Loading...
19790611 City Council Minutes386 June 11, 1979 - Work Meeting The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Councilwas called to order.at.7:40 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds.Civic Center. All. present joined in the flag salute... PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Leif Larson, Public Works Director Mike HerbJohn LaTourelle, Community Development Director Bill Kasper Art Housler, Finance Director Katherine Allen Marlo Foster, Police Chief John Nordquist Jack Weinz, Acting Fire Chief Ray Gould - Mary Lou Block, Assistant City Planner Tom Carns,� Fred Herzberg, City Engineer Larry Naughten Jim Murphy, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk OATH OF OFFICE FOR COUNCILMAN WILL.IAM J. KASPER Judge Richard Thorpe administered the oath of office to William J....Kasper who was selected by the Council to. fi.l:l% the Council position vacated by Phil Clement. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The Consent Agenda included.the following: (AY' Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of June 5, 1979. (C) Passage of Resolution 445 for the City of Edmonds to join other cities in the funding of a feasibil.ity.s.tudy regarding pooling of risk management and/or insurance coverage. (D) Setting of June 26, 1979 for hearing of preliminary approval of PRD-1-79 located in Shell Valley. MAYOR Mayor Harrison asked for confirmation of two:appointments to the Arts Commission. The Council MOTION: had interviewed the candidates prior to this evening's Council meeting. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS OF A. LYALL LUSH TO POSITION 2 ON THE ARTS COMMISSION, TERM TO.EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1980, AND OF DICK MARKLE TO POSITION 6 ON THE ARTS COMMISSION, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1982. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 616 RECOMMENDING_DENIAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL'ZONING MAP TO REZONE LOTS 6; 7.5.:85*,AND 9; BLOCK 5; YOST:S FIRST'ADDITION TO THE CITY'OF EDMONDS;'FROM'RS'6 TO RS=12 File R=1-79 Assistant City Planner Mary Lou B.lock.reviewed..this item. The rezone had been proposed by the neighbors because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the.site. Shellabarger Creek bisects the property from north to south. The Planning Commission.had heard this item on March 45 1979 and recommended denial because the property is located in an area near to downtown Edmonds where RS-6 is an appropriate density..and they.found it'would be improper to single out this one block and zone it RS-12, and because.they felt there were alternatives to protect the. stream in this area which were more desirable than changing the zoning. The Community Development Department recommended to the Council that the Planning Commission's denial be upheld, but in addition, at such time as any action is taken on this property that it be a requirement that vehicle access be from the alley to the.east and that the alley be improved accordingly. The purpose of that requirement was to prevent the culverting of Shellabarger Creek as it would be culverted in numerous places if the access.were to be from "A" Ave. which borders the property on the west. Although zoning in the surrounding area is RS-6. it has generally been developed with one house on two lots. When thismatter went before the Planning Commission the Staff had recommended approval of the rezone, concern being for the protection of the stream. However, they now felt the same result could be accomplished if the stream is allowed to be left in its natural state, and it appeared that there was enough space to develop as RS-6 lots with certain restrictions to protect.the stream. The question was asked if this could not be considered "spot zoning" if this one block were rezoned -to RS-12 when the surrounding zoning was RS-6. City Attorney Jim Murphy responded that..if the property is different from other surrounding properties, such as by having a creek on.it, it could justify having a.different zoning classification. Ms. Block was asked what the alternatives were for preserving the stream, and she responded that access from the.alley was the best,.alternative. She added that the Policy Plan strongly recommends leaving streams in their natural...state, and that this is identified as an environmentally sensitive area. She said the properties.would.have to be subdiv.ided.before.they could be developed as RS-6 and at that time conditions as to access could be placed on them. She showed slides ..of;the.site which included some taken after the April rainstorm and they demonstrated engorgement of the creek. The hearing was -then opened to the public. Dean Shepherd of 112 3rd Ave. S., attorney for the owner of the property under consideration, said any decision on the future use of the right-of-way should be deferred until some definite proposals have been made and appropriate studies completed. Other than that, he supported the Planning Commission's , recommendation. The public portion of the hearing was then closed.