12/03/2002 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
December 3, 2002
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the
Council Chambers, 250 5t'' Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Dave Earling, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brandy Grout, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
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 COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
laim
becks
(B) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #59359 THROUGH #59453 FOR THE WEEK OF
NOVEMBER 26, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $362,065.43.
Bond
Capital
Projects
ct
(C) BOND CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE
Prosecutor
(D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
ontract
FOR PROSECUTOR SERVICES WITH JEFFREY GOODWIN
Hearing
(E) CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF HEARING EXAMINER AND
Examiner
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Contract
FOR HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES WITH RONALD McCONNELL
Public
Defender
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Contract
FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT DEFENDANTS WITH JAMES
FELDMAN
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 1
�den
urphy
allace
ontract (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
linute WITH OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE FOR LEGAL SERVICES
aking
ervices (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Sr. Exec. FOR MINUTE TAKING SERVICES WITH KARIN NOYES
Assistant to
he Council (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH JANA
Contract SPELLMAN, SENIOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recycling (,J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
CoordinatorBETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR JOINT
Agreement
FUNDING OF THE RECYCLING COORDINATOR
H2M Hill
Agreement (K) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM #3 TO CH2M HILL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
echnical
Services (L) APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF
Agreement - EDMONDS AND THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD AND JAMES MERCER M.D.
Lynnwood > >
Retiring & (M) RECOGNITION OF RETIRING AND REAPPOINTED BOARD AND COMMISSION
Reappointed MEMBERS (2002)
Board and
Commission
Members 3. DISCUSSION ON THE 2003 BUDGET
003
udget Council President Earling encouraged the Council to reach a conclusion regarding potential revenue
sources which would assist staff in determining the amount of available funds in the budget. He also
requested Councilmembers identify items they wanted deleted or added to the budget at least for
discussion, not necessarily action. He suggested next week the Council be prepared to make a motion
regarding approval of the budget and each Council make amendments regarding items they wanted
deleted or added to the budget. Upon approval of the budget, staff could prepare an ordinance adopting
the budget at the December 17 meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett asked for clarification regarding potential revenue streams. Mayor Haakenson
advised Exhibit 7 outlined all potential revenue streams. Councilmember Plunkett recalled a request last
week for a compiled list of revenue streams and inquired whether there was a potential revenue source
that was not shown on Exhibit 7. Council President Earling advised the potential revenue sources he
planned to seek Council direction on were those identified on Exhibit 7 unless there were others
Councilmembers had identified.
Property Tax Recapture
Council President Earling explained the Council approved a recapture of 1.5% at last week's meeting.
I% Allowable Property Tax Increase
Council President Earling advised the Council approved this at last week's meeting.
Business License Fee Based on Number of Employees
There were no Councilmembers interested in pursuing this revenue source.
Utility Tax on Solid Waste — 6% Increase
Councilmember Orvis recalled his indication last week to add approximately $400,000 in revenue to the
budget, commenting this was the primary way he proposed to do that. He was in favor of the full 6%
utility tax on solid waste. Councilmember Marin agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE UTILITY TAX ON SOLID WASTE OF 6% AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO
DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION NEXT WEEK.
Councilmember Petso commented she was not excited about enacting a tax on solid waste and was not
persuaded that it was appropriate because other cities did it. She indicated her preference would have
been to increase the property tax last week as it was less oppressive, a better reflection of citizens' ability
to contribute to City services, and might potentially have provided enough funds to retain some quality
personnel scheduled to be laid off. Having not done that, the City could not preserve those jobs. She
encouraged the Council to look at future planning, not just a potential levy lid lift but also slowing the
rate of city expenditures so that it was not necessary to invent things to tax.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED.
Franchise Fee on OlMic View Water District
(Councilmember Petso, an Olympic View Water
discussion due to a potential conflict of interest.)
District Commissioner, left the dais during this
Council President Earling recalled the Council expressed interest in this revenue source although there
was no way to calculate the amount into the budget process because negotiations had not yet begun.
(Councilmember Petso returned to the dais following this determination.)
Utility Tax on Stormwater — 6% Increase
Councilmember Marin indicated he was opposed to this revenue source due to the substantial rate
increase last year.
Councilmember Dawson agreed, noting customers often were unaware whether an increase was a rate
increase or a tax increase, and they were paying an increased amount this year due to the rate increase.
Councilmember Wilson agreed, noting last year's increase was approximately 43%.
Discussion Regarding Items to be Added/Deleted from the Budget
Councilmember Petso requested the Council consider eliminating funding for the Edmonds Alliance for
Economic Development and reducing the Mayor's discretionary increases for non -represented employees
from 5% to 2%. She referred to a memo from Mayor Haakenson with a number of questions regarding
this suggestion, noting one of the questions was why the focus was on non -represented employees.
Councilmember Petso answered increases for non -represented employees were the only increases the
Council had any control over. She was opposed to any non -represented employee receiving a 7%
increase this year while critical employees were being laid off and important programs that citizens
valued were being terminated. She commented COLA plus 2% would be sufficient. In exchange for
those two items, Councilmember Petso suggested adding funding for Team Edmonds and the Fire
Department Reserves, noting these were important programs that the Council should consider funding.
Councilmember Marin indicated the City was in this dilemma partially because it was so heavily reliant
on property taxes and one way to get away from that was to stimulate economic development. He
commented the program presented by the Alliance was "a real bargain."
Council President Earling commented that although $20,000 in funding for the Alliance remained in the
budget, matching funds in the amount of $25,000 had not been budgeted in 2003.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 3
Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of providing at least $5,000 in funding for Team Edmonds. He
commented the programs Team Edmonds was promoting were drawing attention to the City.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council identified approximately $460,000 in additional
revenue between last week and this week. He requested the Council consider funding the Fire
Department priorities and the Police Department's priorities, which could be accomplished with the
additional revenue that had been identified.
Councilmember Wilson agreed it was appropriate to restore priorities in public safety, restoring three
Firefighter positions and an Inspector position in the Fire Department and restoring Crime Prevention
and the two Patrol Officer positions. He was also in favor of retaining the Firefighter Reserves. He
noted there were other priorities that should be considered, items that may be less tangible to the public
but added value to the community. He supported restoration of the flower program as it was an economic
driver for the community. If possible, he was also in favor of restoring the environmental education
program, commenting on the possibility of partnering with the Port on this program. He noted people
outside the community who enjoyed that program also spent dollars in the community, thereby returning
funds to the City. Another position he favored restoring if possible was the custodian, noting that the
custodian serves the heavily used Frances Anderson Center and other public buildings that generate
revenues via the programs they offer. If public buildings were not a positive experience, he noted the
City would experience revenue losses from citizens not partaking in those programs.
With regard to potential savings, Councilmember Wilson requested staff research the cost of the current
method of land use appeals. Because of the way fees are structured for appeals, he explained the City
charged a very nominal amount, approximately $100, however, because of the cost of the City Clerk,
City Attorney and Planning Department's time to process appeals, the costs were significantly higher.
He noted there were a couple of appeals where staff time exceeded $20,000 with no revenues generated.
Mayor Haakenson requested Development Services Director Duane Bowman, City Clerk Sandy Chase,
and City Attorney Scott Snyder develop viable numbers for the Council packet on Friday.
Councilmember Orvis preferred revenues be used to fund the Police and Fire Departments priorities.
