01/18/2000 City CouncilC
hange to
genda
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
JANUARY 18, 2000
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Thomas A. Miller, Council President
Dave Earling, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Christopher Davis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Maia Krause, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Robin Hickok, Police Chief
Ray Miller, Development Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
James Walker, City Engineer
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director
Karissa Kawamoto, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Haakenson advised the SEPA review for Agenda Item #8 had not yet been completed. The
Council could 1) take public comment tonight and continue the hearing to a date following completion of
the SEPA review, or 2) remove the item from the agenda now or later in the meeting when those
interested in that item were more likely to be in attendance. Council President Miller suggested a
decision be made when the Council reached that item.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF. THE LIBRARY
CONTRACT AS ITEM 3 AND MOVE THE REPORT BY MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE
STEPHEN CONROY TO ITEM 3A. MOTION CARRIED.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Items C and F be removed from the Consent Agenda and
Councilmember Davis requested Item B be removed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS B, C AND F.
MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 1
Fnterlocal uildable (D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL BUILDABLE LANDS
[Lands Grant GRANT AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Advocacy (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR
dvoc
Services VICTIM ADVOCACY SERVICES WITH LAURA R. LINDSTRAND
Ord. #3290 (G) ORDINANCE NO. 3290 PERMITTING AN ALTERNATIVE DEFERRED
ltemative
Deferred COMPENSATION PROGRAM IF THE MAYOR ELECTS NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN
omp. PERS
rd. #3291 (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3291 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE
ssault in SECTION 5.34.015 DEFINING ASSAULT IN THE FOURTH DEGREE
e Fourth _
egree '
Item B• Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 4, 2000
Councilmember Davis advised he would abstain from the vote on the minutes, as he was not seated until
8:25 p.m. on January 4, 2000.
,prove
t /a /oo COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
inutes APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER
DAVIS ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2000
Item C: Approval of Claim Warrants #35918 through #38322 for the Week of January 3, 2000, in the
amount of $359,629.96. Approval of Claim Warrants #35922 through #38417 for the Week of January 10,
2000, in the Amount of $232:515.58. Approval of Payroll Warrants #27125 through #27233 for the Period
December 16 through December•31. 1999. in the Amount of $345.725.16. ADnroval of Pavroll Checks #27251
through #27273 in the amount of $21,078.22 for 1999 Police Retroactive Pay
Councilmember Petso advised she would abstain from the vote on this item due to a lack of information.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER
PETSO ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35918 THROUGH #38322 FOR THE WEEK OF
Claim JANUARY 3, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT .OF $359,629.96. APPROVAL OF CLAIM
Warrants WARRANTS #35922 THROUGH #38417 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 10, 2000, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $232,515.58. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #27125.
THROUGH #27233 FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 16 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,
1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $345,725.16. APPROVAL, OF PAYROLL CHECKS #27251
THROUGH #27273 IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,078.22. FOR 1999 POLICE
RETROACTIVE PAY.
Item F: Proposed Ordinance Vacating an Existing Utility Easement on the Property Located at 20930 88 "
Place West (Susan McMurray ./ File No. ST -99 -171)
Councilmember Petso advised she would abstain from the vote on this item due to a lack of information.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER
PETSO ABSTAINED. The item approved, is as follows:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 2
rd. #3289
ili ty ting (F) ORDINANCE NO. 3289 VACATING AN EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE
ili
Bement PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20930 88TH PLACE WEST (Susan McMurray / File No. ST -99-
930 88b 171)
.w
3. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING THE LIBRARY CONTRACT
SnoIsle
Library Councilmember Orvis proposed the Council rescind its January 4 decision to end the SnoIsle Library
Contract contract. Although he voted in favor of the motion to terminate the contract, he explained he did so for
three reasons, 1) to avoid a financial crisis in the City in 2002, 2) to identify a more stable way to fund
the library, and 3) to examine alternate ways of providing library service. After reviewing information
gathered for the Finance and Community/Development Services Committee meetings, it was clear to him
that SnoIsle was the best and lowest cost library services providers for the City.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
RESCIND THE JANUARY 4 DECISION TO CANCEL THE SNOISLE LIBRARY CONTRACT.
Councilmember Earling observed the proposed motion represented a victory for the citizens of Edmonds
and not who was right or wrong when the vote was taken on January 4. This action provided an
opportunity for the community to provide feedback to the Council on their desires for library service
which would allow the Council to determine how to fund _the library on a continuing basis. He
appreciated Councilmembers bringing this item forward and indicated he would support the motion.
Councilmember White referred to an e-mail chastising Mayor Haakenson for the action to unfund the
library. Councilmember White clarified that perception was incorrect as that was a Council decision and
Council vote just as the decision to rescind the cancellation of the library contract was also a Council
decision and vote. He explained as a legislative body, the Council makes a decision and directs the
mayor to take that action and/or determine how to implement the Council decision. Councilmember
White indicated he would support the motion,
Council President Miller recalled he made the motion at the January 4 meeting to cancel the SnoIsle.
Library contract. He pointed out although it was never easy to admit a wrong, it was important to do
what was right when it was realized a wrong has been made. He explained that using the information
available to the Council two weeks ago, the decision the Council made at that time was accurate. Further
information provided over the past two weeks clearly indicated the best decision for the Council and
community was to maintain the SnoIsle contract. He echoed Councilmember White's comments that
any legislative decision was made by the Council. He complimented Councilmembers for working to
identify a solution to resolve this issue so that the best library service possible can be provided to the
community.
Councilmember. Plunkett said he supported both motions (the motion made two weeks ago to cancel the
library service contract and tonight's motion to rescind that action). He supported the motion made at
the January 4 meeting to prevent the cost of funding library competing with public safety funding and to
allow further review of the financial integrity of the City. He said the intent had been to begin a
discussion phase and review which was what occurred. More public input will now be sought regarding
funding library services. He indicated he would support the motion.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 3
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
DIRECT THE MAYOR TO DIRECT STAFF TO CONVEY TO THE SNOISLE LIBRARY
SYSTEM THAT THE CITY OF EDMONDS DESIRES TO WITHDRAW ITS TERMINATION
LETTER AND TO REMAIN IN THE SNOISLE CONTRACT; TO DIRECT THE MAYOR TO
DIRECT STAFF TO REQUEST WRITTEN CONFIRMATION THAT THE TERMINATION
LETTER WILL BE DISREGARDED BY SNOISLE AND THE CURRENT CONTRACT
CONTINUED; TO DIRECT THE MAYOR TO APPOINT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
EDMONDS TO ATTEND THE NEXT LIBRARY BOARD MEETING TO EXPLAIN THAT THE
CITY OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL WISHES FOR THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE; AND
TO DIRECT THE LONG -RANGE FINANCIAL TASKFORCE TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC
MEETING TO EXPLORE OPTIONS FOR FUNDING THE LIBRARY. MOTION CARRIED.
Council President Miller advised the Long Range Taskforce was made up of Finance Committee
Members Earling, and Orvis, in addition to Councilmember White.
Annual 3A. ANNUAL REPORT FROM MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE STEPHEN CONROY
Report from .
unicipal i al Court Judg e Stephen Conroy reported $330,000 was budgeted in 1,999 to operate the
Court Judge Munic
Conroy Municipal Court; and that the cost to operate the court was only $315,000. They processed over 9,000
cases and brought in revenues over $1 million. He was confident the court administered justice in a fair,
reasonable and expeditious manner on behalf of citizens of Edmonds and others who used the services of
the court.
Judge Conroy explained Edmonds Police Officers attend-Edmonds Municipal Court three afternoons a
month to testify. As most Officers were on duty at the time they were testifying, savings were realized in
officer overtime via careful coordination with officers' schedules. He summarized the court is operating
at maximum efficiency. If the City did .not have a Municipal Court and processed the 9,000+ cases
through Snohomish County's court system, the City would have expended $514,000. Thus taxpayers
benefit because the court was under budget as well as operated approximately $200,000 below the cost of
processing the City's cases through South District Court.
