11/02/1998 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY. COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
NOVEMBER 2, 1998
The Special Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Dick
Van Hollebeke in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Barbara Fahey, Mayor (arrived 8:00 p.m.)
Dick Van Hollebeke, Mayor Pro Tem
Dave Earling, Councilmember .
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember
Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember
ABSENT
Gary Haakenson, Council President
STAFF PRESENT
Paul Mar, Community Services Director
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
James Walker, City Engineer
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Dee McGrath, Senior Executive Assistant
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Pro. Tem Van Hollebeke explained this Special Council meeting was held on Monday due to
Election Day on Tuesday, November 3. He further explained Mayor Fahey is entertaining the Hekinan
delegation and will arrive with them at approximately 8:00 p.m. He was serving as Mayor Pro Tem as
Council President.Haakenson is on vacation.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Van Hollebeke requested Items No. 5 (Presentation by Gregory Sullivan Isaacs on the
Cascade Symphony's 371 season) and No. 6 (Presentation of Community Grant Award) be combined
and moved to Item 3 on the agenda. Mr. Roger Hertrich was agreeable to moving Item 3 (Continued
Closed Record Appeal Meeting - Appeal by Roger Hertrich of the Hearing Examiner's Decision) to Item
3a.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Nordquist requested Item I be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page 1
III
t
(A) ROLL CALL
k roved
utes of (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27,1998
7/98 d (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #27798 THROUGH #28444 FOR THE WEEK OF
m OCTOBER 26,1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $251,189.62
rants
pdate Hwy
9 Project (D) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
'ty Atty. (E) ANNUAL REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY
lAnnual Rpt
gmt w/RW (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
eck, Drain- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES
e Repairs FOR THE MEADOWDALE DRAINAGE REPAIRS PROJECT
IlReplace 4 (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH EVERGREEN STATE SHEET METAL, INC.
Feat Pumps TO REPLACE FOUR (4) HEAT PUMP UNITS FOR THE CITY HALL BUILDING
lat City Hall
($8,861.76)
Ord. 3230 re
5 -year life (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3230 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY
or Pre /Short DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.75.100 TO CONFIRM A FIVE YEAR LIFE FOR A
Plat Appr. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT APPROVAL
Item I: Proposed Ordinance Amending A Contract Rezone for Certain Property Commonly
Known as Harbor Square
V Councilmember Nordquist said he would abstain from the vote on this item as he was on vacation and
not present at the Council meeting when this was discussed. Although he had read the minutes, he was
not comfortable with voting on this matter.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, FOR
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM I. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
(1) ORDINANCE NO. 3231 AMENDING A CONTRACT REZONE FOR CERTAIN
PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS HARBOR SQUARE
Grant Award 3. PRESENTATION BY GREGORY SULLIVAN ISSACS ON THE CASCADE SYMPHONY'S 371'H
or Cascade SEASON AND PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY GRANT AWARD
Symphony
Mayor Pro Tern Van Hollebeke introduced Gregory Sullivan Isaacs, Cascade Symphony Conductor, and
commented the Cascade Symphony is a treasure and the City is delighted it has been part of the
community for 37 years.
Mr. Sullivan explained the Cascade Symphony's 37' season will be a continuation of their efforts to be
an "as well" orchestra (an orchestra citizens attend as well as attending others) rather than an "instead
of." He described upcoming events that will include many different works not seen elsewhere in the
area. He said the Symphony's 38' season, which will cover the millennium, will be an entire season
(five concerts) of works by American composers. He said the Symphony is proud to be in Edmonds and
appreciates the support of the Council. The Symphony plans to re- energize their subscriber base.
Although their ticket sales are excellent, grant requests also consider their subscriber base, which shows
the amount of community support.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page 2
Mayor Pro Tern Van Hollebeke asked how one purchased tickets. Mr. Sullivan encouraged the public to
call (425) 778 -4688 and purchase a season ticket (now available at a reduced rate). Tickets are also
available at the Cascade Symphony office at the Anderson Center. He said, thanks to generous
donations, the Symphony has been able to keep their ticket prices equivalent to a movie.
Presentation of Community Grant Award
Councilmember Earling, Chair of the Finance Committee, explained last year, at the recommendation of
Councilmember Nordquist, the Council designated funds for community grants to be presented twice
each year. The first grants were awarded in January and tonight is the second (and final) presentation of
grant awards this year. He commented the Cascade Symphony has been in the community for 37 years
and is one of the leading cultural groups in Snohomish County. Commenting he was a Cascade
Symphony Boardmember several years ago and played with the Symphony in the past, Councilmember
Earling said the Symphony is one of the nationally recognized community symphonies in the United
States. He expressed his appreciation for the educationally oriented grant application submitted by the
Cascade Symphony. The grant will fund student workshops by the Principle Trombonist of the New
York Philharmonic.
