05/16/1995 City CouncilApproved City Council Minutes
J/Z3/y5
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
MAY 1691995
Following an Executive Session on legal and labor negotiations matters called pursuant to notice, the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:18 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza
Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Laura Hall, Mayor
Tom Petruzzi, Council President
William J. Kasper, Councilmember
Michael Hall, Councilmember
Dave Earling, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Roger L. Myers, Councilmember
Barbara Fahey, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Miller, Police Chief
Art Housler, Administrative Services Director
Paul Mar, Community Services Director
Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks & Recreations Manager
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
Jim Walker, City Engineer
Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, Deputy City Clerk
Rhonda March, City Clerk
Christine Laws, Recorder
Council President Tom Petruzzi added as Consent Agenda Item C(2) the approval of the May 9, 1995
p minutes of the Full Council Review portion of the Committee Night. Mayor Hall added a 10-minute
04C'0� executive session on a legal matter as Agenda Item 12.
5
610 COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BARBARA FAHEY, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Roger Myers pulled Items B, H and K; Council President Petruzzi pulled Item C, approval
of Minutes of May 2; and Councilmember Barbara Fahey pulled Item J for addition to the
recommendation.
COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHN
NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
APPRoy� (C) (2) APPROVAL OF MFgUTES OF MAY 9, 1995
6"1 _ v3 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
M 11! MAY 16, 1995
PAGE
(D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #951569 THRU #952283 FOR WEEK OF MAY 1, 1995 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $139,337.38 AND CLAIMS WARRANTS #951786 THRU #952436 FOR WEEK
OF MAY 8, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $255,420.44. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS
#952018 THRU #952386 FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 16 THRU APRIL 30, 1995 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $410,640.69
fl� � co �) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL VICES CONTRACT WITH
CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY FOR CODIFICATION SERVICES
Sg
pF ARK (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR DAVE FISHER TREE SERVICE TO REMOVE/THIN DANGEROUS
Rgftlov I-ry TREES AT CITY PARK ($2,775.33)
# (G) AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT BID FROM KESSELRING'S FOR PURCHASE OF .40
Pµ'`cHErt Wge
CALIBER WEAPONS
6016 (1) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1995 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT
W,f�A 00g,.►f PROGRAM
A6fift OF, (L) APPROVAL OF REQUEST BY SENIOR CENTER TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR 25-PERSON BUS
�5 (4,000)
56�1cA
Councilmember Myers discussed corrections required for the minutes of April 25 (Item B) including the
addition of the word "ready" to a motion on page 7. Councilmember Dave Earling also requested
clarification of a motion on page 7 of the same minutes. For clarity reasons, he would like it to read:
"Councilmember Dave Earling expressed his desire to have the consultants meet the inspection schedule in
a timely manner". Councilmember Myers called attention to the fact that on page 12, paragraph two, the
last sentence should be corrected to read: "The Waterfront Festival is May 12, 13, and 14th, and the
Boeing Derby is May 20-21". He also noted that on page 13, the last motion should reflect that he voted no
to the $500 scholarship fund and wished the record to reflect that fact.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCELMEMBER
DAVE EARLING, THAT IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE CORRECTIONS REQUESTED BY
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, COUNCIL DELAY THE APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 25
MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda item deferred is as follows:
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 1995
Council President Petruzzi pulled Item C(1), the minutes of May 2, because of a need for correction. The
Mayor has requested that the statement which was read into the record by the Mayor at that meeting be
inserted in place next to the last paragraph on page nine. The other change he requested was that a change
be made on page 16, second paragraph, second to the last line, and he wished to correct it to read as
follows: "He does not think he has sold a piece of property that mineral rights were a major item of
discussion".
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
AP AV BARBARA FAHEY, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 2 AS CORRECTED. MOTION
mRy �5 CARRIED. The agenda item approved is as follows:
(C) (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 2, 1995
Councilmember Myers disclosed that, though it is not required he do so, he wishes to abstain from voting
on Item H because one of the streets being overlaid is the street on which he lives.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL. MINUTES
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 2
COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
TOM PETRUZZI, TO APPROVE ITEM H. COUNCILMEMBER ROGER MYERS
ABSTAINED. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda item approved is as follows:
5 1 i (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1995 STREET OVERLAY PROJECT
With regard to the request for funding for the Economic Development Council (Item A Councilmember
Fahey indicated that as the minutes of May 9 reflected there was the request that a stipulation be made that
this was a 50% match with the other groups coming up with the other 50%.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
ROGER MYERS, TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDED ACTION AND MOTION THAT THE
$6,000 SHALL REFLECT A 50% MATCH WITH THE OTHER $6,000 COMING FROM THE
SPECIFIED AGENCIES THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda
1G jai item approved is as follows:
P� f �A (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR FUNDING FOR CONSULTANT FOR ECONOMIC
Gp µy DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Councilmember Myers pulled Item K because of his intent to vote against the appointment.
COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM K. MOTION
DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND AND NO VOTE WAS TAKEN AND THE MATTER WAS
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised that since Mayoral appointments require a confirmation, a failure to
make the motion should be reflected in the minutes as a rejection or lack of confirmation. Councilmember
Hall expressed his disappointment in the action of Council. He had attended the interview and not sensed
any animosity toward the individual nor did he hear anyone asking any pertinent questions or have any
concerns of this gentleman. Council President Petruzzi called a point of order and questioned the right of
this matter to be discussed since the motion died for lack of second. Mayor Hall indicated he was entitled.
Council President Petruzzi again noted his desire to abstain from this matter because the person involved is
a former campaign adversary and he did not feel it appropriate to be involved in the decision.
Councilmember Hall called a point of order to state that if he were not allowed to expound on this matter,
no one else should be able to do so. Mayor Hall called the discussion ended.
�AP 69 The agenda item lacking confirmation is as follows:
ptPQ°l� D
14 (Ift (I� CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD
3. AUDIENCE
There were no participants from the audience.
4. PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK
4E --
Pa"9)t0' Mayor Hall introduced Police Chief Tom Miller. She read, and presented to Chief Miller, a Proclamation
IA6t OK dated May 12, 1995, calling upon all patriotic, civic and educational organizations to observe the week of
May 14-20 as National Police Week with appropriate ceremonies. The Proclamation further called upon
all citizens of Edmonds to observe Friday, May 19, 1995, as Peace Officers Memorial Day in honor of
those peace officers who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or have become disabled in
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 3
the performance of duty. Mayor Hall further expressed pride in the Edmonds Police Department and in
Chief Millet.
Chief Miller thanked the Mayor for the recognition and thanked the Mayor, City Council, and citizens of
the community for their support of the various programs being implemented and efforts being made by the
Police Department on behalf of the city. He indicated that while nationally 289 officers lost their lives,
there have been no lives lost in Edmonds. He did acknowledge there had been one officer disabled in a
motorcycle accident in 1970.
Op&
5 5. AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW DOGS IN EIGHT CITY PARKS AND POST SITES
Parks and Recreations Manager Arvilla Ohlde reported that she had provided in Council packets a
proposal coming forth from the Community Service Committee. It includes a listing of the parks on a
matrix, showing those that are highlighted and boxed in, and also incremental posting of them.
Additionally, there are examples of what the signs could look like as well as a cost breakdown to fabricate
and install the signs.
Councilmember Fahey expressed her understanding this matter had been removed from a Consent Agenda
because it was questioned whether we could pursue this action without making a specific change in the
ordinance. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised that the Council motion tonight will get the parks open and
the dogs moving around which is believed was the Council's primary concern. There is a need to clean up
the ordinance somewhat. Given the change in areas, there will be enough confusion that it makes it difficult
to cite people who have dogs off leash in other portions of the park. For housekeeping purposes he will
take care of doing that and getting it on a Consent Agenda in the near future. A voice motion would allow
the Parks and Recreation Manager to proceed to sign.
Councilmember Myers expressed his concern over park clean-up. He hopes that by implementing this
program in stages, the matter can be revisited if clean-up hasn't taken place. If the citizens do not follow
through with their promise to keep the parks clean, he would not be in favor of extending it. He will vote in
favor of this because it opens the parks gradually. He stressed it is the dog owners' responsibility to make
sure they follow through with their commitment.
Councilmember Earling requested Ms. Oh/de to report back to Council in the time frames listed for
various park openings as to how the ordinance is working, whether there are enforcement problems,
and a basic update. Ms Ohlde responded she could report just prior to the new incremental step.
For the sake of the record and those in the audience who did not have packets available to them, she
identified and explained the various parks being discussed and the matters upon which Council will be
voting. She also asked for complete compliance.
COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
TOM PETRUZZI, THAT THE CITY SERVICES COMMITTEE IMPLEMENT ALLOWING
DOGS IN THE EIGHT CITY PARKS ON THE LIST, AUTHORIZE FUNDING FOR 38 SIGNS
FOR PLACEMENT AT THESE PARKS AT A MATERIALS COST OF $1,387 WHICH WILL BE
PAID FOR OUT OF THE 125 MISCELLANEOUS SMALL PROJECTS FUND, AND
AUTHORIZE THE PARKS AND RECREATIONS MANAGER TO POST THE SIGNS.
Councilmember Hall indicated concern about complete compliance. While it would be nice, he would not
like to see the program abolished just because some people are not going to comply. He stressed that lack
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY T 6, T 995
PAGE
of total compliance does not mean it is not a good program. He feels it unrealistic to look for total
compliance and no problems. He believes the majority of the people will comply.
MOTION CARRIED.
�r 6. HEARING (SECOND READING) ON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE
T�A10 PLAN
6ttf
,,E F Planning Manager Rob Chave indicated this is the second public hearing on this item. He noted the
o existence of a revised draft where the Planning Board and City Staff tried to integrate some of the earlier
coop corrections and some additional ones found. This was released to the public a couple of weeks ago. It was
ptA� mailed to everyone who had picked up one of the March drafts of the plan and also sent out notice to
everyone who was on the transportation meeting list. About 50 copies of this revised plan have been
distributed in the last week or so. Mr. Chave introduced Melody Tereski for a summary of the Planning
Board's recommendation.
Melody Tereski, Planning Board, reiterated that all corrections had been made and stated that the Board
is satisfied with the end product. For the audience, she indicated they had taken the Bell -Walker plan and
consolidated it into the Transportation Element for code purposes so there are two documents: the entire
document of the study on how we got there, and the final element to be codified showing the actual
recommended plan. She noted there was unanimous acceptance of both the policies and goals as well as
the Transportation Element. She re-emphasized there were no substantive changes to the plan from the last
time it was seen. Only the errata have been put into it, and some tidying done. Ms. Tereski stated the
majority of the people who testified at the Planning hearings were concerned with speed and the
encouragement of containing traffic rather than accommodating traffic. This is what the element reflects at
this point.
Mr. Chave called attention to a packet inclusion of a Seattle Post Intelli eg ncer article of Friday, May 5,
entitled "Ballard Tests Unique Free Bus Service" talking about the LINC shuttle service in Ballard. He
believed it fortuitous timing on the part of the PI, because actually Edmonds' plan at this point is actually
trying to point toward that type of service as something he would like to see for Edmonds. It's a fixed
route, but a customer service approach to local transit.
Discussion was initiated by Council President Petruzzi by confirmation of the fact the plan provided for
containment rather than accommodation. He asked for confirmation that the Planning Board believed this a
two-lane city and not a four -lane city. Ms. Tereski quoted from Chapter 5, page 39, a sentence they had
added to reflect the feeling of the Planning Board in response to testimony. The last paragraph of the page:
While recognizing that Edmonds is surrounded by three State routes and facilitates major
ferry commuter traffic, this transportation element implements a focus on general traffic
containment rather than broad traffic accommodation pursuant to the City's transportation
policies.
Councilmember Kasper complimented the Planning Board on the work it had done. He discussed the
previous intent to improve 84th and 88th which has not been done. He went on to express his belief that
there is no way traffic can be contained, even with the present 6,000 anticipated growth limit. Ms. Tereski
said their responsibility was to take the engineers and the Bell -Walker plan as it was analyzed and to come
up with a plan that satisfies the needs of the GMA and reflected the concerns and comments of the public.
That is why the sentence regarding being surrounded by three State routes was added. Because of those
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 5
routes and being host to a ferry system, accommodations of some kind must be made to get traffic up
SR 104 and discourage inner-city traffic that is basically commuter traffic. The focus of this plan is to
look at transportation and the movement of goods and people and services and not the movement of cars,
and encouraging high occupancy vehicles and other methods of transportation such as bicycles and
enhancing the bicycle routes and pathways. That was believed to be one way to discourage more traffic,
particularly on 9th, 220th, 212th, and all those intersections that are undesirably becoming major arterials.
Discussion followed on the addition of turn lanes at specific locations rather than a third lane. It was
suggested the best way to contain traffic was to not put in a continuous third lane. Further discussion was
had regarding the 84th and 88th street improvements which had been approved as part of a lawsuit
settlement and had not been dealt with in the plan. It was noted there was no testimony regarding those two
streets, only 220th and 212th.
Mayor Hall opened the public portion of the hearing.
Sally Jo Manolides, 719 - 9th Ave. N., Edmonds. She asked what the plans were for 9th as she had
concerns about parking and the possibilities of a third lane for a turn lane. She asked if those had been
eliminated. Mayor Hall suggested she contact Rob Chave if it is not clarified in the following discussion.
Ms. Manolides stated her belief there needs to be more enforcement on 9th to keep speed down. She said
Edmonds has worked hard to be a friendly town, and she thinks if this kind of traffic plan is allowed, there
will be a less friendly atmosphere. Taking away parking takes away parking for friends to park in a
friendly town. Ms. Manolides then expressed concerns for pedestrians being exposed to the increased
speed on 9th. She encouraged Mayor Hall and Council to not less this happen to our friendly town.
Dave Moore, 529 - 9th Ave. N., Edmonds. Mr. Moore quoted from the 1995 Transportation Element
Final Draft regarding 9th Avenue as a major problem street for various reasons. He then cited examples as
to why each problem area was accurately listed. He discussed speeds, driveway access, lack of pedestrian
respect even in crosswalks, and related safety concerns. For the record, he suggested to Council that it not
reclassify 9th Avenue from a collector with a posted speed limit of 25 m.p.h. to a minor arterial, type 1 or
2; with a maximum speed limit of 30-35. He indicated it was too fast already and believes the street to be a
tragedy waiting to happen. He believes the collector designation is one of the few protections left. Mr.
Moore went on to discuss the apparent police tolerance policy of 10-15 m.p.h. over the stated speed limit.
He believes that explains why 75% of the people drive in excess of it now. He recommends that more of a
no -tolerance policy be undertaken, giving maybe 5 m.p.h. He strongly believes that serious enforcement
and not reclassification of the street is what is going to help.
Helen Ervin, 522 - 9th Ave., Edmonds. Ms. Ervin discussed problems the plan would create for her if
implemented. She would have even less parking than now, and the speeds would make it almost impossible
to get into her driveway.
Don Carr, 9832 - 225th Pl. S.W., Edmonds. Mr. Carr represented the Edmonds Bike Advocacy Group.
He thanked the City and the Planning Board for putting more emphasis on bicycle improvements. He
commented on the plan, policy and goals. Mr. Carr noted that under "Streets and Highways -- General"
they talk about bikeways as amenities. He said it was fortunate that concept was not carried on through the
goals and policies. He does not consider a bikeway an amenity, but a mode of a transportation and integral
part of any multimodal system that serves the city and region. His next comments concerned Goal 5 on
public benefit in terms of prioritization of funds. He hoped the public benefit also includes energy, quality
of life, etc. Regarding Item 3.4 dealing with elimination of parking on one side of the street and providing a
two-way bike lane on that side of the street, he and his colleagues who are professionals in designing and
APPROVED = COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 6
planning bikeways have a problem with a safety concern created. Mr. Carr believes Council should look at
more trails connecting neighborhoods as it would enhance the street system and network.
John Zipper, 715 - 9th Ave. N., Edmonds. Mr. Zipper quoted the last sentence of page 37: "Therefore,
any solution to these problems [as quoted by Dave Moore] will require measures to reduce 9th Avenue
traffic speeds". He believes making 9th an arterial would increase speeds. He urged Council to revisit the
plan and address the last sentence quoted.
Will Overington, 825 - 9th Ave. N., Edmonds. Mr. Overington began by thanking the Planning Board for
producing a vastly improved plan before the meeting. He then asked for clarification of some items he
believed were discrepancies. He said Chapter 5, Figure 9 shows 9th as a minor arterial type 2, whereas on
page 46 Projected Street Level of Service shows 9th Avenue from Dayton to Kasper as a collector. He
feels that because this is a residential street, it should not be rated higher than a collector. Mr. Overington
found the recommendations for 9th Avenue shown on page 42, item 4, in need of clarification. He
expressed his belief the speed limit from Kasper through to Westgate should be 25 m.p.h. and not change to
30 at Main. He also feels from Main Street along Third Avenue, up Kasper and Puget Drive should also
be 25 m.p.h. He next discussed the proposal to replace four-way stops with fully actuated signals. He
believes the four-way stops provide a better metering system because it provides a distance between
vehicles. He asked Council to hold a well -publicized meeting to discuss these proposals before making a
final decision. Regarding speed limits, Mr. Overington feels there will never be enough police officers to
enforce speed limits and the only way you are going to is with a physical traffic control device in the street
such as circles and road narrowing devices.