Councilmember Dawson agreed the first priority should be to restore some funding to the Police and Fire
Departments. She pointed out the Council could not expect to add in expenditures equal to the additional
revenues or this same process would be required next year unless there were additional ways to generate
revenue. She spoke in support of a levy lid lift, noting if that passed, the Council could fully restore the
Police and Fire Departments. If a levy lid lift did not pass, more substantial cuts would be required next
year. She clarified she was supportive of adding funding for the Police and Fire Departments if a
majority of the Council was supportive of proposing a levy lid lift. Based on that premise, she indicated
adding the Patrol Officers, the Crime Prevention Unit and Youth Services were her priorities for the
Police Department. With regard to the Fire Department, she supported restoring the Firefighter,
Inspector, and Assistant Chief positions that were proposed to be cut. She also supported funding for the
Fire Department Reserves, and depending on other items that were added, either paid reserves or unpaid
for at least one year pending the results of the levy lid lift vote. Councilmember Dawson noted the Fire
Department Reserves on an unpaid basis was a $6,000 expenditure and $33,000 with pay. She also
supported funding a receptionist position. She recalled the receptionist positions on the second and third
floor were cut with the thought that the first floor receptionist would cover those duties, however, the
first floor receptionist position was also cut. She noted the receptionist position was important to the
way people perceived City Hall.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 4
Councilmember Dawson asked the cost of restoring the Beach Ranger Program. Parks & Recreation
Director Arvilla Ohlde answered the cost was $19,800 which would restore 100% of the beach patrols
and the beach ranger station on the weekends. Councilmember Dawson indicated she would support
restoring the Beach Ranger Program, noting it was nearly an offshoot of public safety.
Councilmember Dawson referred to a memorandum from former Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke
regarding the pool in which he describes keeping Yost Pool open for the regular season and options for
funding the shortfall. Councilmember Dawson asked how much would be saved by shortening the Yost
Pool season. Ms. Ohlde answered the cut was $58,000 but there was also approximately $21,000 in lost
revenue, for a net loss of $38,000. Councilmember Dawson asked whether Ms. Ohlde could respond to
Mr. Van Hollebeke's other suggestions for revenue. Ms. Ohlde answered she reviewed some of the
suggestions — Edmonds currently charges $3 and Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace charge $2.75;
establishing a resident/non-resident fee would require non-residents to pay $3.50 which may result in lost
revenue due to the price increase. She referred to another suggestion to increase overall rates to $3.50
which she indicated would likely generate the $10,000 Mr. Van Hollebeke suggested.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about his suggestion to have community volunteers do some tasks.
Ms. Ohlde answered all tasks other than the cashier, such as lifeguarding and instructing, required skilled
labor. Councilmember Dawson noted it did not appear this was a huge cost savings and was a huge
benefit to the community. She was supportive of operating the pool for the regular season, particularly if
ways to reduce the shortfall could be identified and implemented.
Councilmember Dawson agreed with Councilmember Petso's suggestion to discontinue funding for the
Alliance. Although she agreed the City should not discontinue all economic development programs
while in an economic downturn, she preferred the funds be provided to Team Edmonds who were
actively engaged in a program that would bring tourism spending to the City. She commented Team
Edmonds had provided more tangible results without the City's funding than the Alliance had provided.
Further, Team Edmonds' vision was more consistent with her vision of Edmonds. She disagreed the
Alliance's program was a bargain, commenting the only tangible product they proposed was gathering
materials to give to prospective businesses. She noted that could be done in-house and any studies could
be performed more economically by students from the University of Washington. Or as an alternative,
she would prefer funds be provided to the Snohomish County Economic Development Council so that the
City could be part of the countywide effort. She was open to sharing the $20,000 between Team
Edmonds and the Snohomish County Economic Development Council rather than the Alliance.
Councilmember Orvis spoke in support of proposing a levy lid lift. He noted with the levy lid lift and the
long term projections, the Council could add more to the budget now although, he wanted to be
restrained in how it was done. He pointed out if the levy lid lift failed, the situation at that point would
be much worse if additional funds were expended now. His focus was funding public safety priorities
first and then adding funding for other things in a very restrained manner.
Councilmember Petso recalled she pointed out a position in the budget book that would receive a 9%
salary increase in 2003. She questioned how a 9% increase was possible with a 2.5% COLA and the
Mayor's discretionary increase of up to 5%. Administrative Services Director advised the salary for that
position was underestimated in 2002, making the percentage increase for next year look higher.
Councilmember Petso acknowledged that was the explanation given previously but upon further research,
the amount budgeted and adopted for this position in the 2002 budget book was $96,990, yet the 2003
budget book shows an estimate of $101,030 for 2002. She questioned how the City could pay an
employee that much more than was budgeted for the position. Councilmember Petso clarified she was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 5
addressing the Public Works Director position; the salary in the 2002 budget was $96,900, yet the 2003
proposal was $110,000.
Ms. Hetzler reiterated the salary for this position was underestimated in the 2002 budget book. She
explained the individual in that position received the COLA and a 5% merit increase he was eligible to
receive, a total of 7.5%. She explained salaries for each position were not adopted in the budget;
although there was an estimate in the budget for the position, the budget was not adopted at that level.
For next week's discussion, Councilmember Petso requested staff provide the actual 2001 and 2002
compensation for that position.
Councilmember Marin commented a levy lid lift was absolutely imperative. With regard to cuts in public
safety, he acknowledged some cuts may be necessary in the short term, however, in the long term the cuts
would have a negative impact on service. As a commanding officer himself, he could get along without
his Executive Officer for a while but could not imagine Fire Chief Tomberg getting along without an
Assistant Chief very long before the strain would be felt throughout the department. He encouraged the
Council to pursue a levy lid lift in the fall to restore as many public safety positions as possible.
Councilmember Wilson commented there were three receptionist positions in City Hall; he was
particularly interested in retaining the receptionist on the second floor as that position had the greatest
public contact on a daily basis with applicants. He favored giving consideration to restoring the
receptionist positions with a high degree of public contact as they provided visitors their first impression
of the City. Next, he requested Councilmembers consider the Court's proposal to restore a part-time
clerk at a cost of $10,600 with the ability of that position to generate approximately $40,000 from the
passport program. He spoke in favor of pursuing a levy lid lift, noting it was appropriate to allow
citizens to vote on additional funding. He suggested placing a freeze on filling vacant positions next year
until the outcome of the levy lid lift was known unless the position was related to public safety or a
position that generated revenue. He recommended this as a step toward making any transition as easy as
possible in the event a levy lid lift failed.
Councilmember Plunkett supported retaining the receptionist in the permitting department (second floor),
noting that could be the most vital receptionist as permitting generates revenue and the department must
provide good service if the City was to continue to receive the benefits of appropriate building.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out all visitors must come through the first floor first, therefore, there was no
receptionist position in City Hall more important as she was the one who greets every visitor,
builder/developer, etc. who enters the building. He indicated he would weigh in heavily in favor of
restoring that position.
Councilmember Dawson agreed the first floor receptionist was very important, noting all positions were
important. She pointed out there may be a need for consolidation as there were not sufficient funds for
all the positions. She agreed having a receptionist on the first floor to direct visitors was very important,
questioning how a developer/builder would be directed to the second floor absent a receptionist on the
first floor. With regard to Councilmember Petso's comment regarding salaries, she agreed it would be
important over the next year to consider how non -represented salaries were calculated such as whether
the L5 policy with COLA and Mayor's discretionary merit increase was still appropriate. She indicated
she was hesitant to make that decision now and not provide employees an increase when they would be
taking on additional responsibilities due to layoffs.
Councilmember Wilson commented on the importance of a receptionist at City Hall, noting that position
may have to take on additional responsibilities. He agreed with Councilmember Dawson's comment
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 6
regarding salaries, noting that although the City's budget problems would not be resolved based on salary
increases, it may be appropriate to reevaluate the City's salary policy. He noted the City may need to
reevaluate its structure and how services are provided.
Councilmember Marin agreed with Councilmember Wilson's suggestion regarding the Court Clerk.
Councilmember Dawson requested further information regarding the potential for $40,000 in revenue
from the passport program, noting a lot of places were doing passports which may result in reduced
revenues.
Council President Earling recalled the Fire Department's top priority was the two additional Firefighters.
He asked the additional cost to fund the Assistant Fire Chief. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg stated the cost to
add two Firefighters ($115,180), the Inspector ($6,976), filling the remaining Firefighter vacancy
($57,590) and the Reserves as volunteers totaled $179,746. He advised the cost to add the Assistant Fire
Chief was $121,130.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified the priority the Fire Department established was the two Firefighters,
the Inspector, and the third Firefighter position for a total of $179,746. Chief Tomberg agreed. Council
President Earling clarified the top priority identified by the Fire Department was the two Firefighters
positions, the remaining positions were the Fire Department's second and third priorities.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about potential difficulty hiring a new Assistant Fire Chief next year if
the levy lid lift was successful. Chief Tomberg answered his priority was to protect the street at all costs,
which protected the public. He suggested when he was able to restore the Assistant Fire Chief position,
it would be difficult to hire a person as an exempt, un -represented employee who would be the first laid
off if this situation occurred again. He explained he would likely look at the Assistant Fire Chief
position differently in the future for that reason.
Councilmember Dawson was hopeful a successful levy lid lift would allow all positions to be restored
next year. She asked if Chief Tomberg's priorities would be any different if it meant cuts would be
deeper next year if a levy lid lift did not pass. Chief Tomberg answered if a levy lid lift or public safety
bond was not successful, this budget process would occur again and further cuts would be necessary. He
acknowledged he would like to restore as many positions as possible but was aware that difficult choices
had to be made.
Council President Earling remarked the Council added $457,500 in new revenue via property tax and
utility tax on solid waste, and the first priority of all departments totaled $440,851.
Councilmember Dawson recalled Ms. Hetzler's presentation last week illustrated the Council's ability to
restore more positions than the department's first priorities, noting Ms. Hetzler's projections were based
on $50,000 less revenue than the Council approved. Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler
explained her projection was based on new revenue of $415,000 but the Council enacted $457,000. She
explained by taking the baseline budget for 2003, reducing it by $1,050,000 rather than $2 million, the
Council was able to restore all the positions she presented last week — more public safety positions than
their first priorities, and all non-public safety departments first priorities. Via this exercise, she
explained the City would end 2003 with slightly less than $500,000 in ending cash, an acceptable level.
She explained her five year projection assumed a successful levy lid lift in 2004.
Councilmember Plunkett commented there was approximately $450,000 in new revenue and it was his
understanding that meeting the restorations to Police ($270,000) and Fire ($179,000) Departments was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 7
approximately $450,000. Police Chief Stern advised the cost of restoring two Police Officers was
slightly less than $130,000 and the second priority, Crime Prevention, was $89,600 for a total of
$220,000. Councilmember Plunkett speculated those restorations would possibly leave some funding for
a receptionist and possibly some for Team Edmonds.
Mayor Haakenson requested clarification regarding Ms. Hetzler's response to Councilmember Dawson,
recalling Ms. Hetzler estimated approximately $400,000 in new revenue, the proposed budget included
$2 million in cuts but Ms. Hetzler's latest projection included only $1 million in cuts. Mayor Haakenson
pointed out there was then significantly more than $400,000 for the Council to use to restore priorities.
Ms. Hetzler agreed.
Councilmember Orvis commented it was his intent to restore more positions than could be funded via the
new revenue, based on the assumption that a levy lid lift would be passed next year. He acknowledged
this was somewhat of a gamble but a gamble he was willing to take. He used the example of the
Assistant Fire Chief, noting the levy lid lift would give the City an opportunity to convince the public
that position was worth retaining. Councilmember Orvis commented his intent was to restore the Patrol
Officers, the Crime Prevention officer, the Firefighters positions, the Fire Department Reserves, the Fire
Inspector and the Assistant Fire Chief, a total of approximately $560,000+. He encouraged the Council
to be restrained in making restorations above that due to the possibility a levy lid lift would not be
successful.
Council President Earling spoke in support of restoring the first priorities on the most recent document
Ms. Hetzler provided, a total of $440,851. He also supported providing approximately $5,000 to Team
Edmonds but did not support removing funding for the Alliance from the budget. He favored including
$5,000 in the budget to maintain the City's membership in the Snohomish County Economic
Development Council, commenting there was a tendency in difficult times to pull away from the work
that has been done in the region, but the City benefited from the work of the Development Council. He
summarized it appeared from the Council's comments, that all were in favor of pursuing a levy lid lift in
fall 2003. Councilmembers agreed any levy lid lift would be for the purpose of sustaining public safety.
ransporta- 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE UPDATE OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE
ion Elemeni COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
f the
Comprehen-
sive Plan Mayor Haakenson asked staff to indicate the cost of approving the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith answered zero dollars. He explained the
Transportation Element was a planning document that provided guidance to the City regarding projects
and transportation priorities in the City, ranging from bicycle and pedestrian facilities to roadways to new
ferry terminals, as well as anticipating the next 20 years. He noted the consultant would also address
funding shortfalls as a result of I-776 including funding alternatives. Mr. Smith pointed out the Plan
identified the essential projects; there were other projects that although have merit, were not
recommended for funding.
Ron Loewen, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff, reviewed changes in the recommended Transportation Element,
explaining an introduction was added that included more description of the Growth Management Act
(GMA). Iinformation was added regarding the 2002 public participation process, an inventory of
existing systems was included, traffic calming devices were considered, traffic model projections were
included, the system analysis including Community Transit and walkway systems was expanded, and a
walkway and bikeway plan was included. He explained the recommended Plan was based on a number
of meetings held with the public, staff, the Technical Advisory Committee, and a Citizens Advisory
Committee. Via that process, a number of improvements were evaluated and a recommended, priority
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 8
ranked list was developed. Mr. Loewen displayed a map identifying the location of the recommended
capital projects — 220th from 9" to 80, 84th Avenue from 212`h to 238th, 238`h from 84th to SR 104, signals
along 9th, and several improvements along 76th Avenue. .
Mr. Loewen explained these improvements improved level of service (LOS) conditions throughout the
City. He described how existing conditions were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual, and
their finding that six of the 16 busiest intersections were failing now and by 2008, nine of the 16 would
be failing. Via the improvements in the Transportation Plan, only one of the intersections, Hwy. 99 at
244t1i, would be failing by 2008. In the 20 year plan, they found 13 of the 16 intersections would fail and
via the improvements in the Transportation Plan, this was reduced to four intersections, on Hwy. 99,
244th and 76th.
Mr. Loewen explained they also considered street classifications using the city's classification and the
federal classification and recommended that changes be made to make the two more consistent. For
example, State Routes in the north end that are currently classified as principle routes are classified under
the City's classification at a lower level. The Plan recommends continuing to use the lower
classifications and when the ferry terminal moves, consider revising the federal classification to a lower
classification. They also considered several residential streets that serve as collectors and recommended
they be reclassified as collectors.
Mr. Loewen stated the Citizen Advisory Committee evaluated approximately 75 walkway locations and
recommended walkway segments for improvement. They also developed a traffic calming program
whereby concerns from citizens could be evaluated via a step-by-step process.
Mr. Loewen displayed a list of projects and cost estimates. The projects over a 20 year period included
$9 million in asphalt resurfacing, $2 million in walkway and bikeway improvements, $200,000 for
pedestrian lighting, and $19 million for 14 transportation improvement projects, a total of slightly over
$36 million. They also evaluated funding for the past several years and projected that forward for the
next 20 years. This resulted in slightly more than $30 million, approximately a $6 million shortfall. In
evaluating the City's mitigation fees, they determined the City could charge a mitigation fee for PM peak
hour trips. He suggested a fee of $600-800 per trip. He noted the mitigation fee in surrounding
jurisdictions ranged from $3,000 to $885.
Mr. Loewen reviewed the impact the passage of I-776 (which eliminated vehicle excise tax) had on
funding, a loss of $8.6 million over the 20 year period or $430,000 on an annual basis. He reviewed
options for addressing this funding loss including increasing revenue sources, considering new revenue
sources, expanding on existing revenue sources, increasing mitigation fees, reducing LOS, or
reducing/removing capital improvement projects from the Plan. A 4%-5% levy lid lift would generate
approximately $350,000 per year, a $100 increase in the mitigation fee (above $600-800) would generate
$50,000 per year, a $200 increase in the mitigation fee (above $600-800) would generate $100,000 per
year, and a combination of these two funding sources could satisfy the loss of the excise tax. He noted
the City could also explore a Street Utility fee or the equivalent.