-. Councilman Gould observed-.: that to leave the property RS-6 would result in having more homes on the property and he was 387 • June 11, 1979 - continued very concerned about the drainage.. Public Works Director Leif Larson said the only drainage system in that area now is that creek and the only way drainage to the creek can be reduced is to install a separate system in the street to bypass the creek and. take it -to the Sound, which is an expensive project but under consideration in the.overall drainage study of .the City. Councilman Carns,noted that the property currently -is used as if it were RS-12 and..the zoning could be changed to that to keep the environment in a healthier state. Community Development Director John LaTourelle responded that this property is mapped as being in an.environmentally sensitive area so it is given careful attention when any plans for development are presented. Councilman Nordquist was uncomfortable that this action had been started by a neighbor.. He asked how the Planning Department would -have handled development of the property if this action.had not occurred_.Mr. LaTourelle said they would have done exactly the same thing, requiring access from the alley.. Mr. Larson said he would prefer to see the property RS-12 from an engineering standpoint, because at this point every additional house MOTION: affects the drainage. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RS-6 TO RS-12, OVER-RIDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT ADDITIONAL HOUSES ON THE STREAM WOULD HAVE A STRONGLY ADVERSE EFFECT ON*THE STREAM. COUNCILMAN GOULD SECONDED THE MOTION BECAUSE SUCH A REZONE WOULD BE CONSISTENT.WITH THE POLICY PLAN WHICH STATES THAT WHERE NATURAL DRAINAGE EXISTS LARGE LOTS SHOULD.BE USED TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND PRESERVE THE SITE. Councilman Carns felt RS-12 would be more in concert with.the current use and RS-12 zoning would cause less impervious surfaces and fewer drainage problems. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST VOTING NO. SECOND READING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE.VACATING PORTION OF 75TH.AVE..W. AND PORTION OF NORTH`MEADOWDALE RD. N'ACCORDANCE. ITH COUNCIL.: CTION J KEN MAY 5 Councilman Gould had requested_this.second reading because.after.the last heari.ng a number of people had indicated.to him that they did.not.understand the action -taken. He wanted them to have an opportunity to understand it, but there was no one present -in the audience for this item. He therefore suggested that Mr. LaTourelle send to each petitioner a copy of the explanatory memorandum provided MOTION: to the Council. COUNCILMAN GOULD.THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2073, PURSUANT.TO P.C. RESOLUTION.617. AND THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS STATED BY THE COUNCIL ON MAY 15, 1979 RELATIVE TO THE SUBJECT PROPOSED STREET VACATION. Councilman Carns said he would vote no to be consistent with his action at the May 15 hearing. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH. COUNCILMAN CARNS VOTING NO. INFORMAL DISCUSSION RE WATERFRONT..W.ITH..PARK BOARD, PORT, PROPERTY OWNERS, ETC. Community Development Director John LaTourelle stated at the outset of this discussion that he was recommending to the Council that the.Ci.ty at this time drop its plan for acquisition of property on the waterfront and, further, that the Staff prepare plans for improvement of properties that -are already owned by the City. There was a positive response from the audience, which filled the Council Chambers and overflowed into the.foyer. Mayor Harrison asked the Council for comment: Councilman Gould commented that what really:started out as a brainstorming session by the Council on what they could do for the wonderful waterfront so people could enjoy it had turned into a "Why are you condemning Mr. Anderson's property?" issue. He advised the. audience that if they had something to say about what they wanted down there the Council would like to hear.it. Councilman Carns added that there had been a very recent improvement as to the accessibility of the people to the Union Oil Beach and Brackett's Landing by the changing.of the configuration of the parking lot and closing the parking lots at 8:OO,p.m. He said there are now more citizens going down there to enjoy the beaches and he could see the City spending some of its resources to further develop the Union Oil Beach. .The discussion was opened to the public.. Bob Morrison, Chairman of the "Save Our Beach Committee" which had organized in opposition to development of the waterfront told the Council he did not believe they would let this drop and that after the election it would come up again. Mr. Morrison felt the City does not have a good Citizens Shorelines Advisory Committee and he suggested a new one'be formed, representing each section of the City. He took issue with any proposed walkway on the waterfront and he asked about parking and unloading of buses there. He stated that he did not want • any federal funds in the City, with reference to the City's hopes to get grants for waterfront development. He also stated that he did not believe Mr. LaTourelle represented the group of people in the audience. He called upon several.members of his committee for comments. The first was.an unidentified lady who said.she had approached the business people to sign their petition.against the waterfront development and they were willing to sign. She stated that the beaches did,not.need improving. Bill Crump of Bill's Hardware and Marine said waterfront parking facilities are inadequate and further improvement'of the beachfront will compound the problem. He felt most of the parking problems were caused by the ferry use and he described how his businesss had been affected adversely. He described further how the ferry parking lot was misused and felt it should be managed better.. Ralph White, Deputy General Manager of the ferry terminal, said.the City could control the parking lot if it wished. He said at Winslow they lease the lot to the City at $1.00 per year and the City put in meters and any other improvements. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BE.REQUESTED TO WORK WITH THE STATE ON THE C.ITY'S ACQUIRING THE FERRY PARKING LOT -PROPERTY THROUGH LEASE AND REPORT TO THE COUNCIL JUNE 19,. 1979. Councilman Gould noted that an estimate of capital.costs for -metering would be needed. THE MOTION CARRIED. Roger Hertrich, also a member of the committee, was concerned about the impact on the fishing pier parking lot.- He said anytime there 'is a new waterfront business they will want in -lieu or joint use parking, which is good so the waterfront is not all paved, but he asked where was the in -lieu parking lot. Dale Galvin, attorney for Howard Anderson, said the Council should consider the thoughts of some of the senior citizens, as.to the need of some sort of walkway from the Senior Center down Railroad Ave. to the main part of.the City. He felt there should be some definitive study done of the traffic patterns down there. Patti.Price, a businesswoman in Edmonds, displayed photographs to illustrate the parking situation.along the waterfront. She pointed out the congested places and. some..parking.space she felt people..were unaware existed. She recognized that parking patterns shift" and she -said -she would continue to take pictures in the area to obtain a reflection of the ongoing parking situation. Mr. Morrison introduced John Stuckey of 1134 "C" Ave. as representing Edmonds' students, having just graduated from high school. Mr. Stuckey said he had not met a single person who. was- i n favor of the Walkway or change to the beaches... He, di d not believe there should be more access to the beaches. Rachel Bell of 264 Beach P1. said -the Senior Center has sliding glass doors going to the beach but they are always locked. Senior Center Director Russ Berg said the Phase III 388 June 11, 1979 - continued'. • MOTION: MOTION: MOTION: Failed MOTION MOTION: construction program would alleviate that condition. Bill Crump asked the status of the plans for a walkway presented by Councilman Gould at a recent Rotary meeting. Councilman Gould responded that the presentation had been a graphic description of a concept the Council had discussed. He said there was no formal action, but it was a startingpoint, and the concept was going hand in hand.with the Port..District's thoughts. Dean Hughes of Andy's Boathouse said the Anderson Marine property has always been open to the public, even at the cost of some high insurance premiums. Fremont Case of 1411.8th-Ave. N. said he has 700' of waterfront property north of the City beaches and would like some police protection on that property because as the teenagers are kept from the City beaches they.go north and continue their activities on private property. He also felt the City should post the end of the public beach. An unidentified lady said they have the same problems at the foot.of Wharf St. Larry Dalzell of 925 Maple said all projects should be looked at with sensitivi.ty.to the citizens of Edmonds.. Don Nelson of the Ebbtide Apartments said people use his beach all the time and:they.are not run off. Councilman Herb commented that the Shorelines Advisory Board had spent many hours on their work and now Mr. Morrison seemed to think everything they had done over the past two.years should be scrapped. Councilman Nordquist commented that people quickly forget the things that have been done right on the waterfront. As to the origin of -the walkway idea, he said several years ago a group from the University of Washington did a study which discussed a walkway and which said it would be*a.dvantageous.to the citizens. At this time COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, THAT THE CITY STOP ALL NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE HOWARD ANDERSON PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Nordquist commented that there had been a lot of "roasting" this evening and it was now time to set some plans and goals for the next Council. Patti. Price said she had attended the May Shorelines Management Advisory Committee meeting and the three ladies who were on the Bodrd said they were in,comp.lete agreement that.the beach.should be left as it is, and their comments were that they work very hard but their recommendations are ignored. Fremont Case added.that when he was on that committee he felt it was a useless job. He felt it could be reorganized and be more effective. Mayor Harrison then called for a recess at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:10 p.m. • When the meeting was reconvened COUNCILMAN.NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE CITY DROP ALL PLANS TO DEVELOP OTHER THAN CITY OWNED PROPERTY ON THE WATERFRONT. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Herb said he thought all of the committees had done a tremendous.job and his—impressi.on.was that those,speaki.ng.this evening had been mainly an opposition group. He did not see the'need to ­appoint another committee. Councilman Carns said there is still a lot of long-range thinking to do regarding the waterfront, and he noted that Fremont Case had suggested earlier that waterfront property should be purchased as it becomes available. He noted that Kirkland had purchased its waterfront property as it became available and he felt Edmonds should do that kind of planning. He.still felt the waterfront should be made as accessible as possible for the citizens of the City. Councilwoman Allen's concern was that another committee would be appointed that would go over the same ground and make the