Loading...
06/20/1995 City Council6/27/yJ EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES JUNE 20.)1995 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Laura Hall, Mayor Tom Petruzzi, Council President William J. Kasper, Councilmember Michael Hall, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Barbara Fahey, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Emily Shen, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Michael Springer, Fire Chief Robin Hickock, Asst. Police Chief Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Paul Mar, Community Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor Noel Miller, Public Works Supervisor Jim Walker, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Christine Laws, Recorder Mayor Hall asked to add to the Agenda.as Item 14 a ten-minute Executive Session on a real estate matter. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Earling pulled Item H. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 1995 (C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 1995 (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #952056 THRU #952954 FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 6, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $354,670.03 AND CLAIM WARRANTS #952817 THRU #953085 FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 12, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $227,915.10. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL i6 Ra WARRANTS #952675 THRU #953037 FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 16 THRU MAY 31, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $437,330.90 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NNE 20, 1995 PAGE 1 C LA11A C (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MARGARET DOYLE D06 ($129.55) 0A (F) REPORT ON BIDS. OPENED MAY 22, 1995, FOR A MICROFILM READER/PRINTER AND miaAU k AWARD OF BID TO BELL& HOWELL IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,028, INCLUDING SALES TAX EA� AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT �g/t' gof (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 8 1995, FOR THE 1995 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT �qoCEm PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO J.E. WORK, INC. ($283,720.80) �y (1) REPORT ON QUOTES AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE CONCRETE MANHOLES JARt4do FROM INTERNATIONAL PIPE ENTERPRISES, INC. ($12,945.59) (J) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO DRILL AND TEST FOR A WELL AT EDMONDS ,Lf ERl MEMORIAL CEMETERY R � (K) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WITH REGARD TO THE {, 5 �f HEARING HELD ON JUNE 6, 1995 ON THE MORATORIUM ON CELLULAR TOWER t;6R DEB/ FACILITIES F� 5d0vN6 BA�a (L) RESOLUTION NO. 820 SETTING AN ELECTION DATE FOR THE SNOLINE-FORSHEE AND 6.0 0 nGATE-EATON ANNEXATIONS (File Nos. AX-94-182 and AX-94-183) 151, Regarding Item H, Councilmember Earling questioned City Engineer Jim Walker about a request that a sidewalk be put on 9th North. Mr. Earling confirmed what was being approved in Agenda Item H did not necessarily include a sidewalk, and he questioned the options concerning that, the inter -relationship between >J the overlay program and the sidewalk program, and alternatives to considering 9th North in its totality. Mr. l R� Walker explained the projects and alternatives. Regarding the walkway, Mr. Walker expressed concern about the available right-of-way and how things position. Since receiving petitions from residents adjoining but not fronting 9th Avenue, a survey has been done. Basically, everyone who has frontage on 9th Avenue, and have responded, do not desire the walkway. Those with the desire live on adjoining streets. The walkway was part of the 1992 Comprehensive Bikeway/Walkway Plan. Given the choice, Mr. Walker would rather spend the walkway money towards the walkways that are going to be needed on Highway 99 as opposed to doing it on this street if the City can't get the required easements. Mayor Hall reported that there had been lengthy discussion this afternoon after having been out to the neighborhood, and in talking with Mr. Walker and Paul Mar, it was thought that putting the money on the Highway 99 walkway may be the wise thing to do. She described this as participatory government at its finest and best. Council President Petruzzi confirmed that the walkway was not in the street overlay program. He further indicated that these people do not want a walkway and asked if Mr. Walker was recommending the City not do the overlay. Mr. Walker responded that he was recommending that the overlay be deferred for a year. When asked if the people were amenable to delaying the overlay, Mr. Walker said he was not sure the people were aware there was an overlay other than the people who came to the meeting. Mr. Petruzzi then confirmed that the City could put in the overlay if it were really needed without doing the actual walkway. Mr. Walker clarified for Mr. Petruzzi the rationale behind policy regarding projects and potential deferral of projects. Councilmember Fahey reported that she had been to the neighborhood and visited with some of the people. She thinks that this is an issue so far up in the air that Council should not take any proactive direction at this time. She thinks the recommendation now being made to put this on hold and go with one of the other alternatives until everything is resolved in that area would be the best way to go. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES RUNE 20, 1995 PAGE 2 Councilmember Earling clarified with Mr. Walker his understanding that the recommendation being made to the overlay program as an alternative is that if the City did not do 9th North and decided to do 188th between 80th and 88th, that would be a relatively same cost project. Mr. Walker responded they are within $5,000; the combination of 9th Avenue, Northstream and 188th are very similar ($43,000 for 188th and $47-48,000 for the other two streets in combination). Mr. Earling then confirmed that if the City did not do 9th North this year, pending the completion of the Cherry Street drainage project, the City then could go ahead and do the overlay program along with whatever sidewalk amenities were or were not agreed to in that neighborhood, on 9th, Cherry, and Northstream, all in one project at one time. Mr. Walker described some other areas of interest. He reiterated that there would be no disadvantage to carrying it to next year. Hopefully at that time, the sidewalk issue can be resolved. Additional discussion followed concerning the right-of-way issue. Mr. Earling verified Mr. Walker's recommendation is to give everyone a year to resolve the issue. Mayor Hall recognized a petition of approximately four partial pages and correspondence from Loreena Strickland had been received. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO AMEND THE SCHEDULE ON ITEM H AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER — THAT WE DO AN OVERLAY PROJECT ON 188TH BETWEEN 80TH AND 88TH AND DEFER FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR THE OVERLAY PROJECT ON 9TH NORTH, NORTHSTREAM 6� ( NORTH, AND CHERRY. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda item passed is as follows: pJ E 6 1A (H) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 13, 1995, FOR THE 1995 STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM P0 AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO WILDER CONSTRUCTION (S330,276.50) AS AMENDED IN THE MOTION. 