19800826 City Council Minutes105
• August 19, 1980 - continued
PASS RESOLUTION -OF INTENTION..257., SETTING A HEARING DATE OF. SEPTEMBER 30., 1980 FOR THE PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT ROLL OF --THE PROPOSED LID ON. SPRAGUE ST., BETWEEN,7TH AND 8TH, SAID LID TO INCLUDE WATER
LINES AND HYDRANTS, AND THE WATER LINES,:AND HYDRANTS WILL BE.CHARGED TO THE. DEVELOPERS. Councilman
Gould clarified that the street.improvement will be borne,by.everyone in the LID and the costs .of
all.things connected with the water .line, including the.hydrants, will be borne by the developers.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT.ORDINANCE
Because of the lateness of the hour., no..action was taken on this item. The Public Works Director
had suggested that the appropriate Council Committee may,wish.to consider it before scheduling a
public hearing. The Clerk was advised that it would be referred to the Public Works/Community
Development Committee.
There was no further business.to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m.
0
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, CiVyl Clerk HARVE.H. HARRISON, Mayor
•
August 26, 1980
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 the Edmonds Civic Center.. All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Jo -Anne Jaech Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director
Bill Kasper Jim Adams, City Engineer
Katherine Allen Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
John Nordquist John LaTourelle, Planning Consultant
Ray Gould Mary Lou Block, Planning.Divis-ion Manager
Larry Naughten Art Housler, Finance Director
Mary Goetz Dan Prinz, Acting Police Chief
' Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director
Jim Murphy, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City C1_erk
CONSENT AGENDA
Item (D) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF.THE.CONSENT AGENDA... MOTION.CARRIED, WITH COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ
ABSTAINING BECAUSE SHE WAS ONE OF.THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN ITEM .(C)._ The approved items on the
Consent.Agenda included the following:
•
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes..of.August 19, 1980.
(C) Acknowledgment of receipt of Claims for Damages from Ove Green in the amount of $103.98
and from Wallace B. Goetz in the amount of $310.54.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROHIBITING, PARKING :BY...APPROPRIATE.YELLOW_MARKING [I.tem (D) on the Consent
Agen a
Councilman -Gould felt there shou.l,d.be a.public hearing on this and Councilman Kasper asked where it
would be used. Public Works._Director.Fred Herzberg said the intent was to address 5th.Ave. where
the condominiums are, because of sight distance problems,, but the ordinance was written so it could
be used City-wide. He said he has the authority to put up signs and mark the curbs yellow, but the
intent of this ordinance was to preclude installation of a.forest of signs. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, TO PUT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE,ON.THE SEPTEMBER.2, 1980 AGENDA FOR A
PUBLIC'HEARING. MOTION CARRIED..
MAYOR
Mayor Harrson.proposed.passage.of an ordinance which had been provided to him this evening by the
City Attorney
to clarify the.,in.tent of Secti.on.1.14,040(4)..of the Edmonds City Code regarding partici-
pation_ by public officials in ma.tters,affecting property,, and which was directly related to the
first item .on the regular agenda (Item 5 - Advisory Decision on.Public.Official's Participation).
City.Attorney..Jim Murphy`explained.that._the proposed ordinance was nothing.more than a recitation of
the way*that section of the Code has been interpreted over the.past years. He noted that Mayors and
past Council members had owned property that was subdividable or not a part of their residences and
this
section never was interpreted.to mean they could..not act.on City-wide l.egi.slation such as
adoption.o.f_the budget.; utility rates, tax levies,
or amendments to.the..zoning code. Mr. Murphy
felt that since the question had,arisen; a"clarification should be set forth in keeping with the
August 26, 1980 continued
original intent of the section and with past practices regarding same. The proposed ordinance
amended the stated section to clarify that the public official would be precluded from participating
in actions affecting real property in which he had a financial or.pecuniary interest, other than his
or his family's residence, and that it would not be applicable to City-wide legislation or other
matters of general public concern. Mr..Murphy said he had prepared the ordinance on his own volition
and had not talked to any member of the Council or to the Mayor about it, because he felt if there
was a doubt then a simple clarification should be made. He read the text of the ordinance aloud and
noted that, if passed, it would not be effective for five days. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED
BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2157, AS READ BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Discussion followed,
with some expression that it would not be proper to pass the ordinance at this time, -prior to
hearing -the original matter. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO
CONTINUE THIS MATTER UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9, 1980. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN KASPER ABSTAINING
BECAUSE THIS..MATTER INVOLVED HIM. (Since the ordinance did not pass the number was removed, and it
will be renumbered upon passage.)
