Loading...
11/01/1994 City CouncilCity Council Approved mutes Approved November 15,1994 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES NOVEMBER 1,1994 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was preceded by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Laura Hall, Mayor John Nordquist, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember Barbara Fahey, Councilmember Michael Hall, Councilmember William J. Kasper, Councilmember Tom Petruzzi, Councilmember APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Miller, Police Chief Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Paul Mar, Community Services Director Bob Alberts, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Jeff Holmes, Police Sergeant Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator Mike Springer, Fire Chief Tim Walker, Asst. City Engineer Arvilla Ohlde, Parks & Recreation Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Rhonda March, City Clerk Christine Laws, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL, TO ADD TO THE CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 22,1994, WORK MEETING AND AS ITEM I THE PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM CONTRACT AWARD. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM13ER BARBARA FAHEY, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Tom Petruzzi requested pulling Item B. Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 1 �d � dLc-l`• 22 COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY, FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS #945458 THRU #945563 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 24, 1994 (D) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON AN APPEAL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL'S ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (DNS -DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE) ISSUED FOR A PROPOSED 6 UNIT/LOT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND STREET MAP AMENDMENT (FILE NOS. PRD-94-16 & ST-94-102) SUBMITTED BY THE EDMONDS BUILDING COMPANY FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1312 9TH AVE. N (Appellant: Roger Hertrich/File No. AP-94-135) (E) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK REDUCTION FROM REQUIRED 25 FT. TO 7.5 FT. FOR PROPOSED GARAGE/STORAGE STRUCTURE AT 23901 76TH AVE. W. (Applicant: Loren Nordby and Thomas Daniels/File Nos. V-94-125 and AP-94-159) (F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE STATION NO. 6 EXHAUST SYSTEM PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT () APPROVAL OF TREATMENT PLANT MANAGER POSITION AND JOB DESCRIPTION APPROVAL OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER FUND GRANT TO AUTHORIZE AWARD OF ADDITIVE Al FOR THE HEARING DISABLED EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $837 IN CONNECTION WITH THE AWARD MADE ON OCTOBER 25, 1994 FOR THE COMBINATION HARD AND WIRELESS PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM, MAKING A TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE OF $32,989.34 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 1994, WORK MEETING Councilmember Petruzzi pulled Item B for clarification on the arrangements for the coffee and mug gifts to be given the Sister City delegates. Staff made the arrangements, not Councilmember Petruzzi. COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING, TO APPROVE ITEM B AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED. The item passed was: S B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 1994. AUDIENCE Matt Gormley, 24117 - 89th Place West, Edmonds, brought with him a letter of intent to annex to the City of Edmonds signed by 102 citizens. The area canvassed for signature is an area including streets of 240th, 242nd, and 244th, including all streets, avenues and places between Edmonds Way and 93rd West. This area is contiguous to the City of Edmonds at its Eastern boundary and contains approximately 430 registered voters. This figure is based on September 1994 county records. He requested favorable Council action on this letter of intent to annex. Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 2 Evan Wilson, representing a citizen's group wishing to annex to the City of Edmonds, presented 0 petitions signed by 94 people representing 66 homes and in an area bordered by 220th Avenue, Edmonds Way, 95th Avenue West, and the areas some culdesac areas on 100th. He indicated the group has significant support beyond the present signatures on the petition, most of which were obtained in the last few days. He requested Council pass a resolution to begin the annexation process. Brace Whittenberg, 8725 Madronna Lane, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Hall, Police Chief Fire Chief and all Staff who helped successfully present his neighborhood petition for annexation to the Boundary Review Board. He appreciates the support and looks forward to formally being a part of the City of Edmonds. Mayor Laura Hall thanked Mr. Whittenberg for his leadership role in the process. Both Mayor Hall and Councilmember Dave Earling expressed appreciation for all the efforts being made with regard to annexations. The audience portion of the meeting was then closed. RECOGNITION OF POLICE SERGEANT PROMOTION Police Chief Tom Miller announced the promotion of Sgt. Jeffi•ey Holmes. Chief Miller summarized Sgt. Holmes' 19 year career, his qualifications and the process utilized in making the decision on whom to promote. The process used this year included a written test from the policy manual, current sergeant's ranking of the candidates, and an interview panel. The unique point was that in addition to having three law enforcement managers, they used Councilmember Barbara Fahey, Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreations Manager, Michael Jurassic, a businessman in the community, and a member of the School District. They used a different approach to the interview process. Sgt. Holmes was an overall No. 1. Chief Miller presented a Certificate of Promotion to the new sergeant. Mayor Hall congratulated Sgt. Holmes and pinned on his new badge. PRESENTATION OF OFFICIAL 1995 PRELINUNARY BUDGET TO CITY COUNCIL & MAYOR'S OVERVIEW 1t�q Mayor Hall read into the record her 1995 budget message. She is presenting a balanced budget of $43,644,410. A representative term for this year's budget is "catch up" which refers to replacing overused equipment, restoring cuts in personnel, considering lost employee salary adjustments, and positioning for a progressive future. Growth is another factor to be considered. Also needing consideration are the acceleration of efforts against crime, maintenance of new fire equipment, a public works facility, and maintenance of buildings with increased public activity. Accordingly, this budget includes increased staff of a police patrol officer, a fire enginelaid car mechanic, and a custodian. Those expenditures are partially covered by a property tax assessment of 103%. Being 3% under the legal limit of 106%, the City Council may wish to utilize those additional monies to fund the requested additional employees: police sergeant ($49,770), a police patrol officer ($43,370), a police cadet ($7,500), and continuation of the recycling coordinator ($48,370). Also to be considered is the use of the soon -to -be vacated Public Works building on Dayton Street. The General Fund contains approximately 43% of the expenditures shown in the 1995 change in expenditures chart. Attention was drawn to the General Fund revenues and expenditures on the Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 3 Exhibit 2 pie charts. Public Safety accounts for a large portion of the pie and has been increased from 42.7% to 43.5%, or $617,860, over last year. Reserves are maintained at a level higher than the general acceptable standard and have increased slightly this year to $1,048,050. Mayor Hall further remarked that this afternoon the Boundary Review Board approved 4-0 our Aurora Marketplace annexation. We are awaiting formal findings. She commented on the other groups who presented their desires for annexation and the fact that the Council would be considering those requests. Art Housler, Administrative Services Director, announced the availability of budget copies for those wishing to review it. Mayor Hall invited all to attend the upcoming budget hearings. CONTINUED HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF THE EASTERN 150' OF THE PUBLIC ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN 7TH AVE. N. AND 8TH AVE. N., SOUTH OF ' SPRAGUE ST. AND NORTH OF EDMONDS ST./FILE NO. ST-94-121 (Continued from September 19, 1994 and October 18,1994) Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, reminded the Council that on October 18, 1994, there was a second hearing on the proposed alley vacation. After additional testimony, the hearing was continued until this meeting to allow the applicant and the adjacent property owner to work out any unresolved concerns regarding the proposed vacation. Staff has received no further information and maintains its original recommendation as outlined in the September 19, 1994 Council packet. Spencer Frazer advised the Council that Mary Hennum has withdrawn her objections to the proposed vacation, and he invited questions. Mayor Hall asked Walt Sellers, 402 Fifth Avenue South, Mrs. Hennum's attorney, for confirmation which was received. City Attorney Scott Snyder said for the record that, in discussions held outside of Council chambers, part of the City's ordinance requires payment of a certain square footage charge for the right-of-way on vacation. He indicated further discussions outside of record of this proceeding related to the public benefit to defer all or a portion of the fees in order to assist in the resolution of the discussions between the parties. He asked if that was a part of this resolution and whether there was any monetary consideration. Mr. Sellers responded that Mrs. Hennum's withdrawal of her objections is not conditioned on the payment of any money to her. The public portion of the meeting was closed. Councilmember Bill Kasper asked Mr. Snyder what action Mr. and Mrs. Frazer would now have to take to acquire that portion being vacated. Mr. Snyder said that the vacation itself simply clears the record of the City's ownership from the title, and land reverts in accordance with specific statutory requirements (believed to be 50-50%). Mr. Frazer conveyed his belief that Mrs. Hennum was going to accept the property. He reiterated his concern about the eroding slope and the project to build a 75' retaining wall along the slope. COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, AS OUTLINED IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 1994, COUNCIL PACKET, THAT COUNCIL Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 4 SUPPORT THE VACATION REQUEST SUBJECT TO COMPENSATION IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE-HALF OF THE APPRAISED VALUE ($7,500). Councilmember Michael Hall questioned whether a review of that fee should be made based on the City Attorney's previous reference to additional city benefit being obtained by virtue of the wall. Councilmember Kasper indicated he would have to vote against the motion on the basis of his understanding that the city has a liability at this point if the land slides, and that the Council should go along the lines of what the City Attorney said and get the wall in there up to the amount it would cost the applicant. We should be willing to follow the posture of setting our portion of the benefits of putting a wall in but not the full cost if it exceeds that amount. In his observation the wall needs to be there. Councilmember Tom Petruzzi said the City Attorney requested of both parties whether or not that was part of what they were seeking and asked if the Council was looking to impose something upon them. Councilmember Barbara Fahey concurs with Councilmember Kasper from the standpoint that the city is going to derive a significant benefit and she didn't think it fair to impose that kind of cost factor for vacation of this alleyway when something positive will result. Her concern was whether it was acceptable to Mr. Frazer to actually have an easement placed on the property as had been suggested by City Attorney Snyder. She wonders if it might be a better solution for Mr. Frazer to have an easement placed on the property and not have to pay such a high price for the vacation of the alley. City Attorney Scott Snyder indicated one reason they didn't come forward with further discussions of the easement was that by retaining the easement the city would have an ownership interest in what could potentially be an unstable slope. The city is best off being divested of the slope. In terms of Messrs. Kasper and Hall's points, he explained how to amend the motion. COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE GIVING ,T THE APPLICANT A DOLLAR -FOR -DOLLAR CREDIT AGAINST THE $7,5W FOR 1� EVERY DOLLAR PUT INTO THE RETAINING WALL AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ^, CLERK TO RECORD THE VACATION WHEN RECEIPTS ARE PRODUCED ,V INDICATING ENGINEERING COSTS AND ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE RETAINING WALL. THE SECONDER CONCURRED. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PRELM NARY SUBDIVISION OF 3.2 ACRES IN AN RS-12 ZONE INTO 10 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AT 8511 188TH ST. S.W. (Applicant: Helleren Development Co./File No. P-94-551 Q?' Councilmember Earling disclosed that members of the Helleren Family have in the past contributed to his campaign. City Attorney Snyder confirmed with Councilmember Earling that the contribution was ---/// listed on his PDC form and advised that campaign contributions are not disquaUying under the appearance of fairness doctrine. No objections were raised to Mr. Earling's participation. Jeff Wilson reported that on September 15, 1994, the Edmonds Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the proposed Heller Lane subdivision by Helleren Development Company to subdivide approximately 3.2 acres into 10 single-family lots in an area zoned RS-12 and located at 8511 188th Street S.W. Included in the proposal was a request to modify the setback on the east side of Lot 2 from 10 ft. to 8 ft. in order to accommodate the existing residence. Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 5 The Hearing Examiner issued his report recommending approval of the application subject to recommendations which he outlined in his report (copy of which is included in Council's packet). This hearing process is subsequent to the environmental appeal decision. It is Staffs recommendation that the Council approve the proposed Preliminary Subdivision application subject to the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner as shown on Exhibit 4 to the packets. Council President John Nordquist asked Mr. Wilson if he had received or reviewed the letter from Victoria Rondel regarding the fence. Mr. Wilson indicated he had talked to Ms. Rondel this afternoon but had not read today's letter yet. He provided the Council with details as to how this project will effect Ms. Rondel's property, where the roads were and where landscaping would be used. City Attorney Snyder asked if Mr. Wilson was aware of any development codes to require a fence at that location, and Mr. Wilson said there were none. Jim Miller, Lovell-Sauerland & Assoc., 19400 - 33rd Avenue West, Suite 200, Lynnwood, spoke on behalf of Helleren Development Company. His company also represented the Hellerans before the Hearing Examiner. His expressed their agreement with the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner relative to the preliminary plat and also agree with record in terms of the findings and conclusions that it does conform to all of the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code as well as the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. He stated his primary purpose tonight was to answer any questions there may be on the plat design or the review process. They have moved ahead with engineering plans and have reviewed them with Staff in order to implement some of the conditions of approval. Councilmember Bill Kasper asked about the feeling of the applicant with regard to the issue of a fence. Mr. Miller responded that when the adjacent property owner was uninterested in being deeded this property to the owner, the plan that was developed to create a transition between the street and the adjoining residential property was to landscape the area. The pattern for the tree planting would continue on into the subdivision, so that forms a landscape theme for the entire development. A fence that close to the entryway could provide a visual hazard and would not have the soft appearance of the discussed landscape which would provide both a physical and visual barrier. They feel a fence may be more of a liability than an asset. The public portion of the hearing was closed when no one wished to speak, and the matter was remanded to the Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST, TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE COMMENDATIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER AS SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT 4. The recommended conditions areas follows: 1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 6 compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. The applicant shall comply with the "tree retention plan' as shown on Attachment 5 of the Staff report. 