Rick Hedges, 914 - 9th Ave. N. Edmonds. Mr. Hedges wished to go on record that he feels the speed limit
should remain at 25 m.p.h. on 9th Avenue, and there should not be a two-way turn lane.
Randy Johnson, 643 - 9th Ave. N., Edmonds. Mr. Johnson wished to go on record with his concerns over
speed limit enforcement and child/pedestrian safety. He believe an increase in speed limit means trouble.
He recommended keeping 9th Avenue at 25 m.p.h. and to change 9th Avenue South to 25 m.p.h.
Dee Giguere, 1018 Walnut, Edmonds. Ms. Giguere reiterated the various compliments to the Planning
Board for its time and effort. She represents the Neighborhood Traffic Control Group, as an individual,
and she is overall glad to see some of these issues have become part of the element. She pointed out a
discrepancy between a chapter number provided in the yellow sheets not existing in the Bell -Walker report.
She feels we have an opportunity to keep Edmonds a special place. Ms. Giguere will mail in the signed
petitions she has. She reminded this is not just a 9th Avenue problem. She expressed support of the efforts
of the new Police Chief.
Annette Gilliland, 910 - 9th Ave. N., Edmonds. Ms. Gilliland expressed agreement with much of the
comments previously made about controlling the speed limit. She wished to add comments not previously
heard. She lives at the north corner of Mountain Lane. There are a lot of pedestrians, including school
children, that cross 9th coming out of Mountain Lane. She thinks that a critical reason to keep the speeds
down and enforced. She then commented on the parking near her home and the proximity to bus lines.
There are many people who drive to be close to the bus stops, including the University of Washington bus
across the street. She feels that speaks to making it possible to use the public transportation in the area by
not eliminating the parking.
William Trudeau, 707 - 9th N., Edmonds. Mr. Trudeau added his voice to those discussing speed. He
has a crosswalk in front of his house, and in the last week he has had to physically walk into the street and
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 7
put his arms out to stop traffic so that kids could cross. He suggested one item to be considered is putting a
stop sign in and making it a three way stop at that crosswalk. He also felt that would assist the police in
enforcing the speed limit.
Marie Volpe, 702 - 9th Ave. No., Edmonds. Ms. Volpe was present to protest any changes to 9th Avenue.
She also reiterated Mr. Trudeau's concern and experience with children at the crosswalk.
Ken Mattson, Chair of Planning Board, 725 Daley Street, Edmonds. Mr. Mattson reminded the Council
and audience that this transportation element is a work in progress and more progress is expected within the
next year. He then addressed items brought up by Mr. Carr regarding the bicycle facilities. Mr. Mattson
believes this is a huge step forward in this plan. There still remains to be considered matters of
implementation, where, how many, how wide, which side of the street, which street, etc. Mr. Mattson
followed by discussing the issue of speed which has been brought up repeatedly throughout this process.
Speed is the number one concern in the city. The only way to handle that is a promise to enforce speed
limits, and he urged Council to do what it could to enable that.
Larry Menne, 22102 - 98th Ave. W., Edmonds. Mr. Menne wished to speak on behalf of those on 9th
Avenue South. He says they also want 25 m.p.h. in their totally residential neighborhood. He suggested
that reducing the speed limit to 25 m.p.h. on all streets from 84th Avenue West to the Sound except SR 104
would pay off by making it less attractive to through traffic. He also suggested speed limit signs be painted
on the street with sidewalk paint in order to be more easily seen. Mr. Menne finished by thanking the
Planning Board for an excellent job.
Councilmember Fahey expressed understanding of the concern about speed, but she can't find in the plan
where there is any recommendation for making 9th Avenue four lanes. She clearly understood that the
street was definitely designated as two lanes with possibly some left turn lane potential at designated
intersections and that the only real issue was speed. Mr. Chave confirmed her understanding. He went on
to direct Council attention to Figure 10 on page 42. He said that was the only real reference to specific
speeds being tied to specific types of streets. He stressed that the plan does not say that 9th Avenue must
be 30 m.p.h. All it does is say is that is the maximum speed that could be set for this type of street. There
is nothing in the document that says if this plan is adopted today there would be re-signage tomorrow.
Council President Petruzzi asked for confirmation that an increase in speed limit would require Council
action. Mr. Chave deferred to Gordy Hyde.
Engineering Coordinator Gordy Hyde responded that in his knowledge all speed limits are set by
ordinance of City Council and that he did not think that Council had done anything to change speed limits
without a public hearing.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised that the City has set a standard 25 m.p.h. speed limit for all streets
unless otherwise posted and through an ordinance of the City Council.
Council President Petruzzi spoke for the benefit of those who had expressed concern over speed and
suggested that by looking at this plan Council would automatically be raising the speed limit to 30 m.p.h.
He stressed that that is not the case.
Discussion followed regarding the envisioned signalization and the goals desired to be accomplished
thereby.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL N04 TEES
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 8
Councilmember Kasper discussed the fact that this street was built under specifications of the State as a
collector arterial, and it was stated that is what it would remain. The speed was set at 25 m.p.h. because
that was the collector speed. Now it looks like it is going to be changed to an arterial type 2 which he has
been told is not a state -recognized classification. He expressed concern that there had never been a public
hearing above collector.
Bob Wilcox, 612 - 9th Ave. N., Edmonds. Mr. Wilcox discussed speed considerations. As he had
previously suggested to Councilmember Earling that a light be placed on Main. He described the problems
experienced. He suggested if there was a light, there might be breaks in the traffic pattern so you can get
out onto the street. He expressed child safety concerns. He submitted that whatever is done, the amount of
traffic and the flow must be reduced.
Dave Moore, 529 - 9th Ave. N., Edmonds. Mr. Moore retook the podium to respond to Council President
Petruzzi's statement about the speed limit being automatically raised to 30 m.p.h. His concern is that if 9th
is reclassified to a 2 or a 1, no matter which one, you open the door for that. He thinks the door needs to
stay shut.
Mayor Hall closed the public portion of hearing and remanded to Council
Police Chief Miller indicated that since last month's hearing on this transportation plan, he went back in
the Police Department to discuss some solutions to this including looking at, and coming forward to the
Public Safety Committee next month with, a photo radar as an option for Council to consider. Hopefully,
there will be more enforcement as well. Mayor Hall confirmed with Chief Miller that the matter will be
brought before Council through Public Safety Committee Chief Miller will talk to Councilmember
Earling who is the chair of that committee
Council President Petruzzi wished to go on record as saying that the Council is very concerned about the
speed on 9th Avenue, and the Council is not, through this plan, raising the speed limit to 30 m.p.h. As far
as opening a door, we can reclassify it at some time in the future if the City Council wanted to. This
document that the Planning Board has worked so studiously and well on clearly states an understanding of
the problems on 9th Avenue. The comment someone made about a Councilmember saying he could move
was renounced by Council President Petruzzi. Mr. Petruzzi then discussed the matter of parking. He
stressed there was nothing in the document about the removal of parking. He also strongly agreed there
was a safety factor to be considered. Council President Petruzzi said he was going to push for much more
stringent enforcement on the speeds on 9th Avenue. He thinks a very low tolerance level on that particular
street is the only way to solve the problem.
Councilmember Earling opened conversation regarding the schedule for adoption of this element of the
policy. He also indicated his desire to see in the Goals, Objectives and Policies a statement about the City
of Edmonds government's commitment as an entity to being an active participant in solving congestion
problems. He asked if there was verbiage making a statement of leadership in trying to solve the problems
rather than saying everyone else can take care of it. Mr. Chave said he would have to look. Mr. Chave
says it provides for the City as a participant, but he thinks the City as leadership may be an additional step.
Councilmember Earling feels it would important to have a statement like this. In addition, Councilmember
Earling expressed his great appreciation of the diligence that the Planning Board and Staff have shown on
this. Councilmember Earling also described the benefits of having the metered sequencing of stop lights
which he believes is something that the City may wish to look at ultimately. Councilmember Earling would
also like to see some language in the plan addressing the issue of school safety as a primary concern. He
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MIIQ =
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 9
a
also desired to see something in the plan expressing concern about younger folks in and around school
areas.
Councilmember Fahey indicated that page 22 makes mention that Northbound traffic on 9th Avenue is
22%, whereas 31 % is Southbound. She feels a lot of the traffic down 9th Avenue is ferry traffic. She also
noted she saw no indication of signage in the plan. She thinks one last component of this is to try and do
better signage, especially on Highway 99, to get people to utilize 99 and catch the 104 corridor instead of
using the residential streets to gain access. Mr. Chave responded that in the yellow pages there are some
fairly specific policies addressing infiltration of traffic into the neighborhoods from 99. He also indicated
some of what Councilmember Fahey was suggesting might appropriately come out of the multimodal
project. Mr. Chave indicated they did not want to pre -guess some of the conclusions of that work.
