08/03/2004 City CouncilAugust 3, 2004
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Acting Parks & Recreation Dir.
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer
Frances Chapin, Cultural Resources Coordinator
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Cindi Cruz, Senior Administrative Assistant
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
7i27/04 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2004.
Minutes
Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #72867 THROUGH #73032 FOR THE WEEK OF
Claim Checks JULY 26, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $367,840.06.
Approve 26-
Lot Formal (D) FINAL APPROVAL OF A 26 LOT FORMAL PLAT USING THE ECDC PROVISIONS
Plat (Viking I FOR A TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION. THE PROJECT WILL BE RECORDED AS
Heights) I VIKING HEIGHTS. (APPLICANT: VIKING HOMES / FILE NO. P-2003-66).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 1
Findings— (E) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING A CLOSED RECORD REVIEW
ShiAppeal HELD ON JULY 6, 2004 OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
(AP-04-74) TO APPROVE THE PUBLIC FACILITY DISTRICT'S REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR THE OLD EDMONDS
HIGH SCHOOL SITE. (APPELLANT: NATALIE SHIPPEN / FILE NOS. ADB-04-01,
2004 Budget CU-04-02, AND AP-04-74)
Status Report
(F) MID -YEAR, 2004 BUDGET STATUS REPORT.
Public Works
Emergency
Response/ (G) AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN A STATEWIDE PUBLIC WORKS EMERGENCY
Mutual Aid RESPONSE/MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT.
Agreement
Res# 1069 (H) RESOLUTION NO. 1069 SUPPORTING EDMONDS SEEKING STATE LEGISLATIVE
Funding ACTION TO ADDRESS FUNDING FOR MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION
Transportation INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure
Change to I COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
Agenda ALTER THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA TO MOVE ITEM #6 TO ITEM 0A. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mission, 3A. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS MISSION VISION VALUES AND
Vision, 2004 STRATEGIC PLAN.
Values and
Strategic Plan
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements recalled at the City Council retreat this spring, a draft
mission, vision and values statement was developed and the Council asked staff to return with an
implementing strategic plan which was provided to the Council and the public in June. The community
has had several weeks to provide feedback on the plan.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE CITY OF EDMONDS MISSION, VISION, VALUES AND 2004 STRATEGIC
PLAN.
Councilmember Dawson noted one of the City's values was high quality public safety — police, fire and
emergency medical services. She recalled this was discussed at the retreat but was not reflected in the
plan. She questioned whether the plan should state that value more directly or whether direction from the
Council stating that was a value and continuing to provide the current level of service was a goal and
priority of the Council was sufficient. Mr. Clements noted Police Chief Stern and Fire Chief Tomberg
drafted a public safety goal that could be inserted into a revised strategic plan; further details regarding
the goal may need to be drafted. He suggested adopting the plan and staff return with better defined
public safety goals and objectives. Councilmember Dawson agreed, noting the importance of public
safety to the City Council.
At Mayor Haakenson's request, Fire Chief Tomberg read the public safety goal that could be added as
Section I under Draft Council Financial. Stability Policy Statement, "Continue funding and staffing public
safety departments at levels sufficient to serve the community in a timely and effective manner."
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
ADD "CONTINUE FUNDING AND STAFFING PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS AT LEVELS
SUFFICIENT TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY IN A TIMELY AND EFFECTIVE MANNER" AS
SECTION I UNDER DRAFT COUNCIL FINANCIAL STABILITY POLICY STATEMENT.
Councilmember Marin commended staff and the Council on the work that was done at the retreat and
accomplished since the retreat.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 2
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ceiling Rowena Miller, 8711 182na Place SW, Edmonds, recalled two weeks ago five developers were invited
Height to make a presentation to the Council regarding the need for higher first floor ceiling heights for retail
Presentation; development. She noted what they were really discussing was lifting the restriction on building heights as
Opposing Opiniona developer was allowed any height they wanted on the first floor of buildings but a taller first floor
would result in only two stories. She suggested the Council invite those with an opposing opinion to
make a presentation.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Edmonds 3C. UPDATE ON THE EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS BY THE EDMONDS PUBLIC
Center for the FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD.
Arts
Kjris Lund, Project Manager, explained the intent of her presentation was to provide an annual report
on the progress of the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD) with regard to the renovation of the
Edmonds Center for the Arts. She recalled one year ago the Capital Campaign Committee was
established, a committee that includes community leaders from Edmonds and South Snohomish County.
She explained the capital campaign effort had been very successful to date. The first year of the
campaign was the quiet portion of the campaign, when individuals were asked for donations in a one-on-
one manner. Over the past year, the PFD Board has created materials describing the project, held seven
receptions in homes of donors to increase interest in the project, made presentations to boards of
organizations who may have an interest in the facility, and conducted tours of the facility for donors.
Ms. Lund noted two campaigns have occurred within the capital campaign as a result, 1) the Olympic
Ballet held a fund raising event last January and are embarking on an effort to name the stage for John
Wilkins, and 2) the Frank DeMeiro family is undertaking an effort to name the theater after him using his
extensive network of contacts. She reported over the last year, $2,994,812.41 has been raised, an
outstanding beginning for the capital campaign.
Ms. Lund announced today the PFD Board received a check from Snohomish County in the amount of
$1.6 million and invited County Councilmember Gary Nelson to the podium.
Snohomish County Councilmember Gary Nelson thanked the Council for continuing Edmonds' rich
legacy of nurturing and showcasing the arts. He also commended the PFD Board for their efforts and
consistently fulfilling the Council's expectations. He explained four years ago the Snohomish County
Council established a Neighborhood Improvement Program Fund that returned the Real Estate Excise
Taxes (REET) to the cities in a proportionate share that they were generated, primarily for projects that
established parks, assisted with historic buildings, etc. He noted there was originally a park project in the
Edmonds area and when that opportunity failed, a decision was made to allocate the funds to the
Edmonds Center for the Arts.