Judge Conroy explained several bills were introduced during the last Legislative session from the Senate
(SB 5035) and House (HB 1026) that would have curtailed the efficiency and effectiveness of Municipal
Courts. As a result, he- testified before the Ways and Means Committee and wrote letters opposing the
bills to every member of the Judiciary Committee for both the House and Senate and every member of
the Ways and Means Committee in the House and Senate. The City.also received support from the AWC
and some Snohomish County representatives and was able to kill that legislation before it proceeded out
of committee. He explained each year a method of funding the court system in the State is presented to
the Legislature that often ties in court revenues as an offset to funding. The problem is cities are not
considered in the funding mechanism: Although funds are promised to cities, it is. returned via dedicated
funds such as road maintenance, etc. and not to cities' General Fund.' The 1999 proposal included a
change in the percentage of revenues cities retain. Currently for every $100 fine, the City retains 68%
and 32% goes to the State. The proposal was to reduce the City's share from 68% to 52 %. He said the
legislation tends to frustrate cities from establishing /maintaining their own municipal courts.
Judge Conroy said the Legislature often looks to the courts for methods of funding deficits such as a
proposal for an additional $500 court- imposed penalty for'domestic violence cases in addition to the fine
that is already provided to the State. He said this was unworkable as many of ,the defendants cannot
afford a $500 fine in addition to the fines already imposed on domestic violence cases. He said he has
been in contact with lobbyists for AWC but urged the City to become more proactive in the defense of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 4
1
their Municipal Court if they wished to continue that service. In an effort to better connect himself at the
State level, he applied for and, was appointed to the District and Municipal Judges Association's
Education Committee as well as a Legislative Committee. He advised e-mail was a valuable tool for
contacting Legislators.
Judge Conroy reported the cost to file and process was approximately $35 per case, up from $30 -31 in
1998. The cost to process a case through the Snohomish County court system would have been, $57 per
case. The City has the highest conviction ratio in the State on DWI filings. He said this shows the City
has a good, tough Prosecutor and an excellent Police Department who prepare very good cases, the
majority of which result in guilty pleas rather than trials. He said Public. Safety was working efficiently
and effectively for'citizens.
Councilmember Earling expressed his appreciation for the work Judge Conroy and his staff do. Judge
Conroy said he has a dedicated, hardworking staff. The clerk - per -case ratio is the second highest. ratio in
the State (1:1800, the highest is 1:2300). He said the court expertly processes a lot of cases without
errors that could result in the loss of cases because speedy trial rules are violated. He asked
Councilmembers to express their appreciation to his staff, commenting they do not receive much positive
feedback for their efforts although they are the ones who make the court work.
Proposed 4. MEETING` WITH PROPONENTS OF PROPOSED "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION AND
Sundquist CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CIRCULATION OF
Annexation FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS (Proponent: Eric Sundquist / File No. AX -98 -101)
Councilmember Petso excused herself from participation in this matter.
Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained this item is a petition to request initiation of an annexation
process. The proponent, Eric Sundquist, has presented petitions with signatures of property owners
representing over 10% of the assessed valuation of the - proposed annexation boundary. He displayed a .
map of the proposed boundary.
Council President Miller explained Councilmember Petso excused herself from participation because she
is also a Commissioner for Olympic View Water District who provides service to this area and therefore
had a potential conflict of interest as a Councilmember. .
Mr. Wilson explained the proposed annexation area is.approximately 193 acres and is bounded by the
existing City limits on the southern and eastern boundaries. He identified Fire Station #20, currently in
the unincorporated Esperance area, explaining the City assumed operation of the Fire Station a- number
of years ago via an agreement with Fire District 1 and the City currently staffs and operates the station.
Via discussions with the proponent, boundaries that follow major. rights -of -way have been identified on
the northern and western boundaries, one of the criteria of State law for establishing annexation
boundaries. He explained this is an informal opportunity for the proponent to meet with the Council to
discuss the proposed annexation process.
If the Council indicates they are interested in proceeding with the proposed annexation, the next step is to
hold a public hearing to seek input from residents in the area and to present a resolution to the Council
which, if adopted, allows the circulation of formal annexation petitions. Under the petition method of
annexation, there are two processes, 1) a petition to initiate (requiring signatures of property owners
representing 10% of the assessed valuation) and 2) a petition to actually finalize the annexation
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 5
(requiring signatures of 60% of the assessed valuation). He stressed this was only the first step of many
that must occur before any annexation, if approved, would occur.
In the process of meeting with the proponent, he explained the Council was to consider, 1) whether to
accept, reject, or modify the proposed annexation boundaries, 2) whether to require the simultaneous
adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the subject area, 3) whether to require the assumption of the
existing city bonded indebtedness by the area'to be annexed, and 4) whether to authorize staff to prepare
the required "60 %" petitions for circulation. He explained in past annexations, the City has used a
comparable zoning designation method whereby as part of the petition process, designations comparable
to those existing in Snohomish County are adopted. The intent was not to reduce property owners'
zoning rights. Formal adoption of zoning designations would be done via the annual Comprehensive
Plan process following analysis of the annexation area. He explained the only existing bonded
indebtedness was the Public Safety bond. The initial calculation indicates the cost to residents in the
proposed annexation area would be approximately $0.29 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. He cautioned
this amount may be modified depending on the annexation boundaries, etc.
Mr. Wilson explained this proposed annexation was being handled differently than in the past by
separating the public hearing and consideration of the resolution from the meeting with the proponent to
allow the Council to determine whether to proceed with consideration of the resolution. He said a public
hearing on the proposed annexation has been tentatively scheduled for February 15 and a resolution
scheduled for consideration on February 22.
Eric Sundquist, 22831 86" Place, Edmonds (unincorporated Snohomish County), thanked the
Council for considering the annexation, indicating he and many others who live in the area were excited
about becoming part of the City. Although he did not care whether the assumption of the existing city
bonded indebtedness was required, some residents stated they were opposed to assuming bonded
indebtedness they did not have an opportunity to vote on. He requested the Council consider the petition
for annexation without the assumption of bonded indebtedness. He pointed out there was precedence for
this action as the two previous annexations were not required to assume bonded indebtedness. He said
even if assumption of bonded indebtedness was required, he still wanted to proceed with annexation. He
asked if there would be increased taxes in the City as a result of I =695.
Council President Miller asked Mr. Sundquist to explain his position on the assumption of bonded
indebtedness. Mr. Sundquist observed the cost was approximately $0.29 per $1,000 of assessed value.
Although he did not care whether he was required to assume the bonded indebtedness because he would
be receiving better police protection, have a closer, smaller, more friendly government, and lower taxes,
some residents do not want to assume the bonded indebtedness and that issue could determine whether
the agreement of 60% could be attained. He explained as a matter of principle, residents did not want to
assume a debt they did not have an opportunity to vote on. He said this statement was made when
gathering the signatures on the annexation petition.
Councilmember Earling said the only bonded indebtedness was for Public Safety and one of the reasons
residents of unincorporated Snohomish County want to be annexed was the quality of the City's Public
Safety. He observed the cost for a home valued at $300,000 would be approximately $90, which
appeared to be a reasonable request. Regarding increased taxes, he pointed out I -695 requires a public
vote on any tax increases and annexed residents would have the same opportunity to vote on any
proposed increase.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 6
Councilmember White observed the annexation of this area might require the addition of one or more
Police Officers, thereby placing an additional burden on Public Safety. This could be offset by
assumption of the bonded indebtedness for Public Safety: Mr. Sundquist pointed out the City would
receive increased property revenues to offset those costs. Councilmember White agreed it may offset
those costs but would be used to offset other costs such as sewers.
Councilmember Earling requested staff provide information regarding the infrastructure needs in the
area, not a complete analysis just an assessment of the infrastructure needs.
Council President, Miller asked staff to provide information regarding additional staff that may be
required as a result of the annexation, including police to population ratios and possible impacts to the
Police Department.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CIRCULATION OF
FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS FOR THE PROPOSED " SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION
AND PLACE ON THE FEBRUARY 22, 2000, COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote).
Mr. Wilson advised the public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for February 15 and was one of
two public hearings required by law.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO
SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 15, 2000 REGARDING THE SUNDQUIST
ANNEXATION. MOTION CARRIED (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote).
