Loading...
19790522 City Council Minutes• May 22, 1979 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers :of the Edmonds Civic Center... All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT. .ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Katherine Allen Charles. Dibble, M.A.A. Mike Herb Leif Larson, Public Works Director John Nordquist John-LaTourelle, Community Devel. Dir. Ray Gould Mary Lou Block, Asst. City Planner Tom Carns Irene Varney Moran, City*Clerk Larry Naughten Art Housler, Finance Director Fred Herzberg, City Engineer Dan Prinz, Asst. Police Chief Jim Jessel,,Parks & Recreation Manager Wayne Tanaka, City.Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Items (D) and (E) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved portion of the -Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll call. • (B) Approval of Minutes of May.15, 1979. (C) Acknowledgment of receipt of Claim for Damages from Michael W. Medin in the amount of $57.44. (F) Passage of Resolution 439, setting June 19, 1979 as hearing date on petition to vacate a portion of Dayton St., east of.9th Ave. S. (ST-6-79) PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REDUCE SPEED LIMIT FROM 35 MPH TO 25 MPH ON PORTION OF 5TH AVE. S. [Item (D) on Consent Agenda The section of 5th Ave. S. proposed for reduction of speed was from the 500 block to the intersection of SR104. Councilman Carns requested an explanation. Assistant Police Chief Dan Prinz responded that there is a large amount of congestion in the area because of new construction and a lot of vehicles are parking on the street. He said there.had been an increase in accidents and complaints, including a fatal accident about a month ago and a pedestrian.accident recently. There also had been a large incidence of traffic in excess of 35 mph. Councilman Nordquist felt the proposed ordinance was unclear as to the area.to.be included, and he suggested that it be indicated that MOTION: Westgate will be the termination point.. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST.THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS', TO APPROVE ITEM (D) ON .THE CONSENT AGENDA, ADOPTING ORDINANCE 2070, REDUCING THE SPEED LIMIT FROM 35 MPH TO 25 MPH ON A PORTION OF 5TH AVE. S., WITH THE INSERTION OF THE WORDS "WESTGATE AREA" AT THE END OF SECTION 2, SO THAT THE AREA AFFECTED IS DESCRIBED AS "STATE HIGHWAY NO. 104 (EDMONDS WAY) FROM SOUTH END 5TH AVE. S. TO SE CITY LIMITS (WESTGATE AREA)." MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION .OF BUILDING AND/OR LAND USE AGREEMENTS [Item (E) on Consent Agen a Councilman Herb stated that he is on the Board of Directors of Work Opportunities, a tenant of the Frances E. Anderson Cultural and Leisure Center, and although he would not participate in discussion on this because of a possible conflict of interest, he wanted to bring to the Council's attention the fact that such nonprofit organizations use the facility and to suggest that there be a differential in rates for such organizations. He noted that having. Work Opportunities as a tenant presents an argument for the City in obtaining grants because it helps the handicapped. Parks and Recreation Manager Jim Jessel responded that the proposed lease format would not be used for Work Opportunities, as that organization would-be included.with contracts approved by the City Council, and -the proposed lease format would be used for -only -short-term tenants. He was asked whether damage deposits are included when facilities are rented and he responded that.buildings have $50 damage deposits. MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE ITEM (E) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, PASSING RESOLUTION 438. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL Councilman Gould brought up for discussion the Council position vacated by Councilman Clement. MOTION: After some discussion as to procedure for filling the Position,COUNCILMAN DED Y COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO DECLARE-A.000NCIL POSITION VACANCY AND TOASKFOR APPLICATIONS FROM NPARTIES INTERESTED IN FILLING THE POSITION, SUCH APPLICATIONS TO,BE.RECEIVED.BY THE CITY CLERK BY 5:00 P.M., MAY 31, 1979; APPOINTMENTS TO INTERVIEW.APPLICANTS WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 1, 1979; AND THE APPOINTMENT TO FILL THE VACANT POSITION WILL BE MADE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 5, 1979. It was agreed that the secret ballot method.would be used at the Council meeting to select the new Council member: Further, it was agreed that this matter will be placed on the agenda following the scheduled Drainage Plan hearing. It was requested that packets with..copies of the applications be delivered to Council members on the evening of May 31, 1979. THE MOTION.CARRIED. Councilman Carns said he had recei.ved.a telephone call on Sunday from Shirley Dunphy regarding some tree cutting at 7th and Elm, and.he said it had been his.understanding that there would be no more tree cutting there. He read from:the November 21, 1978'motion regarding the Elm St. Reservoir Development Plan, which stated in part that ". . . all vegetation outside the development ring will be left.as,it-.is:".