In an effort to identify projects to balance the loss of revenue Mr. Loewen explained consideration was
given to reducing the asphalt program by $3 million, reducing the walkway program by $1 million, and
reducing capital projects by $4 million. He displayed a list of potential projects to be eliminated, noting
some projects had grant funding and reducing the City's participation could impact the grant funding.
Mr. Smith reviewed Engineering's final recommendation to address the loss of funding from I-776:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 9
• Maximizing the traffic impact fees allowable by law by increasing the fee from $800 to $1,000
per PM peak hour trip, approved via ordinance in the first quarter — Spring 2003.
• Encouraging the Council to place a levy lid lift of 4%-5% on the fall ballot which would generate
approximately $350,000. Mr. Smith explained the impact to the average household would be
approximately $30 per year.
Mr. Smith explained if the funding lost via I-776 was restored, the City would have a well-balanced
Transportation program. If the funding was not restored, the City would be required to cut $8.6 million
from the Transportation Plan which would severely impact the overlay, sidewalk, and bikeway programs.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the speed limit was also increased if a road were reclassified as a
minor arterial. Mr. Smith answered changing the classification did not impact the speed on the roadway.
He noted an ordinance was required to change speed limits and there was no intent via this Plan to
change speed limits. Councilmember Petso clarified that even if 100 south of Firdale were reclassified
to an arterial, the speed limit would not be increased. Mr. Smith agreed.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the reason for reclassifying streets. Mr. Smith explained the intent
was to make the City and federal classifications consistent. He explained streets with federal
classifications were eligible for additional federal and state funding mechanisms. As part of their
evaluation, staff and the consultant physically drove the City's streets, considered how they connected to
others and reviewed the traffic volume data and applied the federal standards. He noted if future
improvements were identified for a street, it was logical to consider having it federally classified as a
collector. He noted most collector streets in the City were 25 mph, the same as residential streets.
Councilmember Petso noted there was analysis in the Plan for most streets and an explanation of the
reason for reclassification but there was no accompanying text for 10001 south of Firdale. Mr. Loewen
advised that would be added; the reason it was not was it was a federal classification and the intent was
to match the classification with the jurisdiction to the south. Councilmember Petso objected to the 35
mph speed limit on the roadway in the jurisdiction to the south.
Councilmember Petso asked whether residents on the streets recommended for reclassification were
provided any notice of this public hearing. Mr. Smith answered no. He pointed out it was not unusual
for a city and the federal classification to be different, however, the City's streets would have federal
classifications regardless. His intent was to make the classifications more consistent.
Councilmember Petso inquired about differences in level of service between the proposed Plan and the
existing plan, specifically SR 104 & 100'b had a 82 second delay and LOS F in the existing Plan but in the
proposed Plan, that intersection had a 32 second delay and LOS C. She questioned why the level of
service changed when there had not been any physical changes to the intersection. Mr. Smith answered
although there had not been any roadway changes, the signal timing had been adjusted in that location.
Councilmember Petso inquired about differences for the intersection of 208th & 760' — 15 second delay
and LOS C in the existing Plan and a 19 second delay and LOS B in the proposed Plan. She suggested
staff research this and provide an answer after the public comment.
Councilmember Petso referred to the intersection at 760' & 212`h, an incredibly slow cycle which
indicated to her the intersection operated at LOS F, yet the proposed Plan rates it as LOS C. In contrast,
she encountered only a brief delay at the intersection at 9`h & Puget, yet the Plan rates that intersection as
LOS F. Mr. Smith explained mathematical engineering standards were applied to determine level of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 10
service, but common sense still needed to be applied to specific locations. He explained the standards
applied to a specific time period, the PM peak period. At Caspers & 9th, that intersection worked well
90% of the time, however, the level of service may deteriorate when a ferry unloads. Further there were
fairly high speeds in that area and with more congestion, the potential for a high-speed accident
increased. Mr. Smith commented a future consideration should also be interconnecting signals along the
SR 104 route to increase efficiency for through traffic, noting that would have an impact on traffic
traveling north -south.
Responding to Councilmember Petso's questions regarding the intersection of 212th & 76h, Mr. Loewen
answered even if the intersection was at LOS E or F, future development may contribute to
improvements although the City would need to pay its proportionate share. He clarified levels of service
were average vehicle delays. He advised there were different level of service standards for stop signs
(the amount of delay allowed was less).
Councilmember Orvis referred to the proposal to reduce the classification of 196th and asked what the
public benefit was from reducing the classification. Mr. Smith answered the recommendation was that
the federal system classify 196th the same as the City's classification, a minor arterial; the federal
classification was a principle arterial — the same classification as I-5. Mr. Loewen explained the intent of
the recommended reclassification was to classify the roadway as it functioned; 196"' did not serve major
through trips and was more locally oriented with lower speeds than a principle arterial.
Councilmember Orvis questioned whether it was necessary to reclassify the streets now. Mr. Smith
answered the classification systems did not have to be combined with the update to the Transportation
Plan, although it may be confusing when preparing grants.
Recalling Mr. Smith's indication that none of the projects in the Transportation Plan had to be funded,
Councilmember Orvis questioned why the Transportation Element was being updated. Mr. Loewen
answered the purpose of the reclassification was to identify roadways that were collectors and make them
eligible for federal and state funding as well as identify locations for walkway and other improvements.
Further, the Plan provided direction to staff regarding identified improvements.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether there were any specific traffic calming projects in the Plan. Mr.
Smith answered the funding mechanism in the Plan budgeted $17,000 per year for traffic calming
projects. He explained that during the past year, consideration was given to traffic calming on 191St,
Dellwood, and 217th. Staff continues to consider traffic calming at 217th and Dellwood because most
residents did not want traffic calming on those streets. Due to positive public feedback on traffic calming
on 191St, a speed bump was installed recently. He noted speed bumps required approval of the Police and
Fire Departments.
Council President Earling clarified that although staff and the consultant had described funding
alternatives, the only action requested of the Council was adoption of the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. He stated was not interested in pursuing the alternate funding sources, anticipating
I-776 would be challenged in court and he anticipated, overturned. Mr. Smith agreed the direction
requested from Council was whether the Transportation Plan should be finalized and approved. He
explained it would be helpful to Engineering to know whether funds would be restored and, if not, cuts
would be made in the program particularly in the first 1-2 years.
Council President Earling indicated he was amenable to discussing the three alternative funding sources
but not until the courts made a decision regarding I-776. Mr. Smith pointed out the importance of giving
consideration to enacting a traffic mitigation fee. City Engineer Dave Gebert explained one of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page I I
elements of the Comprehensive Plan was a financially balanced Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
With the knowledge of I-776, there was question whether the City's CIP was financially balanced. He
suggested the Transportation Plan include the alternatives that would be considered for balancing the CIP
if I-776 funding was lost. He noted all options would be presented to the Council separately and
adopting the Transportation Element did not approve those actions. Council President Earling clarified
these were a series of potential fund sources if I-776 was upheld.
Council President Earling cautioned the Council not to micromanage specific intersections tonight, the
intent was to look at the overall Transportation Element as a 20 year document. Mr. Smith noted a great
deal of community input would be sought before any projects was undertaken.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Henry Moravec, 915 Olympic Avenue, Edmonds, a participant on the 12 member Citizen Advisory
Committee, described his extensive use of minor arterials, bikeways and neighborhood roads to bicycle
in the City. He described his family's extensive use of walkways and Community Transit. He noted the
proposed Transportation Plan balanced non -motorized and motorized traffic. He noted the members of
the Citizen Advisory Committee agreed on the importance of walkways to the community. He
recommended the Council adopt the Transportation Plan, requesting that when difficult funding
decisions were necessary, they be balanced between motorized and non -motorized aspects of the Plan.
