Loading...
19801110 City Council MinutesNovember 4, 1980 - continued • and she had spent thousands of dollars to save it. She felt it was a historic and quality building and she hoped to have a quality business there. No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN:MOVED, SECONDED BY:000NCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2168, PURSUANT TO P.C. RESOLUTION'662, AND ADOPTING -THE FINDINGS CONTAINED THEREIN, AND SUBJECT TO THE AGREEMENT AND COVENANTS CONSTITUTING THE PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE. Councilman Gould asked what the City would get for granting this rezone, and Mr. Bowman responded that the contract would preclude the noxious uses that might be permitted under BC zoning. Councilman Gould was uncomfortable that one,piece-of property with.in.this.area would be free of those restrictions, but he was told -by -City Attorney Jim Murphy that.to.leave•that single piece of property RMH would constitute spot zoning. Mr. Bowman added that if that property were to.be developed the new building would be reviewed by the ADB in relation to the -other buildings, the.par.king would have to.be provided, and in the case of a proposed tavern the Liquor..Control Board would ask.the City for a recommendation on issuance of a license. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN GOULD VOTING NO. DISCUSSION REGARDING REQUEST FROM.RUSS..JUCKETT, COUNTY PROSECUTOR Councilman Kasper said this item had.been assigned to the Public Safety Committee, but that com- mittee had not met and was not scheduled to meet until -November 18, so he had no input -to offer. Police Chief Marlo Foster said the County Prosecutor had asked what kind of prosecution should be given the highest priority since his staff was going to be cut. Chief Foster said the Prosecutor's office had always been understaffed and there is a rapid turnover in,deputy prosecutors -because of their low pay. He said the Prosecutor has-written'guidelines.as to what cases should be given the.. highest priority. Chief Foster though_t.the question before the Council was whether they made some type of noise of support to raise the level -of the Prosecutor's office or whether support was•given individually by calling some of the County Council members. He said the City of Edmonds probably has fewer problems with the Prosecutor's office than most cities because Edmonds has its own municipal court and screens cases. He felt that if Edmonds does offer -support it should call to the County Council's attention -the low pay of the deputy prosecutors. He said the City of Edmonds files • approximately 225-250 cases per year, virtually all of them being felonies, and they should be filed as felonies because the City screens.out those that'are marginal...He felt each case'should•be: handled on an individual basis, so there should be no categorization of any that.should be reduced to misdemeanors. His main displeasure with the Prosecutor's office was not the amount of staff, but the quality of staff. Councilwoman Allen felt the County departments should be left to struggle with their budget while the City struggles with its"own, and she said she would not•be in favor of seeing any other department heads on the Counci-l's agenda between.the present time and the time when the County adopts its budget. -Councilman Naughten suggested a letter be.sent•to Russ Juckett stating that the Council. had reviewed the matter and decided to take no action. Councilman Gould noted that Mr. Juckett was made aware of the Council's feelings the evening that he made his presenta- tion. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY .COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE:PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN WRITE THE LETTER TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR. MOTION CARRIED. REVIEW OF AMENDATORY ORDINANCES TO EX.ISTING'CITY.CODE TO IMPLEMENT PENDING RECODIFICATION City Attorney Jim Murphy said the proposed ordinances were just technical amendments to the Code prior to final adoption. The draft ordinances had been provided for the Council's review and comment, but adoption was scheduled for November 10. There was no comment. There was no further business to come before.Ahe Council, and the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m... IRENE VARNEY'MORAN., C ty Clerk HARVE HARRISON, Mayor November 10, 1980 - Work Meeting A special (Monday) meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro tem John Nordquist.in the Council Chambers of the -Edmonds 'Mayor -Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. Harrison arrived shortly after the call to order. .. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Harve'Harrison, Mayor Jo -Anne Jaech Charles Dibble, M.A.A. John Nordquist Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director Paul Christensen, Student Rep. -Jim Adams, City.Engineer Ray -Gould' John-LaTourelle, Community Devel. Dir. Bill Kasper - Mary Lou Block, Planning Division Mgr. - Mary Goetz Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Katherine Allen Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Larry Naughten Dan Prinz,,Asst. Police Chief Art Housler, Finance Director Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Dir. Jim Murphy, City Attorney Mark Eames, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk 149 • November 10, 1980 - continued CONSENT AGENDA Items-(B) and (E) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO APPROVE THE,BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved i`tems.on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) � Roll call. (C) Acknowledgment of receipt of claim for damages from Warren Alton in the amount of $1,525.43. (D) Adoption of following amendatory ordinances to implement the balance•of the recodification of the Edmonds City Code: Ordinance 2169, creating office of Hearing Examiner, Chapter 10.35. Ordinance 2170, creating Planning Advisory Board, Chapter 10.40. Ordinance 2171, Sale of City Property, Chapter 3.01 (previously 1.52). Ordinance 2172, Criminal Investigations Contingency Fund, Chapter 3.07 (previously 1.74). Ordinance 2173, Billiard Rooms, Juke Boxes, and Automatic Devices, Chapter 4.24. Ordinance 2174, Public.Dances, Chapter 4.40. Ordinance 2175, Publ,ic.Amusement Licenses, Chapter 4.32. Ordinance 2176, Health Officer and Quarantine, Chapter 6.10 (previously 3). Ordinance 2177, Costs of abating nuisances, Chapter 6.20 (previously 3.20). Ordinance 2178,.Notice of Abatement of Noxious Weeds, Section 6.30.030 (previously 3.24.040). Ordinance 2179, Water stop and waste valves and bil-ling adjustments, Chapter 7:10 (previously 6.16). Ordinance 2180,.Repealing duplicative railroad regulation, Chapter 7.24. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4, 1980 [Item (B) on Consent Agenda] Councilman Kasper removed this item from the Consent Agenda, noting that with reference to the Sign Ordinance and the motion.at the bottom of page 2 of.the minutes that he had voted against the motion and the minutes indicate a unanimous vote in favor of it. Fie said his statement was that he felt political signs are something somebody can do on his own personal property and that somebody could park a truck out front with a political sign on it. He felt such signs are a very short-term thing and that the Council was overdoing it. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ; TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT TO THE MINUTES, APPROVING ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE USED COMPACT CAR FOR WATER DEPARTMENT USE Item E on Consent Agenda The request was to purchase.a used compact car to replace a vehicle which was involved in an accident. The cost would be approximately $3,200. Councilman Gould asked what vehicle was involved'in the . accident and what was being proposed for purchase. Public Works Director Fred Herzberg responded that it was an older vehicle.with 601,000--70,000 miles, and it had been kept as.a spare vehicle to use instead of a pickup truck for such things as picking. up spare parts. He said they would like to replace it with a smaller vehicle that would get higher gas mileage, and if they do.not do that they will have to use a pickup.truck for such things which is not as economical to operate. Councilman Gould said he would.like to`put.the request in the 1981 budget, and Councilwoman Allen noted that this was proposed to' come from the "B" fund of Unit 24 which is the replacement fund, so'it already was budgeted.. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO APPROVE ITEM (E.) ON THE. CONSENT.AGENDA. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS NAUGHTEN, GOETZ., AND'NORDQUIST VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER, GOULD, AND ALLEN VOTING NO, RESULTING INA TIE VOTE. 11AYOR.HARRISON VOTED NO TO BREAK THE TIE, AND THE MOTION FAILED. COUNCILMAN GOULD.THEN MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, TO.PUT THE REPLACEMENT OF THE WATER DEPARTMENT VEHICLE AS AN ITEM OF CONSIDERATION WITH THE 1981 BUDGET. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ VOTING NO. MAYOR Mayor Harrison advised that the terms of two Planning Commission members had expired October 9, 1980 so only five members remained, and since the Planning Commission soon will cease to exist the question had arisen as to whether to reappoint these two members for the remaining time. He offered the names.of Valina Walker and John McGibbon for reappointment. COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN,, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S REAPPOINTMENT OF JOHN McGIBBON TO POSITION 2 AND VALINA WALKER TO POSITION 3 ON THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION, TERMS TO EXPIRE WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS TERMINATED. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Harrison announced that he had selected a Hearing Examiner and that person would be available for'interview�by the Council next week. It was determined that the interview would be scheduled for 7:00 p.m., November'18, 1980, prior to the regular.meeting, and that the scheduled Public Safety Committee.meeting would be canceled. COUNCIL • Councilman Nordquist advised that Councilwoman Jaech was not present this evening because of illness. la(1 November 10, 1980 - continued • Councilman Nordquist noted that the Council, at its dinner meeting, had met with Lauraine Brekke who is the Executive Director of the..Seattle City Council Staff, and she -'had reviewed some of their concepts which the Edmonds City'Council may find useful. Councilman Nordquist had a letter from John Enbom, Chairman of the governing board of the proposed regional Performing Arts and Convention Center, requesting, for use as a start-up fund, contribution of the funds collected to -date from the hotel/motel tax which were designated for this project (50% of the hotel/motel tax receipts.were.designated). The contract had called for contribution beginning October 31, 1980, when the contract was,signed, but the concept had been approved in 1978 and collection of funds was.authorized at that time.and the funds have been held for that. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO -APPROVE THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE'FUNDS COLLECTED AND RESERVED FOR THE REGIONAL PERFORMING ARTS AND CONVENTION CENTER. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Naughten requested that the Mayor notify the Port of Edmonds that the Council will' have an Executive Session next week to.finalize.the Port/City lease on the fishing pier parking lot. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED,. SECONDED.BY-COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO•INTERCHANGE ITEMS 5 AND.8 ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA SO'THAT THE COUNCIL MAYBE FRESH WHEN REVIEWING ITEM 8 (PHASE II OF SR 524 IMPROVE- MENT) AND BECAUSE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE PRESENT INTERESTED IN THAT ITEM. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Goetz.noted that ther.e.had not been many people present -at last week's Council meeting and she thought that may have been due to that being the day of the General Election. COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN'NORDQUIST, THAT A POLICY.BE ESTABLISHED THAT WHEN -THE -REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FALLS ON THE DATE OF A PRIMARY OR GENERAL ELECTION, THAT COUNCIL`MEETING WILL BE RESCHEDULED TO A SPECIAL MEETING THE PREVIOUS MONDAY-NIGHT. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Gould reported that.a citizen of.Edmonds had spoken -to him about an -accident -she had in • the area of the post office. She fell on the sidewalk and broke her arm badly. She -has not brought suit against the City but ..brought to his attention that there are sidewalks in the City -that need repair.- Councilman. Gould said he would like to see a program dstablished in the 1981 discussions to show what will be done with sidewalk improvement, and then let the people of Edmonds know about that program. Councilman Nordquist stated that on Saturday morning, November 15, at 9:00 a.m., the Council will hold a work meeting to review the organizational chart and job descriptions for the City.. HEARING ON PERMIT FEES The Council Finance Committee had studied -existing City permit fees and compared them with those in other nearby cities. The purpose of the proposal to update the fees was to recover the costs -of -the services. The.current fees had been established long ago, -and. -it was suggested by Public Works Director Fred Herzberg that when.they.are re=established-they be indexed to the -Seattle CPI and each year they .be automatically adjusted upward, based on the.prev-ious.year's:CPI. Councilman Kasper - noted that the.CPI.could go down, and if that recommendation -is -adopted it should be assured that the rates reduce -as well -as -increase. Regarding the listed Planning Division