. He commented with development occurring in Edmonds, this was an opportunity to demonstrate the City's interest in historic preservation. He suggested funding from ending cash balance. Councilmember Moore asked if the plaques would be installed on buildings that no longer exist. Councilmember Plunkett explained historic preservation acknowledged structures as well as sites. Councilmember Moore referred to staff s memo regarding installation of the lighting on Main between 5th &6th and a suggestion to combine that project with the removal and replacement of street trees in that area. Public Works Director Noel Miller explained funding for the street tree program was a combination of park and street maintenance funds. The trees were being removed and replaced with a more suitable species because as the trees matured, the roots were lifting the sidewalk causing tripping hazards. Councilmember Moore asked when staff planned to replace the trees on Main between 5th and 6th. Mr. Miller answered plans were to replace the trees on the south side of Main between 5th and 6th in 2007 and the north side in 2008. Councilmember Moore acknowledged it made sense to install the lighting at the same time. Mr. Miller agreed. She asked whether it would be possible when replacing trees to do art projects in the sidewalks as had been done in other areas of downtown. Mr. Miller answered that could be discussed with Parks & Recreation. Mayor Haakenson asked if the wiring for the lighting could be done at the time the street trees were replaced. Mr. Miller answered the underground wiring would be installed regardless of funding for the street lighting. Council President Dawson inquired about the savings to install the street lighting now as part of the street tree replacement versus delaying the lighting. Mr. Miller answered it would be significantly more if the street trees were replaced, the sidewalks restored and the lighting done as a separate project in the future, enough to be a public relations problem. Council President Dawson asked whether not having the street lighting in the CIP was an issue. Mr. Gebert answered the CIP was updated every spring and could be updated to include the street lighting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 4 project in 2007. Council President Dawson concluded it made sense to install the street lighting at the same time the street trees were replaced. Councilmember Moore complemented Mr. Gebert on his letter to Ms. Archer, finding it very polite and thorough. Council President Dawson presented her proposed amendment, $1,000 per year in both 2007 and 2008, a total of $2,000, for the City to become a member in the Transportation Choices Coalition, a group that provided greater transportation choices by improving pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, applauded the City's efforts to reduce expenditures, commenting the City also needed to consider ways to increase revenues. He displayed a photograph of the former Albertson's property, identifying the trees behind and its location in a valley. He also displayed photographs of the underutilized strip mall across the street. He displayed several photographs of Firdale Village, which he noted was in dire need of redevelopment. He displayed several photographs of mixed use developments in Seattle as examples of how these properties could be redeveloped so that they would generate real estate excise taxes (R.EET), sales taxes and property taxes as well as provide more affordable housing for seniors and families on transit routes. He anticipated little increase in the City's net expenses due to the existing infrastructure. Redevelopment of these areas would also reduce the need to cut trees on hillsides and ravines to comply with GMA, and reduce CO2 emissions and increase Oz. Rowena Miller, Edmonds, referred to the photographs Mr. Kreiman displayed, pointing out Seattle's efforts to restore their green canopy following their determination they had fewer trees than surrounding cities. Seattle is replanting trees and attempting to change citizens' attitude about cutting trees. Next, she expressed concern with decisions made by Council Committees that were not discussed by the full Council. She also cautioned the Council to be careful about increases, siting the upcoming EMS levy and increasing property taxes to the limit. She questioned why it was necessary to raise taxes when property valuations were increasing. She recalled Mayor Haakenson's comment last year that although property valuations increased it did not necessarily mean taxes increased, commenting her taxes certainly had increased. Mayor Haakenson clarified no matter how much the assessed valuation of Edmonds property increased, the City was capped at 1 % of what they collected the previous year. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Council President Dawson commented other taxing districts were not limited by the 1% cap. Mayor Haakenson agreed, pointing out on a tax bill of $5,000, only 16% went to the City of Edmonds, over 80% went to the Edmonds School District. He summarized the City's $50 million budget was operated on only 16% of residents' tax bill. B. BUDGET ADOPTION I. 2007 -2008 BUDGET ORDINANCE Ord# 3613 Adopt 2007 -08 COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR Budget APPROVAL OF THE 2007 -2008 BUDGET, ORDINANCE NO. 3613. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO INCLUDE $75,000 FOR A COMPENSATION CONSULTANT. Councilmember Orvis commented if the Council did not approve a compensation study, they would need to work out a salary policy for non - represented employees. The current system in the budget was a stop gap to changing the L5 policy. He supported a compensation consultant to allow objectivity in the study. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 5 Councilmember Wambolt recalled that staff developed an alternate policy due to concern with the L5 policy. The Finance Committee was unable to reach a conclusion with regard to staff's proposal and made no recommendation to the Council. The Council discussed the alternate policy and was not satisfied. The Finance Committee met again, including Councilmember Orvis due to his experience with the L5 policy. The outcome of that meeting was a compensation consultant was needed because although the new proposal had a number of refinements, it was basically paying employees for showing up, not for performance. Because this was a major change, a compensation consultant was necessary. He recalled that was proposed and accepted by the Council. He acknowledged before becoming a Councilmember, he often voiced his objection to the City hiring consultants. However, there were times a consultant was necessary; in his career, the only consultants that provided any value were compensation consultants. He encouraged the Council to support the amendment. Council. President Dawson commented there may be merit to hiring a compensation consultant; however, she was not prepared to spend $75,000 in this year's budget and preferred the Council take another look at staff s proposal. The Council may conclude it was necessary to hire a compensation consultant which could be accomplished via a mid -year budget amendment. She was concerned that the cost of the study exceeded the amount of the increases. Although she appreciated the suggestion, she would respectfully oppose the amendment. Councilmember Moore also expressed her appreciation for the amendment. She suggested this as a topic for the Council retreat including a presentation from the administration. She would also oppose the amendment. Councilmember Olson agreed with Council President Dawson's suggestion, recalling she was in favor of staff's proposal and the Council discussing it in more detail. She commented on the cost of the study versus the relatively few employees impacted. She wanted to ensure staff was happy with the policy the Council adopted, especially since many non - represented employees' salaries had been frozen in the past. Councilmember Plunkett commented his concern was the process not the substance. He preferred it had been presented to the Council with more information. However, he was of the opinion that many non- represented employees were dissatisfied with their compensation package and it was necessary to hire a consultant to ensure an objective review of the salary policy. He supported the motion. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Council President Dawson's suggestion, noting even if the study was included in the budget, expenditures of that nature required an approval process and the Council may discover the consultant was unnecessary. However, if the funds were not included in the budget, it was unlikely a consultant would be hired. He supported including the funds in the budget and making a decision with regard to hiring a consultant after the Council had had additional discussion. Councilmember Marin supported the Council reviewing staff's proposed salary policy. He would support the motion with the proviso that it be scheduled for further Council discussion prior to hiring a consultant. Councilmember Moore asked Mayor Haakenson to comment on the compensation consultant. Mayor Haakenson reiterated as they were directed, staff developed a new compensation policy for non- represented employees which was presented to the Finance Committee and Council and although it was not rejected, it was not implemented. He recalled Council's direction was to provide cost -of- living increases to non - represented employees and allow those eligible for raises to receive raises in 2007 with the idea of possibly a compensation study in the future. He noted the study would not only be compensation, it would be job descriptions. He was unsure whether the study could be accomplished for $75,000, recalling the study done in 1997 cost $90,000. If the Council wanted to include the study in the budget, he suggested it be included in the 2008 budget to allow a year to discuss it. He offered to have staff make a presentation on the non - represented employee salary policy at the retreat. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 6 Council President Dawson commented the proposal was to fund the study from ending cash balance; it could be funded via a mid -year budget adjustment. She noted that would allow the Council further time to consider whether the City could afford the study and the outcome of the legislative session with regard to sales tax sourcing. She noted the study was not essential at this time and if Mayor Haakenson had felt it warranted, he would have included it in his budget. Councilmember Orvis restated his motion to include the study in the 2008 budget and discuss it during 2007. UPON ROLL CALL VOTE, THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, MARIN, WAMBOLT, AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE AND OLSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO AMEND THE 2007 -2008 BUDGET TO INCLUDE $2,000 IN 2007 AND $2,000 IN 2008 FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION PLAQUES, TO BE FUNDED FROM ENDING CASH BALANCE. Councilmember Plunkett explained this was a one -time request; once the plaques were installed, the same thing would happen in Edmonds as happened in other communities such as Snohomish, people who want their property recognized would pay for the plaques themselves. The City needed to create the synergy and awareness first. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO INCLUDE $75,000 FROM ENDING CASH BALANCE FOR LIGHTING ON MAIN BETWEEN 5TH AND 6TH TO BE APPROPRAITED OVER 2007 AND 2008. Councilmember Plunkett commented this section of downtown had not received the same attention the rest of downtown had and was well deserving of additional investment. There are art galleries and restaurants opening in this area and the lighting would make it a brighter, safer place for citizens, visitors and merchants. Councilmember Moore expressed her support for the amendment, pointing out the importance of supporting retailers. Tt is appropriate to install the lighting at the same time the street trees are replaced. Council President Dawson agreed, commenting if the lighting would be installed eventually, it was appropriate to do it at the same time as the street tree replacement due to cost savings. She viewed it as an investment in the City's infrastructure. She was hesitant to fund the lighting from ending cash balance and suggested staff provide further information on alternate funding sources before the project was undertaken. Mayor Haakenson advised staff's recommendation was to fund the lighting from Fund 112 and 125, Councilmember Plunkett's amendment was to fund it from ending cash balance. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO ADD $1,000 IN 2007 AND 2008 FOR A TOTAL OF $2,000 FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE TRANSPORTATION CHOICES COALITION. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved reads as follows: odd# Adopt Biennial ORDINANCE NO. 3613 - RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNEM COMMENCING Budget JANUARY 1, 2007, ADOPTING A BIENNIAL BUDGET FOR 2007 -2008 AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 7 II. 2007 PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained Council President Dawson requested staff provide three property tax scenarios; #3 was included in the budget. He explained #3 contained a 2.64% regular property tax levy which includes a 1.64% recapture of banked capacity and a 1% regular property tax increase. He noted it also included a 1% increase in the EMS levy. He explained this would generate additional revenue of slightly over $200,000 to the General. Fund, a minor increase per household. Ord# 3614 2007 Property COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE FOR Tax APPROVAL OF PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE VERSION #3, ORDINANCE NO. 3614. Councilmember Wambolt commented developing the budget was a long process that began in the summer. He served on the budget review committee with Council President Dawson who began meeting in September to hear presentations from department heads as well as ask questions of staff. Since that time he had exchanged numerous emails with Mr. Clements and his staff who had done an excellent job educating him. Mayor Haakenson also removed over $1 million from department wish lists also known as decision packages, essentially reducing the decision packages by half. He was disappointed he had been unable to do due diligence on EMS expenses, noting this was one of the City's biggest cost centers — $5 million in expenses. He was hopeful a better review could be conducted early in 2007 when discussing the proposed increase in the EMS levy, tentatively scheduled for a vote in May 2007. He clarified he was not saying EMS expenses were too high, simply that he did not know. He pointed out the average property in Edmonds in 2006 appreciated 22% in value. Property owners would see an increase in their property taxes due to the school district voter approved bonds. He planned to support the proposed ordinance which included the 1.64% banked capacity and 1% property tax increase, noting inflation was much higher than 2.64 %. Council President Dawson advised she would not support version #3. She had voted against accessing banked capacity last year, noting although it was small amount, $138,000, it was a matter of principle. Since the passage of I -747 which limited cities to a 1 % per year property tax increase, she felt it important to stay within those guidelines. If the Council was able to add $150,000 in budget amendments funded from ending cash balance, the Council should be able to live without the additional $138,000 as well. She preferred version #2. Councilmember Marin explained he participated on the budget review committee for three years in the past including listening to directors make presentations regarding decision packages. He noted the decision packages were not self - serving but legitimate additions to address the City's needs; unfortunately many of the decision packages could not be funded. He expressed his appreciation to staff for presenting only legitimate decision packages and their ability to live on a smaller budget. Councilmember Plunkett recalled he made a promise to voters in 1997 that he would not vote for a property tax increase above the rate of inflation. As version #3 was below the rate of inflation, he would support the motion. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. Comp Plan 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO Map APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT RECONFIGURING THE PLAN Amendment— 76th Ave W DESIGNATIONS OF PROPERTIES ON THE WEST SIDE OF 76TH AVENUE WEST BETWEEN Between 242 & 242ND AND 244TH STREET SW. APPLICANT: TONY SHAPIRO / FILE NO. CDC- 05 -96. 244 St SW Senior Planner Steve Bullock advised, Ron Knowles, represented by Tony Shapiro, made application to change the Comprehensive Plan designation on 76th between 242nd and 244th. There were two hearings at the Planning Board and the Board encouraged the applicant to talk with the neighbors. A number of neighborhood meetings were held in an effort to reach a consensus about how this area would be identified on the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent change in the zoning. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 8 Mr. Bullock displayed a map of the existing Comprehensive Plan, explaining the properties that front on 205th/244th are identified on the Comprehensive Plan as Highway 99 Corridor and the properties down the hill that front on 76th and have access on 76th are designated Neighborhood Commercial. When the Comprehensive Plan was approved along zone district lines, the boundary between Highway 99 Corridor and Neighborhood Commercial bisected the two southern properties. This split designation creates problems as the zoning designations have different bulk regulations, uses, heights and setbacks. At the final neighborhood meeting, the applicant and neighbors reached a consensus and made a presentation to the Planning Board to include the entire property that fronts on 76th in the Highway 99 Corridor designation and the entire property to the west as Neighborhood Commercial. The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposal. He explained the proposal would not change the zoning although that would be a future proposal to ensure the zoning was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Haakenson asked staff to respond to a letter provided by Pastor Cox from Seattle Baptist Church. Mr. Bullock relayed his understanding of Pastor Cox's letter was that he agreed with his entire parcel being identified as Neighborhood Commercial; the majority of his property is currently zoned Neighborhood Business. Tony Shapiro, AD Shapiro Architects, explained his client, Ron Knowles, made application late last year for a change to the Comprehensive Plan on his property, the southeast corner of the block, to make it one designation. When they presented a proposal to the Planning Board in June, the Board felt the entire block should be addressed in light of the work being done with regard to Five Corners and Firdale Village and the NB zone designation. They subsequently met with neighbors twice to ask what they would like to see developed on the property. His office was also retained by the property at the northeast corner of the block at the intersection of 242 d and 76th, Planting Design. Planting Design plans to rebuild their facility to a mixed use. They currently operate a nursery and landscape design business out of a former gas station. Although Planting Design has rehabilitated the property and the neighbors are satisfied with the status of the property, Mr. Knowles' property has been vacant for a number of years due to the difficulty finding a short term tenant, rehabilitating the building, and obsolete use due to the mini -mart at the corner of 76th and 244th. Mr. Shapiro explained the neighbors were concerned with the eastern portion of the block, fronting on 76th, becoming entirely Neighborhood