04/21/1998 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
APRIL 21, 1998
Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview a candidate for the Planning Board, the Edmonds
City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza
Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Barbara Fahey, Mayor
Gary Haakenson, Council President
Dave Earling, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember (arrived 7:08 p.m.)
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember
Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember
ABSENT
Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Robin Hickok, Police Chief
Art Housler, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
James Walker, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
ddition to COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKF.NSON,
[Agenda TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD CONFIRMATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD
CANDIDATE AS ITEM 8A. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Nordquist was not present for
the vote.)
pprove
Minutes of
Feb. 27 -28
pprove
Minutes of
April 14
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember
Nordquist was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember
Nordquist was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27 - 28, 1998
(COUNCIL RETREAT)
(C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 14,1998
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 1
1
prove
(D)
APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #21458 THRU #24452 FOR THE WEEK OF
APRIL 13, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $183,319.18.. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
a
a nts
WARRANTS #20144 THRU #20282 FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 1 THRU APRIL 15,
1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $427,170.90
'u In'
reathing
(E)
AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS BREATHING APPARATUS AND SUPPLIES
paratus
urplus Fire I
(F)
AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS 1973 AND 1974 FIRE ENGINES
ngmes
(G)
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT "FOR ANIMAL CONTROL
im
SERVICES WITH THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
Control
ervices
(I)
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS
nimal
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND DESIGNATED ANIMAL
Control
Officer
CONTROL OFFICER
etty Cash
(n
AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE PETTY CASH PURCHASING DOLLAR AMOUNT.
urchasing
mount
(J)
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE PUBLIC SAFETY BASE STATION RADIO
u.. Safety
SYSTEM
Base Station
lRad
(I)
COUNCIL APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS ($38,003.17) FOR THE WASTEWATER
WwTP Power
TREATMENT PLANT POWER TRANSFER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
ransfer
Comm.
(L)
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION FUNDS FOR ARTS
avel I
COMMISSIONER TO ATTEND WASHINGTON CULTURAL CONGRESS
iform I
(M)
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN UNIFORM SERVICE CONTRACT WITH
ervice
CINTAS CORPORATION
Easement at I
(1)
ACCEPTANCE OF A UTILITY AND PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT AT 76TH AVENUE
76'"/2160'
WEST AND 216TH STREET SOUTHWEST FROM EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
15
Ara. #3210
(0)
ORDINANCE NO. 3210 AMENDING THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO DELETE
mend
Official Street
CERTAIN RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED AT FOURTH AVENUE BETWEEN HOWELL
Map
WAY AND THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF THE EXISTING FOURTH AVENUE
SOUTH RIGHT -OF -WAY SOUTH OF WALNUT STREET IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS
3. AUDIENCE
: Agenda Council President Haakenson asked City Attorney Scott Snyder to explain options regarding Agenda
Item #7: Item 7 (Continued Deliberation Regarding the Proposed Amendment to Edmonds Community
ECDC 16. Development Code Section 16.20.010.C.1 Mr. Snyder o.olo.c.1 p �• der said the Council's motion to continue y
deliberations requested staff provide two items of information but did not include a continued public
hearing. Public notification would be required to have a continued public hearing. He explained
audience members are free to comment on City issues, the Council's procedures, staff s handling of
aspects of the hearing, etc. during the audience comment portion of the meeting. However, it would not
be appropriate to hold an ad hoc public hearing during the public comment portion of the meeting. If the
Council wanted to hold another public hearing, a motion to set a public hearing date would be required
which necessitates two weeks public notice prior to the public hearing. The Council cannot hold a public
hearing this evening as it would violate the State statute regarding rezone amendments and the due
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 2
process rights of people who spoke at the first hearing. The Council needs to take in the information
requested of staff regarding location of public facilities; the Council could then enter into deliberations,
move to continue the public hearing, or hold another hearing. He noted the City Clerk had received
several letters that had not been entered into the record because the public hearing had been closed.
Councilmember Miller asked how many audience members were present for Agenda Item 7. Several
audience members raised their hands.
Mayor Fahey observed there were a significant number of people in the audience from the Firdale area
who were concerned about Agenda Item 7. She explained when the Council considered this item several
weeks ago, she did not understand why there was such concern and opposition to this amendment
because she did not have full knowledge of the situation. She apologized for not being more cognizant
of the problems occurring in the area regarding the programs functioning in the neighborhood and for not
taking quicker action to address those concerns. She first became aware that there was a problem with
non_ conforming facilities throughout the City in the spring of 1997. This was brought to her attention as
a result of a church that was not on an appropriate street and could not obtain a Conditional Use Permit.
At that time, staff informed her of the dimensions of the problem and a file related to the church's needs
was established, File No. 123. This file was originally brought to the Planning Board on October 22,
1997. At the same time, unbeknownst to her, the Edmonds School District moved forward with requests
for consideration that became File Nos. 142, 143, and" 144. None of those were being acted upon at the
time File No. 123 was brought to the Planning Board. As she was not aware of File Nos. 142, 143, and
144, she was not aware there was an overlap in the requested change to the ordinance. She was being
very truthful when she indicated File No. 123 had nothing to do with the Options Program and the
School District's as File No. 123 did not address the School District's request but a bigger need in the
City. She only recently became aware that File Nos. 142, 143, and 144 existed. The City received notice
today that the School District withdrew their request for consideration of File Nos. 142 and 143. This
eliminates many of the requests that overlap with issues in Agenda Item 7. The remaining item, File No.
144, is a request for a clear definition of types of schools. This will include consideration at the Planning
Board level with an opportunity for public comment, and consideration by the City Council, if necessary.
She reiterated her apology for the miscommunication and misunderstanding regarding this issue and said
much of the confusion could have been avoided if the City had known the full picture earlier. She
welcomed comments from the audience regarding Item 7 or any other issues but asked the public to
observe the constraints described by Mr. Snyder.