Ms. Lund explained another part of the fundraising effort was individuals donating to the campaign. Over
220 people have made donations and pledges of stock to the campaign. She explained the PFD's goal
was to reach $1 million in funds from private individuals by the end of August. The total today is
$935,000; pending contributions from Washington Bank and a family will bring the total to $995,000.
She encouraged audience members to assist the PFD in reaching that goal.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 3
Ms. Lund explained another important part of the capital campaign was applying to foundations and
government sources for funds. She noted the PFD hired former Parks & Recreation Director Arvilla
Ohlde to assist in developing requests to foundations. Ms. Ohlde assisted in developing a request to the
Tulalip Tribe; the PFD was informed the Tribe would be granting funds to the project in an amount to be
revealed at an event on August 5 at the Tribe Headquarters. Ms. Ohlde will also be assisting with
requests to a list of foundations that were identified. She offered to email the list of foundations to
Councilmembers to determine whether Councilmembers had any contacts with any of the foundations.
Ms. Lund explained the PFD's original fundraising goal was $6.5 million; based on the funds received to
date, $3.5 million remains to be raised. This amount would be sought via continuing individual requests
as well as pursuing foundations and governmental agencies. The PFD was considering a construction
loan primarily because many of the pledges are multi -year pledges and the PFD would face an increase in.
costs due to inflation if they waited until all the funds are received. She noted the pros and cons of a
construction fund were being analyzed and the PFD was discussing the issue with the City finance
department. She assured the PFD would keep the Council informed as progress continues with regard to
that analysis.
Ms. Lund explained this spring the PFD was forced to close certain uses of the stage due to the condition
of the rigging and stage equipment. That equipment was not originally identified for replacement as part
of the renovation and the approximately $200,000 cost has been added to the renovation costs. She noted
the PFD planned to pursue fundraising specific to the purchase of that equipment.
Ms. Lund reported the PFD sold the Anchor House and library properties, have completed design and
construction drawings and the City's land use review process. The PFD will be submitting construction
drawings to the City later this month.
Ms. Lund noted the facility has continued to be used during the fundraising effort by organizations such
as the Storybook Theater, the Cascade Symphony, Edmonds Community College, Olympic Ballet and the
SnoKing Chorale. On September 30, the PFD has scheduled a special event to kick-off the public phase
of the campaign. She noted the PFD was seeking donations of all sizes, and was also seeking additional
assistance on the capital campaign. Further, the PFD was discussing partnering on the operation of the
facility with Edmonds Community College as well as discussing a marketing and booking plan. She
commended the members of the PFD Board and expressed their appreciation for the newest member,
Dave Earling. She displayed renderings of the renovated lobby and auditorium, noting additional visuals
were on display at the facility.
Councilmember Marin asked the total amount the PFD had raised to date. Ms. Lund replied the total was
slightly more than $12.5 million.
Mayor Haakenson thanked Snohomish County Councilmember Gary Nelson for his and the County
Council's support of this project.
Safety 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY CONCERNS AND REQUEST FOR
Concerns
at STOP SIGNS AT 76TH
76`h Ave. W AVENUE WEST AND MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD, AND
Ave. /
Meadowdale POTENTIAL COUNCIL ACTION.
Beach Road
Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith described existing site conditions at 76t'' Avenue West and Meadowdale
Beach Road. He stated there are two long narrow roadways that intersect, rolling terrain, and no
sidewalks to either the north or east of the intersection. He reported there were two reported accidents in
the past three years at this intersection. Further, 76d' Avenue has approximately 176 vehicles traveling
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 4
north and southbound during peak hours and Meadowdale Beach Road has approximately 151 vehicles
during peak hours, and various levels of speeding occur along 76th Avenue.
Mr. Smith explained considerations for an all -way stop warrant include the following: five or more
correctable accidents in a 12-month period and minimum traffic volumes including a minimum of 500
vehicles and pedestrians per hour passing through the combined intersection or minimum of 200 vehicles
and pedestrians traveling through the intersection from the minor leg (Meadowdale Beach Road).
Mr. Smith reviewed staff s recommendation that all -way stop warrants are not presently being met and
the Development Services, Fire, and Police Departments did not support the installation of an all -way
stop at 76`h Avenue and Meadowdale Beach Road at this time. Staff encouraged police enforcement in
this corridor that focused on speeding.
Councilmember Dawson asked if there was any data regarding the number of pedestrians traveling
through that area, recognizing that the public's concern was primarily pedestrian safety. Mr. Smith
answered pedestrian counts were taken during peak periods. He acknowledged there were pedestrians
and bicycles in the area but not necessarily at that intersection. Councilmember Dawson commented
pedestrian traffic may be less than it could be because people don't feel safe walking. She concluded
staff did not find significant enough pedestrian activity to warrant the all -way stop. Mr. Smith agreed.
Councilmember Dawson noted this issue was advertised as stop signs but extended into a discussion of
walkways in the area. She noted the majority of public comment was of two minds with regard to a stop
sign but they really wanted a walkway. At Councilmember Dawson's request, Development Services
Director Duane Bowman referred to his July 29 memo, noting the walkway was highly ranked in the
Sidewalk Plan but funding for the estimated $548,000 cost (in 2002 dollars) was not currently available.
He noted there were no funds allocated for design and it was not the type of walkway that successfully
qualified for grant funding as it was not a school walkway, therefore it was likely the City would need to
fund the walkway with local funding. He noted with the passage of I-776, the City lost approximately
$350,000 per year in ongoing revenue; therefore, Fund 112 did not currently have any funds for
walkways. He noted staff planned to make a presentation to the Council on Fund 112 later this month.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out the cost of this walkway project exceeded the existing revenue
streams into Fund 112 for all transportation projects. Mr. Bowman agreed.
