Loading...
08/21/1990 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO AUGUST 28, 1990 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1990 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main St., Edmonds. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor John Nordquist, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Roger Hertrich, Councilmember Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember William Kasper, Councilmember Jeff Palmer, Councilmember Jack Wilson, Councilmember STAFF Bob Alberts, City Engineer Duane Bowman, Asst. City Planner Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director Bobby Mills, Public Works Supt. Brent Hunter, Personnel Director Dan Prinz, Police Chief Gordie Hyde, Traffic Engineer Gary McComas, Fire Marshal Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Alice Brown, Recorder Mayor Naughten informed the audience of their opportunity later in the meeting to express opin- ions on items which concern them, asking that they sign up for public hearing items indicating their names and addresses. CONSENT AGENDA Items (D), (E), (I), (L), (P) and (Q) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 1990 (C) ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE FROM LAURA AND JAMES BARRETT ($28,961) AND DONALD AND SHIRLEE HALL ($500,000) (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SNOHOMISH COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONSORTIUM INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 15, 1990 FOR SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO - It/ BLACKLINE, INC. ($31,500) (H) REPORT OFTBIDS OPENEDIED AUGUST 6IN199 FOR FL84)ED, CRANE, AND TOOL BOXES AND AWARD OF CONTTo� y(J) AUTHORIZATION JO CALL FOR BIDS FOR CARPETING AND INSTALLATION AT EDMONDS LIBRARY �'i` dv 0yy (K) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR CONTINUING METAL CAP AROUND LIBRARY AND PLAZA AREA A�(M) ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 706 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES GRANT TO FUND PASSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF PINE RIDGE PARK Yea �(N) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY INSITE, A DIVISION OF NU -STONE SURFACING, INC., ON CENTEN- NIAL PLAZA BRICKWORK PROJECT, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (0) ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2788 PROHIBITING DRIVING THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY TO AVOID TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (R) OVAL OF AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH GAYNOR LANDSCAPING FOR MASTER PLAN OF PINE RIDGE PARK IVA S) ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 707 EXTENDING CHAMBERS CABLE TV FRANCHISE TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1990 C AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH SHANNON TOWING FOR TOW AND IMPOUNT SERVICES [ITEM D�FCONSENT AG1 Mayor Naughten,announced this item would be continued until a date uncertain. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH SEATTLE TILTH ASSOCIATION FOR Councilmember Kasper stated that the city has a grant, and he questioned why we are not using grant money, rather than taking it out of the General Fund. He stated he felt the word "appropri- ate" should be used instead of the term "grant". Mr. Hahn explained the process whereby the money needs to be placed wherever it is going to be spent, and the recommendation is that $1,000 of it be put in the budget, and spend the money for the purposes of the contract. A grant is a revenue fund, and expenditures are done by BARS code, and this catetory is a consulting services category. The way it reads is ..approve the con- tract and appropriate $1,000 from the recycling grant to be made available for transfer to the Commercial Services Consulting Project." COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE ITEM (E) OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO INSTALL HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRY DOORS AT EDMONDS LIBRARY ITEM (I) ON CONSENT AGENDA] and AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR REPLACEMENT OF FIRE ESCAPE STEPS AT EDMONDS BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB LITEM L N CONSENT AGENDA] Councilmember Kasper addressed the from the 116 Fund, since it has been Council's position not to use 116 funds for construction. He noted in one instance they are replacing doors, and in the Boys/Girls Club they are replacing a fire escape that was in the original block grant. He felt that the city should go back to the block grant for these funds for the handicap door replace- ments, and that other door replacement projects should be done all at once --for example, the brass doors in the Anderson Center. Mayor Naughten stated he did not believe they would qualify for block grants. Mr. Hahn suggested that Bobby Mills, who put the package together, would be able to explain fur- ther about the block grant eligibility issue, since obviously the stairs are not handicapped accessible, but the facility was paid for from a block grant. Mr. Mills stated that at the present time there was no reason not to go to HUD block grant, and in September they will take funding projects for the next three years. He said the city can submit in the block grant category, and if it can be funded it would be great, since many facili- ties need to have closers and openers to make them accessible to the people. The steps at the Boys Club are in real need of repair and that was part of the block grant of two years ago. The exit is from the upper part of the building (fire escape). Councilmember Wilson inquired about the balance of the 116 Fund, and Mr. Mills replied that while he did not have exact figures for this meeting, these items under discussion were budgeted for this year. Councilmember Wilson stated that the spirit of that fund is a maintenance contingency program. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, NOT TO APPROVE ITEMS (I) AND (L). MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2789 RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICIAL DISCLOSURE [ITEM (P) ON CONSENT AGENDA] Councilmember HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY Councilmember JAECH, TO MOVE ITEM (P) TO THE END OF THE AGENDA, MAKING IT ITEM 10, WITH THE MAYOR'S SECTION BECOMING ITEM 11. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE LIMITING THE DISCHARGE OF FIREWORKS TO JULY 4 H TEM (0) ON CONSENT AGENDAI ouncilmember Palmer referred to the Fireworks Ordinance, Page 2, where it speaks about only discharging on the July 4th, but allows them to be sold until July 6th. City Attorney Scott Snyder stated that the State legis.lature has pre-empted certain ordinances, and that local ordinances must contain certain provisions. In order to limit ordinance restric- tions as much as possible, the fireworks industry has protected itself by pre-empting hours of sale and ensuring that they can sell fireworks certain days. They do not restrict cities from prohibiting the discharge of fireworks. Mr. Snyder said the State legislature determines what powers remain, and what the City is attempting to do is to limit what is sold to only sparklers and smoke bombs, and prohibit discharge. He said, in effect, the City is doing all it is re- quired to do. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2789. MOTION CARRIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 August 21, 1990 SEIU LABOR AGREEMENT Mayor Naughten announced that Item 7, APPROVAL OF SEIU LABOR AGREEMENT will be dealt with in Executive Session before it is addressed publicly. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER TO MOVE ITEM 9, REVIEW STATUS OF YOST POOL COVER, TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE WORK SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1990. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE Mr. Dick Burgoyne, 751 Brookmere Drive, Edmonds, inquired about the status of a petition submit- ted in July as it concerns the walkway that is proposed between Hindley Lane and Brookmere Drive at 8th Avenue. Mayor Naughten explained that the Council had only received this information at this evening's meeting, and there will be a public hearing scheduled. Mr. Burgoyne will be in- formed when the hearing will be held. Ms. Beth Schlaegel, 20800 - 78th West, represented the citizens in a three -block area who are requesting attention be given to their streets. More specifically, the streets are 77th West, 78th West, 208th S. W., and 209th S. W. between 77th and 78th. The areas of concern of the resi- dents involve the construction of storm water drainage, reconstruction of the streets with as- phalt (not chipseal), and a reasonable amount of time for the reparations to take place. Ms. Schlaegel submitted a petition with signatures from 32 households, and also provided a dia- gram to the Council for their perusal. The diagram indicated the three -block area where their concerns were (highlighted in pink), and the streets to the north and south of the area (high- lighted in yellow) which have recently been resurfaced with asphalt. In discussions with the Engineering Department, Ms. Schlaegel stated they concurred that the streets are in need of repairs, and that the stormwater drain system was also in need of repair. The neighborhood has been experiencing sinking driveways and lawns. Ms. Schlaegel added there are 33 homes with 16 children, and safety is a factor. The request to the Council is that this much -needed repair be included in the 1991 budget so that the work can be completed at least by the fall of 1991. She thanked the Council for listening and added that the residents hope the problems will be promptly addressed and appropriately resolved. Councilmember Kasper asked if they had been told that the streets would be re -asphalted, and Ms. Schlaegel replied that Mr. Stroud was the person to whom they had spoken about not wanting chipseal, and at that time the slurry seal was mentioned. Mayor Naughten thanked her, and told her she would be contacted regarding their request. Mr. Fred Schuler, 20815 - 78th West, spoke regarding the needed repairs, and added that they were told by Roy Whitcutt that the storm system would be put in. Mr. Scott Mackie, 15120 44th West, Lynnwood, and Mike Kerwin (business partner), requested that the Council consider revising the Video Arcade Ordinance of the code, specifically Section 4.21.027. They had submitted a letter for Council review describing their business concept, and a timely response was requested. Mayor Naughten informed them that the Council will need time to review the request at a future Council Committee meeting, and will advise the petitioners when it is going to be reviewed. He noted that the next Committee meeting is scheduled for September 11. Councilmember Hertrich asked if they anticipated moving on this right away, and the reply was by late October or early November. Mr. Mackie stated that their success will be dependent on the video game income, which relates to the number of video games they are allowed, and they cannot proceed any further until approval is given. Therefore, at this time the project was.at a stand- still. Mr. Mackie stated that Herm Villa had been in contact with the Chief of Police, and that it would not pose a problem, since they are a family sports and entertainment complex. It is a total family and sports entertainment business, where no alcohol, smoking or related activities will take place inside the facility. He added that Mr. John Harter, the Sno-King Youth Club Director, also was contacted, and he was in favor of the youth -oriented program. Ms. Francena (Sini) Schmidt, 7815 - 192nd Place S. W., submitted a petition to the Council, and stated she represented 25 residences. The petition was signed in April and they have been work- ing with the City for four months. She commented on how pleased they have been to work with Bobby Mills and Bill Stroud, but they are not satisfied with the City's position to overlay only the turnaround only and patch up the "rough" spots. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 August 21, 1990 The main concerns of this group were that the final surface is too rough, with children receiving nasty cuts if they fall on the surface; the loose gravel causes chips in car paint,.and.the grav- el is carried onto driveways, lawns and flowerbeds, and the street sweeper is ineffective; tar has been carried into homes and carpets; the overlay is not smooth, and low spots still exist where water collects. Ms. Schmidt said that there are 26 houses on the street, and one-third of the residents have resided there for 25 years, with another one-third having lived there for 15 years or more. From all of the reports, this has been an ongoing patch -up job for 30 years. They are definitely requesting better than the chipseal work which was done over a year ago. Mayor Naughten clarified with her that they are requesting an overlay of the street, and stated that the City will get back to the requestors next week. REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR VIDEO PRESENTATION RE FERRY TERMINAL �IMayor Naughten gave a brief explanation for the presentation, stating that the concept of the video as it relates to the proposed ferry terminal and waterfront is being looked at by the Coun- cil to help as they look for solutions. Ms. Jeannie McMacken, McMacken & Associates, 17000 - 73rd Place W., Edmonds, gave..a brief over- view of what the video would consist of in the way of informing, stating that a 10-12 minute media image would do the job. It would contain history of the system, ridership, current and projected problems. They would solicit comments from ferry users, downtown merchants, and oth- ers, working one-on-one with the Council before anything was done. She referred the Council to the outline given them of the preliminary cost estimate. Ms. McMacken stated the original video, or master video, would be kept by McMacken & Associates with copies given to the City. Councilmember Hertrich asked Ms. McMacken to whom the proposed videos would be shown, and she replied that interested parties, service organizations, Department of Transportation, and others. Mayor Naughten interjected that the Council would determine who shows the video and to whom. Councilmember Hertrich could not see the scenario, saying they were dealing with one item, but seemingly it does not address the whole program. Mayor Naughten stated this is just one part of a total program, and depends upon whether the Council desires to do it in this manner. Councilmember Palmer asked for more information on the "Source Voyager", and Ms. McMacken replied that purchasing it would not be appropriate since the price ranges from $700-/$800, and on a rental basis would be $40 each time it is used. She offered to confirm the figures for the Coun- cil. Councilmember Palmer inquired about the cost of copies of the video to the City, and what the timetable 'on developing such a program is. Ms. McMacken replied that the videos are $8.00 each, and that there would be a minimum of five weeks between writing approval, getting the desired shots, etc. Councilmember Hertrich liked the idea of a video program, but was having difficulty visualizing that this should be the lead-off item. He felt the Council would not know exactly what direction it was going, and felt that a public relations firm should be retained, which would use video if it is appropriate. He was not in favor of signing for this at this time. Councilmember Nordquist felt that while something like this is needed, showing the basics of the problems facing the ferry terminal and issues involved with the ferry, the program must be devel- oped in a way that appeals to the citizens of Edmonds. As far as service programs and service organizations, there are many people who belong to them that do not live in Edmonds at all. Councilmember Nordquist felt it was premature to hire anyone to do something that the Council was not prepared to promote wholeheartedly. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Nordquist. He felt that the dissemination of information to the public at large is important and there is a need to communicate with them, but could not conceive how the video would be used. He said the Council needs to put more study into this. Mayor Naughten stated that a slide show presentation had been discussed at the retreat, and the idea was to take it to the community. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 August 21, 1990 Councilmember Jaech recalled that the suggestion to utilize slides or video presentations had been talked about, but it was her feeling that the Council is not ready to hire anyone at this time. She felt consideration should be given to what points need to be included and whether video is the correct medium. She thought perhaps a brochure or a handbook would suffice. Mayor Naughten said further discussion was needed. Ms. McMacken wished to make two points with reference to the discussion, the first being that to delay during these critical tourist traffic days will preclude being able to demonstrate the impact. Secondly, she wanted the Council to be aware of her 15 years of public relations experi- ence. She wanted to emphasize that she can help with any marketing project and agreed that this is just part of a complete program. Councilmember Kasper clarified that the Council was not saying the video was the problem. He said the problem is not knowing what the Council wants to have in it and not getting to the gener- al public. He felt most service organizations are well informed, but not all participants live in Edmonds, and he said that is the problem. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST TO MOVE THE DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED VIDEO PRESENTATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE FERRY TERMINAL TO THE NEXT WORK MEETING, SEPTEM- BER 25, 1990, TO COME TO AGREEMENT ON WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS IT TO CONTAIN. MOTION CARRIED. In conjunction with the meeting of September 25th, Councilmember Hertrich requested a letter from Ms. MCMacken outlining some of the things she feels are important so that they can have these in hand. 1JrHEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2790 LIMITING PARKING TO THREE HOURS IN 200 BLOCK OF 4TH AVENUE SOUTH(BETWEEN DAYTON STREET AND WALNUT STREET) Traffic Engineer Gordie Hyde presented the background of this proposed ordinance, stating that Carol Elwell, a resident on 4th Avenue South had requested that the City Attorney draw up an ordinance concerning imposing a 3-hour limit in the area, and a petition had been submitted at the end of May, He showed a transparency on the overhead projector which indicated the existing 3-hour limits in the downtown area in the 4th Avenue section. This portion was apparently left out in the previous ordinance, and the staff is recommending passing the ordinance. Councilmember Palmer felt there was a discrepancy between the Dayton and Walnut locations, since the ordinance uses "Maple" as the location. Mr. Hyde clarified this stating that the Council had not received the corrected ordinance in time for this meeting, but that the existing ordinance in- cludes the north 120' of 4th Avenue, and the new ordinance would extend it south on 4th. The "Maple" reference is now corrected to "Walnut". Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing. Mr. Vernon Huck, 275 - 4th Avenue South, noted that the north 120' is already commercially zoned, and he thought that was fine, but the west stretch from Dayton to Walnut is completely residen- tial, with the exception of one chiropractor's office. His point was that it is predominantly residential` and the fact is he is glad that it will restrict the commercial use. Mr. Huck was concerned about what consideration is given to residents for permits, so that they will be able to park their vehicles there. City Clerk Jackie Parrett stated there is an ordinance on the books that provides for residential parking permits as long as you do not have an area on your property to park your cars. The cost of the permit is $10 per year. She added that if you do have an area on your property to park, including a garage, driveway or other space, then a permit cannot be issued. Councilmember Hertrich asked about guest parking, and Ms. Parrett explained that there are visi- tor permits which are $5 each. If you are entitled to a residential parking permit, you may have up to two visitor's permits. However, if you are not entitled to a residential parking permit, the cost for the visitor permits is $10 each per year. Mr. Huck questioned what the fee for the commercial people is, and Ms. Parrett replied that they are not entitled to a permit. The ordinance was designed to help the residents of the street. In conjunction with the discussion of permits, Mr. Snyder explained that with a permit the resi- dents may park beyond the three-hour limit, whereas persons without a permit are limited to three hours. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 August 21, 1990 Ms. Anne Ebbighausen, 209 - 4th South, Suite #101, was present to speak on behalf of businesses in the area under consideration. She is the Legal Administrator for James Deal & Associates, and questioned why this was being proposed. Mr. Hyde reiterated that the proposal is at the request of the residents of that street who have found that the street is occupied many hours of the day by vehicles. These vehicles belong to various people --owners, operators, clients of local busi- nesses, or ferry patrons, making parking unavailable to the residents. Ms. Ebbighausen stated their firm has 12 employees, with 6 spaces for clients in front, and 5 spaces in the rear of which 3 are available to their employees. With the 3-hour parking limit on neighboring streets, this means that 9 people in their firm have to find parking spaces in order to come to work. Naturally, the concern if this passes is where will the employees be able to park --it will not be possible for employees to come to work. Ms. Ebbighausen felt that one of the amenities of working in Edmonds, rather than in Seattle, was that while salaries are generally lower in this area, there are some tradeoffs because there is no paid parking involved and parking restrictions do not apply in general. Businesses are at- tracted because of this atmosphere, but will not want to establish themselves here in the future if the benefits such as street parking are eliminated. Councilmember Hertrich stated that arguments both ways have been heard, and asked if there was a problem for the patrons of the business, or if paid parking would be acceptable. Ms. Ebbighausen answered that the difficulty at this point is for the employees, since they do have 6 spaces in front for clients, and a couple in the rear for that purpose as well. She reiterated the fact that pay scales are lower here, and businesses will not want to locate in Edmonds. Parking down at the ferry dock makes for a long walk to work. In closing, Ms. Ebbighausen noted that from the observations of her fellow employees, the 3-hour limit is unenforced. Ms. Carol Elwell, 242 - 4th Ave. South (on 4th between Dayton and Walnut), spoke about the park- ing situation, and the fact that several of the neighbors felt strongly as she did, so they circu- lated a petition and garnered 22 signatures. One of her complaints was that she cannot even pull up in front of the building where she lives and unload her groceries. While they have a six -car garage off the alley and have six places to park, it is not convenient. She cannot provide park- ing for her family when they visit, since there is no place to park right by their building. Ms. Elwell referred again to the alley and cited that one car has been parked there for three weeks, and last weekend there was a car parked in front of the building for four days. The situa- tion is impossible most of the time. She thanked the Council and stated she hoped they would concur with the requests of the submitted petition on this matter. Mr. Dan Johnson, 220 - 4th Ave. South, stated he felt the short-term parking was not the problem, but rather it is the long-term parking, and he suggested that perhaps the curb could be painted to signify somehow that residents of a particular building were to be able to park there. Mayor Naughten responded that this could not be done since it is a public street. The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2790 RESTRICTING PARKING ON.4TH AVENUE SOUTH BETWEEN DAYTON STREET AND WALNUT STREET. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kasper commented that this would be a good place to use a video, as it would show one of the areas for which there is no solution unless the ferry terminal is moved. Councilmember Wilson responded that the Council has been sensitive to parking and has investigat- ed purchasing property, even going as far as having it appraised, all done with parking in mind. However, the landowner wanted more than the appraisal and had put a prohibitive price of $160,000 on it, making it out of reach for that purpose. Councilmember Hertrich requested that the Planning department research similar commercial occupan- cies and check the present formula requiring parking, since perhaps they are no longer appropri- ate. He felt that providing six parking spots, as spoken of here tonight, while in accordance with the formula in the code, is perhaps inadequate. He asked that the Planning Department also check as to whether "loading zones" might be appropriate in front of major condominiums. Councilmember Kasper addressed the issue of employee parking, noting that employee parking was not considered, but mostly it is the customers for whom the parking is meant. This project was done and provided for by the Code. He noted that other cities, such as Bellevue, are promoting carpooling and transit by making parking in the core costly. Councilmember Palmer noted that in light of the testimony, each business that is parking on the street is affecting all businesses, and there is a leap -frog effect with everyone impacting someone else. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 August 21, 1990 HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT/CIVIL rJ - PENTE7TES Mr. Bowman gave the staff presentation, noting that this matter was referred to the Community Services Committee on June 12, 1990 for consideration. The Committee recommended that a hearing be held to consider proposed amendments. The proposed amendments were to establish a code en- forcement civil penalties section for enforcing the Edmonds Community Development Code. Up to this time, the staff has been processing zoning violations as criminal offenses, and cannot effi- ciently handle such matters. The draft copy of the ordinance would establish a civil process using a Hearing Examiner method of appeal for enforcement actions. To illustrate the time consumed in processing a violation, Mr. Bowman showed a transparency on the overhead projector (exhibit 2 in the Council packet). This graphic showed that the procedure of enforcement of a zoning violation such as property nuisance, obtaining compliance with the Sign Code, a home occupation violation, etc., is a lengthy process. He cited one case that was an animal violation, with 32 cats, 2 dogs and a ferret, occupying a condominium unit, and while the process was going on, the neighbors to this situation were living in a very unhealty environ- ment. * Mr. Bowman informed those present that the present process takes 293 days for a violation. In contrast, the draft proposal shows a timeline of approximately 80 days for the procedure. The purpose behind the proposed amendment is to provide for an efficient system to enforce the provi- sions of the Edmonds Community Development Code, and further to provide for a fair hearing pro- cess and an efficient procedure for abating the code violations and to decriminalize the enforce- ment procedure. Mr. Bowman pointed out that this did not prohibit the city, if necessary, from filing criminal charges. Mr. Bowman continued by pointing out that "nuisance" has been redefined since it is the weakest part of the code to deal with. The current code is unclear about zoning regulation violations, but the problem with most of the complaints is that the staff is dealing with property nuisances that are not clearly defined and are hard to enforce. Other municipalities, such as Redmond, Everett and Bellevue, have all gone to this procedure for enforcement. He added that he had attended a conference with the Everett woman who runs the program for that city, and where it has been successful. This process is much more expedient. Councilmember Hertrich asked who was going to issue the tickets, and Mr. Bowman replied that citations would be issued by the Code Enforcement Technician, who presently does that. The main thrust of the Technician is to enforce the Edmonds Community Development Code for all violations of the code. At the present time the job is mostly geared to commercial enforcement. The public hearing was opened, no one wished to speak, and the public portion was closed. Councilmember Palmer mentioned that the question always arises on why the city cannot do certain projects such as cleaning junk in vacant lots, side yards, and other areas, but it takes too much staff time and costs the taxpayers too much money. Some of these minor items are the most visi- ble to the day-to-day community. This ordinance will impact the quality of life in the city, and any tool that can be given to the staff to aid them in enforcement should be given them. He stated he liked the ordinance as presented. Councilmember Hertrich reiterated he had a problem with the way the Planning Department is run at times, and added this is not the kind of thing he would like to see the Planning Department in- volved with. He said the Hearing Examiner approach is probably the superior course to follow, but going through the court process is much better, so that the Code Enforcement person has to give more proof to a judge, rather than a Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Hertrich stated he would not vote to change the system until some improvement in the Planning Department was evi- dent, but did not want to see them wearing a badge. Councilmember Jaech felt it was a good ordinance. The Hearing Examiner idea is good, where all taxpayers share equally in the cost, but otherwise if it went to a court procedure there would be court costs incurred such as attorneys fees. Councilmember Jaech felt whether it was a permit coordinator or police department was not important, but she said many calls that she receives from citizens concern trash or unwanted blackberry bushes which harbor rats, and they are experi- encing a real problem but have no recourse to deal with it. For the staff to enforce it is al- most impossible, but this will give the staff the opportunity to do things that citizens want done and is the least expensive way for everybody concerned. Councilmember Nordquist asked for clarification of Section 00.00.030, Nuisance section, Item E, Page 2, of the proposed ordinance, where it pertains to "Utility trailers or unmounted camper tops..." He asked if he could move a trailer from his front yard to the street. Mr. Bowman responded that the City Code does not allow overnight parking of trailers on the street. * See Council Minutes of September 4, 1990 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 August 21, 1990 Mr. Bowman stated that according to the parking section of the code it states that it is a viola- tion. Mr. Snyder explained to the Council that the format under the proposal is that a notice will be given that there is a violation; therefore, the trailer must be moved to the backyard or drive- way, and after notification, if not moved, a citation would be given for the violation. Councilmember Nordquist was bothered by the fact that there was no one from the public present to speak about any of the conditions and the impact, even though the item was advertised in the news- papers, and agenda information is readily available to the public. He believes the public would comment on it. Councilmember Kasper was concerned about procedures and suggested a second and third reading on this ordinance. He stated that if he read the title in the paper he would not know what it was that was being discussed. Councilmember Kasper questioned whether the people of Edmonds wanted that much more enforcement, but that hopefully the press would let the people know that public input is needed, then the Council can talk about the contents. Councilmember Hertrich expressed the opinion that this matter should have been before the Plan- ning Board, and he said when it was before the Community Services Committee he disagreed with it. He was concerned with who would be issuing tickets, with and all the various _items under the "Definition" section, and with the "Nuisance" section. He said it is too general, and he felt that some of the rights of the citizens were being taken away. Councilmember Hertrich stated he believed this needed more study by other boards. Councilmember Palmer stated he had no problem with the proposal and that the things it covered were those which the citizens want enforcement on. He agreed that it should be published widely, and that these things do not pertain to anything that anyone would store outside. COUNCIL MEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO MOVE THE ITEM TO THE SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 AGENDA FOR A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION APPROVING 42-UNIT APARTMENT AT 348 3RD AVE. S. (APPELLANT: R BERT B. S RENSEN APPLICANT: BELT ENTERPRISES. FIL -20-90 -3-90) Councilmember Kasper stated Council received a letter in his packet from Mr. Belt, 917 - 9th �* Avenue South, which should be given to the City Clerk for the records. (Marked Exhibit 1) Mayor Naughten established that the appellant and the applicant were both present. Mr. Bowman reported on the background of this appeal, stating that the Architectural Design Board (ADB) granted final approval to this project at 348 - 3rd Avenue South, a 42-unit apartment, at their July 5, 1990 meeting. Subsequently, on July 23, 1990, Robert Sorensen filed an appeal of that decision. Minutes of the ADB meeting were included in the Council packets. Mr. Bowman displayed transparencies on the overhead projector showing the site plan and the build- ing elevations, with Building A housing 26 units and Building B the balance of the units. He stated the access to the property would be along a driveway on the north property line. Mr. Sorensen's concerns are with the driveway, the construction of that driveway, and ultimate impact on his property. Plans approved by the ADB were made available to interested parties, and included a landscape plan. Councilmember Hertrich inquired what the distance was from the edge of the driveway to the adjoin- ing residence on the north side, and Mr. Bowman replied that it goes from "zero to basically 5 feet" in the area between the driveway and the appellant's driveway. The retaining wall will be built from there. Councilmember Hertrich asked how far the residence is .from the property line, the depth of the wall, and slope of the driveway. Mr. Bowman answered that it is approximately 22' from the resi- dence, the depth is zero to 9 feet, and the slope is 14-1/2%, but that the Engineering Department has not approved the slope. Concerning ADB procedures, Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the ADB gives final approval on any project before any variances are decided, and Mr. Bowman stated they recommend to the Hearing Examiner, but in that sense they (the ADB) comply. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 August 21, 1990 Mayor Naughten explained the procedure for the appellant and the applicant during the public hearing portion, with the applicant to present his comments first, and then the appellant, each being limited to seven (7) minutes. The public hearing portion of the meeting was opened, and the applicant, Tom Belt, d/b/a Belt Enterprises, was first represented by Mr. Bob Tjossen, 1313 Market Street, Kirkland. Mr. Tjossen showed colored renderings, specifically addressing the driveway on the north side, and the fact that Mr. Sorensen desired two driveways. However, the recommendation from the city was for one driveway. Mr. Tjossen pointed out that the slope of the driveway has been reduced to 14%; therefore, it does not require a variance. Regarding the issue of stability, Mr. Tjossen assured those present that lateral support would be carefully done. He stated that Mr. Sorensen's house is over 12 feet from the property line, and added that the architect, Charles Morgan, would present a plan to scale, but at the east side of the Sorensen house. The height, he added, of the cut on the easterly portion of the house is 3'6% and the westerly side is 8'6". Mr. Tjossen stated that the applicant's licensed Civil Engineer, Mr. Dale Watkins, would explain what will be done to ensure stability of the retaining wall, and the.techniques which will be used during the course of construction so that the Sorensens' property will not be.. damaged. He noted that there is a daylight basement underneath Mr. Sorensen's house and his foundation wall holds up the bank next to his house and supports the driveway much like the present project will do on the applicant's side. Mr. Dale Watkins, Civil Engineer, Lovell, Sauerland & Associates, Lynnwood, was present to speak to the stability issue. He explained that there will be stability throughout the construction. Prior to any construction, they plan to establish pilings at the property line at a depth greater than what would be excavated. Cribs would be provided for shoring throughout construction (imbed- ded just like a flagpole). Boards will be put in between piles. Then once it is complete the perimeter retaining wall is built. The appellant, Mr. Robert Sorensen, 338 - 3rd Avenue South, submitted a letter stating his appeal (marked Exhibit 2) and told the Council that he had been born in Edmonds and his grandparents came here in 1902, so he had always been interested in its development. His family purchased their home on 3rd Avenue in 1919. He explained his reason for appeal was based on information he received from the City of Edmonds, which stated that the slope exceeding 14% was requested and that the depth of the driveway was going to be 10 feet. The depth is exactly 13'8" from his home, and they will share a joint driveway, which is concrete. Mr. Sorensen stated he had talked with the Street Department personnel, who told him that the earth there is sand and it slips easily. He read from a soils report from Earth Consultants, Inc., which referred specifically to "cutting and filling": ..in no case should excavation slopes be greater than those specified in local, state and federal safety regulations...Temporary cuts greater than 4' in height should have an inclination no steeper than 1.1 horizontal/vertical..." The appell.ant stated the other reason for his appeal is taken from the Community Development Code, Section 20.05.010 (C), which sets forth the criterial for Conditional Use Permits: "Not Detrimental. That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significan- y detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improve- ments unless the use is a public necessity." Mr. Sorensen stated that if approval of this is the recommendation of the City, he must assume that the City of Edmonds will be responsible, since there will be slippage and breakup. He added that 10 feet is steep and deep. Mr. Sorensen then showed three transparencies on the overhead, with one showing the area of 3rd and Walnut, the second showed Walnut and the turns, and the third showed the density of the prop- erty. (Marked Exhibit 3) Mr. Sorensen concluded with emphasis that he is so concerned about damage to his house that he is requesting a survey be made and metered for structural damages during this development, and a sizeable bond (possibly $2,000,000) be required for damages directly caused by this project at 348 - 3rd Avenue South. At the present time, his home is plumb and square, but the many trucks carrying tons of dirt near his home were another great concern. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 ' August 21, 1990 Alluding to the 10' depth, Mr. Sorensen produced a pole that was 10' in height, stating that as anyone could see "It's a helluva hole", and asked the Councilmembers what they would do if this was their home that this was happening near. Councilmember Kasper noted that there is a copy of the Belt letter available for those who would like to read it, since it addressed some of the issues being raised at this hearing. Mr. Snyder confirmed that a copy was available on the table for review. Mr. Bob Crump, 501 - 2nd Avenue North, was present to speak in behalf of the appellant, stating that parking had been an issue discussed as it concerns commuter traffic, ferry traffic, etc. He said this area once had two single family homes with at most three cars per family, and this project is for 42 families with 84 cars. He asked the question of what effect would this density have on this neighborhood, and what the cumulative impact on downtown Edmonds would be. He felt it was detrimental to the small town aesthetics, and questioned whether the loading zones, guest parking, as referred to before, had been properly addressed. Ms. Muryl Medina, property owner at 341 and 343 - 3rd Avenue South, spoke in behalf of the appel- lant, presenting a petition which had been circulated in support of Mr. Sorensen's appeal and in the hope that the Council would grant his appeal. The petition contained 100 signatures, and she read the intent of the petition. (Marked Exhibit 4) Ms. Medina was the spokesperson on the neighbors' behalf, and she questioned whether an Environ- mental Impact Statement had been required. If it had, many of the problems with this project might have come to light, such as the impact of the turnaround. She said side from being a haz- ard to Mr. Sorensen's property, there is a traffic tangle at 3rd Avenue South and Walnut, and the driveway should flow from Walnut into the project. The results of 84 vehicles driving with 10 feet of the Sorensen's living space, continued Ms. Medina, is unthinkable. She questioned why the entry could not go off Walnut Street, simply by changing the driveway. Ms. Medina addressed the parking issue, and strongly urged the Council to make the developers provide parking on site. She stated she felt she was in a position to say this since she had been on both sides of the fence, since she was a developer also. Ms. Wendy Kay, 318 - 6th Avenue South had questions with reference to the architectural design, and what provisions have been made for trees on the lot, and what provisions are made for recy- cling of garbage for multi -family dwellings when this project is finished. Mr. Charles Morgan, architect, 7301 Beverly Lane, Everett, answered for the applicant, stating that the three trees in front will be retained and become part of the buffer zone along the street, but the balance of the trees are not the type to be substantial enough to be retained. Mr. Morgan addressed the recycling inquiry by stating that the current standards are being met with the two 8' x 10' enclosures indicated on the plan, but for the new recycling requirements the regulations are not known to anyone at this time. Mr. Tjossen responded to Mr. Sorensen's comments, stating that the new drawing submitted to the City Clerk -=showed the maximum cut west of Mr. Sorensen's garage. It will not have a slope when there is an excavation, but essentially will put piling and cribbing in before excavation takes place. He said this is a well -established means of construction. With respect to the vibration factor, Mr. Tjossen emphasized that a retaining wall will be con- structed next to the sheet piling and cribbing, and when the wall is built it will be backfilled just to retain natural vertical repose of the soil between the retaining wall and the property line. This backfilling will be done with mechanical compactors so that it can be landscaped or asphalted. They will not be doing this in the same was as when the street was done. Mr. Tjossen said they will be taking videos during all phases of construction of this driveway. This will include the traffic, density, and other factors. Since they do comply with the code with the location of the driveway, and the city proposed one driveway, he felt that the project is consistent with the neighborhood. Councilmember Nordquist asked the applicant how they were going to install the pilings, and Mr. Tjossen replied that they will drill down, put in steel I-beam, and drop cribbing in as they go down, much as they have done along I-90. Councilmember Nordquist did not feel that comparing it to the I-90 method was much of a recommendation. Councilmember Hertrich asked the petitioner if they could give a reason why the driveway location could not be a driveway at the end of Walnut Street. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 August 21, 1990 Mr. Tjossen replied that while he was not involved with the original planning, it was his under- standing that the original application was for two driveways at each side of the property, but the Engineering Department suggested they put it in the location as now shown. Councilmember Hertrich felt it should be built appropriately, and again asked if it was possible to design this building with a different driveway, such as on Walnut Street. Mr. Morgan replied that the traffic people desired it and that is why they asked the Fire Depart- ment to look at it. At that time, with all of the turns to get the fire rigs into the back end of the property, the Fire Department preferred a straight -on shot coming in. Councilmember Hertrich asked for clarification of access, and reiterated his question on whether this project could be redesigned. Mr. Morgan replied that it would break it into more buildings, and architecturally would be a very poor project. With no view frontage it would destroy the concept. City Engineer Bob Alberts responded to the comments about the placement of the driveway, stating that the original plan showed two entrances --one on the north side and one on the south. While the Engineering Department did not select the access point, they did not want two accesses. He emphasized that they had not selected the location of the driveway. Councilmember Kasper asked about the phrase "joint driveway", and what is meant by that, and Mr. Sorensen replied that Tom Belt's property and his share a driveway. He said there are no Class 2 footings underneath, and it will break up. He added that 13'8" is his portion. Councilmember Jaech asked Mr. Sorensen if, although he shared a driveway, when this project is finished would it be cut in half, to which Mr. Sorensen answered in the affirmative. Mr. Tjossen responded to the question from Councilmember Jaech by informing all that there is no joint driveway, as there is no legal easement. The driveways merely abut and run parallel. Councilmember Hertrich questioned the information given to the Council for review regarding the cut being different from what Mr. Sorensen presented to the Council. Mr. Tjossen clarified this by stating that the architect showed the maximum height of the wall at 10', and what the appli- cant is saying to the Council now is that 3'6" on the east side, and 8'6" on the west side are the dimensions. The driveway slope is 14% and is in line with the Code. Councilmember Hertrich inquired of the staff if there were any mitigation requirements, and Mr. Bowman read conditions of the Declaration of Nonsignificance: 1. Prior to any grading activity, and Applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for review and approval by the Edmonds City Engineer. All required erosion control devices shall be in- stalled. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the erosion control devices to en- sure that they are operating properly. 2. All excavation and grading shall comply with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. If more than 500 cubic yards are to be moved, the Applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit from the Edmonds Hearing Examiner. 3. The Applicant shall submit a truck route plan to the City Engineer for approval prior to removal of any excavated material. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for keeping all streets clean and free of debris during all phases of construction. 5. All grading and construction work shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekends and holidays. 6. If deemed necessary by the City, the Applicant shall provide traffic control during removal of the excavated material. 7. Excavation, grading, filling and construction of foundations, slab -on -grade floors, retaining walls, rockeries, site preparation, general earthwork and drainage shall follow recommendations contained in the report entitled "Revised Geotechnical Engineering Study" dated January 12, 1990 by Earth Consultants, Inc. B. Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed storm water plan shall be submitted and approved by the Edmonds City Engineer. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 August 21, 1990 9. Facilities and utilities shall be provided to ensure that undesirable materials (e.g., soap, oil, grease, etc.) are not washed into the wetland. A biofiltration system for storm drainage shall be used. 10. No building foundations or rockeries are permitted with the 20-foot wetland mitigation set- back area as established in the wetland identification letter by Lovell-Sauerland and Associates dated December, 1989 and shown on the map dated April 11, 1990. 11. Plantings shown on the "Wetland Planting Plan" sheet by Shapiro and Associates shall be in- stalled between the building and the wetland. Plant sizes and spacing shall conform to the City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board landscape planting standards. Councilmember Palmer spoke regarding the location of the driveway, asking if the driveway were on the south property line, rather than the north property line, how would that line up with Walnut, and Mr. Alberts replied that they merely took the developer plan and preferred to have one en- trance instead of two. It still would be an offset with Walnut, and there would still be a jog. Councilmember Palmer questioned why it does not line up with Walnut, and Mr. Alberts answered that there were two exits, but there are no requirements saying that it should line up with Wal- nut. Fire Marshal Gary McComas clarified for the Council the question of whether this location of the driveway lends itself to being serviced by emergency vehicles. He said they would. have no prob- lem with the access point whether it be any where along 3rd. When they looked the property over, there were some jogs and problems with accesses, but as long as there is the width and the height to get equipment through, he said it was all right. Councilmember Palmer asked Mr. Bowman what the requirements for a project of this size are as far as off-street parking. Mr. Bowman replied two parking spaces are required per unit, and the plan as presented provides those and meets the minimum requirements. Mr. Palmer asked about trees and clearing of the parcel, and whether this project would have fallen under the review of the ordinance the Council has been considering, and Mr. Bowman an- swered that it would be subject to review for a clearing permit if there were an ordinance in place. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if this development is replacing one or two single family dwellings, and Mr. Bowman replied that 348 and 406 - 3rd Avenue South are the two structures which will be eliminated when this project is built. Councilmember Dwyer referred to the parking, asking if the city has restrictions in this location similar to the restrictions on 3rd Avenue. Mr. Bowman replied he was unsure, but would obtain clarification during this proceeding. Mr. Snyder addressed the city's liabiity in situations where there is earth subsidence. Each private property owner owes his neighbor absolute duty of lateral and subjacent support, and if you cut away the foundations at the corner of a property and damage your neighbor's dwelling or structures on the property, you are absolutely liable for the damage you cause. The city enforc- es Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code that is mentioned, and its ability to limit construc- tion techniques is stated by the Building Code. The State Building Code is established by the state legislature, and. the City enforces it. Mr. Snyder continued by stating that the Council is aware of the approach of basically leaving issues of damage of neighboring properties to the civil remedies of the court, such as the case that was considered by the Snohomish County Court two weeks ago, a copy of which was given to the Council for their information. Referring to the parking situation, Mr. Snyder stated that the city's parking standards are estab- lished by ordinance and as such become matters of right. When the developer files a building permit, he agrees to develop the property in accordance with the ordinance restrictions that are already in effect. That is, the city cannot amend parking requirements or deny a project if it meets the ordinances in effect. Additionally, Mr. Snyder reminded the Council that the Conditional Use Permit and the Mitigated Declaration of Non -Significance were not appealed, and that the Architectural Design Board re- quirements are the only thing being appealed. Mr. Snyder informed the Council that the placement of driveway entrances, particularly if they affect streets, is a discretionary matter that is within the province of the Council. The Coun- cil can determine where driveway entrances should be and where street alignments are. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 August 21, 1990 Councilmember Hertrich felt that considering the problem of excavation and vibration with adjoin- ing properties, he would like to know if the Council has the ability to limit the size of the trucks used. Mr. Snyder replied that if this property has a history of earth subsidence or movement, or if the slopes are in excess of the steep slope provisions defined by ordinance, the City has a variety of tools, such as bonding and insurance, or requiring vibration testing of each specific piece of equipment brought onto the property. The Building Official and Building Department have rather broad powers in requesting this. Councilmember Hertrich asked Mr. Snyder if the exiting point were more centrally located, whether restrictions would be less, and Mr. Snyder replied that it seems logical that would follow. Mr. Bowman answered an earlier question concerning parking, and stated that the 3-hour limitation covers the northerly parcel, under the City Code, Page 394, Section 8.64.065. Councilmember Palmer wished to know how this project would be affected if the access was to be on the south, and Mr. Bowman replied he was not in a position to answer that since it was not some- thing specifically looked at. * Mr. Tjossen answered the question of moving it to the south citing that the three trees would have to be removed if the access is altered. Mr. Morgan stated that the grade is exactly the same going south as it is to the north. The driveway could be flip-flopped, but the same problem would exist. Mr. Tjossen stated there would be a cut, and the bulk of the building would be 25' closer to Mr. Sorensen's house. Mr. Sorensen said he would prefer the driveway going down directly across Walnut Street, but would prefer to have the bulk of the building closer to his house and then he would never have to deal with the traffic. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED TO APPROVE PROJECT WITH THE DRIVEWAY TO BE DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH WALNUT STREET. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mr. Snyder stated that the limited 3-hour parking zone ends about 1/2 block from the subject site. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO DENY THE APPEAL. He said it has been zoned for many years and this is considerably less excavation than the senior housing project proposed there. Also, that the property as designed has a driveway which is joint, and has been under development for six years. Further, the only location for the driveway is the present location, and there seems to be no evidence of damage. Councilmember Jaech stated she was going to vote against the motion, as what has been presented is detrimental to the neighborhood: She further stated she could not go with the driveway on the south side. The entrance can be in the middle of the project, and the Council needs to look at the problems. THE MOTION` FAILED, WITH 5 VOTING AGAINST, AND 2 VOTING IN FAVOR. There was a roll call vote, with COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST, DWYER, HERTRICH, JAECH, PALMER VOTING NO, and COUNCILMEMBERS KAS- PER AND WILSON VOTING YES. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, THAT THE DRIVEWAY OF THIS PROJECT BE MADE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM WALNUT STREET, AND THE INTERNAL ROAD BE RELOCATED FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH SIDE. Councilmember Palmer felt it should be sent back to the ADB with the direction the Council would like to go. Councilmember Wilson was adamant about desiring a strong opinion from the Fire Department on regarding entering in the center. Councilmember Dwyer stated the speaker who had had the greatest impact on him was Mr. Crump, and regretably no traffic study was done on the project. He was not in favor of the replacement of two dwellings with 42 dwellings in a area which is at the outskirts of the problem area in the downtown core of the city. He said parking restrictions have been imposed on both sides of the streets for seven to eight blocks from this site. His concern was the density of the 42 dwell- ings, which has other impacts, and he felt that the Council did not have a feeling for what the impact is going to be. * See Council Minutes of -September 4 1990 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13 August 21, 1990 Councilmember Wilson stated a study should be done, but the Council rejected a project which would have created substantially less of a problem than this project, and he felt this was get- ting in deeper, and that the zoning was the problem. Councilmember Jaech inquired of Mr. Snyder if at this point the Council could request traffic information. Mr. Snyder replied that if the Council wants to refer this back to the ADB, that study could be prepared at city expense, but the issue of cost would be raised. Mr. Snyder ex- pressed reservations about this project, since there are many things that the Council has ap- proved, and this one meets the criteria. Councilmember Kasper would like to know the magnitude of the redesign. He felt the dirt movement was a major issue. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION; SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ADDRESS THE EARTH MOVEMENT TO GET A CENTER ACCESS. (NO ACTION ON THE MOTION) COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE ADB FOR FURTHER REVIEW, AND THAT THE APPLICANT BE PERMITTED TO SUBMIT A REDESIGN FOR ACCESS TO THE INTERNAL PORTION, AND BY REVIEWS OF THE SAME DEPARTMENTS THAT ORIGINALLY REVIEWED THE PROJECT. THE MOTION TO AMEND WAS CARRIED. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED. Mayor Naughten stated he wished to move Item 8, Ferry Study, before Item 7, SEIU Agreement, be- cause Don Nutter was in the Audience for the ferry study item. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY-STATE FERRY STUDY (CONTINUED FROM JULY Mr. Hahn explained the Scoping Study document, stating that a product would be required if it were to be moved to Unocal, and this Agreement is the first official step in going toward the SEPA and NEPA studies. The State Ferry System has appropriated the money, but even for Phase 2, this exact same process would be followed. This is presented at this time to see if the Council is comfortable with it, or has minor changes at this time. Councilmember Hertrich asked what "Phase 2" was and how much money was involved, and Mr. Hahn stated that this is a big project, so Phase 2 would be much more detailed--i.e., concerned more with hydrocarbons and their effects, as an example. A full Environmental Impact Statement would be best, and the best estimate would be $300,000-$400,000, and we already have $120,000 budgeted for Phase 1. Phase 1 may identify some of the special problems such as winds, tides, and other unknown quantities, and that is why there are two phases. Councilmember Palmer stated that under Section A that "all weather landing facility" should be deleted, since "all weather" is not possible in extreme weather which occurs from time to time. Mr. Hahn stated he would note this request for deletion. This would be an impact statement and should be included. Councilmember Palmer stated he was disturbed that on the last page it refers to a "Technical Advisory Committee", and Mr. Hahn explained that they definitely need expertise and this is a necessary committee. Councilmember Hertrich requested more time to study this further, as he did not see the word "safety", and questioned whether "Scoping Study" was regular terminology. Mr. Hahn stated his concern would be noted, and that the Scoping Study title is indeed the correct term. The modi- fied document will be on the next week's Consent Agenda. AT 10:00 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING BEYOND 10:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL OF SEIU LABOR AGREEMENT The Council recessed to Executive Session at 10:01 p.m. to discuss the SEIU Labor Agreement. The meeting reconvened at 10:21 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE THE SEIU LABOR AGREEMENT AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH 6 VOTES IN FAVOR AND 1 OPPOSING VOTE. Councilmember Hertrich voted against the motion. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 14 August 21, 1990 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2791 RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICIAL DISCLOSURE ITEM (P) ON CONSENT AGENDA P Councilmember Hertrich stated he had trouble with $50 threshold on page 3, and felt $100 would be more realistic. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT TO $250.00. MOTION CARRIED, WITH 5 VOTES IN FAVOR AND 2 OPPOSING VOTES. A roll call vote was taken, and VOTING IN FAVOR WERE COUNCILMEMBERS DWYER, JAECH, PALMER, WILSON AND NORDQUIST, with COUNCILMEM- BERS HERTRICH AND KASPER VOTING AGAINST IT. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO ELIMINATE THE ORDINANCE. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE ITEM (P) OF THE CON- SENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER VOTING NO. MAYOR Mayor Naughten announced that the Houston NLC participants will be Councilmembers Jaech, Nord- quist and Hertrich. Councilmember Kasper stated if there is a vacancy and one of the designees cannot go, that he would be a willing alternate. COUNCIL Councilmember Jaech called attention to the letter in the packet from Terrell Barnett, serving on the Governor's Committee for disability issues. The letter addressed re -wording on utility rates. Mr. Snyder stated he had sent her a letter, and mental disabilities will be included in an upcom- ing ordinance. Councilmember Wilson was unhappy about the late arrival of a letter from Senator Gary Nelson, as it was dated June 15th. Councilmember Wilson further wanted it to be known that he felt for the public hearings the staff should put important concepts in the packets. He added that the Council seemed to be hearing two different things this evening. He stated strongly, "Get the facts in thepacket." He said if there is a traffic problem, the Council need s to know the sta s opinions, and he would like to see the staff take a stand. An example would be that he would like to have known exactly how the Fire Department felt about the access to the 42-unit complex in tonight's meeting. Councilmember Hertrich was surprised that the determination of nonsignificance with the 11 points on the mitigation were not included and spoken about, and the traffic problem was not mentioned as one of the stipulations in the declaration. Councilmember Dwyer concurred that while this has gone all the way through the system, the basic facts such as how many car trips and other pertinent information had not been given to them. Councilmember Palmer agreed that the staff needs to provide those key points in the packet. Councilmember Dwyer had two items, the first being that he would appreciate it if there would be some way to unlock the door into the vending machines on nights when there are public meetings, as it would be a nice courtesy for both the audience and the staff. Ms. Parrett stated she has a key, and will check on why it has been locked during these times. The second item Councilmember Dwyer wished to speak about concerned the Oxford House, where Mr. Snyder, Mayor Naughten, and six staff members heard from HUD representatives who have some ideas which will probably involve the Council greatly where the code is concerned. He commended Mr. Snyder on the good job he has done on this matter, and his resourcefulness in putting the city's position forth. Mr. Snyder requested that perhaps the HUD matter could be discussed at an Executive Session on September 4th. Councilmember Palmer called attention to the letters to the editor in the Edmonds paper regarding Centennial activities --in particular the laser show. Mr. Snyder reported that 25% of the money has been returned, and the balance will be in the form of a free laser show at Christmas time. Ms. Ohlde has agreed to pay $2,000, but will get a free show later. Councilmember Palmer spoke about changing the ordinance regarding mental disabilities, as the draft does take into consideration all of Ms. Barnett's concerns. Mr. Snyder offered that it is a complicated problem, since it could include recovering alcoholics and drug abusers. Councilmem- ber Palmer stated he would like to put it on the consent agenda, but it will be discussed at a later meeting. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 15 August 21, 1990 Councilmember Hertrich added that a person who is disabled but makes a lot of money --why should they get a break. Since a monetary rebate was the whole purpose to begin with, perhaps this should state "low income disability". r Councilmember Kasper stated he does not have the information on the senior housing at this time, and would like to defer next week's scheduled item until October 23. What he would like to get on with are other pressing matters, such as the ferry situation. He said the Council must get started on things that the Council wants in the presentation for the public information. Mr. Snyder questioned if the agenda is open, whether Les Page could come to speak with them for at least 20 minutes next week. He will be making a report on the last negotiation session, and he needs to report on a technical issue. Mr. Snyder noted that if that is a possibility, he will need to notify Mr. Page, since he is coming a substantial distance to speak to the Council. That report was scheduled for August 28. Councilmember Kasper stated the Johnson easement needs to be cleared. Councilmember Jaech was concerned that the ADB minutes reflect a hearing on "503 Walnut", and requested that the staff check to see that it was posted correctly because that address was incor- rect. Mayor Naughten announced that he would be on vacation for two weeks. The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 P.M. THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO AUGUST 28, 1990 APPROVAL. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 16 August 21, 1990 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM - L18RARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. AUGUST 21. 1990 SPECIAL MEETING 6:00 P.M. - TOUR MEADOWDALE BEACH PARK AND LYHNDALE PARK TO VIEW RECREATION STRUCTURES 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL (8) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 7. 1990 (C) -ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE FROM LAURA AND JAMES BARRETT ($28.961) AND DONALD AND SHIRLEE HALL ($500,000) (0) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH SHANNON TOWING FOR TOW AHD IMPOUND SERVICES (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH SEATTLE TILTH ASSN. FOR BACKYARD COMPOST TRAINING ($1.000) (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SNOHOMISH COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONSORTIUM INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 15. 1990 FOR SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, AND AWARD Of CONTRACT TO BLACKLINE. INC. ($31.500) (H) REPORT ON BIOS OPENED AUGUST 6. 1990 FOR FLATBED, CRANE, AND TOOL BOXES. AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ALLIED BODY WORK, INC. ($5.402.84) (I) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO INSTALL HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRY DOORS AT EDMONDS LIBRARY (J) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR CARPETING AMD INSTALLATION AT EDMONDS LIBRARY (K) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIOS FOR CONTINUING METAL CAP AROUND LIBRARY AND PLAZA AREA (L) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR REPLACEMENT OF FIRE ESCAPE STEPS AT EDMONDS BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB (M) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 706 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES GRANT TO FUND PASSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF PINE RIDGE PARK (N) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY INSITE, A DIVISION OF NU -STONE SURFACING. INC.. ON CENTENNIAL PLAZA BRICKWORK PROJECT, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (0) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2788 PROHIBITING DRIVING THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY TO AVOID TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (P) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2789 RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICIAL DISCLOSURE (Q) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2790 LIMITING THE DISCHARGE OF FIREWORKS TO JULY 4 (R) APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH GAYNOR LANDSCAPING FOR MASTER PLAN OF PINE RIDGE PARK (S) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 707 EXTENDING CHAMBERS CABLE TV FRANCHISE TO SEPTEMBER 30. 1990 2. AUDIENCE 3. REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR VIDO PRESENTATION RE FERRY TERMINAL 4. HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2791 LIMITING PARKING TO THREE HOURS IN (20 MINUTES) 200 BLOCK OF 4TH AVE. S. (BETWEEN DAYTON ST. AND WALNUT ST.) S. HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING (45 MINUTES) CODE ENFORCEMENT/CIVIL PENALTIES 6. HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION APPROVING (45 MINUTES) 42-UNIT APARTMENT AT 348 3RO AVE. S. (APPELLANT: ROBERT B. SORENSEN; APPLICANT: BELT ENTERPRISES; FILE AP-20-90/ADB-3-90) 7. APPROVAL OF SEIU LABOR AGREEMENT 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY-STATE FERRY STUDY (CONTINUED FROM JULY 24) 9. REVIEW STATUS OF YOST POOL COVER 10. MAYOR 11. COUNCIL 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PROPERTY ACQUISITION THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND '