10/04/1994 City CouncilCouncil Approved mutes
Approved 10111194
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
OCTOBER 4,1994
Following a special meeting, called pursuant to notice, to interview a candidate for the Architectural
Design Board, Mayor Hall called the regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council to order at 7:00
p.m. in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was preceded by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Laura Hall, Mayor
John Nordquist, Council President
William J. Kasper, Council President Pro-tem
Barbara Fahey, Councilmember
Steve Dwyer, Councilmember
Michael Hall, Councilmember (7:17)
Tom Petruzzi, Councilmember
Dave Earling, Councilmember
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Tom Miller, Police Chief
Michael Springer, Fire Chief
John Westfall, Fire Inspector
Paul Mar, Community Services Director
Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor
Rhonda March, City Clerk
Christine Laws, Recorder
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED.
CONSENT AGENDA
Council President John Nordquist asked to pull Items E, F and G from the consent agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY, FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE
REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda
items passed are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 1
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS #944482 THRU $944939 FOR WEEK
OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1994, AND #945059 FOR WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 16,
1994. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS FOR #944729 THRU #945020
FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15, 1994
(D) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON
THE HEARING OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
' DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL (FILE NO. AP-94-89) OF THE
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY A PERMIT
REVIEW (FILE NO. PR-93-219) OF AN APPROVED AND BUILT PROJECT
UNDER FILE NO. ADB-15-85 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8130 212TH
ST. S.W. (Appellant: Jennifer Markestad/File No. AP-94-120; Applicant: Robert
Klepinger/File No. ADB-15-85)[from August 2 and August 16, 1994]
Council President Nordquist indicated he had pulled these items because he wished clarification as to
the requirements for the positions on which requests for proposals were to be advertised. It was
clarified that the items being discussed were correctly Items F, G and H. Brent Hunter, Personnel
Manager, indicated he could have that information next week. Agenda Items F, G and H were placed
on the agenda for next week's meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER, TO APPROVE ITEMS F, G AND H.
MOTION CARRIED.
Regarding Item E involving advertising request for proposals for professional services on cable
television franchise renewal, Councilmember Dave Earling asked Paul Mar, Community Services
Director, to refresh the Council's minds regarding the background on this item and from which funds
these funds would be allocated. Mr. Mar responded that $5,000 is from the Council Fund and the
remainder is from the Community Services Administration portion of the General Fund. Mr. Mar
further stated that this had been brought to the Council in May when there was talk of extending their
existing agreement in order to then go through the franchise renewal process and to obtain a consultant
for that purpose. Because of the rate regulations process, they have not yet been able to get to this
stage of the negotiations.
Councilmember Barbara Fahey asked how much money the City gets as a result of being involved in
this process. Mr. Mar responded that the City gets an excise tax on cable television revenues. Cable
franchise renewal is a periodic cost. City Attorney Scott Snyder responded that the City receives a
franchise fee of 5%, a portion of which the FCC requires be used for regulation.
COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY, THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E BE
APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
AUDIENCE
Jack Gradwohl, Area Manager for Chambers Cable, 533 Main Street, Edmonds, WA, spoke regarding
' the taping of the Council meetings. He indicated the Council meetings were presently being aired on
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 2
Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 12 Noon to 4:00 p.m. on Channel 32. He offered some evening
replay time on Channel 36. This would be on a week -to -week basis, subject to preemption with notice,
until the issues are addressed in the franchise negotiations.
Jack Bevan, 19210 - 94th West, read a letter regarding Charleston Property at Second Avenue South.
He requested that the SEPA regulations be carried out to the fullest.
Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, showed a crab trap showing the newest government regulation
which he classified as an escape route for the crabs. His primary remarks dealt with the current rail
situation. He feels we are throwing money away on the railway. He told the Council of a letter to the
editor to hopefully be in "The Enterprise" this week entitled "The Evolution and Natural Progression of
Transportation". He feels that when the time is right to run the railroad, private money will be available
to pay for it. -
Trudy Lehn, 7904 - 216th Street S.W., asked why Chambers is asking for a raise while Viacom is
giving a refund to its customers. It was explained to her this matter would be on the agenda a little
later if she would like to reserve her comments until then.
Lars Olson, 561 Pine, spoke with regard to the weight limit on certain streets. He indicated he had
observed, and has reported on more than one occasion, the fact that 80,000 trucks are traversing roads
with 5 ton weight limits. He indicated there had been very little response from the police. He
expressed his displeasure with the way traffic is dealt with in the city.