Mayor Harrison announced that the task force for a performing arts center would like to make a
presentation to the Council on September 9, 1980.
Mayor Harrison corrected some statements one of the local newspapers.had attributed to•him.with
regard to the recent increase in water/sewer rates. He also noted that an editorial stated that the
administration had failed to request gradual rate increases when they obviously were needed and
instead allowed the reserve fund to be depleted, and he said the fact is that the fund has been
gradually consumed down to a balance of $427,000.
COUNCIL
Councilman Naughten advised the audience that the water/sewer rates are being given further considera-
tion, and he said he would like to see a discount for elderly people on fixed incomes. He said they
were trying to be responsible, yet fair, and he suggested that.the Public Works Director consider
using an outside consultant to assist with this.. Councilwoman Jaech added that the rates will be.
discussed September 30, 1980 and that the meeting probably will take place at the high school.
Councilman Nordquist noted that a letter had been prepared explaining the water rates and it would
be.sent to all water users immediately.
Councilman Naughten called for an Executive Session following this evening's meeting to discuss a
legal matter.
Councilwoman Allen noted that a memorandum had been received from the Finance Director stating no
bids were received for the financing of LIDs 206 and 207. He.recommended that he be authorized to
negotiate interim financing with local banks .for an amount not to exceed $380,000 for a period.of
nine months for LID 207, and that LID 206 be .financed in-house from the LID Guaranty Fund. COUNCIL-
WOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO ACCEPT THE FINANCE DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION.
MOTION CARRIED. This item had been scheduled as Item 7 on the agenda.
Councilman Gould expressed concern about a telephone call he had received from the Mayor's office
asking for permission for the Mayor to sign a deed tranferring a piece of waterfront property which
apparently in 1968 the Council had given to the Port for some kind of consideration. Councilman
Gould had said he would not give that permission on the telephone, that it should be done in a
public meeting. He had.many questions.to ask before giving any.pe.rmission. Mayor Harrison responded
that the call was not to get a vote, that the action was taken.in 1968 to deed the property back to
the Port for a consideration and that consideration was fulfilled, but the deed could not be found.
He felt -that the action of that Council, which was unanimous, should be honored, and the question to
the Council was did they have any objection to the Mayor's honoring that action. Mayor Harrison
said four of the Council members said they did not object, so the action was honored. He said the •
property is part of the Port basin, and the breakwater is on it, and it is being used by the Port
and rightfully is theirs. He added that the Port had owned it.and deeded it to the City and then
asked for it back for the consideration of maintaining the restrooms, and the City Council passed a
motion to give it back. Councilman Nordquist had been at.the meeting of July 16, 1968 and he now
read aloud the minutes of the action: "A motion was made by Councilman Bennett, seconded by Council-
man Kincaid, that the City of Edmonds return the 75' to the Port District for boat harbor expansion,
subject to the Port maintaining the restrooms at the location. Motion carried unanimously." He
said the problem had been brought up to them last Tuesday, following the Council meeting, and prior
to locating of the minutes, and he had concurred with Bill Kasper to give a deed of consideration,
and he left Tuesday's meeting thinking that was where they were. Councilman Kasper said he had been
at'the special meeting called for Thursday --it had been called and then it was discovered a quorum
of the Council could not be present so it was cancelled, but the Port people were going to be there
anyway so Councilman Kasper attended. He said he listened to the presentation, and he understands
real estate, and he was satisfied. -Councilwoman Allen also had given a yes vote, having the informa-
tion from the minutes and feeling previous Council -action should be upheld, and also feeling that
this was an administrative matter to begin with and should be taken care of by the administration.
Councilwoman Jaech said she responded that she would only go along with it if.it was absolutely
legal and there was no question by the City as to to who owned the property, and she asked for that
information in writing from the City attorney, which he provided this evening. Councilwoman Goetz
said she had received the same information from the City Attorney and had given a yes vote. City
Attorney Jim Murphy explained that everybody believed the Port owned the property for many years
and, in fact, it had expanded the ri.prap out there and the fishing pier is on this property. He
said there used to be some restrooms on the property and the Port maintained them. Then, a building
permit came 'in for the Rrackett's Landing Restaurant which extended to one corner of that property
and the building permit was granted. Then to everyone's surprise it was discovered that title was
still in the City instead of the Port. This came to light at the end of the week before last, and
Tuesday night the -Council met briefly at the end of the regular meeting, without a quorum, so they
called fora special meeting on Thursday and were unab3e to get a quorum.. There was -a great deal of
urgency at the time because the developer was putting.in.the forms for the property -and the bank
107
August '26, 1980 - continued
stated they would not grant any further financi-ng, and the contractor said he would walk off on
Friday --and then these minutes were located on Thursday. He said-the-boat.harbor had been expanded
and -the restrooms were maintained for a number of years and later were removed, but nobody knows
whether the deed ever was issued, -but very substantial, improvements were put on the property.
