19770301 City Council MinutesFebruary 22, 1977 (Continued)
i
Assistant City Engineer Dick Allen said he.was not representing anyone but he had discussed this
with several people in the office and they feel this does begin to infringe on the employees' rights
on the outside.. He said they are diligent and think it is a benefit to the employees to have an
opportunity -to work in religious, fraternal, and other organizations without having it monitored by
a department head. He said he supported items 2 and.3 and his objection was the reporting of. --the
employment to the department head. He felt that if there is an insurance problem the City should get
onto the legislature to get it changed. The insurance problem was discussed and also the question of
whether there had been any outside employment causes of disability. Neither Chief could recall any
instance when outside employment had been a cause of disability. Councilman Gould said he had a
strong feeling that the administrative group should very carefully consider its relationships with all
its employees, particularly the uniformed personnel, and that all actions should be very carefully
considered. It did not appear to him that it would be fruitful to take action to pass this ordinance,
and he said what really needed to be done was to take steps to correct the LEOFF Act. He felt this
MOTION: matter should,be dropped. After some further discussion along this line, A MOTION WAS MADE BY
COUNCILMAN HERB, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE MATTER BE TABLED. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PARKING ORDINANCE (9:45 p.m.)
Mayor Harrison excused himself from this hearing because he owns property in downtown Edmonds.
Mayor Pro tem Phil Clement assumed chairmanship of the meeting.. Mr. Wallis said this proposed
ordinance would -require nonconforming uses to come into compliance at the time of a substantial change
of use of the building or a change in ownership. He thought it would create a more equitable.situation.
Councilman Anderson had an objection which he had raised before, i,n that he thought there might be a
question of fairness in requiring parking spaces of 1 for each.600 sq. ft. in the downtown area but
varying in other areas depending on use. Councilman Carns was concerned because this ordinance was so
similar to that recently voted down after much testimony from the community. City Attorney John Wallace
responded that this was true, but two weeks after that vote the Council had instructed the City Attorney
• to draft this ordinance. It was noted that this ordinance provides for availability of parking in the
future in the case of new development. So there is no immediate cost to anybody unless someone
develops his property. It was also noted that there was nobody present to object to the ordinance
tonight, even though it had been publicized, because it puts the costs on other people in the future.
A question was raised regarding paragraph (3)(b) of Section 12.14.021, in regard to change in ownership
because of inheritance. It was suggested the wording be changed to reflect that compliance would be
required by reason of a sale -type of transaction in order to.exempt the inheritance -type transaction.
MOTION: There was some further discussion and then A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN GELLERT, THAT THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 1. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Gellert said
this should be a public hearing and representatives of the downtown community should be given adequate
notice of the hearing. He asked that the ordinance be disseminated at least to the Chamber of Commerce.
There was nol•further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
77�
IRENE ARNEY�MORAN, Cit Clerk H. H. HARRISON, Mayor
March 1, 1977
•
The regular meeting of the Edmonds
Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council
City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by .
Chambers of the Edmonds Civic"Center. All present
joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor
J. Herb Gilbo, M.A.A.
Ray Gould
Leif Larson, Public Works Director
Phil Clement
Joe Wallis, Community Development Director
:.Max..Gellert =
Marlo Foster, Police Chief
John Nordquist
Rod Garretson, Park Planning & Recreation Dir.
Robert And
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Tom Carns
Lila Crosby, Finance Director
Mike Herb
John Wallace, City Attorney
Wayne Tanaka., City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA (7:36 p.m.)
Councilman Gellert asked that Item F, authorization for purchase of three police cars, be removed from
MOTION:the
Consent Agenda for clarification. A MOTION
WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
ANDERSON, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The balance of the Consent
Agenda contained the following:
(A) Approval of Minutes of
February 22, 1977.
(B) Confirmation of Mayor's
appointment of George Benson to Position 2 on the
Library Board, term to
expire December 31, 1980.
(C) Approval of Public Health Contribution Agreement.
11
48
(D) Adoption of Ordinance 1908, banning scuba diving at location of
proposed fishing pier.
(E) Postponement of proposed ordinance to cancel LID 176 to March 15, 1977.
(G) Approval of Equipment Rental Rates for 1977.
(H) Set May 3, 1977 as date for hearing on appeal by Doces Enterprises, Inc.,
from P.C. Resolution 547, recommending denial of a proposed rezone of
RS-8 to RM on certain property described in file R-1-77.