Amelia King, 1671176 th Avenue W, Edmonds, a 10 -year old, explained they needed sidewalks because
many people use the road to reach the beach and vehicle speeds make walking dangerous. She submitted
a copy of a petition asking the City to build sidewalks.
Marge Plecki, 16711 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee,
recommended the Council adopt the Plan. She commended Mr. Smith and Mr. Loewen for the excellent
job they did on the Plan. She noted the Plan was thorough and straightforward and integrated many
elements. As her area of concern was sidewalks and walkways, she visited each walkway proposed in
the plan and was particularly interested to find out when the 76th Avenue walkway would be constructed
as there were serious public safety concerns in this area. She indicated this was the only stretch of 76th
Avenue that did not have a walkway and it was frightening to walk the narrow 2 -lane road that had no
shoulders, was on a blind curve and on a hill. Cars regularly travel at 35 mph and drag racing occurred in
the evenings. She urged the City to take some action with regard to this road and submitted a petition
signed by 44 residents of the area who supported construction of a walkway. She noted this project
received a high priority in the proposed plan due to safety issues, its connectivity, access it provided to
Snohomish County Meadowdale Park, and because it had wide community support.
Will Overington, 828 91h Avenue N, Edmonds, objected to the proposal for a signal at 9th & Caspers,
noting this was a very safe intersection with good sight distances. He commented installing a signal and
directing ferry traffic up 9th Avenue would create chaos.
Rob Michel, 7907 212th SW, Edmonds, referred to the proposed mitigation fees, explaining additional
mitigation fees discouraged development and revenues could be less than projected because developers
would develop in cities where mitigation fees were not as high. He noted all mitigation fees were
reflected in the price of housing which ensured affordable housing would not be possible. He pointed out
Councilmembers could not support affordable housing at one meeting and at the next, add more fees
because it increased the cost beyond the reach of the average family. He recommended the City consider
incentives for developers rather than increased fees.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 12
Duane Landsuerk, 1951194 Ih Place W, Edmonds, described a sight distance issue in his neighborhood
that was first brought to the City's attention in 1994. Mr. Smith explained this was an intersection that
was evaluated and had a great deal of merit due to sight distance challenges but because it did not rank
high enough, it was not included as a recommended improvement. Mr. Landsuerk explained
neighborhood children catch the bus in this location and sight distances make this a dangerous situation.
As his property abuts 196th, he was willing to cooperate by providing easements, etc.
Brook Evans, 1214 8th S, Edmonds, a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee, commented the City
was lacking sidewalks and walkway in many areas. He became involved with the Committee due to his
interest in traffic calming and reducing volumes and speeds on residential streets. He commented the
speed limit on their street was 25 mph; however, the Police Department would not stop anyone unless
they were traveling over 35 mph, 40% over the speed limit. He pointed out a vehicle could be stopped on
I-5 for traveling 70 mph in a 60 mph zone, 14% over the speed limit. He questioned why vehicles were
allowed to travel 40% over the speed limit in neighborhoods. Mayor Haakenson encouraged Mr. Evans
to talk with the Police Chief who was in the audience.
Janice Corbett, 707 13th Way SW, Edmonds, a bicyclist and walker, commented unless one walked on
the City streets, they were likely not aware of how bad it was. She described a recent accident on 220th.
She urged the Council to walk streets they did not normally walk.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, questioned the reference to high accident locations in the
Transportation Plan — eleven on 212th &76th, forty at 244 & Hwy. 99, and zero at 9th & Caspers. He
questioned the reference in the Plan to levels of service — LOS E/48 seconds at 220th & 9"', LOS D/30
seconds at 9th & Main, LOS F/54 seconds at 9"' & Caspers. He noted 9th & Caspers also did not meet the
accident criteria. He pointed out the ranking placed 9th & Caspers as priority 18 but was ranked #1 at a
cost of $200,000. He also expressed concern with $466,000 for a roundabout in Perrinville, $466,000 for
a roundabout at Five Corners, $216,000 for a signal & 9th & Caspers. He pointed out 9th Avenue was a
residential street and not a main route to the ferry. Mr. Hertrich was concerned some of the numbers in
the Plan were skewed and recommended the Council revisit the improvements in the Plan.
Joe Bundus, 757 Main Street, Edmonds, requested the City reconsider the proposed installation of a
semi -actuated signal at 9th & Main. He noted excessive speeds on Main would increase if motorists did
not encounter a stop sign until 6th Avenue.
Bill Casper, 657 9th Avenue N, Edmonds, commented when they built their home in 1984, they were
told the street would remain the same. He noted since the Mukilteo ferry was diverted, traffic volumes
and speeds have increased dramatically. He pointed out the difficulty this created for residents who must
back out onto 9th Avenue N. He questioned why residents were not notified of this public hearing.
Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, referred to the indication that updates were only
recommendations, pointing out when projects arose, staff often indicated it must be done because it was
in a Plan. He expressed concern with the $466,000 proposed cost for a roundabout in Perrinville. With
regard to the signal at 9th & Caspers and staff's indication there was a problem with high speeds, he
suggested reducing the speed to 20 mph which would have minimal cost. He was concerned that if 9th
Avenue were transformed into a stop -lighted thoroughfare, it would pull ferry traffic onto that street
making it more congested. He suggested having signals metered during peak hours.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public comment portion of the public
hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 13
In response to Councilmember Petso's earlier question regarding the intersection of 208th & 76th — 15
second delay and LOS C in the existing Plan and a 19 second delay and LOS B in the proposed Plan, Mr.
Loewen explained the profession changed the standards in 1999.
Councilmember Petso recalled some of the public comment addressed one of her concerns, how a safe
intersection with no accident history was a top priority, and intersections with a high number of accidents
such as 76"' & 212th were low priorities. She acknowledged level of service was a consideration but was
concerned with the subjective rankings. She questioned how many subjective rankings there were in the
matrix. Mr. Loewen pointed out the matrix identified criteria that were scored on a quantitative basis and
criteria scored on a subjective basis, only four were subjective. He briefly described how projects were
ranked. Mr. Smith identified the analysis of potential roadway improvements for the 20 -year plan, noting
the intersection described by Mr. Landsuerk (SR 524 & 94tb Place) was the last project on the list. Mr.
Smith acknowledged there were challenging sight distances in this area and there was some accident data
in this area. The City has installed additional signage in the past as well as an advance beacon. He noted
removing the hazard by cutting into the hillside would be very expensive. In ranking projects, others
ranked higher for a variety of reasons.
Councilmember Petso asked staff to comment on the request for a sidewalk on 76'h. Mr. Smith agreed
there was a need for walkways in the north end as well as throughout the City which the Plan included.
With regard to the signal at 9t'' & Main, Councilmember Dawson asked staff to comment on the safety
issue. raised by a resident. Mr. Smith advised staff was considering bulb outs at intersections on Main
and on Dayton as well as a 4 -way stop at 80'& Main.
Council President Earling referred to Mr. Demeroutis' comment about if a project was in a plan, it
automatically got built, noting any projects would come to the Council for approval at least of a contract
if for no other reason. Mr. Smith suggested the Council consider the first 6-7 projects as the highest
priorities and the next 6-7 as the second priorities. He noted the City would pursue grants for a number
of projects and, in many instances, unless a grant could be secured, the project likely would not be built.
He noted there were usually public open houses for projects and some larger projects had public
hearings.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the projects would need to be added to the CIP. Mr. Smith
answered yes, noting the CIP was reviewed and approved by the Council annually. He noted the project
would also be added to the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING,
TO DIRECT STAFF TO COMPLETE THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE AND TO
PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2002 UPDATED TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT.
Councilmember Petso suggested delaying any action to allow the Traffic Engineer to notify residents
individually whose streets were being considered for reclassification.