same recommendations. She said they knew they needed to purchase property, but she did not know that another task force was needed. Councilman Gould added that a long-range plan was needed, something for 10-20 years from now. He had listed a number of points.brought up this evening that a citizens' group could address, some of the problems,being.handled by existing groups, such as parking problems given -to the Parking Commission. He saw nothing wrong with a waterfront development. long=range plan committee with a membership being broadly.'distributed across the geographic area of the City and representing the business people, the Save Our Beach people, etc., and with the members being appointed by the Mayor., Mr. LaTourelle said -that was just the type of thing his department was proposing --the establishment of an advisory board and maintenance of a roster of interested citizens from which to form it. He said such an ad hoc committee could continue as long as there were things for them to do. He had found this a successful way to accomplish things. Councilman Carns suggested such a committee should be formed by each Council member and the Mayor appointing one or two people. Marie King, member of the Shorelines Management Advisory Committee, said she felt their committee had done a lot of work on the proposal brought up this evening, and she felt the,nine points Councilman Gould had brought up had been discussed and studied by the committee and findings submitted to the Council. She felt land acquisition was vital and that the Council should indicate they want funding set aside for the • purchase of properties that become available. She noted that the waterfront had been inventoried for what was available or likely to become.avai.lable, and she did not know what else a new citizens' advisory group could do for the Council. She felt if a new committee were appointed they would be repeating practically everything that had already been done. Roger Hertrich felt the policies should be changed. He said the Policy Plan describes.a hard surfaced waterfront walkway and it also describes in -lieu parking. He suggested the Policy Plan may need some changes. Councilman Gould said when the in -lieu parking fund was first discussed the Parking Commission had discussed some potential pieces of.property for parking sites, and those were what had been considered. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED THAT AT.THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING THE MAYOR AND EACH COUNCIL MEMBER APPOINT.TWO PEOPLE TO FORM A TASK FORCE TO DISCUSS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATERFRONT. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A. SECOND.. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN.THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE COUNCIL.BE.THE .COMMITTEE,AND.THAT THEY REVIEW EACH ISSUE, ONE BY ONE. Councilman Gould suggested that'a target date be set of December 1 of either 1979 or 1980 so that it will be just before budget time. He felt .they should take a part at a time between now and December 1 and develop a plan, piece by piece. He said they could also ask for input from the Save Our Beach Committee and the:Parking Commission. Councilwoman Allen asked that the Shorelines Management Advisory Committee provide the Council minutes of the meetings when each of the issues were discussed. THE MOTION CARRIED.. Establishment of a schedule was discussed, after which COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT JULY 10, 1979 BE SET AS A DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION,OF A,CALENDAR.PROPOSING THE VARIOUS ISSUES AND TIMES TO WORK ON THOSE ISSUES. MOTION CARRIED.. The issues enumerated by Councilman Gould were: Move the ferry dock; waterfront parking is inadequate, acquire.the AMTRAK south lot; take over the State parking lot; the senior citizens' walkway:should go down Railroad Ave., not along the waterfront; makea-definitive traffic study of the waterfront;.there are police problems on Driftwood Lane; signs are needed to indicate the.north end of the City beach; and have some access for the handicapped. l q • June 11, 1979 - continued DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION PROCESS (BOARDS AND.COMMISSIONS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE) Community Devel.opment Director John LaTourelle had prepared a detailed memorandum discussing what was proposed, and he read this aloud.so the board and commission members would be aware of the plan and how they _would be affected..•Felix Reisner, the consultant, said the main difference in this proposal and...the present procedure was.that commissions and boards would not hold hearings and the recommendations would be brought in under.one umbrella agency, the hearing examiner. He said whatever notice standards were desired could be set.,in addition to those required by the State, but'it was important that the notice procedures.'be more standardized. Muryl Medina, a Board of Adjustment member and a developer, said the processof running a plan..through the Cityneeded improvement as coordination through the departments was needed on the issuance of.permits.,She felt there would be more citizen input and more objectivity from a board than from.one hearing examiner. She felt the people in any community want to be sure -they are heard, andshe felt the democratic process of government had made Edmonds what it is. She added that sitting on.the Board of Adjustment has been very educational. Bert Stole, a developer,.felt one person should be made responsible to expedite all