05/07/1985 City CouncilL,
THESE MINUTES SUBJECT
TO MAY 14 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
May 7, 1985
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor
Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Rodin of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the
flag salute.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor Laura Hall Bobby Mills, Actg. Pub. Wks. Supt.
John Nordquist Jim Adams, City Engineer
Steve Dwyer Steve Simpson, Parks & Rec. Dir.
Jo -Anne Jaech Mary Lou Block, Planning Director
Bill Kasper Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Lloyd Ostrom Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jack Wilson Shirlie Witzel, Recorder
Doug Reuble, Student Rep.
Mayor Naughten proclaimed the week of May 12 through May 18 as Hospital Week in recognition
of Stevens Memorial Hospital and its employees and presented the proclamation to Janet
Livingston. He also urged citizens to avail themselves of the free health screening being
offered during the the Health Fair at Stevens Hospital on May 16 from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Council President John Nordquist introduced Christine Fleckenstein, newly selected Council
Resource Person.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Naughten advised that Item (E), Authorization for Mayor to Sign Contract With Lee
Johnson Associates for Design of Improvements at Brackett's Landing ($22,500), had .been
postponed to the May 14 agenda. He also noted that there had been a request to move Item 5
on the Agenda to follow the Audience portion because of the length of the two appeals
scheduled as Items 3 and 4. Councilmember Wilson objected since there may be people waiting
until a later hour to appear for that hearing. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO SCHEDULE ITEM 5, HEARING TO OBTAIN PUBLIC INPUT REGARDING ADOPTION
OF POWERS OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AS ITEM 3 ON THE AGENDA. MOTION. CARRIED WITH
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO.
Items (B) and (0) were removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE 'CONSENT
AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(C) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed from Ronald and Anita Rennebohm.
(F) Authorization for Parks and Recreation Department to call for bids for construction
of new park Signs.
(G) Adoption of Ordinance 2492 relating to Council meeting time and days to provide
for Council Committee meetings.
(H) Adoption of Planning Board recommendation to approve rezone request from RS-12 to
RS-8 for south 70' of property located at 19619 88th Ave. W. (R-1-85/Robert Lakey)
(I) Set date of May 21, 1985 for hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend Chap-
ter 21.05 of the Community Development Code defining the term "Alley." (CDC-12-84)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 1985.AND APRIL 30, 1985 [Item (B) on Consent Agenda]
Councilmember Kasper asked that the April 30, 1985 minutes be corrected on page 3, paragraph
7, first line, to read "Councilmember Jaech said a recent meeting held by Mayor Naughten
and attended by Councilmember Kasper.." COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 23 AND 30, 1985, AS CORRECTED. MOTION
CARRIED.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 1 May 7, 1985
AUTHORIZATION TO SELL SURPLUS POLICE MOTORCYCLE [Item (D) on Consent Agenda
Because he had questions regarding this item, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO RESCHEDULE THE AUTHORIZATION TO SELL SURPLUS POLICE MOTORCYCLE TO
THE MAY 14 CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING TO OBTAIN PUBLIC INPUT REGARDING ADOPTION OF POWERS OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Councilmember Dwyer announced that explanatory materials were available at the back of the
room. He said that Councilmember Ostrom and he had raised this issue and asked for a
preliminary hearing to discover whether there is public support for adding these powers to
the City Code. Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing.
Anne Salina, 8620 Olympic View Dr., spoke in support of this issue, quoting from an article
she had written for the Enterprise in 1971. She encouraged the Council to grant the powers
of initiative and referendum, now available at the State level, to citizens of Edmonds.
Bill Mathias, 548 Holly Dr., also supported granting these powers since Edmonds is a first
class city and first class cities have these powers, He felt the powers would aid decisions
made by the Council.
Since there was no further testimony to come before the Council, Mayor Naughten closed the
public hearing. He acknowledged a letter received from Anne Spivey, 300 Caspers, which
favored granting the powers of initiative and referendum to residents of Edmonds.