Ray Albano, 20916 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, said the Cultural Arts Stadium and Convention District
CASCD a ( CASCD) proposal was a "bad deal" for the citizens of Edmonds and voters may not be aware of all
ramifications. He urged the Council to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens by taking a stand
on the CASCD proposal. He explained Edmonds would pay 31% of the assessed valuation but would
receive only $400,000 in benefits; Lynnwood receives $7 million. He suggested the Council write a
combined letter to the newspaper. On another matter, Mr. Albano referred to the letters in the Edmonds
EMS Issues Paper regarding EMS, and explained much of the concern over EMS may be because the public did not
fully understand it. He said the EMS Board had not taken a stand on additional EMS personnel. Citizens
can only request the Edmonds City Council instruct their representative to vote in favor of the additional
service if the Board makes that decision. He pointed out this will require more funding. He agreed Fire
Department personnel were qualified to perform many of the emergency services. He disagreed with the
scare tactics being utilized regarding EMS and reiterated his request for the Council to take a stand on
the CASCD proposal.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 3
Len French, Chair of an ad hoc committee entitled Citizens for Responsible. Spending, invited the
scD public to call him at 775 -5539. He thanked Mayor Fahey for her statements published in the newspaper
posal regarding CASCD. He announced he and Gary Nelson would be presenting both sides of the issue on
April 23 at 12:00 p.m. at the Yacht Club. He explained there is misinformation in the proponent's recent
public statement including 1) the lack of a site plan or building design although there were drawings in
the newspaper, 2) lack of ample parking and the feasibility study indicates paid parking would be
required, 3) based on the feasibility study, there is no possibility that the performing arts or convention
center would ever be profitable, 4) scout troops, church groups, and school plays likely would not be able
to afford the $1200 - $1500 rental fee suggested in the feasibility study, and 5) the CASCD Board's
decision to increase the bond to 25 years increases the total interest cost by over $11.5 million. He
explained the project needs 9.8 acres and the best site is only 4.3 acres. He urged voters to read
tomorrow's Enterprise to learn how few real uses versus potential uses there really are for the facility.
He requested the Council clarify the action taken on February 11, 1998.
Councilmember Earling observed members of the Lynnwood City Council have indicated the Edmonds
City Council President was against the initiative and that the Council had taken a position against the
initiative, both of which are untrue. He explained the Edmonds Council acted on a memorandum of
understanding so that voters would have an opportunity to vote on the issue.
RE: Agenda Kurt Olden, 9117 238th Street SW, Edmonds, said he was prepared to speak regarding the Mayor's
Item #7: letter he received a few days ago but now understood there may be an opportunity to speak regarding
ECDC 16.
0.010.C.1 Agenda Item 7 in two weeks. Mayor Fahey clarified the Council had not taken action to have a
continued/new public hearing at this point. If the Council made a decision to hold a hearing, it would be
scheduled on a future agenda and two weeks notice would be provided. Mr. Olden urged the Council to
continue the public hearing as he felt they had not had a fair chance to make comments in March.
AscD Harold Miller, 18811 92nd W Edmonds said $88 million was required for a Lynnwood Arts Center.
Proposal > > q grin
He questioned placing an arts center in Lynnwood due to the congestion. He questioned why taxpayers
were the only ones paying for the Arts Center. He was not against an Arts Center but questioned whether
the Council would take a stand in favor or in opposition to the $88 million facility.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, referred to his comments made at the last Council
Fees gation meeting regarding mitigation fees and the letter sent to the City as well as the Edmonds School District.
He received a response from the School District informing him to contact City Engineer Jim Walker.
Mr. Walker indicated he had not received a letter from the School District and would investigate the
matter. Mr. Rutledge stated he had not yet heard from Mr. Walker. Mr. Rutledge explained his proposal
was $500 for the Police Department, $500 for the Fire Department, and $500 for the School District.
Purchase of Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said the Planning Board minutes of the April 2 meeting
Tidelands referred to a summary fact sheet for the purchase of the tidelands and easement in front of the Waterfront
Associates building that Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde and Mayor Fahey created. He
pointed out there were numerous errors and omissions in the fact sheet and he assumed this was a rough
draft. He said the errors included a statement regarding the loss of the County Conservation Futures
grant money for 20 years if the tidelands were not purchased now. He questioned whether this was true
and said the County likely had money available if the City reapplied. He referred to a statement in the
fact sheet indicating the seller was not required to repair or replace the bulkhead, noting this was true, but
if they did not, water would cover their parking lot. He referred to the statement in the fact sheet that the
City would begin a legal process of defending itself against a taking lawsuit and said the City's chances
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 4
of losing that lawsuit were small. He questioned the validity of the statement in the fact sheet that if the
City did not purchase the property now it never would as it was unlikely there would ever be a funding
source available. If Ms. Ohlde and Mayor Fahey did not want to rework this document, he said there
were numerous citizens who were in the process of developing the "true facts."
Agenda Gary McCaig, 9120 236th SW, Edmonds, spoke regarding Agenda Item 7 and requested the Council
Item #7:
CDC 16. reaffirm its decision not to change the zoning ordinance. He further requested the City's Planning
0.010.C.1 Division or Planning Board rewrite an ordinance that truly addressed the needs of the citizens of
Edmonds. The primary reason for his request was that a tremendous amount of information had been
discovered since the Council last discussed this issue. Mr. Snyder cautioned Mr. McCaig not to describe
that information; only a procedural request was appropriate as the hearing had been closed. Mr. McCaig
said the Edmonds School District Superintendent said that Madrona School was an excellent building for
the alternative high school and the Options Program. He said he did not trust the School District but had
a lot of faith in Edmonds' current administration. He was concerned whether the City could stand up
against the political power of the School District. He encouraged the Council to remember their own
comments during the visioning session regarding what each Councilmember wanted as well as what
action could be taken tonight to best make that vision come true.
Mr. Snyder clarified Mr. McCaig was allowed to make comments regarding the School District as the
matter before the Council had been initiated 4 -5 months prior to the School District's proposal and the
School District has since pulled two of its proposals.