fees, Planning Division Manager Mary Lou&lock noted that only Planning Division -personnel --time was included in determining the fees (engineering time was not'inc.luded nor was the Clerk's time at the public hearings). Regarding Bui,lding.Department fees,.Community Development Director John LaTourelle stated that the City is using valuations based on the,1973=74 Universal Building Codes, -and i-t was.now recommended' that more current fee schedules be.used. Building Department fees had not been furnished, and Councilman Naughten.asked that they-be•prov.ided to the Council. Councilman Kasper noted that the proposed -increases came to -an average 86% increase which -accumulated over a period of time, and he did not think.the:change should be made:all at'once. The Home Occupation Permit was discussed as it is a special permit under the new Code whereas it -previously came under Conditional -Use Permits. No proposed fee..was indicated, but Ms..Block did -not feel it -should be as high as that for a Conditional • Use Permit, and she.suggested.$25-$50: Major projects for ADB approval were discussed; as well'as. how to distinguish a.major project from a,normal-one. Mayor Harrison felt it was questionable as to whether the di.vi-sion.should.be at.the fourplex level. He said there should be some charge for design review and another for a.major.-.project review, but he felt there should be a clarification as to what is a major project. The hearing was opened to the public. Paul Roy, 840 Al.der,.a builder, found the proposed fees to be grossly unfair. He said he had been buying permi-ts.in this City since 1952,.and he -felt there.is too much government at City level and the people are being stifled in many areas. He charged that last year every time the City wanted money it hit.the .bui,l.ders, such as $250 for a sewer permit and the -In -Lieu Park Fund. He felt the biggest charge :for nothing received is.the^Building Permit, and he said he had one Councilman tell him if Edmonds did'not charge as much as,the other cities Edmonds.would be considered second-rate. He felt the City should learn to economize. Falk Helm, 14528 54th P1..-.W.,. Di-rector.of the Snohomish County Master Builders Association,: said some of -the -proposed fees were.,almost.a.260% increase although the overall average increase was 86%. He said it is:obvious that'inflAtion.requ.ires..the payment of--increased,dol'lars for what'is received, but 260% increase tied to.a.CPI would..be hard. -to justi'fy.-.He..suggested that one.or two individuals in the Snohomi-sh County Master Builders Association and he.meet with the Council Finance Committee, and they would.provi.de some statistics..as to.what the implications would be and they also could work out some figures.for better service. He noted that there would.be found.in the UBC increase an average increase of-50%. No one else -wished -to speak, and the public portion of the hear.ing.was closed. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.NO,RDQUIST, THAT MR. HELM'S, OFFER BE ACCEPTED AND THAT THE FINANCE COMMI.TTEE.MEET.DECEMBER 2,:1980 WITHTHE.SNOHOMISH-COUNTY MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION,. FOLLOWING WHICH A SECOND.HEARING WILL.BE SCHEDULED'ON THIS MATTER FOR-DECEMBER 9, 1980 AND A THIRD HEARING WILL BE SCHEDULED DECEMBER 23, 1980. Councilman Gould was concerned that what was being proposed should be well publi-cized, and that the people should know the situation now, why � November 10, 1980 - continued � .151 1 1 1 1 it is being proposed to change the fees,.what the. proposed fees will be. Councilman Kasper felt it should be mentioned i'n .the newsletter that the City is considering Building, Planning, and Public Works fees and that those who want to pick up schedules can pick them up in those departments. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kasper added that this -item should be identified as "Planning, Building, and Public Works Permits and Fees",on the agenda so people will know what is intended. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO -SIGN AGREEMENT WITH WSDOT FOR PHASE II OF SR 524 IMPROVEMENT Public Works Director Fred Herzberg briefly reviewed the situation; stating that the revision proposed by the Council is very dangerous.from a traffic safety viewpoint, and that the WSDOT would not agree to it and would drop the project unless the Council reversed .its position. John Klasell from the WSDOT was present and said their letter of October 30, 1980 was self-explanatory, that they could not accept what was.proposed. He noted that after many hearings the WSDOT agreed with the City on a plan,, and.they could not.agree to the changes now proposed. He said they have run out of time and if the.City does not want.the. project there are three or four•others waiting and they had come to the point where they would:go to.one of them instead.of this one. He said that the City's proposal would result not in slowing of the traffic but in rear end collisions, and rear enders are the most disastrous accidents there are, so the WSDOT'could.not accept it. Natalie Shippen, in the audience, said that. in Lynnwood they had a choice of the slope easement or a retaining wall, and Mr. Klasell said.the City of Lynnwood paid the differences in the slope easements and the rockeries. Councilman Gould said it boiled down to whether between Olympic and Olympic View Dr. there should be two lanes and a narrower slope easement,or a wider slope easement and two lanes and a turning lane. Mr. Klasell noted that channelization also would be included. This was not scheduled as a public hearing but COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO OPEN THE DISCUSSION TO THE PUBLIC. Councilman'Naughten cautioned that the discussion should be kept to safety, as that was the issue, and Councilman Gould addressed the audience saying it was not,intended to start a war between the people present and the WSDOT. -THE MOTION CARRIED. Ray Martin, 18704 94th Ave...W., asked what the objective was, saying that at the last Council meeting it.was said that the.object was .safety for the children and also to rectify the drainage problem, and now he.heard it was traffic safety. He suggested the a.lternative.-of an.overpass if safety for the children was the object (this had been discussed.in earlier hearings but would be too costly). He felt $200,000 was a lot of money to build something they did not want. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, said when streets are improved the accident rate goes up.but that is because the volume of traffic increases. She said'safety is a factor and she felt it was pointless to have two State highways going into Edmonds, but the City -was stuck with it and also was stuck with some archaic standards. She said if they did a less than full improvement design standards would not apply. She added that the WSDOT has to maintain the highway and she saw -no reason why maintenance should.not include drainage and sidewalks. Jim Muel-ler,. 209 Caspers., had provided the Council a letter in support of their -recent action. He read the traffic counts from 1979 and Police Department accident report figures as -the subject of those figures had.arisen earlier.. He noted that most.of the people along that -area probably would be willing.to LID it for sidewalks rather than get into what the State wanted. Roger Hertrich 1020.Puget Dr.,..referred to written material he.had furnished this evening, requesting the Council to ask the WSDOT.to,continue the.ir two-lane.concept from 88th through llth Ave.- to the intersection of Puget Dr. and Olympic View. He listed several safety reasons in support of that. The public portion of the.hearing.was then closed. Councilman Naughten observed_ that: on one. hand there was a .group of -people -saying three lanes would • create a safety problem, and-on.the other hand the WSDOT.said three-lanes,are safer. _Councilwoman Allen said she.would 1ike.not.to-authorize the Mayorto sign the agreement. 'Councilman.Nordquist said he still_ wanted it kept to only two lanes. COUNCILMAN.KASPER.REITERATED•HIS. PREVIOUS MOTION, SECONDED.BY COUNCILWOMAN..ALLEN.,.THAT.THE HIGHWAY BE DESIGNED BETWEEN OLYMP•IC VIEW DR. AND 11TH AVE. TO:A.TWO-LANE'CONFIGURATION AND .THE ENTI-RE CONSTRUCTION BE DONE WITHIN.45' OF RIGHT-OF-WAY,.AND THAT SLOPE EASEMENTS BE KEPT AT AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, AND THAT A LEFT TURN.LANE BE INSTALLED GOING WEST OFf THE-HILL.TO TURN ON OLYMPIC, WITH NO LEFT TURN TO GO NORTH -ON OLYMPIC AVE.. WHEN GOING EAST, AND THE REST:OF THE PROJECT REMAIN THE SAME AS DESIGNED.AND.APPROVED TO -DATE. Councilman Naughten added at this time that Steve Cal.lendar had called him to.say a lot of people in the community feel the improvement wi1-1. help the.who.le community and that -the project should be looked.at as .a long-term project, -and noting that there would not be matching funds in the future. Councilman Gould said the issue on safety boiled down to (1) speed of cars and (2) sidewalks,•and it was felt by some the choke mechanism.of the narrower highway would make cars slow down; whereas the WSDOT plan has a safety feature for the vehicles. He said there still is a lane on each side of that and so will cause cars to speed up, so it does not make it safer for the children crossing. He saw that