Councilmember Kasper said the Council maintains an open forum and has been responsive to
petitions submitted in the past. Fie expressed doubt about how the initiative and referendum
process would be handled in view of the new regulations from the Courthouse on charging and
backcharging for elections. He did not feel the cost had any bearing but felt there was too
much uncertainty at this time. He said the petition process has worked well in Edmonds.
Councilmember Nordquist commented that the situation in Ballinger regarding the traffic
circle was an example of the confusion that may arise from the petition process, in that
people signed separate petitions because they were not aware of what they were signing.
Councilmember Kasper observed that the same applies to the referendum process also_
Councilmember Dwyer said petitions would not be barred under the present proposal. However,
the advantage of the initiative and referendum process would be that the Council can know,
before an election, that there are a substantial amount of people who have disagreed with a
Council action, since there is a requirement that signatures of 15% of the registered voters
(approximately 2400) must be gathered in 30 days. In comparison with the petition process,
he said the important difference is, that upon presentation of 2400 valid signatures should
the Council decide not to change their minds, the matter would be placed on a ballot. He
said the Council does hot take action that is designed to be unpopular; however, these
powers afford an opportunity when an error is made or the Council should refuse to admit
that error, providing an opportunity to go elsewhere for an evaluation. Councilmember
Kasper asked if that would also apply to Councilmanic bonds. City Attorney Scott Snyder
replied in the negative, since neither the budget nor any part of the debt cycle is subject
to the referendum process.
Councilmember Ostrom favors the proposal because it would provide a vehicle for a higher
degree of public participation in the governmental process. He agreed with Councilmember
Dwyer's comments regarding the use of referendum power to question Council actions; however,
he said there is also the,possibflity that citizens may initiate legislation and determine
whether a majority concurs. He said the State was a pioneer in the use of initiative and
referendum powers and that power is available to cities. To his knowledge, there have not
been any problems with the granting of those powers to residents in Seattle. He said he
would not expect any frivolous measures since it is too much work obtaining the necessary
signatures. He believes the powers should be adopted.
Councilmember Wilson asked for clarification of the initiative power and the cost factor of
these powers to the City. Mr. Snyder replied that citizens may initiate or bring forward
legislation and the statutes are not as clear on limitations of initiatives as they are on
referendums. He was not able to determine any cost factor, saying the City Clerk must
review petitions for sufficiency and there would be the City's proportional share of the
cost of the election. He said Councilmember Kasper was referring to the new rules regarding
cost of registration of voters which is unsettled at this time.
Councilmember Wilson referred to paragraph 3 of the City Attorney's letter addressing these
powers and the limitation of items subject to the referendum, which may result in
frustration on the part of the citizen. He said he felt the language used was rather strong
and feels the Council should pay attention to it.
rl
1
1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 May 7, 1985
Councilmember Dwyer said he had considered the concerns expressed by the Attorney. He said
that many of the same restrictions apply at the State level regarding the budget, etc., but
the system on the State level is defensible. He said anyone initiating legislation would
check with the City Clerk regarding procedures and anyone intending a referendum should know
whether the issue was subject to referendum action. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, (1) THAT THE CITY COUNCIL EXPRESS ITS INTENTION TO ADOPT THE POWERS OF
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE OPTIONAL MUNICIPAL CODE; (Z) THAT THE CITY
ATTORNEY BE DIRECTED TO PREPARE AN APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THIS INTENTION AND THAT
THIS RESOLUTION BE PLACED ON THE MAY 14, 1985, CONSENT AGENDA FOR PASSAGE; AND (3) THAT THE
CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY STAFF BE DIRECTED TO BEGIN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS
OF THE OPTIONAL MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING THOSE OF NOTICE AND HEARING, WHICH MUST
NECESSARILY PRECEDE FINAL ADOPTION OF THESE POWERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
Councilmember Kasper indicated his intention to vote against the motion since there has not
been a circumstance where the Council has not responded to a petition. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS
TAKEN WITH COUNCILMEMBERS NOROQUIST, DWYER, JAECH, AND OSTROM VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
KASPER AND WILSON VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO MODIFY GREENBELT COVENANT ON PLAT OF ROB'S
ADDITION (ROBERT BRUBAKER, JR./P-1-85) AND
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION DENYING SHORT SUBDIVISION S-36-83
(APPELLANT: ROBERT BRUBAKER, JR.)
Mayor Naughten explained that Robert Brubaker, Jr., has agreed that these two hearings will
be conducted simultaneously. He advised that Mr. Brubaker, represented by attorney, will
be allowed 15 minutes for an opening statement and 15 minutes for a closing statement.
Since there are 4 people who wish to speak, he will allow 5 minutes for each person.
Planning Director Mary Lou Block explained that these two issues are intertwined and it
would be difficult to separate the testimony on the two items to hear them individually.
Ms. Block reviewed the history of both Mr. Brubaker's request for greenbelt modification
and his appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny short subdivision S-36-83. She
said the applicant had demonstrated that the greenbelt covenant should be modified, since
the topography is not that steep on the area of Lot 4 from which the greenbelt would be
lifted. The Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
to modify the greenbelt covenant as set forth in his report. In regard to the denial of
subdivision S-36-83, she said the Hearing Examiner's concern was with the inadequacy of the
proposed access road, which is too steep and would require excessive grading. Ms. Block
noted that the Staff recommends upholding the decision of the Hearing Examiner unless the
appellant can demonstrate that a better access road can be developed.
Several slides of the area and transparencies depicting the vicinity map and various access
proposals were shown. Councilmember Ostrom asked why the configuration of the new lot was
rectangular within a contoured area and asked what elevation occurred on the property. Ms.
Block read the description of the elevation from an exhibit and explained that the shape of
the lot was to make it a standard building lot and said the lot meets zoning requirements.
She said the proposed access routes were not acceptable to Mr. Hudak. Ms. Block indicated
that Mr. Brubaker, Jr., has a new access proposal to present this evening. In response to
a question from Councilmember Jaech, Ms. Block described the new access proposal,
indicating that it was submitted to the staff for their review, but had not been before the
Hearing Examiner. The new access proposal would necessitate a 3' rather than an 8'
retaining wall and would reduce the amount of cut needed. She said the Council has
authority to approve or disapprove the proposal this evening and added that Mr. Hudak had
written to express his acceptance of the new proposal, reading his letter for the record.
Mr. Snyder explained that the Council is conducting a de novo hearing and is not bound be
any previous action. If the Council feels this should be heard by the Hearing Examiner,
they can remand it to him or approve the proposal themselves.
Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing.
Derrill Bastian, representing Mr. Brubaker, Sr. and Jr. and located in the First
Interstate Bank Building in Lynnwood, used the previous slides to illustrate his points and
concurred with the presentation made by the Planning Director. Mr. Bastion said the
Hearing Examiner had approved the removal of the greenbelt and approved the subdivision
provided access was available in his first report. In the second report, he said, the
Hearing Examiner indicated a different access and said the subdivision would be approved if
that access were obtained; however, Mr. Hudak did not accept the access across his
property. Mr. Bastian said there was an easement to the property when it was originally
platted and commented that the Brubakers wished to make every effort to meet the necessary
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 May 7, 1985
requirements for the access, describing the new proposal which should not require removal of
any trees and will eliminate the need for cuts, instead requiring a rockery and fill. The
proposed access also follows very closely the water -way easement and has a 4% grade. Mr.
Bastion commented that the Hearing Examiner had interpreted the original resolve of the
Council concerning preservation of steep slopes and this proposal takes that into
consideration. He added that the City Engineer and Planning Department have reviewed the
proposal, subject to precise realignment of the drive and said this would be one common
driveway with abandonment of the present driveway on Mr. Hudak's property. Mr. Bastion
contended that the Hearing Examiner report clearly indicated that resolution of the access
problem would make the plat acceptable. He asked the Council to approve the plat and accept
the recommendation in respect to the grbenbelt modification. In reference to Hearing
Examiner recommendation I (the reworded greenbelt restriction proposal), Mr. Bastion asked
that a correction be made in line eight to read "No clearing, grading, filling or
construction of any kind shall occur within this area except for necessary right-of-way and
utility installations."