3. Prior to approval of the final subdivision, the applicant shall: a) Submit to the Planning Division a title report which verifies ownership of the subject property on the date that the property owner(s) (as indicated in the report) sign(s) the subdivision documents. b) Install the required right-of-way improvements as directed by the Engineering Division. c) Submit a one-year performance security in accordance with the requirements of ECDC Section 20.75.130.B for any improvements which have been completed. d) Remove the existing structures (sheds and greenhouse) located on proposed Lot #3. e) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "The setbacks shown are for reference only and vest no right. Actual setbacks shall be determined in accordance in effect as the date a completed building permit application is tendered to the City of Edmonds". f) Show the area identified as Tract 100 as a separate tract which shall be held in equal and undivided ownership by the lots in the plat. g) Establish a homeowners association for the purpose of maintaining Tract 100 in a manner consistent with the approved landscape plan, or an alternative as approved by the Edmonds City. The alternative may include a maintenance covenant to be recorded with the plat. 4. The applicant shall submit a two-year maintenance security once all improvements are completed. 5. The proposed plat shall comply with the Environmental Determination as issued, and modified by he City Council decision on appeal. 6. The side setback modification from the east property line for Lot #2, from 10 feet to 8 feet is approved as requested. However, the modification sh all only be valid for the existing structure on Lot #2, and shall terminate, should the structure on Lot #2 be demolished. Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 7 7. The applicant shall adhere to all the conditions and requirements as set forth in Attachment 20 to the Staff Report (Engineering Requirements). 8. The applicant shall adhere to all requirements of the MDNS. 9. The access to lots 1 and 2 shall be determined by the Edmonds Department of Public Works. If in the opinion of the Department there is justification for two separate access points designs shall be submitted by the applicant for department approval. Councilmember Tom Petruzzi stated that on October 16 there was a SEPA hearing in Council Chambers, and at that time he voted against the motion to approve proceeding with this development. He thinks the development is good for the community, but he feels the Hearing Examiner erred in overruling staff regarding Section 18.80.0100. He believes staff was correct, and for that reason he will vote against the motion. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI VOTED NO. SECOND HEARING ON DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT PLAN ' Rob Chave, Planning Manager, indicated this was a second hearing and that he did not have many specific opening comments to make. He commented review had begun of the suggestions contributed at the last hearing by Mr. Rob Morrison of the Chamber's 3M-T Task force. He said there were some good ideas contained therein and it gives them a good idea of how much work is. yet to do to g implement a plan. Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Place, #102, spoke on three elements of access to and from the waterfront. First, with the increase of commuter trains, pedestrian access to the railroad terminal and buses and the parking lots from Bracketfs Landing and other beaches and parks, the Senior Center, and the interim ferry dock at Main Street will become a major safety matter. Second, travel to and from the railroad terminals, parking lots, etc, could be accessed safely through pedestrian underpasses at both the Dayton Street and Main Street crossings. Third, a waterfront walkway/esplanade will obstruct access to the beaches. He directed the majority of his comment to the third item. There is a significant number of people who have signed petitions against a walkway because of the obstruction factor. He feels that plan should be made separate from the waterfront plan. He suggested the City consider a paved walkway along the West bank of Sunset Avenue from Main Street to Caspers Street to replace the dirt pathway now in existence. This would give walkers a clear and unobstructed view safely away from railroad tracks and not subject to destruction from wind, waves and high tides. They further requested that the Save Our Beaches be included in any planned discussions of these three elements effecting the access to and from the waterfront parks and beaches. Loreena Strickland, 200 Beach Place, #304 feels we have a boardwalk on Port property, a park for skindivers, but we need to preserve our only sandy beach. She finds the flow of people from early morning throughout the day interesting. She thinks a walkway would cut off the beach and that what is really needed is for the Anderson property to become a parking lot for the people. Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 8 Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, agreed with Mr. Morrison's comments in his original letter. He expressed concern with the SR 104 traffic situation on leaving town. There needs to be some hard thinking on the development that will happen along SR 104 between Westgate and downtown. He ties it to the waterfront plan as it is related. He asked the Council to take serious consideration of not allowing a lot of change in the zoning to commercial use along that corridor. The lesser number of vehicle trips that enter and leave the individual properties is a better choice. As we develop the waterfront area, with the multimodal facility, SR 104 is going to be very critical. The matter was remanded to Council. Council President Nordquist asked for clarification on Staffs recommendation. Mr. Chave indicated he was merely stating it was a second hearing, not recommending one. Councilmember Steve Dwyer indicated the matter was to be scheduled at a work meeting. Mr. Chave suggested that if desired, the Council could submit questions or comments to Staff who would correlate them, organize them, and get them back for everyone's review. HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN AND SIX-MONTH REPORT Dave Burrus, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and representative of the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee, is reporting after six months of the new ordinance being in effect. They have reviewed several letters and had numerous concerns brought to them at their committee meetings. They have come up with recommended actions. The committee represents the residents, the business community, and there are even ferry commuters on it. Mayor Hall identified committee members present. Comments and complaints primarily involve the area of Third Avenue South, south of Dayton Street. a The committee provided four options for Council consideration. The committee generally concurs that no action take place at this time because of the short time that the plan has been in place. The committee further concurs that they not restrict any other streets. He reviewed for Council the options itemized on Exhibit 2 to the Council packet information. Councilmember Dwyer asked for clarification on the options. Councilmember Petruzzi expressed concern over being presented options in lieu of recommendations. Councilmember Michael Hall indicated he felt options would be presented now, and a hearing will be held where other concerns will be considered. He volunteered input and assistance with recommendations to be developed. Councilmember Kasper asked Mr. Burrus when he would be able to come back before the Council. Right now, since the time span has been so short, all they have really been able to accomplish is review the action already taken by Council. They would like to consider other options such as employee parking permits. At this time Mr. Burrus indicated for the record the recommendations of the committee as follows: 1. Direct City Attorney to prepare the ordinance to amend the current code for parking restrictions as Council determines appropriate. 