Business. The proposal in mid- summer was to designate the eastern portion of the block which was more conducive to mixed use type redevelopment. In a meeting with the neighbors and staff this fall, the neighbors were concerned with that configuration. Although Planting Design would ultimately like to build out their site and perhaps in the future will propose a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation on their corner, they agreed with the proposal to change the designation on only the southeast corner. The Planning Board accepted this compromise reluctantly; a number of Boardmembers were concerned about the continuation of the Highway 99 designation northbound on 76th. He acknowledged although it was unusual to extend that designation to this property, considering the topography on the site and the slope that continues onto Mr. Knowles' property, it was felt to be a reasonable compromise. Mr. Shapiro explained the proposed change was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as mixed use was encouraged in the BN zone, zoning that may ultimately be proposed for the site which would comply with the Highway 99 Corridor designation. The proposal was also consistent with the existing and proposed land uses. This is a transition zone as 76th is a fairly busy street and a small mixed use building would provide transition. The property immediately to the south, also owned by Mr. Knowles, is essentially mixed use with storage on the ground floor and residential above. A number of neighbors have expressed satisfaction with the manner in which that property was developed. The character of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 9 area is evolving and the NB zone is outdated and needs to be updated, yet still work with the residential properties to the north and west. The proposed change is more economically viable than the current commercial use. The proposed change would provide benefit to the public health, safety and welfare by providing more housing units on the site as well as opportunity for a small service -type business. Responding to Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Shapiro advised they held two neighborhood meetings, one in July and a second in August. During the first meeting they discussed goals of the project and green characteristics they hoped to incorporate into the buildings. He noted they discussed more building specific issues at that meeting as they had originally proposed both a change in the Comprehensive Plan . designation as well as a rezone. It was agreed at the September Planning Board meeting to separate the change in the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning with the intent of presenting the rezone in the future. He explained the mixed use would be conducive to the neighborhood as the mixed use would include approximately 75% residential and would not differ much from the single family nature of existing properties. Traffic was the primary concern; concern was also expressed with church traffic on Sundays and meeting days, additional traffic generated by the commercial component and the loss of parking that Mr. Knowles allows the church to utilize on his property. After two meetings with the neighbors, they were not forcefully opposed to the proposal; at the September Planning Board meeting they were overwhelmingly opposed to changing the destination on both parcels. At a subsequent Planning Board meeting in October, they changed their proposal. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. Scott McPherson, Edmonds, commented regretfully Highway 99 Corridor was the only designation for the property that satisfied the neighborhood, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Knowles. He wished there was another designation for the property. His only concern was what type of businesses might be located on the property but the most important issue was limiting the building height to 25 + 5 feet. The neighbors were concerned with the amount of traffic on 76th Avenue particularly during rush hour. Although 76`h was busy, it was not equivalent to the traffic volumes on 205th. He relayed the neighbors' interest in limiting residential development to the top two stories on the site. He advised the proposal was more or less acceptable to him as a neighbor, provided development was consistent with the neighborhood. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Council President Dawson asked what building height would be allowed if the property were rezoned under the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation. Mr. Bullock answered the property was currently zoned BC on the southern half and BN on the northern half. Changing the designation on the entire property to Highway 99 Corridor would allow the entire property to be zoned BC. The maximum height for the BC zone was 25 feet with an additional 5 feet for an approved modulated design. He advised the ability to achieve the additional 5 feet was under moratorium. Council President Dawson observed the height limit would be what the Council voted on next week. Mr. Bullock explained the Council would be voting on BD zoning for downtown; however, there were still some scattered BC zoning throughout the City where the existing BC zoning would continue until the Council chose to change it. Council President Dawson asked what the height limit on existing BC property would be when the moratorium was lifted. City Attorney Scott Snyder offered to research and provide a response next week. Councilmember Orvis commented Highway 99 Corridor was generally CG or CG2 plus transitional zoning. Mr. Bullock advised the Comprehensive Plan provides a list of appropriate zones including BC. This area would be appropriate for that zoning as it was a transition from the higher intensity uses. Councilmember Orvis observed if the applicant were to propose a rezone to CG2, they would be subject to the rezone criteria. Mr. Bullock agreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 10 COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO MAKE THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Miser Minor 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON MISCELLANEOUS MINOR TEXT UPDATES AND MAP Updates to CORRECTIONS TO THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (FILE NO. CDC -06 -4) Comp Plan Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the following minor corrections and updates to the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Minor amendments proposed by Planning Board Vice Chair John Dewhirst via working with the City's Engineering Department to improve the language in the Walkway Plan. 2. Minor wording changes in the Downtown Plan that needed to be addressed as the Council discussed the downtown BD zones next week. He suggested holding the public hearing on these changes but continuing deliberation until next week. He noted there were a few tweaks to the language suggested by staff to make it consistent with the Planning Board's recommendation. He suggested when discussing the BD zone changes next week, the Council also keep in mind the Comprehensive Plan language it needed to be consistent with. Also included with the downtown amendments was bringing the downtown Comprehensive Plan map into consistency with the downtown zoning proposal. 3. Minor changes to the land use and zoning compatibility table (page 16) to reflect ongoing neighborhood planning efforts. 4. When the Comprehensive Plan map was updated last year, the lots adjoining Lake Ballinger should have been designated Single Family Resource instead of Urban 1 on the plan map. The existing zoning is consistent with this change. 5. A map correction in the downtown area for lots erroneously labeled as high density multi family when the zoning was RM3, equivalent to medium density multi family. Staff recommends the Council accept public testimony and approve amendments 1, 3, 4 and 5 and continue deliberation on 2 until next week. Council President Dawson asked for further information regarding the Single Family Resource designation. Mr. Chave answered it was for larger lots, RS -12 and RS -20, properties associated with critical area and environmentally sensitive areas, the justification for retaining the large lot designation. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave explained when the old Comprehensive Plan's color designations were translated into GIS, a couple of locations were transferred as high density that should have been medium density. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented one of the reasons for the policy changes was there were new funds for pedestrian improvements. He was concerned engineering would simply identify projects to keep their office busy. He referred to a proposed change to Policy 1.1 that would require pedestrian facilities on both sides of all streets and highways, questioning whether the City wanted to enforce construction of sidewalks on both sides. He noted there had been an effort via Safe Routes to Schools to install a walkway on one side of the street which provided safety within reasonable financial limits. He was concerned there was no distance requirement with regard to the Safe Route to Schools as compared with the 1200 feet indicated for parks and playgrounds. He suggested retaining "should" rather than "shall" in Policy I.1. Next he referred to the Policy 1.9 with regard to ADA curb cuts and side ramps, that states "any object located within the sidewalk shall not impede pedestrian safety, circulation, and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page I I access," suggesting this be enforced retroactively to address existing problems. He then referred to Policy 1.11 which stated "pedestrian safety includes physical and psychological safety considerations," questioning what "psychological safety considerations" referred to. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Moore inquired about psychological safety considerations. City Engineer Dave Gebert answered the language was developed by Planning Board Vice Chair Dewhirst. He speculated it referred to the use of sidewalks for enjoyment, exercise, etc. Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on "should" versus "shall," commenting she was in favor of installing sidewalks whenever possible but not necessarily on both sides of the street. Mr. Gebert answered the Planning Board had a fair amount of discussion on this issue; Vice Chair Dewhirst's original proposal was much more directive and included several more "shalls." Staff was concerned that the "shalls" represented unfunded mandates. He explained Policy 1.11 represented a compromise and staff was satisfied with "shall" in the context with the wording "within the limits of available funding and in consideration of other priorities." Councilmember Moore asked why the distance for Safe Routes to Schools was unlimited and only 1200 . feet to a park or playground. Mr. Gebert was uncertain why Vice Chair Dewhirst did not include a distance. Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding items within the sidewalk that currently impeded pedestrian safety. Mr. Gebert answered there were specific ADA requirements such as sidewalk widths. When a mailbox is located in the sidewalk, ADA standards require the sidewalk be widened behind the mailbox. There are places in the City where sidewalks constructed in the past that contained utility poles, trees, etc. that did not comply with ADA requirements. Staff is in the process of developing an implementation plan for ADA ramps and will be addressing those issues as funds permit; the City did not have the resources to correct everything in the City. Councilmember Moore asked how the remainder of the paragraph in Policy 1.1 would be revised if "shall" were changed to "should." Mr. Gebert answered it could stay the same. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised for all new construction, the language in Policy 1.9 was consistent with the City's obligation under federal law. This would be addressed further when amendments to the City's sign code were discussed with regard to sandwich board signs downtown. With regard to changing "shall" to "should," he reminded that any exercise of staff discretion needed to have standards. Mr. Chave commented a better word for Vice Chair Dewhirst's proposed "psychological safety considerations" may be "perceived," envisioning he was referring to situations such as a walkway along a high volume street where it may be perceived as safer if there were plantings between the walkway and the driving lane. He noted this did not necessarily increase the physical safety but may increase the perceived safety. Councilmember Moore commented "perceived" was also quite vague. Council President Dawson referred to language in Policy 1. 1, "classified as safe walking routes to school," asking who classified the routes. Mr. Gebert answered schools typically identified their walking routes. Council President Dawson suggested adding language such as safe walking routes as defined by the school. Mr. Gebert agreed, noting when the City submitted a grant application for a walkway related to a school, staff obtained and submitted the school's identified walking routes. Council President Dawson referred to Policy 1.9 and suggested referencing ADA requirements. Mr. Snyder commented there may also be engineering standards. Mr. Gebert explained there were a number Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 12 of requirements such as curb height and sidewalk width in the City's standards that generally exceeded ADA requirements. Mr. Snyder suggested adding "pursuant to law or ordinance" which would cover the City's and federal standards. Council President Dawson suggested adding wording that this applied only to new construction. Mr. Gebert stated staff intended to identify deficiencies such as ADA curb ramps. The City had an obligation as projects occurred such as street overlays to upgrade ADA ramps within the project limits. Council President Dawson was concerned the policy implied the City would be making corrections that it did not intend to do. Mr. Snyder suggested adding wording "as required by federal law or City ordinance." Council President Dawson requested staff provide the existing language in Policy 1.11 so that she could compare it to the proposed language. She was concerned "psychological safety considerations" was not clear. Councilmember Moore suggested rewording Policy 1.11 to include examples and further specificity. Mr. Snyder reminded the Comprehensive Plan contained accurate general descriptions; the zoning regulations would contain specifics. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS 3,4 AND 5. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Dawson advised the Council would discuss amendment 2 next week as part of the downtown zoning. She asked staff to return amendment 1 with appropriate language next week or at the December 5 meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO CONTINUE AMENDMENT 1 TO NEXT WEEK AND AMENDMENT 2 TO WHEN STAFF COULD PROVIDE ALTERNATE LANGUAGE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Paradise Lane 6. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION BY MICHEL CONSTRUCTION TO Rezone (Michel REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -6) TO MULTI FAMILY Construction) RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.4). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 546 PARADISE LANE. AFTER TWO TIED VOTES (3 -3), THE PLANNING BOARD WAS UNABLE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE APPLICATION. (FILE NO. R- 06 -77) As this was a closed record review, a quasi judicial proceeding, Mayor Haakenson asked whether under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine any Councilmember had any conflicts or ex parte communication they wished to disclose. Councilmember Plunkett disclosed in 2005 the applicant contributed approximately $250 to his reelection campaign. Councilmember Marin disclosed he also received a campaign contribution from the applicant. Council President Dawson disclosed during the break a member of the audience asked her whether audience comments would be allowed and she had a brief conversation with her regarding the procedures but nothing of substance. Councilmember Wambolt disclosed the applicant built his building. Councilmember Orvis disclosed Rob Michel contributed $249 to his campaign. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 13 Councilmember Olson disclosed Mr. Michel contributed $249 to her campaign. Mayor Haakenson asked whether each Councilmember who made a disclosure felt they were able to make a fair and impartial decision based on the information they had disclosed. Council President Dawson and Councilmembers Plunkett, Wambolt, Orvis, and Olson responded yes they could. Based on the information that had been disclosed, Mayor Haakenson asked whether any party of record had an objection to any of the Councilmembers' participation. Mike Prebezac, Edmonds, commented in talking with friends and other developers, Mr. Michel had an exceptional record of getting everything he asked. He was not confident the Councilmembers who received campaign contributions from Mr. Michel could be impartial. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine was codified in State statute. One of the provisions the legislature enacted recognized that if a challenge would destroy a quorum, all the challenged members may remain on the panel. In this instance, disqualifying all the Councilmembers who received a campaign contribution would destroy the quorum; therefore, that provision would be applicable. Toni Prebezac, Edmonds, questioned whether Councilmembers who had received campaign contributions and/or had other relationships with the applicant could make a fair decision because they were human. Although Councilmembers must view the information presented as fact, there was a great deal of emotion on both sides. She found it difficult to believe these Councilmembers could be impartial. Mayor Haakenson explained under Appearance of Fairness Doctrine it was up to the individual Councilmember to decide whether he /she could made a fair and impartial decision. Councilmember Plunkett reiterated State law did not allow five Councilmembers to step down as it would destroy the quorum. Councilmember Moore commented this was why she did not like closed record reviews. The Council was elected by the people, they accepted campaign contributions, made policy decisions and were biased individuals. For the Council to sit as judges was practically impossible as it was a political process. Citizens expect to be able to talk to their Councilmembers; however, in this instance Councilmembers were not the citizens' representative, they were judges. Councilmembers were even not allowed to drive by the property; they must rely on the information contained in the record. She summarized she did not run for office to be a judge, she ran for office to be a Councilmember. Council President Dawson pointed out under Regulatory Reform the Council was required to hear rezones, therefore, it would continue to be the Council's role to hear rezones. Councilmember Olson commented a $249 campaign contribution did not carry a great deal of weight. She had not even recalled that Mr. Michel had contributed to her campaign until she researched it. Councilmember Marin assured that as he and his fellow Councilmembers read the information, they disconnected themselves from who the parties were and considered the merits of the proposal and arguments made by both sides. Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers were approved to participate. Mr. Snyder explained pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act, cities were limited on development permit applications and certain other types of quasi judicial decisions to two hearings, one open record — in this Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 14 case before the Planning Board — and the other, a closed record review before the City Council. He advised the Prebezacs that their objections would be noted in the record and satisfied the requirement to make their objection at their earliest opportunity. Because a change to the zoning would be enacted by ordinance, a quorum of the Council was required. Similarly, because it would be enacted by ordinance, Mayor Haakenson could not vote in the event of a tie. He cautioned those presenting argument that they were limited to what was presented to the Planning Board and they could not present new evidence. Mayor Haakenson established a 20 minute time limit for the applicant. Senior Planner Steve Bullock advised the Planning Board reviewed the proposed rezone. He recalled a contract rezone was proposed on this property a couple of years ago was denied. This proposal is by a different applicant. He displayed the Comprehensive Plan map, identifying the property designated in the Comprehensive Plan as multi family medium density. He advised the zoning districts that implement that Comprehensive Plan designation are RM -3 or RM -2.4; the applicant has requested a rezone to RM -2.4. After the Planning Board reviewed the staff report and accepted testimony at the public hearing, a motion was made to deny the rezone; the motion failed 3 -3. A subsequent motion to approve the rezone also failed 3 -3. The Planning Board forwarded the rezone request to the Council without a recommendation. Mr. Snyder commented this had been the subject of a prior rezone application. The City was obligated to have zoning districts conform to the Comprehensive Plan. If the Council denied the proposed rezone, he suggested the Council consider whether it would be appropriate to change the Comprehensive Plan designation or craft a new zoning designation as a disconnect between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning should not be allowed to continue. Applicant Rob Michel asked to save 5 minutes for rebuttal. He displayed an aerial photograph of the area, identifying the subject site as well as surrounding uses including a 12 -unit condominium across the street that took access from Paradise Lane and 5t'' Place South, nine single family homes that access from Paradise Lane, and two houses that access from another street. He recalled a few weeks ago the Council denied a change to the access to SR 104. He noted the majority of traffic from SR 104 turned off before reaching this area. Mr. Michel referred to the six criteria that must be met for a rezone, advising staff found their proposed rezone met all six and recommended approval of the rezone. The Planning Board accepted five of the six and were split 3 -3 on one issue. He pointed out the neighbors' concerns were addressed by other City codes and policies. The City's Technical Committee had no unresolved issues with regard to the proposed rezone. He displayed the Comprehensive Plan map, identifying the subject property, multi family property to the north, high density multi family further north, and business zoned property along the Westgate Corridor. With regard to the first criteria, Comprehensive Plan, Staff and the Planning Board found their proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He explained higher land values along SR 104 did not support single family uses. The Comprehensive Plan contains a policy regarding locating multi family near arterials. GMA also recognized the demand for high quality multi family housing. The goals of the Westgate Corridor do not support single family uses along SR 104 and nothing has been built in this location for 40+ years. The urban design issues in the Comprehensive Plan are best addressed in a specific development application. The City Council and Planning Board delegate design review to the experts on the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to discuss compatibility and design issues. In the zoning ordinance, multi family provides a suitable transition from the commercial zone to the single family. Their zoning proposal is consistent with implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Their Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 15 proposal preserves the character and existence of compatible residential uses due to the 60 foot right -of- way that provides an effective buffer between single family uses and the highway. With regard to the second criteria, zoning code, he displayed the current zoning map, identifying high density multi family to the north across the street that continues north on 5th Avenue on both sides of the street, abutting single family homes which is consistent with providing transition. With regard to the third criteria, surrounding area, Mr. Michel displayed the current zoning snap, identifying the subject property and business zoned property along SR 104 to Hwy. 99. He identified one area of single family where an addition to the church was being constructed. The only single family zoning remaining on SR 104 was this area that had been changed in the Comprehensive Plan. With regard to changes, the fourth criteria, Mr. Michel advised State and County mandated policies require the City to accept its fair share of population growth. Many residential areas have been changed to non - residential uses which reduces future housing unit totals such as two office and medical complexes on 220th & 76th on multi family zoned property which reduced the number of available units by 36. Further the Woodway Elementary School site represented a loss of approximately 30 housing units for a park. Other changes have reduced unit counts in residential zones and many multi family sites have not been developed to the maximum density. Further, the rezone of the downtown area would eliminate up to 40% of the potential residential uses on upper floors. With regard to suitability, the fifth criteria, he explained City planners already determined the suitability of the property by changing the Comprehensive Plan designation as medium density multi family, which was subsequently approved by both the Planning Board and City Council. The property is suitable because the current zoning has not been viable for 20 -40 years. The property is suitable for multi family as bedrooms in single family homes are typically located at the rear of the house, placing them within 20 feet of SR 104; multi family structures are constructed with more soundproofing, making this more suitable for multi family development. Multi family development provides more opportunity for shared driveways and fewer access points on Paradise Lane. With regard to value, the sixth criteria, Mr. Michel explained multi family development required a 7 -foot sidewalk and would provide an opportunity to connect to the end of the pedestrian pathway at the end of Paradise Lane to connect with 5th Avenue. He noted a 7 -foot wide sidewalk would allow two wheelchairs to pass which a 5 -foot sidewalk would not. Multi family development also requires installation and ongoing maintenance of landscaping. Mr. Michel recalled the primary concern of the three Planning Board Members and most neighbors was with traffic. However, the traffic experts have indicated the impact would be minimal. A Planning Board Member's statement that the road does not have sufficient capacity for existing traffic is contradicted by a traffic engineer. The timing argument by the Planning Board is immaterial as there are no concurrency arguments that are appropriate given the small size of this development. The actual number of additional trips between single family and multi family is small; the 20 additional trips will not be a burden on the road as it represents less than 2 trips per hour. The Technical Committee which includes the Fire Department also found no problem with the proposed zoning. With regard to the road width, Mr. Michel displayed the Street Standards contained in the City of Edmonds Community Development Code. He pointed out the table of street standards was for new construction, not for existing roads. He pointed out the maximum pavement width for RM -2.5 was 22- feet if a new road was constructed; nexus and proportionality require they construct one side of the road. He noted the only reference to a minimum for existing road was a statement that all streets and access easements must be paved to a minimum width of 16 feet. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 16 Mr. Michel displayed a cross section of the site (reference page 68 of the record), identifying one half of SR 104, the right -of -way on a hillside that would retain mature trees, the site, the existing house approximately 25 feet in height, the 60 -foot right -of -way of the Paradise Lane, and the house at 545 Paradise Lane. He pointed out the 60 -foot wide buffer, the front setback in the single family zone and the front setback in the multi family zone would create a 100 -foot distance between structures, a buffer between SR 104 and the single family development. Single family development did not have any requirements with regard to tree removal; multi family would be required to undergo the ADB review process. Mr. Michel advised development policies would ensure Comprehensive Plan and zoning policies were met and that neighbors had an opportunity for input on the development. Mr. Michel commented on the difference between RM -3 and RM -2.4 zoning, noting the building sites would be the same, however, the smaller RM -2.4 units would be more affordable to a wider range of income and age groups. RM -2.4 would assist the City in meeting its G.MA goals. RM -3 would have greater opportunity to create more traffic as the units would be bigger, have more bedrooms thus potentially more drivers. With regard to comments about his serving on the ADB, he advised this was his eighth year on the ADB and his term ended next month. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the record indicated some of the trees on the Paradise Lane side of the site would be retained. Mr. Michel answered since this was not a site - specific proposal, he was not certain. He noted some would be removed as they were located where the sidewalk would be although there would be some room between the back of the sidewalk and the property line. Parties of Record Ed Murphy, Edmonds, commented this area was being misconstrued as multi family when in fact the Spinnaker Apartments, built in the 1970s, . was the one multi family use in the Paradise Lane area. Paradise Lane dead -ended at the Spinnaker Apartments and the condominiums were located below and accessed from below. Birch Place was a PRD built in the late 80s /early 90s. There was no continuous multi family zoning and the zoning on the Paradise Lane island was single family. He noted the homes in the area were built in the 40s, 50s and 60s and most had been updated; a couple houses near the bank were being held for redevelopment. He questioned the appropriateness of the rezone, commenting this area should not have been designated multi family in the Comprehensive Plan. The pavement width was only 16 -18 feet wide. He referred to the Council's decision not to change the entrance to Paradise Lane, noting the majority of traffic entering Paradise Lane turned right on 65th Place as a shortcut rather than using SR 104 due to the 25 mph speed limit. He urged Council not to rezone the site multi family, reiterating everything contiguous to the property on Paradise Lane was single family. Councilmember Plunkett referred to his comment that the Comprehensive Plan designation should never have been changed. Mr. Murphy commented no development had occurred in that area because there had not been a single owner for many years. He recalled the Council denied a contract rezone two years ago. Bud Wheat, Edmonds, expressed his opposition to the rezone and high density development. He noted the neighbors who opposed the rezone wanted to retain the family -home environment of the area versus the property owners of the peninsula who want to maximize their profit through high density development. He recalled the City Engineer indicated the rezone would create problems with traffic as Paradise Lane was the main access for the development. He noted Paradise Lane was the only remaining section of the old Edmonds Highway, built in the early 1900s and was 16 -feet wide, not wide enough for modern traffic. He cited traffic problems as a result of ferry traffic on SR 104, noting WSDOT classified the intersection as a high accident location. He disputed the finding that the proposed rezone would not Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 17 create additional traffic, commenting the 12 -unit Spinnaker and the elderly care home had increased traffic. He requested the Council deny the rezone application due to the adverse impact it would have on the residential neighborhood. Diane Ellis, Edmonds, was opposed to the proposed rezone because it was incompatible with the neighborhood, would have a negative impact on property values and would put an undue burden on City resources. As a real estate associate broker, she valued homes in the Edmonds area which included consideration of not only the style and condition of homes but also location, neighborhood, surrounding homes, compatibility of adjacent land uses, privacy, and traffic noise. Changing Mr. LaFon's property from 5 single family homes nestled in a residential setting to a 12 -unit condominium would have a devastating affect on property values as well as residents' lifestyles and significantly impact the already burdened single lane access road. It would destroy the integrity of the neighborhood and eliminate privacy by towering above single family residences. She envisioned in order for the developer to maximize views, he would build to the maximum building height and face units toward their homes. She cited several Comprehensive Plan policies regarding preservation of residential privacy and protecting residential areas from incompatible land uses, pointing out if the proposed rezone were approved, their privacy would be considerably jeopardized and their property values destabilized. She noted Paradise Lane would be the main access; however, there were no funds in the budget to widen the road or improve sidewalks beyond their frontage. She objected to Mr. LaFon's attempts to maximize the value of his property by rezoning it, noting no one benefited from the rezone other than Mr. LaFon and Mr. Michel. On behalf of herself, residents who signed the letter in opposition to the rezone and others who were not permitted to voice their opinion at this level, she urged Council to reject the proposed rezone. Diane Nasa, Edmonds, was opposed to the rezone at 546 Paradise Lane. This was the third time a rezone had been requested for this property in the past 14 years. In 2004 a rezone to multi family was requested via a contract rezone for a specific development. That rezone request was denied due to street width and lack of proof by the applicant that the zone provided transition, a decision that was affirmed in Superior Court. This proposal was not a contract rezone and had less proof of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood than the contract rezone. She noted there were two parcels adjacent to this property that were being held for redevelopment; if the Council allowed one multi family development on Paradise Lane, she envisioned those property owners would want the same zoning. She envisioned what was once a street of single family homes would become a row of single family homes with condominiums across the street towering above them. Paradise Lane is a dead -end street with one way in /out and the intersection off SR 104 had been one of the reasons for denial of the contract rezone. She summarized the rezone would eliminate the ambiance of the neighborhood, increase noise and traffic, create more pollution, eliminate privacy, and decrease property values. She anticipated the trees on the City's right - of -way would be removed to accommodate the widened street and sidewalk. As the trees on the City's right -of -way could be removed at any time, they should not be considered as a buffer for the single family neighborhood. She urged Council not to rezone the property, retain the RS -6 zoning and consider changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property due to its unique layout. Michael Pena, Edmonds, commented there was too much traffic on Paradise Lane. He recalled in the lawsuit that resulted from the denial of the contract rezone, the judge ruled the City could not compel a developer to widen the street or improve the infrastructure. He noted improvements to Paradise Lane were not included in any of the City's capital improvement plans; therefore, it was unlikely to be improved. The limited width of Paradise Lane prevented a vehicle from passing a trash truck and he envisioned a scenario where an ambulance would be unable to pass a fire truck. He urged the Council not to make a bad situation worse, citing the numerous times the stop sign at 6t' had been knocked down, tire tracks in the vacant lot behind the bank, and the poorly lit, unsafe intersection that would be compounded by more vehicles. He disagreed with the traffic information Mr. Michel cited that a single family unit would produce twice as much traffic as one multi family unit, commenting 12 units whether single family or multi family produced the same amount of traffic. He cited the potential impact to Paradise Lane as a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 18 result of construction traffic. He urged Council to deny the proposed rezone and retain the single family zoning. He planned to participate in changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Toni Silicio Prebezac, Edmonds, was opposed to the proposed rezone, recalling a similar application to rezone the property was denied by the Planning Board in July 2004 and the City Council in September 2004. The reasons for denying the rezone still exist. She quoted from the Council's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for denying the rezone including pavement width would not meet minimum levels provided in the Table of Street Standards and the applicant failed to meet his required burden of proof and failed to meet rezone criteria set forth in ECDC 20.40.010(C) and is therefore not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She cited several Comprehensive Plan policies regarding protecting residential areas from incompatible land uses, residential privacy, discouraging traffic not directly accessing residents in a neighborhood, protecting property values, and protecting private property from adverse environmental impacts of development. She urged Council to reject the proposed rezone. Mike Prebezac, Edmonds, voiced his opposition to the proposed rezone, commenting his primary concern was traffic. He displayed a map identifying where Paradise Lane dead -ends at a foot path, explaining there was already a great deal of traffic created by the existing homes and condominiums. He noted there was not a dead -end sign where 6"' Place intersected with Paradise Lane, therefore, vehicles frequently used this route anticipating a shortcut only to turn around. He described traffic counters that City staff installed after the Planning Board's public hearing and Mr. Snyder cautioned that information was not contained in the record. Mr. Prebezac summarized another multi family building would dramatically increase traffic. He questioned the decision to designate this property multi family. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed participation by parties of record. Rebuttal Mr. Michel assured the City's code contained policies to ensure road widths were adequate and to ensure building design was suitable and compatible with the neighborhood. He noted the neighbors would have ample opportunity to participate in the ADB process and submit their concerns to the City's building department. He reiterated five City departments agreed with the proposed rezone. A third party, a professional traffic engineer determined there would be little impact on the surrounding roads; a SEPA determination determined there would be little impact; and the City's codes determined there would be little impact. Testimony from the City Engineer at the Planning Board concurred with these determinations. Conversely there was no expert testimony /evidence from the neighbors to support their claims. Since the denial of the contract rezone two years ago, there had been no attempt by the neighbors, Planning Board or City Council to change the Comprehensive Plan designation for these properties; in fact the Planning Board and City Council had both upheld the Comprehensive Plan designation of multi family for the last two years. Mr. Michel argued there was not a better place for a rezone; two adjacent properties had been rezoned, there was a 12 unit condominium across the street, the property was next to a 4 -lane highway, it was not a condominium conversion, there was no new single family development occurring on SR 104, this was a dead -end street, and the property had not been developed as single family for 20 years. In the Planning Board's verbatim transcript (reference page 87) Mr. Bullock said the biggest concern from the public seemed to be traffic but that was the one thing that the judge when reviewing the appeal of the contract rezone indicated was not appropriate to be addressed via the rezone. Mr. Michel concluded all the experts found their proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it met the six criteria for rezone. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 19 Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Michel's comment that there was no language in the ECDC that required existing streets leading to a proposed development be a stated width. Mr. Snyder referred to Section 18.80.010 which states all streets and access easements must be paved to a minimum width of 16 feet unless otherwise provided..." Mayor Haakenson closed the hearing and remanded to Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 546 PARADISE LANE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Moore commented in making a decision on a quasi judicial matter, the Council could not base their decision on emotion or assumptions but must base it on the law and supporting evidence. Given that, she questioned how the Council could deny the rezone. She explained this was not an application for a project; it was a rezone that met all the criteria and fit the Comprehensive Plan to a T. It was a good transition between single family and the ferry lanes and commercial uses on SR 104. It was not incompatible with the neighborhood; it was still homes and was not as big a complex as the multi family home she lived in at Five Corners. At that location, the neighbors were happy the former older houses were redeveloped into something very attractive. She noted that was emotional, which could not be the basis for the Council's decision. She referred to words used by neighbors such as towering over, devastating us, destroying our lifestyle, noting those were emotional words and although she sympathized with the neighbors, the Council could make their decision based on emotions. Councilmember Moore stated the multi family unit she lived in at Five Corners had had no visible impact on the traffic and in this proposed rezone, she did not find any support for the neighbors' claims about traffic or road safety. She noted property values may decrease, but that was an assumption not a fact; property values may also increase as they did in Five Corners because the neighborhood looked better. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, noting it appeared the Comprehensive Plan correctly designated this area as multi family to provide an appropriate buffer between the high travel corridor and residential uses. Transition was important and as long as it was done correctly and well, it benefited nearby residences. He found it appropriate to have affordable residences constructed in the City, commenting if this property were developed under RS -6, the result would be an expensive estate. Councilmember Orvis spoke against the rezone, commenting he was impressed by the Planning Board's argument; they were very civil and gave all the issues a clear airing before forwarding it on to the City Council. He referred to comments from Planning Board Members Dewhirst, Young and Cox regarding traffic and infrastructure not suitable for higher density, noting although there would be improvements along the property's frontage, they would not affect the road in its entirety. He found that zoning the property to a higher density would impact the relationship between the area to be rezoned and the existing land uses, would adversely impact the public safety, health and welfare of the area; and was not economically suitable. He summarized the rezone did not meet criteria C, E and F and he would vote against the motion to rezone the property. Councilmember Wambolt spoke in favor of the motion, concurring with the comments made by Councilmember Marin that the Comprehensive Plan designation was correct. He pointed out when the single family homes were built on Paradise Lane, SR 104 did not exist. The price of land in Edmonds did not make it cost effective to develop that property into single family homes. The location adjacent to high volume traffic was more appropriate for multi family development. Council President Dawson advised she was opposed to the motion. She read from the Council's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding the previous rezone which was upheld in court, "The Council Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 20 concludes that the applicant has failed to meet its required burden of proof and has failed to meet rezone criteria set forth in ECDC 20.40.01.0(C) and is therefore not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Given differences in elevation displayed by the record, and the potential for development of the property to multi family standards at heights greater than buildings on adjacent neighborhood property, the property would not provide a reasonable transition to the adjacent neighborhood. The contract rezone further does not provide assurances regarding bulk, high quality landscaping or the preservation of trees. Without such assurances in the contract rezone, it fails to preserve consistency with or a reasonable transition to the adjacent residential neighborhood." If a contract rezone that had additional information with regard to the development was denied in 2004 and that was upheld by a court, then a rezone that had no assurances with regard to tree retention, etc. should be denied as well. Council President Dawson pointed out with regard to the burden of proof, even the Planning Board Members who voted in favor of the rezone were uncertain whether it had met each of the criteria, illustrating the applicant had not met the burden of proof. For that reason as well, she recommended the rezone be denied. Councilmember Olson spoke in support of the motion, noting houses had not been constructed on the property for 20 -40 years; it was like saying someone else should own the property to provide a buffer which was not appropriate. She noted there was no suggestion in the applicant's presentation that all the trees would be removed. She found the application met all the criteria. With regard to the neighbors' concern about traffic, the traffic engineer acknowledged there would not be a problem. The traffic engineer is a professional and the Council must base their decision on fact rather than emotion. Councilmember Plunkett explained one of the tests for a rezone was whether there had been a significant change in the character of the immediate area or in City policy to justify the rezone. Although he voted against the prior rezone request, he agreed there had been changes recently. The City was recently informed by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) that Edmonds could be required to accept as many as 49,000 - 96,000 people over the next 30 years. PSRC also informed the City that an additional 1.4 million people would be living on Puget Sound in the next 10 years. City policies were changing as a result of the additional requirements on the City to accept growth. This represented sufficient change and he would support the application for the rezone as well as for the other reasons stated. MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, PLUNKETT, MOORE, OLSON AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS condominium I Norma Bruns, Edmonds, commended the Council on their adoption of the ordinance regarding Conversions condominium conversion which would at least raise awareness of what was occurring. She asked whether there was a guarantee that the developer would inform tenants about the law. In her experience people would not be aware unless they were told and she recommended a process for ensuring the developer inform tenants. She was glad to hear during the discussion that the Council would consider the issue again after the Legislature considered it. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the City's ordinance contained every provision currently permitted. He recalled there was a notice requirement and offered to confirm that. Edmonds Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, recalled in her ferry tale she described four problems with Edmonds crossing Crossing and some of the fixes. Tonight she would comment on the cost for the fixes. First, the deep water location, for which there was no fix. The consultant, anticipating technical difficulties /challenges because of the depth, estimated the cost of construction would increase by approximately 20 %. By adding the cost of the permanent structure to an old budgeted amount, she determined the cost to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 21 construct in deep water to be approximately $7.6 million. A floating breakwater would be required to address exposure, the second problem, which would cost approximately $20.9 million not including markups. The second remedy for exposure during high winds was a third slip with overhead loading. There are no calculations available for the slip, she calculated it at $4.5 million and used the cost for overhead loading in Anacortes of $1.3.9 million. To address distance, when both a double ended shuttle bus and manned carts were rejected due to high labor costs, a horizontal elevator was proposed at a cost of $19 million. The cost to address landslide hazards via a cut and fill was estimated at $11.4 million. She concluded the total was $77.3 million to make a poor site workable, a cost the voters would be asked to approve. When she spoke and wrote about this next year, she planned to point out that the figures were outdated and few descriptions were available because no report had ever been written on the project. eighborhood Don Kreiman, Edmonds, recalled several months ago, 68 residents in his neighborhood met and voted Districts on what they wanted done in their neighborhood. He expressed concern with the implication that the residents were unable to figure out the survey and may have completed it incorrectly. He pointed out for years the Firdale Village has done nothing for their neighborhood. Now the Albertson's building was vacant and the strip mall across the street was underutilized. He pointed out there were no trees on those sites and the infrastructure already existed. He urged Council to give their neighborhood the common courtesy of at least considering and costing out their ideas for increasing revenue for the City. He commented although the Council may be aware of what was happening downtown, they may not know what was happening in Perrinville, his neighborhood and other neighborhoods throughout the City. 2007 & 2008 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the 2007 and 2008 budget summaries, commenting the 2007 Budget beginning balance in Fund 125 and 126 was $4,996,514, revenue of $1,517,000 and expenditures of summaries $4,508,000, leaving an ending balance of $2 million. The beginning balance is 2008 in Fund 125 and 126 was $2 million, revenue of $1,488,000 and expenditures of $3,388,000, leaving an ending balance of $106,000. He questioned the $4,508,000 expenditure in 2007 and the $3,388,000 expenditure in 2008. Next Mr. Hertrich recalled when he was on the Council, an issue arose where he had to make a decision regarding a roof structure. Several people he knew personally lived in a condominium on the east side of the street and did not like the roof structure. He made his decision based on the facts and those people were very disappointed in him. In his opinion, it was a privilege for a Councilmember to be a judge, to take the facts and make the right decision. 8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Finance Finance Committee committee Councilmember Olson reported Municipal. Court Judge Fair outlined State requirements for judicial compensation. Committee members voted to have the full Council consider a $1,913 increase in annual pay in order to receive an additional $11,959 in State funding. Next, staff reviewed the third quarter budget report. The Committee also received a briefing on the third quarter budget amendment. This was referred to Council as a consent item. The Committee was then presented with several recommended changes to the Utility Code. After receiving direction from the Committee, staff will prepare a draft ordinance for full Council discussion. The final item was a review of the revised technology initiative RFI. It was agreed to submit this to the Council as a consent item. Public safety Public Safety Committee Committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee discussed contracting for the Court Security Officer. After a previous Municipal Court Judge recommended eliminating this position due to budget constraints, security has been provided via security agencies that employ Police Officers. The Committee recommended this practice continue for one year in the hope that consideration would be given during contract negotiations for an Edmonds Police Officer to serve in this capacity. Next the Committee reviewed the City's existing ordinance and found it may offer options related to barking dogs. The Committee will continue to work on this issue. The Committee then discussed enforcement options Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 22 related to stray cats. Staff recommended reinstating a provision in the ordinance requiring someone who trapped a cat to turn it over to animal control within 24 hours. The Committee recommended the language be reduced to 12 hours and to add language regarding care of the cat. Next the Committee discussed compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756 which requires cities adopt levels of service and specific performance standards. The Compliance Plan will be scheduled on the November 28 agenda. Community/ Community/Development Services Committee Development Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee inquired regarding the Planning Board and ADB's Services Committee interest in recording and broadcasting their meetings; they were not enthusiastic about that opportunity and no further action was taken. The Committee also discussed temporary signs as a result of a recent 9th District Circuit Court decision that complicated the regulation of signs. City Attorney Zach Lell will review the issue further and return to the Committee for further discussion. The final item the Committee considered was a new site for a public service banner at 212th & 72 nd . Staff was directed to pursue the necessary code amendment. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson provided Student Representative Kisa Nishimoto's report that Edmonds - Woodway High School's football team was two wins away from the State championship. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Dawson clarified with regard to court security, although Judge Fair presented it to the Court security public Safety Committee for their input, the decision about who provided court security was the Municipal Court Judge's responsibility. The Public Safety Committee had gotten involved as the prior Judge did not take an active role in court security. Council President Dawson reported the extended agenda indicated there would be Council deliberation on Council the downtown zones on December 5. She confirmed with staff that item would be delayed due to the Extended closed record review on Old Milltown. She suggested the Council's deliberation occur on either Agenda Changes December 12 following Committee meetings or on December 19 as she would be out of town on business on December 5 and it would be best for the full Council to be present for the discussion. Sno -Isle Library District Council President Dawson reported the Sno -Isle Library District invited the City to participate on a Capital Capital Facilities Planning Advisory Board. As neither Mayor Haakenson nor she were able to Facilities Advisory Board participate, she invited a Councilmember to participate. The first meeting is scheduled for November 29 and a second meeting the week of January 8. Council President Dawson congratulated the Edmonds Woodway High School football team and wished them luck. She was hopeful Edmonds Woodway and Gonzaga Prep would participate in the State championship. She wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Edmonds Councilmember Moore reported on a play she attended at Edmonds Center for the Arts presented by center for the Edmonds Community College, finding it a great, well done play and a stunning facility. There was Arrs obviously a pent -up demand for the facility; it was busy all the time as she saw from her home across the street. She complimented PFD members for their effort to develop the facility and staff for their assistance. Edmonds Councilmember Moore announced Edmonds Community College had two new members of the Board of community Trustees, former State Senator Jeannette Wood and Premera Blue Cross Vice President Quentin Powers. College Board Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 23 Green Seattle &11 Councilmember Moore referred to the Green Seattle and Green Tacoma programs aimed at preserving Green Tacoma Programs canopies by removing the undergrowth that prevented the growth of young trees. The Cascade Land Conservancy is seeking another city to participate in that effort. She suggested the Council discuss whether Edmonds wished to participate, and noted it would require a great deal of community effort to remove the undergrowth. Councilmember Moore thanked Roger Hertrich, Don Kreiman and Norma Bruns for speaking tonight. Focus on Need She thanked Mr. Kreiman for addressing the need to increase the City's revenue, acknowledging the City to Increase Revenue often focused on cutting costs. She anticipated the focus would continue to be on how to cut costs until. the Council and administration began to consider how to generate more income. The forecasts to 2010 showed a decline; residents would see serious service cuts in the future if the City's income did not increase. She referred to a chart she requested Mr. Clements develop that illustrated sales tax collections from 1999 — 2006 increased approximately $4 - $5 million. She noted the increase in sales tax collection meant the City could hold the line on property taxes or other increases. She urged Council to focus on increasing revenue. She noted the photographs Mr. Kreiman displayed illustrated ways of developing mixed use so that there would be more affordable housing and more retail sales tax. Councilmember Olson agreed the Edmonds Center for the Arts was wonderful, reminding that they were Edmonds Center for the still raising money. She urged the community to continue raising funds for this facility, advising there Arrs were many opportunities from purchasing a seat nameplate to naming a room or the facility. She wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Regional Councilmember Marin reported he would be speaking before the Regional Transportation Commission in Transportation Commission Everett at 5:30 p.m. next week and may be late to the Council meeting. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:59 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 21, 2006 Page 24