Robert Brubaker, Sr., 3 Park P1., said he had no further contribution, but is available to
answer any questions.
Robert Brubaker, Jr., 4 Park P1., indicated that he also was present to answer any
questions.
Rick Spellman, 21016 Shell Valley Way,said one year ago these same issues were examined in a
series of five meetings. He said the residents of the Shell Valley neighborhood have
invested a great deal of time and effort because it is important to them. He said they have
been expressing personal opinions and asked the Edmonds City Council to stand behind
decisions that have been made, take responsibility for those decisions and continue those
decisions over a reasonable period of time. He said he was sure the Councii knew what was
involved, expressing their decision in terms such as "a permanent greenbelt" and "never a
structure shall be built." He said the residents of Shell Valley had also made a decision to
buy their homes, the largest single investment they will probably make, based on the
decision of the Council. However, they have now heard a Hearing Examiner state that their
concerns about child safety and property values are not legitimate. He noted that several
of the staff and Council who have been involved in this issue are no longer present and
hopes this has not turned into a battle of attrition. He said they want someone to tell
them how a private citizen makes a decision based on existing facts, figures,and Council
minutes with assurance that the decision will be carried out; he asked if there should be a
dollar limit to be spent in making that decision; and he asked what someone should do to
protect himself from these changes.
Karl Ahl, 21010 Shell Valley Wy, who lives on Lot 5, concurred with the statements made by
Mr. Spellman. He said they are tired of the battle. He said he had researched with the
Planning Department prior to purchasing their property, finding provision for a greenbelt,
an easement for utility services, and a prohibition on buildings of any kind. Now it
appears there will be loss of a greenbelt, loss of privacy in his backyard, and loss of
property value because of the first two losses. He asked the Council to make a decision
that concurs with previous decisions and protects the value judgments made at that time.
Todd Gruenhagen, 21036 Shell Valley Wy, said he had been involved in the previous five
meetings regarding removal of a greenbelt covenant and the short plat. He said the
presentation of a new alignment of the drive and modification of a smaller portion of the
greenbelt were a surprise to him. Those items were not addressed in prior hearings and he
said they were unprepared in addressing them. Mr. Gruenhagen said there was a colloquy in
1980 between Mr. Brubaker, Sr., -and Mr. Brubaker, Jr., concerning the allowance of
creation of Maple Creek Sub Plat in the Subdivision of Rob's Addition. He said all the
property belonged to Mr. Brubaker, Sr. Mr. Gruenhagen said the minutes contained the
dialogue of what the greenbelt meant and the language, as recorded, is clear and
unambiguous. The Hearing Examiner's suggestion to modify the greenbelt covenant, he said,
would make it more complicated. He indicated that everyone buying in the area relied on the
land remaining in its natural state. He believes there was an arms length transaction at
that time and Mr. Brubaker, Sr., as owner, knew what that status was. The grade may be
less steep than contemplated, but the Comprehensive Plan allows for conservation of areas
that are 15% or greater in grade and this land is 16% in grade. Mr. Gruenhagen said they
would like to rely on the greenbelt covenant as created. Former decisions against the
applicant were correct, he said.
Since there was some time remaining and no one else wished to speak, Mayor Naughten allowed
additional time for those who had spoken previously.
Rick Spellman said they held no animosity toward Mr. Brubaker and agreed that a person
should be able to maximize the use of their land and resources; however, there are a number
of people other than Mr. Brubaker involved. lie noted that Mr. Brubaker was compensated
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 May 7, 1985
for the decisions he made in utilizing the land; striking a bargain with the City of Edmonds
in regard to the greenbelt. Now he is back and Mr. Spellman feels the status quo should be
maintained.
Todd Gruenhagen referred to Finding 15 of the Hearing Examiner's report regarding granting
of no further easements by Hudak; yet a new proposal is now before the Council. He then
referred to Finding 27 of the report and read the paragraph, indicating that the public use
and interest is to be served by the City Council. He said the public interest of Shell
Creek stands in opposition to the proposals. He then noted that the street created to serve
the existing community is surcharged and additional traffic would result from the proposed
subdivision. He then referred to Conclusion 5 of the report and said it appears the rules
are changing as they go along with an inadequate opportunity to address and deal with the
changes. He said they have made substantial investments in the Edmonds lifestyle, there
has been no change in the land since 1980, and the proposed changes would result in economic
detriment to the residents of Shell Valley. He urged the Council to take that into
consideration and stand by the decision made last year, denying the application for
modification of the greenbelt covenant and the sub plat.
Councilmember Dwyer asked Mr. Gruenhagen and Mr. Bastion to comment on whether a doctrine
of estoppal applies to the apparent contract made in 1980 by Mr. Brubaker, Sr., and who the
beneficiaries of that agreement are. Mr. Gruenhagen said three legal doctrines apply:
estoppal, unclean hands, and laches. He said four years have elapsed and the agreement is
not subject to vacillation, and read Conclusion 3 of the Hearing Examiner's report. He also
believes that Mr. Brubaker is estepped and has unclean hands. He said there is a wealth of
legal authority that precludes Mr. Brubaker from attacking the validity of the greenbelt
covenant. Mr. Gruenhagen said not all of the residents would fit within a third party
beneficiary description; however, every resident of Edmonds is a beneficiary of the
greenbelt in relation to the esthetic benefits derived and its use as a sight and sound
buffer. As a practical matter the residents of Shell Valley benefit more than someone
across town. He commented that Yost Park was dedicated to the City on condition that it
remain in its natural state and has been a benefit to the community.
Derrill Bastion said the minutes of the Council meeting in 1980 were considered during the
Hearing before the Hearing Examiner. and referred to Finding 5 of the report and read from
line 4 on page 4 regarding the steep slope portions of Lots 3 and 4. He said the map used
by the Council in determining the greenbelt was inaccurate and the minutes show the Council
did not intend to confiscate property that was not on the steep slope. In regard to the
question about estoppal, he said Mr. Brubaker agreed to protection of the steep slope
areas. However, he does have a full and complete level lot and has the right to use that
lot. There is no contractual relationship in existence, he said, since placing a covenant
is exercising a police power. No one ever gains a right to use of a police power, he said.
Mr. Bastion quoted from the Supreme Court case of Norco vs King County in which it was
stated that a man may use his property as he sees fit. He said a covenant is out of place
in zoning and Mr. Brubaker is not estopped since he was not striking a bargain. Mr.
Bastion displayed a slide of the greenbelt behind Mr. Ahl's house and indicated that it
would not be disturbed by the proposed development. Mr. Bastion then referred to letters
from property owners surrounding the Lot in question in which there was no objection to the
subdivision. In reference to the statement that the City Council must stand behind their
decision, he said the Council would not have made the same decision if they had had the
information then that is now available.
Mr. Gruenhagen requested additional time to rebut matters just addressed. Mayor Naughten
granted him three minutes.
Todd Gruenhagen said there has been an attempt to define what the City Council intended in
1980. He indicated that the minutes of that meeting show that pictures were used by the
City Council in reviewing Lots 3 and 4. He said Mr. Brubaker, Sr., is charged with an
awareness of the status of the land at the time of the proceedings in 1980 to the present.
He noted that there were three meetings in 1980 held in February, June and July. He quoted
from these minutes indicating that the property could not be subdivided further in reference
to Lot 4. He called attention to and read from the March 20 report of Hearing Examiner
James Driscoll, Conclusion 4, in which the modification was not found to be consistent with
City codes and ordinances. He said there was reference to the vegetation on Lots 3 and 4 in
the minutes, indicating there was something more than mature trees to which they were
referring. He read Conclusion 5 of Mr. Driscoll's report and said there are factors that
are consistent with their position in asking the City Council to keep the greenbelt
covenant. Mr. Gruenhagen said the City Council did not place Mr. Brubaker under duress in
1980 and does not believe there was any taking without due process of any property right.