3. AUDIENCE Merrill Younkin, 200 James Street, spoke as President of the El Capitan Condominium Board of d0 Directors. Mr. Younkin advised Council that a month ago he had written a letter to the Downtown Parking Do'40 ab Advisory Committee regarding their concerns, a copy of which he provided to Council. He reminded fAR41 Council the 200 block on South 2nd Avenue is curved, thereby creating blind spots. Since removing the 3-hour parking signs, the street has become a 24-hour parking lot for cars and trucks. There is also increased traffic flow. Because speed limits are not adhered to, the increased traffic increases risk of accidents, especially for those entering and leaving El Capitan property. He expressed concern over visitors to El Capitan residents having no place within close proximity to park when they were previously able to park on 2nd Avenue. He went on to discuss the misuse of parking by ferry commuters. He expressed consternation over the amount of noise and rowdy conduct of people coming and going from the ferry. Mr. Younkin closed by saying he did not understand why the City of Edmonds was imposing this traffic problem on this one block, affecting the lives of residents of the El Capitan Condominium. Cindy Abrahamson, 1560 - 9th Avenue North, addressed the 9th Avenue walkway project which she Po. believed to have been slated to be done immediately. She initiated a survey, a copy of which was dropped �Ryl� off today. She said they had acquired 48 signatures at that time. They now have an additional 26 from 51 DE Moore Street, Soundview Place, and another 9 from 9th North. She said she was unclear if this project was put off to review for next year or whether the sidewalk project was cancelled. Mayor Hall suggested City Engineer Jim Walker could delineate that for her. As noted in the survey, they are very concerned about Northstream which crosses under 9th North and the proposed bridge and how that will affect the stream bed. They contacted the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, APPROVED CITY COUNCII. MINUTES JUNE 20, 1995 PAGE 3 neither of whom had been previously contacted. They want all of the issues raised in the petitions discussed in a public forum before anything begins. Jim Walker responded that at this point the City has deferred it. He said not all surveys have been returned. Decisions will be made based on the comments being received. The responses received are generally negative. He stated that if it were felt this were a safety issue and there was a threat to life, the City would decide regardless of the opinions of the people. However, he does not feel that applies in this case. Mr. Walker also stated that if the City were to go ahead with the project it would not need Corps of Engineers approval as it is not a stream under its jurisdiction. They could get an HP from Fisheries and Wildlife; in the past they have had minimal comment or concern. It would be entirely over a fill section and would not alter the stream in any way. All of this will be taken into consideration at the time of project commencement. Russ Foisy, 8735 - 209th Place S.W., talked about neighborhood basketball hoops. In his neighborhood �VUL there was a basketball hoop erected over 24 years ago, maintained by a number of residents in the culdesac. -V5 5 A lot of people have used it, and because of it there has not been a lot of crime in the neighborhood. He � Dpf questioned what the kids would do if we take away their access to basketball hoops because of a new ordinance adopted by the City. His neighbors apparently did not talk with him, but made complaints to the City. He believes the concern over noise and the periodic inability to conveniently get into a driveway will give the kids the wrong message. Basketball is one of the cheapest forms of sports available and. assists in keeping kids out of trouble and off of drugs. Councilmember Myers expressed his belief that the City of Lynnwood was doing that kind of activity, but that Edmonds was not. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised that if the City hasn't passed an ordinance, the City is part of a risk management program. One of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority's recommendations was that the City begin to police its right-of-way. He expressed his belief that no one would disagree with Mr. Foisy's point regarding the need for sports programs. The problem is when they incur in City streets, the City assumes liability and responsibility for the safety of the people using it. This was not a City action as much as a follow-through on a recommendation by the risk management pool to which the City belongs. Councilmember Hall asked if this would be an action enforcing a current ordinance. Mr. Snyder said the City has a long-standing policy which prohibits the erection of structures in the public right-of-way. When asked if it were a policy or an ordinance, Mr. Snyder said the City has a street use permit ordinance that requires that the erection of any structure within the public right-of-way be pursuant to permit. The City has never issued permits for this purpose, so simply applying for the permit would not do any good. As an existing program, it is a new enforcement effort. Mr. Hall feels there should be a hearing on this new enforcement policy. Councilmember asked if anyone has complained to the City of Edmonds, whether the City had done anything about this, and whether anyone had told these people not to do this anymore. Public Works Superintendent Noel Miller said he receives about three complaints a year on basketball hoops. The City is just starting to take note and follow through on policing the right-of-way. Council President Petruzzi agreed with Councilmember Hall that this is something that should be further discussed. He suggested there is a point where legislation gets to be ridiculous. He feels Council has to make sure that the kids have rights to play. Mr. Foisy clarified that his point was that there was a need for a better process. He was advised it was as a result of the risk management recommendation, but it was made to sound like this was an enforceable APPROVED CITY COUNCIL. MINUTES NNE 20, 1995 PAGE policy. The process with which his was taken down was very casual. He thought there would be time to work things out with the neighbors who complained. Jack Bevan, 19210 - 94th West, discussed the parking issue and the Financial Center acquisition. In his view, the State Ferry System has given the Council an unfunded mandate by requiring the amount of AL, parking that they are not providing. It should be raised with DOT to see to it they provide this parking. GE�fE Mr. Bevan favors purchasing the Financial Center. He is concerned about the $445,000 premium paid over the City's appraisal. The Council is buying damaged goods with none of the basic maintenance such as masonry cracks and roof repairs considered or discounted from the asking price. His consultant (a troubleshooter for a prestigious Washington bank) questions whether the roof can be done for the $20,000 quoted. Mr. Bevan thinks the stockholders of the City have a right to know why condemnation has not been an alternative when $445,000 is at stake. Larry Menne, 22102 - 98th Avenue West, said a recent Seattle Times article reported that the City of Edmonds had decided not to use photo radar to catch speeders but will install more traffic signals and 1,,f`rc enlarged speed signs so they are more visible. More traffic signals may offer greater control of vehicle 306D traffic but will not necessarily slow the traffic. Traffic signals which are expensive cannot issue tickets to drivers who exceed the speed limits or fail to stop for pedestrian traffic; they can't respond to traffic accidents; they can't direct traffic around obstacles. Additional traffic officers can do all of the above tasks at a lesser cost than high-tech traffic signals. He believes traffic speed could be more controlled if there were a uniform speed limit for all residential streets west of 84th Avenue West. Mr. Menne said that from public comments made at the May 16 Council meeting, the 25 m.p.h. limit is universally favored by the people living along these streets. Also commented on at that meeting was a desire for a more rigid tolerance policy. In regard to larger speed limit signs, the most visible place for such a sign is right on the street. Mr. Menne voiced his earnest desire that the City of Edmonds earn the classification of a speed trap. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, spoke regarding the Financial Center. He remarked that he is now Ay aware that the City does not have enough money in the present income structure of the City to pay for it fr,qKA &� without an increase in real estate excise taxes. He said the first year the revenues from the building will 'C, add up enough to offset the extra monies it takes to pay for the building. He is concerned about what happens after the first year. He hopes that the citizens realize that what they are doing is being asked to pay more taxes to finance this building. At the same time, the City is losing tax income. From his understanding, the value of those taxes are quite extensive for the school system. The County and State also lose money in taxes. How do we pay for a building when we are taking property off of the tax rolls and put it on the back of the citizens with a request for more tax money? He thinks the public should understand how much real tax money is being lost when private property is bought and taken off the tax rolls. 4. HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR AN D APPROXIMATELY 13,500 SQUARE FOOT SITE (.31 ACRES) FROM "HIGH DENSITY �es1,116 RESIDENTIAL" TO "COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS". THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED gy-p AT 23713 EDMONDS WAY (Applicant: Madeline Morehouse / File No. CDC-95-48) C Pfft Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, introduced the subject and advised that he would be calling upon Phyllis Becker of the Planning Board for a summarization of the action taken by them on May 24. He requested that discussion of Item 4 and Item 5 be combined. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT DISCUSSION OF ITEMS 4 AND 5 BE COMBINED. MOTION CARRIED. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL NflNU'PES NNE 20, 1995 PAGE 5 Mr. Wilson went on to describe the property being considered. In December, concurrent with the Aurora Marketplace annexation, after it was approved by the Boundary Review Board and became effective, the applicant sought a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezone to officially allow commercial uses to exist on that property. With that there was a request submitted that the current Comprehensive Plan be amended to change it from high density residential to commercial business, and if that application were approved, a concurrent request to rezone the property from RS-8 (present designation as zoned by the County) to BC to be consistent with the new .Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding properties are commercial in nature, it has been used commercial for a number of years, and it is basically a commercial area. After a hearing on May 24, the Planning Board adopted a recommendation to approve the request. Mr. Wilson then asked Ms. Becker to speak. City Attorney Snyder advised that on quasi-judicial matters the comments of the Board are limited to the written summary provided to the Council. No individual Board member may speak for the Board. He has not commented on Board members speaking on the Comprehensive Plan because that is a legislative decision. In a quasi-judicial matter, the recommendation of the Board is typically limited to the written comments because those comments are then typically adopted or authorized by the Board. Mayor Hall suggested that Ms. Becker would be reiterating what was included in that recommendation. Mr. Snyder further advised that Council would not be able to ask questions of the board member. Based on the advice and comments provided by counsel and in an attempt to put this matter into perspective, Mr. Wilson advised that the action is to amend the current Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action, if adopted by the Council, would also be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which the Council will be looking at later this evening. Mr. Snyder said that perhaps the best way would be to note for the record that the comments that Ms. Becker and any questions asked by the Council are limited to the Comprehensive Plan amendment portion of this combined hearing. Councilmember Kasper said these people were told Council would go into the Comprehensive Plan after the annexation. He asked if the hearings had been held. Mr. Wilson said there were hearings on this particular application. He also said they have developed general information regarding the Comprehensive Plan for that area, taking a look at the existing characteristics there. He then indicated that in July or early August there will be hearings held on amendments to the GMA Comp Plan not only dealing with the Aurora Marketplace but dealing with the other areas for which the City has current pending annexation requests. It is the desire to wrap all these things into one package to incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan which Council is reviewing for the city as a whole. There will be more specific hearings for the Esperance area related to the Aurora Marketplace area coming later this summer or early this fall. Mr. Kasper expressed concern that this might be spot romping. Mr. Wilson indicated this has occurred in the city before where Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones have been looked at, and they are permissible under the current Comprehensive Plan. In the future, upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan under the Growth Management Act, the City is limited to one amendment to the Comp Plan per year. This proposal is for an amendment to the current Comprehensive Plan. It seemed to Mr. Kasper that Council is going against the fact that it said that there would be hearings before doing these in general, and now Council is doing a Comp Plan amendment before there has been any presentation to the neighborhood just annexed. Mr. Wilson responded that the City is obligated, once an application is submitted to the City, to process that through a public hearing process. The City advertised both the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for this property as well as the proposed rezone in the fashion required under existing ordinances. Mr. Wilson said this application matter must be brought to a conclusion. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MQdUTES JUNE 20, I995 PAGE 6 City Attorney Snyder advised that this applicant is caught in a difficult situation. The report notes they had filed an application for rezone in Snohomish County. They had an application pending. The City's method of annexation specified comparable zoning, so the zoning Council adopted was the same as Snohomish County. If Council feels it is justified at this point, the fact that there are changes coming should not lock Council into a position. Mr. Kasper confirmed it did not establish a pattern. Phyllis Becker then addressed Council. The property is part of the Aurora Marketplace annexation from the County and hence becomes part of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. A BC rezone is requested by the application; there were no objections by any neighboring properties; a business owner adjacent to the property spoke in favor of the rezone; and the Planning Board unanimously voted to recommend to the Council that the Comprehensive Plan be adopted for the area with the resulting BC zone. Councilmember Kasper asked about whether the quonset but would go. Mr. Wilson indicated there is a pending application for a permit from the. Architectural Design Board for the subject property which does effect the existing uses on the property. That is being kept separate from this evening's request because they are not obligated to do that under the Comp Plan or rezone. The applicant Madeline Morehouse was represented by Penny Bergland, 651 Edmonds Way. Currently this property is in a state of transition. Ms. Morehouse made the application acting as agent for the owner, and Ms. Bergland is now in the process of purchasing this particular parcel of property. The issues with amending the Comprehensive Plan and then proceeding to a new rezoning on that property will place that particular property's historic use in agreement with the zoning. Ms. Bergland indicated she did not wish to go into details about the plans for the property at this time, but would answer questions if Council desired further information along those lines. Ms. Bergland requested Council approve the application. She feels it will be beneficial for the community and will allow appropriate redevelopment of the site. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Brian Loveless, 1222 N. 185th Street, Seattle, is the realtor involved in the transfer of this site. The future use . provides for the quonset but being removed. He thinks it will be a definite improvement in the neighborhood. He reiterated Mr. Wilson's comments about the property being surrounded by commercial uses. He thinks it would be totally inappropriate to be any other use than BC. He believes this a clear cut case of a property that is appropriate to be rezoned. The public portion of the hearing was closed. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI, FOR THE RECOMMENDED ACTION ON BOTH HEARINGS: TO AMEND THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION FROM "HIGH DENSITY RSIDENTIAL" TO "COMMERCIALBUSINESS"; AND TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM "RS-8" TO "BC". MOTION CARRIED. 5. HEARING ON A CONCURRENT REZONE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY - 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE ("RS-8") TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS ("BC"). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LS LOCATED AT 23713 EDMONDS WAY (Applicant: Madeline Morehouse / File No. R-95-22) The discussion and vote on this item was consolidated with that on Item 4 above. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MIN=S JUNE 20, 1995 PAGE 7 hpop; 6. ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN P 010 Planning Manager Rob Chave explained that the ordinance presented replaces the existing 1' Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 15 of the Community Development Code with the new updated Comprehensive Plan that Council has been reviewing for the past couple of years. At this point, all changes have been made that were indicated by consensus and motion after Council reviews. He utilized an overhead to explain to the audience what the plan is and what is being done. He explained the plan as a whole and how the seven separate elements identified related to it and each other. What Staff will be trying to do as they do periodic updates of the Comprehensive Plan is strive to distill the essence of some of these plans so they can be combined into as few documents as is possible. Mr. Chave emphasized that the Plan is not a final document or process. Every year there will be updates made to the plan. In the next month or so, Staff plans to come up with a logical schedule so that everyone is comfortable not only with the process of how to go about updating the Plan, but also scheduling and how it will be coordinated with the budget process. The budget process is critical to the success of the Plan because it is one of the main ways the plan is implemented. Mr. Chave announced that the final Environmental Impact Statement was issued today. Copies will be provided to Council. They have been mailed to the appropriate agencies, and the City is in a position where the Plan can be adopted with an effective date of June 27. Councilmember Kasper referenced page 52 (Urban Growth Areas) and asked about the inclusion of Norma Beach. Mr. Chave stated it was included because it adjoins the city. Staff feels it important that the City is at the table when discussions on development and/or annexations occurring in that area will effect the City. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI, FOR PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO.3030 TO BE EFFECTIVE JUNE 27, 1995, AND TO PUT FOR THE RECORD A COMPLETE AND VOCAL THANK YOU TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A JOB WELL DONE. Council President Petruzzi gave personal thanks to Rob Chave, Jeff Wilson, Paul Mar, and everyone on the Planning Board. He forwarded thanks to Ken Mattson, Melody Tereski, Rob Morrison, et al. for the effort on the Transportation Plan. He acknowledged the other members of the Planning Board and also extolled the work done by the community group and numerous other individuals over the course of this project. Councilmember Fahey liked the plans but had three areas of concern on which she wished reassurance. One concern dealt with rezones which Mr. Chave explained were a separate process with separate hearings. You have to have both -- the Comprehensive Plan designating your area and also have the zoning in place as well. City Attorney Snyder confirmed with Mr. Chave that the recommended actions that Ms. Fahey referenced are contained or consistent with this plan. Another area of concern to Ms. Fahey was the issue of the vagueness of the sign policies and the window of opportunity before addressing this. Mr. Chave said it was Staffs intent to have that in place at the time other changes necessitated by the budget at the end of the year are made. Essentially what is targeted is the Urban Design Element. The City would be changing or making recommendations on exactly the policies to which Ms. Fahey is calling attention. Her third concern dealt with the fact there is nothing that dealt with Economic Development specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. She asked what the plan is to get that included into the Comprehensive Plan and what time line has been established. Mr. Chave responded that was another optional element he would like to have in the Plan. He is hoping that the Economic Development work will generate some policy direction upon which Council could agree and add to the Plan as another element. Councilmember Myers pointed out that references to Edmonds Senior High School should be changed to Edmonds-Woodway Senior High School. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MW=S JUNE 20, 1995 PAGE 8 MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMIM 3ER KASPER VOTING NO. 7. HEARING TO REAFFIRM THE COUNCIL'S 114-NOS" POSITION REGARDING THE FERRY DOCK AND TO DISCUSS TEMPORARY SITE CONSTRUCTION r DoGK Mayor Hall announced receipt of a memo from Natalie Shippcn providing a suggested remedy. Community Services Director Paul Mar advised that the four nos were set out in an August 23, 1989 letter to Admiral Parker of the Washington State Ferry System as no second slip, no dock expansion, no overhead loading and no commercial facilities on the dock. Since that time and up through early 1993, reading through literature, minutes, and discussions with people in the City and DOT, the Washington State Ferry System has on several occasions attempted to implement upgrades and improvements to the ferry terminal at the foot of Main Street that were and are contrary to the City's stated positions on the four nos. These attempts were formulated with no cooperative effort on the part of the City. The reason for this hearing is to review the four nos. Mr. Mar thinks the working relationship between the City and all divisions of the State Department of Transportation, including the Ferry System, is different than four years ago. Mr. Mar called Council attention to Exhibit 3 of the notebook which shows Council preferred the Point Edwards site as the site for the new ferry terminal. The Oversight Committee for the Multimodal Transportation Project stated on August 16, 1994, that the Point Edwards site is the preferred site for the Multimodal Transportation Center. It has also been acknowledged that the Multimodal Transportation Project probably will not be operational for at least seven to ten years. Through cooperative planning efforts established through the Memorandum of Understanding signed in November 1993 the Ferry System has proposed a two-phase near term upgrade to the current ferry terminal. Phase I was replacement of many of the components on the existing dock which was completed early this year. Phase 11 is the construction of the transferable overhead loading system and other ADA safety and operational improvements. Mr. Mar utilized the overhead to show visual diagrams of the existing ferry terminal to provide some factual information to aid in Council deliberations. Also included in Council packets is a memorandum with two attachments -- a letter from Ray Deardorf to Council President Tom Petruzzi and a mailing sent out by the Washington State Ferry System which talks about the proposed Phase II project. Mr. Mar further noted that two representatives of the Washington State Ferry System were present at the hearing to answer any technical questions. Councilmember Kasper confirmed that all the information in Exhibit 19 had not been previously presented. He questioned from where the 31' height was measured and the zoning. Discussion followed concerning Shoreline Management requirements, how water lines are measured, and the fact that some of those determinations will require a survey which will be included in the design and engineering effort. Mr. Kasper also asked what the difference was between what is being considered here and what was built in Kingston. The two differences are that the overhead loading system in Kingston is a long ramp all the way up, and it is a ramp that when you get out to the pier can swing between two landing slips, and on this one, it will be a stairway with an elevator and will only hit one landing slip. Councihnember Earling asked for clarification on one of the diagrams presented. Mr. Mar confirmed that the proposal presented last June 7, superimposed on the transfer span on the diagram, diagrammatically would be in proximity in both location and in height. Mr. Earling then confirmed that what is there now is 31' from the roadbed to the top. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL M NLTrES DUNE 20, 1995 PAGE 9 Responding to questions of Council President Petruzzi, Mr. Mar explained that as part of the effort and design and engineering of an overhead loading system or any proposals, there would have to be surveys as to where the high water mark is. Mr. Petruzzi then clarified that when discussing average grade level on shorelines, you are talking about average grade of the mean high water line. It was also confirmed that a new facility might not be higher than the one today. Responding to Councilmember Myers, Mr. Myers :stated the elevator and waiting room are fixed once constructed. It was confirmed there would essentially be a second story. Council President Petruzzi asked City Attorney Snyder about Parcel C (the parcel adjacent to the current ferry dock). He indicated Council had asked Mr. Snyder to research what rights the City may have on that particular parcel due to the fact that the City has acquired Anderson Marina and whether the City had reversionary rights.. Mr. Snyder said there are revision rights when the ferry ceases to operate. There are not termination rights. Mr. Petruzzi also questioned whether Parcel C would fall under the Shoreline Management Act. Mr. Snyder answered that this is all covered under the Shoreline Management Act and not under Edmonds' zoning. He stated there is an odd gap because of the way the shoreline management program is defined from the North and South side of the dock. Mr. Snyder explained the Council last year made a policy declaration regarding the four nos. Council needs to be careful, as it formulates its statement tonight, in pre judging the Shoreline. Management application in advance of the hearing and presentation by the State Ferry System. Although an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine challenge which applies to the whole Council is waivable, pre judgmental bias would still be open. He thinks that in terms of reiterating the policy stance there should be clarification that this is made upon the information presented to Council. Mr. Snyder thinks that Mr. Mar's recommendation to reaffirm the three nos and work cooperatively on a Phase II solution leaves the door open. Councilmember Myers expressed his understanding that the Washington State Ferries would like to have this second tier loading because of two reasons: 1) the present system of loading takes longer because the passengers have to go at the same time the cars do and 2) at the Kingston side when they load, the disabled access is on the second deck so there is no way to get from the second deck down to the main deck to get off at our side. Mr. Mar confirmed that understanding and added that on this side those that are wheelchair bound, if they get on on the car deck stay on the car deck the entire trip as there is no access to get upstairs. Mr. Mar's understanding is that because there is no overhead loading on this side, the wheelchair patrons are loaded on the car deck on the other side. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Place, #102, Edmonds, commented that improvements are needed to meet the requirements of the Americans With Disability Act of 1988. With the gradually sloped pedestrian ramp, and he has heard tonight it will be stairs, will it be necessary to build a structure to house an elevator. A sloped ramp can accommodate a wheelchair. Are a ticket booth and restrooms necessary at the end of the ramp instead of being at the entrance of the walkway and ramp? Mr. Morrison said that in the pedestrian and handicap portion, they refer to bicycle riders and motorcycles. He believes motorcycles should be considered a vehicle. He then commented that the document states it is made to serve ferry riders until the new transportation center is built. He believes that should provide for building at the Point Edwards site and not the mid -waterfront. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, stated the Council did, by motion, vote to approve the four nos, especially the second slip for overhead loading and shoreside parking. She asked what Council's authority was in this APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES TUNE 20, 1995 PAGE 10 area if the Oversight Committee can tell the consultants to go ahead and design this structure before Council. Mr. Deardorf noted that the WSF wants to comply with the intent of the ADA which she believes is commendable. She discussed further the lack of elevators in the jumbo ferries which are coming to. Edmonds if the marine division has its way. She thinks the real reason we are being confronted by the overhead loading structure is turnaround time. Should Edmonds permit its waterfront to be marred simply so that ferries may turn around faster, keeping in mind that most of the ridership on the Edmonds -Kingston line is recreational? Ms. Shippen then commented on the fact that while being told there would be no second loading pier because of eelgrass, these environmental problems can always be mitigated. She went on to state that the ferry service has anticipated that as there is funding to mitigate the eelgrass problem. Ms. Shippen believes the solution is included in her letter to the Transportation Commission which she provided to Council. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, agreed with the comments of Ms. Shippen. Mr. Hertrich was on the Council and thought the four nos was an excellent way to simplify the whole thought of this city in trying to protect what is on the waterfront for the citizens of Edmonds. When this matter was discussed before, there were some specifics Council did not wish to see happen, such as an increase in the size the ferry dock. He described some of the widening changes that would occur without overhead loading. That was one of the four nos because Council did not want to make it more convenient for the ferry system. Instead, they. wanted them to have the motivation to move to the Unocal site. The harder it is to load, the more difficult, the more pressure the public puts on the ferry system to do something about it, they will widen the dock or move. That decision is up to the Council. In Exhibit 19 (page 0314) he finds they are talking about using the existing building to provide facilities for the ferry workers. He questioned why all this bulk was being placed there since the whole idea is that it is temporary. He feels whatever they put in there is not temporary. Mr. Hertrich asked Council to reaffirm its general feelings for the four nos. . Carol Hahn, 1030 Second, stated the current loading is an athema to wheelchairs. For people in manual chairs it is very difficult to go over some of the joints. Ms. Hahn further discussed the issue of elevators and the fact that ferry elevators break down with regularity. She asked that accomodations be included for those who use wheelchairs. Roger Oliver, 1031 Second, wanted to correct the misconception people seem to have about disabled. He reminded Council that people with disabilities do work regular schedules. They can't depend on a special bus to come pick them up at their home. He added that ferry elevators are not reliable and are not placed at each end of the boat. He noted that it is very demeaning to have to ask for assistance. He thinks the State is reliable enough to commit itself to taking the overhead loading and transfer spans they are going to build for Phase II and move that down to the new location; it would save a lot of money. Mr. Oliver favors making this a three no proposition. At the request of Councilmember Fahey, Paul Mar introduced Ray Deardorf and Ted Bell of the Washington State Ferry System. Upon reminder by City Clerk Sandy Chase, the Council consensus was to extend the hearing for an additional 15 minutes. Councilmember Fahey asked if the proposed project would facilitate the addition of more runs on the line to accommodate the long lines, especially during the summer. Ray Deardorf, Washington State Ferries, 801 Alaskan Way, Seattle, responded that the current schedule is about 20 minutes to offload and load passengers. With the increased foot traffic, they are unable to keep that schedule. One aspect of the overhead loading is the efficiency of offloading foot passengers simultaneously with the cars is that it will allow them to stay on time or preclude reducing a trip out of the schedule to make the boats more on time. It is a matter of forestalling having to reduce service rather than have the ability to add more trips. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES TUNE 20, 1995 PAGE 11 Councilmember Fahey commented on the frequent two to three hour waits for ferries. She would like to see these people moved through town more expeditiously. Mr. Deardorf said it will keep the service from deteriorating further. Councilmember Fahey asked for the Washington State Ferry representatives to again address the issue of heights of the loading ramp as to ultimate heights during high tides and the possibility of it being dropped down to an acceptable height at times when the ferry is not in and th:re is not a need to be loading passengers. Ted Bell, Washington State Ferries, stated the highest he could calculate that the end of the ramp will ever go is an estimated 38'V2 above the roadbed. That would be at the highest tide once or twice a year. A more typical situation is that it would be about the same height or lower. Further discussion followed concerning the ability to drop the loading ramp during times when it is not needed. Councilmember Fahey then expressed concern over the fact that people waiting in line cannot vacate their cars during their wait to enjoy activities in the city. Mr. Bell said he was not aware of any movement to do that. At terminals where they have that ability, the holding land configuration is a wider arrangement. Because of the historical actions at this terminal it has developed in a linear fashion, and all of the traffic has to keep moving up. Without widening the configurations, it would be quite an impact on the shoreline, and he wasn't sure how that could be accomplished.. Councilmember Earling raised the issue of a report having been received from Reid Middleton that rated the present site as a substantially substandard site in relationship to the other two studied. Yet, when Staff was asked to do some cost analysis, with the potential reconfiguration to load on ferries at this particular site (the larger ferries coming on later); to get the proper alignment, he became convinced that it would become almost as costly to do a permanent site at the Main Street site as it would for Point Edwards by the time you get into takings of land that he thinks will be necessary to reconfigure. Also, information was provided that there is a potential fatal flaw with the eelgrass just off to the. side of the current dock. All of those things lead him to the point that if the DOT can find a way to deal with the fact that the site at Main Street seems to be a substandard site and in fact will cost approximately as much as to build at one of the other sites, and that there is a fatal flaw, if the State could put itself in a position to consider that this is not a good site and shouldn't consider it a permanent site,, it would make the process much easier for the Council. If the point could be reached where there was understanding this was a temporary site, Council's decision would be a good deal easier. Mr. Bell, personally, feels there are a number of problems with the current site, but he realizes they will be there for a while and they have current problems with which they must deal. From the standpoint of the disjointed vehicle holding that slows down the loading, to the eelgrass issue, to the railroad crossing, there are a number of problems. He would like nothing better than to get to a better site, but he believes it will take some time. Mr. Earling suggested a letter from someone in the chain that could give some assurances to the City that Mr. Bell's views were realistic and must be addressed would certainly make Council's position easier to deal with. Councilmember Petruzzi discussed his understanding of some of the cost issues on the existing site and the Unocal site. He questioned the anticipated taking of 12 acres of City property. Mr. Petruzzi is looking for an immediate, unequivocal statement from the DOT saying, "We will not consider this site as long term permanent" Mr. Petruzzi indicated he would like to cooperate with the State in the second phase. He is very concerned that there be a very high public visability with this design stage. There are numerous residents who would be interested in how it is designed. Councilmember Hall asked if the Washington State Ferries needed Council approval to do what it wishes to do. Mr. Bell said they did under the Shoreline Management Act. Permission would be needed for anything new at the dock that would be considered substantial development. Repairs like those in February would be considered maintenance work and would be exempt. New construction or expansion would require APPROVED CITY COUNCIL, MINUTES JUNE 20, 1995 PAGE 12 Council approval. Mr. Hall asked what kind of clout the City has, if any, at this point and whether it has the permission -gathering authority, on the Shoreline Management hearing or whether the City was just a participant in that process. Mr. Snyder advised that basically a substantial development is subject to the City's shoreline permitting authority. Mr. Snyder then responded to the question Mr. Petruzzi asked about whether if the Ferry System stayed within the bounds of the Shoreline Management Program the City would be required to grant approval. Assuming the permit meets the City's standards which are the standards approved by the State of Washington Shoreline Management Board, the answer is yes. Council discretion increases if a variance is required. Mr. Mar indicated the City would be the lead agency in the processing of the shoreline development permit. The division that is responsible for that is the Planning Division which is under Mr. Mar's community services purview. Councilmember Hall then asked if it was anticipated that the City would be asked for these types of variances or if all of the plans are basically within the Shoreline Management Act and the City would have no discretionary authority. Mr. Bell responded that at this point the sketches that came out of the work done last year look to be fairly close to what they would end up with with more exhaustive design. The only issue that is a question at this point is the movable elevator cab at the end of the ramp which at the highest height might move up above the 35' height limit above high water. Councilmember Hall confirmed with City,Attorney Snyder that the standards applied would be far more stringent than for the rest of the program. Councilmember Kasper stated when this issue was originally brought up the issue of concern was second loading. Now there is no second loading, yet we want to continue to spend more money on this when there are alternative ways of moving disabled by elevators on a temporary basis or through placement of a cabin where people are required to sit outside. He said the second loading was a "can't live without" issue when this was first discussed, and now it has been dropped because of eelgrass. It appears the Ferry System wants to drop elevators in the same way. Mr. Deardorf said that on the issue of the second slip, they see the eelgrass being almost a fatal flaw for them to pursue that at this site given they will likely be moving to another site within the next 10-20 years. He then went on to discuss the overhead loading and why it cannot be solved with elevators on vessels. Their elevator program is tied into the refurbishing program. Mr. Deardorf then addressed the question of why the jumbo class ferries could not be assigned to Edmonds. They are especially built to handle another capacity problem on the Seattle -Bainbridge route, and that has to do with the passenger cabin size rather than the car deck size. Councilmember Earling expressed his lack of understanding why a decision needed to be made tonight. Requests have been made to the DOT, to which there has not been time to respond. He thinks there are still some of the same concerns expressed six months ago and four years ago. He asked Mr. Mar for clarification as to the reason for a decision tonight. Mr. Mar answered that no action was required. Mr. Earling believes it would be best to take no particular action and leave the record as clear as it is. Council President Petruzzi agreed. Councilmember Myers asked about the plans for building a facility for the workers. Mr. Bell provided a brief outline of the plan and reasons therefor. Their intent is to do everything within the confines of the existing structure. Student Representative Emily Shen said this was very interesting. She indicated she was fuzzy on the temporary siting of the ferry dock. Mayor Hall suggested that time can be spent in assisting her, and Council, with clarification. Mayor Hall called a two minute break. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL, MINUTES JUNE 20, 1995 PAGE 13 HEARING ON SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION 11"ROVEMENT PROGRAM AND PROPOSED P RESOLUTION Z City Engineer Jim Walker reminded Council that each year the City is required to pass a transportation improvement program. There are basically no significant changes from past years. There are two additional programs under the first section for projects that -it is believed will receive funding from the State. He identified those projects as being from where the City finished its overlay last year. In addition there are two additional projects under local funding traffic signalization. There is an ATMS (Auto Traffic Measure System) project underway which will tie in a lot of the traffic systems to allow for better traffic movement in the event there is an accident in one location. Advanced vehicle identification is another project that is identified. It is primarily intended to move transit through faster by giving them priority at signals in certain instances on certain routes. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, discussed the proposed light at 88th and 196th. He thinks it the worse place in the city for a light because it is right at the top of a hill. He can see reconfiguration, but there needs to be a little more imagination to make that intersection .safe. He thinks putting a light in is taking a giant step that is not needed. He also would not propose a four-way stop. He suggested that Council give some consideration to removing the light and going back to the lane configuration. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Council President Petruzzi asked Mr. Walker to address .Mr. Hertrich's concern. That project is quite a ways out in the program. Some of these items are things that may never be funded or come to fruition, but are things that have been discussed. It was desired to get them into the program in general. Sometime signals are installed more for accident protection than for. flow of traffic. Mayor Hall commented that though a light may not be necessary, there should be some reconfiguration. Engineering Coordinator Gordy Hyde advised that this is a project that has been on the TIP for a number of years. He indicated that 196th is a State highway. He noted that there has been a fatality at that intersection along with numerous accidents. As the TIP indicates there would be channelization and reconfiguration at the same time. He feels relatively, certain that the State might not require a lot at that location but might require some substantial reconfiguration of the intersection which could include a signal. Before this got into any sort of design stage, it would come before Council and the public. Councilmember Kasper thinks the City could spend a lot more money on enforcement before spending on a traffic light. He thinks enforcement should be considered first. He expressed concern over not being able to make turns or back out of driveways. He finished by saying there were traffic problems all over the city which needed to be addressed. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO AUTHORIZE THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 821 AND RECORDING OF THE DOCUMENTS BY THE CITY CLERK MOTION CARRIED. 9. HEARING ON MORATORIUM ON BUSINESS LICENSES BUILDING PERMITS AND OTHER AD�aL; . FORMS OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WITH REGARD TO ADULT ENTERTAINMENT M6Af City Attorney Scott Snyder advised that this is a hearing on -a moratorium which was imposed two months ago. With regard to emergency moratoria, the Council is required to hold a public hearing within APPROVED CITY COUNCII. MINUTES JUNE 20, 1995 PAGE 14 60 days. The purposed of the hearing is to determine whether there is reason to continue the moratorium or repeal it. The purpose of the moratorium as it was , discussed on record when it was enacted is to permit the City through its Planning Board to make revisions to the adult entertainment ordinance. As is obvious from the media, the focus of most communities' enforcement effort has shifted the regulation. Bellevue's ordinance has been upheld; their regulatory efforts to restrict the operations of adult entertainment have proved remarkably successful. What is hoped is that the City. of Edmonds can move away from what would appear to be a constitutionally insupportable ban on adult entertainment and toward a siting and regulation of a combination of ordinances that would bring Edmonds into the same regulatory orbit as neighboring communities so there can be a coordinated effort with other communities of South County and take the City out of the position of being a target community. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Because there were no speakers on this subject, the public portion of the hearing was then closed. Council President Petruzzi asked Mr. Snyder when the Planning Board would be looking at a proposed ordinance. Mr. Snyder advised that the Council need take no action. If Council wishes to continue the moratorium, Mr. Snyder will bring Findings of Fact back to the next hearing. The original moratorium ordinance directed the Planning Board to make a recommendation in a time frame to allow Council to consider it within the remaining four months of the moratorium. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO CONTINUE THE MORATORIUM AND PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION CARRIED. 10. PROPOSED ORDINANCE IMPOSING ADDITIONAL ONE -QUARTER PERCENT REAL 091,6 ESTATE EXCISE TAX TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR QUALIFYING PROJECTS SPECIFIED 4 10 T6 IN THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN A�156 Administrative Services Director Art Housler noted that this matter had been discussed by Council 04 extensively. The recommendation is to approve the ordinance. City Attorney Snyder reported that he delivered a revised version of the ordinance which is the same as the one in the Council packet with the exception that the effective date of June 27 has been added. The effective date of the Comprehensive Plan just adopted has a June 27 effective date. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, THAT COUNCIL PASS ORDINANCE 3031 IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL ONE -QUARTER PERCENT REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR QUALIFYING PROJECTS SPECIFIED IN THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN, TO BE EFFECTIVE JUNE 27, 1995. MOTION CARRIED. 11. UPDATE ON FINANCIAL CENTER ACQUISITION PROCESS ftol E� Community Services Director Paul Mar asked if there were questions on the packet. There were none. 12. MAYOR l reported at lunteers ight is the Library Plaza m. Everyone 1&4f 6a Mayor has vlolunteered is since in Ithis city is invited. y at 7 She l advised Council that she had been APPROVED CITY COUNCII, MINUTES NNE 20. 1995 PAGE 15 approached by the Chamber for a donation from the City to cooperate in the upcoming fireworks display. Mayor Hall proposed that $1,000 be donated to the fireworks fund for the Fourth of July. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI, FOR THE CITY TO PARTICIPATE r1BY DONATING UP TO $1, 00 FROM THROUGH COUNCIL CONTINGENCY CHAMBER A CONTRACT WITH THE CY FUND FOR THE FIREWORKS ON THE FOURTH OF JULY AND SHOW THE FLOW OF FUNDS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC EVENT AND ENHANCE TOURISM. Responding to a question by Councilmember Kasper, Mayor Hall advised that donations were being requested from all over the city. Councilmember Fahey described some of the information she has learned through the EVB. She indicated she would support this for this year with the hope that other fundings can be found in the future and it will go back to being funded by the private sector. MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL Council President Petruzzi reminded Council it had tentatively scheduled a meeting for July 5. Because a lot has been accomplished in the last three weeks and nothing is scheduled, he recommended that the meeting be cancelled. CAo�� COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO CANCEL HE JULY D.5 COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST VOTED NO. MOTION Mr. Petruzzi then noted he wished to take Councilmember Nordquist up on his previous recommendation to combine individual council reports and updates with Council time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Petruzzi then initiated a brief discussion on obtaining :a Model A truck for the Fourth of July parade. Because they had been able to locate one, Mr. Nordquist was asked about his additional suggestion. He explained that decorated City trucks had been used in the past. Council President Petruzzi advised Council that Barb Mehlert, Council Resource Person, will be taking some vacation next week. He then provided her