However, he will take a look at some of things she mentioned to make sure they are covered in some way.
Mr. Chave confirmed that Council wished to retain further discussion on next week's agenda. He then
thanked Engineering which he credits for getting the project off the ground and staying with it though the
entire process. They have contributed mightily to the successful result.
Councilmember Kasper noted that the Casper -Main Street intersection is from which it is getting to be
impossible for ingress or egress. He expressed his belief that a light should be an integral part of the
program.
Mayor Hall closed this portion of the meeting. Mayor Hall then called a five-minute break at 8:49 p.m.
7. HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD PROVISIONS OF
D?`� ECDC PROVIDING FOR STAFF REVIEWS OF MINOR PROJECTS; ESTABLISHING
,0W ,,(5 STANDING AND PROCEDURES FOR "PEALS,• AND CLARIFYING THAT CERTAIN
,110 ACTIONS DO NOT REOUME ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPROVAL
Planning Manager Rob Chave stated that this is a culmination of a process that started the middle of last
year. In part the charge was looking at the Architectural Design Board process and some things that could
be done to improve and streamline that process. They are looking to establish a three -prong approach:
establishing standards for appeals, establishing thresholds for staff review versus review by the full ADB
board, and exempting from ADB review certain non -permitted items that have traditionally gone to the
ADB. Mr. Chave introduced Ken Mattson to discuss the Planning Board recommendation.
Ken Mattson noted that 51-82% of the work was done by the Oversight Committee as far as working out
the details. Other members of the ADB present were recognized. Mr. Mattson further stated that there
were mixed emotions among the Planning Board with regard to appeal fees. He feels any sum chosen
under $500 would be arbitrary. He went on to discuss who has standing to appeal.
Mayor Hail opened the public portion of the hearing.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds. Mr. Hertrich reminded Council that the ADB is not an
elected board but is an appointed board. He feels the consistency of decisions is not 100%. He indicated
he thought the ADB did a very good job. Mr. Hertrich does not feel there are enough appeals being filed to
warrant a fee. He also believes it will limit citizen involvement.
Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid Avenue, Edmonds. Ms. Shippen requested Council not adopt two sections
of this proposed amendment to the ADB responsibilities. She asked that 20.10.020(A)(1) which would
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 10
remove responsibility for ADB review of remodeled commercial buildings not be approved. She feels this a
major change and not a minor amendment. Ms. Shippen feels it makes substantial changes in the authority
of the ADB and takes a great deal of responsibility away from it permanently. Ms. Shippen then called
attention to page 3, Section 20.60.020 on signs. It says that a replacement of an existing sign does not
require ADB approval unless there is a significant change in the general characteristics of the sign. She
cited these as two examples where Staff would be required to make decisions in areas where they have not
previously had that responsibility. She thinks this is a major reduction in the authority and responsibility of
the ADB. She feels they have served the citizens very well over the last 20 years and should not have this
responsibility removed from their domain.
Doug Dewar, 121 - 5th Ave. N., Edmonds. Mr. Dewar explained that not all remodels would be
exempted, only those relatively minor remodels that don't change the footprint of the building or the basic
form of the materials of the existing building. With regard to the sign issue, Mr. Dewar explained that if an
owner desires to repaint a sign in the same form it previously existed, the matter would not need to go to the
ADB for review. If a completely new sign is wanted, the matter must be taken before the ADB. He feels
Ms. Shippen's concern that this is a major change is not warranted if everything is read in context.
Jeff Oaklief, 169 Etruria, Seattle, is the Vice -Chairman of the Architectural Design Board. He believes the
intent of the Oversight Committee was to streamline the commercial building aspect so that minor projects
using similar materials and similar colors would not need to be taken to the ADB.
Mayor Hall closed the public portion of the meeting and remanded the matter to Council
When questioned by Councilmember Fahey as to the language contained in paragraph "e" on page 5, Mr.
Chave indicated they were trying to keep away from tampering with existing language as much as possible
and deferring that for the detailed look at signage provisions that will hopefully be dealt with next year. He
indicated they were trying to add some latitude and discretion for some minor projects.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised that one of the complexities of the City's Code is that if a citizen
objected to the Staffs interpretation and application of that provision, that citizen could appeal under a
separate section of the Code involving staff interpretations, and that does not have an appeal fee.
Council President Petruzzi stated he and Councilmember Fahey were members of the committee, and that
throughout the meetings it was the intent to streamline where major changes were not being made on
buildings or signs. The committee found that a lot of the language was cumbersome and difficult to work
with. He discussed further rationale used.
Mayor Hall interjected a reminder that the reason Edmonds is liked is because the ADB has been doing
something right for approximately 20 years. She expressed appreciation for all the work done. She
indicated there were some changes needed, some of which were being incorporated into this plan. Like
anything else there are fluctuations. She reminded there is a method of appeal. She said Staff may have to
be somewhat more subjective.
Councilmember Fahey feels that the changes reflect concurrence and acceptance of the ADB members.
These members did not feel threatened or that any of their ability to influence the architecture or ambiance
of the city would be diminished. She also feels that the changes reflect very well vocalized concerns
coming from the business community via the Chamber of Commerce. Councilmember Fahey feels that
with the changes the ADB will be able to more effectively deal with the more critical issues of evaluating
new projects and major remodels and not waste their time with things that are pretty much standard and
APPROVED CrrY COUNCIL. MINUTES
MAY 16,1995
PAGE 11
should be dealt with in a very time -efficient and cost-efficient manner. She supports the proposals
completely.
COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCEL PRESIDENT
TOM PETRUZZI, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE 3023. MOTION CARRIED.
S. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON NONCONFORMING LOT
l�p';�►65 PROVISIONS FOR AMENDING ECDC SECTION 17.40.030
Planning Manager Rob Chave introduced the subject by reminding Council it had reviewed this matter
previously. He went on to state that essentially what was being attempted was to address specific
situations that in effect encourage single-family development to meet GMA goals without changing the
standards for development. He then introduced Gary Grayson of the Planning Board for comment.
Gary Grayson, Planning Board, indicated that the ordinance submitted was unanimously approved by the
Planning Board. Mr. Grayson stated there had been discussion concerning § D.5. They were concerned
that one year may not be sufficient time to allow for proper notification. They would also like to see some
type of mechanism for non -conforming lot owners to register their intent. There may be people who may
not be able to build on a lot within a two year period for financial reasons. Mr. Grayson reiterated that
with the exception of the time period of one year being extended to two years, the proposed ordinance was
unanimously approved.
City Attorney Snyder advised that Council received a letter through the City Clerk from Doug Purcell of
Purcell and Russell. He explained the origin of the ordinance. Mr. Purcell represents one of the appellants
in a prior administrative review process before the Council. Mr. Eustis was the other attorney (and in the
audience tonight). Mr. Snyder reviewed for the record what the City's process has been. As the Writ of
Certiorari went forward Mr. Eustis and Mr. Snyder, by agreement, have continued the preparation of the
transcript. It is generally Mr. Snyder's policy on appeal not to try to resolve or negotiate an administrative
appeal or review by Writ of Certiorari by any promise of Council action. He indicated he can not
determine what Council as a legislative body can do, nor what the Planning Board's recommendation has
been. For the record, Mr. Snyder's recollection on this matter was that at the end of the hearing
Councilmembers Fahey and Kasper had indicated a desire to review the nonconforming lot provisions.
This matter went forward independently through the staff. The Council committee process has been
noticed in accordance with standard changes in the City zoning code. Mr. Snyder wanted to confirm that if
Mr. Eustis testifies on behalf of his clients, it would be appreciated that he would note that the two men
have not attempted to resolve this suit by negotiation and exclude Mr. Purcell, but rather step back from
the administrative process, let his independent action go forward to see if it would resolve the situation that
his clients had. If the Council desires at the conclusion on the hearing to continue the public hearing in
order to provide Mr. Purcell or his clients an opportunity to testify, that is within Council discretion.
Mr. Chave described how this proposal came forward. He noted that these provisions are patterned in
large part after an ordinance Kirkland has on the books dealing specifically with these types of cases. They
were not considering any previous administrative actions that were taking place in this city. It was purely a
legislative process they were following.