RE: Agenda Kevin Clarke, 23924 107th Place W, Edmonds, thanked the Mayor and Council for their leadership
Item #7: during a "storm" of public fear and concern over an issue their neighborhood and the Firdale area has
ECDC 16. struggled with for over a year. He said this is a very complex issue and although Options is a good
o.oto.c.1
program, it needs to be in the proper location. He requested the letters and the petition sent to Planning
Supervisor Jeff Wilson regarding the Options program be transferred to File No. 144 because they
address the issue of the elementary school. He objected to the removal of the word "elementary" from
the definition of a school as this would allow any use at the school. He explained their community, while
in unincorporated Snohomish County, suffered with the alternative high school, which was then moved
to Lynnwood due to residents' concerns. He said in 1996, when the program was brought into their
neighborhood, they were assured there would be an on -site security guard at all times. That security
guard has not been present during the 1997 school year and trouble has increased as a result of the lack
of supervision. He stressed this is an illegal use and urged the City to request the School District have a
security guard in place until the end- of the school year. He accepted Mayor Fahey's apology and was
thankful citizens have Councilmembers who will listen to residents.
Agenda
Item #7: Jim Nichol, 22027 95th Place W, Edmonds, said he wanted to speak regarding File No. 123 which
ECDC 16.' would allow churches to do some expansion. Mayor Fahey advised Mr. Nichol he would not be
o.oto.c.t permitted to speak regarding his position on Item 7. Mr. Snyder clarified there had been a public hearing
regarding Item 7 that had been held following public notification.
RE: Agenda Jeff Lewis, 23621 92nd Avenue W, Edmonds, a property owner adjacent to Madrona School, said a
Item #7: number of citizens were resent at the public hearing who wished to provide testimony but following the
ECDC t 6. p p g p y g
0.010.C.1 Mayor's comments, many did not speak. Due to the misunderstanding and confusion, he urged the
Council to be fair and continue the public hearing process. He said a number of his neighbors are at the
School District meeting tonight. He referred to the minutes of the March 17 meeting, quoting Mr.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 5
■ Snyder, "the only action the Council could take tonight was to reconsider and then set a public hearing
for a future date."
U Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Edmonds, said as a result.of the City's action, he would never
urchase of again belong to a group that would bring a petition against the City. He questioned the validity of the
idelands summary fact sheet for the purchase of the tidelands and easement in front of the Waterfront Associates
building. He referred to a letter from Mr. Snyder's firm and requested clarification of the cost indicated
for construction of a free standing elevated walkway on pilings ($10,000) as well as Ms. Ohlde's
indication that she could construct a paved walkway with landscaping on the surface soil supported by a
seawall for approximately $8,500.
Mike Santopolo, 9915 226th Place SW, Edmonds, commented that Edmonds is the only City of its size
Medic 7 in Snohomish County that has three fire stations manned 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. He said it
would be fair to assume the Edmonds Fire Department response time is 2 -4 minutes. He explained when
911 is called, the nearest fire department Basic Life Support, comprised of EMS firefighters, responds
and can administer CPR and early defibrillation. If the patient's symptoms meet certain criteria, a
paramedic unit, Medic 7 unit is dispatched to provide Advanced Life Support, which includes
administration of medication as well as cardiac defibrillation. Paramedic response time depends on their
current location. According to a lead paramedic with Medic 1 in Seattle, there are numerous criteria to
determine the number of units in an area. A rule of thumb is one truck per 100,000 people but the
number of calls and response time are the main factors in determining the number of units provided to an
area. He provided examples of other cities and the number of units in each, Shoreline with a population
of 50,662 has one 24 hour unit; Bothell with population of 26,350 has one 12 hour unit (Bellevue
provides backup); Bellevue with a population of 104,000 has two 24 hour units, and South Snohomish
County with an approximate population of 100,000 has two Medic 7 units available from 8:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. and one unit available from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. The policy of Medic 7 is to have two units
from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. due to the number of calls. Medic 7 is currently averaging one call per night
to the City of Edmonds based on 1997 statistics. Of the 1300 calls between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., 381
were to Edmonds, the remainder to Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. The cost of an additional half
unit is.$100,000 to Edmonds alone. Although cost was not more important than lives, response time and
cost are only two of the factors; another factor is survival rate.
4. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF VOLUNTEER WEEK
Volunteer I Mayor Fahey said this week was an opportunity to recognize all volunteers who serve the community.
reek She invited citizens to view the display of volunteer activities at City Hall. She described the efforts of
the Edmonds Ambassadors who provide volunteer service for numerous events. She recognized Rich
and Andra Lawrence, Premier Ambassadors, and Chuck Kerr. Mayor Fahey read the proclamation
declaring April 19 - 25 as Volunteer Week in Edmonds.
Rich Lawrence said it was a special honor to represent the volunteers of Edmonds noting volunteers are
the lifeblood of the community and whom numerous organizations depend. upon. He described the
Edmonds Ambassadors, sponsored by the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce who serve as
goodwill ambassadors of the City, the Mayor's office, the Chamber, the Edmonds Alliance for Economic
Development, and many other community organizations. He said their organization was open to others
who wish to join and provide the behind the scenes efforts for numerous events.
Andra Lawrence said Chuck Kerr was one of the founding members of Edmonds Ambassadors and has
contributed many hours to serving the community. She thanked the community for publicizing the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 6
opportunities for volunteers, noting volunteering enriched the community as well as oneself. She
explained their involvement as volunteers have helped them make friends, learn new skills, work with
young and old, and has been an enriching experience.
Councilmembers congratulated Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence and Mr. Kerr.
Mayor Fahey expressed her appreciation to Executive Assistant Dee McGrath for organizing the
volunteer recognition. She noted Ms. McGrath works as a volunteer as well as a staff member.
5. REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Public Public Safety Committee
Safety Committee Member White reported (1) the Public Safety Committee discussed the outdated Public
Committee Safety Base Station Radio and purchasing new equipment which was approved as Item J on the Consent
Agenda. (2) Assistant Fire Chief Kevin Taylor presented information concerning maintenance and
decontamination of firefighters' work uniforms; authorization for the Mayor to sign a uniform. service
contract was approved as Item M on the Consent Agenda. (3) Assistant Fire Chief Taylor presented
information regarding the surplusing of two (1974 and 1972) fire engines with the arrival of two 1998
fire engines; this was approved as Item F on the Consent Agenda. (4) A discussion of breathing
apparatus used by the Edmonds firefighters followed; authorization to surplus the old breathing
apparatus was approved as Item E on the Consent Agenda. (5) Assistant Fire Chief Taylor provided a
report on Med- Accounts of the month. (6) Police Chief Robin Hickok presented information regarding
the Edmonds Police Foundation who recently received their 501C.3 status from the IRS and described
the organization's focus for the future. (7) Police Chief Hickok requested the Council authorize the
signing of the Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreement between Edmonds and the Designated Animal
Control Officer which was approved as Item H on the Consent Agenda. (8) Police Chief Hickok
requested the Council authorize the signing of the Agreement for Animal Control Services with the City
of Mountlake Terrace which was approved as Item G on the Consent Agenda, (9) Police Chief Hickok
presented information on the Youth Services Unit which the Public Safety Committee recommended be
presented to the full Council for review. (10) Police Chief Hickok advised the joint South County
SWAT Team was considering the purchase of a used bus from Metro for $1,000 to be used as a
Command Center. Staff was advised to bring the matter to the Council when a bus becomes available.
(11) Police Chief Hickok advised an officer was scheduled for an out -of -state school in May, a
previously budgeted expense. Authorization will be placed on an upcoming Consent Agenda.
finance Finance Committee
Committee Chairperson Earling reported the Finance Committee also discussed the dysfunctional Public Safety base
station radio and recommended the purchase of a new radio be placed on the Consent Agenda. In
addition, authorization to increase the petty cash purchasing dollar amount was discussed. The
committee recommended the current purchasing limit of $25 be increased to $50 and the purchasing
limit of the Council Assistant and Mayor's Executive Assistant be increased to $100. This
recommendation was approved as Item I on the Consent Agenda.
community Community Services Committee
Services Committee Member Plunkett reported the Community Services Committee discussed improvements to
Committee
public notice for code amendments as a result of citizen criticism of notification of public hearings at the
City Council and Planning Board. Although the current method of notification, publishing legal notices
in the newspaper, meets legal requirements, it may not adequately inform the public. Options considered
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 7
included expanding to a WebPage or a City newsletter. Staff was directed to return to the Community
Services Committee with a proposal and costs for the two preferred methods.
osed 6. CLOSED RECORD MEETING ON _THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD
Contract TO APPROVE A PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE FROM RS -12 TO RS -8 OF
Rezone- APPROXIMATELY 5.4 ACRES LOCATED IN THE APPROXIMATE VICINITY OF 184TH
184th St./ STREET SOUTHWEST AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE (Applicants: Dr. & Mrs. Han Z. Park, Mr.
Olympic and Mrs. Russell C. Kim. Mr. and Mrs. James L. Thompson, and the City of Edmonds / File No. R-
File No. 21-28
R 97 -28
Mayor Fahey explained this was a Closed Record Meeting and only those who were parties of record at
previous hearings would be allowed to speak and only information admitted to the record previously
could be considered by the Council.
Councilmember Earling disclosed he owns investment property located at 8018 181 st Place Southwest,
which is 2'/2 blocks from the property under consideration. He did not believe there was any conflict of
interest.
Councilmember Plunkett said he received a telephone call from Jim Thompson prior to receiving the
Council packet and was unsure what issue he was referring to. Mr. Thompson advised him that he was
not an applicant and felt he was not able to speak at a Planning Board meeting. Councilmember Plunkett
advised Mr. Thompson this was apparently a matter that would be addressed by the Council and he could
not discuss it.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine prohibits ex parte contact. As
situations as described by Councilmember Plunkett may arise, the Doctrine allows a Councilmember to
reveal the substance of any ex parte contact prior to the hearing process so that any parties of record may
respond.
Mayor Fahey said Mr. Thompson also contacted her office and she had a conversation with him
regarding this issue. Mr. Thompson is a party of record and will be permitted to make comments during
tonight's closed record meeting.
Councilmember Earling said Mr. Thompson also contacted him; he advised Mr. Thompson he could not
discuss the matter as it was an issue that would be addressed by the Council.
Council President Haakenson said he too was contacted by Mr. Thompson and told him he could not
discuss the matter. Council President Haakenson said the applicant's representative, Mr. Maki, was one
of his neighbors but they had never discussed this issue.
Councilmember White advised Mr. Thompson had attempted to contact him but he had not returned his
telephone call.
Councilmember Nordquist said he also received a message from Mr. Thompson but was unable to reach
him.
Mayor Fahey asked if there were any objections to the participation of any Councilmember. There were
no objections. Mayor Fahey described the closed record meeting procedure and time periods.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 8
Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson displayed a vicinity and zoning map and identified the property. He
observed the Council received an extensive record of the hearing process before the Planning Board. He
explained the request was a contract rezone of approximately 5.4 acres from RS -12 (single family
minimum lot size 1,200 square feet) to RS -8 (single family minimum lot size 8,000 square feet). As part
of the contract proposal, the applicant submitted a set of ten conditions they agree to abide by if the
rezone is approved (Attachments 4, 5, and 6 of Exhibit 3). The subject property includes all or portions
of the following properties: 7704 Olympic View Drive, 18325 88th Avenue West, 18305 88th Avenue
West, 18408 79th Place West, and a vacant parcel between 18325 and 18305 88th Avenue West.
Mr. Wilson explained that the application was first submitted to the City in March 1997. The Planning
Board held a public hearing on January 28, 1998, and continued their deliberations to the February 11,
1998, meeting. Mr. Wilson said the minutes and a verbatim transcript of both Planning Board meetings
were included in the Council's packet (Exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 12). On February 11, 1998, the Planning
Board adopted a recommendation to approve the proposed contract rezone. He noted the packet
indicated the Planning Board unanimously approved the recommendation but in fact the decision was 3 -1
with the Chair abstaining. He noted all members of the Planning Board at that time participated but there
were several vacancies. The Planning Board's recommendation to the Council for approval of the
contract rezone requested the applicant agree to amendments to the contract conditions. Mr. Wilson
referred to the Planning Board's recommendation in the Council's packet (Exhibit 2) and the proposed
amendments to the contract conditions (pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit 2). He explained if the rezone from
RS -12 to RS -8 was approved, the maximum number of lots that would be available on the 5.4 acres
would be approximately 26 lots. This project would also include the development of public rights -of-
way connecting Olympic View Drive to 88th Avenue West as well as cul -de -sacs to reach interior lots.