OBSERVANCE OF "NATIONAL FIRE PREVENTION WEEK"
Mayor Hall read a proclamation in honor of National Fire Prevention Week, October 9-15. Fire Chief
Mike Springer introduced Fire Inspector John Westfall and handed out batteries for the
Councilmembers' smoke detectors. Inspector Westfall gave a report on home fires and indicated most
home fire injuries and deaths were a result of smoke and occurred between 12:00 Midnight and 6:00
a.m. He explained the benefits of smoke detectors. He announced five steps to fire safety: 1) test
smoke detectors monthly, 2) once a year, on a memorable date such as the switch off daylight savings
time, change the detector's battery and never remove the battery unless you are changing it, 3) clean
and vacuum smoke detectors, 4) replace smoke detector every ten years or when it does not test
properly, and 5) have fire escape plan and fire drills.
CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINEWS APPROVAL OF
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED
hAT 23910 74TH AVENUE W. (Appellant: William Lancaster and C. D. Coffelt/File No.
i,A AP-94-144; Applicant: Antonia Bryant/File No. CU-94-108) [from September 19,19941
City Attorney Scott Snyder gave a background update to those present. The purpose of this continued
hearing was to allow Antonia Bryant an opportunity to respond to Exhibit 6, a lengthy document
provided by Mr. Lancaster. He also indicated a need to clarify a couple of matters. He pointed out
that Councilmember Kasper had not been present at the last hearing. He asked Councilmember Kasper
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 3
if he had had an opportunity to review all of the materials, tapes and exhibits. Councilmember Kasper
replied he had. Mr. Snyder indicated there was no bar to a councilmember participating as long as he
had been briefed on the matter. Mr. Snyder's second concern was a matter of ex-parte communication
occurring between Council President Nordquist and Mr. and Mrs. Coffelt. It was determined that
Council President Nordquist had received no information and that the contact was merely a matter of
referring the Coffelts to Rob Chave. It was asked whether the Council or the public had any objection
to either Council President Nordquist or Councilmember Kasper taking part in this hearing. There
were none.
City Attorney Snyder reminded Antonia Bryant that this hearing was for her response and that no new
information could be provided without providing similar opportunity to the appellants. Ms. Bryant
handed out to the Council and City Clerk Rhonda March her rebuttal letter and two pictures of the
subject property. She feels the statement contained untruths and distortions. She felt they questioned
the Bryants' honesty and suggested they came into the neighborhood with the purpose of causing
trouble and devaluing the neighborhood. Ms. Bryant stated that they take great pride in their home and
would do nothing to devalue the property. She reiterated that they will do whatever they can to rectify
their temporary financial hardship, and that they would make sure their renter did nothing to harm the
integrity of the neighborhood. She believes that, with the exception of the two year residency
requirement for the conditional use permit, all requirements have been met for the requested waiver of
the two year period. The Bryants feel their situation falls within the allowed exceptions to the
residency requirement. She again asked the Council to not overturn the original decision. They did not
enter into the purchase of their home with the intent of renting out the accessory dwelling. However, if
they are not allowed the accessory dwelling permit, they will be forced to leave their home.
Councilmember Fahey asked about the income being temporary until the second child is born. Ms.
Bryant stated that she would be employed at least another year.
The hearing portion was closed, and the matter was remanded to Council. Councilmember Petruzzi
indicated he had had an opportunity to review all the materials in this matter, as well as re -read the
pertinent codes. He believes it incumbent upon the Council to make sure that the public can rely on the
codes and the enforcement of the codes. He thinks the recorded covenant is very clear. He also feels
the neighborhood should be able to rely on the covenants running with the land. He perceives
Edmonds as about keeping the integrity of the neighborhoods. In looking at the code, it states:
For the purposes of this chapter, a financial hardship shall be defined as
any situation outside the control of the applicant which critically
impairs the applicant's ability to meet the financial obligations
associated with the home which was not anticipated at the time of the
acquisition of the subject site or at the time of the applicant's initial
residence of the subject site, whichever is first
The applicant shall have the burden of establishing the existence of a
bona fide financial hardship by clear and convincing evidence.
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 4
Councilmember Petruzzi related that he felt that the applicant had to have anticipated that if the parents
did not live there, there would be a financial hardship. He also mentioned the fact that the parents were
on the mortgage. He also questioned the parents' move into a house approximately half the size of their
present house. He has difficulty relating a financial hardship to a $300,000+ house. He feels the appeal
should be upheld and the hearing examiner's ruling overturned.