AUTHORIZATION FOR PURCHASE OF THREE POLICE CARS (ITEM (F) on Consent Agenda)
Councilman Gellert noted that in the past few'years'compact cars have been used for police cars and
this year the bids went out for intermediate sized cars. He inquired as to the reasons for this.
Police Chief Marlo Foster responded that they had gone to the smaller cars for savings in fuel, but
they had found very little savings in fuel and serious maintenance problems with the compact cars.
He said brakes had been a continuing problem since they first received the small cars and the
small cars have less weight and come apart. He said he felt they are a hazard. He said they had
been purchased based upon experience of the Seattle Police Department, but that Department is
also having the same problems now with the small cars. Public Works Director Leif Larson agreed
with Chief Foster regarding the small cars. Councilman Carns asked for justification of air-
conditioning in the new cars. Chief Foster responded that until the past two years he had felt
air-conditioning was unnecessary, but bullet proof vests are now being used and they are
uncomfortably warm during the summer. He said a large percentage of the officers wear the vests,
although they are not mandatory. Regarding rear window defoggers, he felt they were essential
for safety. Regarding the two -toned paint, he said this was the first year they had to pay extra
for that. He conceded that it may be a frill, but he felt it is a mark of recognition and that the
MOTION: community was receptive to it. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN HERB, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, •
THAT AUTHORIZATION BE GRANTED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE NEW POLICE CARS AT A COST OF $15,321.18,
INCLUDING SALES TAX. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL (7:46)
Councilman Herb spoke regarding current articles in the newspapers concerning an imminent sale of
the Edmonds Junior High School. The articles indicated there are two suits to stop the sale.
Councilman Herb expressed the view that these suits are frivolous and he said he would like to
encourage the.plaintiffs to drop them. He said the voters have indicated what they want done,
and the City has done all it can in this regard., He noted that the Junior High track and the
Elementary School are still available, and he felt the pressures the School District is under should
be acknowledged. He said these suits are trying to block the sale because of no environmental impact
statement, and he felt one was not necessary. He commented that -the City has been using the Junior
High School, although the newspapers said it is not up to code. He said he was concerned that these
issues were being used to frustrate the School District and were of no benefit to the City at all.
He noted that the building would sometimes be available for community use, and he said everyone
should focus on that and be realistic. The question of zoning arose, and Community Development
Director Joe Wallis said zoning is a consideration because it is presently designated as Public Use
on the zoning map, with no regulations to restrict its use. He said the Code does permit a
junior college on a minimum site of 40 acres. He said a variance would probably be required for it
to function under our Code. He thought it should be rezoned so that if it is ever resold or
ownership changed the City would be in a position to regulate the use of the property. He said
information presently is being prepared regarding the code conditions of the facility and the
Building Official has indicated no substantial deficiencies, but he had not yet received a report from
the Fire Chief. Regarding dormitories, Mr. Wallis said he had advised a representative of the college
contemplating the purchase that, in his opinion, a Multiple zoning would be required to accommodate
dormitories. Councilman Carns commented that this college is an outstanding organization and he
thought it would be a welcome addition to the City. Mayor Harrison then indicated that -the City had
received a letter this date from the School District indicating it had accepted the offer to purchase
the site for $500,000. By that letter the School District was granting the City.60 days to exercise
its right of first refusal to purchase the premises. He said the School District would welcome an
earlier response. Mayor Harrison added that he felt the Puget Sound College of the Bible would be
an asset to the community, and he recommended the City welcome the purchaser and refuse the offer
to purchase.
Councilman Gellert commented that a group calling themselves Citizens Concerned for Their Community
Association may be trying to collect funds to have a special election for general obligation bonds
to purchase the facility, and he asked how much lead time they would need. City Attorney John
Wallace indicated that a resolution would have, -to be passed at least 45 days prior to the special
election, and that the legislature had specified dates on which elections can be held during the
year. He obtained the dates and indicated that the third Tuesday in May would be the only.date
they could make, and that would be after the 60-day right of refusal period. Mayor Harrison said
that even if the City were somehow to purchase the facility, he really 'did not think it could
support it. He said his biggest concern had been that it would become a blight or that it would be
assumed by a correctional institution, and he felt that a private college would be a distinction
MOTION: for the City and a real asset. A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS THAT THE CITY NOTIFY
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT IT DOES NOT WISH,TO EXERCISE ITS 60-DAY OPTION TO PURCHASE THE EDMONDS
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. There were some expressions that action should not yet be taken. It was
noted that the Ad hoc Committee had not yet had an opportunity to meet to discuss the overall
problem. Mayor Harrison commented that if the motion were passed the college would be able to
proceed with the rezoning question. It was noted that it might not be a practical move to take
(Failed) immediate action. COUNCILMAN HERB THEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED.
1
1
1
•
March 1, 1977 (Continued)
49
MOTION:
•
Councilman Herb referred to the Police Department report and noted
about the number of automobile accidents. He asked if the officers
traffic tickets. Chief Foster responded that the lack'of'personnel
enforcement program, and that he was concerned about the number of
hopeful that this would be improved this year.
that the Police Chief was concerned
should be urged to write more
last year did restrict the traffic
accidents in the City, but he was
Councilman Clement made several inquiries regarding the Revenue Analysis Report, to which Finance
Director Lila Crosby responded.
MAYOR (8:21 p.m.)
Mayor Harrison asked Mr. Wallis to report on a revision in the Contract with Reid, Middleton & Associates
for the waterfront walkway study. Mr. Wallis reported that the two sentences in the contract which
provide that payment to Reid, Middleton will be conditioned upon receipt of funds from the Department
of Ecology were not acceptable to that firm. The City Attorney's office had advised that the first
page of the contract could be retyped without that provision, but that such a change must be authorized
by the Council. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, THAT THE MAYOR
BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH THE WORDING CHANGED AS DESCRIBED. MOTION CARRIED.
AUDIENCE (8:23 p.m.)
Jim Mueller of 209 Casper inquired regarding the drought and whether water would be available from
Everett. Public Works Director Leif Larson responded that there is a contract with the Alderwood Water
District that they will supply us. However, with the City of Seattle there is no contract. Edmonds is
a customer of Seattle but has no contract. The suppliers of Seattle will see that all customers are
treated equitably, and there has been nothing 1ndicated that they would not supply Edmonds with water.
Mr. Larson said Alderwood could not be used entirely because of the difference in sizing of the lines.
He said a lot of information had been received on conservation of electrical power, but no measures
have yet been instituted to conserve water, itself. He said there are many measures that can be taken
locally and they are presently working on them. Mr. Larson was asked to report at the April 12 meeting
regarding his contingency plan and conservation plans to be implemented. It was also requested that
at that time the City's position as a customer of Seattle for water be discussed.
Natalie Shippen of 1022 Euclid Avenue inquired regarding the State Highway improvements on SR-524
with regard to the City's approving the design. Mr. Larson replied that they presently are working
on the design; that they recently brought in sketches showing the width from curb to curb and their
various widths to accomplish what the Council had indicated in priorities and in number of lanes.
Discussion then followed regarding undergrounding. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, THAT A DISCUSSION BE HELD AT THE MARCH 8 WORK MEETING ON THE SUBJECT
OF THE GENERAL ORDINANCE REGARDING UNDERGROUNDING WITH STREET IMPROVEMENTS. MOTION'CARRIED.
Natalie Shippen asked the Council if,it would reschedule its March 29 dinner meeting to a meeting in
the Council Chambers. After some discussion it was agreed that the dinner meeting would still be
held at 6:30 p.m. at the Riviera Restaurant, moving to the Council Chambers at 8:00 p.m. for
discussion of the two scheduled topics. It was stressed that.the public'is still invited to be at the
Riv:i.era also. l
Marie King of 713 Laurel said that since the undergrounding of 5th Avenue it had appeared to a number
of people that a lot of poles were being diverted up Pine Street -from 5th to 7th; north along 7th to
Walnut, and from 7th and Walnut returning to 5th again. Mr. Larson said he could not respond to that,
but he would investigate it and report back to the Council.
HEARING WITH PETITIONERS ON NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX - VICINITY 224TH S.W. AND HIGHWAY 99 (8:47 p.m.)
Public Works: -Director Leif Larson indicated the notice of intention to annex had been filed in January
and that the final petition for annexation had been submitted this evening, based upon the requirement
• that the property would be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as other property
in the City of Edmonds. He showed the location on a vicinity map. City Attorney John Wallace
advised that a hearing date should be set, at which time the Council would determine whether or not to
accept the annexation. He said this must go before the Boundary Review Board, and it was subject to
confirmation of the signatures by the City Clerk. He suggested a hearing date of April 19 or 26.
Russell Segner, one of the owners of record of a large triangle of property fronting on Highway 99,
said he had secured the signatures of all the owners except the parcel most southerly and easterly and
MOTION: that area comprised less than 1/10 of the total property. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO ACCEPT THE PETITION OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A
TO THE PETITION SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE TERRITORY HEREBY SOUGHT TO BE
ANNEXED SHALL BE ASSESSED AND TAXED AT THE SAME RATE AND ON THE SAME BASIS AS PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY
OF EDMONDS FOR ANY NOW OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS OF SAID CITY, 1 NCLUDING ASSESSMENTS OR TAXES IN PAYMENT
OF ANY BONDS ISSUED OR DEBTS CONTRACTED, PRIOR TO OR EXISTING AT THE DATE OF ANNEXATION, AND THAT
SIMULTANEOUS ADOPTION OF -PROPOSED ZONING REGULATIONS SHALL BE REQUIRED: FURTHER, THAT THE HEARING DATE
FOR THE FINAL ADOPTION OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE BE SET FOR APRIL 26; AND SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION
THAT THE SIGNATURES COMPRISE 75% OF THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF THE OWNERSHIP. MOTION CARRIED. It was
suggested that it be determined whether this item could be heard on the March Boundary Review Board
Agenda and, if so, the hearing date could be rescheduled at next week's meeting.
HEARING AND FINAL DECISION ON PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PARKING ORDINANCE (8:59 p.m.)
Mayor Harrison excused himself from this hearing because he owns commercial property in downtown Edmonds.
Mayor Pro tem Phil Clement assumed chairmanship of the meeting. Community Development Director
Joe Wallis reviewed the content of the proposed ordinance and noted that it would only affect the
downtown business zone. He pointed out the 'advantages the proposed ordinance would offer, and he
recommended approval of it. Councilman Carns asked if the Chamber of Commerce had been given a copy
of the proposed ordinance, inasmuch as there had been no mention of it at the Thursday Chamber
meeting. Mr. Wallis responded that he had advised the Chamber of Commerce President on the day
following last week's Council meeting that this hearing would be held and that he would be provided
a copy of the proposed ordinance. He was given the ordinance on Monday. There was some discussion
is
of the landscape requirements and the public hearing was then opened.
LJ
MOTION:
MOTION:
Dick Chapin of 855-106th Avenue N.E., Bellevue, an attorney representing the Fogcutter Restaurant,
said he had been present at the October hearing on the parking LID ordinance and it appeared very
clear at that time that the community mostly affected strongly indicated they did not feel it was
necessary and were opposed to it. He did not understand why it was being proposed again. He said
they still do not think it necessary and they are strongly opposed to it. He said, further, that
he did not think new construction was a proper trigger as that would discourage upgrading the
downtown community. He said the key.should be whether or not space.is added that•.would require new
parking--600 sq. ft. of warehouse space should not be a trigger to participate. He also felt
change of ownership should not be a trigger as it has no effect on parking requirements. He said,
it would put a burden on the ability of the present owners to freely transfer that property. He
said the only one of the three triggering devices that had any kind of argument was the
substantial change that requires more parking under the code. Mr. Chapin said it was their
position that they do not feel they need parking, they do not want it, and they were asking the
Council to vote it down. City Attorney John Wallace responded that Section (a) could be a valid
criterion (new construction), but with respect to Section (b)(change of ownership) he had indicated
concern the previous week, and it had been his intent to recommend this week that it be deleted.
Councilman Gellert :explained for Mr.Chapia.that the difference between this proposed ordinance and
the one that had been discussed in October was that the issue in October was for specific
development of specific parking lots, and this proposal was a proposal for the future.
Loren Saxby, owner of the apartment building at 5th and Bell, commented that there was now public
transportation into Edmonds and people do not have to drive to come here. He thought this might
invalidate part of the long-term plan. He also noted that there are many condominiums and
apartment buildings that bring people within walking distance of the downtown area. James Martin
of 309 Main Street said there was not input from the business community in this ordinance. He asked
if the college purchasing the Junior High School would be required to meet these requirements.
