19800513 City Council Minutes38
MOTION:
MOTION:
May 6, 1980 - continued •
proposed ordinance,.and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance transferring $22,823 from
the Council Contingency Fund to the General Fund, and amending the budget.
The organization of the Community Development Department was studied at the same'time. That depart-
ment has three divisions: Planning, Building, and Parks and Recreation. The position of Director
is vacant but much of the nonadministrative part of -that position.is being. performed by John LaTourelle
in the role of consultant. The Parks and Recreation Division has expanded with the acquisition of
the Anderson Center and i-s expected to expand further. The Personnel Committee felt that division
should be a department and report to the Mayor.. They recommended.that.P1anning and Building remain
divisions of the Community Development Department. They further recommended that the Director
position remain vacant as long as John LaTourelle is retained in the role of consultant. Council-
woman Goetz expressed the concern that Mary Lou Block had remained in.the position of Actin
Manager of the Planning Division for a .lengthy period, and.suggested.she should be given permanent
status. Councilwoman Goetz complimented the Personnel Committee fora very fine job on this project.
Councilman Gould responded that it had been a difficult analysis and took a lot of work. They had
looked at the world around..and internally.to be sure they treated people fairly. COUNCILMAN GOULD
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT ORDINANCE 2136 BE ADOPTED, REORGANIZING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Mayor Harrison stated that the proposed ordinances had been prepared and
placed on the Council Agenda with no consultation with the Mayor. THE. MOTION THEN CARRIED. COUN-
CILMAN GOULD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO.ADOPT ORDINANCE 2137, SETTING FORTH THE
REVISED EXEMPT EMPLOYEE SALARY RANGES AND SPECIFIED SALARIES FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS AND DEPARTMENTAL
ASSISTANTS. Councilwoman Allen questioned whether there was enough money in the Council Contingency
Fund for the transfer of funds requested for.the increase in department heads' and departmental
assistants' salaries. M.-A.A. Dibble responded that the Finance Director had indicated to him that
the funds were there. Councilwoman Allen's understanding was that.there had been some, budgeting
included to cover this when -the budget.was.established, and Mr. Dibble stated there had been approxi-
mately a 3.1% average increase budgeted. Chuck Cain, 1060,6th Ave. S.,,a.member of the Civil Service
Commission, said that.not long ago they had an opening for Assistant -Fire Chief and because of the
salary structure none of the men would apply for the job. He heard the salary would be raised so
•
they would apply for the job, and he urged the Council to pass the ordinance. He also felt that the
Fire Department is undermanned and he asked that the Council do something about that in next year's
budget. He felt there should be at least five more men on duty. He is a volunteer fireman. Laura
Hall, 1140 Edmonds St., asked Mayor.Harrison if.he had been consulted.on.this and he replied that he
had not. She asked him if this was by choice, and he said -it was not. Councilman Gould stated that
it is the duty of the City Council to set the salary ranges and set specified salaries for department
heads. Councilman Kasper felt they ,were going to be in a deficit position before the year is over
and, although he thought the Committee.. had done an excellent job of ranging, he thought the increases
were somewhat excessive in view of the private sector. He.thought,the raises should be about 50% of
what they were. Councilwoman Goetz said.she'did not think the salary ranges were out of line, and
she noted that they were in the middle.of the comparison study. Also, she thought the efficient
running of the'City should be continued and, she felt there was the possibility of losing some of the
Staff and she did not think they should take the.chance of losing any of the Staff. A ROLL CALL
VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS GOULD, NAUGHTEN, JAECH, NORDQUIST, AND GOETZ
VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER AND ALLEN VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED.
There was no further business to come before —the Council, and the meeting adjourned to Executive
Session at 11-:55 p.m.'
r
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Ci y Clerk HARVE.H.,HARRISON, Mayor
May 13, 1980 - Work Meeting
•
The.regular.meeting.of the.Edmonds
City Council
was called to order at.8:05 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison.in the Council Chambers
of th.e.Edmonds
Civic Center. All.present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT
ABSENT
-STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor
Katherine Allen
Charles Dibble,.M.A.A.
