04/20/2004 City CouncilApril 20, 2004
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
David Dwyer, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Lawrence Cretin, Video Recorder
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Olson requested Item I be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Approve
(A) ROLL CALL
04/06/0
Minutes
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 2004.
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #70237 THROUGH #7041.1 FOR THE WEEK OF
Approve I
APRIL 5, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $288,547.88. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
Claim Checks
#70412 THROUGH #70585 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 12, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$343,970.16. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECK #37995 FOR THE PAY PERIOD
MARCH 16 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $159.29.
Liquor
(D) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
Control Board
THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 1
Community
Services
Department J (E) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT.
Woodway
Elem. School (F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE WOODWAY ELEMENTARY
Walkway SCHOOL WALKWAY AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
Streamline Sales Tax (G) MIKE DOUBLEDAY GOVERNMENT RELATIONS — ADDENDUM #1 TO
Project PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN MIKE DOUBLEDAY AND
CITY OF EDMONDS RELATING TO THE STREAMLINE SALES TAX PROJECT.
Res# 1063 (H) RESOLUTION NO. 1063 SETTING MAY 18, 2004 AS THE HEARING DATE FOR A
Vacate a REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE SIERRA PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY
Portion of IMMEDIATELY EAST OF 1142 SIERRA PLACE AND NORTH OF THE DEVELOPED
Sierra Place ( Right -of --Way CUL-DE-SAC OF SIERRA PLACE. APPLICANT: DARRYL AND SHARI LEWIS /
FILE NO. ST-03-1.76)
Item I: Proclamation in Honor of Friends of the Library Week, April 18 — 24, 2004
Friends of the
Library week Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation declaring April 18 — 24 as Friends of the Library Week and
presented the Proclamation to Councilmember Olson who also serves as President of the Friends of the
Library.
Councilmember Olson thanked the approximately 200 members of the Friends of the Library for the
incredible job they do.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM I. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The
item approved is as follows:
(I) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY WEEK, APRIL 18 — 24,
2004
Cutting of Cutting of Trees on the Former Unocal Site
Trees on
Former Mayor Haakenson remarked there had been a great deal of discussion in the community recently
Unocal site regarding the unfortunate cutting of trees on the former Unocal site, why the Code did not allow for larger
fines, and why Architectural Design Board approved projects were exempt from those fines. City
Attorney Scott Snyder explained Mayor Haakenson asked him to look at Development Services Director
Duane Bowman's decision to utilize the permit revocation process in ECDC 21.00.040 and civil
enforcement processes in Chapter 21.00 for violation of the ADB chapter provisions and landscaping
provisions rather than the penalty provisions regarding tree cutting in Chapter 18.45. Mr. Snyder
explained Mr. Bowman chose the two most clearly applicable and cost effective methods of addressing
the problem in a manner that minimized legal challenge.
By way of history, Mr. Snyder explained the tree cutting provisions in Chapter 18.45 were enacted in
1990 after a developer cleared a large tract of land along Hwy. 99 resulting in the loss of a number of
significant trees. When complaints were made, the City discovered a hole in the ordinance structure; once
an applicant applied for an ADB, subdivision, or PRD permit, the project was covered by the process and
any clearing was in violation of an ordinance. However, if the trees were cut on a tract prior to applying,
it was a violation. To address this, Chapter 18.45 was enacted to address the time period prior to when an
applicant applied for a development permit.
Mr. Snyder referred to the City Council minutes of March 6, 1990.where Councilmember Hertrich asked
Mr. Bowman if the proposed ordinance was initiated to address indiscriminant clearing by developers and
Mr. Bowman replied no, it was intended to encompass two types of development regulation —
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 2
undeveloped lands and lands that were environmentally sensitive but had no associated permit process.
The purpose of the ordinance when enacted was to address development prior to the initiation of an ADB,
subdivision or other regulatory process.
Mr. Snyder noted recent citizen comments have focused on the proviso in Section C of Chapter 18.45.
He read from the section, "projects requiring approval of the Architectural Design Board are exempt
provided that clearing of such project shall take place only after ADB approval and shall be in accordance
with such approval as determined by the Planning Division staff." The section also states the ADB will
review and approve projects by applying the standards of the chapter. He noted the difficulty Mr.
Bowman encountered in making a decision was there were two applicable code sections — the permit
revocation procedures and the civil enforcement provisions that relate to the ADB approval process.
Mr. Snyder clarified the tree clearing provisions were not self -enforcing; the City would need to go to
court to enforce the provisions. He noted there were three penalties in Chapter 18.45 — a criminal penalty,
a civil violation penalty and a public -private regress that addressed replacement of the trees. The
difficulty with using those sections was that each penalty applied to a violation of the chapter. The
enforcement action Mr. Bowman chose related to a violation not of Chapter 18.45 which addressed
clearing prior to a development process but under 20.10 which addressed clearing that occurs in violation
of ADB approvals. He summarized Mr. Bowman chose the most defensible and most clearly applicable
provision. In that provision, unlike Chapter 18.45, there was no cap on the penalties that could eventually
be levied and the permit could be revoked or conditioned. He offered, if the Council chose, to discuss
other penalties in Executive Session.
Rezone - 3.
23904
Edmonds Wy
CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE A REQUEST BY THURMAN AND PRISCILLA REYNOLDS TO REZONE THE
PROPERTY AT 23904 EDMONDS WAY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) TO
COMMUNITY BUSINESS (BC). (FILE NO. R-03-189)
As this was a quasi judicial matter, Mayor Haakenson inquired whether any Councilmembers wished to
make any disclosures. There were no disclosures voiced and Mayor Haakenson advised all
Councilmembers would participate in this item.
Planning Manager Rob Chave noted this issue was the subject of a public hearing on March 24, 2004
before the Planning Board; a transcript of their discussion was contained in the record. He referred to
page 14 of the record, a map identifying the location of the property. He explained the property was
currently developed with a small auto repair facility and had direct access onto SR 104. He identified
multifamily development to the north and south along Edmonds Way and single family to the west.
Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board reviewed the proposal and considered the location and
applicability of the Comprehensive Plan which identifies the property as part of the Edmonds Way
corridor and identifies a mixture of uses eligible for properties in the corridor which include multifamily
and several business zones. The Planning Board recommended Council approval of the request due to its
unique location and precedent set by similar zoning along the corridor.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the hearing, noting that because this was a
closed record review, only parties of record could speak. He identified the parties of record, Priscilla and
Thurman Reynolds, and Robert Gierke. Mr. Chave identified another party of record, Gay
Westmoreland.
Priscilla Reynolds, 23904 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, noted they had operated a shop in this location for
over 20 years and it was currently leased to another shop. She explained that when the building was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 3
moved in 1973 at the time the road was widened, the building was placed in a cove with a bank sloping
up in back and on the side creating a natural buffer. Their intent was to be in conformance with the zone
so that the shop was no longer grandfathered. She noted the property was not suitable for residential due
to the amount of traffic on SR 104. They did not plan to make any changes to the use. She noted there
were other shops in the area zoned BC or Neighborhood Business but staff indicated BC was the only
zone compatible with an auto repair shop.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Parking Code 14. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED PARKING CODE AMENDMENTS
Arnendments
Senior Planner Steve Bullock recalled the Council previously held a work session regarding the proposed
parking code amendments and the Council packet addressed several of the issues raised by the Council at
the work session.
Mr. Bullock explained the results of the parking study and the Planning Board's recommendation with
regard to the parking code would potentially result in changes to two chapters. The first section proposed
for change was ECC Chapter 8.51, the employee parking permit section. The study and the Planning
Board recommended three changes to this chapter, 1) have no limit on the number of employees for
whom an employer can purchase parking permits; the code currently limits it to 75% of the workforce, 2)
raise the cost of the employee permit from $25 to $50 per year, and 3) modify how employee parking
permit fees can be used; currently limited to administering this section of the code, the proposed
amendment would expand the use of those fund to other parking -related uses.
The second section proposed to be modified was ECDC Chapter 17.50, parking requirements. The study
and the Planning Board recommended three changes to this chapter, 1) establish a flat parking
requirement for commercial buildings in view of the fairly large stock of on -street parking and on -site
parking required for new development as well as the difficulty with tracking parking requirements as uses
change, 2) all existing buildings would be considered to comply, and 3) provide an exemption for historic
buildings.
Mr. Bullock displayed a comparison of current parking standards:
Use
Parkin2 Ratio
Medical/Office/Bank/Clinic
1/300
Restaurant
1/300
Retail
1/300
Office with on -site Customer Service
1/400
Service Uses
1/600
Office w/o on -site Customer Service
1/800
Planning Board Recommendation
11500
Mr. Bullock noted the parking study found that the number of available parking stalls in the downtown.
compared to commercial square footage was approximately 1/480, supporting the Planning Board's
recommendation for the flat parking rate of 11500.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 4
Councilmember Dawson noted Councilmember Wilson, who was absent from the meeting, requested this
item be continued for a week to allow him to express several concerns. She recalled Chamber of
Commerce Executive Director Chris Guitton recommended this not be done; she asked someone from the
Chamber to address why the matter should not be continued. Mr. Bullock referred to a map that
Councilmember Wilson forwarded that identified the boundaries of the BC zone and his concern this area
was too large. Mr. Bullock explained the description limited the amendment to only commercially zoned
property in the area; therefore, it did not apply to the entire geographic boundary. Mr. Bullock
highlighted the BC zone, the commercial waterfront zone and contract rezone to General Commercial at
Harbor Square, identifying the limited areas that would be impacted. He pointed out the changes
Councilmember Wilson recommended would result in nearly the same commercially zoned properties.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Don Kreiman, 24006 951h Place W, Edmonds, commented the $25,000 paid for the parking study was a
great deal of money to be told there was not a problem. Although the parking study concluded there was
not a problem, there were a number of recommendations make. He noted the problem in Edmonds was
not parking but the parking code which he asserted stifled economic development by the requirement for
too much parking. New businesses were unable to locate in downtown, banks were reluctant to finance
builders and developers pushed building heights with flat roofs and constructed commercial space that did
not allow customers, all because of the parking requirements. He questioned the amount of sales tax
revenue, real estate excise tax revenue, and property tax revenue that had been lost in addition to variety,
choice, profits, rents and jobs due to the excessive parking requirements. He recalled the Downtown
Edmonds Merchants Association as well as the Chamber of Commerce, citizens, architects and
developers voiced their support to the Planning Board. He encouraged the Council to implement the
Planning Board's recommendations.
Karen Wiggins, 152 3rd Avenue S #D, Edmonds, and Downtown Edmonds Parking Committee
Chair, urged the Council to adopt the amendments with a reduction in the amount of parking required for
commercial development. She noted the recommended amendment would require a new building provide
one parking space for each 500 square feet of building space which would be workable only with a mixed
use building and not a building that did not include residential. She cited numerous buildings downtown
that would not have been possible with the proposed parking requirements including the
Windermere/Tully, City Hall, and Old Mill Town. In the past the City used an "educated guess" with
regard to the commercial uses in a building and generally used a ratio of one parking space for each 600-
650 square feet of building space. She noted the parking study indicated existing parking exceeded land
use requirements by 356 spaces and suggested that the parking supply in downtown was currently over-
built. She concluded that requiring more parking spaces than were needed in downtown used up valuable
developable land and stifled development by making some parcels too expensive to develop. She
recommended the City not zone -out an all commercial building via these parking requirements. She also
emphasized the importance of enforcement.
Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, commented although he was not officially
representing the Historic Preservation Commission, there were several positive amendments included in
Section 17.50.010 which allowed conversion of use of existing buildings which would encourage
property owners to retain buildings rather than demolishing them. Although changes made to buildings
on the Historic Register would require approval of the Historic Preservation. Commission, the building
would not be required to comply with current parking standards. He supported the Council's addition of
the proposed amendments.