Mr. Wallis replied that the property is not in the BC zone. Harry Frederickson of 214 Main Street
said they had left the October meeting assured that this issue was dead. He objected to it being
raised again and said the elected officials are elected to serve the people. Donna Saxby said
•
everyone had been notified when this came up before, but that had not been the case this time.
She said she had shopped in Edmonds for 17 years and had never had a problem parking. She was
opposed to parking lots. She was advised that the individual notices had been sent out for the
October meeting because that was an LID proposal and assessment notices were sent. Barbara Decoteaux,
who recently opened a tea room/antique shop, said this ordinance would.discourage people from opening
new businesses in Edmonds. Doris Sta,uring, owner of the Reminder. Shop at 211-5th North objected to
not having received notice of this hearing. She commented that this would affect a lot of small
businesses that occupy former residences, to which Councilman Gellert responded that anyone who now
is in business and whose business remains basically the same, will not be affected. Mr. Wallis
commented that under the present ordinance the side -by -side shop effect eventually would be lost
because of having to require individual parking, as the banks and some markets have already done.
Harry Frederickson commented that the two-hour parking limit should continue to be enforced. He felt
that it was very effective. The public hearing was then closed.
Councilman Anderson expressed concern about the l parking space requirement for 600 sq. ft., and
asked how it had been determined. Mr. Wallis replied that it was an average of the parking
requirements and types of businesses between 6th and Main and the waterfront, that it averaged the
parking demands on Main Street. He said the figure had come from the Parking Committee that had
been established to study the matter. Councilman Carns said there had been no testimony to indicate
there is a parking problem or anticipated problem in downtown Edmonds and that unless it can be
established that there is a problem or there is likely to be a problem, he could not see why any
changes should be made. Mr. Wallis cited the office building at 2nd and Main as an example of the
current problem. He said the parking requirements for that building have varied from 41 to 55,
depending on what tenants they have in the building. He said that at any given time it is difficult
to calculate their parking requirement. Councilman Gellert felt the proposed ordinance needed some
changes, but that it had many good features. Councilman Herb felt there had not been adequate notice
of this hearing. He had several objections to the ordinance,but said the most important point was
that the Council did not have the right to pass an ordinance when there is no evidence that there is
a need for it. Councilman Nordquist commented that when the merchants decide there is a need,
•
perhaps they will pool their own resources and provide parking. Mayor Pro tem Clement said it is the
Council's job to speculate on the future and by either taking action or not it is speculating on the
future. He noted that residences are being changed to commercial properties and are requiring more
parking. He was in favor of the in -.lieu concept. A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY COUNCILMAN HERB,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, THAT THE DRAFT PARKING ORDINANCE BE REJECTED AND THE CURRENT PARKING
ORDINANCE BE LEFT AS IT IS. Councilman Anderson commented that there are some good ideas in the
ordinance and that it might be a good idea to pick an applicable space requirement figure and make
it applicable throughout the City, rather than just in the BC zone. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN,
WITH COUNCILMEN GOULD, NORDQUIST, CARNS, AND HERB VOTING YES, AND COUNCILMEN CLEMENT, GELLERT, AND
ANDERSON VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Harrison returned to the rostrum.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PARKING TIME - LIMIT IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (9:50 p.m.)
Public Works Director Leif Larson reported that it recently had been discovered that for many years
the parking limit signs in the downtown area had indicated the two-hour limit to be between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., whereas the ordinance indicates the hours to be between 9:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. Because of the expense involved in changing the signs, Mr. Larson recommended the
ordinance be amended to reflect the same hours as the signs. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1909 AMENDING SECTION 8.64.060 OF THE EDMONDS
CITY CODE TO IMPOSE TWO-HOUR PARKING LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN STREETS FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. ON
CERTAIN DAYS. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Harrison asked the council if it would be interested in proposing that an in -lieu of fund be set
MOTION: up for future parking needs of the City. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
GOULD, THAT A DISCUSSION BE HELD AT THE MARCH 8 MEETING REGARDING IN -LIEU OF'PAYMENTS FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO BUILDING PARKING SPOTS ON EXISTING PROPERTIES. MOTION CARRIED.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
JU�2� 11'1',1A ,, .1 A'9.�
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Oty Clerk
•
H. H. HARRISON, ayor