Councilmember Earling asked about annexations and how notification would be sent to owners of any
nonconforming lots. Mr. Chave responded that during the annexation process there are a number of
opportunities. He suggested that as part of that there would be included a packet of information that would
highlight certain things that take effect when you are a resident of the city of Edmonds. One item would be
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MUMES
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 12
to highlight to a perspective new resident that they have a window of opportunity to develop a
nonconforming lot. Mr. Chavc indicated that more challenging was notification of those already owning
nonconforming lots. Discussion followed on various methods whereby notice could be given of the window
of opportunity.
City Attorney Snyder advised that two forms of notice that the City has reviewed over the past seven or
eight years that he does not recommend be considered: 1) Recording the ordinance which would show on a
title that provisions of the zoning ordinance are excluded. It is unlikely to produce any prompt notice to a
current property owner. 2) Mailing actual notice to property owners which can under some circumstances
produce substantive due process problems.
Mayor Hall opened the public portion of the hearing.
Janis McClain, 20704 - 82nd Ave. W., Edmonds. Ms. McLain spoke in opposition to the ordinance. She
noted that the original Hearing Examiner on this issue said safety was not an issue in subdividing
nonconforming lots. Ms. McLain disagreed and cited several examples of damage and potentially
dangerous situations. She then went on to describe a tragic event in which her daughter's leg was badly
injured. She feels safety is a big concern here and asked Council to not allow nonconforming lots
Kettie Brownwill, 8211 - 208th S.W., Edmonds. Ms. Brownwill is represented by Mr. Purcell and wished
to confirm receipt of his letter to Council.
Jeffrey Eustis, 505 Madison, #209, Seattle. Mr. Eustis is an attorney representing Wilma Snyder who
would be a beneficiary of the ordinance. He does not feel the dispute is on any one specific lot or road in
the city. He thinks it involves a city-wide planning decision. Edmonds has a circumstance where lots were
created before through the County and these lots no longer meet the minimum requirements for zoning, and
zoning changes. The problem is there are people who own these lots that were created as legal building
lots. With the Growth Management Act, Council is also confronted with an obligation to try to make
accommodations for the population that is expected to reside here in the next 20 years. That also means a
certain amount of indecision as to how to accommodate that population. Mr. Eustis says one of the easiest
ways of doing so is to allow previously legally created but currently nonconforming lots to be built upon.
They were designed to be served by roads, sewers, water, and everything. It would simply acknowledge the
pre-existing status. Mr. Eustis restated his belief that he did not think safety concerns were a particular
problem. Mr. Eustis thinks the ordinance addresses the need to accommodate more population with only a
slight adjustment.
George McClain, 20704 - 82nd Ave. W., Edmonds. Mr. McLain feels that the proposal to amend the City
of Edmonds zoning requirements should not be approved by the Edmonds City Council. He and his wife
purchased their home in Edmonds because the City demonstrated the courage to restrict unreasonable
development that does not concur with the well-defined zoning laws. Purchasers of the substandard lots
have known these lots were unbuildable, and they should.not now be allowed to build on these lots in order
to profit at the expense of the surrounding neighborhood. He feels the proposed change greatly diminishes
his property value in terms of lifestyle, quality of life, and resale value. He asked the Council to consider
the precedent the change would make and to show courage in maintaining the lifestyle the homeowners have
in the community.
Wilma Snyder, 8217 - 208th S.W., Edmonds. Ms. Snyder discussed some of her safety concerns which
dealt primarily with automobile speeds. She also said that people in her fixed income position might have
their retirement funds stretched by being able to sell their other lot. She urged passage of the ordinance.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUIBS
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 13
Mayor Hall closed the public portion of the meeting and remanded the matter to Council. She also again
reminded Council of the letter received from Purcell and Russell.
Councilmember Fahey stated she was pleased with the proposal and the way Staff had worked on it. She
expressed her previous concern over the way nonconforming lots were handled. One of her primary
concerns dealt with diminishment of a piece of property as a result of an annexation. She was sympathetic
of the McClain' situation, but believes all the negative she heard dealt with one lot on one street. She
supports the ordinance and is very glad that Staff came up with a solution for this problem and that there is
the support of the Planning Board.
Council President Petruzzi commented on Mr. and Mrs. McClain's tragic situation. The issue, however, is
not this particular lot on this particular street. The Council has for many months now looked at the issue of
nonconforming lots. Council was looking for equitable ways to accommodate some of the property owners
who were annexed into the city and thought they had two lots and wound up having one. Council has been
looking for a solution that is fair and equitable and yet has a time limit in which people can step up and say
they plan to build on the property. Council President Petruzzi is in favor of the recommendation on the
nonconforming lots and would go along with the Planning Board's recommendation that the window of
opportunity (page 4, item 5) be increased to two years from the effective date of the ordinance.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY,
THAT COUNCIL PASS ORDINANCE NO. 3024, WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT § D.5 THAT
THE TIME PERIOD BE CHANGED FROM ONE YEAR TO TWO YEARS.
Councilmember Earling will support the motion but asked Rob Chave to come back with recommendation
on public notification. He is concerned that someone may lose considerable investment if they do not
receive the proper notification. Councilmember Kasper also will support the motion. He noted that
annexations are largely built around taking over the debt and taking over police and fire but seldom get into
the intricacies of who owns what and how they got there. He believes this is something that needs to be
addressed. Councilmember Kasper agreed with Councilmember Earling regarding public notification. He
believes that maybe something we can come up with during the annexation process.
MOTION CARRIED.
ptA� 9. UPDATE ON EDMONDS FINANCIAL CENTER ACQUISITION PROCESS
Council President Petruzzi asked that detailed minutes be taken during this section because he wishes to
establish an easily understood record.
Community Services Director Paul Mar said there are three major items to be discussed. He called
Council attention to the goldenrod report which is the normal reporting on the progress of the tasks that go
along with the acquisition time frame. Council President Petruzzi confirmed with Mr. Mar that items 27,
28, and 29 have been accomplished. The primary portion of the discussion tonight is on the two reports
that have been submitted to Council. One report is on the engineering inspections, and the other report,
which is a bound report, is the Phase I Site Assessment. Mr. Mar asked if there were questions on this
portion before moving along to the next topic. Council President Petruzzi asked to make some comments.
Council President Petruzzi told Mr. Mar he had been asked to inspect the building, not rebuild it. He
further advised this comment was only half tongue-in-cheek. He was overwhelmed by a number of issues,
APPROVED CrrY COUNCIL MINITITS
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 14
but not by the numbers. As a way of explaining why he was not overwhelmed by the numbers, Council
President Petruzzi read from page 20 which is a letter dated May 10 from Gary Gill from the engineering
firm. The letter is to Paul Mar, and the second paragraph says: "We have prepared the estimates based on
bringing the building into conformance with 1994 Uniform Building Code as you requested." Council
President Petruzzi indicated that was not what was requested. He said there are two things that make the
numbers very high. The key issue is about bringing to 1994 conformance; the other revolves around the
fact that there was some consideration for putting the Council Chamber in the building.
Council President Petruzzi says he never felt very strongly about the Council Chamber. In his opinion the
building is being bought for the administration part of the City. He feels it apparent by the review by the
consultant that in order to add the City Council Chamber, it will add a lot of major requirement changes.
Council President Petruzzi feels the cost of it would be too high to actually put the City Council Chamber
there. His recollection of the major thrust of this building project was to find room for administration. If
putting the Council Chamber in kicks in certain requirements because it will be a public assembly portion
of a building, it would be his recommendation, because of the cost, that the City Council Chamber remain
where it is for the time being until some other issues have been resolved. In his opinion, it is not paramount
that the City Council Chamber be moved to that building.
Another thing Council President Petruzzi wished to discuss was the 1994 UBC requirement that Mr. Mar
put on the engineering firm. He reminded those in attendance that he works in Commercial Real Estate for
Washington Mutual. He said he was not going to rely on his expertise on this, that he has a number of
resources at the bank and consultants he can speak to. He called a consulting firm Washington Mutual has
worked with for eight years. This particular firm reviews construction on all new facilities Washington
Mutual builds and also reviews the condition of buildings and oversees the review of condition of buildings
on facilities when they buy new banks. He cited specifics as to the recent growth of Washington Mutual.
The gentlemen Mr. Petruzzi said chuckled at the requirement we had placed on the engineer. He said, "It
sounds like somebody is trying to kill the deal". According to the consultant, and verifying what Mr.
Petruzzi felt from his knowledge, it is not customary when buying a building to bring it up to a UBC code.