° He -noted that the trees now planned to be cut were outside of that development • ring. Councilman Gould noted that there was a discussion in January regarding tree cutting for 376 May 22, 1979 - continued • view. Further, that it had been determined that trees would be removed in only three instances: (1)' When it presents a safety or sight distance hazard, (2) When the root system causes blockage of underground utility system or heaves roadway or sidewalks, and (3),If.the tree is damaged or diseased. He said there was no action as to latitude the Mayor and Staff should have regarding tree trimming and removal but that it was to be determined on a single tree -by -tree basis, and not that the Staff would cut trees to within 3' of the ground as.was proposed now. Mayor Harrison said he had interpreted from the Council action that in this case it was up to his discretion what to do with the trees. He said they will continue to grow and will become a view hazard to people living in back of them, they will gather caterpillars and be impossible to spray as they grow tall, and they will grow 100' high and become dangerous from a wind standpoint. He felt park property should be kept free of alder trees wherever possible and he said the decision was to cut them 3' high so there would be no erosion problem. The discussion was opened to the audience for 15 minutes. Kirk Dunphy of 1126 B Ave. said he and his neighbors felt that the Mayor's decision to cut the trees was unfair in relation to the resolution passed regarding tree cutting. He said this was a removal of trees, not a trimming. Further, that they had fought to have this area left as it was because it was aesthetically pleasing and protected their stream from runoff and protected their property values, and there would be an unequal transfer of wealth by cutting the trees as, it would open the view to a few but would be detrimental to many. He added that since the removal of the blackberry bushes the runoff had been very great. He stated that it was unfair that all that they had fought for could be destroyed at the whim of one person. He also stated that they had a temporary injunction set up if required, and if they had to go to court they would. Joel Delisa of 1137 7th Ave. S. said that runoff had been greatly, increased after the first cutting of trees four years ago and his yard was now 1/3 wetter than it had been prior to that, and if more trees were going to be cut they really would have a bad drainage problem. He submitted a letter from Mr. and Mrs. John Claus of 1131 7th Ave. S. along with photographs which indicated the effect of the runoff. Shirley Dunphy of 1126 B Ave. spoke to the statements the Mayor had made. Where he stated that in January he had been given discretion to make the decision, she interpreted the minutes to say no action was taken. Regarding his statement that • these are brush trees that will become a view hazard in time, she felt if they were going to top trees for views then Resolution 418 should be revoked as it was contrary to that. She said the City experts had indicated that one tree should be cut because of potential.damage and she accepted their judgment. She could not accept his opinion that all City property should be kept free of alders, saying that alders are trees. She said she could not fault his statement regarding the root systems of alders because she was not an expert. She finalized'her statement by saying she did not want to MOTION: have to pay a lawyer for a restraining order,.but they would do so. COUNCILMAN HERB THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE COUNCIL REAFFIRM ITS POSITION STATED AT THE NOVEMBER 21, 1978 COUNCIL MEETING; I.E., THAT TREES ON CITY PROPERTY OR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL BE REMOVED FOR ONLY THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (1) THE TREE PRESENTS A SAFETY OR SIGHT DISTANCE HAZARD; (2) THE TREE ROOT SYSTEM CAUSES BLOCKAGE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY SYSTEM OR HEAVES ROADWAY OR SIDEWALKS; OR (3) THE TREE IS DAMAGED OR DISEASED. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Naughten said he would like to discuss the 7th and Elm property further. COUNCILMAN MOTION: NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT A DISCUSSION OF THE 7TH AND ELM PROPERTY BE Failed SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 26, 1979. Councilman Carns was opposed to the motion, saying the matter had been discussed enough. Councilman Nordquist said. the Council's decision in 1975 was not to sell the property but -to keep it as open space. .Councilan Naughten said this property does not serve as a .park and does not benefit the community and he would like to see it back on the tax rolls. Councilman Gould stated that if a Councilman wants to discuss something he should have the opportunity to do so, whether.;or not the other Council members.agree with him. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCILMEN NAUGHTEN AND GOULD VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCILMEN HERB, NORDQUIST', AND CARNS VOTING NO. MOTION FAILED. Councilman Carns requested a brief Executive Session following.this meeting regarding negotiation of property and a discussion which might affect the price. Councilman Gould advised that the first.meeting of Solid Waste Advisory Committee had been held May 17 and the discussion was in regard to the closure of the Tulalip landfill and the effects of that • closure.- City Engineer Fred Herzberg will attend the next meeting. Councilman Naughten noted that the Council had received a letter from Connie Root regarding her efforts to annex to the City the property located.between 208th S.W. and 212th S.W. and between 76th Ave. W. and 70th Ave. W. Ms. Root was in the audience and she explained that her original intention was to annex just her block but the City had.preferred that she try to include the whole three block area, so she had the petition written both ways. She had obtained.approximate.ly 90% approval in her block but only 64% of the entire area. She said there is opposition from.the commercial properties at the eastern end of the area, but the residents along 72nd Ave. W. desperately need sewers because of severe drainfield problems. Since it was assured that her block would be annexed, Ms. Root asked for permission to connect her property with existing sewers on 76th Ave. W: as she wished to develop it. Public Works Director Leif Larson stated that it had been previous policy that there would be no connections to sewers allowed unless the property was annexed or there was a heath hazard. Ms. Root said there was not a health hazard on her lot but there was -on some of the others. City Engineer Fred Herzberg said it had just been decided today .that if enough.signatures are not obtained by next Tuesday morning for the entire area, the City would accept the petition for the single block. He noted that it will still have to go to the Boundary Review Board. Councilman Herb referred to the upcoming.June 11 discussion regarding.the waterfront. COUNCILMAN MOTION: HERB MOVED,�SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN-NAUGHTEN, THAT THE MAYOR BE REQUESTED TO INVITE TO THE JUNE 11, 1979 WATERFRONT DISCUSSION THE SHORELINES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE PARK BOARD, REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SENIOR CENTER, AND ANY OTHER INTERESTED -PARTY. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Nordquist noted that the Crime Watch program was to be dropped for lack of funds, and this had been a very successful program. Floyd E. Smith of 814.Dayton said the program had been well received but it now appeared it would.have to be completely ..volunteer and he felt it would not continue its effectiveness. He noted that most people who return from a..trip send a contribution to the program which contributions have totaled approximately $1.,500., He felt.it was shortsighted to 377 • May 22, 1979 -.continued give up such a successful program.. M.A.A. Charles Dibble said. the Staff is developing some recommendations continue the program and they have a'volunteer who will take.charge of.the program for one month while the plans are developing. Councilman Carns noted that the Edmonds Rotary Club, which co-sponsors the program with the City,-receives'checks every-vweek'-from people whose homes -have been watched. He noted that the automobile.used..in the .program'al.so is donated... He felt it had been an excellent MOTION: program and it should be continued. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST.MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS,'THAT THE STAFF SUBMIT A REPORT ON THE .CRIME WATCH PROGRAM FOR.THE'JUNE 26, 1979 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor Harrison referred to the.loan,:repayment agreement for.the design of the Everett water filtration plant in which the three. South County cities agreed to participate with the proviso that construction would not proceed unless 75%'of the.constructi'on costs were supported by grants. Mayor Harrison said the Everett City Council was.concerned.that they may be placed in a position where they legally were forced to proceed with construction. A proposed agreement between the'Alderwood Water District and the City of Everett was presented.to the Council for ratification which would insure a significant portion of the funding. 'The Public Works Director recommended that the'Council ratify the agreement because it would (1) Insure a significant portion of the funding.not otherwise available, (2) Insure the design proceeds for a facility.that will be required someday in the future, and (3) Insure design fs completed at an early date and be ready for whatever funding may become available.. COUNCILMAN MOTION: HERB MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR WITH REGARD TO THE LOAN REPAYMENT AGREEMENT OF THE EVERETT WATER FILTRATION PLANT. Mr. Larson noted that the agreement will be between the City of Everett -and Alderwood'Water District, but Alderwood Water District always contacts the three cities for concurrence. He said Edmonds would just send them a letter saying it does not object. THE MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE • Roger Hertrich of 1020 Puget Dr. asked.if.approval had been.received from the.State'with respect to Councilman Carns' motion that the .right-of-way for SR524 would be taken 5' from.each side. Councilman 'Carns added that the motion stipulated that the Council would not go along with'Phase�II if the State did not not follow the parameters the Council established. Public Works Director. Leif'Larson said the.motion was forwarded to the State and they are proceeding on the first'phase. Councilman Gould asked Mr. Larson to'ask the State for confirmation as a follow-up.and report to the Council next week. Paula Hauge of 9226 216th S,.W.'