Michael Young, 20209 83rd Avenue W, Edmonds, voiced support for the parking code amendments. In
response to concern with the methodology used in the study, he recommended following the advice of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 5
experts the City hired. With regard to a concern that it was raining when the study was conducted, he
doubted rain had a great deal of effect on businesses in Washington. The parking amendments were not
viewed as a long term solution and parking should be revisited as Edmonds grew. He expressed concern
with the timing of the numerous changes proposed by Councilmember Wilson, noting these ideas could
have and should have been addressed during the past 6-12 months of committee meetings, Planning
Board review or at the Council work session. The proposed parking amendments were intended to
improve the economic viability of downtown. He thanked the Council and staff for their efforts.
Strom Peterson, 9110 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, representing the Downtown Edmonds
Merchants Association and the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, expressed both organizations'
support for the significant parking code improvements contained in the Planning Board's
recommendations. The Chamber of Commerce invited Councilmembers to approve the changes and
direct staff to implement the changes as soon as possible. With regard to Councilmember Wilson's
request to table the amendments, he pointed out the Downtown Parking Study was delivered to the City in
June 2003 and there had been numerous requests to staff for further information, committee meetings to
devise a long term parking plan and Planning Board hearings to address specific issues. He concluded it
was now time to act with the realization that parking was an ongoing, ever changing issue and it was
important to take this first step to meet the needs of businesses as well as the community. He thanked
staff and the Planning Board for their efforts and for keeping the business community well informed. He
also thanked the Council for recognizing the importance of this issue and acting on it judiciously.
Bob Gregg, 16550 76t`' Avenue W, Edmonds, requested the Council act on the proposed amendments
tonight because of the upcoming IBC/UBC changes that would occur on July 1. He noted they had a $12
million project before the City in downtown Edmonds and a local Edmonds firm was prepared to begin
making changes in accordance with the amendments to produce 91 underground parking spaces at the
corner of 5`h & Walnut. Although he found this still over -parked, it was a tremendous improvement over
the existing parking requirements. The parking amendments would allow the project to bring more
affordable housing to the downtown core. He pointed out that in one of their projects built prior to the
recession, the McGregor Building, condominiums were priced at $500,0004700,000 which was not what
the current market demanded. The parking code would allow 1/3 of the condominiums in their current
project to be priced under $300,000. He noted the existing code did not require the parking be signed;
therefore, residents were offered a $30,000 discount for one less parking stall, and most chose the one
stall option. He urged the Council to take action on the proposed amendments tonight.
David Arista, 18431 High Street, Edmonds, President of the Chamber of Commerce, endorsed Mr.
Peterson's statement that the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors and over 300
members supported the significant parking code improvements contained in the Planning Board's
recommendations and invited the Council to approve the changes and direct staff to implement the
changes as soon as possible.
Ruth Arista, 18431 High Street, Edmonds, downtown business owner, voiced her support for the
proposed change in the parking code. She described how the employee parking permit program allowed
employees to park in a comfortable proximity and leave adequate parking for customers. She supported
the recommendation to allow businesses to purchase parking permits for all employees although she was
less excited about the increased fee. She encouraged the City to implement at least part-time parking
enforcement in downtown Edmonds. She recommended the Council take action tonight and have staff
observe the effects of the parking amendments and report to the Council in the future if necessary.
Ray Martin, 18704 94t`' Avenue W, Edmonds, commented parking in downtown was "okay but starting
to tighten up." He pointed out a major change in the parking requirements such as was proposed could
have unforeseen consequences.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 6
Chris Guitton, 1012 Viewland Way, Edmonds, and Chamber of Commerce Executive Director,
expressed respect for Councilmember Wilson's work on the Council but agreed with the arguments for
moving forward with the proposed amendments. He noted the Parking Study process could be cited as a
model of effective city government and the Council should move forward.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented that as a result of attending a number of the
parking committee meetings and his own experience with parking in downtown, he formed his own
conclusions. He noted there was not a parking problem downtown now because most mixed use and
commercial buildings had been required to construct ample parking. Reduced parking requirements may
force some vehicles to park on the street, creating a parking problem. He cited past reductions in stall
size and the number of parking stalls required for multifamily. He recommended the parking requirement
for mixed use be similar to the parking requirement for multifamily. With regard to Councilmember
Wilson's request to delay a decision, Mr. Hertrich was in favor of holding a second public hearing to
encourage more public participation.
Council President Plunkett noted implementation of the amendments may require enforcement, financial
review, etc. He asked whether staff s recommendation was to proceed with the amendments and have the
Finance Committee discuss funds for enforcement, etc. Mr. Bullock agreed.
With regard to Ms. Wiggins' comments concerning commercial buildings, Council President Plunkett
noted staff did not find that the proposed amendments would eliminate an all -commercial building in the
core. Mr. Bullock described staff s research of the Windermere/Tully building and the Ferguson building
at 2nd Avenue S & James. He noted the Ferguson building was two floors of commercial above garage
level parking, designed as an office building without onsite customer service. The total square footage of
the office area was approximately 30,000 square feet and one parking stall for every 800 square feet was
required, a total of 40 parking stalls. He agreed the amendments would not allow that building on that
site. When the Windermere/Tully building was constructed, space was identified for retail (1/300), office
with onsite customer service (1/400) and office without onsite customer service (1/800). The parking
requirement at the time the building was constructed was virtually the same as would be required via
calculating the required parking with the proposed 11500 parking requirement. Mr. Bullock concluded a
commercial building with a mixture of uses could be constructed in the core. He agreed an office
building without onsite customer service would be required to provide more parking stalls under the
proposed amendment than would be required under the existing code.
Council President Plunkett referred to the Planning Board's recommendation that the Council review the
new parking codes annually which he assumed meant staff would provide an annual report. He suggested
if the parking amendments were adopted, staff could report sooner than a year if there were any problems.