Mr. Bastion said the minutes of these meetings should not be taken out of context and
suggested the Council reread those minutes if they have any questions. He noted he had been
referring to minutes of the Planning Commission dated February 28, 1980. He said the
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 May 7, 1985
findings and conclusions of Mr. Driscoll are irrelevant to the present proceeding since he
was considering a different application and the current proposal deals with that portion of
Lot 4 that is flat and meets the zoning code. The Hearing Examiner heard comments that
dealt with disturbing the neighborhood; however, he said, this will be just one more single
family lot, with seven average car trips per day as determined by national transportation
studies. Mr. Bastion requested the Council to sustain the steep slope part, sustain the
intent of the short plat (allowing them to work out the exact location of the access), and
allow Mr. Brubaker to use his lot.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Nordquist asked why Mr. Driscoll had not heard this application. Ms. Block
explained that Mr. Brubaker had requested another Hearing Examiner and the City Attorney
had advised the City to honor that request. Mr. Snyder said the issue of prejudgmental
bias was easy to eliminate in that way.
Councilmember Kasper wished to ask Mr. Brubaker some questions. Councilmember Jaech raised
a point of order that questions are not allowed after closing the public portion of the
hearing. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC
PORTION OF THE HEARING TO ALLOW COUNCILMEMBER KASPER TO ASK HIS QUESTIONS. THERE WAS A ROLL
CALL VOTE WITH COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST, DWYER, KASPER, AND WILSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH AND OSTROM VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kasper asked if Mr. Brubaker had ever intended to have a lot there and
whether he was stopped at the time by the staff. Mr. Brubaker said there were long range
plans, that was why he kept the easements, but he was not precluded at that time. He said
his opinion and knowledge of the property was no different than that of the Planning
Commission members at that time and they were all of the opinion that the restriction was
necessary for the purpose intended. He challenged the restriction and asked for its meaning
but with the understanding that it was necessary to protect the slopes. Councilmember
Kasper said the Council was concerned about erosion and not a greenbelt. He said it appears
the greenbelt was extended too far. Mr. Brubaker said the Planning Commission was
concerned at that time about further development of Lot 3, not Lot 4, which is supported by
Covenant Restriction 2.
Councilmember Wilson asked if Mr. Brubaker denies Finding of Fact 5, "The Planning
Commission Minutes of 1980 indicate that the City wanted the steep slope areas of 3 and 4 to
be designated as permanent greenbelt areas on the recorded plat in order to insure that
there would be no development down the slope. A Planning Commissioner explained to Mr.
Brubaker, Sr., that at no time in the future could a structure be built there. Mr.
Brubaker said he saw nothing wrong with that." Mr. Brubaker said the statement was true.
Councilmember Dwyer said he had no desire to vote on this issue tonight. lie suggested the
public hearing remain closed but continue the hearing for two weeks, allowing the Council to
go through the 56 exhibits and look at the minutes of the meetings that have been referred
to in the testimony.
Councilmember Nordquist said he had talked with the City Clerk and the tapes will be made
available for Council Members to hear.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO CONTINUE THE COUNCIL PORTION
OF THE HEARING TO MAY 21, 1985. Mr. Snyder suggested that the hearing be continued as
intended by the motion in order to add these tapes and anything else to be considered along
with the exhibits to the record.` He also reminded the Council that receipt of any written
or oral communications between now and the time a decision is reached should be noted in
order to enter them into the record. He also suggested that Council Members discourage ex
parte communications from anyone. Councilmember Dwyer asked that the Council Resource
Person be made custodian of the exhibits for the next two weeks and that a record be kept of
who has taken what.
Councilmember Ostrom said he would like to visit the site again and asked if that would be
acceptable.