the permits for a development. He felt if the Board of_Adjustment did not exist the City -would lose a very valuable resource because it is something that.is outside the system. He said the Board members go out and look at the problem and form opinions and the Staff does an excellent job of preparing the item for hearing. The hearing examiner concept.bothered him because the hearing examiner would be paid and be a part of the system. He asked who would train the person and would the person be a'"why" personality.or a "why not" personality.' He did`not think the appeal of a Board of Adjustment item should.be.to the.Council, and'that bothered him the most.. Keith LaBelle, a member of the Planning Commission, noted that the boards and commissions had not had an opportunity to discuss this concept among themselves and he felt they should be given that opportunity. He said he had heard from citizens and builders who had problems with permits but he felt that was administrative, and in the proposed change administrative procedure was being confused with policy. He noted that it probably would be costly to hire a trained hearing examiner and he wondered if the permits coordinator would be somebody already on the Staff. He noted that currently some appeal processes can go only • to Superior Court and that should..be addressed. He hoped this whole concept would be given very extensive consideration. Harold Hatzenbuhler, on the Board of Adjustment, said they also had not had time to discuss this among themselves and he asked when the Council was considering adopting this. Ann Derleth, on the Board of Adjustment, said she did not have as much of a problem as some of the others regarding the hearing examiner concept. She felt a seven -person board was not always consistent. But she cautioned�that.if.t'hat concept were adopted the guidelines tb'the hearing examiner would have to be much more .specific than they now are. She said"one of the reasons they have difficulties in how they rule is that the criteria are open to interpretation. She also noted that currently very few Board of Adjustment decisions are appealed to Superior Court, but she felt if the appeal were to the Council there would be many appeals. Councilman Herb responded that the Council had received very few ADB appeals, so that might not be the case. Councilman Gould said he was one who felt appeals should be to the Council, not the courts, and even if it meant a heavier workload for the Council, he thought they should give the final judgment --not the courts. Councilman Carns added that the citizens should not have to bear the costs involved in going to court for an appeal. City Attorney Jim Murphy noted that, historically, the Board of Adjustment is quasi-judicial because it decides people's problems, rather than to create :.laws, so the appeal.has gone to the court rather than to the legislative body. It was noted that both the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission follow the Staff recommendation very frequently. Felix Reisner interjected that the volume of appeals has not been.a problem in other cities which use the hearing examiner system. He said if the appeal is on the.record it would lower the workload. At this time Laura Hall asked for Mr. Reisner's credits. As he -had appeared before the Council numerous times an introduction this evening had been overlooked.. Mr. Reisner introduced himself and reviewed his background, much of which had been in planning in Snohomish County and even in early Edmonds planning. He said he identified with the planning process in .smaller communities. Bert Stole spoke again and said he would still rather have seven divergent points of view than one,, and Mr. Reisner responded that there had been some studies conducted of people who had to deal with both hearing examiners and with boards, and the consensus had been that they had received better treatment from a hearing examiner than a board. John McGibbon, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said this system promises efficiency • and streamlining, but it should not compromise either the City or the applicant. He noted that it appeared to have been successful in other cities, but the important thing was to determine how it works. Jack Byrd, on the Board of Adjustment, said he had a great deal of experience with the federal. administrative law process.and.many of the comments he would have made to the Council were made by other members. He felt one thing that was very important was whether an appeal would be on the record or de novo. In his.federa.l.experience he found that.when the appeals were on the record the numbers of appeals were cut considerably, but when they.were de novo everything was appealed. He felt the hearing examiner process is very efficient and evenhanded but it tends to be more. legalistic.in its approach. He said he tended to favor it because of its efficiency and evenhandedness. Jim Mueller of 209 Caspers said he.was concerned that a quasi-judicial group would have appeals going to the Council. He said the Council did not have the time to do the legislative job they felt they should be doing and yet they were going to burden themselves with this. He said the hearing examiner process may be very efficient but it was highly improbable that the hearing examiner would be a local citizen and he may not.have.the.feel and pulse of this town. He said this town is a little different, and he felt the community should be such that.others look to.this one to see what is being done. He felt the local input of the people and various boards