The consultant says you are to look at the building to see that it is structurally sound for the business
purposes that you are going to use -- and what we are using it for is office space as now. He said most
buildings don't need any upgrade at all. Only if you were going to do extensive remodeling would you have
to update some seismic and perhaps nothing if you were just going to use it for office. Remodeling is not
defined as tenant improvements. Council President Petruzzi said he was also told, and asked for
verification from Mr. Mar, that the 1994 UBC has not yet been adopted by the State of Washington nor the
City of Edmonds. If that is the case, he asked why Council would require the most stringent UBC that has
ever been put out, that has not yet even been adopted, to look at this office. Mr. Petruzzi indicated he did
not necessarily expect an answer, that he was trying to establish a record. Mayor Hall suggested she may
have an answer for him concerning the remodel, but Mr. Petruzzi said Council was not looking at a major
remodel to this building.
Council President Petruzzi then advised Mr. Mar he was going to go building by building and ask some
questions which he wished answered.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
ROGER MYERS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
Council President Petruzzi asked Mr. Mar what the results would be if we did inspections and applied the
same stringent requirements of 1994 UBC on the Francis Anderson Center. He asked Mr. Mar to rate the
building on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being a maximum of repairs or to tear the building down and start
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 15
all over, as to what we would have to do. He asked if it was fair to say it would be a very major rehab and
cash infusion to bring the Francis Anderson Center up to UBC 1994. Mr. Mar said that would be a very
major remodel. Council President Petruzzi asked the same line of questions concerning the Senior Center
which Mr. Mar rates as a major remodel. When he asked about the Puget Sound College of the Bible,
Mayor Hall called a point of order because Council had under consideration the Financial Building and not
all of the City buildings for which Paul Mar has not had any time to peruse. Council President Petruzzi
reiterated that he was attempting to set a record.
Councilmember Hall interjected that if Mr. Petruzzi was attempting to make a record, it could be done a lot
quicker in an Executive Session or something like that rather than have to grill Mr. Mar. He considered
this ridiculous. Councilmember Hall suggested if there was a point to be made, it should be made so
Council can move through this matter. Council President Petruzzi said that Councilmember Hall, who has
been clamoring for public input, this is for the public which is why the television is here and why the people
are here. Mayor Hall reminded Council President Petruzzi that this was not a public hearing but was an
update of the Edmonds Financial Center acquisition process.
Council President Petruzzi came back to the Puget Sound College of the Bible. Mr. Mar said he was not
familiar enough with the building to make comment. Mr. Petruzzi asked the age of the building, and Mr.
Mar was only able to say that it was old. Mr. Petruzzi said it would take a major remodel if it could even
be done. Council President Petruzzi then asked Mr. Mar if the present library would meet all requirements
under the 1994 UBC. Mr. Mar responded in the negative. Council President Petruzzi then asked about the
theater.
Mayor Hall asked Council President Petruzzi to make his point and not interrogate Mr. Mar. Council
President Petruzzi responded he was making his point. He returned to his discussion of the theater which
the City Fire Department has inspected annually. He asked Mr. Mar if he had been inside and whether it
met ADA and 1994 requirements under UBC that have not yet been adopted by the State of Washington
nor not yet adopted by the City. Mr. Mar does not know if it meets ADA requirements, but ventured to say
it probably does not meet the 1994 UBC. Council President Petruzzi indicated this was all leading to one
point. If Council were to say this evening that it would require every building on Main Street from 7th
Avenue down to the water that did not meet 1994 UBC requirements, how many buildings would be
standing. If Council said all buildings that did not meet 1994 UBC had to be torn down, how many would
there be standing. Mayor Hall called Mr. Petruzzi out of order. She indicated there is no way Mr. Mar has
come prepared to answer such a leading question. Mr. Petruzzi suggested that anyone on the Council and
anyone who is able to hear this can answer that question since UBC 1994 has not been adopted even by the
State of Washington, then obviously none of the buildings would fall into the category of meeting that and
would have to be torn down.
Councilmember Hall called a point of order. He believed that to be a felatious statement since one has no
idea whether those buildings would meet the 1994 UBC requirements because they are not adopted.
Council President Petruzzi pointed out that Mr. Mar had used them. Councilmember Hall said that was
not the point. He suggested maybe Council should be looking at whether it needs to get up to UBC, but felt
Mr. Petruzzi did not need to berate Staff over that type of issue.
City Attorney Snyder advised that Council was in an area where the rules discussed a few weeks ago don't
apply. You are in a Council discussion. The Mayor as the chair having ruled a councilmember out of
order, the councilmember may appeal to the Council who may overrule the chair. Otherwise the chair's
ruling on these matters stand. Council President Petruzzi appealed to the Council to allow him to continue
his discussion.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL NMRMS
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 16
COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROGER
MYERS, TO ALLOW MR. PETRUZZI UNTIL 10:30 TO CONTINUE TO GET HIS COMPLETE
POINT OUT. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hall asked Mr. Petruzzi to continue but to not berate the staff. Council President Petruzzi said it
wasn't his intent to berate the staff. He said he was very sad because he had had along discussion with Mr.
Mar, and they had gone into this. He pointed out that Mayor Hall did not want the City to buy the
building, he understands that but disagrees. He said when he and the Mayor had signed the contract he
thought they were at a new level. He thought they were going to be able to go out and do the job together
the way it is supposed to be done. The City Council has voted 7-0 on looking at the building and public
input has been enormously in favor of the building. He mentioned the memo wherein the Mayor said it was
going to cost $6.5 million for the building. He denied this as Council has never said it would spend that. It
never said that it would bring this building up to 1994 UBC.
Mayor Hall felt that deserved response. She indicated they did sign the documents and shook hands in
cooperation and kindness. She realizes that Council has authorized the study which has come back and she
has read. She sees no reason if Mr. Petruzzi doesn't agree with the facts of the study that he could not just
say so in order that Council can proceed. She suggested if he wants another opinion, that would be another
course of action to take. She said to sit here and imply something has been rigged is not so. To imply that
we are not going along in a cooperative vain is not so.
Council President Petruzzi expressed his disappointment. He has a very strong belief in the building. He
thinks one of the things Council has to do is to in no way consider putting the City Council Chamber in the
building. That, in itself, will reduce a lot of the costs that were in the proposal.
Councilmember Hall responded that he is in favor of having City Council Chambers in the building. He
suggested that if something is needed a little smaller than what is proposed, that would be fine. He feels in
reality the public needs a better facility in which to have their forums.
Mayor Hall interjected one other element: this is rentable and highly desired which could be another factor
that this would be more available. It was the Council's wish that we have the Council and the Council
office together with, perhaps, a library so that was taken at good faith and inserted into the plan. Council
President Petruzzi believes that was in the first plan when discussing building a combined facility. There
was some discussion that if we could put the Council Chamber in there it would be fine, but he personally
would not want to go through the expense for bringing in air conditioning which in itself was expected to
cost $350,000 which he feels is obviously not something at which Council is looking. Mr. Petruzzi feels
something should be done like was done with Public Works. Council is committed to bringing this in at
$5,000,000. There is probably going to be about $65-75,000 cost for the bonds. When you add that to the
sales price, it gets to somewhere between $500-575,000 to work with. Mr. Petruzzi's recommendation
after his review of it, is for Staff to tell Council how it would like to spend that $500-575,000. Also, he
would also hope that at least two Council members would stand up to be appointed to a special committee
to sit with the staff and review the recommendations for improvements on the building. Regarding the
environmental study, Council President Petruzzi had someone who reviews such studies at Washington
Mutual review the study. That person said that the statements put in about the possibility of asbestos was
technically right. Mr. Mar confirmed they have a source to which they send samples for asbestos testing.
He noted that in that report there was a request to take one sample, and it tested negative. Council
President Petruzzi quoted from the report a section concerning the asbestos status in the building. He
thinks the testing was appropriate. He also said that the way it was suggested to him, for this type of
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 16,1995
PAGE 17
asbestos if you find some of the tiles have it, it is basically a management program that gets put into effect,
and it is not a major issue.
Councilmember Kasper indicated it was interesting for him to look at the 1994 UBC code because it has
not yet been adopted. He noted we wouldn't even have the 1993 if Council had proceeded with this in 1988
at half the cost. As fax as he is concerned, there are still obstructions to the process. The City of Everett
bought a building for $14 million which is totally an office building. It has no public council chambers
whatsoever. Edmonds has gone through our structure with the same engineer who said we could reinforce
our earthquake buildings for something like $200,000. He thinks now we are rushing to tear them down
and build new buildings because our internal consultants tell us it will cost more to put air into it than to
rebuild the whole place. Mr. Kasper said we have to build a new police station, we have to have a court,
but the decision has not been made whether the court will also be the Council Chambers. He feels there are
lots of reasons why this structure is an asset to the City. He was surprised at some of the items in the
report, but until you do the inspection, you don't know. What we are doing is publicly hitting that building,
and Councilmember Kasper doesn't like it. He thinks Council needs to sit down and decide its course. This
building was appraised by people who were very knowledgeable. As to an office building usable for City
Hall, Councilmember Kasper talked to the appraiser today, it is comparable to what other cities have
bought, including Lynnwood and Everett. Councilmember Kasper thinks the value of this building is that it
is a new building and considered a well-built building. It may need repairs that were not known, but the
city is also gaining a 100 car potential, 85 of which are already there, and we're getting an addition. None
of this would happen if we built a whole new project. There is no land left to do anything. He thinks
Council should not panic because of the report. He noted this report had been around since the 28th and
thinks it should have been brought forward immediately.