Councilmember Plunkett reiterated this was only a Plan, the Council was not endorsing any project or
any funding source.
Councilmember Orvis commented although he liked aspects of the Plan such as 200"', walkway projects,
the Five Corner roundabout, traffic calming, etc., it was more than a planning document, it was providing
direction to staff. He preferred a Transportation Plan that caused staff to pursue lower speeds, keep
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 14
traffic on arterials and discourage traffic on local roads, thus his concern with the proposed
reclassifications. He noted he would be in favor of adopting the Transportation Plan if it did not include
the reclassifications.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND ORVIS OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. (Councilmember Marin left the meeting during the recess.)
Public 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT PUBLIC URBAN DESIGN AND STREET TREE PLAN
Urban
Design and ELEMENT FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS. THESE ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S
Street Tree COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEALING WITH DESIGN STANDARDS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Plan FOR THE PUBLIC STREETSCAPES IN DOWNTOWN, ALONG HIGHWAY 99, AND FOR THE
Element GATEWAYS INTO THE CITY (FILE NO. CDC -02-4 / CDC -02-197)
f the
omprehen-
ive Plan Parks & Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde introduced Terry Reckord, MacLeod Reckord Landscape
Architects, who assisted with the development of the Public Urban Design and Street Tree Plan, noting
numerous City departments also participated in the development of the Plan. She explained the Plan
contained design standards and improvements for the public streetscapes in downtown, along Hwy. 99
and for the gateways into the City. She recalled at the work session last week, Mr. Reckord described the
program in detail, including goals, recommended design solutions for a number of issues, and
implementation methods. She noted this Plan was a companion to the Design Guidelines as well as an
element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Ohlde explained staff and the consultant worked with the Chamber of Commerce on the Plan (a
letter of support from the Chamber of Commerce was included in the packet) and the Plan was posted on
the City's website. She reviewed revisions made to the Plan as a result of a Council suggestion last week
that the Plan emphasize underground wiring throughout the community.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to the suggestion in the plan to reduce wide
driveways to create more space, explaining the purpose of wide driveways was to allow motorists to
enter the driveway without stopping in the traffic lane. He referred to the proposal to change the pattern
of corners so that cars would turn slower, noting the intent should be to get traffic out of the way as
quickly as possible because motorists did not want a lot of hindrances. With regard to street trees, he
noted there were many narrow sidewalks in the City and planting trees in the sidewalks would make it
difficult to get around.
Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, recalled a downtown redesign study completed in the
mid -1990's, noting this was just another study seven years later that would land on a shelf somewhere.
He commented the cost of the Public Urban Design and Street Tree Plan represented someone's job in
the City. He objected to continued studies, noting more trees would require more maintenance when the
maintenance department was being cut. He pointed out evergreens at Brackett's Landing North that
blocked the view and said Brackett's Landing South should have been sand rather than grass to reduce
maintenance costs.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public comment portion of the public
hearing.
Councilmember Wilson advised he had been approached by City of Shoreline staff who were interested
in partnering with the City on the intersection of SR 104 & 205"', the boundary between Edmonds and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 15
Shoreline. He asked whether that was included'in this plan. Ms. Ohlde referred to potential gateways
identified in the Plan and suggested a fifth potential gateway could be SR 104 & 244th. Councilmember
Wilson noted another potential partner could be Washington State Department of Transportation. Ms.
Ohlde agreed to add the SR 104 & 244"' gateway to the Plan.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
ADOPT THE CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC URBAN DESIGN AND STREET TREE PLAN AS AN
ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED.
The vote was 6-0; Councilmember Marin was not present for the vote.
omprehen- 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
sive Plan AND REZONE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 9521 — 31 EDMONDS WAY. CURRENT PLAN
Map
Amendment DESIGNATION/ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY/RS-8. REQUESTED PLAN DESIGNATION/
and Rezone ZONING IS HIGH DENSITY MULTI FAMILY/RM-1.5. THE APPLICANT IS THE PROPERTY
Request— OWNER, H. P. LAMMERSDORF. (FILE NO. CDC -01-215 / R-01-216)
9521-31
Edmonds
Way Mayor Haakenson explained that because the application included both a legislative matter (the
Comprehensive Plan amendment) and a Project Application (the rezone), the Council would be issuing
two separate decisions. First the Council would hold a public hearing on the requested Comprehensive
Plan amendment; no testimony on the rezone would be allowed at that time. Once the public hearing was
closed, the City Council would deliberate on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and make a
decision. If the Council decides to approve the Plan amendment, they would then deliberate on the
proposed rezone and its associated record and make their decision regarding that request. If the Council
denied the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the decision on the rezone became moot.
Senior Planner Steve Bullock displayed a vicinity map identifying the triangular property. He explained
the proposed amendment was to change the current Comprehensive Plan designation, Single Family
Small Lot, to Multifamily High Density. The application includes a rezone request that would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation, a rezone from RS -8 (residential single family,
minimum lot size 8,000 square feet) to RM -1.5 (multifamily residential, one unit for every 1500 square
feet of lot area).
Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board considered testimony provided at a public hearing, and the
Findings and Conclusions are included in the Council packet as Exhibit 2. He noted page 21 of the
record (the Planning Board minutes) reflected the Planning Board's discussion and decision to
recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the City Council.
Councilmember Petso observed one Planning Board Member twice inquired about how this was
beneficial to the public interest and in reviewing the minutes, there was never any benefit cited. Mr.
Bullock agreed the Planning Board did not reach a verbal conclusion regarding the public interest but
relied on the record in the staff report.
Councilmember Petso asked whether all property owners agreed with the proposed change. Mr. Bullock
advised he has spoken with two of the three property owners and they agree. The third property owner
has never contacted the City although the City has attempted to contact him multiple times.
In response to Councilmember Petso's question regarding the public benefit, Councilmember Plunkett
referred to the criteria to be considered in reviewing a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, noting
public benefit did not appear to be a standard. Mr. Bullock agreed it was not one of the criteria.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 16
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged the proposed amendment could not be detrimental but additional
public benefit was not a standard.
Councilmember Dawson referred to the first criteria to be considered in reviewing a proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment, "The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest." Mr. Bullock explained if a proposed
amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it was in the public interest. It could also be
concluded that it was in the public benefit.
Councilmember Dawson inquired what was the public benefit or interest of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Bullock referred to page 66 of the Council packet, an excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan that
referred to the Edmonds Way corridor from Hwy. 99 to Westgate that indicates an established pattern of
multifamily residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be
found primarily near intersections. The excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan also states this is a pattern
the City wants to continue in this corridor. He pointed out single family residential, the current
Comprehensive Plan designation and current zoning, was not consistent with this element of the
Comprehensive Plan. This element of the Comprehensive Plan indicated what was in the public interest.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was a legislative exercise for the Council and, as such, courts
rarely disturb what Councils finds to be in the public interest. The Council was determining whether the
proposed amendments met the City's long term goals. Courts have found factors such as ensuring the
highest and best use of property, increasing the City's tax rolls, providing for additional population to
meet GMA goals, ensuring property did not continue at less than an appropriate level of use, etc. to be
appropriate and those were potential findings the Council in its legislative discretion could make.
Councilmember Dawson recalled a concern that was raised at the Planning Board and a concern she
shared was access and traffic. She questioned staff's recommendation to approve an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to RM -1.5, yet they did not support the rezone. Mr. Snyder explained by changing
the zoning designation, it could encourage the consolidation of parcels.
Mr. Bullock explained the Comprehensive Plan designations were more general than zoning
designations. The Multifamily High Density Comprehensive Plan designation equated to two zoning
designations. He explained the Planning Board's denial of the proposed rezone was not that it was not an
appropriate zoning designation for the site but the Planning Board felt the higher the density, the more
control they wanted over access and the potential impact to the single family neighborhood to the north.