Mr. Wilson referred to Exhibit #8, advising Olympic View Water District requested their property be
removed from boundaries of the proposed annexation. He asked if the intent was to maintain the
boundaries as proposed or exclude Olympic View Water District's property.
For Councilmember White, Mr. Sundquist said his understanding was Olympic View Water District did
not .want to split the facility located on both sides of 228h (228 ' being the boundary of the proposed
annexation).
Speaking as a Commission for Olympic View Water District, Lora Petso stated that Olympic View has
requested they be drawn outside of the proposed annexation and recalled the intent was to allow citizens
to decide whether to be annexed to Edmonds without Olympic View property influencing that decision.
She said Olympic View was informed if they failed to act, that also represented taking a position.
Further, the tank farm located on both sides of 228`s was an integrated site and the engineer prefers the
entire property remain under a single jurisdiction if possible.
City Attorney Scott Snyder offered to prepare resolutions including and excluding the Olympic View
Water District property and a decision could be made regarding that property at the time the Council
authorizes circulation of the petition. Councilmember White requested staff provide input such as
whether the City would derive revenue from the property if it were annexed. Councilmember Plunkett
requested staff outline pros and cons of including /excluding the property from the annexation area.
(Councilmember Petso returned to her seat on the Council.)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 7 .
Closed 5. CLOSED RECORD MEETING — APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO
Record APPROVE A 4 -LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION WHICH INCLUDES A CRITICAL AREA
Appeal -
160XX 72 nd VARIANCE FROM STEEP SLOPES AND SETBACK VARIANCES FOR LOTS 1. 2 AND 3.
Ave. W. - FROM 10 FEET DOWN TO ZERO FEET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 160XX
C. Warner 72" AVENUE WEST AND IS ZONED "RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS -20." (Applicant:
P -99 -224 Sequoia Ridge Partners / File Nos. S -98 -108 and V -98 -109. Appeilant: Charles Warner / File No.
AP -99 -224.
Mayor Haakenson explained this was a quasi-judicial hearing and asked if any Councilmember wished to
disclose any conflict of interest under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Councilmember Orvis
advised one of the parties of record, Mark Thometz, contributed to his campaign.. City Attorney Scott
Snyder advised campaign contributions as well as any statement made during the course of a campaign
were specifically exempted as a disqualifying issue under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine as long as
the moneys were reported.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he received a campaign contribution in 1997 from I Mark Thometz.
Councilmember Plunkett said Mr. Thometz was not a principle in this matter but only provided
comment. There were no other disclosures made.
Mr. Snyder advised a letter of complaint was received at the last Council meeting regarding staff conduct
in this subdivision. He explained the letter was not a part of this proceeding and could not be considered,
as this was a closed record appeal. He said any objection on that basis would disqualify the entire
Council and a disqualifying action that destroyed a quorum was deemed unreasonable.
Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any objections to Councilmember Plunkett's or Councilmember
Orvis' participation. There were no objections voiced and Mayor Haakenson advised all
Councilmembers were empowered to participate in the hearing.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess to address a video camera malfunction.
Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any objections to the participation of any other Councilmember.
No objections were voiced.
Mayor Haakenson described the timelines for staff, the applicant and the appellant's presentations and
public comment by parties of record.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was a closed record appeal; the Council was limited to
reviewing facts contained in the prepared record. He said those providing testimony were arguing from
the record. He advised the Council should pose questions requesting the individual's position or where
in the record the information could be found. He said the 60 -day time period limitation for review of
subdivisions (less the time for environmental review) was approaching.
Councilmember Petso asked if the Council could ask . staff for interpretations of law. Mr. Snyder
answered yes.
Planner Karissa Kawamoto displayed a map of the subject site and explained this was a subdivision of
property that was approved by the Hearing Examiner. in. November 1999. The information presented to
the Council was the same as provided to the Hearing Eka niner when making his decision including staff
reports, decisions, reconsideration requests, etc.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 8
a
Ms. Kawamoto explained the subject property 'was currently vacant and, as with most undeveloped
properties remaining in the city, there are several environmental constraints in its development potential.
She said if this were a flat, dry parcel, a developer could subdivide it into eight single- family residential
lots in the RS 20 zone. The applicant proposed a 4 -lot subdivision with several variances. She identified
three critical areas as defined by Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) including two steep
slopes (on the west side sloping to the east and on the south side sloping to the north), a wetland and a
stream adjacent to North Meadowdale Road.
Due to the environmental sensitivity of this project, staff felt further analysis of the slope stability and
impacts of development on the wetland and stream was necessary before proceeding with the subdivision
process. Via SEPA, staff issued a Determination of Significance and required an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) be prepared (page 125 of the Council packet). The EIS, prepared by a consultant hired
by the City, GEO Group Northwest and B12 Associates, concluded a 4 -lot short plat could be
constructed as proposed with . minimal impacts to the critical areas if the recommendations and
construction practices outlined in the EIS were required and followed. As the project progressed, an
appeal of the EIS adequacy was filed and the EIS appeal and the subdivision were forwarded to the
Hearing Examiner for a decision on the entire project.
Ms. Kawamoto explained a.public hearing was held in October 1999 to take testimony on the EIS appeal
and short plat itself. The Hearing Examiner utilized the public's oral and written testimony and
information provided by staff and the applicant to render his decision. On November 4, 1999, the
Hearing Examiner issued a decision of approval on the subdivision and critical areas variances subject to
a number of conditions.
A letter of appeal was filed by Charles Warner on December 6, 1999. She summarized the six issues
raised in Mr. Warner's appeal into two categories, 1) the Hearing Examiner's concurrence with staff's
interpretation of the Development Standards and authority in the Critical Areas ordinance and 2) the lack
of what the appellant felt were sufficient findings and conclusions to support the decision issued by the
Hearing Examiner in his report. She advised the staff report outlined staff's position on each of the
appeal issues. She said the Hearing Examiner provided the findings and conclusions in his report that, he
felt were necessary to render his decision. When asked by Mr. Warner to expand or supplement on his
findings and conclusions, the Hearing Examiner indicated his original, report contained sufficient
findings and conclusions and did not add or change his original report. Staff recommends the Council
deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Examiner's November 4, 1999 decision.
Regarding the designation of flag lots for the three properties, Councilmember Petso asked if that related
to the type of road needed to access the properties. Ms. Kawamoto answered yes. Councilmember Petso
observed staff indicated it qualified because there were only three homes, and the first home was not
counted. She asked if this same logic could be used in the future to extend the road to three additional
homes on the same theory that the first four were not counted. Ms. Kawamoto advised the road was a
private access easement. In order to further subdivide or add to the road, it would likely be an issue for
denial of an additional request to subdivide further property. She commented the approval of all
neighbors would be required to add more residences to the road, the road was not designed to
accommodate more than the three proposed houses, and the environmental constraints of the property
would likely preclude it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 9
Councilmember Petso asked if four houses were allowed on the road rather than three as in this instance,
whether there was possibility if additional property was added. Ms. Kawamoto answered most likely
not; flag lots were determined by whether they front on a public road and in this instance they do not,
they are all on a private easement. She said Lot 1 was not on the private road.
Councilmember Orvis asked if the wetland setback would normally be 50 feet from a wetland. Ms.
Kawamoto answered it depended on the class of the wetland. This is a class 2 wetland; a 50 -foot buffer
was required. Councilmember Orvis asked if the setback from the steep slope was 50 feet.. Ms.
Kawamoto answered yes. Councilmember Orvis inquired about the required setback from the stream.
Ms. Kawamoto answered this is a class 2 stream which requires a 25 -foot buffer.
Council President Miller observed the packet indicated the stream was originally classified as a class 3
stream as there were no salmon. Ms. Kawamoto said staff originally classified the stream as a class 3 as
this was the only open portion of what staff originally believed to be channelized drainage. However, the
EIS indicated the stream met all criteria for a. class 2 stream.