Mr. Bullock replied as construction under the amended parking requirements progressed, staff would
report to the Council. If an immediate issue arose, he assured it would be brought to the Council's
attention.
For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Bullock explained the ability to request an exemption from parking
requirements would only be available to property owners with a building on the City's Historic Register.
He noted a building on the Historic Register could only pursue changes to the building with the approval
of the Historic Preservation Commission.
With no further questions for staff, Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS AND DIRECT THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 7
Councilmember Marin stressed the importance of ensuring downtown businesses remained vital due to
the positive benefit for the community. He expressed his support for the proposed amendments.
Council President Plunkett advised the Council Finance Committee would be considering the in -lieu -of
fund, city parking lot, use of funds from increased employee parking permit fees, and increased
enforcement. He encouraged interested residents to participate in that process.
Councilmember Dawson referred to Councilmember Wilson's request to set this matter over for a week to
allow him to comment, noting that staff and members of the public addressed several of his concerns.
Several of the concerns expressed were items for the Council and staff to watch over the coming years.
She noted if Councilmember Wilson wished to have specific concerns addressed, he had the ability to
remove the ordinance from the Consent Agenda. She thanked the public for their comments.
Councilmember Olson also expressed her thanks to the public for their comments.
ILI[III I[i1►KIM77111170031 ►11u[1100 1�
Meadowdale 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON MEADOWDALE EARTH SUBSIDENCE DEVELOPMENT
Earth REGULATIONS.
Subsidence
Development
Regulations Building Official Jeannine Graf explained staff initiated proposed changes to the earth subsidence and
landslide hazard area, currently contained in Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 19.05, to
coincide with the upcoming adoption of the International Building and Supplemental Codes. She
explained the current earth subsidence and landslide hazard ordinance and adopted map that governs the
designated landslide area were adopted in May 1988. Since enactment of that ordinance, 33 new single
family permits have been issued and staff has gained invaluable experience regarding challenges created
by the current ordinance and permitting process.
Ms. Graf explained Landau Associates performed a limited review of existing code provisions, current
permit procedures, permit checklist and adopted landslide hazard map and proposed several
recommendations. Ms. Graf referred to a revised landslide hazard map that was distributed to Council as
the map in the Council packet was incorrect.
Ms. Graf and Debra Ladd, Landau Associates, reviewed the following significant changes that were
proposed:
• Format — The rewrite of Title 19 Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard chapter is no longer
Chapter 19.05, it is now Chapter 19.10.
• Extended Application Timeline — Currently applications are valid for one year, the proposed
amendment would extend the timeline to two years. This would coincide with the quoted review
time for such applications.
• Extended Permit Timelines — Permits are currently valid for one year; the proposed amendment
would extend the timeline to two years. This would assist applicants due to certain groundwork
(drainage, shoring, etc.) is limited to the drier seasons of the year which can delay projects.
• Eliminate the Requirement for Architect Stamp on Architectural Design Sheets — The city
considers key coordination of plans to be recommendations of the geotechnical report
incorporated into the structural plans, not the non-structural architectural plans.
• Vicinity — Require applicants provide a vicinity map that designates all known landslide
masses or debris flows on, or near the site within 100 feet of the property.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 8
Summary Report — City provide a summary report as part of the development package to
encourage applicants to reach these reports.
Update the Current Adopted GeoEngineers Landslide Hazard Map — Eliminate mapped risk
percentages on the existing map. Landau recognized that the critical issue for slope stability in
the Meadowdale area hinged on groundwater levels and that current conditions were substantially
unchanged from conditions formed in 1985 with a maximum risk for the entire area of 30% over
a 25 year period.
Adopt New Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area Map that Includes Buffer — Ms. Ladd
displayed a revised map that identified a 200 foot buffer beyond the existing mapped landslide
hazard area boundary. She pointed out the difficulty with plotting individual lots on the existing
map, noting the firm who prepared previous maps confirmed they had not intended for the maps
to be used on a lot -specific basis. She described how the 200 foot buffer was established using
previous mapping data, slope retreat rates, and to identify properties outside the active landslide
area on which certain activities could affect landslides.
Adopt a New Hazard Zone Map — Landau proposed a section view map detailing typical hazard
zones that summarizes relationships between location, type of landslide hazard, landslide
processes and recommended geotechnical report requirements and issues to be considered for
development.
Geotechnical Risk Statement — Mr. Snyder pointed out this was a major change that would make
the ordinance more user friendly and provide more information. In the past when the City
provided a percentage of risk, the information provided to the city by geotechnical engineers was
either agreement with the risk or another number which did not provide information to the builder
or purchaser. He noted there was a difference between a lot that may slide and a lot that may get
slid upon (top versus bottom of a slope). He noted this would provide information regarding
categories of risk rather than raw numbers. Ms. Graf explained the code currently required the
geotechnical engineer of record to submit a statement of risk. In practice, most attempted to
determine the location of the map on the risk landslide hazard map and quoted the percentage. In
lieu of a risk statement, a letter would be required to be submitted by the geotechnical engineer of
record that identified existing landslide hazards applicable to the site and identifying what design
measures would be taken to mitigate the risks for the onsite structure as well as adjacent
properties. This letter would clarify to current and future owners what measures were installed to
reduce risks and what hazards could not be addressed by individual lot development.
Seasonal Groundwork — Ms. Graf explained the current code allowed the Building Official to
limit all groundwork from the drier times of the year (May 1 through September 30). Landau
proposed that groundwork between October 1 and April 30 be strictly prohibited. Staff proposed
that the applicant's geotechnical engineer be allowed to request certain limited groundwork for
short periods of time. Any groundwork during this period would require concurrence by the
city's peer review consultant.
Erosion and Sediment Control Inspections — The current code requires weekly inspection of
erosion control measures. The proposed amendment would require the site supervisor to maintain
recorded documentation of erosion control measures during the wet season. During drier times of
the year, weekly inspections would be adequate.