schedule for the week. n Mr. Petruzzi then questioned Mayor Hall on the newspaper quote regarding the Financial Center ��� acquisition. Mayor Hall explained that the quote was taken out of context, and that the rest of the rC'gA, information provided did not get into the paper. For the record, Mayor Hall is still endorsing the purchase. Councilmember Hall advised the public of the discussion at last week's untelevised meeting concerning tank removal requirements. Councilmember Kasper reminded Council of the need to pass an ordinance on salary for the Mayor and Council by the end of the month. City Attorney Snyder indicated Council cannot vote on its own salary 01" during the term of office. If action is to be taken on the five seats that will be open, it will need to be done Co0� before the election. Because Mayor Hall does not vote on her own salary and, being an appropriation 6000 provision, and it being something on which she can exercise a veto, her salary can be amended at any time. Council President Petruzzi reminded all that that was done this year. He then asked Council if it wanted to APPROVED CrrY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 20, 1995 PAGE 16 consider raising salaries for the Council starting with next January. The response being in the affirmative, it was assigned for June 27 for 10 minutes. Councilmember Fahey announced that the Economic Development Association has decided to take on the name GREAT (Greater Edmonds Advancement Team). They have employed a consultant to work with their long range planning process and have set meeting dates. The first of those will be a scoping session which will take place in the Library Plaza. Room on Wednesday, June 28, from 7-9:00 p.m., and the public is welcome and encouraged to participate in this process. They wish as much input as possible in this phase of studying these issues. Councilmember Earling announced that Thursday, June 22, from 5-7:30 p.m., will be the last of three roundtables that the three RTA delegates from Snohomish County are holding. It will be held in the Trident Union Building on the Edmonds Community College Campus. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION Executive Session was not held, and the following was discussed in open session. City Attorney Snyder provided some updates on pending matters. The Council had approved a settlement . agreement in the Anderson Marine/Waterfront Park Associates issue. The engineer for Waterfront Park is Rr�° Ott on site this week. The City's contractor should be on site the 26th to remove the structures and put it aside 0/0 so that Waterfront Park can begin its work on the 28th. The Mauser v. City of Edmonds case is going very a well. There has been a mediation session suggested. Jim Hand, one of the attorneys representing the City, has asked for a City representative and asked Mr. Snyder if he would attend as he has mediation training, the longest history, and is a defendant. Mayor Hall has designated six hours work. Judge John Wilson, formerly of the Snohomish County bench, will be the mediator. No objections were noted. Mr. Snyder then addressed comments regarding basketball hoops. Before a public hearing is set, a letter 061g,0' should be written to explain the situation the City is in. There is extremely harsh case law in the state of CFI Washington that states that a City has an obligation to remove obstructions within the private right-of-way. °oPS In a previous case it was determined that something designated as right-of-way cannot be used for anything but transportation, road, or pedestrian purposes. He suggested Council may wish to get a report from its Risk Manager. Mr. Snyder suggested he could provide names of other cities that have other approaches similar to that the State uses of using either a neutral committee or CPI increase so that the City Council is not forced into the difficult position of having to consider just before the election every year increases in salaries. He will call Barb Mehlert tomorrow with the information. Councilmember Hall again raised the Mauser matter. He asked whether Council had ever addressed or �'ti6�lio� looked into the issue of trying to sanction the attorney for Mr. Mauser regarding the frivolous bringing in of 4 Council members and other who were not involved in this situation. He would like to see someone make a 5S stand to let people know that if they intend to do this, every person they frivolously join might take them to the Bar Association and make them go through the process of having to answer to the issues. City Attorney Snyder said the City has asserted a CR 11 counterclaim in this matter. Mr. Petruzzi asked if Council could not press for sanctions. The public being advised there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m. LAURA NL OR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK APPROVED MY COUNCIL MI =S RUNE 20, 1995 PAGE 17 Lim AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL mr PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 -10:00 p.m. JUNE 20, 1995 CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 1995 (C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 1995 (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #952056 THRU #952954 FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 6, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $354,670.03 AND CLAIM WARRANTS #952817 THRU #953085 FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 12, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $227,915.10. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #952§75 THRU #953037 FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 16 THRU MAY 31, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $437,330.90. (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MARGARET DOYLE ($129.55) (F) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 22, 1995, FOR A MICROFILM READER/PRINTER AND AWARD OF BIC TO •BELL & HOWELL IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,028, INCLUDING SALES TAX AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 8, 1995, FOR THE 1995 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO J.E. WORK, INC. ($283,720.80) (H) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 13, 1995, FOR THE 1995 STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO WILDER CONSTRUCTION ($330,276.50) (1) REPORT ON QUOTES AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE CONCRETE MANHOLES FROM INTERNATIONAL PIPE ENTERPRISES, INC. ($12,945.59) W) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO DRILL AND TEST FOR A WELL AT EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY (K) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WITH REGARD TO THE HEARING HELD ON JUNE 6, 1995 ON THE MORATORIUM ON CELLULAR TOWER FACILITIES (L) PROPOSED RESOLUTION SETTING AN ELECTION DATE FOR THE SNOLINE-FORSHEE AND GATE- EATON ANNEXATIONS (File Nos. AX-94-182 and AX-94-183) 3. AUDIENCE 4. (15 Min.) HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 13,500 SQUARE FOOT SITE (.31 ACRES) FROM "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" TO "COMMERCIAL/ BUSINESS". THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 23713 EDMONDS WAY (Applicant: Madelinf Morehouse / File No. CDC-95-48) 5. (15 Min.) HEARING ON A CONCURRENT REZONE FROM SINGE - FAMILY - 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE ("RS-8") TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS ("BC"). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 23715 EDMONDS WAY (Applicant: Madeline Morehouse / File No. R-95-22) r Continued- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JUNE 20, 1995 PAGE TWO 6. (15 Min.) ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 7. (45 Min.) HEARING TO REAFFIRM THE COUNCIL'S "4-NOS" POSITION REGARDING THE FERRY DOCK AND TO DISCUSS TEMPORARY SITE CONSTRUCTION 8. (15 Min.) HEARING ON SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION 9. (15 Min.) HEARING ON MORATORIUM ON BUSINESS LICENSES, BUILDING PERMITS AND OTHER FORMS OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WITH REGARD TO ADULT ENTERTAINMENT 10. (15 Min.) PROPOSED ORDINANCE IMPOSING ADDITIONAL ONE -QUARTER PERCENT REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR QUALIFYING PROJECTS SPECIFIED IN THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 11. (5 Min.) UPDATE ON FINANCIAL CENTER ACQUISITION PROCESS 12. (5 Min.) MAYOR 13. (15 Min.) COUNCIL 3arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours 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 Monday at noon on Channel 32.