Councilmember Miller, Finance Committee Member, presented the Cascade Symphony a Certificate of
Appreciation and a grant in the amount of $4,000.
Councilmember Earling advised $6,000 of the $25,000 designated for Community Grants was not
awarded during 1998 and recommended these funds be placed in the Council Contingency. Fund.
emaining
rant funds COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO
n Council PLACE THE REMAINING COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDS ($6,000) IN THE COUNCIL
ontingency CONTINGENCY FUND. MOTION CARRIED.
3A. CONTINUED CLOSED RECORD APPEAL MEETING - APPEAL BY ROGER HERTRICH OF
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY HIS APPEAL OF A STAFF
INTERPRETATION (FILE NO. AP- 98 -85) PERTAINING TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.60 TO CONSIDER GAS PUMP ISLAND CANOPY LOGOS
AS "WALL GRAPHIC," WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM HEIGHT AND AREA LIMITATIONS.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1011 PUGET DRIVE AND IS ZONED
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS - "BN."
F Observing this was a continued closed record meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Van Hollebeke asked if any
Councilmember wished to make a disclosure. Councilmember Miller said he was not present at the first
closed record meeting regarding this matter on October 20 but had read the minutes and the agenda
98 -85 packet and was prepared to participate.
City Attorney Scott Snyder asked Councilmember Miller if he had listened to the tapes of the meeting.
Councilmember Miller answered no. Mr. Snyder said Mr. Hertrich's arguments made at the October 20
meeting should be considered verbatim and not as summarized in the minutes. He said Councilmember
Miller must listen to the tapes in order to participate.
Councilmember Miller recused himself from this closed record meeting.
There were no other Council disclosures and there were no challenges to the participation of any other
Councilmember.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page 3
Mr. Snyder reviewed the closed record meeting procedures. He explained, as this is a continued closed
record appeal, only parties of record (Mr. Hertrich and the sign applicant) have standing and may only
argue from materials already in the record (no new evidence may be presented). He recalled at the close
of Mr. Hertrich's presentation on October 20, he raised questions regarding the items not contained in the
Council's packet (appeal letter and supporting argument) which have now been provided to the Council.
At the conclusion of the October 20 closed record appeal, the Council agreed to allow Mr. Hertrich and
the sign applicant an additional five minutes. Mr. Snyder explained any information presented at the
October 20 meeting was part of the record. He said staff is prepared to respond to the questions Mr.
Hertrich raised at the October 20 closed record appeal.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, objected to the description of the closed record appeal as
advertised, "consider gas pump island canopy logo as "wall graphics" which are exempt from height and
area limitations," because there is nothing in the code that addresses this exemption. Mr. Snyder said the
Council should consider this information in its decision.
Mr. Hertrich referred to the diagram of the sign (Attachment 4) which indicates the canopy is 42 ".
Although the staff report refers to a 2 - 2%2 -foot circle, there is no border between the edge of the sign
and the edge of the canopy, indicating the star /circle is as large as the canopy. He stressed this was
totally out of scale for the BN zone. He said the scale of the Texaco sign would be more appropriate for
Hwy. 99. He pointed out the ARCO in downtown, Shell on Edmonds Way, and Texaco at Five Corners
all have much smaller logos than this sign. He said other decisions made by a former city employee have
been faulted including signage for B1ockBuster Video. Mr. Hertrich alleged this employee made up his
own code because there is no description in the City Code that properly describes wall graphics. He said
the only description in the code is regarding use and not dictionary terms. He said his references to the
dictionary terms were ignored by the Hearing Examiner. He said the height is addressed in the sign code
and wall signs have height restrictions.
Mr. Hertrich said staff has indicated the sign must be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB)
if more than two signs are proposed. He noted that there are seven signs on this property, the approved
monument sign, the Olympic View Deli sign, three logos on the canopy, and two A -frame signs. He
pointed out recent code changes allow only one A -frame sign. He said staff has also not considered the
color change on the gas pumps. He said if the sign was painted on, unlit, and smaller, it may be an
appropriate sign for the BN zone.
Mayor Pro Tem Van Hollebeke asked if the sign applicant, Clyde McCoy, was present. Mr. McCoy was
not present.