Although the special meeting could•not be held, representatives from the Port met with.some members
of the City Staff, including Mr....Murphy and one Council..member..-He-said he was asked whether the
City could execute the deed based on..the 1968 minutes, and he,,had said yes but that he would be
hesitant td do it without at least notifying the Council. It.was impossible to call another special
meeting because of the 24-hour notice..requirement. It was.decided to advise the. Council to see if
they had any particular objections. Mr. Murphy said it was urgent because there were going to be
lawsuits and substantial losses.to.somebody. He again.stated that. nobody believed that property
belonged to the City --expansion in.the amount of 4-1/2 million dollars was done on.it, and the title
never revealed this, and under the,. Doctrine of Park Performance and of estoppel, for practical
purposes the property was vested in the Port and not the City. Mr. Murphy said that prior to the
locating of these minutes he would not have recommended transfer of the property to the Port, and in
fact did not, but the Port had been using the property all these years and the minutes were the
authority. He said the City would have had a lawsuit by Monday for no purpose. He said there was
one other conversation during that Thursday night meeting and he was asked by the Mayor what the
Cityr`coul.d,do,- and.he replied• there were three choices: (1) Do nothing and get sued; (2) Transfer
the property outright to the Port; or.(3) Make a deed to the Port and reserve rights to negotiate
with the Port to see if there'was any other evidence that could be.found. He.said they talked about
the other matters and it was his recommendation that under no circumstances would the City transfer
anything to the Port unless the Port gave a written release and hold harmless agreement to indemnify
the City against any claim. It was also his recommendation that the developer sign a release of
damages and also hold the City harmless. Those things were done and the next day they negotiated
briefly with attorneys for the developer and the developer signed. Thereby, if lawsuits were to
•
arise -out of this transaction by the Port, the developer would.have to take the defense of the City,
and if the developer sued the City the Port would have to defend the City. The City's minutes then
were reviewed all the way from July -16, 1968 to date to see if there was anything that would undo
what these minutes had done, and Mr. Murphy researched all.of hi-s law office files.also, Nothi
was revealed. Prior to these minutes having been found, Reid -Middleton recited that this was wN
t
happened, and Gordon Maxwell also stated the same and described what had happened. So the City
conveyed a quitclaim deed to the Port. Mr. Murphy explained that such a deed does not actually
convey any property --but it conveys any interest you may have in a property --in effect it says if we
have any interest in that property we will give it to you. He said the City could do the same with
the Brooklyn Bridge. He said a telephone solicitation was made to see if there were any objections,
and under those circumstances some confusion often does result. Laura Hall, 1140 Edmonds,.stated
that the Council people forget that they are legislative and not administrative, and she.affirmed
with Mr..Murphy that this was an administrative decision. Mayor Harrison.brought the discussion to
a conclusion, saying the telephone calls were a courtesy because he felt it would come out like it
did tonight.
AUDIENCE
Peggy (Mrs. Carl) Harris, 721 Sprague, read a statement which set forth her husband's and her involve-
ment'in the Sprague St. LID. -Mayor Harrison then reiterated.the action taken by the Council on that
LID, and Councilman Gould advised her that the Council,stated they intended to treat her and her
property`.like'any other property in the City, and that*the action they took was consistent.with what
they had taken in the past.
Bill Mathias, 540 Holly, wanted to assure, that he would. be given the opportunity to speak on Item 5
on the agenda.
• With regard to that same item, Ray Martin, 18704 94th Ave. W.,.stated that Councilman Kasper has
3.81 undeveloped acres, excluding his residence, and no other.Councilman has such holdings, and Mr.
Martin felt that land could become PRD material, and he thought that was important to the City. He
stated that decisions made regarding the Code should not be colored or discolored by personal involve-
ments, and if the City Attorney suddenly finds that he needs to revise the Code when a question
arises-, perhaps he should go over the entire Code soon and see if there are some other ordinances
that need corrections. (Mr. Murphy responded that there are.)
Tom Purton, 709 Maple, said he was speaking for himself and not for any organization with which he
may be involved, and he asked if there was any ordinance restricting the.size of political signs on
the City's streets and, if so,.what the dimensions were. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block
responded that the Sign Code limits the size to 8 sq. ft., and Mr.-Purton said there is a violation
of that fin the City. Mayor Harrison said,the Council .had waived that by a•motion. There was disagree-
ment as to what the Council's motion had been. Councilwoman -Goetz requested that the Mayor enforce
the ordinance and provide the Council copies of the minutes reflecting the -motion to which he
referred' Laura Hall, 1140 Edmonds, stated that she had labored for 14 months on the Sign Code and
she barely recognized the document now. She said she currently has been putting up campaign signs
for a candidate and has found it.difficult to find out what is permitted.
Margaret Johnson, representing the Lake Ballinger Community Club, expressed concern about the 100'
height maximum that is proposed to be allowed on property adjacent to Highway 99, and she suggested
that it be reduced to 45'. She was_also concerned that there did not appear to be a possibility of
objecting to a hearing examiner decision because of neighborhood t6ncerns. Councilman Gould advised
her that he had a proposal'to present on each of those items.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., said that since there would be no input during discussion of the
Community'Development Code, as Councilwoman Allen had,sa td,she was going to propose that, he wished
to speak on some.items he had noted in going through the final draft. He thought Ms. Block probably
would speak.to some of them, but he wanted the opportunity to present those which she may not discuss.
• He then listed his concerns, section by section.
August 26, 1980 - continued •
Regarding utility rates, Councilman Gould thought it was important that the people know what had
happened to him as a Councilman. -He said he had been a Councilman for five years and until this
year had thought the utility was operating in the black. Then, through an auditor's report, it was
discovered that such was not the case. He said information indicated that in 1975 the utility ran
at a loss of $104,000, in 1976 a loss of $197,000, in 1977 a loss of $10,000, in 1978 a loss of
$150,000, in 1979 a loss of $156,000, and to date in 1980 a loss of $45,000. He said a responsible
City Council has to -step in and do something about that, and that is why they did what they did.
Mayor Harrison responded that the way Councilman Gould presented it, it appeared the City was going
in the hole when.actually it is consuming a large surplus created by.some bond refunding, and it is
now down to $427,000 and could be depleted even further. He said.now is the time to make some
adjustments so the fund is not depleted. COUNCILWOMAN JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN,
THAT IN THE FUTURE THE COUNCIL BE GIVEN COPIES OF THE AUDITOR'S REPORT IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT FROM
THE STATE. MOTION CARRIED.
ADVISORY'DECISION'ON'PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S:,PARTICIPATION
COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED THAT THIS ITEM BE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNC.IL.ALONE WITHOUT PUBLIC.INPUT.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Bill Mathias, 540 Holly Dr., addressed Councilman Kasper and said he had heard a rumor that Council-
man Kasper made a trip to. Hong Kong this spring with a builders' group.and he asked if that trip had
been at his own expense and if he had discussed the Edmonds Community Development Code on that trip.
Councilman Kasper responded that he had gone to Hong Kong and the trip had been a surprise to him.
He had received 24 hours' notice. He said he is a member of the Washington Mortgage Bankers -and has
served on home'builders' committees and state farm committees and, as such, has served for many.
years and, to his knowledge, nobody.such-as he has been given the opportunity to go on those trips.
The person who was to go could not go.and the tickets were already.paid'for, and someone called him
and suggested he try to go.- He called but the tickets were taken,'but shortly after he was called
and told a builder had turned in his tickets and he was asked whether he wanted them. He had been
scheduled to go to the Council/Staff retreat and -his company had given him two days to go to the
Governor's Housing Conference in Olympia. He asked the company to -let him use those two days to go
to Hong Kong. He did not know if there was a builder there with whom he does business. As to the
cost of the trip, he said they did not know how much it cost,as the Home Builders had nothing to do
with the trip. He said it is a whirlwind trip made several times a year and a home builder earns
credits for the trip and -he can send anybody he wishes. The builder usually sends somebody from his
organization. He said he did not know whose place he took until the. builder told him later. On.the
way back he ran into another mortgage banker going on the next trip who was surprised there had.been
an opening. Councilman Kasper did not recall any conversation about the Code --they only shopped and
saw the sights. Regarding the charges made by -Mr. Martin, Councilman Kasper said his statements'
were in last week's minutes and he'saw no reason to comment -further.