Storm Event Inspections — Currently not addressed in the code. The recommendation was for the
site supervisor to inspect sites under construction for erosion and sediment control within 48
hours after a storm event (one or more inches of precipitation in a 24 hour period).
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Dorothy Sacks, 16238 72"d Avenue W, Edmonds, stated the letter advising of the March 23 City
Council work session, dated March 15, was postmarked March 24 and they received the letter on March
26. She noted the brochure included with the letter addressed landslides in general and did not address
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 9
the proposed buffer. She suggested scheduling another public hearing to allow time to determine whether
other residents also received the notification letter after the work session and whether they were aware
how the proposed changes would affect their property. She noted the buffer only impact a portion of their
property but was sufficient to impact insurance, the sale of property, etc.
Phil Sacks, 16238 72"d Avenue W, Edmonds, offered to relinquish his time to Mr. Lehn which Mayor
Haakenson indicated was not permitted.
Phillip Lehn, 1.6202 72°d Avenue W, Edmonds, provided written materials, pointing out several errors
and omissions in the packet from the March 23 work session. The proposed amendments expanded the
hazard area buffer to include properties that no one believes are at risk, stigmatized and devalued those
properties with no commensurate increase in safety, increased the development costs while reducing
property values, and did little to reduce the risk of future slides. He recommended more attention be
given to watersheds rather than a large expansion of the buffer and that ways to reduce stormwater
infiltration within the watershed be considered. He questioned why the City was proposing to expand the
landslide hazard buffer to include an area that was four times the current area. He recommended the City
adopt a more rational, less arbitrary model for determining buffers. He questioned the brochure's
assertion that Meadowdale's historic, large scale and deep-seated slide was still active.
Mr. Lehn recommended the following: the City provide Meadowdale area residents timely notice of
meetings and postpone a vote on the proposed amendments until the provisions could be reviewed,
assessed and commented upon by affected residents of the Meadowdale area; develop more precise
topographical information so that buffers could be based on the height and slope of each lot's bluff,
impose irrigation and infiltration restrictions on the entire watershed rather than only the 200 foot buffer;
expand systematic monitoring of groundwater levels within the Meadowdale landslide area; continue to
identify areas of relative risk; and identify the location of any active large-scale slide areas along with
more site specific recommendations.
In response to Mayor Haakenson's inquiry regarding the portion of his property that would be in the
buffer, he noted that in addition to their residence, his and his wife were part owners of three other
undeveloped view lots that were also affected by the proposed buffer. He concluded the earth subsidence
and landslide hazard area provisions needed to be more precise to be effective.
Kate Wells, 16330 72°d Avenue W, Edmonds, agreed with the comments made by Mr. Lehn. She
indicated she had not received notification of the meeting although the proposed changes would likely
impact their ability to obtain homeowners insurance and could potentially devalue their property. She
questioned how the proposed amendments enhanced the stability of the hillside. She requested
Meadowdale area residents be provided notice of upcoming meetings. In response to Mayor Haakenson,
she indicated their property was either not in the buffer or slightly in the buffer.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out everyone who has spoken lived on 72ad Avenue W, near or outside the
expanded buffer zone.
Scott Wright, 7211 164th Street SW, Edmonds, an engineering geologist who worked for a geotechnical
engineering firm, whose property was impacted by the expanded buffer, requested further detail regarding
why the buffer was proposed to be expanded. He was not notified of the meeting, stating his property
was previously not in the buffer zone although it appeared to be inside the buffer on the most recent map.
Dick Sanderson, 7219 164t" Place SW, Edmonds, commented his discussion with neighbors after
receiving the letter and brochure revealed several had not received the letter. He assumed he received the
notification letter because of his proximity to the buffer; Mayor Haakenson indicated Mr. Sanderson's
property was not in the buffer zone. As a former real estate broker, Mr. Sanderson was concerned with
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 10
the representation in the brochure illustrating a house sliding down the hillside due to the impact this
could have on the price and sale of a home.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
For Council President Plunkett, Ms. Graf described how notices were hailed; when the public hearing
process began, she contacted the Planning Department to identify properties what were within the 200
foot buffer as well as properties within the existing mapped landslide hazard area boundary. This
information was interfaced with Snohomish County Assessor's office to obtain a mailing list. Mayor
Haakenson asked whether the revised landslide hazard map that was distributed to Council had the same
buffer. Ms. Graf was not certain. Mayor Haakenson commented if the buffer differed on the maps, that
may explain why some property owners did not receive notice.
For Council President Plunkett, Ms. Graf identified properties within the existing mapped landslide
hazard area boundary. She explained the buffer was proposed to eliminate the original map discrepancies
and also take into account slope regression that has occurred over the past 20 years. She noted the current
ordinance allowed the Building Official to impose requirements in Chapter 19.05 even if a property was
adjacent to the designated map area. The intent was to adopt an improved map so that she would be able
to definitively identify whether properties were within the landslide hazard area or the buffer. She noted
it was extremely difficult to identify a specific lot on the existing map.
Mr. Snyder pointed out legal descriptions in this area were imprecise and the City had worked with
property owners in the past to assist them in relocating their property lines because the roads were out of
position as much as 100-150 feet. Rather than the City attempting to determine precise risks for
properties, the concept since 1983 was to have the property owner and his/her geotechnical engineer
assess the risk with the hope of developing a body of knowledge over time that would provide for more
specific risk assessment. The difficulty at the periphery was where to draw the boundary. The question
for the Council was whether to invest in precise mapping of the current location of the bluff and employ
assumptions regarding the rate of retreat to provide a more precise boundary or use a "fuzzy" boundary
and begin gathering information on a lot -by -lot basis. He provided an example that resulted in a lawsuit
15 years ago, the installation of a swimming pool with a drain on top of the bluff. The property with the
swimming pool was constructed outside the slide area but caused a slide within the slide area. He noted
the speakers have identified a very real issue, where the boundary should be drawn.