Councilmember Dawson asked why the Multifamily High Density Comprehensive Plan designation was
the best and highest use for this property. Mr. Bullock answered all properties in that section of
Edmonds Way were identified on the Comprehensive Plan as Multifamily High Density or Corridor
Development. He noted it would be possible to consider Multifamily Medium Density, although there
were no other properties in that section of Edmonds Way with that designation.
Councilmember Dawson asked if there were characteristics that would make a Multifamily Medium
Density Comprehensive Plan designation more appropriate for this area. Mr. Bullock answered there
were significant issues associated with this site related to access to Edmonds Way and potential negative
impacts to the neighborhood to the north of 2280. Councilmember Dawson commented one of the issues
that should be considered was buffering between single family residential and high density. She
questioned why it would not be more appropriate to amend the property to Multifamily Medium Density
rather than Multifamily High Density. Mr. Bullock advised the Council had a great deal of latitude in
determining the appropriate designation. He explained the Multifamily High Density Comprehensive
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 17
Plan designation equated to RM -2.4 or RM -1.5. The Multifamily Medium Density Comprehensive Plan
designation equated to RM -3 or RM -2.4.
Councilmember Dawson clarified the property could be zoned RM -2.4 whether the property had a
Comprehensive Plan designation of Multifamily High Density or Multifamily Medium Density. Mr.
Bullock agreed.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Council could impose additional constraints on the property at
this stage. He noted the discussion at the Planning Board was access and circulation and impediments to
traffic flow on SR 104. He was concerned the Council could amend the Comprehensive Plan and assume
it would result in consolidation of properties but there was the possibility that individual developments
could occur on each parcel. Mr. Bullock explained individual developments could not occur on the
parcels until rezones were approved. He noted it was because of these concerns that the Planning Board
recommended denial of the proposed rezone. Mr. Snyder advised developers could be encouraged to
propose a contract rezone that addressed these issues. Another option would be for the Council to refer
the matter back to the Planning Board to establish new development standards to address the shared
accessissue.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Council could amend the Comprehensive Plan to Multifamily
High Density and also impose an overlay in this area that required consolidation. He referred to the
Comprehensive Plan element Mr. Bullock referred to earlier, which indicated that more intensive
development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude
into adjoining established neighborhoods. He noted one of the goals was to minimize curb cuts on SR
104 and minimize access points via fewer driveways. He referred to another goal which suggested using
design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways. He questioned whether the City could
require that access on the parcels be coordinated because of the unique nature of the property and size of
the property. Mr. Snyder commented the City would likely run into the Special Law problem and it
would be preferable to have a standard that was generally applicable. He suggested if that was a concern,
that specific issue be referred back to the Planning Board for consideration of development standards of
general applicability.
Mr. Bullock advised he has had a number of conversations with the applicant and provided the same
direction based on the public hearing at the Planning Board. He noted the exhibits included a letter from
Michel Construction, the owner of the adjacent property to the west, who has developed a shared access
agreement. Mr. Bullock explained the Michel property was already zoned RM -1.5; if Mr.
Lammersdorf's proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone were approved, they would
develop a shared driveway. He noted if the Comprehensive Plan amendment were approved, Mr.
Lammersdorf would have the option of proposing a shared access or consolidating properties and
propose a contract rezone that addressed access and buffering from the single family neighborhood to the
north. The Planning Board was comfortable with delaying that level of detail until the rezone request.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether staff would be comfortable requiring a proposal that did not
include all five properties not to prohibit joint access or for the adjoining parcels to be accessed via that
parcel. Mr. Snyder cautioned that would need to be encouraged and not required, a takings issue may
arise if the City required a property be developed in a manner to ensure the developability of an adjacent
parcel. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained when a specific rezone was proposed,
one of the criteria was that it must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, the
Comprehensive Plan policies that encouraged joint access could be also be considered when making a
decision regarding a rezone.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 18
Councilmember Wilson commented the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation recognized the unique
nature of the property. Any development would have severe setback issues due to the property being
bounded by SR 104 to the south and 228t' to the north. Multifamily High Density would allow a
reasonable return on investment given the level of improvements that may be required or restrictions
imposed on the property due to the setbacks and shared access. He commented there were also issues
related to drainage on the property that would limit the developable portion. He favored the Multifamily
High Density Comprehensive Plan designation.
Councilmember Petso inquired whether there was a Multifamily Low Density Comprehensive Plan
designation. Mr. Bullock answered no, the Multifamily Medium Comprehensive Plan designation
included the lowest density multifamily zoning district and medium multifamily zoning district.
Councilmember Petso asked the ultimate plan for the properties across SR 104 with a single family
residential designation. Mr. Bullock answered that area was annexed to the City recently and the City
has not done a detailed analysis regarding what the Comprehensive Plan designation for that area should
be. Councilmember Petso questioned whether it was appropriate to leave that property designated single
family and change the designation on this property. Mr. Bullock noted there were different issues on the
north side of Edmonds Way as compared to the south side. This particular group of properties has
specific issues due to topography and access on both sides.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council
received a letter from James Martin, 9514 228th Street SW, who was opposed to the Comprehensive
Plan amendment as well as to the rezone.
Rob Michel, 7907 212th SW, Edmonds, commented he owned the property to the west, a significant
sized property zoned multifamily residential (RM -1.5). He spoke in favor of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment, noting it made sense to connect the dots via the properties on the north
side of Edmonds Way. He explained he already had an agreement with Mr. Lammersdorf for access on
his (Michel) property and the easements for the joint driveway had been recorded. He noted this would
allow two existing curb cuts on Edmonds Way to be eliminated and only one curb cut retained. With
regard to differences between medium density and high density, he commented there would not
necessarily be any change in the size of the structures, there may be fewer units, but most builders
constructed to the maximum coverage on the site.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented the Planning Board considered this issue in
March 1997 and a number of neighbors who were opposed to the change attended the public hearing
and/or signed a petition. He stated this intersection was problematic. Due to increased traffic as a result
of the multimodal center, he encouraged the Council to establish a standard for this corridor such as
requiring entrance to Edmonds Way at a common point. He stated it may be premature to amend the
Comprehensive Plan until there were standards that protected against development on individual pieces.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public comment portion of the public
hearing.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Council had the ability to require consolidation for access
purposes. Mr. Snyder answered specifically no, but there were tools that could be used to encourage it.
Councilmember Dawson commented there would be more traffic if the designation on this property were
changed from the current single family designation. She asked the difference in development that could
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 19
occur on Multifamily Medium Density versus Multifamily High Density. Mr. Bullock recalled the
property was approximately two acres or 90,000 square feet. The maximum development that could
occur under RM -3 zoning classification, the lowest density multifamily zoning classification, was 30
units. The RM -1.5 zoning classification, the highest density multifamily zone, would allow 60 units.
Councilmember Petso did not favor amending the Comprehensive Plan to the higher density designation
as 60 units constructed close to single family homes on 228h that were not buffered by steep slopes
seemed extreme, particularly since the access was also problematic. She referred to the criteria to be
considered for an amendment, noting both access and compatibility with adjoining uses could be
considered. She did not find the proposed amendment to be compatible with the adjoining uses.
Council President Earling indicated he would support the Planning Board's recommendation. He agreed
with Mr. Michel's comment regarding connecting the parcels to allow for continuity. Further, that land
as currently zoned, had no value and was not being developed. He agreed there were issues that would
need to be addressed when development occurred.
Councilmember Plunkett indicated he would support the Planning Board's recommendation because the
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation was only creating opportunities that would be
addressed as development was proposed.
Councilmember Petso stated one of the criteria for considering Comprehensive Plan amendments was
compatibility with the existing neighborhood. It would be easier to find compatibility and to address
access issues if the designation were Multifamily Medium Density rather than Multifamily High Density.
Because the adjacent property was Multifamily High Density did not mean this property could not be
Multifamily Medium Density.
Councilmember Orvis commented it was appropriate to have multifamily zones along major arterials,
therefore, it was appropriate for Edmonds Way to be Multifamily or Corridor Development.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO
APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM SINGLE FAMILY SMALL
LOT TO MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY.