One of the main conditions of the applicant's proposed contract rezone was that the future subdivision of
the property would also be subject to the City's Planned Residential Development (PRD) review process,
an extra level of scrutiny before the Architectural Design Board, the Hearing Examiner, and a
recommendation to the City Council. This process includes a review of the layout of the plat but
consideration of the design of the plat that is in addition to the normal review of a subdivision as well as
the character and style of the development to ensure the homes are consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Council President Haakenson observed Mr. Thompson was listed as an applicant on the Agenda Memo
but had also signed a petition opposed to the rezone. Mr. Wilson referred to the Land Use Application
(Attachment 2 of Exhibit 3), and said the applicant's agent, Mr. Maki, indicated all properties involved in
the application and property ownership which included Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. He noted in the past,
the City has initiated rezones of property in order to implement the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Properties can be included in a rezone without the property owner's consent but staff would evaluate
whether it was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Council President Haakenson said he lived across the street from Eagle's Crest and Eagle's Nest in the
Meadowdale area and asked if the proposed development was similar. Mr. Wilson answered it would be
a similar process; the PRD process allows applicants with a minimum of five lots to make certain
modifications to underlying standards. , He noted the property must be subdivided and units must be
detached single family units as the PRD process did not allow attached residential units. He said only a
portion of the proposed 5.4 acres may actually be developed; individual lots sizes may be less than 8,000
square feet allowed by the RS -8 zoning but the cumulative density of the entire project would not exceed
that allowed for the total property. The remaining area is typically set aside for open space, which is
intended, via the PRD process, to preserve unique or fragile environmental areas. This proposal would
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 9
preserve the steep slope areas as open space to preserve vegetation and cluster the units to leave larger
open space areas.
Council President Haakenson asked what the zoning was in the Eagle's Nest and Eagle's Crest
developments. Mr. Wilson answered there was lower density zoning in the Meadowdale area, RS -20.
The PRD could be in an RS -20 zone and allow clustering of the units. He recalled the properties in those
developments were not rezoned and the PRD was used to provide modification in the lot design, smaller
individual lots to cluster units and preservation of larger areas.
Council President Haakenson referred to letters from residents in the area and said letters from the
Barringers and the O'Neils discuss the stability of the bank if a road is constructed. Mr. Wilson said this
issue was brought up during the Planning Board hearing. Staff did not provide a detailed response to the
issue of slope stability as this would be a two -phase application -- the first is the rezone of the property
and does not address specifics of site development. The second phase, the PRD and subdivision, would
address specifics of site development such as preliminary engineering plans, road profiles, topography,
stability issues, etc. Modifications could be made at that stage to address any stability issues that may
arise during the road design including possibly additional geotechnical analysis.
Council President Haakenson observed if the Council approved the rezone, there would be another public
hearing process. Mr. Wilson agreed, and explained the subsequent process would address how the lots
are laid out, where the roads would be located and how they would be designed. Mr. Snyder said this
hearing relates to the uses for this property under the proposed zoning classification. The site
development standards would be reviewed at a later date. He explained the Council is required to find
that the rezone application meets the criteria of the Community Development Code and is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. He said an applicant may voluntarily submit themselves to contract conditions
such as the greater scrutiny of the PRD process; however, neither the Planning Board nor the City
Council could impose a contract rezone. He asked Mr. Maki to indicate whether the Planning Board's
proposed amendments are acceptable to the applicant.
Councilmember Earling observed the PRD process was applicable to all zones in the City. Mr. Wilson
agreed. Councilmember Earling recalled a PRD process was utilized for Elm Place and noted some of
the lots were as small as 3,000 - 3,500 square feet. Mr. Wilson said in a PRD in a multi - family zone, the
footprint of the unit may be the lot itself. The most recent PRD was at the corner of 9th and Puget, the
Orchard, which provided open space but reduced the lots to slightly larger than the footprint of the unit
to provide the larger open space area. Mr. Snyder said, due to the proposed contract rezone, the only
way this property could be developed if the contract were approved, was via a PRD; it could not be
developed at RS -8 via a simple subdivision.
Councilmember Miller said he lived in a planned residential community in Issaquah, where the lot sizes
vary from 6,000 to 7,000 square feet but greenbelts existed throughout the development. He observed
the open space in the proposed development appeared to be on only one side and asked if this had been
considered by the applicant in this proposal. Mr. Wilson explained a parcel must have a unique
environmental feature in order to be considered/approved for a PRD as the intent of the PRD is to protect
that feature. In order to protect the steep slope adjacent to Olympic View Drive as well as adjacent to the
northern property lines, the units are proposed to be clustered in the more buildable plateau area and the
steep slopes retained as a greenbelt. Mr. Snyder said the Council's approval of the rezone did not bind
this Council or future Councils to approval of the PRD plan.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 10
Charles Maki, 8235 Talbot Road, Edmonds, representing the applicant, said the project began with an
application for road adjustments and originally only included approximately half of the property now
proposed to be developed. The Council agreed to the road adjustments but questions arose regarding the
roads and neighbors indicated a desire for a through road from 80th to Olympic View Drive. In working
with City staff, it became apparent that if all the property were included, a contract rezone and PRD
would allow development of lots that would be economically feasible to build reasonably priced homes
and fund a public street and sidewalks from 80th to Olympic View Drive. He said the applicants would
accept the Planning Board's recommendations in the PRD application. Be pointed out it was unfortunate
they were not allowed to apply for the contract rezone and the PRD at the same time as that would
provide many more answers, particularly to neighbors regarding issues such as the retaining wall,
engineering requirements, etc. He pointed out other Councils have approved similar plans, the Planning
Division staff recommends approval, the Planning Board recommends approval, and he requested the
Council pass the contract rezone for the betterment of Edmonds and the neighborhood.