Councilmember Marin inquired whether the Council could extend the public hearing. Mr. Snyder agreed
it could be extended. He recalled Mr. Lehn's question whether the slide was still active and suggested if
the public hearing were extended, the historic information indicating the Meadowdale landslide mass as a
remnant of the retreat of the last glacier that has been in movement for thousands of years be provided.
He noted the last major slide was in the 1950's and there has been an improvement with the dewatering in
1983. He noted the residents within the existing mapped landslide hazard area boundary likely
recognized the proposed amendments as an improvement of the existing provisions.
Councilmember Marin noted he would be inclined to extend the public hearing to allow further public
input as well as to address issues such as increased insurance costs, difficulty selling property, etc. This
issue was within the City Council's responsibility as it concerned the public's health, safety and welfare.
Mayor Haakenson asked for clarification why a revised map was distributed to the Council. Ms. Graf
answered the map distributed in the Council packet incorrectly identified the existing mapped landslide
hazard area. Mayor Haakenson recommended that if the Council extended the public hearing, staff
provide an overlay of the proposed buffer on the existing mapped landslide hazard area.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page I I
Councilmember Dawson asked why residents received notice after the work session. Ms. Graf stated in
addition to the original mailing, the letter and brochure were mailed to a few residents who called after
learning a neighbor received the letter. Addresses were also corrected and the letter re -mailed to "return
to sender" letters. Councilmember Dawson observed Ms. Sacks was indicating neither of those
explanations applied to her.
Councilmember Dawson observed the notice only advised of the Council work session. She inquired
whether any public workshops were held to gather feedback from the neighborhood. Ms. Graf noted a
workshop was held at the Meadowdale Clubhouse approximately eight years ago when the insurance
requirement was changed. Councilmember Dawson clarified there had not been a public meeting held
with the residents in the expanded buffer area. Ms. Graf answered no. Councilmember Dawson noted a
public meeting in the neighborhood would be helpful as the expanded buffer would likely impact
insurance rates, resale, etc.
Mr. Snyder suggested Ms. Ladd describe how the 200 foot boundary was selected. Ms. Ladd explained it
was a combination of an effort to address the original map inaccuracies (lots not lining up with property
lines, etc.) and changes that have occurred over 25 years. She noted these could be addressed via on -
surface mapping or via the use of LIDAR. She noted even then the issue would remain regarding how far
and fast slopes retreat. The overall approach has been to have applicants assess how far and fast slopes
retreat. She noted there were also the effects of activity outside the area on the landslide hazard area.
Council President Plunkett asked what would happen if the buffer were eliminated. Ms. Graf answered
even if the buffer were eliminated, staff would still request that the Council accept the concept that
Landau presented with regard to the hazard zones. She felt the outside edge of the buffer was accurately
mapped and should show some type of eastern movement due to slope regression of the last 20 years
although there were ordinances in place and there were north and south boundaries in which Meadowdale
provisions were imposed.
Council President Plunkett inquired whether the other concepts in the proposed code change could be
accomplished without the designated buffer. Ms. Graf agreed. Mr. Snyder advised another alternative
would be to utilize the buffer for restriction and review such as prohibiting irrigation, swimming pools,
hot tubs, and a variety of activities that could introduce water within a 200 foot zone. He clarified there
could be a peripheral zone where less than the full landslide hazard review was done but there were
building restrictions and property owners were put on notice of a lesser risk that required investigation.
Hearing no further questions for staff, Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Council President Plunkett expressed support for achieving the goals staff described as well as
eliminating the buffer as proposed. If another public hearing were held, he suggested staff develop an
alternative to the buffer, something that would be effective but less of a buffer.
Councilmember Marin expressed his support for the work accomplished by staff and the consultant,
noting his intent in extending the public hearing was to have an opportunity to consider additional issues.
Councilmember Dawson questioned whether extending the public hearing would allay the
neighborhood's concerns. She preferred a public workshop at the Meadowdale Clubhouse to allow staff
to describe their proposal and residents to provide input and then return to the City Council with the
results of the workshop for either a public hearing or work session.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 12
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED THAT A PUBLIC WORKSHOP BE HELD AT THE
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mayor Haakenson noted the residents within the existing mapped landslide hazard area had little concern
with the proposed code change because they were aware of the movement that has occurred over the past
25 years and the improvements that have occurred. He noted the residents who spoke tonight were within
the proposed buffer area; if staff eliminated the buffer, those residents may be less concerned with the
proposed amendments.
Councilmember Marin commented he was not opposed to Councilmember Dawson's suggestion. Mayor
Haakenson stated that if staff recommended the buffer be retained, a public meeting would be held at the
Meadowdale Clubhouse.
Mr. Snyder asked whether the request was to eliminate the buffer or develop an alternative to the buffer.
He explained the reason for a 200 foot buffer was to have applicants map the edge of the bluff and
determine the rate of retreat. If the City wanted to undertake that effort, applicants could be provided
better precision with regard to the edge of the bluff but there was a cost associated with that effort. He
reiterated the buffer could be used to require a lesser review in that area that was targeted to the rate of
retreat and eliminating activities that could introduce water into the area. Mayor Haakenson suggested
staff research alternatives for eliminating the buffer.
Councilmember Orvis expressed support for re -notifying residents in the Meadowdale area due to the
confusion regarding which properties were within the buffer.
Council President Plunkett inquired about an appropriate date for the public hearing. Due to the
upcoming IBC/UBC changes that would occur on July, Mr. Bowman noted staff s intent was to complete
the amendments prior to July 1. He proposed holding a meeting at the Meadowdale Clubhouse to gather
input from property owners and staff developing a recommendation for presentation to the Council at a
second public hearing on June 15. He noted the public hearing would be noticed and the local press
would be invited to write an article.
Councilmember Dawson referred to comments regarding the brochure and recommended the illustration.
of a house sliding down a hill be removed.
Councilmembers agreed to allow any members of the public to speak at the second public hearing.
THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 15, 2004 CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Wambolt, 504 61h Avenue S, Edmonds, disagreed with comments made by Bob Gregg at the April
6 Council meeting that most citizens who addressed the Council lacked facts and were generally driven
Roof/Building by emotion, pointing out few made comment to the Council without facts although it may be difficult for
Height Issues the public to be aware of the facts. He cited confusion with regard to the allowed height for flat roofs in
the BC zone as an example. The Community Services/Development Services Committee met February
10, 2004 and decided to move forward with crafting an interim ordinance that would restate the code with
regard to building heights to achieve the intent of the 1999 code, specifically that 30 foot buildings with
flat roofs would not be allowed and a roof would have to be modulated. The preamble of the interim
ordinance drafted by the City Attorney stated there had been a proliferation of flat roofs and vertical
parapet walls above the 25 foot height limitation and in contradiction of the intent of the City Council. At
the March 16 Council meeting, Mayor Haakenson clarified the Council's intent with regard to the original
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 13
ordinance. At the April 6 meeting, Mr. Bowman stated that the Council changed the code in 1997 to
allow flat roofs to be 30 feet and according to Mr. Bowman that had been in effect until the recent
ordinance. Mr. Wambolt noted practice had apparently become policy.
Mr. Wambolt referred to Councilmember Marin's comment that a couple more feet were needed to allow
for higher first floor ceilings to make commercial spaces more rentable, commenting in his experience
businesses often took what was available if there was a need to do business in that location.
Mayor Haakenson requested Mr. Wambolt summarize as he had exceeded his allotted time to speak.
Mr. Wambolt noted a solution to difficult -to -rent commercial spaces may be to reduce the expanse of the
BC zone. Mr. Wambolt questioned the message Councilmember Marin was attempting to convey when
quoting from "Ten Habits of Highly Effective Governing Bodies" that the phone calls a Councilmember
receives or the comments made in public hearings were not valid or accurate reflections of the
community's sentiments about issues and Council performance. Mr. Wambolt then commented on the
Removal of unauthorized removal of trees on the Unocal site, pointing out the removal of the trees took several weeks
Trees from the
Unocal site and did not occur over just one weekend. Mayor Haakenson insisted Mr. Wambolt conclude his
comments as he had exceeded his allotted time.
Parking cede Michael Young, 20209 83rd Avenue W, Edmonds, thanked the Council for acting on the parking issue.
Amendments He agreed with Councilmember Marin's comments at the April 6 Council meeting that by choosing to
serve, Councilmembers did not apply a bull's-eye to their backs. He noted the positions of Mayor,
Councilmember and City staff were among the most thankless jobs, acknowledging they heard more
negative than positive comments about their performance.
Parking Code Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place W, Edmonds, thanked the Council for acting on the parking issue and
Arnendments
those who participated in the process including Downtown Edmonds Merchants, Chamber of Commerce,
developers, citizens and Council.
Removal of Roger Hertrich,1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, pointed out the facts with regard to the tree cutting on the
Trees from the Unocal site were confusing — the City stated they first learned of it a few weeks ago, the newspaper stated
Unocal Site
tree cutting began the first week of January and a letter from Ross Wood indicated they had the City's
permission to remove the majority of the trees on the slope and that the removal of an additional few feet
of trees at the bottom of the slope was an oversight. He noted many people felt the City was not doing
anything about the tree cutting; he preferred revoking the contract. Next, he recommended a speech by a
Councilmember be limited to the same three minutes the public was allotted unless scheduled as an item
on the agenda.
City Attorney Scott Snyder invited the public to the Permit Revocation Hearing on May 20 at 2:00 p.m.
before the Hearing Examiner where conditions of permit approval with regard to the tree cutting on the
Unocal site would be discussed.
Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, Edmonds, recalled the proposal to move the ferry terminal to the Pt.
F,dmo"ds Edwards site has been touted as a regional project and has garnered substantial federal regional and state
Crossing g p .J g � g
prefect support. She pointed out the Edmonds Crossing project was not included on Puget Sound Regional
Council's short term priorities and was not in their long term priorities until 2018..She noted the
Washington State Ferry System had not identified Edmonds Crossing as a priority as indicated by their
budget, $10 million was allocated to Mukilteo and none to Edmonds; in Referendum 51, $108 million
was allocated to Mukilteo and $2.8 million to Edmonds Crossing and when they obtained gas tax funding,
$120 million was allocated to Mukilteo and $7.8 million to Edmonds. She recalled the City's consultant
in 1999 cited opposition to siting of Edmonds Crossing by the Washington State Transportation
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 14
Commission. She questioned who wanted the Edmonds Crossing project when it appeared federal,
regional and state agencies did not support it. She inquired whether the Signatory Agency Committee
kept minutes. Mayor Haakenson indicated they did. She questioned whether the Council had ever
reviewed the minutes to which Mayor Haakenson answered no. She questioned where the Council
obtained their information about what a great project Edmonds Crossing was.
Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed appreciation for Mayor Haakenson taking
action with regard to the tree removal after a slow start. With regard to Councilmember Marin who he
Disclosure alleged wanted to increase building heights, Mr. Martin referred to Councilmember Marin's 12 public
Commission disclosure violations. He noted Councilmember Marin was accused of the violations but not fined
because he filed the required reports after the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) challenged him. Mr.
Martin alleged Councilmember Marin may have also committed perjury by erroneously reporting the date
he received a $75 dog and cat fund donation from Michael Plunkett. He noted Councilmember Marin had
been warned by the PDC that he would be fined if he continued his "sloppy reporting."
Mr. Martin then requested the Hearing Examiner Permit Revocation hearing be held later than 2:00 p.m.
Mayor Haakenson inquired whether the Hearing Examiner could hold the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Mr.
Snyder commented the date was a Friday and 7:00 p.m. on a Friday may not be the most appropriate time.
Mayor Haakenson agreed it would be preferable to hold the Permit Revocation hearing in the evening but
not on a Friday night.