Senior Planner Steve Bullock addressed the three questions Mr. Hertrich raised at the October 20 closed
record appeal meeting (page 5 of the October 20 Council minutes). In response to the first, "how is the
lighted sign not garish and how is it compatible with the neighborhood," Mr. Bullock explained this sign
was reviewed by a former staff member who reviewed all ADB projects as well as waivers of ADB
review and who had a history of knowledge of all ADB decisions. The staff report this former staff
member wrote in response to the initial appeal is included in the Council packet (Exhibit 7). Page 3 of
the staff report (page 34 of the Council packet) indicates "the applicant is proposing a wall graphic that
does not exceed the maximum height or area limitations. The graphics appear to be non - garish and
consistent with the neighborhood character."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page 4
In response to Mr. Hertrich's second question, "how does the sign match with the downtown sign code,"
Mr. Bullock referred to page 4 of the staff report (page 35 of the Council packet) and a memo
(attachment 2 of the staff report and page 38 of the Council packet). The memo outlines the former
employee's opinion regarding the non - garish nature of the Texaco Star logos and that it was consistent
with the neighborhood and his opinion that ADB review could be waived.
In response to Mr. Hertrich's third question, "where in the code is the height limit described for wall -
mounted signs," Mr. Bullock referred to page 4 of the staff report (page 35 of the Council packet) which
states the former employee's rationale for the reason there are no height limitations for wall graphics,
"Section 20.60.060A. Definitions - A wall graphic is a wall sign in which color and form are part of an
overall design on the building. B. Restrictions - There are no area restrictions on wall graphics or
identification structures." Mr. Bullock speculated the former employee could have interpreted "no area
restrictions" as the area (dimensions) of the sign or the area the sign is located on the building. Utilizing
his experience with ADB decisions, the former employee would evaluate the business owners' desire to
operate their business as well as the sign not being unduly imposing on the neighborhood and determine
whether ADB review was necessary or a waiver could be granted.
Mr. Bullock explained staff and procedures in the Planning Department have changed significantly since
this sign was approved. Several staff members discuss whether it is appropriate to grant a waiver rather
than one person assisting the ADB and making decisions regarding potential waivers. He requested
Council's feedback and input regarding how to proceed with this issue.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about Mr. Hertrich's statement that there are seven signs on the site.
Mr. Bullock said the two signs on the site are the monument sign, which was approved by the ADB
earlier this year, and the Olympic View Deli wall mounted sign. The former employee apparently
determined the star /circle was a wall graphic and did not count as part of the two allowable signs. Mr.
Bullock said this is the first time staff has been made aware of the A -frame signs and will look into it
further.
Councilmember Nordquist observed staff appeared to be apologizing for a previous employee's actions.
He said the record appears to indicate this is a sign of some nature. He questioned whether the problem
should just "go away" because the employee left the City. He felt this was a sign regardless of whether it
was attached to the building, noting he often looks for logos as well as lettered signs.
Mr. Bullock said he could see legitimacy in both the former employee's rationale for his decision as well
as in Mr. Hertrich's appeal. At this time, staff is seeking Council direction in how to proceed.
Mr. Snyder explained the issue before the Council is a code interpretation. During an appeal, a judge
would give no weight to any administrative decision and would review the facts anew. Likewise, the
Council is not required to give any weight to staff interpretation but is free to make their own decision
regarding how to apply the definition of wall graphic and wall sign. The Hearing Examiner used the
standard maxim of interpretation; if there is an ambiguity in the code, the property owner's common law
right to develop the property is given deference. Mr. Snyder said there are other maxims such as "zoning
codes are to be liberally construed in order to effectuate their purpose" and the "plain meaning rule" -- if
the Council feels this is a wall sign and not a wall graphic.
Mr. Hertrich said wall graphics are best described by the ADB. When he asked the ADB, they said a lot
of little symbols as part of a band around the building could be considered a wall graphic. However, they
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page 5
felt one or two large items like "this huge circle" would be considered a wall sign. Mr. Hertrich said the
former employee did not use the code to support his memo. Mr. Hertrich summarized that this matter
has arisen due to a lack of expertise, interest, or ability. He said the code needed to be "tightened up"
and recommended the Council put a stop to allowing signs to be used as wall graphics.
Mayor Pro Tern Van Hollebeke remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
Councilmember Plunkett observed Mr. Snyder said the Council is free to develop their own
interpretation. He echoed Councilmember Nordquist's comments and stated staff appears to be divided
on this issue. Mr. Bullock indicates he can see merit to both sides and the staff member who made the
decision is no longer in the City's employ. Councilmember Plunkett did not foresee a problem with
having the signs reviewed by the ADB.
Councilmember Nordquist commented in the past, the Council has encouraged businesses in the area
with corporate logos such as McDonald's, Skippers, and Shell to reduce their size. He was concerned
with "stretching" the definition of signs. Councilmember Nordquist asked if upholding the appeal would
result in the matter being sent back to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Snyder answered if the Council
determines this is a wall sign and not a wall graphic, staff will inform Texaco they must file an
application for an amendment to their sign package or turn off the light.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND SEND THIS BACK TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR
FURTHER DEFINITION OF A WALL SIGN.