David Johnson, 7810 182nd Place SW, Edmonds (lot 7 of Seaview Firs, north of the proposed
development), spoke in opposition to the rezone. He disagreed with Mr. Wilson's statement in the
summary that the rezone to RS -8 would be consistent with the neighborhood particularly where it abuts
the RS -8 zone to the south. Mr. Johnson said the RS -8 zone to the south did not include any 8,000
square foot lots; they ranged from 10,000 - 12,000 square feet with single family homes. He pointed out
the application for rezone had been denied twice in the past. When it was denied in 1992, one of Mr.
Wilson's statements was that it would result in "an island of RS -8 zoning which would not be consistent
with the pattern of zoning in the area." Mr. Johnson also expressed concern with the clustering of houses
to retain open space that is undevelopable steep slopes. As a result, the homes will be clustered into
smaller lot sizes than exist in the surrounding neighborhood. He said although it may be attractive to the
City to have a road developed, it would be more of a convenience than a necessity as there is traffic on
80th but no congestion. He pointed out Mr. Maki indicated at the January 28 hearing that the road was
not necessary to construct this project. He reiterated this project would change the character of the
neighborhood from single homes on single lots to a large number of homes in a small area. He noted the
RS -8 zoning would allow 26 homes; the RS -12 would allow 17 homes. He pointed out this would make
development profitable for the developer but at the expense of the neighborhood. He urged the Council
to deny the rezone rather than defer to the PRD process.
Jim Thompson, 18305 80th Avenue W, Edmonds, said he owned a portion of the property proposed to
be developed and questioned why his property was included. He referred to plans of the property as it is
proposed to be developed. Mr. Thompson said the drawing indicated there would be 8 - 10 feet between
the homes; Mayor Fahey told him the City required at least 15 feet. Mr. Thompson identified his
property on the map, noting several of the homes would be on his bank and would result in the removal
of huge trees and destabilization of his bank. He said he is not a participant in the proposal as he has not
sold his property and objected to his name being included as an applicant. He felt rezoning the property
to RS -8 would be "terrible."
Regarding Mr. Thompson's status as an applicant, Mr. Maki explained the reason his name was added to
the application was because he received a letter from Tom Buckmeir, an attorney representing Mr.
Thompson, to confirm his agreement to sell 12,000 square feet of his property (a parcel consists of 100 x
120 feet measured from the east property line) for the sum of $50,000 less up to $250 and directing him
to prepare an appropriate purchase and sale agreement. Mr. Maki apologized for his assumption that the
letter indicated Mr. Thompson wanted to be an applicant. If the contract rezone was approved as the
map states, Mr. Thompson would have the right to sell that portion of his property to the project if he
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21,1998
Page 11
chose. Mr. Maki said Mr. Thompson has indicated to him that he would like to sell the property if the
contract rezone is approved. He said the map being displayed was a conceptual map not the final PRD
application; therefore, any measurement was not appropriate and the space between houses would meet
the Edmonds Code. He said the road was included due to Mr. Thompson's insistence ai an earlier
hearing that the road be developed.
Mayor Fahey said when she answered Mr. Thompson's question, she was relaying information from Mr.
Wilson regarding the setbacks that would normally occur in an RS -8 zone. Mr. Wilson said the Planning
Board wanted it to be clear in the revised contract conditions that while the map may depict a proposed
PRD, the map has not been approved. The applicant must submit their subdivision, which must meet the
RS -8 zoning standards such as 25 -foot front street setback, a 15 -foot rear setback, and 7.5 feet from each
property line which is a 15 -foot separation between structures. If the applicant wished, they could
request modifications to the setbacks through the PRD process, which includes a public hearing. The
Planning Board also wanted to ensure that separation between structures would be a key element during
the PRD review process.
Mr. Wilson said one of the reasons the proposed road between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View
Drive was a key element was because a connection in that area had been on the City's Official Street Map
for a number of years. One of the main changes that has occurred since staff s recommendations on
previous rezone applications was the City's adoption of its Comprehensive Plan in 1995. One of the key
elements in the Housing Element is to consider support for infill development, recognizing the City is
now required to meet population targets under GMA and a preferred method would be single family
development. Methods for accomplishing this includes flexible development standards and utilizing
tools such as the PRD to allow innovative ways to develop new single family housing developments
within existing single family neighborhoods.. He said the Council has the ability to reduce the
boundaries of the rezone, which would result in a corresponding net reduction in the number of lots that
could be developed.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the RS -8 zoning or RS -12 zoning would provide more
protection for the sensitive areas on this 5.4 acre parcel. Mr. Snyder said there would be no difference,
sensitive area requirements would be the same but the PRD process would allow greater scrutiny. Mr.
Wilson said the zoning only addressed density on the parcel; the PRD process allowed clustering that
would preserve the same amount of open space as if it were developed using RS -12 standards. Mr.
Snyder said the number of units referred to were the maximum number that could be developed on this
parcel if the rezone was approved; the Council's passage of the rezone did not guarantee the action of the
PRD.
Mayor Fahey closed the informational presentation and remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
Councilmember Miller said he struggled with the development of a plat that is currently zoned RS -12 in
an established neighborhood with a PRD that designates a steep embankment to the east and slope to the
north as open space. He pointed out this results in the developer "shoehorning in" as many as 26 single -
family homes. He expressed concern with the resulting lack of buffer between the new homes and
existing residents as well as the resale value of existing homes. For these reasons, he was opposed to the
rezone request.
Councilmember Earling observed there were three areas in the City that have undergone a similar PRD
process, Eagle's Nest and Eagle's Crest in the Meadowdale area and Elm Place in South Edmonds. When
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 12
these projects were proposed, neighbors had many of the same concerns. However, over time, property
values in those areas have accelerated equal to or beyond market values as have the properties adjacent
to the developments. He said his experience has been that the developments compliment each other. He
observed much of the area was unbuildable whether it was zoned RS -8 or RS -12. He said there is a
developable area adjacent to the proposed development that is zoned RS -8 and another that is zoned RS-
12. He pointed out the construction of a street and sidewalks as well as connection of neighborhoods
would benefit the City but still preserve the park -like spirit of the area due to the retention of the open
space. He indicated he would support the Planning Board's recommendation.