Muryl Medina, 7726 236th, said she had heard a number of allegations regarding -the Appearance of
Fairness'Doctrine and she did not believe the people understood how it works. City Attorney Jim
Murphy -said the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is badly misplaced. It is an expanding doctrine but
only applies when the Council or a board is dealing in a quasi-judicial capacity. But when the
Council passes an ordinance such as the budget, or the Community Development Code, or other City-
wide matters, that is purely legislative and they are enacting laws which apply across the board.
He gave examples of boards' and commissions' dealings with quasi-judicial interpretations. He noted
that when the Council passes on a rezone of a specific.piece of property then they are bound by the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, but when they are involved in enacting the text of the whole zoning
ordinance, that is just general legislation. He asked how could the Council act on creating residential
zones if they could not vote on them, and everyone of them lives in Edmonds. Further, they could
not adopt an ordinance of any kind without being affected. He stated that the Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine -has nothing to do with the Community Development Code, nor.is it involved if the Council .
adopts a new zoning map. However, if at some time they are rezoning a single piece of property and
are adjusting property rights of individuals, then the Appearance.of Fairness Doctrine applies.
Ray Martin, 18704 94th Ave. W., charged that Mr. Murphy'-s interpretation was not consistent with the
law and that he was "muddying the water." He again discussed the amount of Councilman Kasper's land
holdings and felt because of those he should.not participate in deliberations on the Community
Development Code. Councilman Kasper said he was not aware of this section of the Code until Mr.
Martin brought it up, and he then called his attorney who gave him an answer similar to that given
by Mr. Murphy. He said he found out that everyone thinks they are dealing with State law, but this
City has its own law.
Lloyd Ostrom, 711 Puget Lane, felt Councilman Kasper should -not participate in the deliberations on
the Community Development Code because he is.a developer who is planning to develop property in
Edmonds and he would be participating in deliberation of laws that could.affect how much profit he
can make on his developments. Mr. Ostrom.felt this could be construed.as a conflict of interest.
Peter Bilder,-7406 Meadowdale Beach Rd., said the discussion could be minimized by stating what kind
of property a Councilman can own, but to say he owns two acres it.is too restrictive to say he
should be precluded from taking part,in an.important decision.
Mr. Murphy addressed -Mr. Ostrom and,said.he, Mr.. Murphy, had been.talking-.about the Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine and Mr. Ostrom had been tal.king about the ordinance,.and they are two vastly
di-f-ferent things.' He said the ordinancedea-ls with nonresidential property, and the Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine was mentioned in Mr. Martin's letter and he was trying to clarify what the Appearance
of Fairness Doctrine actually is.
Mr. Martin then stated that Councilman -Kasper had indicated he was.not aware of the law on the
books --that he learned of it for'the first time when Mr. Martin cited.it, and if this was so he
r1
U
August 26, 198p - continued
should examine his.current position..and.make a move at this time to end.this whole affair. The
discussion was then closed to the .audience.
Councilman Naughten stated that he owns property in Edmonds other than his residence and.this. reasoning
.would prevent him from voting on matters before the Council,affecting property. Mr. Murphy said he
would not interpret it that way. He believed that the intent of.the Council was that when the.
legislation affects that property.uniquely in the sense,that it does not other properties, then the
Councilman would not participate. Otherwise you would have a very.large disenfranchisement of the
Council. He gave the tax levy as an example, as everyone who owns property votes on the tax ordinance
every year. He again said it has never been'interpreted to mean general legislation, and he did not
think it was meant to do so.
Councilman Gould said this ordinance was a defense that.was supposed to keep a Councilman from
getting a specific benefit for his property. He did not think it was fair for them to say that a
Councilman who has a chunk of property should not be able to vote on legislation affecting general
property matters. He felt that.if he owned another piece of.property he could still. vote. With
regard to the new Community Development Code and whether Councilman Kasper would benefit, he said
this was a general set of laws and the only place he could see that there might be a connection was
in whether his property could be allowed a change such as a PRD.. Councilman Gould said he did not
see that yet.
Councilman.Kasper responded.that.he had asked the Planning Staff if the allegation applied. He said
he can only get 9-10 units based on square footage there., He again said he had spent 15 years
trying to work out the gymnastics..on.that. And he again explained his agreement with the church,
made before he was appointed to.the Council, and that he had taken no action until they broke ground.
Additional fees have been imposed,such as the in -lieu park fee, during the time he delayed his
• development. His neighbors forced a.street realignment because he put in for a plat, and it took 6-
7 months -to develop three lots and something like $50,000 to put in the improvements.. -He said he'
had done nothing but roll over for his neighbors and the church and he felt he had been penalized.