.inquired-about the condemnation proceedings she had read about in the paper in connection with the waterfront. She was advised of the various upcoming discussions which are scheduled -in this connection. HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 618:RECOMMEND.ING-APPROVAL OF A. -PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING' -MAP TO CONTRACT REZONE FROM RS=8 TO RML;..LOT 5;..WILLOWBROOK DIVISION #1 File R-2-79. Assistant City Planner Mary Lou-B.lock.said the applicant..in this matter was 0. W. Logan, and the area to be rezoned was approximately_12,000 sq. ft. That area would allow 4.91 units, and the applicant.was proposinga contract rezone which would limit„him to three units, one of which is an existing building. There is RML zoning to the north.and.west of this site,.RD to the -east, and RS-8 to the south. The soil type is gravelly sandy loam, the site flat, and'no apparent site:drainage problems. The Staff recommended approval because the site is not in an environmentally.sensitive' area, and a declaration of nonsignificant environmental impact had been issued; because RML zoning would be in harmony with the zoning of adjacent properties to the north, east, and west, and the RS- 8 properties to the south would not be adversely impacted; and.because this action appeared to be in the best interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Edmonds. 'Ms. Block said that the changes that had occurred in this area to support the rezone were the gradual development • of multi -family uses on all but one side. Councilman Nordquist noted that the City had gone on record in 1968-69 to keep this area as.a buffer zone between the commercial activity on the highway and the 78th P1. W. cul-de-sac.- Councilman Gould noted that.there was nothing in the covenant regarding the trees not being removed,,as stated by the applicant, nor were the parking provisions indicated. Ms. Block.responded that...those items were not included -in the Planning Commission motion because they were advised that this proposal would go to.the ADB for decision on some of the items. After some further discussion,'the'hearing was opened to.the.public. Floyd E.-Smith, a member of the Planning Commission, said he'had examined the property and i.t.has a two-story apartment house on one side and quite a drop in topography on the east si'de. He said the homes to the south are very MOTION: well screened: The public portion of the hearing was closed.: COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED.'THAT P.C. Failed RESOLUTION 618 BE ADOPTED,.INASMUCH AS THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION VOICED AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION -HAD SO RECOMMENDED,.AND BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNING OF -THE -CITY, THE OTHER PROPERTIES NEAR.IT ARE ALREADY CLEARLY•MULTI.PLE;. THERE HAS BEEN A -SIGNIFICANT CHANGE ON THAT.STREET AND THE ADJACENT ZONES.WITH MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT, AND BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FROM THIS PROPOSAL; FURTHER, THAT THE MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT:REZONE-AGREEMENT: THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. The'proposal was discussed further., with Councilman Gould inquiring about the access to the site. Mrs. 0. W. Logan, one of the applicants, said they have an easement on the west side of the property that will provide access and the 79th Ave. cul-de-sac will not be disturbed. Mr. Logan then submitted a site -plan (Exhibit A) which.the Council studied for clarification. Councilman Gould asked what the City woul.d get for the rezone.; and Community Development Director John LaTourelle responded that there would be a reduction in density -to three -units, whereas if it were rezoned without a contract they could have four units on -the site. However, if it were to - remain RS-8 only one unit would be permitted. Ms. Block added.that the applicants had agreed to a 30' height limit which is the same as that for RS-8. Mayor Harrison asked if anyone else in the audience wished to comment, and there was no response. Councilman Carns said he was generally against rezoning to a denser use but -in this parti.cular case there.did not seem to be any opposition from the neighbors either at'this..hearing.or at the Planning Commission hearing. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOTION: THEN MOVED TO.APPROVE P.C. RESOLUTION-618 BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE Amended POLICY PLAN, IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING IN THE NEARBY AREAS, AND CHANGES HAD OCCURRED IN THE • AREA THAT MADE NEARBY ZONING COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPOSED ZONING ON THIS SITE; FURTHER, THAT THE May 22, 1979 - continued J MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT REZONE AGREEMENT. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN SECONDED THE Amendment MOTION. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUIRE AN ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THE CUTTING OF EVERGREEN TREES 8" IN DIAMETER OR LARGER EXCEPT IN THE BUILDING PADS OR DRIVEWAYS. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND. Councilman Herb felt the amendment would be intruding.into the ADB area of discretion. THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN HERB VOTING NO. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, THEN CARRIED. The City Attorney advised that a new contract would have to be drawn and it would be on next week's agenda. HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 621 RECOMMENDING.APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO ADD 177TH ST. S.W. AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO EXTEND.70TH PL. W. TO 177TH ST. S.W.. File ST-3-79) and HEARING'ON APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT "MEADOWDALE CREST" (File P-2-79) Assistant City Planner Mary Lou Block presented these two items together. The purpose of extending 177th St. S.W. was to alloW,development of the subdivis.ion.of.Meadowdale Crest. The areas of the subdivision were adequate for RS-8 zoning, the site is flat, and this is not an environmentally sensitive area. An environmental checklist had been.completed with a negative declaration.issued. The proposed subdivision met all Code requirements. There were two existing homes on the site which will be removed. Ms. Block showed slides of the site and noted that there were no unique environmental features and the proposed subdivision would be in harmony with the surrounding RS-8 zoning. She.noted that.70th P1. is tangent to the rear of Lot.7 and the front yard would thereby have to be on the north side, resulting.in the requirement for two front yard setbacks which would be a hardship because of the cul-de-sac, unless the Council were to grant relief with a modification. A question arose regarding the development of only half of the cul-de-sac, and she responded that there has been an application made for the property to.the south with the same street configuration which would complete the cul-de-sac. She recommended approval of both items, subject.to tree cutting restrictions on the subdivision and with the requirement that the houses be sited to protect as many trees as possible, particularly two large chestnut trees. The public portion of the hearing was opened. John Newell, consultant to .the developer, said he would like to have.a decision this evening regarding the two front yard setbacks on Lot 7. No oneelse wished.to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. Councilman Gouldnoted that the Staff had recommended that 70th P1. W. be extended but the Planning Commission had recommended against.the extension, and he asked the reason. Ms. Block responded that there was a great deal of neighborhood -opposition to the extension as they felt it would create more traffic, and that caused the Planning Commission decision. COUNCILMAN MOTION: GOULD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2071, PURSUANT TO P.C. RESOLUTION 621. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN HERB THEN -MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PLAT OF MEADOWDALE CREST WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT THE NORTH SIDE OF LOT 7 WILL BE CONSIDERED THE REAR OF THE LOT, AND SUBJECT TO TREE CUTTING RESTRICTIONS AND THE SITING OF THE HOUSES TO PROTECT.AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE. MOTION CARRIED. - HEARING.ON APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT "LAURI ANN PARK NO. 3" (Fi.le P-4-78) Assistant City.Planner Mary Lou Block said this had been given,preliminary approval on April-4, 1978, but the approval: had -expired before -the applicant submitted a- request for extension. Nothing had changed in the proposal. The public portion of the hearing was opened, no one MOTION: wished to speak, and.the public portion was closed. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN.MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO.EXTEND FOR ONE YEAR.THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF LAURI ANN PARK NO. 3. MOTION CARRIED. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED SENIOR CENTER IMPROVEMENTS City Engineer Fred Herzberg said this proposal was a part of the HUD grant to improve the Senior Center. He displayed drawings of the -proposal, noting that.the lean -,to on the west side of the building and most of the mill building,will be removed. The roof and second floor of . the mill building will.be removed and just a skeleton of the first floor will remain which will be finished for.outside use with picnic tables, sunshades, etc. Some.encl.osed spaces wi.1l.be added for meeting rooms and the inside of the building will have many small improvements. The entire structure will be sprinklered and the ballroom will be ventilated and insulated. A viewing tower will be constructed with outside access for use of .the general public. Some of the soil on the west side which does not drain will be removed and replaced with sand and .some planted dunes will be added for landscaping and privacy. Several people in the audience objected to the viewing tower proposed. Fremont Case of 1411 8th Ave. N. said he liked everything but the tower as it will be of no value to the senior citizens and would attract teenagers. He felt the money would be better spent on an addition to the parking lot. He said handicapped and invalid persons could not climb the tower. Mr. Herzberg said this point had been discussed with HUD and they indicated it would be acceptable because most of the other improvmenets met the objectives of serving the handicapped and elderly. Ted Truax, a member of the Board of the South County Senior Center, also was opposed to the tower because it would be of no value to the seniors. He said this facility was supposed to be forthe seniors and not for the public, and he felt the money could be spent on another classroom or.first-a.id room. Councilman Gould noted that this plan was presented to the Council as having been approved by the Senior Center. Board. Mr. Case said the Building Committee had told him that they had to make a deal with the City to get the rest of the improvements started, and the City had wanted -the tower. M.A.A. Dibble interjected that these funds.were not to be used solely for seniors'.use, that this -is a multi -purpose building and the conditions of getting the money were to make it appropriate for other uses. Community Development Director.John LaTourelle also stated that the building is a multi -purpose center and the contract with.HUD is negotiated around that concept. He said it presently is leased to the Senior Center. Mr. LaTourelle said in response to the suggestion that the tower was a bargaining item, that the City did not care whether or not the tower was built, but the architect had suggested it because it could utilize the on -site materials --the 1 1 1 1 3 7 9 May 22, 1979 - continued 1 1 1 MOTION: MOTION: large timbers and the ability -to rearrange them at small cost would give a very good item. He said there was_never::y ,an -bargaining around the tower, but it'was essentially a part of the.entire waterfront public spaces. Councilman Gould liked the tower idea but he was concerned about safety and the ability to close it. He felt it would be good for many people, including some seniors, but that it must be controlled so it did not become a.problem. Annie -Ballinger of.1006 Carol Way said she was not a senior citizen but she was not in favor of the tower, feeling there were greater priorities. She mentioned tennis courts in the City that were tri-level, saying tennis courts are not meant to be tri-level, and she mentioned parks that are closed. Councilman Carns explained that these grant funds can be spent only for specific purposes. Budd Little of.200 Beach P1. said he did not object to the tower but asked why there were not.steps to the beach.. He also said there is a.hole in the breakwater that needs repairing, right next.to the Nelson Building, and if it is not repaired the floor of this building can be flooded at high tide or heavy winds. Councilman Carns asked Mr. Herzberg what would be the next item to be accomplished if the tower were not to be constructed. Mr. Herzberg responded that the next item would be landscaping outside the dining room, then landscaping at the north end. Mr. LaTourelle advised that.if the Council.was in favor of the viewing tower, now was the time to do it while construction was in progress. He said there is a high liklihood that the other items will be accomplished, but this is the only -time the tower would be. Bob Morrison of 250 Beach P1. said, regarding a ramp or stairs to the beach, that the tide would deposit seaweed, etc., making a ramp or stairs a hazard.. Also, he said the patio is not used by the seniors because it is too cold and windy, so the open structure proposed would be the same. He felt if this was going to be open to the public then.all. City citizens should be involved and there should be a hearing. Fremont Case commented that the tower at Volunteer .Park has to be locked now, and he again stated the need for more parking.. Councilman Nordquist asked if these things had been communicated to the Building Committee, and Mr. Case responded that there was some objection to it but the majority was in favor because they had to make a deal with City. Councilman Carns felt the users did not have an opportunity to tell the Board what they felt, and Mr. LaTourelle responded that that is a Senior Center problem --that they had gone through protracted discussions with the elected representatives