Councilmember Petso asked where in the records the application of reasonable use criteria could be
found to determine whether staff was allowed to average the wetland buffer. Mr. Snyder answered it was
not in the records. Staff's interpretation and uniform application of the reasonable use exception is that it
was created to prevent takings of property, where regulation of property by the city would destroy all
reasonable use. The provisions in Chapter 20.15(B) require that an applicant apply first for variances
from wetland buffers and then apply for reasonable use exception if he /she can obtain no reasonable use
of the property after the variances have been considered. In this instance, staff's interpretation of the
chapter never reaches reasonable use exception as those criteria are only applied when the applicant
requests and when the applicant is unable to obtain variances from the buffers.
Councilmember Petso said there was a third time when they applied. Chapter 20.1513.080(b), issue #4
stated "standard critical area buffers can be modified by city planning staff on a case by case basis."
However, she noted the variance sentence appears to condition that on the review of the criteria. Mr.
Snyder advised staff would confer and respond to this question by the close of the hearing.
Councilmember Petso said one of the items in the record indicated that the City typically required a
certain amount of specificity in granting a variance. She asked if that applied to all variances. Ms.
Kawamoto answered yes, there are specific variance criteria. Councilmember Petso asked if it would be
conceivable for an applicant to request a variance of a height limit, indicating he was unsure of the actual
height but wanted enough height to secure a certain view. Ms. Kawamoto answered yes, but it was up to
the Hearing Examiner to determine whether they met the criteria to be granted the variance.
Councilmember Petso asked if that represented sufficient specificity. Ms. Kawamoto answered yes if the
applicant was willing to use that argument.
Mr. Snyder clarified the applicant always has the burden of proof to show their request is the minimum
necessary, therefore, specificity helps. The more general a request is, the more difficult it was to resolve
the criteria.
Applicant
John Thoresen, 15621 48th Place W, Edmonds, general partner in Sequoia Partners, asked to retain
five minutes for rebuttal. Mr. Thoresen indicated his partner, Phil Holroyd, was also present. Mr.
Thoresen said when his partner and he began this process, they had no idea the amount of time and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 10
expense that would be required to build a home for each of their families and to sell the two adjacent
lots. He said they were presented. this property as a.7 -unit PRD. As staff.reported, eight units could be
accommodated in this zone but both he and his'wife, and Phil and his wife, felt seven houses were too
much for the property and wanted to preserve as much of it as possible. He said their proposal utilizes
less than 13% of the total site for development. Mr. Thoresen stressed he is not a developer and would
be_ building his own personal house on the property, his ,partner would be building his own personal
house on the property. They are not building to make money but to locate their home in Edmonds. They
have marketed the other two lots to friends who want to make their home in Edmonds. While they were
concerned with the extraordinary, amount of time and expense associated with obtaining the permits, they
feel they could state with assurance that their homes and their neighbors' homes would be safe and that
the property was being developed in an environmentally sensitive manner. He said this has been
collaborated by the City's consultant who prepared the EIS. He believed this was the only EIS ever
completed on a 4 -lot short subdivision.
Mr. Thoresen acknowledged there were neighbors with concerns but said they have not been privy to the -
volumes of research and analysis conducted on behalf of this development. The Hearing Examiner's
public hearing on the application was the first time neighbors heard from the experts. He referred to the
"extensive" legal brief prepared for the Hearing Examiner, noting the brief clearly states why this
development is legal and how it meets the intent of the GMA and Edmonds Code. As their attorney Mr.
Reynolds stated in his brief, "that the City recognizes under the Growth Management Act that urban
infilling is required. A logical consequence of urban infilling is the development of parcels that are more
difficult to develop. The presence of steep slopes and wetlands is a starting point, not an ending point."
Mr. Thoresen said City staff has been wonderful to work with over the past 6 -8 months. While he did
not always agree with their decisions, he said they conducted themselves in a professional manner with
strong customer service and courtesy. He said although matters could have been dealt with differently,
they are now ready to proceed. He advised this property was donated to the Edmonds Community
College Foundation for scholarships. He said the transcripts ' from the public hearing describe this in
detail. -
Mr. Thoresen summarized two separate geotechnical reviews have been conducted on the property, two
wetland biologists conducted analyses, soil borings have been conducted, and a full EIS for this
development was performed by experts. He highlighted the statement in the analysis that. the .
development as proposed was likely to add stability. to the steep west- facing slope than would occur if no
development were to take place. He explained the proposed drainage system takes water off the site. He
said it was time to allow his family and his partner's family and the two other individuals to build four
moderate houses on four acres of property, the vast majority of which would be left untouched and
undeveloped for the foreseeable future. He urged the Council to deny the appeal and uphold the "careful
and thoughtful" decisions of staff and Hearing Examiner.
Councilmember Petso requested Mr. Thoresen identify the area in the legal brief or other materials that
addressed flag lot or whether the criteria has been met for staff to do wetland buffer averaging. Mr.
Thoresen referred to the legal brief that begins on page 55 of the Council packet and said he was
uncertain where those issues were addressed.
Councilmember Orvis asked Mr. Thoresen to identify the location of the statement regarding
improvement in the slope stability. Mr. Thoresen said it was contained in the EIS.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 11
In response to Councilmember Petso's question, Mr. Snyder referred to page 202, a portion of the
Limited .Scope EIS which addressed the wetland buffer reduction and averaging.
Mr. Thoresen read from page 225 of the Council packet (GEO Group Northwest's Geotechnical
Review), "placing the buildings on deep pile foundation system (25 foot minimum length of piles) will
significantly help to protect the buildings from potential damage from possible future sloughing along
the top of the steep slope (which could be anticipated to occur over the long term even if no development
occurred on the site)." Council President Miller advised there was also information in the second bullet
on page 201 of the Council packet.
Appellant
Charles Warner submitted written comments in the event insufficient time was available to provide all
his testimony. He said he did not dispute any of the scientific or professional evidence that had been
submitted in this record regarding the environmental impacts to this site. From the beginning he
objected to the process, abuse of the process and what he believed to be a corrupt process. He referred to
paragraph 2 on page 385 where Ms. Kawamoto swore to tell the truth. In the same page, paragraph 5,
she referenced a 4 -lot short plat, file #98 -83 and immediately gave false testimony regarding the nature
of the requested critical area variance, the reasonable use exception and requested land use. Ms.
Kawamoto further made a false rassertion that this application was the first to use the critical area
variance to gain approval of a subdivision. Mr. Warner said those representations were the heart of his
appeal. He questioned whether the process was being applied evenly, fairly and across the board.
Mr. Warner said Ms. Kawamoto's statement that the request for reasonable use exception were for a very
different set of circumstances was untrue; the issues and circumstances were identical and the arguments
made were fought by City staff. That. application was filed concurrent with this application. He pointed
out City staff "viciously went after" one part icular plat, but they argued the opposite in the next. In that
application, all issues were argued before the Hearing Examiner who upheld all staff's arguments. Upon
reconsideration, the appeal was rejected. When the Council reviewed the issue, they unanimously upheld
all the Hearing Examiner's findings. He stressed those findings still apply today as the City has not
changed its Critical Areas Ordinance in the interim and that was the basis for his objection.
Regarding issue #1 in his appeal, Mr. Warner referred to page 406 of the Council packet where the
appellant asked for a response from engineering addressing the street status due to the service of more
than three homes. He referred to paragraph 2 on page 411, where the appellant asked the Hearing
Examiner to consider flag lot termination due to street status and informs the Hearing Examiner the
street is defined in the ECDC, asks if street setbacks, codified street improvements and turnaround
requirements should apply. He referred to page 422, Item 3a, where the Hearing Examiner references
Exhibit L which was not provided in the report, however, Exhibit M (page 38) shows four dwellings
accessing from a proposed street. On page 2, staff declares four homes initially, three homes eventually
accessing from the street. In the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in file #98 -83 (which he noted
was part of this record by inference because it was raised by staff) addresses street requirements and
prohibits the narrowing of a street as the number of dwellings decrease. City staff fought hard for that
and Mr. Snyder was aware of those issues, however, now staff ignores those issues and "acting like it's
no big deal" to change a street to an access easement. He requested proper findings of flag lot status be
remanded to the Hearing Examiner.
Regarding Issue #2, non - specific variances cannot be properly evaluated and findings cannot be made
regarding special privilege or minimum necessary, two elements. Mr. Warner pointed out are required for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18,.2000
Page 12
1
approval. As Councilmember Petso noted, how can a height variance for the minimum necessary be
granted if the actual height was not known. He requested specific variances be required prior to making
findings.