Councilman Gould felt that Councilman Kasper should be allowed to vote on the Community Development
Code, and he acknowledged that they were on opposite poles on.a lot -of issues, but he did not think
that fact should affect this decision.
Councilman Kasper said when he took.this position on the Council he was asked why he.wanted to be on
the Council and he responded that.he had been involved in finance.for 25 years in South Snohomish
County and he felt he knew essentially all of the problems of the area. He also said at that time
that he would someday develop this. property. He.had said .he thought he could contribute -something,
and his main statement was that housing is a big issue and he felt he.was benefi.tting housing. He
said he had always been an advocate of trying to improve housing and he felt that was what he could
contribute to this City.
Councilman.Naughten commented that .this is a pretty aware -community and,public officials have to
disclose everything they own, whi.ch,is .fine. He said if he were foolish-enough.to try to pull.
something over in a community this small and this aware he would expect.someone to "fry" him.
COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT COUNCILMAN KASPER.BE ALLOWED TO
VOTE ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. MOTION CARRIED, WITH.COUNCILMAN KASPER ABSTAINING.
HEARING _ON SHORELINES MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT = PORT OF EDMONDS,
SOUTH SIDE OF'FERRY DOCK '(F.ILE SM-1-80)
The purpose of the project was to provide,a 600 sq. ft. mooring float with a 45' x 4' gangplank to
the south side of:the existing ferry pier. The proposal was. in conformance with the Edmonds Land
Use Guidelines which encourage water oriented facilities that.provide for pedestrian use of the
waterfront. It also was consistent with objectives of the Edmonds Policy Plan. Planning Division
Manager Mary Lou Block noted that with the installation of.this float there would be a potential for
increased boat traffic to the area..whi.ch.could create a possible increase of pollutants associated
with boat traffic. It would create.a,mu.ltiple use facility, however, which would increase the
amount of public access°to the waterfront. An environmental checklist had been submitted in accordance
with SEPA and City requirements. This was reviewed and a declaration of nonsignificance had been
issued. The Staff recommended approval of the proposal because it conforms with the requirements of
the Edmonds Land Use Guidelines and.furthers the objectives of the Edmonds Policy Plan and the
Edmonds Shorelines Management Program. There presently is a pedestrian access on the south side of
the ferry pier and the intent was.to.add.the float to the pedestrian access. The Planning Commission
had recommended approval -with -the provision that a 4" galvanized.pipe crossing the pedestrian walkway
be ramped as recommended by the Engineering Division.. The hearing was opened to the public.
Herb Carpenter of Reid, Middleton.& Associates, representing the Port of Edmonds, said that part -of
the reviewing process involves the State Department of.Transportation and the Washington State
Ferries'System, and that discussion is ongoing at this.time. He said if the ferry system should
object they will the
not get permit from the Corps of Engineers, but.initial discussions indicate
there probably will not be a big problem. He noted that there had been
a floating moorage at.this
site previously. Councilman.Nordquist expressed concern about small boats.going into the backwash
of the ferries.and also the safety.of.divers.
Dick Cole, attorney for the Port.of Edmonds, said he did not know whether the float. would be available
all the: time. He said the Port%.owns
the entire ferry dock and leases it to the ferry system, and in
the original lease the Port retained the.right to attach a small float the
on south side of the
dock. The proposed float w.i-1..1 be a bit.'.larger than the..one that previously was there. He said the
question of'the intermodal.center.a.1so_will. be addressed when the lease with the ferry system is
renewed. Regarding the ferry backwash.and the divers,.he,.had.talked with Police Chief.Marlo Foster
who had he
said would be delighted to have a float there to help.remove divers and other swimmers
from the water. He would prefer that it be the
on other side but that could not be done because the
walkway is on the south -side. Mr. Cole noted that the float may be removed in the wintertime.
August 26, 1980 - continued •
Fishing would be.allowed from the float. He said the Port has the right to allow the public to use
the walkway and it would not accept the ferry system's idea to close it as had been suggested.
Counci.lman Gould noted that the Engineering Divi.sion.had felt there should be a safety rail on the
float. Mr. Cole responded that there is a division of opinion on whether a float.should have a
rail, because if a boat ties up"in an emergency the rail could be more of an impediment. He said it
was his understanding that children are diving off the fishing pier, and they find them out -on the
breakwater, but those are problems that have to be solved as they develop. Mayor Harrison observed
that if small boats with motors were allowed there, that area would have to be declared off limits
to divers, but a sign could be placed on the pilings.