Jo -Anne Jaech
Ray Gould
Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director
Bill Kasper-
Jim Adams, City Engineer
John Nordquist
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Larry Naughten
Marlo Foster, Police Chief
Ma.ry Goetz
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Art Housler, Finance Director
Mary Lou Block, Acting Planning Div. Mgr.
Richard Pearson, Code Revision Proj. Mgr.
Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Mgr.
Jim Murphy, City'Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION: Items (E) and.(G)..we're removed from,the.Cons:ent Agenda. ;COUNCILMAN-NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST,-TO APPROVE -THE BALANCE OF.THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved
items on the Consent Agenda included.the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of.May 6, 1980.
39
. May 13, 1980 - continued
(C) Setting date of May,27, 1980.for hearing on proposed amendment to the Official Street
Map to reduce the proposed right-of-way on 80th Ave. W., between 196th St. S.W. and
188th St. S.W., from 60' to 50'. (P.-C.- Resolution 655 - File.ST-4-80)
(D) ,Adopt.ion.of Ordinance 21,38, Control of Commercial.Vehicl.es in.Residential Areas.
(F) Report on bids opened.May.7, 1980 for construction.of Railroad:Ave..pedestrian walkway,
and award to low bidder,. Knowles Construction Co., in the amount of $5,900 (State
sales tax not applicable).
PROPOSED- -ORDINANCE REZONING TO RML AREA. SOUTH OF 208TH S..W., NORTH. OF 2 IOTH S.W.,.EAST OF 76TH AVE. W.
AND WEST'OF 70TH AVE. W. (recently annexed to Edmonds) [Item (E) on Consent Agenda]
Councilman Kasper stated that he felt this item should -be voted on again, after having studied
it -and in response'to a letter received from one of the affected parties. He asked Mary Lou
Block if the Planning -Staff felt RMH was the closest zoning to the:County zoning which had been
,.on this -area, and she affirmed that. She added that there was an.error in the letter received
from Connie Root in that RMH will allow 28 units per acre, rather than 24 as indicated in Mrs.
Root's letter. Councilman Nordquist.suggested that'if Councilman Kasper wanted that item voted
MOTION: again it should be•when all the Council_members are present. COUNCILMAN KASPER THEN MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT ACTION ON ITEM .(E) BE: DEFERRED UNTIL NEXT WEEK'S COUNCIL
MEETING WHEN A FULL'COUNCIL IS PRESENT, INASMUCH AS IT PERTAINS TO SETTING A ZONING ON AN
ANNEXED AREA. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION SETTING DATE,FOR.,HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTIONS 649 AND 650, PROPOSED VACATION
OF RIGHT=OF-WAY AND�AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL.STREET MAP TO.REMOVE.A PORTION OF 4TH AVE. S., NORTH
• OF SR 104 - (FILE ST-2-80) [Item (G) on Consent Agenda]
Councilman Naughten referred to a memo from Acting Planning•Di•vision Manager Mary Lou Block,
indicating that the hearing'date.stated in the proposed resolution should be June 3, 1980,
MOTION: rather than May 13, 1980. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT
RESOLUTION 467 BE -PASSED, SETTING THE.SUBJECT HEARING.DATE.FOR JUNE 3, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Nordquist requested that a map be attached to the hearing material.'
MAYOR
Mayor Harrison announced that.he.was vetoing.Ordinance.2137.which the Council had passed at
last week's meeting. Before he-.read..his veto message, Councilwoman Goetz and Councilwoman
Jaech questioned the fact that the Mayor had given his message to the press for publication and
had not given it to the Council, to whom it was addressed. He responded that'he was giving,it
to-them'at this time, and he distributed copies of it,. Councilwoman Goetz asked the City
Attorney what kind of communication procedure could be established which would be.proper and
would not embarrass the Mayor or have.the Council react to.something-they read about in the
newspaper. City Attorney Jim Murphysaid-there is no such procedure, and.that there is nothing
in State law to prohibit the Mayor, or the Council, from communicating with the press. Councilwoman
.Goetz stated that a memorandum to members of the City Council is just that --a memorandum -to the
Council--and-not a press release,.and she said she resented reading about Mayoral actions in
the press. She suggested that the Mayor be shown how to write a news release, as she wanted
proper form and she wanted to be advised at the same time if the information is addressed to
the Council.. Mr. Murphy said there is nothing in the State statute that says what the Mayor.
does from the time he makes the decision to veto the ordinance and.the time he delivers it to
the Council, and he knew of no way a procedure could be devised to:require him to remain silent.