Regarding Issue #3, Mr. Warner referred to ECDC 20.15B.120 and said it applied to all streams not just
category 1. He said staff has asserted and the Hearing Examiner upheld that it applies only to category 1
streams. He requested input from the City Attorney and, remand to the Hearing Examiner for a proper
finding.
Regarding Issue #4, buffer averaging methodology, Mr. Warner said this was not addressed in the file
materials although it may have been addressed in the EIS. If so, he was willing to drop this issue. He
explained staff insists they have the ability to average buffers and the statement is made by staff that they,
typically approve them. He stressed there was specific criteria that must be addressed, and staff did not
typically approve buffer averaging, they typically stop them.. He requested input .from the City Attorney,
remand to the Hearing Examiner for findings in accordance with provisions in ECDC.
Regarding Issue #5, the Hearing Examiner failed to address written findings of contradictions raised in
the City record regarding subdividing property under the.Critical Areas ordinance, Mr. Warner referred
to page 405, paragraph 5, and said he agreed with the scientific evidence presented but objected to the
proposal based on the grounds that the development was. illegal based on the current code. He quoted
from the record of the aforementioned file, pointing out that in each of the arguments regarding
subdivision utilizing Critical Areas variance, the issues argued were identical in all material aspects to
this application. The record clearly shows staff opposition, Hearing Examiner concurrence and that the
City Council upheld the Hearing Examiner's decision. Mr. Warner referred to paragraph 7 on page 405
which states application concurrency and application of loss would be the same, and a code change was
required to approve this application.
Mr. Warner referred to paragraph 2, page 63 which indicates the applicant's attorney states in his own
brief that prior appellant arguments fail to give deference to Planning Department's particular expertise
in administering these statutes. Mr. Warner referred to paragraph 1 on page 65, the applicant's attorney
states the Planning Division has particular expertise in applying statutes at hand, deriving from the fact
that the Planning Division administers these statutes every day. Mr. Warner stressed staff has argued
against this every step of the way. He pointed out the Planning Department commented they don't do
this every day, this was the first time it has ever been done. Mr. Warner requested this be remanded to
the Hearing Examiner.
Regarding Issue #6, Mr. Warner requested reasonable use exception because under the code provision
for crossing a stream, an exception was required. All other areas of the Critical Areas ordinance state "or
an exception, that section specifically states "and'. He requested the City Attorney require a reasonable
exception and remand to the Hearing Examiner.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO
EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Orvis observed Mr. Warner agreed with the scientific. evidence in the application. Mr.
Warner answered yes; he could not challenge geotechnical engineers, wildlife biologists or hydrologic
engineers. He said there was nothing to suggest there were adverse environmental impacts from this
project. However, the City argued strenuously against such development in the past,_ specifically Ms.
Kawamoto, that creation of a lot within a critical area was a self - created hardship and was reason for
Edmonds.City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 13
denial. He stressed subdivision could not be done utilizing the Critical Areas Ordinance, an issue that
was upheld by the Hearing Examiner. He said the standard for reasonable use that has always been
argued and applied to other citizens was all reasonable use of the property. Previous rulings indicated if
there was the ability to develop the property, put a house on it, that was reasonable use of residential
property. He said all the scientific data supporting the development did not negate the Code as written
and applied by staff. Mr. Snyder advised the appellant must address specific questions posed by the
Council.
Public Comment
Mary Nearing, 16119 73rd Place, representing Lorian Woods Homeowners Association, said they
objected to the emotional issues regarding donation of funds to Edmonds Community College and said
the findings should be totally factual, based on the issues of the critical areas variances, and not based on
community college needs and scholarships. Regarding the statement that placing the houses on piles
would increase the stability of that house but will not prevent sloughing of the slope, she said they live
on the downside of the slope and were not convinced that those houses remaining on the piles would
prevent their being buried. She said the equipment to install piles, roads, drains, etc. may cause
instability of the slope.
Drew Wojtanik, 16306 72 "d Avenue West, Edmonds, (the street that would be used to develop the
property), said if the development was approved, he welcomed Mr. Thoresen and his partner to the
.community and had no hard feelings about the process.. Mr. Wojtanik said their only concern was that
the process was carried out on a level playing field for everyone. Due to limited time to provide
comment tonight, he said he would address only two issues although they had more in their testimony to
the Hearing Examiner. Regarding landslide hazard area, he said the development of the upper three lots
of this subdivision were proposed to be located in a well known, well documented landslide hazard area.
Further, these lots were to be constructed with zero setback from the edge of a steep bank although
existing City code requires 25 feet or 50 feet as stated by Councilmember Orvis. He pointed out
variances were granted by the Hearing Examiner and were concurred with by the City. These seem to be
totally inappropriate given the circumstances of the zone.
Regarding wildlife habitat impacts, he said in their September 14 letter of appeal to the Hearing
Examiner, the Meadowdale Community Council raised the issue of potential impacts to wildlife habitat
from the development. He said it appeared the City Planning Department was completely oblivious to
the species of concern in this area. According to the State of Washington, there could be as many as 159
different species present in that area; City planners were only aware of two, bald eagles and salmon. The
Meadowdale Community Council contacted the State Department of Fish and Wildlife who sent a
representative to survey the area. The wildlife biologist wrote to the Hearing Examiner indicating a
more thorough search should be conducted for bald eagles, great blue herons, pileated woodpeckers and
band - tailed pigeons. He said apparently due to the timing of the letter's receipt, the applicant's response
was to ignore the letter as the biologist was not present to defend it and the Hearing Examiner did not
address it at all.
Philip Lehn, 16202 72 "d Avenue, Edmonds, said according to the City's requirements for variances,
this proposal must not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or
improvements in the .vicinity and zone in which the property is located. He said members of City staff
and the Hearing Examiner, who were only minimally impacted by the consequences of their decision,
determined that the Sequoia Ridge Partners' short plat proposal was not materially detrimental or
injurious to the neighborhood. He said those who..own properties and.live in the neighborhood, who are
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 14
Fj�
most directly impacted by the City's decision, decided nearly unanimously that the City staff and
Hearing Examiner were wrong and that they wouldbe :injured if the variances were granted.
Mr. Lehn asked how adding more lots to a substandard street without widening it was not injurious.
While City standards require their street to be 22 feet wide; the center of the street was only 14 feet wide.
He questioned why street standards were established if they were waived apathetically. He asked why
the elimination of setback requirements from the top of the steep slope slide area was not considered
injurious. He said the property values of the properties directly below the new houses perched on the
bluff would suffer negative impacts. He said despite the assurances given by the proponent's
geotechnical engineer, the properties below will most certainly be worth less and .take longer to sell. He
said this should be considered materially detrimental.
Mr. Lehn said the property was a large and very rare tract of nearly pristine urban wilderness. He asked
why the elimination of this much urban wildlife was not considered injurious. He asked why the
reasonable objections raised by the urban wildlife specialist from the State's Department of Fish and
Wildlife were dismissed on procedural grounds and why the City had not investigated the merits of her
concerns.
Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation of the hearing.
Applicant Rebuttal
In response to the question posed regarding stability, Mr. Thoresen referred to Section 3.5.1. page 177,
four -lot alternative (proposed action), which. states (in part) "Post- construction impacts to the site,
however, are anticipated to consist of the diversion of a portion of the precipitation on site to the storm
drain system, reducing the on -site recharge to groundwater. This impact could have the effect of
marginally increasing the stability of the site." Regarding variances, he referred to page 64, which
covers court law regarding variances, particularly the references to the City ordinances language.
Regarding the issue Mr. Wojtanik raised regarding traffic, Mr. Thoresen referred to page 403 where
Development Services Engineer Gordy Hyde provided testimony at the Hearing Examiner hearing
regarding traffic..
Councilmember Orvis referred to page 191 and asked if the recommendation that a geotechnical engineer
be retained to monitor the pile installation operation be monitored was included in the Hearing
Examiner's conditions. Mr. Thoresen answered he was not certain but the Hearing Examiner's decision
indicated that development occur in accordance with the recommendations of the EIS and the
recommendation in the EIS was for pile foundations. He said piles have been engineered for the homes
he has been involved with.