Bob Morrison, 250 Beach P1., said he had been a boater for 18 years in Edmonds, and at the Planning
Commission meeting Commissioner Laura Hall had asked him whether he was in favor of this. He had
responded that he was in favor of the general idea of the float but not until some of the other
problems are resolved. He noted that there is a sign under the automobile and pedestrian ramp
saying no boats are allowed north of that point, but there is no sign about divers and they will use
this float if it is there. He noted that years ago Gordon Maxwell wanted a place for children to
fish and opened up the area along the dock, -and children have fished there since and none has.ever
fallen in the water. He said if the ramp is put down to the float there will be no more fishing for
the children there and they will go down the ramp and use the float. He said he would not like to
have any child fall off when the superferry is in full reverse or building up steam to leave. He
did not think the suggestion of .a railing around three sides of the float should be treated .lightly.
He also noted that the cost of this was $35,000 and he questioned whether the taxpayers should be
paying that amount for something that may not be there more than a year. He also noted that the
walkway is not wide enough to handle any kind of aid equipment.
Laura Hall,.1140 Edmonds, said she had brought up the question of the handrail. She felt the use of •
the float had to be defined, and she agreed that to boaters the rail.would be an impediment, but for
other uses it would be a safety factor.
Dick Cole responded to some of the questions, saying the $35,000 cost was not an issue for this
body, but there would be several years of use with the proposed plan. He said it would not'be worth
widening the walkway at this time for rescue people. He noted that the pipe the Engineering Division
wanted ramped is used for the sewer dumping line for the ferry holding tanks.
Maryanne Anderson from the Anderson Marina was concerned about safety because the boaters cannot see
divers and she asked for consideration for the divers.
Roberta Kasmar, 725 Driftwood Lane, expressed concern for.safety of the.children, and she asked why
the previous float had been removed.. Mr. Cole responded that the ferry system wanted it removed and
talked the Port Commission into doing so. The public portion of the hearing was then closed.
Councilman Gould noted that the Planning Commission minutes indicated Commissioner Smith said the
walkway is not dangerous --uncomfortable in places, but not dangerous --but the Engineering Division
representative indicated it is unsafe and.a.potential hazard. City Engineer Jim Adams responded
that he had not been down there; so he could not give a fair assessment. Councilwoman Allen felt
there were too many unanswered questions, and she was not willing to vote in favor of it at this
point. Councilman Naughten felt it was a good idea but also was concerned about safety and the
absence of a railing. With children fishing and swimming, and the consideration of the ferry
backwash, he felt there was too much danger. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
NORDQUIST, THAT THE REQUEST FOR SHORELINES MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SM-1-80 BE
DENIED. Councilman Gould observed that the float sounds like a good idea but when you consider all
of the questions, there just are too.many.. Mr. Cole asked to hear some findings of fact as to how
this proposal negatively affects the environment, which is the question.of the permit. Councilwoman
Allen responded that the Council was.concerned about safety, and she.felt this would be unsafe for •
the citizens of the•City of Edmonds,.for.boaters i.n the area, and.divers..in the water. THE MOTION
CARRIED.
CONSIDERATION OF FINAL DRAFT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT. THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO NEXT WEEK'S
MEETING. Councilman Gould did not think that would be fair.to the people in the audience who had
waited all evening for this. Councilwoman Allen felt it was too late in the evening to give fair
consideration to such an important document... There was more discussion, and then A ROLL CALL VOTE
WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCIL.MEMBERS KASPER, ALLEN,.NORDQUIST, AND GOETZ VOTING YES, AND
WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, GOULD,.AND NAUGHTEN VOTING NO. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Goetz
stated -that in the future the agendas should be limited when there is a major item to be considered
and it is known that it is important to the City and will. need a large amount of time. COUNCILMAN
NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.KASPER, THAT THE SEPTEMBER.2, 1980 AGENDA BE DEVOTED TO THE
COMMUNITY.DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THAT THE OTHER.SCHEDULED ITEMS BE MOVED.TO.THE SEPTEMBER 9, 1980 WORK
MEETING. Councilwoman Jaech felt .the.newsletter item should be left on next week's agenda as it
was of prime interest to the people and a consul.tant.was invited. That was acceptable to Councilman
Naughten'as long as•the Code'was first. Councilman Nordquist.then noted that pains were taken to
see -that copies of the Code were made available to the people and then they were told they could not
speak on it. Councilwoman Allen•said they.had been told they.could comment in writing. Councilman
Nordquist felt the item should be called a hearing on next week's agenda. No formal amendments were
Made to the motion, but the above comments appeared to be incorporated. THE MOTION CARRIED.