Mayor Harrison then read into the record the following veto message:
• "Proposed Ordinance 2137 is hereby.vetoed. This proposal, would -provide salary increases for
eleven department heads and assistant department heads. The.salary increases would be in
addition to•prev.ious cost -of -living increases given at the beginning of the year. The proposed
increases would range from 5% to 17% and the total cost to the City would be $34,000 per year.
My action is motivated by our tight economy and the recession that is in progress. Now'is not
the time to spend more money, rather we should -be cutting.back.on expenses. I do not believe
that our -department heads are underpaid. In the supply and demand labor market there is no
danger of losing any of our personnel. On the contrary, the. City is constantly besieged by
qualified .people wanting to be.employed. Openings frequently.attract 200 applicants... The
citizens should know that the proposed.salaries would ran ge,from $1850 to $3008 per month. The
citizens`should know that these employees also have an extensive benefit package which includes
two city -pension plans, a medical -dental -vision plan and an average of 38 working days or 7 1/2
weeks off each year for vacation,.holidays and sick leave. The citizens should know that the -
City pays all medical expenses for policemen and firemen for the rest of their lives. I ask,
"How much is enough?" The City ca.nnot.afford salary increases at.this time because the revenue
projections -for 1981 are very bleak..- Revenues are expected to drop some $200,000 below the
1980 leve, which means that a number.of employees will have to be laid off to balance the 1981
budget. Adding another $34,000 annual expenditure will cause even more lay-offs in 1981. If
the Council passes this proposed ordinance over my veto.it.is..wasteful public spending."
Councilwoman Jaech responded to the.Mayor's message by reading.from the RCW the section that
states the City Council has.the duty.to set department, heads' salaries. She said the veto was
suprising in view of several facts:. (.1).Last.November the Mayor and Council saw a survey
.indicating, -that the City's*management people were very much underpaid'as compared to city
employees of similar sized cities in this area_. (2) She said the Mayor agreed with the Council
that a further study should be.done and the City's management salaries improved so Edmonds
could attract and retain competent managers. (3) The Mayor had recommended merit increases for
department heads in December, which the Council postponed until completion of the study. The
Council now was finished.with the study and approved increases, just as the Mayor had -wanted.
She said the Mayor's recommendations in December represented a promise by the Mayor that department
May 13, 1980 - continued .
heads would receive pay increases for.good performance in 1979 in accordance with the City's merit
pay plan. Councilwoman Jaech also stated,.that the Mayor was using erroneous figures and misleading
statements about employee.benefits in his message. She said,the salary increases only brought the
ranges up to the middle range of the eleven cities studied, and only with good employees could a
cost-effective government be run which best serves the interests of Edmonds' taxpayers. She
urged the Council to override the veto. Mayor Harrison responded that his figures were accurate
and if .the Council had invited him to the meetings where they discussed these raises and had
involved him in the discussions the events which happened would not have happened because he
would have brought out all of these facts. He said the Council chose to be very exclusive.
Councilwoman Childers said the committee meetings are always open to everybody, including the
Mayor, and he is more than welcome to attend, as some citizens have done. She said the only
time someone is specifically asked to-attend..is when the committee..needs specific information
which they request.
Councilman Naughten said he also was,part of that committee, and.after.the study of the other
cities's salaries they felt it was ess.enti.al.to make these adjustments. They felt the quality
of the management in this City is very high, and that there were inequities and adjustments
that had to be made. He said many hours were spent on this -and all the meetings were open to
the public. Further, -that Edmonds is still fourth or fifth in the.ranging of the eleven cities,
and he felt the salary increases were justified. Councilman Nordquist reminded the Mayor of
his recent correspondence stating he wanted to.cooperate with.the Council. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST
MOTION: THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OVERRIDE THE MAYOR'S VETO OF
ORDINANCE 2137. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH ALL FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE VOTING YES. Councilman Kasper explained his change in.vote from that of the previous
week. He said he was voting in favor of the motion but he felt the impasse brought about
between the Council and the Mayor was unfortunate. He had voted.against the ordinance last
* week because of the lack of preparation* on his part and because it.was handed to him several
days prior and the Mayor said he had.not seen it. He felt raises.should be recommended by the .