Meadowdale Phil Sacks, 16238 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, objected to the limited amount of time allowed for Phil
Landslide Lehn who had conducted extensive investigation into the Meadowdale landslide hazard issue. He
xazardlssue recommended the Council schedule a presentation by Mr. Lehn as an agenda item. Mayor Haakenson
commented the Council had copies of Mr. Lehn's report and could ask him questions.
At Mayor Haakenson's request, City Clerk Sandy Chase described how audience comments were timed
using a 3-minute timer with lights at the podium as well as at the Mayor's seat that flashed a 30 second
warning at 2'/z minutes. Mayor Haakenson advised when a speaker's time expired, he waited 45 seconds
and then asked the speaker to summarize, so most speakers were allowed four minutes or more to speak.
With regard to Natalie Shippen's inquiry regarding the Council's use of Roberts Rules of Order, Council
President Plunkett advised she would be receiving a response in the near future.
With regard to the comment about scheduling Council comments as an agenda item, Council President
Plunkett pointed out on the agenda for each meeting there is a separate agenda item listed as Council
comments and he had no intention of restricting the length or subject of a Councilmembers' speech.
7. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 13 2004
Public safety Public Safety Committee
Committee Councilmember Olson reported Fire Marshal Westfall presented the local changes to the State -mandated
International Fire Code that would be enacted on July 1, 2004. She explained the International Code
amended the State Building Code to follow the national model codes for consistency across the United
States and Washington cities and counties must follow the adopted State codes.
Community Community Services/Development Services Committee
Services/ Council President Plunkett reported the Committee discussed PRD variances and directed staff to develop
Development Services language to reduce the need for variances. The Committee then discussed the City Urban Design Plan
Committee regarding downtown street flags/banners and recommended the discussion be referred to the Planning
Board to determine to what extent the flags/banners could be used. Next the Committee discussed the
Rotary Bandshell License and Volunteer Agreement. Council President Plunkett explained the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 15
Daybreakers Rotary Club of Edmonds was proposing to build a permanent and partially covered
bandshell in Edmonds City Park to recognize the 100'b anniversary of Rotary. The Committee
recommended the license and volunteer agreement be brought to the full Council on April 27 with a
recommendation for approval.
The Committee then discussed proposed amendments to Edmonds City Code regarding peddlers,
solicitors and street vendors in response to a question from Washington State Department of
Transportation/Washington State Ferries. The Committee requested the City Attorney prepare an
ordinance to clarify the language in ECC. The Committee also discussed public posting of notices for
development applications. Currently staff posts hearing and land use notices in the field and also
completes the mailing requirements; the Committee recommended the Planning Board consider whether
this activity could be done by the applicant via vendors. The Committee then discussed International
Building and Supplement Code adoption and recommended this item be brought before the full Council
for a public hearing. The final item the Committee discussed was providing for stronger and significantly
higher financial penalties for tree cutting violations. The Committee will work with the City Attorney to
draft an ordinance for full Council review.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson commented everyone seemed to have an opinion, seemed to be able to interpret the
ree Removal City Code, and understand how City staff should act; however, in most cases, they did not have the facts.
t the Former He agreed with Mr. Hertrich's comments that the facts were confusing. He noted Mr. Hertrich neglected
Unocal Site $r g• g
to mention the developer's comment in the newspaper article that they had made a mistake. With regard
to comments that the City needed more oversight, he envisioned public outcry if there was an employee
onsite at all construction sites to ensure trees were trimmed or cut properly. He explained the City had to
trust a developer to do what they said they would do according to the City Code. He noted when the
project on the Unocal property began in January, they removed only trees they were allowed to remove
and it was only later that they did not proceed as permitted.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Plunkett recognized Councilmember Orvis' birthday on April 12 and Councilmember
Olson's birthday on April 24.
Brotherhood Councilmember Moore read a letter from Pastor Jason Martin, Sr. thanking the Council for incorporating
Day Resolution the Brotherhood Day resolution into the Edmonds community as an act of support for his family and him
in response to the cross burning at his home.
lag I Councilmember Marin announced a flag retirement ceremony on May 17 in City Park at 7:30 p.m. He
reRetirement I explained this was an opportunity for citizens to bring unserviceable American flags to fire stations for
remon collection by the American Legion. He advised this effort was led by the American Legion Post 66 in
conjunction with VFW Post 8870 and the City.
omeland Councilmember Dawson advised of the Homeland Security update for elected officials on April 21.
Security
[Update
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
(ARYVr&ENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2004
Page 16
AGENDA
- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5' Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
APRIL 20, 2004
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #70237 through #70411 for the week of April 5, 2004,
in the amount of $288,547.88. Approval of claim checks #70412 through
#70585 for the week of April 12, 2004, in the amount of $343,970.16. Approval
of payroll check #37995 for the period of March 16 through March 31, 2004 in
the amount of $159.29.
(D) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor
Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
(E) Community Services Department Quarterly Report.
(F) Report on final construction costs for the Woodway Elementary School
Walkway and Council acceptance of project.
(G) Mike Doubleday Government Relations - Addendum #1 to Professional Services
Agreement between Mike Doubleday and City of Edmonds relating to the
Streamline Sales Tax Project.
(H) Proposed Resolution setting May 18, 2004, as the hearing date for a request to
vacate a portion of the Sierra Place right-of-way immediately east of 1142
Sierra Place and north of the developed cul-de-sac of Sierra Place. (Applicant:
Darryl and Shari Lewis / File No. ST-03-176)
(1) Proclamation in honor of Friends of the Library Week, April 18 - 24, 2004.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
April 20, 2004
Page 2 of 2
3. (20 Min.) Closed record review of the Planning Board's recommendation to approve a
request by Thurman and Priscilla Reynolds to rezone the property at 23904
Edmonds Way from Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Community Business
(BC). (File No. R-03-189)
4. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on proposed parking code amendments.
5. (30 Min.) Public Hearing on Meadowdale earth subsidence development regulations.
6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of April 13, 2004.
8. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
9. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at
(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a
delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.