Councilmember Michael Hall stated that his overall view is that the Growth Management Act is telling
us we have to accept more people into the community. He thinks the provision in the code is
something that is doing that -- with the mother-in-law apartments, etc. All he sees that is done with the
covenant is to put everyone on notice that this property would fall under that classification and that
something would need to be done in order to qualify. One of the provisions is "hardship outside the
control of the applicant". His recollection of the testimony was that there was some particular incident
totally out of the control of the parties that prevented the parents from moving into the house and
thinks they should qualify for the exception in the code. If it is not going to denigrate the
neighborhood and if this is something that can be done within the code, something should be done for
future capability to determine who is going to come in under the new Growth Management Act.
Councilmember Petruzzi indicated that the staff has continually told the Council that we can
accommodate all of the requirements within the existing codes as there is the land mass to do it. He
took exception to attempting to rectify something in growth management through a ruling on the code.
Councilmember Steve Dwyer agreed with Councilmember Petruzzi. He said that when the Council
revised the code provision there was concern about not recategorizing the essential nature of single-
family zoning as being single-family zones. The two situations that prompted the Council to revisit the
strict enforcement of the single-family zones to allow for mother-in-law apartments were 1) an elderly
person who needed someone to assist them, and 2) someone who had lived in their home for a long
time that was being priced out of their home. The Council did not want to make mother-in-law
apartments available to new purchasers because that too closely resembles a situation of multi -family
zoning, i.e., a duplex. In the end, it came down to a presumption that if someone had been living in
their home for at least two years then a request for the mother-in-law apartment wasn't a sham. It was
thought at the time that if this type of situation dealt with family members, that could be an exception
to the two-year rule. The other exception deals with some calamity striking shortly before the two year
period expired. It was never the intention to create a situation to accommodate the purchase for the
initial living situation from non -family members by combining income. He doesn't believe this situation
is the fault of the City or its ordinances. He believes this situation is exactly the situation the Council is
trying to prevent -- unrelated people buying homes in neighborhoods and then dividing them up. He
feels the correct decision is to overturn the decision of the hearing examiner.
Councilmember Barbara Fahey agrees with Councilmember Hall. She expressed empathy for the
neighborhood. She indicated that when she read the ordinance, she found it does boil down to a
financial hardship. She feels her review of the documentation shows that there was a clear and definite
dependency set up on the fact that the parents were going to live there. That scenario is allowed by the
code. She thinks the Bryants' plan had been pretty well spelled out, and they were depending on
assistance from her parents. She stated further that with four signatures on the loan, Washington
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 5
Mutual had to have known there would be a cooperative effort in making the payments.
Councilmember Fahey feels that since their plan didn't work out, there is definitely a financial hardship.
She was inclined to feel the Bryants had demonstrated a financial hardship and should be able to have
the accessory dwelling unit. She feels that there are certain safeguards built into the code to prevent
the extraordinary circumstances from which the code was to provide protection.
Councilmember Petruzzi stated the code is clear that the hardship could not have been foreseen at the
time of the acquisition of the home. Certainly, if something happened and the parents could not live
there, it would have had to have been anticipated.
COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION
BY COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER, TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND
OVERTURN THE DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING RECALLED THE PROCESS THE
COUNCIL WENT THROUGH AND THE KINDS OF DECISIONS MADE AND THE
REASONS THEREFORE, AND THAT IT CLOSELY PARALLELLED WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER SAID. HE BELIEVES THE INTENT OF THE
COUNCIL WAS CLEAR AT THE TIME THE CODE WAS PUT TOGETHER, AND
HE INDICATED HIS SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ROLL CALL SHOWED THE
FOLLOWING: COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER—YES; COUNCILMEMBER
DAVE EARLING—YES; COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY—NO;
COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL —NO; COUNCILMEMBER BELL KASPER-
-NO; COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST—YES; COUNCILMEMBER
PETRUZZI—YES. MOTION CARRIED 4-3.
HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED 6
UNIT/LOT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/PRELEMJNARY SUBDIVISION
LOCATED AT 8606 196TH STREET SOUTHWEST (Applicant: Jordy Kostelyk/File No.