Mayor to the Council. Although he was voting to override the veto, he said that in the
future he would vote to the contrary. 'THE.MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL
Councilman Kasper.advised that the Public Safety Committee had met with the Park and Recreation
Department representatives to discuss how to correct the deficiencies on Sunset Ave. The
Sunset Ave. traffic configuration will.be on next week's agenda.
CONTINUED HEARING ON.WATER/SEWER RATES
Public Works Director Fred Herzberg reviewed his current proposal. noting that the rate structure
would be based on water actually used. The water rate schedule was recommended at a base rate
of $2.50 per customer and $.81 per 100 cu. ft. of water consumed per month. Two sewer rate
schedules were presented. One would pay for.capital costs to fund the.Treatment Plant property
and infiltration control in a short.period,.at a base rate of $6.84 and a treatment rate of
$.25 per 100 cu. ft. of water consumed per month; and the second would pay for the capital
costs through the bonding process, with a recommended base rate of $4.75 and a treatment rate
of $.25 per 100 cu. ft.-consumed-per month. He.was not recommending new transmission lines at
this time, but funding of replacement lines -and replacement reserve (depreciation expense)'were
included. The difference in total cost between bonding and charging the customers the lower
rate, and not bonding-and.paying the current costs would be $330,000. That is, they would bond
for $270,000 and.pay back $600,000 over 20..years, the customers paying. the base rate of $4.75
for the 20 years; as opposed to the .customers paying the base rate of $6.84 for one year and
paying the capital costs in'.that time.' Following this review, the hearing was opened to the
public.
Peggy Hardisty of 757 Sprague said she.was speaking also for Beu.lah..Thomas who lives on north •
7th Ave. and for Bob Hoggins who lives in the Meadowdale area. Mrs..Hardisty said there did
not seem to be any other reasonable way to addressthe drainage problem. She felt it was
better to do it when it needs to be.done rather .than to wait. She said the City has to keep in
step with its services for the increased.population. She said she had discussed the funding
with Mr. Noggins and he .seemed encouraged that everybody in -Edmonds would be participating in
this. George Wal.sh of 739 Sprague St. said he lives near Shell Creek and that he had waited a
year for the Council to take some action,. since the hearing held at the Wade James Theater. He
recounted some of the problems he had experienced with storm water.and.he.said they had waited
a reasonable length of time for the City .to take some action to.correct the drainage problems.:
He asked that the Council vote to al.lev.iate this. problem as soonas possible, preferably this
evening.
Bill Whiteside.of 747 Sprague St. said he also lives near Shell Creek.and.he circulated photos
to the Council to demonstrate how badly.1ifs home had been damaged by storm drainage. He related
the problems he had experienced in the storms of 1978, and said.he had complained continually
about the problem, attending various meetings. He felt he had been patient and that the procrastination
must stop and some action must be taken. Mr:Whiteside said he has a home in Meadowdale as well,
and because he works in Everett he goes through Meadowdale everyday. He had noticed that since
the Hillis Homes development and the development of the gravel pit, everytime there is a heavy
rain there .is 2"- 3" of milky water running across the road and -just one block north of Perrinville
the City recently had.to repair an intersection because the water.had destroyed the drainage
there.. Mr. Herzberg.said that had.been discussed with the City of Lynnwood and they intend
taking some kind'of-action. .Mr. Herzberg listed the priority areas which'would get attention
with the funding requested-, Shell Creek beingof top priority. The public portion of the
hearing was closed:
Mayor Harrison recommended that the ordinance be passed.providing.for bonding and the lower
monthly rate. The rates a'nd pay -back periods .were discussed for. comparison. COUNCILWOMAN
•
May 13, 1980 - continued
GOETZ THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN JAECH, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2139, WITH THE BASE SEWER
RATE OF $6.84 PER MONTH, AND NOT PROVIDING FOR BONDING. THE MOTION CARRIED.
