10/03/2000 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2000
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Thomas A. Miller, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis; Councilmember,
Christopher Davis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIAL ABSENT
Dave Earling, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
John Westfall, Fire Marshal
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Dave Sittauer, Fleet Maintenance Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder .
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.'
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Davis requested Items D and E be removed from the Consent Agenda. Council
President Miller requested Item B be removed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #41321 THROUGH #43869 FOR THE WEEK OF
Claim SEPTEMBER 25, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $407,060.84. APPROVAL OF CLAIM
Checks CHECKS #42928 THROUGH #42983 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $227,887.38
Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 26, 2000
Council President Miller stated he was absent from the September 26, 2000 Council meeting and would
abstain from the vote.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2000
Page 1
t
1
1
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
prove
MILLER ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
9/26/00
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
Item D• Report on Bids Opened September 26 2000 for the Olympic View Drive Retaining Wall and Award
of Contract to Wilder Construction Company ($193,368.10 Excluding Sales Tax)
Councilmember Davis requested staff provide a more detailed explanation regarding the significant
increase between the engineer's original estimate of $111,000 and the bid amount of $193,000. Assistant
City Engineer Don Fiene responded the estimate was prepared a year ago and there were few projects of
that size to use for comparison as most were larger projects. He was confident this was a good bid as
four bids had been received. He commented over 86% of the project would be funded via grants.
COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER, FOR
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item
approved is as follows:
Olympic
View Dr. (D) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED SEPTEMBER 26, 2000, FOR THE OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE
Retaining RETAINING WALL, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO WILDER CONSTRUCTION
all COMPANY ($193,368.10, EXCLUDING SALES TAX)
Item E• Authorization to Call for Bids to Replace Unit No 27 a 1987 Dump Truck in the Street Division
Councilmember Davis requested staff describe whether the need for this vehicle was due to replacement
or to provide increased capacity. Fleet Maintenance Manager Dave Sittauer responded the existing dump
truck was a 1987 model with 87,000 miles and would soon need an engine replacement. He explained an
engine replacement would cost $5,000 - $10,000. There was also a need for increased capacity. He said
the City hauled approximately 2,256 tons of debris last year; a round trip to the waste disposal site took
90 minutes. A 10 -yard dump truck could haul twice the load of the current 5 -yard dump truck, thereby
Call for reducing the number of trips to the waste disposal site as well as staff time.
Bids to
Replace COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
Unit 27, a APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1987
Dump
Truck E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO REPLACE UNIT NO. 27, A 1987 DUMP
TRUCK IN THE STREET DIVISION
3. PRESENTATION BY CASCADE SYMPHONY
ascade
JSymphonj Gregory Sullivan Isaacs, Music Director, Cascade Symphony Orchestra, presented Councilmembers
with a recently released Cascade Symphony Orchestra CD which he indicated had received incredible
reviews. He explained the Orchestra had held discussions regarding growth/no growth over the past year
and the no growth group had left to form their own organization.
Mr. Sullivan Isaacs described the first rehearsal of the Cascade Symphony Orchestra this year,
commenting it was the best orchestra he had ever stood in front of, even the players themselves were
amazed with the quality. He described this year's performances, pointing out the concerts had been
moved from Monday evenings to Sunday afternoons due to the overwhelming request from audience
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2000
Page 2
members. The orchestra performs on Monday nights at the Moore Theater in Seattle, where their
program with local advertisements provides exposure for Edmonds.
Mr. Sullivan Isaacs invited Councilmembers and the public to come to listen to the orchestra and
expressed his appreciation for the City's support of the orchestra. He advised the orchestra would
perform two concerts for Edmonds School District students on October 17. He commented after
departing the Council meeting, he would be leading the first rehearsal of the new Community Chorus at
Edmonds Community College.
ire 4. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF FIRE PREVENTION WEEK, OCTOBER 8-14,2000
Prevention
Week Mayor Haakenson presented a Proclamation to Fire Marshal John Westfall declaring October 8 -14, 2000
Fire Prevention Week.
Fire Marshal Westfall said the City and Fire Department recognition of Fire Prevention Week would
include the annual fire drill. He explained at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 11, fire apparatus
throughout the City would sound their sirens, creating an opportunity /signal for citizens to test their
smoke detectors and practice their fire escape plan.
Fire Marshal Westfall described an incident that occurred in August when a 46 -year old woman died
from smoke inhalation as a result of a fire that was started by a cigarette and self extinguished after
burning the woman's bedding. He said the room had a. smoke detector bracket but no smoke detector.
He stressed testing smoke detectors and having a fire escape plan was not just for children. He urged the
City to help the Fire Department recognize Fire Prevention week all year long.
ECDC 5. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY
20.15(B) DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.15(B) — CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS,
Critical REGARDING STEEP SLOPES
Areas/
Steep
Slopes Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained the Council requested staff address several issues when this item
was discussed at a previous public hearing. The first issue arose as a result of testimony provided at the
previous public hearing, how Snohomish County allowed development on steep slopes. Mr. Bullock
explained Snohomish County required a geotechnical report for any project proposed on a steep slope
hazard area. Snohomish County staff reviewed the geotechnical report; Snohomish County did not have
geotechnical engineers on staff to review the report and no peer review was done. Therefore,
Snohomish County had no ability for staff to refute the information in the geotechnical report. He said
that process would not provide the necessary assurances and he personally did not want to be the person
responsible for reviewing a geotechnical report and determining whether it was adequate. He preferred
the proposed process where an applicant submitted a geotechnical report for peer review or the
geotechnical report was performed via an independent three -party contract.
The second issue the Council requested staff address was notice requirements for an exemption from a
steep slope hazard area. He explained a new section was added to the ordinance that required a project
proposed on a steep slope hazard area of greater than 20,000 square feet (the area to be impacted), to
provide the notice outlined in Chapter 20.95. He explained this includes mailed notice to property
owners within 300 feet, posting the site and advertising in the local newspaper. Only mailed notice
would be provided to adjacent properties for affected areas of less than 20, 000 square feet.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2000
Page 3
The third issue the Council requested staff address was how the proposed regulations matched up with
Chapter 19.05. Mr. Bullock explained a draft of the proposed changes to Chapter 19.05 were included in
the Council packet to illustrate the type of information required with the geotechnical report and how a
peer review would be conducted. He said the regulations in Chapter 19.05 were referenced in Chapter
20.15(B) but not duplicated.
Mr. Bullock indicated he would provide a few minor spelling corrections to City Attorney Scott Snyder
to be included in the document prior to final approval. Mr. Bullock said staff recommended approval but
requested the effective date remain open to allow a fee schedule resolution that addressed fees for peer
review to be drafted. He said that information would be provided on the Consent Agenda at the next
Council meeting.
City Attorney Scott Snyder indicated the revisions were made in accordance with Council direction at the
previous public hearing. He recalled Councilmember White referred to lots of 20,000 square feet; Mr.
Snyder said often only a portion of a lot would be within a critical area and that was the reason the
regulations referred to lots or portions of lots. He said the ordinance retained the existing exclusion for
stable soils although a geotechnical report and peer review or a third -party contract would be required. If
the geotechnical report determined the soils were inherently stable, the development of the property
would proceed under the Uniform Building Code and not under the heightened requirements of Chapter
19.05.
Councilmember White asked how it would be determined whether a site qualified for the exemption.
Mr. Bullock said that would be addressed in the geotechnical report. He said although the City had a
map identifying those areas, a geotechnical report would still be required to confirm the physical
characteristics of the property. Councilmember White observed peer review would be conducted
regardless of the soil type. Mr. Bullock agreed.
Councilmember Orvis observed that building could not occur on steep slopes if it was not stable soil.