Councilmember White asked where in the code it required staff to send a wall sign (and not a wall
graphic) to the ADB. Mr. Snyder said a wall sign is defined in the Community Development Code as a
sign that is parallel to and not projected from a wall or is painted directly on the wall. Section
20.60.050(A) regarding wall graphics and identification structures states, "a wall graphic is a wall sign in
which color and form are part of an overall design on the building." Section 20.60.050(B) states "there
are no area restrictions on wall graphics or identification structures." Section 20.60.020(A) regarding
signs that must be reviewed by the ADB states, "if more than two signs are proposed for the site or if the
total number of approved signs would exceed two, ADB review is required." Mr. Snyder said Section
20.60.020(A)(1) states the Planning Manager may refer the application to the ADB if a sign contains
certain characteristics (free standing or detached, lighted, or use of reflective materials) or if it is a wall
graphic as defined by the code.
Mr. Snyder advised that if the Council finds this is a wall sign rather than a wall graphic (recognizing
that all wall graphics are wall signs); the Council's findings would include a finding that there are more
than two signs on the site and ADB review would be required.
Councilmember White asked if there was concern with the ambiguous and arbitrary application of what
constitutes a sign opposed to what is a graphic. Mr. Snyder answered that was the basis for the Hearing
Examiner decision. Any ambiguities in the code are to be resolved in favor of the property owner.
Councilmember White clarified Mr. Snyder's statement if the code is ambiguous, the Council must rule
in favor of the applicant; if the Council finds the code is not ambiguous, then the plain meaning rule
applies and the Council is to rule in favor of the appellant. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Councilmember
White said if the Council agreed with the interpretation, why did it need to be returned to the Hearing
Examiner?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page 6
Councilmember Nordquist said based on his review of the facts, he too felt it was a wall sign. Mr.
Snyder said if this is the Council's interpretation, staff would notify the applicant to remove the sign or
file an application for ADB review of their sign package.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO
ADOPT A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE SIGN IS A WALL SIGN AS OPPOSED TO A WALL
GRAPHIC.
Councilmember Earling expressed concern that the lack of definition in the City Code costs business
owners hundreds, and sometimes thousands of dollars for this type of adjustment. While Mr. Hertrich's
appeal has merit, Councilmember Earling said this property owner has, over time, gone out of their way
to accommodate their business into a neighborhood setting and the business looks good. He hoped an
amicable solution could be reached that would not cost the business owners considerably more
investment.
Councilmember White agreed with Councilmember Earling's comments. He pointed out an "object" that
is lighted, is in excess of three feet in diameter, and even though it is not affixed to the building and is
integrated well into the design, it is still a sign and should be reviewed by the ADB. He suggested the .
consultants reviewing the ADB process also consider this issue.
MOTION CARRIED, MAYOR PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE ABSTAINED.
Mr. Snyder said the Council's Finding of Fact will refer to the size, the electrical lighting, and the
placement on the canopy as opposed to the wall of a building that is not consistent with a wall graphic
and is therefore a wall sign. He said height may also be an issue to site in the Council's findings. He
suggested he also develop an interim zoning ordinance that clarifies this code interpretation. He noted a
variance for height would be required if this is a sign and suggested the fee for the variance and
application be waived. The Council was agreeable to the proposed findings and the process.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
nimal Dave McDowell, 9006 242ND SW, Edmonds, explained he was annexed into the City with the Esperance
Code Annexation. He has had chickens for at least 40 years and was assured prior to annexation that nothing
nforcement
would change. He said the City has indicated if one person complains, the law must be enforced and he
has until November 10 to comply. He requested a later date for compliance or possibly a grandfather
clause. He indicated he must appear in Small Claims Court on December 3 to respond to a neighbor's
claim for property damages in the amount of $2500. He read numerous letters from neighbors stating his
chickens do not cause any problems. He provided the letters to the City Clerk.
Planning Kevin Clarke, 23924 107' Place W, Edmonds, distributed information to Councilmembers, which he
rd Hearing reviewed. He said during the audience comment portion of the October 6 meeting, he asked Mayor
re Edmonds- Fahey review the issue associated with the Planning Board public hearing, proper notification, and the
oodway }'
Rezone letters. He referred to the information he distributed, including the minutes from the October 6 Council
meeting, and correspondence from Mr. Snyder to Mayor Fahey. One of the issues he asked to have
addressed was not addressed by Mr. Snyder, and Mr. Snyder erroneously referred to the Chase Lake
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page 7
zoning. Mr. Clarke stressed there was not proper notice or mailing for the Planning Board public hearing
regarding the Edmonds - Woodway High School rezone. He referred to the Edmonds Code section
containing the regulations for required notification -- a mailing must include individuals who live within
300 feet of the property and three notices or one large sign must be posted. The information he
distributed included an affidavit from the Planning Department stating they complied with the City's
ordinances. He referred to a map, provided by the Planning Department, showing only two notices were
posted on the property. The colored notice states, "I hereby certify that I have posted on the above
property in three conspicuous places." He said the Code requires three notices but the map clearly
indicates only two notices were posted. The information he distributed indicated the consultant for
Edmonds School District filed a request to postpone the City Council public hearing because the mailing
list was insufficient. He referred to Paul Mar's letter in response to the School District's request and
agreeing to postpone the public hearing and the City Clerk's renotification. He referred to the mailing
lists, submitted in July and in October and a comparison of the two which indicates there are 21 names or
15% that did not appear on the mailing list for the Planning Board public hearing. He urged the Council
to make a decision on this issue, noting that he requested this be addressed over a month ago. He pointed
out Mr. Snyder's letter to Mayor Fahey was dated October 16 but she did not respond to him (Mr.