REVIEW.OF BOAT.OPERATIONS.ON LAKE.BALLINGER
Police Chief Marlo Foster stated that,the residents of the.Lake Ballinger area had requested an
ordinance prohibiting internal combustion engines on Lake.Ball.inger. If such an ordinance were to be
effective., he said the City.of'Mountlake Terrace must concur and cooperate as the majority of boats using
the lake are launched in Mountlake Terrace. Jim Falconer,,President of the Lake Ballinger Community
Club, residing at 23829 74th W., had submitted a letter to the Council outlining their concerns.
He discussed the safety problems of -.power boats going dangerously close to people swimming,
sailing, rowing, etc., in the lake; .the environmental factors; wildlife conservation; energy
conservation; fishing; and the fact that expected increase inuse of the lake will cause their
concerns to become more acute. He felt an ordinance as proposed would be easier to enforce than an
ordinance which placed a limit on speed or horsepower. He..said a small group of people are abusing
the lake, but they have a large effect on the others. Dr. John Klekotka, 2411 Beeson 01., also
spoke in favor of the ordinance. Bob Boyd, 24325 76th Ave.. W. said When the County passed an
ordinance prohibiting power boats on the lake many more people used the lake, but when it was
challenged•many of the motors returned and fewer other people used it. He felt more people would be
served -if motors were kept off the lake. Mayor Harrison recommended that the ordinance be passed
and a committee be established to.work with Mountlake Terrace on.the problem. Chief Foster suggested
that.the Park and Recreation people be involved. Mayor Harrison suggested a.committee of Councilman
Nordquist, Mr. Falconer, Chief Foster, and Jim Jessel.' Mr. Falconer said he had discussed this with
people from the City of Mountlake Terrace and had gotten an indication that'if Edmonds would take
the first step they would be receptive. He said he would be glad to be part of the delegation.
MOTION:
COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2140, PROHIBITING THE
•
OPERATION OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION MOTOR POWERED WATERCRAFT ON LAKE BALLINGER, AND WITH THE RECOM-
MENDATION THAT A COMMITTEE MADE UP OF COUNCILMAN JOHN NORDQUIST, JIM FALCONER, MARLO FOSTER, AND JIM
JESSEL APPROACH THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE TO SOLICIT THEIR COOPERATION. At this time a gentleman
in the audience wished to speak. Councilwoman Goetz called for a point of order because a motion
was on the floor. Mayor Harrison stated it was all right.for the gentleman to speak. COUNCILWOMAN
MOTION:
GOETZ THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN JAECH, TO APPEAL THE MAYOR'S.RULING TO THE COUNCIL.
Councilwoman Goetz said they would be happy to hear the gentleman, but in order, and since a motion
was on the floor it was out of order for him to speak. THE•MOTION ON THE APPEAL CARRIED. THE
MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE THEN CARRIED. The gentleman was then invited to speak.
Ray Martin, 18704 94th W., said he likes .to fish on Lake Ballinger and he uses a motor when he can,
but an electric motor which makes no.noise. He stressed that it was the internal combustion motors
to which !people were objecting. City Attorney Jim Murphy assured him that the ordinance only
restricted internal combustion motors.
DISCUSSTION.ON LIBERTY TV CABLE, INC.
Councilwoman Jaech had brought this up for -discussion, but she.now, said that the problems she had
cited previously had been resolved. However, in the discussions with Ted Lovett, General Manager of
Liberty TV Cable, it was revealed that Liberty TV Cable has been having a definite problem with the
Edmonds post office, and Councilwoman Jaech left the item on the agenda thinking the City may be of
assistance in solving that problem. Ted Lovett stated that they have had an unusual number of
people who -have not received their new billing rates and, in one case, approximately 50 were not
delivered because they did not have zip .codes on them as the computer had dropped the zip codes. He
said they -have a higher instance in Edmonds of subscribers stating they do not receive their billings
than anywhere else. Councilwoman Goetz suggested that perhaps the Mayor could write a letter to the
post office, asking them to contact Liberty TV Cable when there is a problem with their mailings not,
having zip codes or other such.problems.