of the Senior Center who assured them that those representatives had gone back to their membership and obtained approval. He said thousands of dollars had been spent on the working drawings and it was not fair to the City -to throw away that money because the Senior Center cannot come to an agreement within its own membership. He said he had run into this problem time and again, and the only thing the City can do is to look to the representatives of the Senior Center, that they are the tenant and the City responds to their wishes. He said this was the subject of long discussions, and the majority of the Board had voted in favor of this plan. Jim Wheeler, Chairman of the Senior Center Board of Directors, said Mr. Case had misinterpreted some of their discussions. He said the Building Committee was not in favor of the tower and that had been indicated in discussions with the City, but the City was in favor of the tower. He said there were many changes made in the plans and the Building Committee was satisfied with the plan, and the majority of the Board voted in favor of the plan as presented. He said there are a number of individuals who are not in favor of the tower. He said they had tried to prioritize the things they wanted to do to the Center and the tower was never a priority item as far as the. Center was concerned, but it was a priority item of the City. Further, that they had voiced'a number of times that it was not one of'their priority items, that they had no need for it, but in the end they wanted to get the project moving and the majority voted to accept the plan with the tower. He said there was no pressure put on for the tower, it was simply a matter of discussion: Mr. LaTourelle said the tower did not make much of a difference, that they thought it was a very nice and very cost-effective addition to the entire City waterfront area, and for $6,000 it would be an excellent investment. Public Works Director Leif Larson said one of the priorities he questioned was extending the parking lot next to the bulkhead. He could not see putting parking to the .west of where it is because of the splashing water; and Mr. Herzberg added that that paved area also adds.to the drainage problem.. Mr. LaTourelle noted that the Council had prohibited parking within 60' of the bulkhead line in the waterfront zone, and to extend parking into that beautiful piece of property would be 180° from what had been established for the waterfront. Arlene Wingender of 920 Brookmere suggested that the tower be put on the City park property if the City wants a tower for the public. Chet Dahl, past Chairman of the.Senior Center Board of Directors, said the Building Committee recommendation had been to eliminate the tower but they conceded to the City plans to stop the delay of the project. He recommended approving the project and then getting a vote of the seniors on the tower. Roger Hertrich of 1020 Puget Dr. said these people had pointed out a need.for parking which seemed to be in direct -contrast -to a meeting recently when it was indicated that there does not seem'to be.a parking problem. He felt.there was a:conflict of ideas about parking, and parking was a crucial issue. COUNCILMAN.CARNS'THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, TO APPROVE THE SENIOR CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WITH,THE EXCEPTION OF THE VIEWING TOWER, AND THAT IT BE REFERRED -TO THE SENIOR CENTER TO ASK THEIR IDEAS FOR THE.$6,000 APPROPRIATION. Councilman Naughten expressed concern that there be some access to the beach. Mayor Harrison agreed and said it would seem to be a small item to.provide. Mr. Herzberg said they would look into that. Mr. Herzberg added that some of the seniors had indicated they finance much of their operations through their thrift shop and they thought the tower would attract people to the thrift shop. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA INCLUDE A REPORT FROM THE SENIOR CENTER ON THE VIEWING TOWER. MOTION CARRIED. FISHING PIER CONCESSION CONTRACT The Parks and Recreation Division.had requested letters from parties interested in operating the concession building at the new Edmonds Fishing Pier, and from the responses they recommended a senior citizens group organized by Chet Campbell. His proposal was presented to the Council and was recommended for acceptance because it would provide more hours of operation (8-16 hours per day), the group was made-up of fishermen interested in helping supervise and maintain the pier and providing their fishing expertise to users of the pier, and it would provide employment for retired people. MOTION: COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT A CONTRACT FOR THE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE, CONSISTENT WITH CHET CAMPBELL'S PROPOSAL TO OPERATE THE FISHING PIER CONCESSION, AND THAT THE MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE SUCH CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED. There was no further business to come before the Council,.and .the meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 10:20 p.m. • IREN , CiV C er E H. HARRISON, Mayor