Mr. Bullock agreed.. Mr. Snyder explained the full review process of the Critical Areas Ordinance would
be followed. and subject to the requirements of Chapter 19.05. He said it would be procedurally more
difficult and technically more involved.. Mr. Bullock referred to Chapter 20.15B.110(D), "Steep Slope
Hazard Areas. No development or alteration shall be allowed in steep slope hazard areas..." which he
pointed out presumed no development would occur on steep slopes. He explained only if certain
requirements were met, could an exemption be acquired to build on a steep slope.
Councilmember Orvis observed development in areas without stable soils would be just as difficult as it
was now. Mr. Bullock agreed.
Council President Miller referred to the statement in Mr. Snyder's memo, "at the discretion of the staff, a
complete independent review of the technical analysis for site conditions could be conducted at the
applicant's expense" and asked what objective criteria was in place for staff to make this decision. Mr.
Bullock explained this provision gave staff another option to potentially require peer review. He said
there was currently no criteria; if an applicant submitted a report and staff was comfortable with the
qualification and experience of the person preparing the report, staff would likely only require peer
review. Only if there were serious concerns regarding the individual preparing the report would an
independent analysis be required. Mr. Snyder explained ' the City had an extensive history in the
Meadowdale area. The major criteria was what would be at risk — development on a hillside that would
endanger a road, school, and other homes would have heightened scrutiny compared with a slope that
was wholly contained on the property and only the property owners themselves would be at risk.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2000
Page 4
For Council President Miller, Mr. Snyder pointed out a third -party contract did not necessarily equate to
spending more money. He said there may be some situations where it would be less expensive to begin
with a third -party review.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Peter Hart, 10415 228`" Street SW, Edmonds, commended Mr. Snyder, Mr. Bullock and the Council
for revising the ordinance. He found the ordinance very satisfactory although he said the legalese was
somewhat perplexing. He suggested there be a directive /flowchart to describe how the process would be
carried out.
Chuck Warner, 20021 88" Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed concern that a directive /flowchart to
interpret the ordinance was necessary. He applauded the effort to address the critical areas ordinance in a
sensible manner but was unable to support the ordinance in its current format. He said the reason the
regulations were being revised was to rectify the perception that steep slopes in Edmonds could not be
developed. He said recent experience has shown steep slopes in Edmonds could be developed. He said
the proposed ordinance did not address the issue of equity of outcome, did not make the process easier,
and did not provide increased protection for the City. He urged the Council to reject the ordinance
because it had not addressed any of the perceived difficulties. He said under the current regulations, only
two requirements must be met to qualify for a critical areas variance. He said there were also
notification provisions for a critical areas variance. He said based on recent experience in the City, it did
not appear there was a problem developing on steep slopes or critical areas, but there was a problem with
making the same, reasonable decision each time. He further questioned whether Snohomish County had
experienced any problem with development occurring based on guidance provided via the geotechnical
report. He pointed out a professional geotechnical engineer followed professional guidelines and would
recommend design criteria that would be suitable.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, questioned whether the Council could leave the
effective date of the ordinance open.
John. Bissell, 19237 Aurora Avenue N, Shoreline (Edmonds resident), spoke in favor of the
ordinance, stating it was a good first step. He said the 40% steep slope critical area was determined via
an average of steep or unstable slopes in the Puget Sound area. He pointed out an average meant some
slopes that were substantially steeper were adequate to build on. He was in favor of the ordinance
because it made sense to allow development on slopes steeper than 40% if they were stable. He agreed
with Mr. Warner's premise that geotechnical engineers were licensed by the State and problems did not
occur in other jurisdictions because geotechnical engineers bore a great deal of liability by approving
plans. However, he also understood the City's concerns. He urged the Council to pass the ordinance as a
first step and to continue monitoring the regulations.
There being no one else present wishing to address this issue, Mayor Haakenson closed the public
participation portion of the public hearing.