Councilmember Dawson asked Mr. Bowman to describe the in -lieu of sidewalk fund. Mr. Bowman
explained the City used to collect revenue as in -lieu -of payments for walkway purposes; the City has
expended funds that were collected in this area for walkway projects. He noted the amount collected was
very small in comparison to the cost of this walkway. Councilmember Dawson recalled questions that
were raised regarding specific allocations for this walkway project. Mr. Bowman indicated his research
was unable to find that information. Engineering has records of property owners who have made
payments to the in -lieu -of fund but those walkway funds have been expended and the City no longer
collects in -lieu -of walkway funds.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether the funds collected were expended in that area although not on
this particular walkway project. Mr. Bowman answered they were not necessarily expended in that area
but were spent on walkway projects. Funds collected in this manner typically must be spent within six
years or returned with interest. Councilmember Dawson noted that of the walkway projects, this was the
top priority. Mr. Bowman agreed, stating it would be a priority following the other projects that were in
design or had grant funding. He pointed out walkways near schools were better able to compete for grant
funds. One of the proposals for the Fund 112 was a process for including walkway in the funding
mechanism but it would take approximately three years' allocation to have sufficient funds for this
walkway project. He stated funding allocations were Council policy decisions and the CIP would be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 5
where the specific projects were identified. He recalled projects to be funded from Fund 112 was
discussed at the Council retreat, including street overlays, walkway, road stabilization and street
maintenance. Councilmember Dawson stated a dedicated funding source needed to be identified for
transportation projects to avoid their being continually delayed. Mr. Bowman agreed that would be
necessary unless the State Legislature took action to allow cities to form a Street Utility that would
generate local funds for street maintenance.
Councilmember Moore inquired about the liability issue of installing or not installing a stop sign. City
Attorney Scott Snyder explained a problem may arise if the City installed an improvement for which there
were not adequate warrants. He noted there were two aspects of Washington law that created a problem
for the City; Washington is a comparative negligence state which means if a person is injured, the courts
compare the relative negligence of the parties involved. When the City installs improvements that are not
within traffic warrants or do not meet the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
guidelines and design parameters, the City is negligent by definition.
Mr. Snyder provided two examples, the first occurred approximately 18 years ago when an individual,
passed out behind the wheel of their car after drinking when the car was partially parked at the City's
waterfront and across the railroad tracks. A train hit the car and a claim was filed against the City
because the striping on the pavement was not in conformance with WSDOT regulations. The City was a
very small percent liable but the costs were transferred to the City despite the overwhelming contribution
of the driver. Mr. Snyder described a similar situation that occurred in South Snohomish County in which
a young man took his motorcycle from 0-90 mph in 300 feet, ran a stop sign and broadsided a car.
Unfortunately the intersection did not have sufficient warrants for a stop sign and Snohomish County was
found liable and the case was eventually settled. He concluded anytime the City installed a traffic
improvement that was not designed in accordance with State standards or installed under State warrants,
the City became the virtual insurer of that intersection and if any loss occurred, the City would be held
accountable for some portion of that liability.
Councilmember Wilson asked staff to describe warrant analysis. Mr. Smith explained the federal
government assisted in producing the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and numerous
statistical studies have been conducted by colleges and traffic organizations to determine the warrants.
He noted he was part of the Urban Traffic Engineer's Council who meet quarterly to discuss issues such
as this. Councilmember Wilson clarified the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices was used
throughout the United States. Mr. Snyder explained when someone claimed another was negligent and
liable for damages, if it was an individual, attorneys referred to the reasonable man standard, did a person
act reasonably? When the issue was professional conduct, the test was whether the actions that were
taken were done in accordance with generally accepted practice; in this case the standards and warrants
set the standard for determining negligence.
Councilmember Wilson asked what the City would do if it chose not to follow the warrant analysis
process, how would a defensible decision be made on these types of requests. Mr. Smith answered he
was unsure whether a defensible program could be developed. He anticipated decisions would then be
made by traffic engineers deciding the best way on a case -by -case basis which would make comparisons
difficult. He explained he was obligated to install safety improvements at the worst intersections first; if
he installed safety improvements and some intersections and ignored other worse intersections, that would
also be a liability issue.
Councilmember Wilson asked how much was accumulated in the life of the in -lieu -of fund for sidewalk
improvements. Mr. Bowman was uncertain the amount and offered to provide that information to the
Council. Councilmember Wilson noted the amount would be useful information for the Council.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 6
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He noted the Council
office received six telephone calls regarding the stop sign at 76th Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach
Road — Julie Davis and Jean Mitchell in favor of the stop sign and Karen Flyvin, Francie Dailer, John and
Ulaine Johnson and John Becker opposed to the stop sign. The City Clerk received 12 emails over the
past five days — Phyllis Wiggins, Mary Caryl, Gil and Janet Thiry, Louise Gerth, Kathleen Johanson,
Lourdes Becker, Jody Spiro, Brian Moll, Richard Van Saun, Richard and Gail Hankenson in opposition
and Jim and Karen Carson in favor and Henry Chang and Sherri Knopik asking for safety improvements.
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council was also provided a petition tonight signed by 14 residents who
were opposed to the stop sign. The Council also received a letter on. July 30 from Jeanie Anderson who
was in favor of the stop sign.
Michael King, 1.6711 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, displayed a photograph of the intersection looking
south on 76th Avenue W and identified Meadowdale Beach Road, a blind curve, a school bus stop and the
location where pedestrians crossed the uncontrolled intersection. He noted Mr. Smith did not address
speeds or sight distance in his presentation. He referred to an accident report of a vehicle traveling 60
mph that flipped, explaining a vehicle traveling 60 mph would only provide a pedestrian 2 seconds to
clear the intersection. At 40 mph a pedestrian had only 3.5 seconds to clear the intersection, the speed he
estimated most vehicles traveled. Staff s report stated multiple field visits observed vehicles driving 35
mph and that the desired sight distances were not met. The report also states if minimum stopping sight
distances were not met, a solution would be an all -way stop although stopping sight distances appear to
be adequate at the posted speed. The report also states sidewalks on Meadowdale Beach Road were
warranted. He displayed a photograph of a bicyclist on the roadway, commenting there was nowhere for
the cyclist to exit the roadway. Mr. King then referred to a conversation several years ago with the City
Engineer who showed him plans for a walkway and estimated costs. He questioned the statement that
there was no funding for walkways when it appeared the City had funds for other projects. He concluded
a stop sign would help by slowing vehicles, but the most important improvement would be sidewalks.