Clarke). He objected to the Council placing the burden on him to show that the City and the School
District are not complying with the law.
At the conclusion of the three minute time period for public comment, Mr. Clarke objected to being
allowed only three minutes to present a document that took him hours to research. He stressed the
Council must make a decision because the posting has already been done for the Council's November 17
public hearing. He requested an additional two minutes to review the materials presented to the Council.
He pointed out the Council has correspondence from Marilyn Hill, one of the property owners who was
not on the mailing list for the Planning Board public hearing, requesting the Council consider this issue.
Mr. Clarke pointed out citizens do not have an opportunity to appeal the Council's decision.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if Mr. Clarke could be given an additional two minutes for further
explanation. Mayor Pro Tern Van Hollebeke asked Mr. Snyder to advise the Council of the appropriate
procedure. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested Council discussion of this issue be added later on the
agenda. He said the Council's rules are clear regarding impromptu public hearings during the public
comment portion of the agenda. He said staff informed him that his letter referred to the wrong rezone
and a follow -up memo was sent to correct the reference to Chase Lake. He requested an opportunity to
review the posting with staff and offered to review the materials Mr. Clarke provided.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO
ADD A DISCUSSION OF THE POSTING PROCESS FOR THE EDMONDS - WOODWAY HIGH
SCHOOL NON - PROJECT REZONE TO THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Nordquist referred to Mr. McDowell's request for an extension. Mr. Snyder advised the
Small Claims Court issue is independent of the City's process. He discussed the matter with the City's
Code Enforcement Officer, who is reviewing the non - conforming nature of the rights established by
maintenance of the chickens in Snohomish County.
scent2l- Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, announced a seminar taking place Saturday,
atic November 7 and Sunday, November 8 regarding athletic scholarships. He remarked that Mayor Pro Tem
ter Van Hollebeke addressed Ascent 21 at the October 20 meeting but did not mention his involvement with
the aquatic center. Mr. Rutledge recommended swimmers also attend the seminar regarding athletic
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page 8
scholarship and that the City seek the support of swimmers in the event the Ascent 21 ballot issue fails
and other funding methods must be explored.
1999 Budget Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, said he was able with some difficulty to obtain a budget
Tax Increase book. He pointed out the Mayor's letter indicates during the Human Resource and Compensation Study,
re EMS Svcs she asked Mr. Housler to factor in a 6% property tax increase. He said the City has a habit of loading
taxes onto residents and the Mayor has balanced the budget by adding 6% to residents' taxes. He
objected to the establishment of the Developmental Services Manager position because the City did not
have the funds for it. He questioned the increase in the percentage for EMS services from 25% to 40%
and the Mayor's indication this was draining the City's budget. He acknowledged the City must have fire
suppression by state law but questioned whether a fire fighter was an EMS technician or a fire fighter
when he /she was waiting for an alarm. He envisioned the City would soon say a transport fee was
necessary, which he did not believe citizens wanted. He recommended the percentage remain at 25% or
determine why it increased to 40 %.
5. PRESENTATION OF HEKINAN DELEGATION
Presentation Mayor Pro Tem Van Hollebeke explained Edmonds has had a Sister City relationship with Hekinan,
of Hekinan Japan, for ten y ears. He recalled a delegation from Edmonds, includin g Mayor Fahe y and
Delegation
Councilmember Nordquist, visited Hekinan to celebrate their 501 anniversary.
Mayor Fahey said the City is celebrating the 10' anniversary of the Sister City relationship with
Hekinan and the 50' anniversary of the formation of the City of Hekinan. She said a delegation traveled
to Hekinan in honor of their 501 anniversary,in July and now Edmonds is being honored with a visit
from the Mayor of Hekinan, Taku Nagashima and his delegation. She explained over the past ten years,
Edmonds has had a relationship of friendship and understanding develop with Hekinan which is
believed, people to people, will lead to world peace. She said for many years Edmonds students have
traveled to Hekinan as exchange students to attend their schools and learn more about their culture. In
return, Edmonds has had Hekinan students in Edmonds, staying up to a year, attending school -and
learning more about the United States. She said there are very strong relationships in other areas such as
between the Hospital in Hekinan and Stevens Hospital. The Director of the Hospital in Hekinan is a
member of the government and reports to the Mayor of Hekinan. The Mayor also oversees all schools in
Hekinan as well as the Port. She said the Hekinan delegation is surprised to discover the many
independent forms of organizations that provide these services as well as the regional services provided
by the treatment plant and the School District. Tours of these facilities have helped members of the
delegation understand how Edmonds' government operates.