,Q} PRD-94-12)
Qt' Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, provided the history of the subject matter. The applicant,
Jordy Kostelyk, is requesting preliminary approval of a 6-unit detached singe -family Planned
Residential Development (PRD) and 6-lot subdivision for a 1.18 acre property that is zoned both
RS-12 and RM-2.4. The property is located at 8606 - 196th Street S.W. The application has followed
the PRD provisions outlined in the Edmonds Community Development Code, and three public
hearings have been held. First, an optional pre -application hearing was held with the Hearing Examiner
Pro -Tern for the purpose of soliciting public comment. Second, a review by the City's Architectural
Design Board was held. Third, a plan reflecting the recommendations of the Architectural Design
Board was submitted to the Hearing Examiner for public hearing. The Hearing Examiner reviewed
testimony and the recommendations of the ADB and issued his report recommending approval of the
application with certain conditions. One of the concerns raised by engineering concerned the access
proposed. The plan for the eastern property line presently provides for a 5' wide buffer strip, 20' of
asphalt paving, and a 5' wide sidewalk. Based on the number of units, the standard calls for a minimum
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 6
of 22' of pavement with curb and gutter on either side, which provides for approximately a 25' wide
access standard. He indicated the applicants will have to come back again for final approval.
Councilmember Kasper asked if it was late to enforce the requirement or if it was a condition to the
permit. Mr. Wilson indicated it was not a late implementation; it is just that the designs had not been
changed to reflect that. Councilmember Kasper asked if the applicants had agreed to that. Mr. Wilson
responded that this is a design standard not subject to negotiation and is based on zoning designation
and number of lots served. Councilmember Kasper asked if this will effect the setbacks. Mr. Wilson
stated that under the PRD process, internal setbacks can be modified. The intent of the PRD is to
allow for potentially smaller lots as long as (1) the density does not exceed that allowed by the
underlying zoning, and (2) the height of the structure does not exceed that allowed by the underlying
zoning. The overall density does not change. The intent of the PRD is to provide greater buffer areas.
Councilmember Kasper asked if it would effect the rear buffer. Mr. Wilson indicated that it would
effect the western edge of the access road and would not effect the perimeter setbacks.
Opening the public portion of the meeting on behalf of applicant Jordy Kostelyk was Architect Rick
Anderson, 17518 - 52nd Avenue West, #B, Lynnwood, WA 98037. Mr. Anderson has had
conversations with the engineering department regarding the required right-of-way. The final decision
that he received on January 20, 1994, was that given the density of the site and the split -zone nature of
the site, they would accept a 20' right-of-way. For that reason the plans had not been changed. He
indicated his desire to give a recital of the intentions behind the project application and individual
elements of the Edmonds Community Development Code that they feel should be brought to bear on
the project. Their intent is to provide entry level housing, for this purpose deemed to be the building
and selling of a home for a price of approximately $160,000. In order to do that they need to have
small, well -used lots. One of the key elements is the zero lot line configuration where instead of
splitting the setbacks in half, you place the home immediately adjacent to one property line which
allows a larger, more usable sideyard and setback. They have attempted to identify and develop a
larger open space on the site. They are also trying to keep the integrity and character of the
neighborhood. Accordingly, they are placing the new development behind the existing house, leaving
the open space in front. Mr. Anderson stated that they wanted to place the intense development
adjacent to intense development so you have the most intense development (driveway) adjacent to the
most intensely developed parcel of property adjacent to it which is the condominium next door. There
are three goals for landscaping: 1) buffering for adjacent uses, 2) provide privacy screening and facade
softening, and 3) preserve existing character.
Peter Beck, 718 Sprague, asked about the square footage of these lots. Mr. Anderson indicated he
recalled the smallest lot is 3,500 square feet and the largest was about 11,000 square feet.
Lars Olson, 561 Pine, asked if the 11,000 foot lot was the existing home and what the size was of the
next smaller, lot.
Tracy Marquart, 629 - 196th, asked if there were plans available to view. Mayor Hall indicated there
were.
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 7
Mr. Anderson corrected information previously given. The largest lot size is 8,000; the next smallest is
5,400 square feet.
The public portion of the hearing was closed, and the matter was remanded for Council action.
Council President John Nordquist questioned the vicinity map he had been provided. He wished
clarification on the property location.