Ken Case, 7601 Ridge Way, Edmonds, expressed interest in learning about the reasons for a stop sign
and was pleased Mr. Smith and the Community Services/Development Services Committee did not
recommend installation of a stop sign. He noted there were other intersections in the area that should
have stop signs such as Meadowdale Beach Road & Olympic View Drive or 176th where it crossed
Olympic View Drive or Homeview Drive. He agreed with Mr. Smith and the Community
Services/Development Services Committee decision that a stop sign was not warranted at 76th Avenue
West and Meadowdale Beach Road.
Jeanie Anderson, 16727 74'h Place W, Edmonds, stated 76th Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach
Road can at times be dangerous for pedestrians. Although she enjoyed walking in the neighborhood on a
daily basis, she avoided the later afternoons and evenings due to high speed motorists. She supported an
all -way stop at the intersection due to the blind corner and because the speed limit on 76th changed from
30 mph to 25 mph at that corner and a stop sign would assist in slowing traffic. She referred to the
intersection of North Meadowdale Road and 76th Avenue W which was an all -way stop which she found a
safer intersection. She commented other traffic calming solutions such as additional flagged speed limit
signs in both directions on 76th Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach Road and increased police
enforcement of speed limits during afternoon and evening hours should be considered. The December
2002 Comprehensive Walkway Plan recognized the need for pedestrian facilities in this area and
designated them as Priority 1. She suggested an unpaved trail or meandering path may be more
appropriate than a paved sidewalk to maintain the semi -rural character of the area. With regard to
walkways being unfunded projects in the current budget, she suggested funds be sought from unspent or
unexpected revenues such as funds from the waterfront walkway project that was under budget or fines
paid by Triad Development. With regard to maintenance of pedestrian facilities, she identified several
that were not being maintained including a short section of path west of the entrance to Eagles Nest and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 7
remnants of a hillside pedestrian trail further east on Meadowdale Road. She concluded the City should
either maintain those facilities or ensure other responsible parties maintained them.
Sandy Eastly, 16858 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, acknowledged a stop sign was not a quick fix for
sidewalks to the park, pointing out at the end of the road was the park that many people liked to walk to
and many used the railroad tracks because of the inability to walk on the street. She noted the majority of
those who were opposed to the stop sign lived north of the stop sign and much of the traffic from 76th
turned up Meadowdale Beach Road and they would not be as badly affected because there was already a
stop sign at North Meadowdale Road. She noted traffic traveled 30 mph in front of her house because the
speed limit did not change to 25 mph until North Meadowdale Road. She suggested a stop sign would
assist in controlling traffic, noting there were numerous pedestrians that used the street.
Steve Conroy,16717 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, commented on the sidewalk that was rebuilt on SR 524
up Olympic View to Perrinville and then to Meadowdale Beach Road, pointing out it discontinued in
front of their house and continued up Meadowdale Beach Road to the park. He questioned why the
sidewalk was discontinued in front of their house, noting this was one of the most hazardous areas of that
road for pedestrians due to blind corners, hills, driveways and excessive speeds. He stated he had been hit
six times in front of his house while jogging, had witnessed many automobile accidents in that area and
had seen pedestrians harassed by vehicles that did not slow down. He could not be convinced that this
was a safe stretch of roadway and there was no justification for not continuing the sidewalk in the area.
He acknowledged a stop sign at 76th Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach Road was not the answer. He
noted stop signs at both 76th Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach Road and at 171 st and Meadowdale
Beach Road may be more effective at slowing traffic due to two stop signs in close proximity. He
asserted the City Council was charged with protecting citizens' health, safety and welfare pointing out a
lack of police enforcement on a regular basis. He concluded there was a high volume of pedestrian traffic
in this area and a sidewalk was needed right now. He questioned why there was a 3-way stop at North
Meadowdale Beach Road where there was virtually no traffic.
Ralph Puchalski, 7810 175th Street SW, Edmonds, noted he had been run off the road at the
intersection of 76th Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach Road and supported the installation of an all -
way stop. He described walking on the sidewalk on 76th Avenue West and crossing the road at 76th
Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach Road to face oncoming traffic. He agreed with the comments
regarding difficulty crossing the street due to limited sight distance. He asked for a show of hands from
the audience who were in favor of making 76th Avenue West a safer road to walk; a majority of the
audience raised their hands. He asked how many were in favor, if there were no funds for police
enforcement, of a stop sign at the intersection; several members of the audience raised their hands.
Kirstin Foote, 7810 175th Street SW, Edmonds, described walking on 76th Avenue West to the park,
noting that area of 76th was the primary arterial for their neighborhood to reach Meadowdale High School
or the park. She avoided walking between 8:00 — 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 — 7:00 p.m. due to dangerous
conditions. She questioned the statement that pedestrian traffic was not considered high at this location,
pointing out whenever she walked she encountered at least a dozen other pedestrians. The intersection of
76th Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach Road was the most dangerous intersection in this area and she
always ran across due to the limited sight distance. She did not walk across this intersection with children
but drove to her destination with children because she found it too dangerous. She suggested more people
may be driving along this stretch of roadway because it was not safe to walk and more may walk if it
were safer. She favored the stop sign because the sidewalk alternative did not seem to be a possibility in
the near fixture and recommended installation of sidewalks in this area be a top priority.
Grant DuBois, 16721 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, commented anyone who was opposed to the stop sign
did not live in the immediate area. He referred to accidents that have occurred at the intersection and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 8
questioned when the pedestrian volume data was collected. He offered to put in his section of sidewalk
and questioned whether the City would charge him for a permit. He spoke in favor of the stop sign as
well as a sidewalk.
Seyed Daniellie, 7821 175th Street SW, Edmonds, referred to the statement regarding minimum traffic
volumes, explaining the code was designed to improve the safety of citizens and if read properly, the city
had responsibility to install stop signs if the volume was more than 500 vehicles or pedestrians per hour
but that did not mean the City could not add a stop sign if volumes were less than 500. He stated that
stretch of road was dangerous and adding an all -way stop would improve the safety. He commented on
the inability to walk with his grandchildren in this area due to safety concerns, pointing out that regardless
of the city's budget, pedestrians had to be a priority. He reiterated 500 vehicles/pedestrians was the
minimum, if the volume was less, common sense should be used to determine the need for a stop sign.