putting in sidewalks there was a safety asset, but he said he still needed to be convinced that the WSDOT design provides the safety. He said the slope easements are a secondary issue, and he was not convinced the corner on 01ympi.c View Dr. was as good as it could be. He felt the WSDOT'was taking too rigid a stand, but he -.did not think the Council -could overlook the benefits it was proposing. Councilman,Naughten said he did not want to put anything in there that would add to the safety problem. Paul Christensen thought there. should be.some give and take, and he discussed the problems .from both sides, recalling that`not.too many years.ago he was using that crossing from the playfield. Mayor Harrison t ommented.that if he lived within that block he would want a left turn lane'to get in and out of'his property but.apparently the people who live there do not care about that. He could see that there was some question as to whether this would improve safety. Paul Christensen suggested the crossing be changed to the other side near the.Lutheran church., but it appeared obvious that chf1dren.living on 0lympic:would.not go there to cross.., . THE MOTION ON THE.FLOOR THEN CARRIED. Mr.- Klasell..advised-the Mayor -that this action would terminate the project. A recess was announced. During the recess Councilwomen Allen and Goetz.left, Councilwoman Allen_advisi-ng the Clerk that she had another meeting to*atiend. 152 November 10, 1980 - continued PRESENTATION OF PETITION FOR ANNEXATION, (Area between 227th P1. S.W. and 228th St...S.W.,.and between 80thAve. W. and City limits) The petition for annexation had been filed with the City Clerk with signatures of 84.6% of the assessed valuation of the area (75%.required). The City Clerk will have the necessary material compiled for the Boundary Review Board meeting of December 9. She recommend that the Council (1) Accept the petition; (2) Initiate zoning procedures as soon as possible through the Planning Division; and (3) Request the Boundary Review Board to consider this proposed annexation to the City of Edmonds. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, THAT THE COUNCIL ACCEPT THE THREE STATED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY CLERK WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT PETITION FOR ANNEXATION. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ON ADOPTION OF REGIONAL POLICY Ron McConnell'of the Snohomi.sh_Subregional Council,'Puget.Sound.Council of Governments, said the proposal was a very generalized philosophy for growth. Copies had been provided previously for the Council's review, and Community Devel-opment Director John LaTourelle had provided an analysis. He concluded that because Edmonds substantially is developed now, the impact of new development will be minimal in Edmonds residential areas, and to the extent that it does increase the pressure on Edmonds it will occur in two areas: (1) in a higher demand for multi -family land for development, and (2) to accelerate the commercial development at the major transportation..and shopping corridors, such as Highway 99. Mr. LaTourelle felt that the regional development plan was a practical and sensible approach to managing growth in the County and was long overdue. He said Edmonds should recognize the growth trends and:pressures and direct them.into the areas where development can be accommodated without threatening. -the quality of the City. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid,'had'.reviewed the document and asked Mr. McConnell if a historical study could be included also. She said she wished someone could come up with a standard terminology for "multiple housing" as such housing can be either common wall or stacked units. She noted that the document referred to a."hea.lthy mix" and said that can be a cross section of zones but not a mix of multiple and single-family. Mr. McConnel advised her that.'the cities in this region would be considered a "healthy mix." The.r_e.was no further discussion from the Council, but Councilman Nordquist said he would'not'feel'comfo.rtable voting on' this because he had been away and had not read the document, and that left only three Council members to vote. THEREFORE, COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO CONTINUE UNTIL-NOVEMBER 18, 1980 THE ACTION REGARDING ADOPTION OF THE.REGIONAL POLICY. MOTION -CARRIED. PROPOSED.ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING UTILITY CHARGE Prior to discussion of the proposed ordinance, Public.Works Director Fred Herzberg reported that as directed the meter readers had been separated and the result had been almost a disaster so he now was having them work as a team again. ..He displayed.a meter reading book which could not be read after one day.of being carried in the rain. Other utilities use a' card system, not the books system the City has. With,the City's system one walks and the other stays in the truck and records the reading and'as,she records if -she can.mentally check it against the previous reading to see'if the reading is normal, catching'some"problems that way. When they return to the office the readings are transferred to the office records.. Mr. Herzberg noted.that the.City's system, as opposed to something like that of PUD,.is-that. the meter -readers also maintain the meters. Spare meters and tools are carried in -the -truck .and the meter readers correct problems as.they find them. The PUD readers' only function is"to read`'the'meters. By -having a'walking''route 'the'meter.readers have had to go back to the truck and retrace the route to do any repairs.. Also, by putting the two readers on the street separately another truck is needed. Mr. Herzberg said that two people working in pairs can read more meters than`two working individually. Mayor Harrison said this information should be communicated to the public, and -he suggested an article be placed in the newsletter. Mr. Herzberg said he -would. .prepare an article. The proposed ordinance wasAo establish the interim sewer utility rate during the period that an outside entity is -conducting a -study of'the utility. The Council had determined that the residential rate during this period would be,-$6.84.per'month, dropping the 25� per.cu. ft. of water used. Mr. Herzberg noted•that•direction.had not been given regarding nonresidential users, so he had doubled the rates in existence for them.a-year ago to make them closely consistent with the -flat rate now to be charged to resi'denti-al users...�He also:noted'that the ordinance made no change to"customers not connected_ -to sewers; and -,he suggested.that this could be reduced to $4.00.per. month which.would be, double what'it was previously and consistent with the`.other increases. Councilman Nordquist observed that.with the recommended.changes the schedule would be essentially double what it was a year.ago. COUNCILMAN N,ORDQUIST MOVED; SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN'KASP.ER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2.181,:INCORPORATING $4.00';PER MONTH FOR CUSTOMERS NOT'.CONNECTED TO THE SEWER (THE THREE PLACES..ON.PAGE.2 WHERE THE FIGURE .$6:,84 IS USED) -AND--SUB'JECT` TO ADOPTION OF A TITLE AP..PROPRIATE TO THE CHANGE. A question arose.as to -the drainage 'study.which was,'to be financed by previously increased, rates,. and Mr. Herzberg,said:enough had been collected to get it started.. THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION REGARDING SURPLUS CITY -OWNED PROPERTY As requested by - the Council,'a listing of proposed surplus City -owned property:was provided with estimated s.elIi'ng prices-. Councilman Naughten said it-was.an excellent report... Public Works Director. Fred Herzberg noted that,with regard. to the fifth property l.is.ted,..some of the neighbors had..petittoned:to-have it'zoned'Open Space. He also noted that there are some small charges against some-of,the ,pro.perties because they were acquired through.LID foreclosures. . Bill Johnson,,704,;Map.le;-St., said he owns property adjacent to the property being 1. requested to be zoned.OS (Meadowda le. Beach Rd. -between 72nd and,75th).' He read from the Comprehensive Plan that no city -owned property should be sold without all possible uses being explored.and asked that this property .not ,be ;considered ,for ,sale until 1t goes through the Planning Commission and to the Council 1 1 L 'A 1 71 u 153 • November 10, 1980 - continued for consideration of rezoning. to OS,. Councilman Naughten explained to him.that he was looking at the sale of property because of.-the,City's budget needs. Councilman Gould said he did not think all the surplus property should,be sold, and a good point' 'had been raised by Mr. Johnson. He said the Council is obligated to look at.its Policy Plan. He suggested some of the properties considered to be sold should be those that -would not satisfy the open space,situation but would provide :the funds needed. He suggested the first.four on the list be considered. Appraisals will be sought on those properties. There was no further business to come before the Council, -and the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. U - IRENE VARNEY MORAN, My Clerk. HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor November 13, 1980 - Special Meeting A special meeting of the:.Edmonds.City Council