Councilmember Orvis observed the covenants appeared to require enforcement by the City.- Mr.
Thoresen answered they were similar to a PRD where there are CC &R's for the development. He said
staff recommendation regarding the covenants was reflected in the Hearing Examiner's decision and
indicated they address items such as the storm drain will be a private system and homeowners are
responsible to maintain it. Further the first 15 feet of the west slope . will be determined as a non-
disturbance area and will be part of the recording of the final plat.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER. MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 15
Councilmember Orvis observed one study advised no swimming pools. Mr. Thoresen said that was the
Draft EIS, comments are submitted regarding the draft, the consultant re- evaluated the EIS using the
comments submitted and developed a final EIS. Mr. Thoresen said his recommendations regarding a
swimming pool were reviewed by the geotechnical engineer and upheld by the Hearing Examiner.
Councilmember Orvis asked if a swimming pool would be required to be supported by a pile system the
same as the house. Mr- Thoresen said the record only requires that there be an evacuation system for the
water (a space between the bottom of the pool and another layer to gather the water to be dispersed into
the storm sewer system in the event of a leak).
Councilmernber,Orvis asked if the weight of the pool was a concern cited in the record. Mr. Thoresen
answered no because "the maximum allowable pool in the geotech's recommendation was 400 square
feet. He commented any pool must also be set back 25 feet from the west face of the slope. He offered
to indicate where a pool might be located but indicated that information was not part of the record.
In response to Councilmember Petso's earlier question, Mr. Snyder commented it was often difficult to
prove the negative. Staff's application of the criteria were not contained anywhere in the decision. The
only place they were able to find it were three references, 1) the consultant's EIS, 2) in the calculation of
the setbacks, and 3) in a portion of the 'staff report that was not contained in the records (reference to
staff's technical committee, page 17, Item F refers to the checklist).
Councilmember Petso said the. basis of her concern was page 141, which made a reasonable case that the
reasonable use criteria, were not met. She felt the City's regulations indicated if the reasonable use
criteria were not met, staff did not have the authority to buffer average and the appellant's challenge on
that point would be valid. Mr. Snyder said there was a separate reasonable use criteria provision that
contains separate criteria. He said Councilinember Petso may be referring to the reference to reasonable
use of the property. Councilmember Petso said she was referring to the averaging provisions.
Mr. Snyder disagreed with Councilmember Petso's interpretation, stating that was not how staff has
applied it. He asked if the process for making a reasonable use determination was described in the
record. Ms. Kawamoto answered she was not certain.
Councilmember Petso said it appeared the Code, requires that in order for staff to do buffer averaging,
they must find the reasonable use requirement has been met. She said the only information in the packet
was on page 141, which concludes the reasonable use requirements have not been met. Ms. Kawamoto
said the reasonable use criteria referenced on page 141 refer to the project as a whole, not specifically to
the wetland buffering or the reduction in steep slope critical area. Staff relied on the expert testimony
provided in the EIS (page 203) with regard to reasonable use and potential impacts on the wetland as a
result of development.
Councilmember Petso asked staff's finding with regard to Criteria #2 of the Reasonable Use Exception,
which states there was no reasonable use consistent with the underlying zoning with less impact on the
critical area. Ms. Kawamoto answered in conjunction with the other critical areas and the proposal of the
4 -lot subdivision with the support of a geotech and wetlands professional, buffer averaging was
necessary to accommodate a 4 -lot subdivision.
Mr. Snyder referred to paragraph 4 of the appeal which states the Hearing Examiner erred in ignoring
provision of 20.15B.080(B)(2), the section that refers to-reasonable use. Mr. Snyder said the Reasonable
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 16
Use Exception was contained in 20.15B.040 . He said the reasonable use exception has been applied in a
number of lots but that issue was not appealed.' The appeal refers to reasonable use, which was staff's
determination that was used in the averaging and the consultant's report but was not contained in the
record. '
In response to Councilmember Orvis, Ms. Kawamoto explained the covenant was a private covenant
between the four homeowners of the Sequoia Ridge Development and could address house colors,
fencing types, etc. but must also include the recommendations from the geotech in the EIS. The City
would not be involved in any enforcement, and any complaints would be addressed as a civil matter.
Regarding swimming pools,, Ms. Kawamoto pointed out the houses are still subject to building permit
review. They have been identified as being in the Meadowdale landslide hazard area and there are
additional requirements for houses constructed in this area including peer review by an outside
consultant of the structural and geotechnical information supplied for a building permit. Any permit for
a swimming pool would be reviewed by a licensed engineer for stability and appropriateness of the
location. Mr. Snyder said, Ms. Kawamoto was referring to Section 19.05.030, which required that any
building permit application include the statement of a geotech that the proposed improvements leave the
lot stable. He said the definition of stable was contained in Section 19.05.020.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO
EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Regarding the issue Mr. Wojtanik raised regarding the Department of Fish'and Wildlife's letter, Mr.
Snyder explained the letter was objected to by Mr. Johnson on behalf of the applicant but was contained
in the record. He said one of the difficulties for the Council was that they must determine how to assign
weight. The Hearing Examiner gave more weight to the geotech report than the question raised in the
letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife.. He said the Council lacks the ability to continue this
process, ask more questions, expand the record, or refer the matter to the Hearing Examiner because the
time limit to reach a decision on this application will expire in early February. He said the Council may
approve, deny or condition approval.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the width of 72 "d Avenue. Ms. Kawamoto answered the paved right -of-
way was less than the City standard. She said the width was addressed in Mr. Hyde's comments to the
Hearing Examiner. She said the paved width of the street was 16 feet. Mr. Snyder pointed out it was the
City's obligation to widen the road and was not a basis for denial. Ms. Kawamoto said the 16 -foot paved
roadway was based on a past Hearing Examiner and City Council decision. Councilmember Plunkett
asked if the roadway could be widened. Ms. Kawamoto answered widening would require substantial
retaining walls and other engineering improvements. Mr. Snyder said a development application could
not be denied because the City failed to develop streets in accordance with its own street plan.
Responding to Councilmember White's question, Mr. Snyder answered the Council has six findings of
error in the appeal and should review them individually to determine whether the Hearing Examiner's
decision supported them. The Council could alter the Findings of Fact based on the records or impose
conditions if, there was sufficient basis to approve the application with conditions. If the Council felt the
application was not supported by the evidence based on the Findings, the application could be denied.
He stressed the Council's review was limited to the six findings of error.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the issue to Council for deliberation.,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 17
Councilmember Petso said the appellant may be correct regarding Issue #4, as under 20.1513.080132, staff
must find reasonable use per ECDC 20.15B.040(c)(1) — (6) in order to do buffer averaging. Page 141
indicates the criteria was not met, particularly with regard to 20.1513.040(c)(2).
Councilmember White disagreed with Councilmember Petso's analysis and said the issue was addressed
and supported by staff. He found the record supported the Hearing Examiner's decision and he could not
find fault with his decision. He said he gave some deference to the Hearing Examiner's decision because
he heard the live testimony from participants at the hearing. He respected the Hearing Examiner's
analysis of the issues and felt his decision was well supported. Councilmember White recommended
denial of the appeal.
Councilmember Orvis advised he considered both the Critical Areas variance, particularly the
elimination of the steep slope critical setback and the buffer averaging for lots 3 and 4. He said the
buffer average appeared appropriate, they encroached into the buffer in one area and increased the buffer
in another area. Given the shape of the land and the special circumstances, he felt this was appropriate.
He was concerned with the stability of the site on the west side but the record demonstrated sufficient
scientific evidence that this was a stable area and would be improved by development. He said the piles
would transfer the weight of the house to the lower portions of the hill. Although he was sympathetic to
the property owners down slope, he said the scientific evidence supported the decision that was made.
Councilmember Earling said after reviewing the materials and his general knowledge of the difficulty of
developing this site, he found the compromise proposed by the developer to be compelling and struck a
good balance. However, many issues are yet unresolved such as how the property owners eventually
design the buildings. He said one or more of the properties may be before the Council in the future due
to the challenges the developer will face. He understood Councilmember Petso's concerns but found the
Hearing Examiner's arguments satisfactory. He indicated he would support denial of the appeal. .