Lori Dressler, 15714 75th Place W, Edmonds, commented the photographs that were displayed of the
bicyclist and the jogger in the street were not near this intersection but on a dangerous section of 76th
Avenue West that needed sidewalks as did Meadowdale Beach Road. She was dismayed that a 3-way
stop was being considered as a solution to pedestrian safety when what was needed was sidewalks. She
acknowledged more drivers traveled the speed limit and stopped at the stop signs when police were in the
area but the addition of two unnecessary stop signs would not have the effect that the presence of police
officers did. She relayed her understanding that because funds were not available for sidewalk, the stop
signs would be an affordable action. She noted action simply for action's sake would not be appreciated
by Meadowdale residents. If the Council could not identify sufficient funds for sidewalk, she encouraged
the Council not to waste money on stop signs that were neither wanted nor needed. She encouraged the
Council to support the recommendations of the Traffic Engineer, Fire Department and Police Department
and vote against a stop sign on 76th Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach Road. She submitted
signatures of 14 Meadowdale neighbors who are opposed to the stop sign, noting the signatures were
provided to her, but had she solicited signatures, she could have gotten many more.
John Quast, 15714 75th Place, Edmonds, President of the Meadowdale Community Club, offered their
support for the Traffic Engineer's study that indicated a 3-way stop was not justified at the intersection of
76th Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach Road. The Meadowdale community recognized the need for
sidewalks and supported building them on Meadowdale Beach Road as well as on 76th and 751h Avenues.
He noted this was a recognized public safety issue that a stop sign would not address. With regard to the
belief that a stop sign would act as a speed reduction device, the neighborhood's experience indicated this
was not effective. He used 751h Avenue W and North Meadowdale Road, currently a 3-way stop, as an
example and explained those who were sensitive to pedestrian traffic drove the speed limit and stopped at
stop signs; those who were not ignored signs and traveled in excess of the speed limit. He described
Meadowdale's experience with speed bumps, noting they were very effective at slowing emergency
vehicles and were not recommended. He understood the building of sidewalks was difficult, expensive
and that funds were not currently available; however, the need was for sidewalks not a stop sign. He
urged the Council to support the Traffic Engineer's recommendation and vote against installation of a 3-
way stop at 76th Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach Road.
Bea O'Rourke, 434 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, cited the dangerous conditions at 76th Avenue West and
Meadowdale Beach Road, recalling the meeting where many expressed safety concerns with this
intersection. Although she agreed there was a major problem, she did not believe a stop sign would solve
the problem. What she perceived at the meeting was that the residents in the area wanted sidewalks not a
stop sign. She recalled several residents spoke of having contributed to a fund for the sidewalk which
now appeared had not been designated to a specific project. She relayed her observations that many
drivers speed and ignore stop signs.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 9
Jennifer Mantooth, 7220 North Meadowdale Road, Edmonds, noted her observations indicated there
was sufficient traffic at the intersection to warrant a stop sign. She also supported a sidewalk in the area.
She questioned why some property owners were not required to install sidewalks when their homes were
constructed.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, asked whether the warrants were satisfied for the stop
sign and crosswalk at Frances Anderson Center and for the traffic circle on Dayton. He felt the City had a
responsibility to provide safety and if sidewalks could not be constructed, perhaps the shoulders could be
widened, the speed limit lowered, or regular police patrols provided. He noted a full curb, gutter,
sidewalk was not necessarily required, even a 2-person wide asphalt pathway may be adequate.
Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, pointed out this area needed sidewalks; stop signs were
only a bandaid. He suggested options for identifying funds for the sidewalks such as the $75,000 per year
allocated to the Alliance, the $100,000 per year Economic Development Director's salary, and $500,000
for five years of the Traffic Engineer's salary. He concluded the funds were available, it was up to the
Council to determine who benefited, the staff or the citizens.
Marsha Koons, 7111 Meadowdale Beach Road, Edmonds, referred to several houses in the area that
were not required to install sidewalks and questioned why some were required to install sidewalks or
provide in -lieu -of funds and others were not. She noted Eagles Nest was required to install trails but they
were now impassible.
Ed Farmer, 7350 Meadowdale Beach Road, Edmonds, commented most of the people who did not
want the stop sign lived to the north. Meadowdale Beach Road as well as other roads in the area need
walkways. He referred to a letter his niece wrote 14 years ago as part of a school project describing her
concern with walking on this road and the City's assurance that something would be done. He referred to
the residents who have contributed to sidewalks, questioning how long the residents would have to wait.
He noted there were sidewalks to the south and north. He recalled the high school track team used to jog
by their house but did not any longer, likely because they chose a safer route. He urged the Council to
take some action, at least increase police patrols. He concluded the residents in the area should determine
whether there was a need for a stop sign. He agreed sight distances were especially bad when vehicles
were speeding. He supported the stop signs, sidewalks and increased police enforcement in the area.
Jeffrey Jones, 16919 76th Place W, Edmonds, commented there was a great deal of traffic that used the
area as a short cut. He suggested limiting the cut -through traffic in their neighborhood. He noted the
amount of traffic had increased significantly over the past six years and speeds often exceed 40 mph. He
suggested the speed limit be reduced to 25 mph further south and/or the short-cut from Olympic View
Drive be made a less passable route via lower speed limits or other methods.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
In response to issues raised by the public, Mr. Smith advised the traffic warrants were met for the all -way
stop at 71h & Main Street. There were sidewalk projects that had been designed that were awaiting
funding such as the 164th Avenue walkway project. He explained Engineering and Development Services
ceased collecting in -lieu -of fees in favor of installing sidewalks at the time of development. He thanked
the audience for participating in tonight's discussion, emphasizing his intent was to make the community
as safe as possible.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 10
Mr. Snyder referred to the question regarding the City's liability to the pedestrian, explaining it was the
same issue with the stop sign — did generally accepted engineering practices call for a walkway at that
location. He referred to another funding mechanism available under State law, Local Improvement
Districts (LID). A LID for sidewalks did not typically assess the greatest expense to those adjacent to the
road and could use a district approach that would, with the assistance of an appraiser, determine who
would benefit from a walkway.