and commissions and their hearings were important. Mr. Reisner agreed that Edmonds does have a very definite character, but he felt the proposed changes would be.helpful rather than a hindrance. He said the way you preserve the character is to develop comprehensive plans and guidelines, based on a long-range, intelligent, deliberate process by such as the Planning Commission and advisory boards, and that becomes a blueprint of the community.. He added that the City does not have a good set of.comprehensive planning guidelines by which any group can be guided and those guidelines are needed if the character of the City is to be preserved, and this concept was designed to do just that. Mr. Reisner said the examiner is not a member of the Staff but is hired separately by the Mayor.with.the consent of the Council, or he may be hired by the Council; and he can be dismissed at will: He has limited authority because•a.specific format must be followed based on adopted.City policy; he does not have the kind of discretion which the.Board of Adjustment has. Jack.Byrd noted that there are.two ways of getting good, equitable citizen input, one being the way.it is.now done with boards.and commissions; but he said the hearing examiner can get something very close to this by the witnesses that appear before him, and he can call expert witnesses or members of the community. Councilman Carns said he thought it would be • important that any appeal be only on the record so the people would not bypass the hearing examiner. 390 June 11, 1979 - continued • Councilman Herb said the fine points would not have to be worked out -immediately, but the Council wanted the boards to be brought up-to-date on what they were considering and the fine points would be worked out when it went -to the Planning Commission,.but he fel-t the main thrust was whether they'should be shifting the -responsibilities -around.. Mr. LaTourelle said they were ready to start making.drafts of implementing ordinances and at this.time they needed to know on what system they were to be working. They needed to know whether.or not it was to be a hearing examiner system as -that was fundamental -to -their making their drafts. Councilman Carns-felt the hearing examiner system would free.the Planning Commission to do planning. Laura Hall was MOTION: not willing to sacrifice their people input. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED,'SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, THAT THE COUNCIL ENDORSE -THE HEARING EXAMINER CONCEPT AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD CONCEPT AS OUTLINED THIS*EVENING. MOTION CARRIED. REVIEW OF ORDINANCE ON ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS.FOR BOARDS.AND COMMISSIONS Community Development Director John LaTourelle had prepared a memorandum which discussed the attendance problems. He supported the -ordinance as it is'and.he noted.that the question had been raised as to whether attendance should:be excused. Although there may be good reasons for a member to miss meetings, he felt the City needed members who were able to attend the meetings in order to make the,City function properly, and he noted that the attendance requirements applied only to regularly scheduled meetings and not special meetings. It was noted that since the current ordinance.had been in force two members had failed to.meet the attendance'requirements and -action was taken as dictated by the ordinance. Councilwoman Allen said she had brought this up and she felt Mr.. LaTourelle's report should be accepted. -Councilman Gould stated he' was in favor of maintaining the policy as it is. The general consensus was that there should be no change. There was no further business to come before.the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 11:55 • p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, C fty- Clerk HARVE Fr- HARR-ISON, Mayor June 19, 1979 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City.Council was called to order at 7:35 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 :. Mike Herb Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Bill -Kasper - Ray -Gould Leif Larson, Public Works Director Katherine Allen John LaTourelle, Community Devel. Dir. John Nordquist Mary Lou Block, Asst. City Planner Tom Carns Irene,Varney Moran, City Clerk -Larry Naughten Art Housler, Finance Director Jack Weinz, Acting Fire Chief • Fred Herzberg, City Engineer Doug Albright, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, -Deputy City Clerk CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Councilman Naughten asked that Item.(D) be.removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST; 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 June 11, 1979. (C) Approval of Street Use Permit.for placement of street trees and marquee over sidewalk on 5th Ave. N. (E) Approval of fireworks stands permits. (F),.Setting date of June 26, 1979 for hearing of Revised Comprehensive 6-Year Street Construction Program, 1980-1985. PROPOSED ORDINANCE REZONING LOTS 6, 7, 8, AND 9 OF BLOCK 5, YOST'S FIRST ADDITION, FROM RS-6 TO RS-12 Item D on Consent. Agenda Councilman Naughten said that all persons who desired to give,testimony.on this rezone had not been heard, in that he had been contacted by Raymond Duitsman who said he had not been given that opportunity. Mr. Duitsman was invited to speak. He gave his address as 17800 36th W., Alderwood Manor, and said he owns one of the lots involved which could be subdivided into two • lots Under the RS-6 zoning. He read a letter, copies of which had been furnished to the