Councilmember Petso reiterated her concern regarding "piggybacking" on the existing flag lot. She was
concerned if an unknown setback was allowed to be the minimum necessary in granting a variance, the
City would soon be faced with unknown height variances in the future.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO
DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S NOVEMBER 4, 1999
DECISION.
Councilmember Plunkett said his first concern was addressed by Councilmember Petso. Further, he said
the appellant was not able to convince the Council that the technical aspects had not been satisfied.
MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED.
Proposed 6. PROPOSED CHANGE FROM STREET USE PERMIT TO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
Change from
Street Use
Permit to City Engineer Jim Walker explained this issue was'discussed with the Community Services Committee
Encroach-
ment Permit their Jul 13 meeting. e two members of the Committee agreed with staff that this was a
ment Permit 3' �'' �
worthwhile matter to pursue. He explained the goal was to simplify the existing situation to create a
non- renewal permit. Currently if application was made for permit for placing a portion of a building,
sign, etc. in the right-of-way,, a 3 -year permit was issued which must be renewed. An encroachment
permit transfers the responsibility to ensuring the item was kept safe to the applicant. The applicant
signs an agreement agreeing to be responsible for the item, and a one -time permit is issued. This
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 18
[1
1
eliminates the need for staff to process and continually renew permits that were primarily an
administrative process that did not benefit the City.
Mr. Walker said the typical effective date of ordinances was five days. Staff would like to complete the
permits already in process before the use of the encroachment permit became effective. He suggested
the effective date be revised to 10 days.
Councilmember Petso observed eliminating the automatic renewal requirement had no effect on the
City's right to revoke a permit. Mr. Walker answered yes, pointing out although there was no renewal,
this would be a one -time permit, and staff retained the right to revoke the permit.
Ord. #3292 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
ECDC 18.70 ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3292. MOTION CARRIED. The ordinance approved is as
Street/Right-
of -Way Use/ follows:
Encroach-
ment Permit AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING CHAPTER
18.70 STREET USE PERMITS AND IN ITS PLACE ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 18.70
STREET/RIGHT -OF -WAY USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Outdoor 7. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO -EDMONDS COMMUNITY
Bistro DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.70 TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPROVAL OF OUTDOOR
Dining BISTRO DINING IN THE BC ZONE THROUGH A "TEMPORARY USE PERMIT." (File No.
CDC -99 -122)
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the Council adopted an interim zoning ordinance in mid -1999
instituting these provisions and referred the issue to the Planning Board for study. The Planning Board
considered the concept, felt it was appropriate and recommended the provision become a permanent part
of the code. Mr. Chave pointed out in addition to the conditions such as the outdoor dining take place in
front of the business, etc. the business must obtain an encroachment permit.
Councilmember Petso recalled the ordinance preventing obstruction of the sidewalk was addressed in
another ordinance. Mr. Chave advised that was addressed via the encroachment process.
City Attorney Scott Snyder said the compliance with the State Building Code and Handicap Accessibility
Requirements must also be met. Further if a neighboring property owner felt the use was a nuisance,
there was a separate City provision that permitted three property owners to bring an action to the City
Council to have a permit revoked due to nuisance criteria.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the public who wished to address the Council. Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation
portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER, TO
ECD
d. C #3293 APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3293. MOTION CARRIED. The ordinance approved is as follows:
17.70.040
..'" and AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
utdoor PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.70 REGARDING TEMPORARY USES TO ADD A NEW
Wing SECTION 17.70.040 BISTRO AND OUTDOOR DINING, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 19
ECDC g. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY
0.75.055
Lot DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.75 TO RENUMBER THE CURRENT SECTION 20.75.055
ombina- — REQUIRED INFORMATION ON PRELIMINARY PLATS AS 20.75.060, AND THE ADDITION
ion OF A NEW SECTION 20 75 055 — LOT COMBINATION TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR
COMBINING PARCELS OF LAND OTHER THAN THROUGH THE LOT LINE ADJUSTME NT
PROCESS (File No. CDC -99 -129)
Mayor Haakenson referred to his earlier comments that this item would need to be continued as the
SEPA process has not yet been completed. As one audience member indicated interest in this item,
Mayor Haakenson recommended the Council proceed with the public hearing and discussion and
continue the hearing to a date following the completion of the SEPA review.
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the Planning Board initiated this item as a customer service
response. He explained the City routinely requires lots to be combined if a project spans more than one
parcel. Up to this time, a survey has been required to complete what was essentially an administrative
process. The intent in drafting this ordinance was to simplify the process.
Councilmember Petso observed the Planning Commission minutes indicated their recommendation
regarding the ordinance differed from the ordinance presented to the Council. Mr. Chave advised the
language in paragraph B recommended to be deleted by the Planning Board, would be deleted in the final
ordinance presented to the Council
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the public who wished to address the Council. Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation
portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 15, 2000. MOTION CARRIED.
9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Snolsle Ken Nichols - Hoppe, 23710 80`h Lane W, Edmonds, referred to the Council's recent decision regarding
Library
!Contract the library and said the City's library was wonderful and added greatly to the quality of life in Edmonds.
He was concerned the decision appeared to have been made without much public input, on the spur of
the moment and possibly on the heels of the I -695 vote. He was concerned there was not time for public
input or a thorough discussion of alternatives. He was concerned other alternatives may not have been
thoroughly addressed. He suggested the Council rescind their previous decision. Mayor Haakenson
advised the Council voted to rescind that decision at the beginning of the meeting.
Suggested Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake' Ballinger Way, Edmonds, suggested the time for agenda items be included in
Benda the newspaper. He noted concern that the Audience Comment portion of the meeting was on too late in
Changes
the meeting. He'said property owners on 5' Avenue have indicated to him the height limit for their
property was 45 feet and recommended the City clarify this with those property owners.
.10. REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
finance Finance Committee
Committee Councilmember Earling reported the majority of their meeting addressed library services. The
committee also .considered vehicle replacement issues and recommended replacement of three Grand
Prix vehicles in the Police Department with modification. '
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 20
vCommunity Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember White advised committee members elected the Committee Chair and established criteria
for establishing agendas. (Mr. White is the Chair.) . A discussion regarding possible future amendments
to the Critical Areas regulations was held and staff was directed to continue the process of
reviewing/amending the Critical Areas regulations and bring back any new concerns to the Committee
for review and direction. Several recommendations made by the Downtown Parking Committee for
changes to the Downtown parking were reviewed. The committee directed staff to take changes in
mixed -use parking requirements to the Planning Board, bring the reduction for on- street parking from 3
hours to 2 hours to Public Safety Committee and then to full Council for a public hearing, and place
changes in parking space dimension requirements and increase in employee parking permits to 75% on
the Council Consent Agenda. A request to convert a parking space to an interim loading dock at 551
Maple Street was reviewed and the committee directed staff to convert the space to a 15- minute loading
zone on an interim basis. Building /modulated roof design criteria was discussed and staff directed to
W on a pre - design ADB review process and also bring this issue to the Council retreat in February.
The Committee also discussed library services.
Public Public Safety Committee
Safety
Committee Councilmember Plunkett advised he was elected to chair the Public Safety Committee for 2000. Police
Chief Hickok and Fire Chief Tomberg described upcoming issues for the Public Safety Committee.