Likewise, the Edmonds delegation learned many things during their visit to Hekinan. Mayor Fahey said
Hekinan is a port City, and Hekinan cherishes nature, arts, and culture, which they have also enjoyed in
Edmonds. Many Hekinan citizens have come from the hospital in Hekinan to visit with staff at Stevens
Hospital; there are displays in both hospitals of the other hospital.
Mayor. Fahey said a reception was held last night in the Library Plaza Room. She thanked
Councilmember Nordquist for leading the delegation on behalf of the Council, commenting he has
developed many long - standing relationships in Hekinan due to previous visits. She expressed her
appreciation to Councilmembers Miller, White, and Van Hollebeke for joining the delegation. She
thanked the Council for their support of the Sister City relationship with Hekinan. She said there were
numerous doctors in attendance at the reception as well as young people who entertained the delegation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page 9
She stated the City was fortunate to have a Sister City relationship with a City with such a high regard
for Edmonds.
Mayor Fahey explained Hekinan has a directly elected Mayor. Mayor Nagashima is in his third term and
will run for election again next year. Hekinan has an. Assembly made up of 28 members who must all
run for election at the same time. The Assembly meets for a long period of time (1 -3 months) depending
on issues to be addressed.
Mayor Fahey introduced Tetsuya Ikuta, President of the Hekinan City Council, who was accompanied by
an interpreter, Keiko Sakikabara, Vice President of the Hekinan Sister City Association. Mayor Fahey
said Ms. Sakikabara has been with the Sister City organization for ten years and was instrumental in
choosing Edmonds as Hekinan's Sister City. Via Ms. Sakikabara's interpretation, Mr. Ikuta, on behalf of
the Hekinan Assembly, offered their deep appreciation for the warm welcome from Edmonds City
Council and Edmonds residents. He was pleased they were able to come to Edmonds and have the
opportunity to get to know the Council. Although there are some differences in the system and authority
of the Council, he believed they should be responsible for building a happy society. He explained their
assembly consists of 28 Assembly Members who check the various state policies proposed by the Mayor.
He said having opportunities to enhance City policies and ideas to make a better society would deepen
the meaning of Sister City.
Ms. Sakikabara introduced the members of the delegation: Mayor Taku Nagashima, President of
Hekinan Sister City Association; Tetsuya Ikuta, Chairman of the Hekinan Assembly; Kazushige
Murakami, Director Hekinan Sister City Association; Ryoukou Agata, Hekinan Priest & Staff of Culture
Association; Hitomi Suzuki, Part -time Staff of Hekinan Post Office & Teacher; Kazuko Sumiya,
Hekinan Cooking Instructor; Emiko Takahashi, Hekinan Housewife, Takayuki Masuda, Hekinan Grocer;
Aoi Kamiya, Miss Friend Hekinan; Masakatsu Sugiura, Manager of Hekinan Personnel & Secretariat
Section; and Takao Ono, Clerk of Hekinan City Council Office. .
The delegation presented a gift to each Councilmember and one to the Council.
Mayor Fahey explained in addition to the formal delegation, there were other visitors from Hekinan
including a Photographer, Kiyotaka Sugiura, whose photos MY EDMONDS —were on display in the
Arts Festival Museum Gallery at Frances Anderson Center. Other visitors include Etsuko Kato, Mayumi
Suzuki, and Yuko Mizuno. Mayor Fahey acknowledged the numerous host families in the audience as
well as Debbie and Phil Onishi who lived in Hekinan recently.
Councilmember Nordquist introduced Edmonds Councilmembers. He addressed the Hekinan delegation
and explained he has spent many hours sharing his experiences in Hekinan with his colleagues. He said
the wonderful friendship between the two cities is most enjoyable. He hoped the members of the
delegation could return to Edmonds soon and share the City's hospitality. He presented gifts to the
members of the Hekinan delegation on behalf of the Council and thanked the delegation for visiting the
Council.
Mayor Fahey explained the delegation had a western motif dinner tonight that included square dance and
line dance instruction and the Hekinan delegation taught the Edmonds delegation a Japanese line dance.