Mayor Naughten allowed Mr. Bastion to inquire regarding procedure. Mr. Bastion said their
position would be that the Council may not take any more testimony, written or oral, from
anyone since the hearing is closed and there would be no opportunity to rebut such
testimony. He said the tapes and minutes of prior meetings are a part of the record.
Councilmember Dwyer asked for clarification of what Mr. Bastion. means; would he object to
reading of minutes which may not be in the record. Mr. Bastion replied affirmatively. In
an attempt to clarify what is included in the record, Mr. Bastion said any information that
has come to Council members from the Staff or through minutes of the Planning Commission or
City Council dealing with the 1980 hearings may be considered. Mr. Bastion does object to
1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 May 7, 1985
consideration of Mr. Driscoll's reports because they deal with a different application and
there would be no chance to rebut it. Councilmember Dwyer asked Mr. Snyder if Mr.
Driscoll's findings and conclusions were placed in the record since this is a de novo
hearing and they were mentioned. Mr. Snyder said he would agree with Mr. Bastion that the
prior decision, unless placed in the minutes, is not a. part of the record. Any
consideration of Mr. Driscoll's report would be one hearsay statement that may be
considered as a makeweight but a finding could not be based upon it. Mr. Bastion said they
had objected to an attempt to enter that report into the hearing and the Hearing Examiner
sustained the objection.
Mr. Snyder asked that the Clerk gather together the record of the Hearing Examiner's
opinion, the exhibits, the decision, and items mentioned tonight for consideration. If
someone wishes to consider another item, he suggested that the item be held and everyone be
given notice of the additional item. Councilmember Dwyer wanted an agreement as to what is
contained in the record. Mr. Snyder suggested that the Council stick to this evening's
record and the record before the Hearing Examiner, including the exhibits. He said the
Council has an obligation to consider Mr. Brubaker's present request on its own merits on
the basis of the hearing before the Council. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the City Council
Minutes of June 3, 1980 and July 1, 1980 were the minutes from which Mr. Bastion quoted.
Mr. Bastion said he was reading from Planning Commission minutes of February 1980. He said
he concurs with Mr. Snyder's advice and, if the Council wishes to reread the 1980 Planning
Commission and City Council proceedings, he has no objection with the caveat made by the
Counsel. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER WITHDREW HIS MOTION, AGREEABLE TO SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO CONTINUE COUNCIL DISCUSSION
OF THIS MATTER TO MAY 21, 1985, PERTAINING ONLY TO THE EXHIBITS AS DISCUSSED. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Snyder suggested that if site evaluations are made, that Council Members not speak with
residents. Ms. Block asked what the Council wished to have included in their packets on
May 21.. Councilmember Dwyer asked for all 56 exhibits and the Planning Commission minutes
from 1980. Councilmember Jaech asked for City Council Minutes from 1980. Mayor Naughten
recessed the meeting for five minutes at 9:30 p.m. to clear the room. Meeting was
reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
Mayor Naughten advised those present that the Public Hearing on the Powers of Initiative and
Referendum was considered earlier in the evening, was approved, and the Council had asked
for a resolution to be drafted and included on next weeks Consent Agenda.
MAYOR
Mayor Naughten proclaimed the week of May 5 - 12 as National Music Week for the City of
Edmonds.
The Mayor said the Arts Commission, through Arts Coordinator Linda McCrystal, gathered up
100 pieces of art and distributed them to 18 businesses in Edmonds, contributing to the
quality of life that exists here. He commended the Commission and Ms. McCrystal for their
efforts.
Mayor Naughten asked for confirmation of his appointment to the Planning Board. Since the
appointee is well qualified, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
TO CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF HANK LEWIS TO THE ALTERNATE POSITION ON THE PLANNING BOARD, TERM
TO EXPIRE PECEMBER 31, 1985.
Councilmember Nordquist said he will vote against the confirmation. He feels the fact that
Mr. Lewis is a former employee of the City and has appeared before the Council as a
representative of his company would afford him extreme leverage. Even though there was
discussion in the interview of no appearance of fairness problem, he said in some cases he
perceives there may be.