•
DISCUSS PARKING PROBLEM IN FRONT: OF:HARBORMASTER.CONDOMINIUM
Councilwoman Goetz had received.a letter from Bettie McGaha, Secretary of the Harbormaster Condominium,
requesting two-hour or four-hour restricted parking in front of their building. Police Chief Marlo
Foster stated that restricted parking.is limited by ordinance to the Downtown Business Zone. Public
Works Director Fred Herzberg said he had inspected the site.and.noted that there is about 14' between
the yellow curb and the driveway, which really is not much space for a car to park and it restricts
the visibility from the driveway, and he suggested that spot might be painted yellow to prevent
parking. Sid Stevens, 200 2nd.Ave. N., President of the Harbormaster, said they have off-street
parking but friends coming to visit cannot park because post office employees and ferry commuters
park there all day. fie said they had asked last year to have a yellow stripe painted at the place
Mr. Herzberg indicated, but were unsuccessful, and they cannot see when they pull out of•the garages.
Chief Foster noted .that the Council had determined that the restricted parking would be limited to
the Downtown Business Zone as there was no seemingly good place to stop the parking restriction.
MOTION:
COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO HAVE A HEARING ON MAY 27., 1980 REGARDING
EXTENSION OF RESTRICTED PARKING BEYOND THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONE TO INCLUDE 200 2ND AVE. N. •MOTION
CARRIED. COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE YELLOW LINE AT THE
CORNER OF 2ND AND BELL BE EXTENDED TO THE DRIVEWAY OF THE HARBORMASTER CONDOMINIUM TO PROVIDE A
SAFER SIGHT DISTANCE. MOTION CARRIED. F1oyd.Smith of 814 Dayton St. said he has the same trouble
in front of his house, and could he have two-hour parking also. He asked why people should be able
to park in front of his house and keep his visitors from .parking near his home.
DISCUSSION ON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS.PROGRAM,FOR ESPERANCE AREA
Parks and Recreation Manager Jim Jessel.suggested this discussion be rescheduled for June 17, 1980
because neither Lynnwood nor Mountlake Terrace had reviewed.the program as yet, and the transfer of
the Community School concept from Edmonds Community College..would depend on all three cites taking
over the programs in -their areas.. He felt that further discussion in tamonds might.be premature.
MOTION: COUNCILMAN`NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED. BY..000NCILWOMAN JAECH, TO RESCHEDULE THE DISCUSSION ON THE
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS PROGRAM FOR THE ESPERANCE AREA TO JUNE 16, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. A short recess
• was announced.
42
May 13, 1980 - continued
PROPOSED PARK & RIDE LOTS
The Department of Transportation and Community Transit are looking for a Park & Ride site in the
greater Edmonds area to accommodate 250-300 vehicles and they had identified 18 possible sites.
When the list of sites is reduced to approximately 6, public hearings will be conducted to select
the final site. Public Works Director Fred Herzberg had evaluated the sites and provided his
evaluation. He found several acceptable. On the east side of Highway.99, straddling 230th S.W. was
one zoned CG which he felt was good. Another is partially within Edmonds in the Perrinville area,
but part of it is in the County and is..being developed and the remaining portion would not be large
enough. Another acceptable site would the the junk yard behind Stevens Memorial Hospital, but the
hospital owns that site and their plans for it are unknown. The LaPierre gravel pit property at
72nd/212th also would be an acceptable site,..if the planned development there is not accomplished.
MOTION: COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, THAT.THE.PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FORWARD
HIS COMMENTS, AS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL, TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL REVIEW OF SECTION 15, COMMUNITY -DEVELOPMENT CODE
Richard Pearson, the Code Revision Project Manager, explained that.after all of the Code is reviewed
a series of ordinances will be presented tothe Council for passage to adopt the Code, but all of
the changes made now would be preliminary until the final ordinance is prepared. Councilman Nord-
quist had expressed a concern that if Title 15 were approved, the further study of the other sections
may result in changes that would reflect on this.section. City Attorney Jim Murphy said it was very
likely that there would be minor changes, but any substantive changes should be worked in now. PRDs
were discussed (page 27, 15.20.000 C). .Acting Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block said the
provisions of paragraph C.l.b. had never been implemented as togiving bonus incentives. Councilman
Kasper commented that there is an alternative to condominiums and multi -family housing and that is
the townhouse configuration. He said single family financing can be obtained for PRDs with common
walls, whereas it cannot be obtained in multi -family zoning. He said this alludes to almost town-
house zoning and he felt that had been.over.looked in Edmonds. Ms. Block stated that in RS zones
PRDs can only have units attached as townhouses, not stacked. Under RM zoning they can be stacked.