Mr. Snyder explained this segment of the Critical Areas Ordinance was pulled out and moved forward
more quickly than the remainder. The intent was to address difficulties in application of the variance
provisions and the reasonable use exemption, areas where the Council has heard appeals and where Mr.
Warner's concerns have arisen in the past. He said this portion of the ordinance was moved forward as it
appeared to have a clear scientific basis. He said the variance and reasonable use exceptions are being
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2000
Page 5
reviewed in an attempt to make them more user friendly. He said the difficulty with considering this
segment by itself was it referenced the reasonable exemption and the variance provisions which may be
required to develop steeper slopes.
Mr. Snyder responded to Mr. Rutledge's question regarding the effective date, explaining the effective
date would be five days after approval and publication. Staff recommended the ordinance be placed on a
future agenda so that the fee ordinance to address the cost of peer review could be adopted at the same
time the ordinance was adopted.
Regarding the necessity for peer review, Mr. Snyder explained due to Regulatory Reform, citizens were
at a distinct disadvantage whenever technical information was provided. A citizen who wanted to
challenge the granting of an exemption with the Hearing Examiner had approximately 2 -3 weeks to
create a record. If the citizen indicated the geotechnical report was inadequate, the matter proceeded to
appeal before the Council. Under the Substantial and Competent Evidence Doctrine, the Council had no
choice but to accept the approved geotechnical report if an independent review had not been provided by
the citizen. Citizens typically do not have time or resources to review a geotechnical report. Having
peer review assured the Council there would be an independent review and if the matter was appealed, an
independent assessment of the report had already been accomplished.
Council President Miller asked Mr. Snyder to address insurance coverage to protect the City and adjacent
property owners. Mr. Snyder explained the City deleted the residential insurance requirements because
an owner of a residence was unable at the present time in this State to obtain public liability insurance
although commercial properties could. He said a commercial property that was not exempted from the
provisions of Chapter 19.05 would need to provide insurance if the draft Chapter 19.05 was approved.
Council President Miller said the recommendations made by Mr. Hart at the previous public hearing had
been incorporated into the regulations, particularly peer review. Council President Miller pointed out
Mr. Bissell was a former Planning Department employee and was a highly qualified expert. Council
President Miller indicated his satisfaction with the ordinance. He acknowledged there were concerns
with the legalese but was satisfied with the ordinance as a first step and suggested staff continue their
efforts to make the ordinance more user friendly.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER,
TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder advised staff would place the ordinance on the next Consent Agenda along with the fee
schedule resolution.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Gambling Richard Marin, 18918 80 "' Avenue W, Edmonds, congratulated and thanked the Council for their
recent action regarding prohibiting, gambling in Edmonds. He said most things the Council did were
important but this action was defining in addition to important as it helped define the character of the
community.
I rry Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled last week the Washington State Department of
rage Trans ortation WSDOT made a resentation to the Council re ardin $585 000 in fe traffic
prove- p � � p regarding � m'
eats improvements. He said, after talking with the WSDOT representative, he determined there were no
studies that addressed the detrimental affects of the Pine Street closure and there were no traffic counts
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2000
Page 6
available. He drove the area several times last week and determined that 95% of the problem was not
present 95% of the time, only traffic on Friday evening and late afternoons was a problem. The WSDOT .
representative informed him one of the problems in Edmonds was the lack of dedicated lanes for ferry
traffic. He commented there was ample opportunity for three lanes from 5`h Avenue to Dayton, two
dedicated lanes for ferry stacking and one for westward travel. He said WSDOT did not address solving
traffic issues via greater capacity. He said the problems created by the closure of Pine Street were
immense including backing traffic into other neighborhoods and closing a major intersection in the City.
The main problem was traffic currently using 3`d Avenue would be diverted to 9th Avenue, forcing local
residents who use 9`h Avenue to compete with ferry traffic. He suggested the issue be addressed from a
capacity standpoint and reiterated the Pine Street closure would be problematic.