Councilmember Jaech explained that she sees a problem with the heavy business involvement of
Mr. Lewis with the City and agrees that having been a City employee places Mr. Lewis in a
unique position. Therefore, she will not vote in favor of the confirmation.
Mayor Naughten said he had considered these matters and feels that Mr. Lewis's background
and education in planning as well as his association with the City makes him a contributing
member of the Planning Board. He said that type of expertise is needed and he does not see
a conflict of interest.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 May 7, 1985
Councilmember Wilson said Mr. Lewis's appearances before the Council have been of the
highest level and he sees no problem.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH COUNCILMEMBERS DWYER, KASPER, AND WILSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS NOROQUIST, JAECH, AND OSTROM VOTING NO. MAYOR NAUGHTEN VOTED YES TO BREAK
THE TIE. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Naughten proclaimed the month of May 1985 as Buddy Poppy Month in Edmonds, urging all
patriotic citizens to wear a Buddy Poppy.
The Mayor pointed out the new bulletin board in the lobby of the Library and thanked
Building and Grounds Supervisor Ed Huntley for the project. City Clerk Jackie Parrett noted
that a complete Council packet is being placed on that board each week.
COUNCIL
Councilmember Kasper would like the Community Services Committee to review problems with
Subdivision 5-7-76, Seamont Ln.; there seem to be lots that were sold without improvements
and building permits cannot be obtained.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO EXCUSE THE ABSENCE OF
COUNCILMEMBER HALL THIS EVENING. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Nordquist announced that Ms. Fleckenstein will be in the Council Office from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and will attend the Council
Committee Meetings the fourth Tuesday of the month.
Councilmember Ostrom suggested that reports of various matters be kept in the Library, such
as the budget, annual reports from the City departments, and the Highway 99 studies. He
asked that a consistent policy be determined. Councilmember Kasper said they are not sorted
or catalogued and are difficult to find. Councilmember Ostrom suggested that the Council
meet with the Librarian to discuss how this might be handled. Mayor Naughten asked that
Council Members indicate reports they think should be placed in the Library.
Councilmember Dwyer expressed objection to passage of items on the Consent Agenda such as
the rezone this evening. Mr. Snyder said this would come back as an ordinance. Ms. Block
explained the Code provides that these items are to be placed on the Consent Agenda. If
they are removed, she said, there must be a public hearing.
Councilmember Dwyer asked why the Mayor was allowed to break the tie on a vote to confirm
his own appointment. Mr. Snyder read RCW 35A.12.100 that determines when the Mayor may vote
to break a tie. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the Council may approve appointments acting as
a committee of the whole. Mr. Snyder said it would depend on the Board since appointments
are covered by different statutes. Mayor Naughten said he believed he could appoint and
confirm people to Boards and Commissions. Again, Mr. Snyder said it would depend on the
Board. He will give the Council a list with the requirements for each Board.
Councilmember Dwyer said Councilmember Wilson was correct and the hearing on powers of
initiative and referendum should not have been moved to an earlier time this evening. He
did suggest that the agenda be reviewed and an attempt be made to schedule the shorter
hearings or items before items that are expected to take longer.
Councilmember Jaech said, because of the asbestos problems existing in the Civic Center
roof, the roof and the solution of the asbestos problem should be accomplished at the same
time. Councilmember Kasper said the courts have allowed extra time to accommodate solving
asbestos problems. Mayor Naughten said the roof will hold another year and the asbestos
problem will be solved this year. Councilmember Kasper said there is a danger, if the roof
goes, that the money will be wasted. In addition he said the entire thing, heating and
ventilation, should be done all at once. Councilmember Jaech asked for a staff report on
the problems and an estimate of the cost. In addition, she asked that the problem of
insulation be addressed.
Since there was no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Naughten adjourned the
meeting at 10:00 p.m.
4JACQOELINE G.P RRETT, City Clerk Y S A TEN,! ay
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 May 7, 1985