Councilmember Orvis provided a reminder that the Council would be discussing funding sources for
roads and sidewalks at the August 24 Council meeting.
Responding to Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Smith explained there were two different sidewalk designs,
concrete with curbs, gutters and ADA curb ramps as well as asphalt sidewalks in areas where it was felt
they would blend with the characteristics of the community. Councilmember Wilson recalled the
estimate for the 76th Avenue West sidewalk was $500,000 and asked what type of sidewalk was
envisioned. Mr. Smith answered he had not reviewed the sidewalk plans but had been told there was
asphalt as well as a timber plank elevated walkway.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the constraints that made a walkway on 76th Avenue West a
difficult project and whether there were alternatives for some type of walking path. Mr. Smith answered
the primary issue was lack of space due to the steep side slopes. He envisioned a paved sidewalk
structure, likely asphalt. He agreed a walkway could meander where it was cost effective and
aesthetically appropriate. He noted to provide maximum pedestrian safety, a curb was desirable.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the full right-of-way width was available along 76th Avenue West.
Mr. Smith answered he would need to research that issue, noting if the roadway surface was widened, the
sidewalk could be placed on either side.
Councilmember Wilson referred to Ms. Anderson's assertion regarding neglected pathways. Mr.
Bowman answered the walkway on Meadowdale was public and has not been maintained. The pathway
to 72nd was initially established as a public pathway to be maintained by Eagles Crest. The pathway has
fallen into disrepair; there has been interest in reopening it but it is extremely steep.
Councilmember Moore asked whether consideration had been given to lowering the speed limit from 30
mph to 25 mph. Mr. Smith answered the classification of the roadway changed at Meadowdale Beach
Road, thus the reason the speed limit changed at that location. He noted staff continually reviewed speed
limits throughout the City. Councilmember Moore asked whether lowering the speed limit would help.
Mr. Smith answered most people drive at a speed at which they feel comfortable; what kept them in
compliance was enforcement, not a sign. He recognized the need for appropriate, visible signage.
Councilmember Moore recalled the Community Services/Development Services Committee discussed
how to ensure people were aware they were speeding; enforcement was one method, another was drawing
attention to the speed limit such as via orange flags. She asked whether flagged speed limit signs would
be an option on 76th Avenue West. Mr. Smith offered to research whether there was appropriate signage
on 76th Avenue West and ensure the signs were visible.
Councilmember Moore noted the issue appeared to be sidewalks and pedestrian safety and agreed a stop
sign was not warranted. In an effort to provide more protection to the area, she suggested further
consideration be given to flagged speed limit signs. She inquired whether pedestrian walkway stripes
could be painted on 76th Avenue West to remind drivers this was a pedestrian crossing. Mr. Smith
acknowledged that had not yet been considered.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 11
Councilmember Moore asked how the pedestrian volumes were measured. Mr. Smith explained staff
stood at the intersection and counted pedestrians two different times, at the end of April 2004 during a
warm spell at approximately 2:00 — 3:00 p.m. and in 2003 during a similar time period.
Councilmember Moore referred to the comment that the 500 vehicle/pedestrian minimum did not mean
that the city could not install a stop sign. Mr. Smith explained his interpretation of the Manual on.
Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the application of all -way stop signs was that minimum meant
minimum. He noted there could be an instance where an intersection operated very efficient and there
was no accident data. However, usually when volumes increased, statically the number of accidents also
increased.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on police patrols in the area. Police Chief David Stern
stated there were several neighborhoods that had similar interests and an effort was made to have police
patrols in those neighborhoods as often as possible. The Police Department did not have sufficient staff
to station an officer in those neighborhoods on a semi -permanent, everyday basis. He offered to discuss
with the Traffic Officer ways to get more enforcement in the Meadowdale area. He reiterated there were
other neighborhoods with similar concerns. Mayor Haakenson asked how many officers were on duty at
any one time in the City. Chief Stern stated a maximum of six, frequently it was less.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the cost of the pedestrian activated signal on 212th adjacent to the
high school. Mr. Smith replied that type of in -ground system with runway lights cost $40,000 - $70,000.
Councilmember Wilson noted an in -ground system likely would not be effective due to the sight
distances. Mr. Smith agreed, explaining there were also above ground systems that could be considered
that were more cost effective. Councilmember Wilson observed there were concerns expressed both with
visibility crossing the street as well as walking along the street and asked whether a pedestrian activated
signal had been considered. Mr. Smith answered that type of control device had not been considered for
this location. Areas where that type of system has been installed were primarily school zones.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the traffic analysis included any study of the origin/designation of
vehicles. Mr. Smith answered it did not. Councilmember Wilson commented on the issue of speeding,
questioning whether it was the neighbors or pass through traffic that was speeding. Mr. Smith
commented on a national level, a very high percentage of the speeding offenders were the local residents.
Councilmember Wilson acknowledged it was difficult for some residents to learn that the warrants did not
justify a stop sign. He asked whether staff was willing to consider alternatives for an interim fix to
address the high cost of a full sidewalk and the costs associated with a LID process. Mr. Smith responded
a LID process to assess the costibenefit ratios would be very involved because of the need to show that
the sidewalk would create a financial benefit to the properties in the LID.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the funding of a LID could be supplemented by the City. Mr.