Mayor Haakenson advised a public hearing regarding the ferry access study was scheduled for October
17.
state Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, requested City administration inform the public of
Funding I the funds provided the City to replace funds lost as a result of I -695. He pointed out his understanding
that the City was over budget in the first and second quarter this year. He also announced the Friends of
!Friends of
Library the Edmonds Library book sale on October 28.
rary
7. MAYOR'S REPORT
edic 7 Mayor Haakenson said last Tuesday he announced he would be making ,a presentation to the Medic . 7
Board regarding the possibility of dissolving Medic 7. After much deliberation, the Medic 7 Board voted
4 -1 to study the possibility of dissolving Medic 7, to study the assets and liabilities and return with a
recommendation to the full Board. If the unanimous recommendation was to dissolve the Medic 7
Board, information would be provided to all City Councils in South Snohomish County for their
deliberation.
stare In response to Mr. Rutledge's comment, Mayor Haakenson advised the State funding returned to the City
Funding I was $222,000 in 2000 and $444,000 in 2001, slightly less than half the funding the City was relieved of
via I -695.
oot Mayor Haakenson said the Mayor's budget message and preliminary budget would be presented to the
Budget Council at next week's meeting, approximately three weeks sooner than it had been presented in the past.
He said a meeting of the full Council would precede Council community meetings next week.
Town A Town Meeting regarding the budget has been scheduled for Saturday, October 28 at 9:00 a.m. at the
Meeting Edmonds Theater.
8. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
Council President Miller advised Councilmember Earling was absent from tonight's meeting as he was
in Eastern Washington on Sound Transit business.
Revenues Council President Miller responded to Mr. Rutledge's comment regarding revenues and pointed out the
City Council received a budget report each quarter that indicated the City was "in the black" and had
increasing sales tax revenues.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2000
Page 7
tural Councilmember Plunkett advised staff planned to revise the cultural arts. plan in the Comprehensive Plan.
arming A Cultural Planning Advisory Committee was formed to consider possible amendments to the cultural
"So'' arts plan. He said the Committee, reviewed how the City had advanced the goals of the cultural, arts plan
mmittee
since 1994. The Committee determined the goals had been advanced via increased public art, the
development of the Floral Arts Center, advertising on the Internet, public art on the waterfront, tourism
brochures distributed throughout the Puget Sound area, concerts in the parks, flowers, etc. The
Committee also concluded there were some goals that had not been met such as the lack of a performing
arts center, no link between the 30 art entities in Edmonds, and lack of a physical.. link of arts in
Edmonds. The Committee planned to hold several community workshops, the first on Thursday,
October 12 at 4:00 p.m. on the third floor of City Hall, to determine what the community envisioned for
art in Edmonds. A survey of residents would also be conducted to seek input. The Committee would
then make recommendations regarding the Cultural Arts Plan that would be forwarded to the City
Council for possible inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
RY H KENSON, MAYOR
I I
IV- Lf0e,,e-e,
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2000
Page 8
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
vim Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 p.m.
OCTOBER 3, 2000
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 SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #41321 THROUGH #43869 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2000, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $407,060.84. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #42928 THROUGH #42983 FOR THE
WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 IN THE AMOUNT OF $227,887.38.
(D) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED SEPTEMBER 26, 2000, FOR THE OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE RETAINING WALL,
AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO WILDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ($193,368.10, EXCLUDING SALES
TAX) .
(E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO REPLACE UNIT NO. 27, A 1987 DUMP TRUCK IN THE STREET
DIVISION
3. (10 Min.) PRESENTATION BY CASCADE SYMPHONY
4. ( 5 Min.) PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF FIRE PREVENTION WEEK, OCTOBER 8-14,2000
5. (30 Min.) SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE SECTION 20.15(B) — CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS, REGARDING STEEP SLOPES
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
7. ( 5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
8. (15 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS /UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance
7otice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46 Delayed telecast of this meeting appear:
'he following Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46.