2 Direct City Attorney to prepare appropriate amendment to allow HOV/vanpooling to park overtime in three-hour restricted areas when properly displaying a recognized program sticker or permit. City HOV permits may also be issued. Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 9 Passage of ordinance making it a violation to move and re -park a vehicle on either side of a street within the same block in order to avoid a parking time limit regulation. 4. Authorize the City Attorney to research a Supreme Court decision relative to employee parking permits and the legal ramifications on establishing a program in Edmonds. 5. Direct Planning division to prepare a proposal regarding parking space requirements for new construction regulated by the zoning, and administration of in -lieu parking fund. The Parking Advisory Committee would like to start on the long term goals. He called the Council's attention to the information contained in their packets relative to concerns raised and gave a brief description of those concerns. Councilmember Barbara Fahey asked for clarification on the HOV/vanpool overtime parking allowance. Mr. Burrus indicated a desire to encourage HOV parking instead of single passenger vehicles. He cited an example where the new construction had provided parking in accordance with code but still didn't have sufficient for their needs. He indicated they are currently looking at a variety of options to assist with the parking situation. Councilmember Hall dovetailed Mr. Burrus' comments regarding the City plan for trip reduction. Councilmember Kasper asked if three was a legal problem concerning the employee parking permits (Recommendation Item 4), why there wasn't a legal problem with a vanpool. Mr. Burrus suggested it was because the vanpool item does not talk about single individuals. Councilmember Hall stated that if an HOV lane could be added to a public highway, it could be done for parking as well. He agrees it must be looked into. Councilmember Kasper asked questioned the location of the HOV parking. Councilmember Earling questioned Mr. Bun -us with regard to Recommendation Item 3. He wished to know how one could differentiate between someone doing a parking "dance" and those who legitimately come and go frequently during the course of the day and will, if possible, park within the same block each time they return. Debbie Dawson, Edmonds Police Parking Enforcement Officer, spoke on the enforcement procedure utilized at present. A laptop computer is being used for ascertaining which vehicles are parked in a given area at a specific time. When she issues a citation, the license plate is entered into the computer. On the second day, she can determine how many citations a particular vehicle has had. She indicated since the change in fine, she has written few tickets, but the same two dozen cars are parked all day, every day, in the area. Councilmember Petruzzi asked Ms. Dawson if he understood her correctly when she said there is open parking available one block away. She showed on the map where open areas are located. She further indicated that many people are not taking advantage of the solution. Councilmember Kasper asked why 4th north of Bell had not been opened. Ms. Dawson said that area was at one time 3-hour parking but was one of the removed ones to allow employee parking during the day. Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 10 The public portion of the hearing was opened. Kay Rogers works at Women's Aglow International in �► the new building at Third and Dayton, and she opened the public portion of the hearing. She stated she 10 is in favor of Option 4 to leave parking alone while the option of employee parking permits, similar to L those presently issued to residents is explored. She says it feels strange to be invited to the city and then be treated with hostility by the neighbors for parking on a public street. She restated her desire to see business parking permits issued. Ms. Rogers described some of the options her employers have considered and voiced concern over having to walk in the dark and weather. She commented on Mayor Hall's budget remarks concerning growth and complemented the Council on, in fact, wanting to plan for the long term and considering the needs of all of the residents and citizens. Karen Stanford, 152 Third Avenue South (3rd and Dayton), is Human Resources Manager for Women's Aglow Int'l. She wanted to clarify that they are opposed to reinstating a limit on Third south of Dayton. She further explained they are not seeking on -street parking for all of their employees, only about 6-8. They have parking in their building, they rent space, some of their employees work flex hours, and many employees travel on an ongoing basis. She indicated they have looked into everything they can to assist with the parking problem resolution. She expressed concerns over safety. She advised the Council that 35% of their employees are residents of Edmonds. Earl Garrison, 210 Third Avenue South, Unit C, said that Ordinance 2983 as written is intended to provide adequate space for customer parking in the downtown area and encourage the employees to park in outlying free zones and commuters to use public and private parking lots. Mr. Garrison stated his belief that while employees are using outlying residential areas, public and private lots are not being used. He has observed the City's paid lots only half full and feels it may have lost revenue because of the change. He described the difficulty in parking in front of his home. He suggested possible solutions: 1) give back the 3-hour limit on Third south of Dayton, 2) open Second Avenue from Dayton north to James Street for parking (non-residential area), 3) open Dayton Avenue from Sunset to Third Avenue to free parking, 4) urge employers to be more responsible for employees' needs by subsidizing parking in the paid City lots, 5) insist that commuters use paid parking lots by restricting the residential streets where they now park, and 6) you could possibly make room at Edmonds Park for a parking area for ferry commuters. He said the residents on Third Avenue south of Dayton request that the Council give back the 3-hour parking so they will have at least a 50-50 chance to park in front of their homes. Carol Amam, 221 Third Avenue South, and her husband own an apartment building on Third. They have adequate parking for all tenants but there is sometimes the need to use the front of the building for delivery or access. During the day, it is almost impossible. She is in favor of putting back the 3-hour parking. Robert Sorenson, 328 Third Avenue South, stated his belief that he felt the committee was comprised totally of city employees and members of the Chamber of Commerce who are business owners and did not have residents represented. He questioned the Council taking action based on the report of Parking Enforcement Officer Debbie Dawson when he has never seen her south of Dayton on Third. He has problems with ferry traffic. He could not get cooperation from the police department, so he Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 11 writes letters and puts them on cars suggesting other parking options. Mr. Sorenson would like the 3- hour limit returned. Jack Bevan, 19210 - 94th West, reminded the Council of a piece of property on Second and Alder which could be a parking lot and alleviate this problem. David Jasper, 224 Third South, has had problems since the 3-hour parking was removed. Most of the people in that area are senior citizens and handicapped individuals. He doesn't feel the Council is helping the seniors. He requested reinstatement of the 3-hour limit. Chuck Greenberg has a small business in -the Harbor Building at Third and Dayton. He wants to make sure there is adequate parking for his employees as well as himself. He doesn't think 3-hour parking works when you work 8 hours. Pam Roppo, 302 Edmonds Street, wishes to see the 3-hour parking limit reinstated for Edmonds Street and Third. She sees numerous cars overstaying even the 72-hour limit she believes the City still has which is not being enforced. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, explained he does not live in the areas being effected but has heard numerous comments during meetings. He thinks the 3-hour limit is workable, but to allow people to move into the residential areas with unrestricted parking is not fair to the residents. He hopes the Council will re -expand the area of 3-hour parking. He questioned the formula used by the City in determining the number of parking places needed for a new development, and does not feel the zoning requirements are adequate. He thinks until that question can be resolved, the problem will continue to grow. He suggested there needs to be in depth research into a permanent solution. Dave Burrus concurs with Mr. Hertrich's last comment and indicated that is what the committee would like to begin doing -- plan for long-term growth. Councilmember Petruzzi questioned the fullness of the lots and the fees charged. City Clerk Rhonda March indicated the fee is $35 per month, and the lot is full. Councilmember Petruzzi asked about Diamond's lot as to fee and occupancy. Ms. March said they are presently 2/3 occupied. Councilmember Petruzzi asked if by opening Third Avenue the Council promoted the ferry commuters to not use the lots. Mr. Burrus said they are trying to keep whatever is open a distance away from the ferry to encourage a bit of a walk. He stated further that the more you try to effect them, the more you also effect the business community. Councilmember Fahey related her impression that it was desired the Council wait to do anything until the employee parking permit issue is resolved. She asked what else is being proposed and in what time frame. Mr. Burrus again stated they need information on the legalities of the employee parking permits before they can recommend something definite. They have not yet discussed time frames in any other terms. City Clerk Rhonda March said she had been working on a scheme for developing an employee parking permit. She has been looking for examples from across the nation, and has found none. She Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 12 City Clerk Rhonda March said she had been working on a scheme for developing an employee parking permit. She has been looking for examples from across the nation, and has found none. She understands there exists a court decision, on which information is being obtained, making the employee parking permit process illegal. Questions remain as to where the permits, if available, will allow parking and how enforcement would be handled. She also mentioned the Fifth Avenue parking lot across from Mill Town she can't keep rented. Mayor Hall said she wants enough of a plan to provide assistance without great animosity. Councilmember Kasper did not understand why the area north of Bell was being handled differently than Second Avenue. He thinks we took out something that was working and replaced it with something that doesn't work. Councilmember Fahey stated her impression that recommendations 2-5 are actual recommendations for action, but that the biggest issue is recommendation 1. She feels the residents along Third and Fourth Avenues need some relief at least until we can find some mitigating actions that could resolve some of the problems. Maybe in finding those, we can bring about a happy resolution for employees. COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST, THAT THE COUNCIL RECOMMEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE THAT REFLECTS OPTION 3 ON PAGE 7 (restricted parking on the West side only of Third and Fourth Avenue from Dayton Street to Walnut Street). Councilmember Steve Dwyer stated frequently when you solve one problem, you create another. He commented that there had been no discussion of what had worked by what was being done. The idea was to open up parking not for employees but for customers of businesses for tax revenue purposes for the city. Mr. Dwyer's observation is that this has worked. He thinks option 3 goes too far in terms of scope of what it Seeks to do. He commented there were very few complaints about Fourth; there is a battle between businesses and multi -family residences for use of public streets. He questioned what is best for the general public. Councilmember Dwyer does not favor a change at this time as there hasn't been sufficient time for the present plan to reach equilibrium. He further believes if changes are to be made on Third, it should be attempted to eliminate the parking restrictions north of Dayton on Third and take advantage of the Second and Third Avenue area on James Street which is not now heavily parked. Councilmember Dwyer favors doing nothing tonight, but if something is taken away, something will have to be replaced. Councilmember Tom Petruzzi believes if the Council is going to reinstate parking, it must be restricted on both sides of the street. He asked for comment from Councilmember Michael Hall. Councilmember Hall thinks revisions can be made without the necessity of starting over. He says there hasn't been time to look at the long term, but he thinks a compromise can be reached. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the 3-hour limit was reinstated on Third, if the city could get approximately the same number of spaces on Second up to James and on James from Second to Third and then back from James to Dayton on Third (3 sides to a square). Councilmember Hall felt that might be a good compromise. He expressed concern as to whether that would push the problem to Fourth. COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY WITHDREW HER MOTION. Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 13 Further discussion was had regarding restricting both Third and Fourth. COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL, TO REIMPOSE THE 3-HOUR TIME LIMIT FOR PARKING ON �,. THIRD AVENUE SOUTH FROM DAYTON STREET TO WALNUT STREET AND �+�� DELETE THE TIME LIMIT ON SECOND AVENUE FROM JAMES STREET TO DAYTON. COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH FROM DAYTON TO WALNUT. COUNCILMEMBER HALL DQ SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. ROLL CALL ON AMENDMENT: COUNCILMEMBER DWYER—NO, COUNCILMEMBER EARLING—NO, COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY—YES, COUNCILMEMBER HALL —YES, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER—YES, COUNCIL PRESIDENT NORDQUIST—YES, COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI—NO. MOTION TO AMEND MOTION CARRIED 4-3. COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER VOTED NO ON THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Fahey asked if the Council was to address the question of moving within the block. Councilmember Petruzzi suggested more review, with the matter to be brought up at a later date. Council President Nordquist indicated some action should be taken with respect to Recommendation Item 4. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI, TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO RESEARCH A SUPREME COURT DECISION RELATIVE TO EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMITS AND THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS ON ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM IN EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Snyder indicated he will also have an ordinance on the restrictions for the consent agenda. Mayor Hall called a two minute break. MEETING WITH PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FOR PRESENTATION ON TRANSPORTATION PLAN Ken Mattson, 725 Daley Street, Planning Board representative, summarized the plan. The street system is addressed, and three alternatives are mentioned -- the first two providing for accommodation of anticipated traffic volumes by means of street widening, restriping, and occasional removal of on - street parking, and the third alternative would establish a 25 mph speed limit everywhere west of 76th Avenue with no physical changes to the street system. Bell -Walker proposed Alternative 1: selected Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 14 street widening and restriping. A bike and walkway plan is acknowledged, though no method of financing or priority is mentioned. Transit is thought to provide good circulation throughout the city and surrounding communities but should provide more pullouts and more service. Ferry operation is a concern only when loading and unloading. Development of a multimodal facility at Point Edwards would increase the traffic through Westgate, the primary effect of which would be to increase property values in the Westgate area. Planning Board conclusions indicate neither the existing policies in