was called to order at 9:50 p.m..by Councilman Larry Naughten in the Council Chambers of'the Edmonds Civic Center.. All present joined in the flag salute. • PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Larry Naughten Harve Harrison, Mayorl Fred Herzberg, Public Works Dir. Bill Kasper Jo -Anne Jaech Jim Adams, City Engineer Katherine Allen, John Nordquist Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Ray Gould Paul Christensen, John Wallace, City Attorney Mary Goetz Student Rep. Mark Eames; City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk.' This special meeting was called by Council members.Nordquist, Goetz, and Naughten to review the action taken at the November 10, 1980 meeting regarding SR 524. Public Works Director Fred Herzberg reviewed the SR 524 improvement, explaining the design parameters approved by the City Council on February 19, 1980, following which the discussion was opened to the public. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, said she did not understand the threat of taking out the traffic light for the children's crossing as.she.would think safety ofchildren would be one of the Department of Transportation's responsibilities, and she noted they.had installed a light at.Madrona•Jr. High. Councilwoman Goetz responded'.that it took about two years and a lot of hard work to get that one, and there also had been a serious accident there. She expressed appreciation to Mr. Herzberg for his review. She said she had asked him to make it simple because she had not beenon-the Council last February when the Council decided on this, and it had been very confusing to_ her. She was. now in favor of the plan as proposedbecause she felt in any other form it would be dangerous. She also noted that'196th would be.a direct route to her home but she has come to use alternate routes and she thought other people also would do so. Roger-Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr.., asked where the point of measurement- was on the.180' of taper distance, and.Mr. Herzberg indicated that. Mr. Hertrich said he.had stepped it off -to be.97.1,-so there would be approximately 200` between the two three -lane areas which he favored (three lanes tapering to two • lanes and back to three lanes), not 100' as the presentation had indicated. He.also noted that the Olympic PTA wanted the two-lane concept and the traffic light to be pedestrian actuated only. Mr. Herzberg discussed the measurements, saying the area between the two three -lane sections would be insignificant, and he maintained it would be a dangerous configuration. Lou Oskowski, 710 Melody Lane, said he travels this route.daily and it is dangerous and he did not understand why the Council did not want to go forward with the previously approved improvement. Councilman Naughten explained that some of the people living in the. -area felt the two-lane configuration would be safer than three lanes because it would have a tunnel or -choking effect on traffic coming down the hill. Mr. Oskowski said it appeared to him that three lanes were always safer than two. John Osterhaug, 1008 9th Ave. N.,said he has a daughter who crosses there and he would like it two lanes for her safety. He said cars use the third lane as a passing lane and traffic has increased since the improvement up the hill. He felt the tunneling effect would slow down`the-traffic. Councilwoman Goetz observed that the Police Department should do some increased enforcement at that location. Steve:Callender, 820 Hindley Lane, said when he heard the Council was going to .have this meeting he thought he would find out how.people felt about it and whether there was a silent majority not being heard. He'said he had been'on the telephone all afternoon and the people he spoke with substantially supported the project although they understood the problems on Puget Dr.. and were concerned for all the -safety problems. Mr. Callender said he had testified many times about -how difficult it is to get onto 9th Ave. from Hindley Lane. Also, he said Hindley Lane also has problems in that it is 6'- 8' lower than'9th,and it is very difficult for a low powered car to get up that incline and onto 9th Ave. He felt the situation.,was-that one person's benefit.was.being weighed against a lot of others' and he pointed out that the Council did decide on this once. He also noted that Hindley does not line up on either side of 9th Ave. which adds.to the problems. He discussed some of the traffic problems they have. He had a list of names of people in the area who supported the project as it was approved previously. He noted that most of the people to whom he had talked were not aware of