Councilman Naughten felt the language as to whether they are attached or not should be in Title 16,
MOTION: not Title 15. After further discussion, COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORD-
QUIST, THAT IN 15.20.000 C.l.b. A PERIOD BE PLACED AFTER THE WORD "ZONING" ON THE SECOND LINE AND
THE REST OF THE SENTENCE BE DELETED, ELIMINATING THE DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVES. MOTION CARRIED, WITH
MOTION: COUNCILMAN KASPER VOTING NO. Later in the discussion COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL-
WOMAN CHILDERS, THAT IN 15.20.000 C.1.a. and b. THE WORD "ENCOURAGE" AT THE BEGINNING OF THOSE
.PARAGRAPHS BE CHANGED TO "CONSIDER." MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT -THE STAFF BE REQUESTED TO REVIEW THE
FEES STATED IN 15.00.020 TO BE SURE THEY ARE APPROPRIATE AND CURRENT. MOTION CARRIED.
Regarding 15.20.000 D.2., Councilman Nordquist said he did not think. the City should commit itself
MOTION: to a maintenance program for homes owned by.the elderly and disabled. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO ELIMINATE PARAGRAPH D.2 OF 15.20.000. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING MINOR CHANGES
WHICH AMOUNT TO UPDATING: IN 15.20.050 F.2.; ELIMINATE "EDMONDS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL"; IN 15.20.050
G.3., ADD "ANDERSON CENTER"; IN 15.20.060 A., UPDATE POPULATION FIGURE. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman'Naughten suggested that in 15.25.000 A., the last three lines of the last paragraph, the
Public Works Director determine whether the.streets are overclassified as stated in that paragraph.
MOTION: COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN JAECH, THAT IN 15.15.030 4.a., THE WORDS "LOW -
SCALE BUILDINGS" BE ELIMINATED AND BE REPLACED WITH "BUILDINGS SIMILAR IN HEIGHT TO THAT OF RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES." MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Pearson noted that in 15.38.010 A.5.a., that paragraph requiring a walkway had been stricken,
but the Department of Ecology had pointed out that this was the only policy that addressed public
access to the shoreline in that area of the City. The Planning Commission had recommended that this
policy.not be inserted as they felt there already was enough pedestrian access to the beach in that
commercial area but the PlanningDivision still recommended that it b -included.
MOTION: r e nclu ed. COUNCILMAN KASPER
.COVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO INCLUDE IN 15.38.010 A.5. THAT DEVELOPMENT SHALL'PROVIDE
PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE BEACH. MOTION'CARRIED.
MOTION: COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED THAT IN 15.38.090 A., PARAGRAPH 4 BE DELETED BECAUSE HE FELT ADDITIONAL
Failed BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITIES TO INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE WATER WOULD.CAUSE TRAFFIC AND PARKING
CONGESTION. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mr. Pearson said the State has fairly specific.
requirements to amend that because it is in the Shorelines Program.
MOTION: COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, THAT 15.05-020 B. BE LEFT AS SHOWN, WITH
THE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND NOT BY THE HEARING EXAMINER AS SUGGESTED IN A RECENT
MEMORANDUM. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, THAT IN.15.15.030'B.2.b., THE PARENTHETICAL
FIGURE ON THE FIRST LINE [(10')] AND THE WORDS "NO POLE SIGNS" ON THE SECOND LINE BE DELETED.
MOTION CARRIED. That was the last action taken on Title 15 of the Community Development Code.
Councilman Naughten advised that he had.received a letter.from..Rob.Mo rrison. regarding waterfront
questions, and he was referring it to.Ms. Block. .There was no further business to come before the
Council, and the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
1
1
77
Li
E
1
1
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Ci Clerk Harve H. Harrison, Mayor