Snyder explained the Council could initiate a LID or residents could initiate an LID by petition that met
the required percentage of property owners to proceed. The next step would be to hire an appraiser to
determine the benefit and area. He noted it was not typically the properties adjacent to the street that
received the greatest benefit; a tiered approach was used that determined those closest did not have as
much benefit, the next tier had the primary benefit and those furthest away had some benefit. Usually a
portion of the benefit was general to the City at large and a portion to the properties in the district. He
advised the City could supplement the project.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on the remark that the requirement to install or contribute
to sidewalks was erratic, some property owners making improvements to their property were required to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 12
install sidewalks and others were not. Mr. Bowman agreed in the past that appeared to be the case, there
was erratic enforcement of that code requirement. Since he became the Director, in -lieu -of funds had not
been collected, either a sidewalk was required or it was not according to established criteria. He noted
there was no ordinance establishing the collection of in -lieu -of funds instead of requiring the installation
of sidewalks.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Dawson clarified the issue before the Council was the stop sign. She pointed out the
potential danger for pedestrians of an unwarranted stop sign where drivers may not obey the stop sign but
pedestrians relied on the stop sign and may step into the intersection only to have a driver run the stop
sign. Councilmember Dawson commented that was one of the reasons a stop sign was not installed when
the warrants were not met. Mr. Smith agreed, noting there were intersections where stop signs were
warranted and the number of accidents increased in the first few years following installation of stop signs.
Councilmember Dawson requested staff schedule this issue on a future agenda for discussion of traffic
controls, less expensive options for a walkway, a LID funded partially by residents and partially by the
City.
Councilmember Dawson clarified when the Council discussed how expensive a walkway would be, they
were not saying they would not do it but that was one of the reasons it had not been done yet and was the
reason the Council could not agree tonight to install a walkway. Mr. Bowman advised this was a
budgetary issue for the Council to decide; the Council sets the priorities via the CIP.
Hearing no further questions for staff, Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
DIRECT STAFF NOT TO INSTALL AN ALL -WAY STOP AT EITHER THE 76TH AVENUE
WEST AND MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD INTERSECTION OR THE 76TH AVENUE WEST
AND 171ST STREET SW INTERSECTION.
Council President Plunkett suggested if the Council was not going to recommend installation of the stop
sign, no action was necessary. Mayor Haakenson countered that staff had been working on this for two
years and it was time to put the matter to rest by directing staff to either install a stop sign or not install a
stop sign.
Council President Plunkett disagreed any action was necessary as it was obvious staff did not intend to
install a stop sign. For those who supported the stop sign, he noted the matter was discussed twice by the
Community Services/Development Services Committee, two reviews by the Engineering Department,
ample opportunity for supporters to speak to their neighbors but unfortunately, the warrants were not met.
He thanked staff, the Council and the residents for their effort on this matter.
Councilmember Marin commented he was interested in exploring the concept of a stop sign and was
surprised to see this much opposition to the stop sign. He noted most people think teenagers were the
ones speeding; however, the truth was much of the speeding was done by the residents of the
neighborhood. He encouraged the residents to the north and south of the intersection to slow down. He
acknowledged the intersection may be unsafe and would continue to be unsafe until the funds to improve
it could be identified. He concluded the Council understood that sidewalks were needed in this area.
Councilmember Wilson encouraged neighbors to respect each other and their neighborhood. He pointed
out the warrant analysis depoliticizes decisions regarding traffic control devices. If the Council were to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 13
make a decision based on the testimony tonight, 29 people were opposed and 12 were in favor; however,
that was not how such decisions were made, they were made via technical analysis of the need for the
improvement. Although some may dispute staff s data and findings, the Council relied on the Traffic
Engineer's expertise in that field to evaluate the data and make a recommendation based on his analysis
rather than emotion. The Council recognized residents' concern with safety in this area and he was
hopeful staff could identify options to address issues in this area, budget for the improvements and
possibly implement some improvements in phases.
Councilmember Wilson referred to a neighborhood where stop signs that were not warranted and his
observations of vehicles that did not stop at the stop sign because most of the time they did not see
another car and did not see the need to stop. This was his greatest fear in using a stop sign to solve a
problem that did not warrant that as a solution. He agreed an unwarranted stop sign could create a false
sense of security by creating the illusion that it was safe to cross when drivers may ignore the stop sign.
He expressed his support for staff's recommendation not to install a stop sign and looked forward to
identifying a long term solution to sidewalks and pedestrian safety in that neighborhood.
Councilmember Olson thanked the residents who spoke to the Council regarding the stop sign, pointing
out it also raised the issue of sidewalks.
Councilmember Orvis restated that the Council would be discussing funding sources at the August 24
meeting. Mayor Haakenson clarified the Council would be discussing whether to use funds from the
Parks Improvement and Acquisition Fund to fund street and sidewalk improvements. He noted this was a
value judgment for the community — whether to continue to support parks or fund improvement projects.
Mayor Haakenson asked staff to describe what it would take to build the 76th Avenue West walkway
project. Mr. Smith answered the public would need to stop voting for initiatives that eliminated
transportation funding. In the last two years approximately $700,000 that would be used for walkway and
roadway improvements had been lost due to the passage of initiatives.
Mayor Haakenson commented no one heard more about traffic issues in the city than he. He recalled
residents in Westgate had a similar discussion with the Police Department, Mr. Smith and Development
Services 2-3 months ago and similar problems exist all over the city and elsewhere — too much traffic and
people driving too fast. He noted the solution was not to put a stop sign on every corner or install speed
bumps at every intersection although there may be appropriate locations. He noted the same neighbors
that complain about speeding then complain because receiving a ticket. He summarized the Council and
staff took this issue very seriously but it was a problem everywhere and a solution needed to be identified.
Mr. Smith commented the City had the technical expertise in-house to design walkway projects. This
project would be challenging due to geotechnical issues in the Meadowdale area. In response to Mayor
Haakenson's question regarding what would be needed to build the 76th Avenue West walkway project,
he said clear direction from the Council was needed to make the project happen. He noted the direction
from Council over the past two years has been to cut back and reduce transportation services in the
community which staff has done.
Mayor Haakenson asked how the 76th Avenue West walkway project could be constructed. City Engineer
Dave Gebert explained the first thing was money, which represented a significant amount of the Capital
Improvement Program. Next, the walkway needed to be designed. He acknowledged some design had
been done in the past; that design would need to be reviewed and completed. He agreed some of the
design could be done in-house although a consultant may be required for a portion. He estimated design
would take 6-12 months with construction the following year. He reiterated the first step would be
identifying funds for the project.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 14
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the challenges such as slopes, drainage ditches, right-of-way issues and
deciding on which side of the roadway to place the walkway. Mr. Gebert advised the existing design was
to have the walkway on the west side of the street which would require retaining walls, a footbridge due
to a steep slope, etc. He clarified it was not as simple as painting stripes, putting down gravel and laying
asphalt; the project would need to address drainage issues, slopes, etc.