She explained, the delegation was coming to her home after the Council meeting for refreshments. She
invited Councilmembers to join the delegation at her home. Mayor Fahey thanked the delegation for
attending the Council meeting.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page 10
6. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE 50"' ANNIVERSARY OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS
Port of Mayor Fahey read a Proclamation congratulating the Port of Edmonds on its 501 Anniversary and
Edmonds 50 thanking them for the significant contributions they have made over the years to the economic vitality of
Anniversary the City. She wished the Port continued success and encouraged the citizens of Edmonds to visit the Port
on November 8 for their 50" Anniversary Celebration.
Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke thanked Mayor Fahey and staff for their tremendous efforts
on behalf of the Hekinan delegation. He commended Mayor Fahey for being a gracious hostess to the
delegation and commended staff for their extra efforts.
Mayor Fahey and the Hekinan Delegation left the meeting at this time.
6A. PUBLICATION OF NOTICE REGARDING EDMONDS-WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL NON -
PROJECT REZONE
Notice of City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested this issue be addressed in two parts, first, the hearing before the
Edmonds- planning Board. He recalled Mr. Clarke raised two issues 1) the mailing list for the public hearing
ezoneay before the Planning Board was defective, and 2) the posting was defective. He said it was obvious an
incomplete mailing list was used for the public hearing before the Planning Board; by Mr. Clarke's
calculation, approximately 15% of the names were incorrect. Regarding the defective posting, he
explained there are different rules for Council and Planning Board hearings. Staff did post twice, using
two different size signs. The ordinance allows three small signs or one large sign; staff posted two large
ones. He agreed there was defective notice of the Planning Board public hearing. Notification of the
hearing before the City Council has been posted at five sites, publication has occurred, and a correct
mailing list was used. He observed there has been no allegation that the notification for the Council's
.public hearing is defective. The public hearing before the Council is a de novo hearing although the
Council is required to have a recommendation of the Planning Board. He said constitutionally,
substantial compliance is required for due process. He pointed out it is impossible at this time to change
the flawed notice of the public hearing before the Planning Board. The problems have now been
corrected and the Planning Board has provided a recommendation; whether it would. have been different
if more residents attended the hearing is unknown. A corrected mailing list has been used to notify
property owners of the public hearing before the Council. He reiterated the State requires substantial
compliance; there is now complete compliance for the Council hearing, notification of 85% of property
owners and bigger postings appear to comply with the City's ordinance. He advised it was within the
Council's discretion to remand the matter to the Planning Board for a hearing but was not constitutionally
required. He said the Council's public hearing would cure any previous problems. Any potential liability
would be the fault of the School Board for using the wrong mailing list.
Councilmember White observed this has been an issue that has been hotly debated by a number of
residents. He pointed out there likely will be an appeal regardless of the Planning Board's
recommendation. If the Public "P". zoning is approved, the citizens will appeal, if the "P" zoning is
denied, the School District will appeal.- As the Council's review is de novo (the Council is not bound by
the Planning Board review or opinion), he felt it would be a wasted effort to return the issue to the
Planning Board. He suggested the issue not be returned to the Planning Board for another public
hearing, as their recommendation would not influence the Council's decision.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page I1
Councilmember White recalled the City had previously expressed their displeasure with the School
District's notification process. The City has now posted twice as many signs as are required and has
remailed notices to citizens the City is required to notify. He recalled each time the issue of mailed
notification arises, staff states the County Assessor rolls were used to determine property owners within
300 feet. He asked if this was the only information utilized to assemble mailing lists. City Clerk Sandy
Chase explained the mailing list was compiled by the School District and was their responsibility. She
was not aware what records had been utilized to develop the mailing list. Councilmember White asked if
the mailing list was the responsibility of the applicant. Ms. Chase answered yes.
Councilmember White asked if there was any process for reviewing the mailing list provided by the
applicant. Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson answered in Edmonds, the applicant is responsible for
providing the mailing list and is required to sign an affidavit attesting to its accuracy. The City accepts
the mailing list, along with the affidavit, as true and accurate information. Other cities may verify the
mailing list. He said the Code requires notification of property owners within 300 feet. The Assessor's
rolls are utilized, as they are the most accurate records regarding property ownership. He acknowledged
this may not always be accurate as the Assessor is slow to transfer information but their records are
usually relied upon. Councilmember White asked if the Code required notification of property owners as
well as residents. Mr. Wilson answered in the case of an absent owner, a resident label as well as a
property owner label is provided.
Councilmember White recalled there have been other hearings with inadequate notice and he was
attempting to determine where the flaw existed. He said the property owner may not necessarily be the
resident, therefore the property owner as well as the street address should be notified. Councilmember
White asked how the City has legally shifted the burden of providing notification to the applicant. Mr.
Snyder said this is part of the required application. He said the rationale at the time this requirement was
adopted was the applicant would be the one most at risk from an error and would have the greatest
interest in providing an accurate list. He said this requirement was in part, a risk management tool. He
noted the City's requirements are in excess of State requirements.