.. .... .... .... _ .... ... .... .
REVIEW OF STREET USE PERMIT FOR-PIZZA'S DELI AT 403 MAIN..ST. (60=DAY TRIAL PERIOD)
Public Works Director Fred Herzberg said no complaints had been received, and he recommended approval
of continuation of the permit. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED,. SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO
APPROVE CONTINUATION OF THE SUBJECT STREET USE PERMIT. MOTION CARRIED.
•
August 26, 1980 - continued
AUTHORIZATION. FOR MAYOR TO EXECUTE ARAI/JACKSON DESIGN CONTRACT FOR.THE:LIBRARY.AND,:PARKING PLAZA PROJECT
1
L,
E
Parks & Recreation Director Jim Jessel said the contract had been brought before the Council to -
answer any questions. It was.negotiated in accordance with the AIA fee schedule for a'$2,550,000
construction budget project. The.design fee is $192,500,and includes a $12,500 credit for work
completed during the Block Grant -funded Master Planning Phase and.$9,500 credit for landscape
architectural services which,it.-was.anticipated.would be completed.through in-house-or.volunteer
means. Mr.. Jessel said they.are..scheduling a "fast -tract'.'. design -process and monthly progress.
reports will be . sent to the .Counci.l ,for.,revi ew. Also, i,t .i s , anticipated that a refined design and
cost estimate will be ready for Counc.il.review in early. December. .Councilman Gould stated that he
had reviewed the -contract and found a lot of checkpoints, and he was satisfied with it. City Attorney
Jim Murphy said that there were some minor conflicts which.the.City Engineer had and also that he
had, but they could be resolved. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT
THE.MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE.ARCHITECTURAL.SERVICES.CONTRACT WITH ARAI/JACKSON FOR THE
LIBRARY AND PARKING PLAZA PROJECT,.SUBJECT.TO RESOLUTION.OF.THE PROBLEMS INDICATED BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY AND CITY ENGINEER... MOT.ION.CARRIED.
There was no further business to come,before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to Executive
Session at.11:55 p.m.
U
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, CiA7y Clerk
September 2, 1980
HARVE'H. HARRISON, Mayor
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present) oined in the flag salute.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Jo -Anne Jaech Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director
Bill Kasper Jim Adams, City Engineer
Katherine,Allen Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
John Nordquist John LaTourelle, Planning Consultant
Ray Gould Art Housler, Finance Director
Larry Naughten Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director
Mary Goetz Gary McComas, Fire Marshal
Jim Murphy, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy -City Clerk
Councilwoman Goetz was not present during the first part of the meeting, arriving at.9:25 p.m., and
having advised the Council previously that she would be late.
CONSENT AGENDA
• COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY-COUNCILWOMAN-ALLEN, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of -August 26, 1980.
(C) Authorization for Mayor to sign Washington State Arts.Commission grant.
MAYOR
Mayor Harrison reported that a letter had been sent to the Citizens Against the Council's Alternative,
together with a copy of the ordinance covering campaign signs, and noting. the 8 sq. ft. maximum
size. A response to'that letter was received indicating their interest in cooperating, but questioning
the intent of the Sign Code. Mayor Harrison now recommended that in the interest of promoting the
election process the Council amend the Sign Code to-remoVe all restrictions on temporary political
s.igns. Councilman Gould responded that such would be all -right after the November election, but not
now.. He said the particular issue before them was that of primary election signs of 16 sq. ft.
which currently are in the City in support of the Mayor/Council form of government. -He advised the
Mayor that those signs are against,the law and that it was, the: Mayor's job to see that they are
* taken'down;,and to do otherwise made it appear that he was not going to enforce the law on those
issues'in his favor. Mayor Harrison felt a change could be made .to the Sign Code during the election
as a change had been -made during the last election, but. it was brought to his attention that the
change the Council last directed was..made on November.20.,,1979, after the election had taken place.
He then said if the Council desired to make no change in.the Code he would instruct the Planning
Division to 'give all violators three days in which to bring their signs into compliance.
COUNCIL
Councilman Naughten stated he would feel more comfortable if during the next weeks before the
• September 30 hearing to review water/sewer rates, the Council committee meetings were replaced by
*See amendment September 9, 1980