Councilmember Kasper asked Jeff Wilson what the code is for right-of-way widths. From his
observation, there is a problem with the 22' because of the number of cars. He expressed concern
about overflow visitor parking. Mr. Wilson indicated they can only require two off-street parking
places, but street standards are not designed to incorporate on -street parking as a requirement to
handle overflow or visitor parking. Mr. Wilson indicated the right-of-way is one thing to be resolved
before final issuance of a permit. He further stated that this property is zoned RS-12 (5-9 units) which
require a 30 foot right-of-way width, with 20 feet of pavement. Because it is a split zone, engineering
may be applying a different standard. With regard to density, Mr. Wilson stated that it is calculated on
the combined parcels. Councilmember Kasper said he was not against the project as it is ideal for the
location, but he again questioned the amount of available parking. Mr. Wilson indicated the City could
not ask for more parking places than are provided in the code. Mr. Wilson further stated that some
projects as an extra bonus provide additional parking, but that is something that can be done by choice
by the developer but cannot be required by the City.
COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER, THAT THE COUNCIL UPHOLD THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER TO APPROVE THE
PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) APPLICATION
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
REPORT (PAGES 7-8 OF EXHIBIT 1). THIS IS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 8606 - 196TH S.W.; THE APPLICANT IS JORDY KOSTELYK.
COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER ASKED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO
MAKE THE PROJECT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A 22 FOOT ACCESS RIGHT-
OF-WAY. UPON COUNCIL CONSENSUS, AND APPROVAL OF THE SECOND
(MR DWYER), THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE PART OF THE ORIGINAL
MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL ASKED IF THE APPLICANT
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF THE 22 FOOT RIGHT-
OF-WAY. FEELING THAT THE MATTER HAD ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED
AND WAS STATUTORILY PROVIDED, THE QUESTION WAS CALLED FOR
MOTION CARRIED.
Before proceeding to the next agenda item, Mayor Hall called for a two minute break.
HEARING ON CHAMBERS CABLE PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
Paul Mar, Community Services Director, summarized the purpose of the hearing as being required as
It part of the Federal Communication Commission procedures. In January 1994 the Council adopted an
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 8
I-
ordinance to enable the City to regulate basic cable television rates and administer other related
equipment and service regulations. As the local franchising authority, the Council's job is to regulate
the basic service tier. Mr. Mar suggested as a procedure that the City and consultant would present
their findings (found in Exhibit 10), that those presenting objections (found in Exhibit 9) be allowed to
speak, and after the conclusion of testimony, the City come back and make its findings and
conclusions. Mr. Mar introduced consultant Deborah Grindle of Grindle Cable Television Financial
Consulting Services. She stated that her firm had been retained to assist the City in rate regulation
matters.
In 1992 Congress passed the cable television consumer protection and competition act. This allowed
for local government regulation of certain rates of cable television companies. Congress then turned
over to the FCC the role of establishing rules for the regulatory process. Cable service is divided into
three classes. First, basic service tier which is the least package to which one may subscribe. This tier,
and any equipment needed for this tier, are subject to local regulation. The second tier of service is
under the regulation of the FCC. The third tier, HBO and pay -per -view is totally unregulated. Form
393 requires the cable provider to justify its rates based on benchmark rates between September 30,
1993, and May 14, 1994. The benchmark rate factor is the type of system, the number of channels it
has, and the number of satellite signals it has. For the 393, the greater the proportion of satellite signals
to regular channels on the tier, the higher the rate is -allowed to be. In May 1994 the FCC replaced the
393 with the 1200 series which justify rates from then forward. With the 393, if the rate structure from
cable operator is higher than rates allowable under 393, then subscribers may be entitled to a refund.
On March 21, 1994, Chambers submitted its Form 393 with the City showing 29 channels of regular
service with 19 satellite channels. Subsequent clarification from the FCC show that there should have
been 17 satellite channels; two reported initially were proven not to be satellite channels. Under the
393, a reduction in rates is called for of about one percent. There are also reductions for the converter
charges. There is a change in installation fee. Chambers is switching from a set installation fee to an
hourly rate of $22.80. From September 30, 1993 to May 14, 1994, the average customer will get a
refund in an average amount of 12¢ per month. Based on an average number of subscribers, the total
refund liability of Chambers is $8,904, with the average subscriber receiving a refund of 90¢.
The 1200 series was designed to correct a lot of the problems with the 393. The two main differences
are that the operator is allowed to recover increases in external costs such as programming costs and
also it increases the competitive differential. That differential provides for what was a 10% decrease
under the 393 to become 17% under the 1200. Again, using the 1200 form, the basic cable rates from
September 1993 to May 1994, the customers are entitled to a refund. The basic service rate would
decrease 17%. The monthly charges for converters and hourly charges for converters is basically the
same as for the 393. There is a substantially greater refund liability as a result of this form. The
average subscriber between May and September will receive a refund of $3.47 per month for a total
liability estimated to be $150,000.