Mr. Mar noted that the Extended Agenda shows that the UBC is up for discussion on May 23. In regard to
who set the scope for the project, the letter that was sent out to the engineering consultants was authored by
the Council. Once the letters went out and the proposals came in, it was the Council President that
requested Mr. Mar get in and work with Councilmember Myers in terms of securing the services of a
consultant. Mr. Mar said he had a part in setting the scope of work because he had some discussions with
Councilmember Myers; there is the letter that went out that was faxed to Council that is part of the scope
of work. In the Whitely Jacobsen contract Exhibit A is a copy of the letter that was sent out to all of the
consultants. With regard to the City Council Chamber as part of the scope of work, maybe at one point
Council said it would not be in there, but all along from the time the space needs study was begun and
looking at the administrative component, that is non-public safety component of this, the City Council
Chamber has always been a part of the administrative portion of the plan. In the memo Mr. Mar provided
Council tonight which is dated last August, when Staff walked through the building, it did comment on
what would have to be required from their "lay perspective" of what would be needed to house the Council
Chamber. Obviously, line of sight requirements with no visual obstruction, good floor to ceiling height,
and an adequate number of air exchanges in a room are the things they have looked for as part of that. In
the instructions Mr. Mar gave to Whitely Jacobsen who did the engineering inspection, did say that if the
Council Chamber were in the building, it would most appropriately be placed on the first floor for several
reasons. It would minimize the vertical transportation requirements for a lot of public in a short period of
time. In looking at the building, it was Staffs observation that the floor to ceiling height on the south side
of the first floor made it the most amenable space for a City Council Chamber should that be in there.
With regard to whether we have to bring anything up to code, be it 1993 approved UBC code or the
proposed 1994 code, the answer is no. If you buy the building and use the building as intended with no
major structural renovations, you do not have to bring the building up to code. That is his professional
opinion as well as the City of Edmonds Building Official's opinion. Mr. Mar said that with regard to what
APPROVED C1rY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 16, 1995
PAOE 18
was in the report, it was his judgment call at the time when the April 28 report came in, that in order to get
a complete picture, Council had to have the numbers in order to make informed discretionary decisions.
Council President Petruzzi indicated he did not intend to indicate that Council had not at any time said that
the Council Chamber was under consideration. His point was that it appears from the numbers that came
back that it is just too expensive to put the Council Chamber in there. Mr. Mar disagreed. In terms of the
requirements that would have to be made to put the Council Chambers in the building would be only the
one hour separations that were itemized for the first floor and a very small portion of the total air handling
system improvement. Mr. Petruzzi expressed his understanding that the requirement would be $350,000
just for air conditioning. Mr. Mar responded that the requirement for the air conditioning was for the entire
building. He has received clarification from the mechanical engineer that if Council wants to just provide
the air conditioning in the public space, that is all that would be required. The 1990 ventilation code had to
do with how much air you moved came from the outside versus recirculated. It was an enormous change
from an energy perspective that they said a huge amount of air as you move it through the building has to
come from the outside each time you move through the cycle. For the 3-4,000 square feet out of the total
30,000 square feet in the building for the Council Chambers, that would be his recommendation if a
Council Chamber were placed in that building on what would need to be done. He said it would not add up
to the $300,000 plus the markups they had in there. To air condition the entire building, worse case basis
was $7-9 per square foot times 33,000 square feet times 1.58 gives approximately $400,000 for air
conditioning. In Mr. Mar's view those are huge numbers and the only way to make a decision is go back
and look at it some more. Given whatever direction we want to go, if we want a more definitive idea of
what the costs are, we can move forward on that.
Council President Petruzzi confirmed that according to regulations we do not have to bring the building up
to code. Mr. Mar added that was except for the places where renovations were made that would effect the
structure, and that is a Bbuilding Official call. Council President Petruzzi asked for confirmation that
moving from office to office and using the building totally as office that those renovations would not be
made. Mr. Mar responded that if the building were used as is, with the partitions and walls that are there,
he would say there would be nothing needed for the UBC code. Those portions of the building that are
non-ADA compliant up to compliance.
Council President Petruzzi indicated that the ADA was understood, and even then it was not necessary that
the entire building must be brought up to ADA. You must have a plan established. Mr. Petruzzi indicated
he was sure there would be some immediate ADA requirements and that those had been known to be part of
the equation. His recommendation to the Council is to have a committee of two people work with the staff
to come back to the Council with the specific recommendations, staying within the limit of between
$500-575,000. If there is a possibility of putting the Council Chamber in the building and staying within
those parameters, fine, but not at the expense of the other functional areas. He would not want to sacrifice
the working conditions of the staff because we put a Council Chamber on the bottom floor. He does not
feel the Council Chamber should be the primary consideration, but the last consideration for that building.
Councilmember Myers agreed that it is very important that we go ahead with the purchase of this building
and set the limits on what the bond would be and then set priorities as to what we want to do with the
available money. At the hearings the citizens agreed that this was a good buy for the city. He sees nothing
in the report that says it is not a good buy. He thinks we should go ahead and proceed as Council President
Petruzzi directed.
Councilmember Earling noted that with his real estate business he has inspections with almost every
purchase and sale they are involved in. He said part of what was being seen tonight was a buyer's reaction
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 16,1995
PAOE19
to an inspection, and said it was not an atypical reaction. After the buyer has the opportunity to review a
document like this, one begins to separate out any structural deficiencies in the property versus some items
that would be of high priority at some time in the future to address. If there are serious structural problems
in the building, then the buyer may want to review whether or not they want to make the purchase. As he
reads the documents presented tonight, Councilmember Earling concluded, as he had from the beginning,
that we have structurally an excellent building. When you review the time in which it was built and the
materials with which it was built, we still have, as we concluded in the beginning, a building that will more
than satisfy many of the needs in the long term future for our City Hall. His feeling is that Council needs to
sit down and look at the document. For him, it is a matter of establishing priorities. The building is in
good condition. There may be issues that we want to address. Certainly we have tried to allow an
adequate amount of money to take care of the basic changes that will need to be done inside, and his feeling
as some of the Council members have stated is that we need to set some sort of priority order of issues that
we would like to see resolved over time. It could be that we will have a project here that will take us
several years to make all of the changes we ideally would like to see take place. The issue is that it is still a
good building. He thinks that is what Council needs to be drawn back to. Councilmember Earling thinks it
is still one of the very best buildings in the city of Edmonds as far as actual construction standards. He
thinks the Council, the Staff or whatever makeup, sit down and make some priorities, figure out where the
$500,000 plus can be best spent initially and look at it from that context rather than try to put together a
wish list and the ultimate dollar amount that that wish list would bring. He sees nothing here that makes
him want to run away from the decisions made to this point.
Councilmember Fahey commented that she had bought, and was happily and adequately living in, a fixer -
upper. She feels the City can do the same thing with this building. She said it was overwhelming to look at
this. However, it does tell Council what work is there, and we know what we have to consider and we
know what we need to address right now or in the near term and what we can put off to ultimately resolve
in the future. There are things she saw like insulating the roof of the garage that she certainly would not
put as high priorities -on a wish list. She believes that this is still the best thing to do for this city.
Regarding the Council Chambers, she wouldn't object to it being there, but she has a concern about
redundancy of space. We will be creating a court facility, and she always felt there wasn't any reason why
Council couldn't share that common area one night a week, have Council Chambers on one end and all of
the offices and everything there and not be spending the money that you have to spend in two different
locations. If it is feasible and ultimately works out financially, she wouldn't oppose it, she sees no pressing
need for it to happen that way.
Council President Petruzzi asked Councilmember Earling and Councilmember Kasper to serve as Council
representatives to the committee that discusses the prioritizing of what goes into the building. There was
agreement. Council President Petruzzi asked them to work through the Mayor and Mr. Mar to be sure that
they are in on the group discussions as to what the priorities will be for the building so there can be some
Council input. Councilmember Kasper asked to have the staff tell them what they would require in that
building today. Council President Petruzzi said that Mr. Mar had already stated that if it were used for
business, we would not have all of those requirements, but that we would have certain ADA requirements
but that those could be worked out with the staff by Mr. Kasper and Mr. Earling.