Councilmember Wilson indicated he would support the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment,
noting one of the considerations for multifamily development was accessibility to transit and there was a
bus pullout in front of these five parcels. This amendment had the potential to create density that had
direct access to transit, possibly alleviating some of the traffic from the development. He spoke in
support of the Multifamily High Density Comprehensive Plan designation, noting that although the
property likely could not be developed to its maximum capacity, it could be developed with a significant
enough unit base to cover their costs, address draining issues, accommodate joint access, etc. Providing
the higher density allowed a developer the flexibility and opportunity to design an appropriate project.
Councilmember Dawson agreed it was appropriate for this property to have a Comprehensive Plan
designation of Multifamily High Density as the adjoining properties had that designation. She noted
concerns regarding access were better addressed during the rezone public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. (Councilmember Marin was
not present for the vote.)
Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing regarding the rezone. As this was a quasi judicial matter,
he asked whether any Councilmembers had conflicts or ex -parte contact they wished to disclose.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 20
Councilmember Petso referred to a letter she received from Dirk Dular who was opposed to the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mayor Haakenson advised he was not a party of record.
Councilmember Petso indicated she would disregard his letter. Mayor Haakenson asked if the audience
had any challenges to any Councilmembers' participation.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, challenged Councilmember Plunkett, noting Mr. Michel,
who had an interest in this project, contributed to Councilmember Plunkett's campaign. Councilmember
Plunkett advised Mr. Michel contributed to his Senate campaign, and Plunkett pointed out that campaign
was a matter of public record. The fact that he had filed it with the State and disclosed it was sufficient.
Mr. Hertrich commented it was a contribution at the last election and filing with the State was not
appropriate. Mr. Snyder read from City Code Section 1.14.040, and clarified that any contributions to a
Senate race would not be applicable as Councilmember Plunkett had not been elected to that position.
Mr. Hertrich requested Councilmember Plunkett show that the contributions were not to his Council
campaign. Mr. Snyder explained there were no provisions in the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine for an
individual to remove a Councilmember; it was up to the Councilmember. He noted as written, the
requirement did not appear to apply to this situation unless Mr. Michel contributed to any
Councilmembers' most recent campaign for Council office.
Mayor Haakenson inquired whether Councilmember Plunkett could make a fair decision on this issue.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he could.
Council President Earling disclosed that Mr. Michel had contributed to a race he was a candidate for, but
he had not contributed to his last Council campaign.
Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any challenges to Council President Earling's participation.
Mayor Haakenson noted Mr. Hertrich (off the microphone) voiced the same objections. Mayor
Haakenson inquired whether Council President Earling could make a fair decision on this issue. Council
President Earling answered he could.
Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board reviewed the rezone criteria and due to concerns with access
and the potential for multiple accesses to Edmonds Way, potential for accesses from multifamily to the
north and potential impact on single family neighborhoods, the Planning Board unanimously denied the
rezone request.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the applicant, H. P. Lammersdorf was present. He was not. Mayor
Haakenson opened the public participation portion of this public hearing.
Rob Michel, 7907 212th Street SW, Edmonds, advised he did not have a financial interest in this
property, he had only granted an easement to Mr. Lammersdorf. He spoke in favor of the rezone, noting
it was appropriate to have the same zoning adjacent to his property.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public comment portion of the public
hearing.
Councilmember Petso commented her rationale for the previous item applied to this item as well. She
expressed concern with compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
UPHOLD THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE REZONE
REQUEST.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 21
Councilmember Wilson commented the Planning Board's recommendation with regard to the rezone was
accurate due to concerns with access. He concurred with the Planning Board's recommendation to deny
the rezone.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
SUSPEND THE RULES (TO ALLOW HIM TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY A QUESTION).
MOTION CARRIED. The vote was 6-0; Councilmember Marin was not present for the vote.
Council President Earling asked what options the property owner would have in developing a project on
the site. Mr. Snyder answered he could not apply for another rezone unless there was a substantial
change in circumstances. He noted that substantial change could be consolidation with other properties
or a contract rezone.
MOTION CARRIED. The vote was 6-0; Councilmember Marin was not present for the vote.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
udget Ron Wambolt, 530 Dayton Street, Edmonds, referred to a statement he made last week and clarified he
was not implying new construction was the solution to the City's budget deficit. Next, he referred to a
Councilmembers' comment that the tax rate should not be increased by a percentage any greater than
inflation, noting that although that may be sound rationale during normal times, the past three years have
not been normal due to reductions in the City's revenue as a result of voter initiatives. With regard to a
levy lid lift, he felt it had an excellent chance of passing if a proposal was clearly and repeatedly
communicated to the voters. Next, Mr. Wambolt recalled citizens have expressed concern with the
proposed Police and Fire Departments, fearful that service would become unsatisfactory; however, in his
experience, the doomsday predictions of staff reductions rarely occurred. Mr. Wambolt expressed
concern with a budget process that revealed staff positions to be eliminated, preferring the positions not
be revealed until decisions were finalized. He referred to the Police Officer who expressed dismay that
the Council had not planned for the predicable budget shortfall and urged the Council to inform citizens
why planning was not begun sooner.
udget Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, stated over the last three years Edmonds property taxes
had not increased and he supported the City's right to recapture those taxes. He suggested a freeze on all
2003 salary increases as a way to convince the public there was an emergency, noting citizens would be
willing to take some of the pain if staff was willing to take some of the pain. He commented it was easy
for a Councilmember to say he/she had not increased taxes but apparently they could create new taxes.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers wished Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman Happy Birthday on
December 5.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:23 p.m.
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 3, 2002
Page 22
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
DECEMBER 3, 2002
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of claim checks #59359 through #59453 for the week of November
26, 2002, in the amount of $362,065.43.
(C) Bond Capital Projects Update
(D) Authorization for Mayor to sign Professional Services Agreement for
Prosecutor Services with Jeffrey Goodwin.
(E) Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Hearing Examiner and authorization for
Mayor to sign Professional Services Agreement for Hearing Examiner Services
with Ronald McConnell.
(F) Authorization for Mayor to sign Professional Services Agreement for Legal
Representation of Indigent Defendants with James Feldman.
(G) Authorization for Mayor to sign Professional Services Agreement with Ogden
Murphy Wallace for Legal Services.
(H) Authorization for Mayor to sign Professional Services Agreement for Minute
Taking Services with Karin Noyes.
(I) Authorization for Mayor to sign Employment contract with Jana Spellman,
Senior Executive Assistant to the City Council.
(J) Authorization for Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement between the City of
Lynnwood and the City of Edmonds for Joint Funding of the Recycling
Coordinator.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
DECEMBER 3, 2002
Page 2 of 2
(K) Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum #3 to CH2M Hill Professional
Services Agreement.
(L) Approve Agreement for Technical Services between the City of Edmonds and
the City of Lynnwood, and James Mercer, M.D.
(M) Recognition of Retiring and Reappointed Boards and Commissions Members
(2002).
3. (30 Min.) Discussion on the 2003 Budget
4. (45 Min.) Public Hearing on the Update of the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5. (30 Min.) Public Hearing on the draft Public Urban Design and Street Tree Plan Element
for the City of Edmonds. These are amendments to the City's Comprehensive
Plan dealing with design standards and improvements for the public
streetscape in downtown, along Highway 99, and for the gateways into the
city. (File No. CDC -02-4 / CDC -02-197)
6. (30 Min.) Public Hearing on a request for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and
rezone for property at 9521-31 Edmonds Way. Current plan designation/zoning
is Single Family/RS-8. Requested plan designation/zoning is High Density Multi
Family/RM-1.5. The applicant is the property owner, H.P. Lammersdorf. (File
No. CDC -01-215 / R-01-216)*
*The Public hearing is for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Review of the Rezone request will be a Closed Record Review.
7. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
*Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
8. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
9. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT&T Cable, Channel 21.