Council President Haakenson acknowledged he and his neighbors were skeptical when the PRD process
was considered for the development of Eagle's Crest and Eagle's Nest as the woods were steep and there
were a lot of wetlands and drainage. However, the developer constructed a very nice looking
development and the houses were more expensive than those in the surrounding neighborhood. The
project included pathways and play structures --.a first class development. He was comfortable with the
PRD process and supported the rezone request.
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO
DENY THE REZONE. MOTION FAILED, COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST AND MILLER
IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS EARLING ,
PLUNKETT, AND WHITE OPPOSED.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
EARLING, THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARDS RECOMMENDATION
TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY
TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE CONTRACT AND ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE
REQUESTED REZONE. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS EARLING, PLUNKETT, AND WHITE IN :FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS
NORDQUIST AND MILLER OPPOSED.
Mayor Fahey declared a brief recess.
Proposed 7. CONTINUED DELIBERATION REGARDIN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS
Amendment COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.20.010.0.1 PERTAINING TO
20.01 o.c.1 THE
c 16. REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE LOCATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES IN SINGLE
ol
Community FAMILY (RS) ZONES (Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division /File No. CDC -97 -123
Facilities)
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this application was initiated by the Planning Division in
response to letters from churches indicating it was difficult or impossible for them to get permits for
improvements. Upon review of the Code, the main problem appeared to be requiring community
facilities such as elementary schools, nursery schools, fire stations, electric substations, pumping
stations, water storage, libraries, churches, parks, recreation facilities and bus stop shelters to be on
collector /arterial streets. A number of facilities were identified throughout the City that were not located
on collector /arterial streets which resulted in the proposed code amendment. Mr. Chave said the Council
held a hearing on March 2, 1998, and voted to reconsider the issue on March 17, 1998.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Council continued this hearing to get a report from staff
regarding non - conforming community facilities in residential zones. The Council may take
administrative notice of this item and can ask questions regarding preparation of this information.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 13
Councilmember Plunkett complimented Mayor Fahey on her opening statements as well as her letter to
the residents of South Edmonds which assisted them in understanding the administration's approach to
this issue. Councilmember Plunkett preferred the Council not proceed with a decision tonight, observing
the public was, to a great extent, denied an opportunity to speak on this issue.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO
SET A DATE CERTAIN TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PORTION OF THE
HEARING ON FILE NO. 123.
Councilmember Miller agreed with reopening the hearing but proposed the Council have some
deliberation as well as additional input from staff this evening to allow those present to develop
questions for the hearing. Mr. Snyder said the Council could raise issues they would like staff to address
at the public hearing but questions of staff and the resulting information would not be appropriate tonight
as this was not a hearing.
Council President Haakenson advised the public hearing could be scheduled for May 19, 1998.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Snyder advised this would be an entirely new hearing; there would be no limitations on comments.
8. CONTINUED HEARING - RESOLUTION NO 905 - HEARING ON THE PROPOSED
Proposed VACATION OF PORTIONS OF 72ND AVENUE WEST (FROM NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD
acation of
Oeet d Ave. W TO A POINT 378 FEET SOUTH) RESERVING UTILITY EASEMENTS SURFACE AND
m North SUBSURFACE
adowdale
t 378 Planning Manager Rob Chave said this item was continued to allow the Council to receive information
Sou th regarding possible development of a public walkway which was included in the packet. Staffs
recommendation is to approve the vacation subject to the retention of an easement and to direct the City
Attorney to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Staff did not feel the cost of the walkway warranted
proceeding with the walkway.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing.
Jeannie Anderson, 16727 74th Place W, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to the vacation of the right -of-
way and urged the Council to oppose it. She said the issue was not money as the City was not being
requested to develop the walkway but only whether the vacation should be approved. She requested the
Council oppose the vacation to keep the City's options open. By vacating the right -of -way, the City
would be giving away future options. She referred to the landscape architect's report, which indicated he
found evidence of a trail in use. She said 72nd Avenue West was a natural bridge between Meadowdale
Beach Road on the south and North Meadowdale Road on the north. The only other streets that connect
these are 76th Avenue West, which is busy and has no sidewalks, and Olympic View Drive. She urged
the Council to think 50 -75 years in the future.
Councilmember White asked Ms: Anderson if she lived in the area. Ms. Anderson answered she is not
an abutting property owner (she lives off Meadowdale Beach Road) but walks in the area. Council
President Haakenson asked if she lived at least six blocks away. Ms. Anderson answered yes.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 14
Councilmember White asked how the area is used now. Ms. Anderson said to her knowledge it is not
commonly used but the landscape architect found evidence of a trail and indicated use by neighbors.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said he did not live close to this area. He recalled a
walkway /stairway on Daley from 7th to 9th Avenue that many people utilize, noting a similar walkway
was .possible in this area. He encouraged the City to retain the right -of -way as there was no reason to
vacate it.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the audience participation portion of the hearing.
Councilmember White asked staff to describe the topography of the area proposed to be vacated. City
Engineer Jim Walker explained the lower portion is fairly flat with a small wet area. The upper portion
is fairly steep, nearly a 50% slope including some side slope.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if steps or a pathway would be possible in this area. Mr. Walker
answered it could be done but the cost may be significantly higher than indicated as there may be special
foundation considerations. If a connection between North Meadowdale Road and Meadowdale Beach
Road along the 72nd Avenue corridor was desired, he suggested a street at 164th which has a standard
slope (less than 15% grade).
Council President Haakenson asked if there was any history of slides or movement in the area. Mr.
Walker answered no, the upper portion is not very wet; the more significant wet areas are at the bottom
as there is a perennial creek that flows through the area.
Councilmember White asked if the City assumed liability for pedestrian use if a pedestrian easement was
approved. City Attorney Scott Snyder said State Statute provides limited immunity for recreational
facilities. The City's obligation would be to sign the easement as unimproved and to include a reference
to the trail in the City's Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. When the easement was
opened, it would need to be developed with a generally acceptable surface such as steps.
Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation
Councilmember White observed abutting property owners did not request this right -of -way be vacated; it
was identified via an administrative process. He said it appeared the area was being used in some way
by the public. He agreed if a pedestrian easement was not maintained, the City would forever eliminate
the possibility of constructing a walkway and cause users to trespass.