Mr. Snyder stressed his advice was specific to this rezone process. If this was a closed record hearing
and there had been a flaw in the notice so that property owners were denied standing, he would
recommend the Council remand the matter and Bold another hearing. On rezones, the Planning Board
makes a recommendation to the Council, but the Council holds its own hearing. By holding another
hearing, the Council considers the matter anew and has the opportunity to correct any previous notice
problems.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed substantially, the Council would reach the same point. He expressed
concern with what citizens would think about the process. He said it appeared the School District, who
is seeking the rezone and has the burden of notification, failed to notify as many as 15% of citizens
required to be notified. He preferred the Council go the extra step to ensure citizens are satisfied
everything necessary was done and hold another Planning Board hearing.
Councilmember White said if this was an action governed by Regulatory Reform, there would be a
single, fact - finding hearing. He preferred the facts be presented and this matter moved forward. He did
not believe citizens wanted a three -month delay for further deliberation. Councilmember Plunkett said
the fact that 15% of citizens *required to be notified were not, may color the procedural process in the
future.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page 12
Councilmember White pointed out whether there were one or two hearings, the first hearing would
inevitably lead to the second hearing. He preferred the first hearing be omitted and the matter brought to
the Council sooner.
Mr. Snyder read from the Community Development Code concerning a codification of the rules
regarding substantial notice requirements which states, "no procedural irregularity or informality in the
notice, consideration, or development of any matter contained in or regulated by the Community
Development Code shall affect the final decision or any other action leading to the final decision unless
substantial rights of a person with a demonstrable interest are adversely affected." He acknowledged the
Code's provisions for notice of the Planning Board hearing was not complied with but will be wiped
clean with notification of the public hearing before the Council. He observed the School District, who
has an interest in this matter, is unaware this matter is being discussed tonight. If a majority of the
Council wishes to send the matter back to the Planning Board, he recommended the City notify the
School District to allow them to respond by November 17.
Councilmember Miller preferred the Council move forward, particularly since it will be a de novo
hearing.
Councilmember Earling was sensitive to accurate notification. As it is clear notification will take place
for the November 17 Council public hearing, the Council had an obligation to the citizens and the School
District to bring this issue to a completion.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT
OPPOSED.
Mayor Pro Tern Van Hollebeke thanked Mr. Clarke for the considerable effort he has devoted to this
issue and said all citizens will have an opportunity to participate at the November 17 public hearing.
From the audience, Mr. Clarke commented the mailing list was not accurate. Councilmember White
urged Mr. Clarke, if the mailing list was inaccurate, not to wait until the next Council meeting but
contact any Councilmember at any time.
7. MAYOR'S REPORT
There was no Mayor's report.
8. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Plunkett commended Mayor Pro Tem Van Hollebeke for conducting the meeting.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
BARBARA S. FAHEY, P4AY0
SANDRA-S. CA E CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 1998
Page 13
LJ
i
1
AGENDA
' EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
TV Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 a.m.
NOVEMBER 2, 1998
SPECIAL MONDAY MEETING
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 OCTOBER 27, 1998
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #27798 THROUGH #28444 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 26, 1998, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $251,189.62.
(D) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
(E) ANNUAL REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH R.. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE MEADOWDALE DRAINAGE REPAIRS
PROJECT
(G) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH EVERGREEN STATE SHEET METAL, INC. TO REPLACE FOUR (4)
HEAT PUMP UNITS FOR THE CITY HALL BUILDING ($8,861.76)
(H) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE SECTION 20.75.100 TO CONFIRM A FIVE YEAR LIFE FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT APPROVAL
(1) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING A CONTRACT REZONE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY COMMONLY
KNOWN AS HARBOR SQUARE
3. (30 Min.) CONTINUED CLOSED RECORD APPEAL MEETING — APPEAL BY ROGER HERTRICH OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY HIS APPEAL OF A STAFF INTERPRETATION (FILE NO. AP- 98 -85)
PERTAINING TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.60 TO CONSIDER GAS
PUMP ISLAND CANOPY LOGOS AS "WALL GRAPHICS," WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM HEIGHT AND
AREA LIMITATIONS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1011 PUGET DRIVE AND IS ZONED
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS — BN."
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
5. (5 Min.) PRESENTATION BY GREGORY SULLIVAN ISAACS ON THE CASCADE SYMPHONY'S 37T" SEASON
6. (15 Min.) PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY GRANT AWARD
7. (30 Min.) PRESENTATION OF HEKINAN DELEGATION
8. (10 Min.) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE 50-m ANNIVERSARY OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS
9. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
10. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORT
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special
accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Clambers Cable, Channel 31. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday
and Monday at noon on Channel 32.