Mr. Mar asked for guidance regarding whether the $5 million figure included furniture, fixtures and
equipment, whether the moving cost was part of that number, or the transfer of all electronic gear from the
current facility. Work stations for offices are anticipated to be $5,000 each. Based on discussions with
Art Housler, hook-up of everything there is in the $60,000 range. Council President Petruzzi confirmed
there were not additional funds for that, so deemed it included in the $5 million.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 16, 1995
PAGE 20
Mayor Hall said this would be discussed tomorrow and then the two Council members could be contacted
to arrange a date certain.
10. MAYOR
iwri4E Mayor Hall raised the issue of Initiative 164 to which City Attorney Snyder will be speaking. She thinks it
�N' 1 bq will be interesting to note how many of our ADB notions will be moot or changed with 164 in place.
She called Council attention to material Rob Chave presented from Bill Toskey of the Port. She asked if
poi rA anything had been received regarding the Port's master plan, and he is verifying the commissioners will
[Ap`A� formally review these changes and are expected to adopt them on May 22, 1995. Councilmember Myers
will be there.
She asked Council if they had received the letter regarding the Oxford House and the tenant in the Oxford
° House. On train speeds, Mayor Hall had a conversation with D. J. Mitchell on a couple of occasions, and
1`o�sE they are going to be talking about fencing and who provides it and finances it. She will keep Council
posted regarding the train stopping in Edmonds.
11. COUNCIL
y0op-, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROGER
MYERS, TO EXCUSE THE ABSENCE OF COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER FROM THE
009,11
p
NPjel APRIL it COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
Council President Petruzzi said that Councilmember Myers had indicated he would like to attend the AWC
Otl Conference. The Council is budgeted for two Council members. The dates are June 28-30, Wednesday
coo(. through Friday, at the Westin Hotel in Seattle. Since there are no travel or hotel involved, there is enough
in the budget for either a third or fourth Council member who wants to attend. If anyone else wishes to
attend they are asked to call Barb Mehlert by May 22.
Mr. Petruzzi further announced that the Council Resource Person would like to take Thursday off due to
her son's participation in a school function. There was no objection.
00, Council President Petruzzi then spoke on the Edmonds Arts Festival. He said there needed to be two
dE designated to help choose the art piece. Councilmembers Nordquist and Earling will serve in that capacity.
any
Council President Petruzzi spoke to Councilmember Hall's previous question of mineral rights on the
tO contract on the building. He looked at the contract and explained that if there was a restriction on the
M 161� passage of mineral rights, it could be a permitted exception on the title. It had nothing to do with the reality
00001
fk of having bargained away mineral rights. The matter has never been discussed.
Councilmember Fahey updated the Council by stating that the County Council had approved the
recommendations from the Hotel -Motel Tax Oversight Committee allowing $200,000 for a feasibility study
to be done for the multipurpose facility somewhere in this area. She will be attending a meeting next week
for the purpose of creating the RFQ and then continue to select a consultant for that process. One of the
things being considered in the feasibility study is alternative locations for the siting of the facility.
�� She also reported that she had an extremely successful action task force economic development council
6coaLo - meeting in Edmonds last Wednesday. Over 30 retailers were present in addition to those already scheduled
D S 6p,(
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 16,1995
PAGE 21
to be there. There was a lot of good input and enthusiastic response. Specific categories are going to be
established, and they will reconvene in small groups to get more specific details related to each issue raised.
;f Councilmember Fahey also asked if
could
llow
on
of the
t)PR °o some of the concerns about the meet gs and l udienceopartic participation and if,infact we want to pose the
PP.about
1 restriction that only one person can speak pro and con to a specific issue during audience participation.
She feels that language should be included as soon as possible on the back of the agenda sheet.
Councilmember Myers reported that Meadowdale High School had selected a student to act as student
representative. Specific information should be available this week. He also reported there were 30 high
ylw°E school students visiting the area from Studtgaard, Germany. They are here until June 9 on an exchange
EP' program and have received information about the city, brochures, etc. One of them is staying with the
Myers.
Councilmember Hall reported as a member of the Rotary Club that they had a successful Waterfront
WP�IvR� Festival this weekend. He thanked Bill Toskey and the Port Commissioners for cooperating on the festival.
�s* The festival was well attended so there will be quite a lot of funds to distribute throughout the community.
The eagles at Hutt Park have hatched and are doing well. Hopefully they will be strong enough soon to
start fending for themselves.
Councilmember Earling provided a handout. He advised Council he had been in contact with the people on
the list in the last couple of days. He asked the Council to make contact with as many of the names as
possible. For the public, Councilmember Earling read the names from the list. If we do not begin the
AMTRAK service on May 26, it is his understanding we have to go through a shoreline EIS process. Mr.
Mar stated the appropriate term is that we would have to go through the shoreline development permit
process. Discussion followed on the process. Councilmember Earling said his point is that if we don't
begin the May 26 AMTRAK service in Edmonds on that date, we will not be involved in that for a
considerable amount of time. He believes the position we should be taking in Edmonds is to begin the
AMTRAK service on May 26 at current speeds, but allow the citizens in Edmonds to participate with that
new service. After a period of six months or so we could get an update on what our EIS progress is. He
believes we need to let them know that the business community has invested a great deal of time and money
to the potential of economic development in Edmonds, have worked to coordinate tours from Vancouver to
Seattle with stop-overs in Edmonds, and excursions to Kitsap County, so there would be great benefit to
our business community. The last point he suggested was that if they go back and review ridership
numbers they will find that many of the people who work in Edmonds are people who come from North
Seattle and the Shoreline areas; the ridership will be down dramatically over their projections because of
the number of people who board in Edmonds. He again urged Council to make the calls. He invited the
audience to contact the City Clerk's office if they wish those numbers.
Councilmember Fahey said one of the strongest messages that came out last Wednesday night from the
business community was grave concern over the passenger train not stopping here. From their point of
view it would be very detrimental. They all wanted Council to do whatever it could to bring about a
resolution. There was some additional discussion regarding the train situation.
NSoN°5 Coles. Councilmember hne breported er Earat �oexsressed his ealty had
lsponsored
easure at havm�beenr ablethe
to sllss onsoEr her. onds contest, Carrie
6pM g p P g P
APPROVED CrrY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 16, 1995
PACE 22
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION
EG .
There being no further business to come before the Council, the public was advised there would be no
further business transacted, and at 10:55 p.m. the Council recessed to a 10-minute executive session on
legal matters and adjourned from there.
i
0MINJIM•
onda J. Ma h, City Clerk
APPROVED CITY COUNaL MINms
MAY 16,1995
PAGE 23
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING
7:00-10.00pm
MAY 16, 1995
SPECIAL MEETING
6:45 P.M. - EXECUTIVE SESSION ON A LEGAL MATTER
CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 1995
(C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 2, 1995
(D) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS #951569 THRU #952283 FOR WEEK OF MAY 1, 1995 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $139,337.38 AND CLAIMS WARRANTS #951786 THRU #952436 FOR WEEK
OF MAY 8, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $255,420.44. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS
#952018 THRU #952386 FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 16 THRU APRIL 30, 1995 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $410,640.69.
(E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH CODE
PUBLISHING COMPANY FOR CODIFICATION SERVICES
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR DAVE FISHER TREE SERVICE TO REMOVE/THIN DANGEROUS
TREES AT CITY PARK ($2,775.33)
(G) AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT BID FROM KESSELRING'S FOR PURCHASE OF .40 CALIBER
WEAPONS
(H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1995 STREET OVERLAY PROJECT
(1) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1995 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT
PROGRAM
(J) AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING FOR CONSULTANT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
(K) CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD
(L) APPROVAL OF REQUEST BY SENIOR CENTER TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR 25-PERSON BUS
($4,000)
3. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person)
4. (5 Min.) PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK
5. (10 Min.) AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW DOGS IN EIGHT CITY PARKS AND POST SITES
6. (50 Min.) HEARING (SECOND READING) ON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
-Continued-
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MAY 16, 1996
PAGE TWO
7. (30 Min.) HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD PROVISIONS OF ECDC
PROVIDING FOR STAFF REVIEW OF MINOR PROJECTS; ESTABLISHING STANDING AND
PROCEDURES FOR APPEALS; AND CLARIFYING THAT CERTAIN ACTIONS DO NOT
REQUIRE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPROVAL
8. (15 Min.) HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON NONCONFORMING LOT
PROVISIONS FOR AMENDING ECDC SECTION 17.40.030
9. (45 Min.) UPDATE ON EDMONDS FINANCIAL CENTER ACQUISITION PROCESS
10. (5 Min.) MAYOR
11. (15 Min.) COUNCIL
t
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours
advance notice for special accommodations.
The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this Meeting appears the following I
Wednesday evening at 7.00 p.m. on Channel 36, and the following Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.