Mayor Haakenson asked staff to comment on the voter -approved initiatives that have resulted in the loss
of funds that were previously used for overlays. Mr. Gebert explained the City used to receive
approximately $350,000 per year via the $15 collected from the vehicle registration fee; 1-776 eliminated
the $15 portion of the vehicle registration fee and the City lost $350,000 per year or 46% of the city's
recurring annual revenue into the Transportation Capital Project Fund. As a result, the city has reduced
overlays drastically and only does walkway projects for which the city has obtained grants. He noted
staff had not applied for grants in the last year because the city did not have the resources to provide the
matching funds.
Mayor Haakenson asked how many sidewalk projects the city had done in the past 3-4 years. Mr. Gebert
answered 2-3, most were projects with a significant amount of grant funds. Mayor Haakenson clarified
sidewalk were not being built all over the city. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the priority was walkway
projects that provided access to schools.
With regard to the promise made 14 years ago to Mr. Farmer's niece, Mayor Haakenson apologized that
none of the current Council was in office and staff had been unable to find any evidence regarding that
promise.
Mayor Haakenson noted there were sidewalk projects underway that had grant funding; this project did
not have any grant funding and it was unlikely it would qualify for grant funding. He asked if this project
would be at the top of the list if funding existed. Mr. Gebert answered yes.
Counciimember Moore pointed out Item H on the Consent Agenda was a resolution supporting Edmonds
seeking State Legislative action to address funding for municipal transportation infrastructure. Mayor
Haakenson recalled the Speaker of the House blocked the Street Utility tax every time it came to a vote
last year.
Councilmember Wilson suggested discussion regarding interim solutions to address this issue be
scheduled on the September work meeting agenda prior to the budget process. Council President Plunkett
scheduled the matter for the September 28 Council meeting.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jennifer Mantooth, 7220 North Meadowdale Road, Edmonds, encouraged the Council not to use
acronyms during their discussions as many audience members were unfamiliar with them.
Building David Dwyer, 18709 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, voiced his support for increasing the height of
Heights the first floor retail but not for increasing overall building heights. He commented increasing the height
limits would hurt the small town appeal as well as residents whose views would be impacted. His
grandparents' view of the ferry was eliminated and now their view of the Olympics was being obliterated
by a new condominium building. He encouraged the Council when making a decision regarding
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 15
increasing building heights in the downtown area to remember that the City's small town character,
locally owned stores and neighborly people was a function of building heights.
orting Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, asked who residents should call to report suspected
Sus
picious terrorist activity, explaining there was no Homeland Security in Snohomish County. He relayed the
ctivi experience of someone who observed a blimp flying over the city displaying the word Sanyo and the
person's inability to get a number for Homeland Security from a 911 operator or directory assistance.
Upon finding a number for Homeland Security in Seattle, they found only the opportunity to leave a
message was available. This person then called the FBI and reached a person who took the information.
He summarized there was no way to report suspicious activity in a timely manner in Snohomish County.
He suggested the City be an activist in addressing this issue.
Police Chief Stern advised the public had two options, calling 911 and the SnoCom dispatch should take
the information; the second option was the FBI's 24-hour terrorism hotline in their Seattle office. Mayor
Haakenson requested Mr. Hertrich have whomever relayed this story to him contact Chief Stern regarding
the response he received from SnoCom.
6. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
5 Tuesday Mayor Haakenson provided a reminder that the fifth Tuesday, August 31, was the Community Outreach
Community Meeting in Council Chambers where the public could speak with the Council regarding any issues. He
Outreach
Meeting noted the Council was seeking input on what type of businesses they would like to see in Edmonds — in
downtown, on Hwy. 99, in Westgate, or in Perrinville as the City was interested in seeking out those
businesses.
7. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Plunkett advised Councilmember Wilson offered to provide a draft agenda memo for
the Council for the September 28 work session. Council President Plunkett advised he would be driving
his daughter to Boston beginning this weekend; therefore, for the meetings of August 10 and 17, any
items for the agenda or discussion regarding the agenda should be directed to Council President Pro Tem
Dawson.
Councilmember Dawson announced Edmonds Night Out on Thursday, August 5 and wished her husband
a Happy Birthday on August 5.
With no further business, the Council meeting. was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
G H ENSON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2004
Page 16
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5' Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
AUGUST 3, 2004
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #72867 through #73032 for the week of July 26,
2004, in the amount of $367,840.06.*
*Claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
(D) Final approval of a 26 lot Formal Plat using the ECDC provisions for a
Townhouse Subdivision. The project will be recorded as Viking Heights.
(Applicant: Viking Homes / File No. P-2003-66).
(E) Approval of Findings of Fact regarding a closed record review held on July 6,
2004 of an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to approve the Public
Facilities District's request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Master Plan for
the old Edmonds High School site. (Appellant: Natalie Shippen / File Nos. ADB-
04-01, CU-04-2, and AP-04-74)
(F) Mid -Year, 2004 Budget Status Report.
(G) Authorization to sign a statewide Public Works Emergency Response/Mutual
Aid Agreement.
(H) Proposed Resolution supporting Edmonds seeking state legislative action to
address funding for municipal transportation infrastructure.
3. (15 Min.) Update on the Edmonds Center for the Arts by the Edmonds Public Facilities
District Board.
4. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on neighborhood safety concerns and request for stop sign at
76th Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach Road, and potential Council action.
1
Page 1 of 2
1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
August 3, 2004
Page 2 of 2
5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
'Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
6. (15 Min.) Discussion and adoption of City of Edmonds Mission, Vision, Values and 2004
Strategic Plan.
7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
8. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
°arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-024,'
vith 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast o,
he meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.