the Comp Plan, nor the recommended revised policies are reflected in this "traffic study". An acceptable "Transportation Plan" must be in harmony with established policies. By utilizing Bell -Walker's recommended option, we would be accommodating traffic and encouraging increases through the affected neighborhoods, and moving cars and not people, all in direct opposition to the goals of Vision 2020. The Planning Board indicates that bike and walkways need to be moved up the priority list. Transit need to be included as a part of a true multimodal plan and not an isolated system. The whole multimodal system needs to be pulled together, integrated, and woven into a seamless transportation fabric: bikes, cars, buses, rail, ferries. During public hearings, the two most mentioned items of concern were traffic volumes in established neighborhoods and vehicle speed. The March through May 1994 traffic study does not reflect the policies of the Comp Plan, does not reflect the current public sentiment, and does not address the necessary combination of elements found in a successful transportation plan. For these reasons, on October 10, 1994, the Planning Board voted unanimously to reject the Bell -Walker Plan. Mr. Mattson feels that if we had a good transportation system in effect and a transit system that was dependable, we would not have parking problems downtown. Planning Board member Gary Grayson, 19703 - 88th Avenue West, thinks Mr. Mattson summed up the situation well. He thinks a big part of the plan is that people don't want increased traffic, noise and pollution, nor the loss of parking. We need to look at a long term plan and incorporate transit, light rail, etc., and some hard decisions needs to be made. Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Place, identified himself as a Planning Board member and formerly worked on the "transportation committee" which he said was in reality a traffic study. He stated his belief that Bell -Walker was asked to do a traffic study and not a transportation study. He feels while the Bell - Walker report was rejected, it should not be archived. It should be put back into the committee for use of the information there for study and possible future use. Mr. Morrison also brought up the subject of parking outside of the bowl and biking into the bowl. Rob Chave described the handout provided by Melody Tereski of the Planning Board entitled "City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element" which is the initial working draft of transportation policies. This is being provided to see if the Council agrees with the policy directions and to try to integrate that Bell -Walker study with these policies to come up with a transportation policy. Mr. Chave called the Council's attention to the outline on page 2 of the agenda memo which tries to give a brief outline on what the Growth Management Act requires for a transportation element. Policies alone won't work; you must have detail plus policy direction. He recommends scheduling a Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 15 discussion on the policies, then a reality check with the Bell -Walker study. He suggested we may ultimately have to do a short term plan to be revisited after a year. Councilmember Petruzzi asked about the level of service. He wholeheartedly agrees with the comments made by Mr. Mattson as not being in line with the goals of Vision 2020. He believes it the consensus of the Council to not move a lot of cars through the city. He also doesn't want to widen the streets. There is a need to determine what level of service is acceptable. To establish the level of service is the linchpin to what can -be developed. Mr. Mattson indicated that when pinned down, most of the audience agreed they would take more congestion over higher speeds. If we reduce the level of service, we will be way down on the list in competing for funds. The question is how to lower the level of service and still get funds available to us. Mayor Hall related that Edmonds is considered a bedroom community of both Seattle and Everett. She, too, felt that while Bell -Walker had been given more of a traffic study than a transportation study, a good portion of the study could be used. Councilmember Earling commented on the draft of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. It appears that while at a policy level we agree, we must find a balance to allow us to be part of a seamless transportation system. He is very supportive of pushing the idea of a transportation project within Edmonds that would work within the seamless concept. The problem is determining how to do that and still move the people in the short term throughout the city. Councilmember Earling agrees with the draft plan/policies submitted. He further indicated his support of the project but also indicated the need to get ideas on how to accomplish the task. Mayor Hall mentioned that Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager, had been educating Staff on trip reduction and ride share. Mr. Mattson asked what was being done to encourage more riding of bicycles to work. Mayor Hall commented on the town circle for Halloween where area streets were blocked off to all but pedestrians. IT WAS MOVED, AND SECONDED, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Earling suggested that in light of the recently passed RTA plan, the Council meet with the Planning Board. It was suggested that some of the ideas for a seamless system could be adapted for use in the city. Mr. Mattson stated that the ideas behind the draft policies were generated by public hearings and by Staff. He suggested the Board could regroup with Staff to get something on the books that can be handled. Councilmember Hall suggested they study the policies as drafted, then have a work meeting with the Planning Board to discuss specifics. Melody Tereski, 8325 - 212th S.W., Planning Board, indicated that what is needed is to take what we have and place a transportation element into code that complies with the GMA They have tried for months to rewrite Chapter 7 to put it into code, but it is not possible. When they drafted the plan in accordance with Vision 2020, there was a consensus in that process. When they got to making a recommended plan for the City, there was no consensus among the board members. She sees either a Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 16 need to need with Council or go back to Bell -Walker for better solutions that are not engineering based. We need to include items not included in that report. Mayor Hall asked if she was hearing a request for a joint planning meeting between Council and the Planning Board. Ms. Tereski responded that may be a solution. She thinks the policies written are good, but she feels the Bell -Walker report does not comply with GNU requirements. Edmonds cannot be in compliance until its policies are in code. Councilmember Petruzzi thinks Mr. Chave made it clear we should get together first on policies with planning board members in a joint work meeting. Then we can look very hard at the level of service we wish to provide; once that is established we can work on the mechanics. Councilmember Kasper said one of the problems with Bell -Walker (who did the Lynnwood study) is his job is to do other cities and match cities. We didn't inherit what we wanted, but are part of a triangle. Because of attempting to keep the rest of the year open for the budget process, it was suggested a work meeting could be held after the first of the year. If the budget process goes well, perhaps the subject could be brought up in December. DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ON PROS, CONS AND OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR ALLOWING DOGS IN ONE OR MORE CITY PARKS Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Manager, indicated the matter of dogs in the parks have been discussed at various meetings and at four public hearings. It is now before the Council for recommended action of setting a date for a public hearing regarding the issue of allowing dogs in additional city parks. Following these discussions and hearings, it was decided that retaining any ordinance, keeping the 50 ft. dogwalk area of Marina Beach and additionally opening up the Inter -trails of Yost Park) for dogs on leash and scoop law enforced. She then re -introduced Ken Mattson. Mr. Mattson indicated they couldn't find anyone opposed to dogs in the park. During their research it was discovered that in all of Southwest Snohomish County, Edmonds is the only town to prohibit dogs from city parks. Gary Grayson, 19703 - 88th Avenue West, stated he and Paula Marmon submitted a proposal to the Planning Board which is incorporated in Council's packet. The consensus of the board was to continue on with the South Marina Beach park and also allowing dogs in the Yost Park trails area. The board compromised and added an additional park. Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Place, advised the Council that certain parks can handle dogs with an 8 ft. leash and use of "pooper scooper". If they don't use these items, they should be subject to fines. Relative to Marina Beach, he feels there is confusion because there are two Marina Beaches -- one does not allow dogs, and one has for years allowed dogs to go free. He favors free run of dogs on the south side of Marina Beach. Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 17 Christopher Keuss, 1041 - 9th Avenue South, Planning Board member, filed a minority report. He recognizes that there are many dog owners who abide by the rules and regulations set to protect park lands. His concerns center on those owners who abuse the regulations and hurt or damage the park environment. Dogs should not be allowed in parks where certain conditions exist. These are: Waterfront/beach areas where children plan or swim, where families picnic or have activities, where clam digging and like activities occur. 2. In city parks where athletic events occur, where children play, or play equipment is present, where picnics or barbecues take place. 3. In city parks where environmentally sensitive areas are present. Examples being -near streams, near or in wetland areas, near protective animal habitats, near specialized plants, shrubs, trees. Mr. Keuss concurs with the Parks and Recreation Manager's recommendation about being careful allowing dogs in parks that impact these areas. He was not totally satisfied with the review that took place by fellow board members. I doesn't feel they considered these areas carefully enough with the recommendation that the majority report cited. He suggested that maybe we need a specialized area for dogs to go that will not impact his areas of concern. Mr. Mattson indicated testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of allowing dogs in the park 24 hours a day with few restrictions. He reported PAWS' suggested proposal was to try a couple of parks for a period of time, agree on a program, and test the dog owners and see if they can do what they say. If it can be shown that we can successfully open some parks to dogs, why not open those parks for dogs. Councilmember Kasper referenced the City of Seattle program. He thinks their program will be concluded in 3-6 months. Councilmember Petruzzi asked if South Marina Beach and the Inter -Trails of Yost Park are open to dogs. He was advised that South Marina Beach is, but Yost Park is not yet officially open. Councilmember Fahey indicated she was disturbed that people attending the hearings are in opposition to the Planning Board on this issue. Councilmember Fahey would like to see this on a date certain for hearing to hear all sides. She questions why it is OK to encounter dogs and the attendant problems on all of the city streets when it is not appropriate to encounter them in wilderness areas. She concurs with the idea they should not be on athletic fields or where children are playing, but from a safety factor, a lot of people would like to have a dog companion in wilderness areas. Council President Nordquist will set a date certain. There was clarification that the issue in Seattle was not whether to allow dogs in the city's parks, but whether to allow them to be unleashed in city parks. 4AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING SERVICES FOR DESIGN AND ESTMIATES RELATING TO n. REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING PARTY WALL Q % " p�?'� ..1 d" Approved City Council Minutes p�'� ylt November 1, 1994 Page 18 V Paul Mar, Community Services Director, called the Council's attention to paragraphs 3A, 3B and 3C of the agreement provided as part of the agenda memo on this item, for the scope of work. He thinks all parties are ready to move on this. Staff recommends the Council authorize Mayor Hall to sign the Agreement for Engineering and Consulting Services as provided to the Council. City Attorney Snyder indicated this is one of three documents, the second of which is a settlement agreement that incorporates one of the considerations for the City's signature on this agreement to arbitrate; the other document is a reformation of party wall agreement to clarify the easement situation. His suggestion is that when the Council authorizes Mayor Hall to sign the agreement that it be escrowed with Mr. Mar for forwarding at the time that all three documents are ready. Mr. Snyder is preparing one of the documents; Mr. Murray is preparing the other. Councilmember Petruzzi mentioned he didn't see notification place or signature area for KPFF. Mr. Snyder indicated that would be fixed. Mr. Mar confirmed to Councilmember Kasper that the fence would be up while this is done. COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING SERVICES —PREPARATION OF DESIGNS AND ESTIMATES RELATING TO REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING PARTY WALL, AND THAT SUCH DOCUMENT BE ESCROWED WITH PAUL MAR UNTIL THE OTHER TWO DOCUMENTS JOIN IT. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor Hall reported that the Sister City delegation will be attending the November 7 Council meeting and that there would be a welcome reception in the Plaza. Room on November 5. She invited all to attend. Christine Weed, Art Coordinator, requested Mayor Hall to provide a cultural planning update. She is sending to Council the Community Culture Planning Bulletin that gives an overview of some of the key issues to be brought before Council. There will be a public meeting on November 10 to present a draft of the plan to the community. Presentations have already been made to the Kiwanis, Rotary, and the Senior Center on the cultural planning process. Mayor Hall also reported her attendance at a meeting at Woodway Elementary School. There was talk that the School District was going to sell it, but it has now been decided to maintain the property for another 3-5 years. There is about 40,000 square feet available and five acres of lawn. County representatives were there, along with Staff members, and all were in agreement that this may become Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 19 00,- Mayor Hall announced the memorial dedication for Robert Pecoy's family. Mr. Pecoy died in August. The dedication went well, and Mayor Hall expressed her appreciation for all of the staff who were in attendance. Mayor Hall noted the scheduled Thursday Noon luncheon for Bob Alberts. On Halloween, at Edmonds-Woodway, the C-Span bus was present. It has travelled 41,000 miles around the community. It is worth $750,000 and is specially equipped. She discovered there was no government funding, strictly cable company funding. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the. Mayor and Council that Edmonds was in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and USA Today as well as local papers. The City's petition for writ of certiorari has been accepted by the U. S. Supreme Court -- one of six of some 240 cases for this term. It's an interesting choice. Having a case selected is numerically difficult. If your case is selected, historically 80% of the cases heard by the Supreme Court have been overturned. He suggested the Council look at the 1993 amendments that brought about the case. The case was taken despite the statutory amendments which indicates a desire on their level to address something. Mayor Hall called the Council's attention to the letter in the packets from Paul Mar to the Edmonds Cable Company. COUNCIL Council President John Nordquist responded to a question of last week regarding the student representative program. The student representative will be starting next week. The budget sessions start Saturday morning at 8:00. There will be a breakfast at 7:30, and the meeting is hoped to get over about Noon. At 5:30 that evening is the reception for the Sister City delegation. He further announced he has a memorandum from Paul Mar expressing the need to put together a consultant selection committee for three proposals that Edmonds submitted for TV franchise renewal. The date `J has been established as November 17 from 3:00-7:00 p.m. for that interview process. He asked for volunteers to serve on the committee. Council President Nordquist reminded the Council that next weeks meeting will be Monday right because of the elections on Tuesday. j`///COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER, TO EXCUSE COUNCIL PRESIDENT NORDQUIST'S OCTOBER 25, 1994, ABSENCE. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Hall had nothing to report. Councilmember Fahey passed. Councilmember Earling announced the RTA plan has been approved. He further advised that he will have the presentation here in a couple of weeks; transmittals to the three County Councils will be this Friday; we will then have 45 days to respond. The RTA plan as it effects Snohomish County includes commuter rail from Seattle to Everett, free regional trunk bus lines that intersect Snohomish County, Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 20 one beginning in Everett, one in Mukilteo, and one in Edmonds. It has a light rail system that is built out from Tacoma to 164th S.W. There is money set aside for multimodal improvements. Councilmember Kasper asked if they had set the date of the vote and whether it would be a mail -in. Councilmember Earling indicated the vote would be March 14 and that it was his understanding it would be a mail vote. Councilmember Dwyer commented on the interest being shown in neighborhood annexations. He suggested that sometime soon a map showing the new city boundary lines that would exist if the two new annexations were included in the city should be provided to the Council for use in making its Councilmember Kasper would like to see a report, have general discussion, and schedule a work D session on TDM (Transportation Demand Management). 0� Councilmember Petruzzi congratulated Staff on the great results on the annexation. He appreciated the difficulty of the program. He also found it rewarding to hear the applications for annexation made tonight. He thinks there will be a lot more people campaigning for it than against it. Councilmember Petruzzi asked about the cable television contract to be reviewed. He has been questioned about whether the City would continue to look at the issue since no one but Chambers has submitted a bid. Mr. Petruzzi would like to see other bids to compare. He recognized that this is a hot subject with the citizens. Mayor Hall commented on dealing in good faith. Council President Nordquist questioned the memo from Paul Mar requesting that the Council authorize Staff to begin the process to retain a consultant to assist the City in its cable television franchise renewal process with Edmonds Cable Company. Mr. Mar responded first to Councilmember Petruzzi's question regarding other bids. He indicated that unless Chambers or Edmonds Cable Company wanted to bow out of the franchise, it would be extremely difficult to get another franchisor in here. Staff will set the terms and conditions upon which that franchise agreement will be consummated and then it will be Edmonds Cable Company's decision to accept the agreement or come back with a counteroffer. Staff will work hard to get the conditions the City wants. Mr. Mar and Councilmember Fahey found out at the recent workshop that it is very difficult to unseat an incumbent. Councilmember Petruzzi asked if we could go out and ask people to bid. His concern is that if you ask people to bid, and they don't, Council has done its job for the public. City Attorney Snyder indicated that in 1990 the City looked at the entire process with public advertising as well as trade journal advertising. To do so again would add to the process when the odds of another bid are very slim. Councilmember Petruzzi feels it incumbent upon the Council to advertise for bids. Mr. Snyder pointed out that the procedure would allow talking in the consultant selection committee process about what additional additive it would cost to go out. One of the things the consultant would be doing is putting together a draft franchise agreement. You then advertise to proposals with respect to that agreement. Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 21 Through the committee you can get the option to do that and then determine whether it is worth the cost involved. Councilmember Fahey stated that based on the meeting she has attended there were many representatives dealing with the same problem. It is virtually unheard of to have two companies actually competing for business in an area like this. It is not cost effective for a company to come in and actually provide service, and while we can negotiate an agreement with them, from a legal standpoint it is virtually impossible to get Chambers out of here. Paul Mar suggested the City can entertain the question during the consultant selection process and then ask that consultant to include this as a separate line item for the City to consider. At 11:00 p.m. the Council adjourned to executive session on property, legal and personnel matters and adjourned from there. THE ORIGINAL SIGNED COPY OF THESE MINUTES, AS WELL AS A TAPED RECORDING OF ALL COUNCIL MEETINGS, CAN BE LOCATED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. VA 140FRI-o"I-40,14 �. 4RON�DAJ. MAR , CITY CLERK Approved City Council Minutes November 1, 1994 Page 22 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 -10:00 a.m. NOVEMBER 1, 1994 CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 1994 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS #945458 THRU #945563 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 24, 1994 (D) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON AN APPEAL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL'S ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (DNS - DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE) ISSUED FOR A PROPOSED 6 UNIT/LOT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/ PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND STREET MAP AMENDMENT (FILE NOS. PRD-94-16 & ST-94-102) SUBMITTED BY THE EDMONDS BUILDING COMPANY FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1312 9TH AVE. N. (Appellant: Roger Hertrich I File No. AP-94435) (E) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK REDUCTION FROM REQUIRED 25 FT. TO 7.5 FT. FOR PROPOSED GARAGE/STORAGE STRUCTURE AT 23901 76TH AVE. W. (Applicant/Appellant: Loren Nordby and Thomas Daniels / File Nos. V-94-125 and AP-94-159) (F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE STATION NO.6 EXHAUST SYSTEM PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (G) APPROVAL OF TREATMENT PLANT MANAGER POSITION AND JOB DESCRIPTION (H) APPROVAL OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER FUND GRANT 3. AUDIENCE 4. (6Min.) RECOGNITION OF POLICE SERGEANT PROMOTION 5. (10 Min.) PRESENTATION OF OFFICIAL 1995 PRELIMINARY BUDGET TO CITY COUNCIL & MAYOR'S OVERVIEW 6. (16Min.) CONTINUED HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF THE EASTERN 150' OF THE PUBLIC ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN 7TH AVE. N. AND 8TH AVE. N., SOUTH OF SPRAGUE ST. AND NORTH OF EDMONDS ST. I FILE NO. ST-94-121 (Continued from September 19, 1994 and October 18, 1994) 7. (20Min.) HEARING ON PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION OF 3.2 ACRES IN AN RS-12 ZONE INTO 10 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AT 8511 188TH ST. S.W. (Applicant: Helleren Development Co./File No. P-94-55) 8. (20Min.) SECOND HEARING ON DOWNTOWN / WATERFRONT PLAN 9. (20Min.) HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN AND SIX-MONTH REPORT 10. (30Min.) MEETING WITH PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FOR PRESENTATION ON TRANSPORTATION PLAN 11. (20Min.) DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ON PROS, CONS AND OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR ALLOWING DOGS IN ONE OR MORE CITY PARKS 12. (5Min.) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING SERVICES FOR DESIGN AND ESTIMATES RELATING TO REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING PARTY WALL -continued - Edmonds City Council Agenda November 1, 1994 Page Two 13. (5 Min.) MAYOR 14. (15Min.) COUNCIL 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON PROPERTY MATTERS Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hour advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this Meeting appears the following Wednesday evening at 7.00 p.m. on Channel 36 and the following Friday and Mondav at noon on Channel 32.