Councilmember Plunkett advised further information regarding these issues was available from City
Clerk Sandy Chase. The Committee considered an ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds
City Code defining assault in the four degrees (allowing an assault charge regardless of whether contact
caused bodily harm). This was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. Mountlake Terrace's
cancellation of their animal control contract was discussed. As the City and Mountlake Terrace shared
the cost of an enforcement .officer, the City may lose some animal control enforcement in six months and
will also impact parking enforcement. The Committee will be kept informed.. The police contract for
officers at Stevens Memorial Hospital was discussed. The City Attorney reviewed the contract and the
City was awaiting the review by Stevens Hospital's CEO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Metromedia 11. FIRST READING — PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS WASHINGTON
Fiber GRANTING TO METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK SERVICES INC A, NON - EXCLUSIVE
Network FRANCHISE TO INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A MULTIPLE CONDUIT FIBER
Services OPTIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM IN ON OVER, UPON, ALONG AND ACROSS
Franchise THE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS. WASHINGTON:
PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT
THERETO, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
City Engineer. Jim Walker advised the City received an application from Metromedia Fiber Network
Services to install fiber optic lines in the conduit that was placed by U.S. Crossing. He explained when
the conduit was installed, more than was necessary was installed which allows a second company to
operate in a similar manner throughout the City. He explained their system does not provide a service to
residences in the City at this time. The agreement was written. so that there are opportunities for
review /negotiation if the terms or conditions change or if federal rules change. He said there was little
opportunity for. the City to collect revenues or have much control over this as they are merely passing
through the City.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 21
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City was obligated to offer facilities under the same terms and
conditions to competitors. This agreement was developed using the U. S. Crossing franchise. He said
the indemnification provisions of the agreement have been carefully crafted.
Brooks Harlow, Metromedia Fiber Network Services, advised Jeff Burtrum, a Metromedia project
engineer, and he were available for questions. He said this reading culminates a lengthy negotiation with
the City Attorney which concluded this afternoon when Metromedia agreed to the indemnification
provisions which he believed provide ample protection for the City.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER,
TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM TO FEBRUARY 1, 2000. MOTION CARRIED.
12. MAYOR'S REPORT
Martin Luther
'King Jr. Day In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day on January 17, Mayor Haakenson read a proclamation issued by
roclarnation the Mayor's office on January 6 commemorating Martin Luther King Jr. and proclaiming January 17 as a
day to recognize his accomplishments.
or,Errt Mayor Haakenson referred to a memo from Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde regarding seven
ppointments vacancies on the Sister City Commission. Mayor Haakenson advised several commissioners completed
o Sister City
om===ission their terms and a larger number than usual elected to resign for a variety of personal reasons. This leaves
the Commission with a need to immediately fill the vacancies prior to the upcoming meeting on Monday,
January 25, 2000. Mayor Haakenson requested the Council's confirmation of the candidates.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO
CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF MARY JO KILBORN, CAROLYN HANSON,
ALEXANDRA HUBBARD, PAULA MANGIONE, AND YOSIUTAKA INOUE TO THE SISTER
CITY COMMISSION. ,MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Haakenson said he liked the practice of introducing candidates to the Council and requested
Council President Miller inquire whether the Council wanted to continue this practice.
13. COUNCIL REPORTS
ire Council President Miller advised the City received a letter from Mountlake Terrace asking Edmonds to
1consolidation participate in a fire consolidation discussion. A poll of the Council indicated support for participating in
the discussion. He advised Councilmembers White and Plunkett had been appointed to a Fire
Consolidation Committee.
ERs Council President Miller also advised Mayor Haakenson would serve as the City representative on the
s00 MHz)
Committee SERS (800 MHz) Committee with Police Chief Hickok and Councilmember Davis as alternates.
Council President Miller advised he replaced Councilmember Orvis with Councilmember Davis on the
�g Downtown Parking Committee due to his expertise and experience in this area as a downtown retailer.
ormmttee
Councilmember Davis thanked staff and the Council for helping bring him up to speed. He thanked the
Library citizens who called him regarding the library and educated him regarding their views. He looked
forward to resolving the library issue during the coming year.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000 .
Page 22
1
itb District Councilmember Orvis reported the first action he took as a Health District Boardmember was to vote on
a resolution to lay off 13.9 Health District employees,. which was very difficult. As a symbolic. action,
the Boardmembers voted to reduce the amount of pay they receive for attending each board meeting.
Library Councilmember Earling thanked the Council for reconsidering their vote on the library issue. He
commended Councilmembers and staff for reviewing this issue.
0Ve Councilmember Petso agreed with a comment received earlier in the meeting that audience participation
Audience
Comments should be moved earlier on the agenda or scheduled at a fixed time. She suggested this be discussed at
Earlier in the Council retreat. She remarked it was unfair to have the opportunity for audience comment at 9:50
Benda
p.m.
Library Councilmember White reiterated Councilmember Earling's comment regarding the library. He recalled
Library comment made at a previous Council meeting that the Council was made up of people with massive
egos and that was why they chose to serve.. He said this was refuted by the Council's willingness to take
a strong position on an issue and then being willing to reconsider that action and change their position in
public. He said this was not an example of big egos but people who were willing to look at all facts in
the best interest of the citizens.
Library
1
Councilmember Plunkett said the action tonight regarding the library refined the original proposal. He
said at the time the decision was made to cancel the contract with SnoIsle, it was an appropriate decision.
Now the Council has had an opportunity to consider other aspects of the issue. He said the Council
wants to provide library services but in a different way that will maintain the financial integrity of the
City. He said both votes would result in the opportunity to discuss this issue with the public. He agreed
it was not Councilmembers' egos at work on the Council but a commitment to issues and working for the
public.
Mayor Haakenson complimented the Council for their thoughtful process regarding the library. He said
that and the Council's preparedness with regard to the appeal tonight illustrated the quality of the
Council.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
RY HokENSON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 18, 2000
Page 23
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
mr PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING
650 MAIN STREET
7:00 -10:00 P.M.
JANUARY 18, 2000
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2000
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35918 THROUGH #38322 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 3, 2000,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $359,629.96. APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35922 THROUGH #38417
FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 10, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $232,515.58. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
WARRANTS #27125 THROUGH #27233 FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 16 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,
1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $345,725.16. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #27251 THROUGH
#27273 IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,078.22 FOR 1999 POLICE RETROACTIVE PAY.
(D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL BUILDABLE LANDS GRANT AGREEMENT
WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY
(E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR VICTIM ADVOCACY
SERVICES WITH LAURA R. LINSTRAND
(F) PROPOSED ORDINANCE VACATING AN EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 20930 88T" PLACE WEST (Susan McMurray / File No. ST -99 -171)
(G) PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO PERMIT AN ALTERNATIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM IF
THE MAYOR ELECTS NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN PERS
(H) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION
5.34.015 DEFINING ASSAULT IN THE FOURTH DEGREE
3. (150n.) ANNUAL REPORT FROM MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE STEPHEN CONROY
4. (20 Min.) MEETING WITH PROPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION AND
CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CIRCULATION OF FORMAL
ANNEXATION PETITIONS (Proponent: Eric Sundquist / File No. AX -98 -101)
5. (45 Min.) CLOSED RECORD MEETING — APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO APPROVE A
4 -LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION WHICH INCLUDED A CRITICAL AREA VARIANCE FROM STEEP
SLOPES AND SETBACK VARIANCES FOR LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, FROM 10 FEET DOWN TO ZERO FEET.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 160XX 72ND AVENUE WEST AND IS ZONED
"RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS -20." (Applicant: Sequoia Ridge Partners / File Nos. S -98 -108
and V -98 -109. Appellant: Charles Warner/ File No. AP -99 -224.)
6. (10 Min.) PROPOSED CHANGE FROM STREET USE PERMIT TO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JANUARY 18, 2000
Page 2 of 2
7. (15 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.70 TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPROVAL OF OUTDOOR BISTRO
DINING IN THE, BC ZONE THROUGH A "TEMPORARY USE PERMIT." (File No. CDC -99 -122)
8. (15 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS' TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.75 TO RENUMBER THE CURRENT SECTION 20.75.055 —
REQUIRED INFORMATION ON PRELIMINARY PLATS AS 20.75.060, AND THE ADDITION OF A NEW
SECTION 20.75.055 — LOT COMBINATION TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR COMBINING PARCELS
OF LAND OTHER THAN THROUGH THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS (File No. CDC -99 -129)
9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
10. (15 Min.) REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
11. (5 Min.) FIRST READING — PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON GRANTING
TO METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK SERVICES, INC. A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO INSTALL,
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A MULTIPLE CONDUIT FIBER OPTIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
IN, ON, OVER, UPON, ALONG AND ACROSS THE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON; PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS
WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
12. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT ,
13. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS
1
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance
notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46 Delayed telecast of this meeting
zppears the following. Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46