Council President Haakenson asked Mr. Snyder why the street vacations were proposed by staff. Mr.
Snyder answered the City currently has very limited liability for the maintenance of an unopened right -
of -way. However, the Supreme Court is considering an appeal of a King County case in which the
ownership of a right -of -way is the basis for the City to have liability. In this instance, the City would
maintain an ownership interest due to the utility in the right -of -way.
Council President Haakenson asked the width of the utility easement and if the utility easement would
allow pedestrian use. Mr. Snyder answered the utility easement would allow construction and
maintenance of utilities; only utility personnel would be permitted to utilize the easement. Mr. Walker
said there is an existing drain line in the easement and the City would maintain the entire area for a
utility easement.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 15
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO
REJECT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY AS IT IS
CURRENTLY USED. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON OPPOSED.
E 8A. CONFIRMATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD CANDIDATE
Mayor Fahey requested the Council confirm the appointment of Joanne Langendorfer to the Planning
Board.
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON,
TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF JOANNE LANGENDORFER TO THE PLANNING
BOARD. MOTION CARRIED.
9• MAYOR'S REPORT
V tg NT 21 Mayor Fahey encouraged the Council and any other interested parties to attend the ASCENT 21 meeting
at the Everett Marine Center at 7:00 p.m. on April 22.
urchase of Mayor Fahey clarified the comments made on the summary fact sheet regarding the purchase of the
Tidelands tidelands and easement in front of the Waterfront Park Associates building actually stated if the City did
not purchase now, it probably never would as it was unlikely there would ever be a funding source
available._ She said this was an accurate statement as the purchase price would increase and it was
unlikely this amount of funding would be available again. She pointed out the grant can only be used for
the purchase of the tidelands; if the City did not use it for that purchase, it must be returned to
Snohomish County for reallocation in smaller amounts to other projects that were not funded. She
explained the funding mechanism for these moneys was the result of the sale of a 20 year bond and all
moneys for the Conservation Fund have been used to debt service the bond to fund the acquisition of
larger parks and open spaces.
Mayor Fahey wished Councilmember Earling a Happy Birthday on April 23.
10. COUNCIL REPORTS
Excused I COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
Absence EARLING, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MILLER FROM THE APRIL, 7 MEETING.
MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER MILLER ABSTAINED.
Councilmember White suggested the Council consider changing its meeting procedure to include
clarification of issues raised during the public comment portion of the meeting. In response to a request
UMeeting made during public comments that the Council take a position regarding the CASCD proposal, he
explained Councilmembers, by law, cannot take a position unless the Council as a whole chose to take a
position. Mayor Fahe y said Councilmembers were free to make comments at any time. As a matter of
policy, the Council has attempted not to enter into a debate during public comments and therefore have
delayed comments until the end of public comment.,
Council President Haakenson asked other Councilmembers to provide input regarding the addition of a
section to the agenda to allow the Council to clarify issues raised during public comment.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 16
Councilmember Nordquist asked when information regarding the acquisition of a site for the new fire
Site for New station would be presented. Mayor Fahey said Mr. Mar has contacted the prospective seller to ascertain
ire station his willingness to sell and a price. At this time, that information has not been provided. Councilmember
Nordquist said possibly another site should be considered. Mayor Fahey agreed to provide further
information as soon as it becomes available.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m.
BARBARA S. FAHEY, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
1
J
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 1998
Page 17
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
APRIL 21, 1998
SPECIAL MEETING
6:45 P.M. —INTERVIEW. CANDIDATE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD
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 FEBRUARY 27 - 28, 1998 (COUNCIL RETREAT)
(C)
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 1998
(D)
APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #21458 THRU #24452 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 13, 1998, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $183,319.18. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #20144 THRU #20282 FOR THE
PERIOD OF APRIL 1 THRU APRIL 15, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $427,170.90.
(E)
AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS BREATHING APPARATUS AND SUPPLIES
(F)
AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS 1973 AND 1974 FIRE ENGINES
(G)
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES WITH THE
CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
(H)
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND DESIGNATED ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER
(1) AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE PETTY CASH PURCHASING DOLLAR AMOUNT
(J) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE PUBLIC SAFETY BASE STATION RADIO SYSTEM
(K) COUNCIL APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS ($38,003.17) FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
POWER TRANSFER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
(L) AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION FUNDS FOR ARTS COMMISSIONER TO
ATTEND WASHINGTON CULTURAL CONGRESS
(M) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN UNIFORM SERVICE CONTRACT WITH CINTAS CORPORATION
(N) ACCEPTANCE OF A UTILITY AND PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT AT 76TH AVENUE WEST AND 216TH STREET
SOUTHWEST FROM EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15
(0) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO DELETE CERTAIN RIGHT -OF -WAY
LOCATED AT FOURTH AVENUE BETWEEN HOWELL WAY AND THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF THE
EXISTING FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH RIGHT -OF -WAY SOUTH OF WALNUT STREET IN THE CITY OF
EDMONDS
3. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
APRIL 21, 1998
Page 2 of 2
4. (5 Min.) PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF VOLUNTEER WEEK
5. (15 Min.) REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
6. 1 (45 Min.) CLOSED RECORD MEETING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPROVE A
PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE FROM RS -12 TO RS -8 OF APPROXIMATELY 5.4 ACRES LOCATED IN
THE APPROXIMATE VICINITY OF 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE (Applicants:
Dr. & Mrs. Han Z. Park, Mr. & Mrs. Russell C. Kim, Mr. & Mrs. James L. Thompson, and the City of
Edmonds I File No. R- 97 -28)
7. (45 Min.) CONTINUED DELIBERATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.20.010.C.1 PERTAINING TO THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE
LOCATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES IN SINGLE FAMILY (RS) ZONES (Applicant: Edmonds Planning
Division / File No. CDC -97 -123)
8. (20 Min.) CONTINUED HEARING — RESOLUTION NO. 905 — HEARING ON THE PROPOSED VACATION OF
PORTIONS OF 72ND AVENUE WEST (FROM NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD TO A POINT 378 FEET SOUTH)
RESERVING UTILITY EASEMENTS, SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE
9. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
10. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORT
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 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears
the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.