Upon questions by Councilmember Petruzzi and Mayor Hall, Ms. Grindle explained that the average
subscriber would obtain refunds of about $16.50 from both the 393 and 1200.
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 9
Councilmember Hall asked if the refund would be in the form of a check or a credit on the bill. Ms.
Grindle responded it will most likely come as a credit.
Councilmember Petruzzi asked, and received, clarification on advance billing procedures. City
Attorney Snyder indicated this is not a subject the City can legally regulate under the current franchise
agreement. He further indicated there was a recent FCC decision involving TCI and the City of St.
Louis which has granted the operator broad discretion in determining the mechanism for providing the
refund. The typical methodology is to give the refund to the current subscriber and not attempt to
track people down.
Sylvia Sycamore, Senior Vice President of Chambers Communication Corp. here for Edmonds Cable
Company (Chambers Cable Company of Edmonds). They are in agreement with the consultant's
report. She described their process for implementation. Based on the fact that the Council will pass a
resolution this month, and the fact that they must give the subscribers a minimum of 30 days notice,
they are looking at an effective date of December 1 for the new rate, with refunds occurring on or
before that time. They are also looking at changing their cycle from a three-part cycle to a one -cycle
system. There will be information included with the bill explaining the rate changes, the refund, and the
billing changes. Service rates will be charged at an hourly rate with a half hour minimum, additional
time broken down to the nearest quarter hour. Items not previously billed will not be billed under the
new proposal. The refunds will be given as a one-time credit on the bill. There are five categories of
refunds, and each class of subscriber will get refunds as they apply. She stressed there is no rate
increase at this time.
Councilmember Hall expressed his thanks for Chambers' offer to televise Council meetings during
evenings. He noted the suggested channel was Channel 36 and asked how many channels they had.
He was advised there were 35 stations, beginning with Channel 2. Councilmember Hall also expressed
concern about switching to hourly rates. Examples were given comparing the flat fees to the new
hourly rates.
None of the individuals who wrote letters objecting to this item were present.
Trudy Lehn, 7904 - 215th S.W., presented City Clerk Rhonda March with a petition opposed to rate
increase signed by 66 senior citizens.
Warren Schweppe, 8524 - 215th S.W., Edmonds, spoke to programming. He also expressed a desire
to see TCI or Viacom compete in the area.
Sharma Oliver, 505 N. 149th, Shoreline, spoke as an individual, small business owner, and representing
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and Pacific Northwest PC Users Group. Her
concern was not so much with rates and other access issues. She asked they not enter into a franchise
agreement that locks them into current technology. She suggested that channels be reserved for
schools and libraries, government, and the general public for creation of programs they wish to provide
to others. She feels that unless the City negotiates for many channels and adequate band widths to
enable full participation, the Puget Sound area will decline as a desirable place for high-tech industry to
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 10
locate. She provided the Council with copies of an article from Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility that addresses this issue. Her presentation was well received by the Council. City
Attorney Snyder advised Ms. Oliver of the consent agenda item dealing with the Council's
authorization to advertise request for proposals for professional services on cable television franchise
�t renewal.
Lars Olson, 561 Pine, discussed the City's ability to address the regulation of public utilities. He feels
the regulated utilities buck the trends at all times. When other industries, including high-tech are
aiming at cost reduction, where regulated utility costs are not going down. He suggested the Council
was allowing a monopoly to harvest Edmonds at $1,200 per acre with higher density harvest at a
higher rate. He likened this to the telephone company. He feels it the duty of the Council to enforce
"this" and pass along the savings to the citizens.
The public portion of the hearing was closed by Mayor Hall. Ms. Grindle answered the question
regarding the retroactivity of the refund by stating it was retroactive. With regard to programming
content, she indicated that was not an area that could be locally regulated. Paul Mar recapped the
subject. He indicated there were procedural recommendations by staff as indicated on the agenda
memo. He further complimented Chambers on their cooperation.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER, TO ADOPT GRINDLE CATV FINANCIAL
CONSULTING SERVICES' SEPTEMBER 29, 1994 REPORT AS THE CITY'S
FINDINGS OF FACT ON THE FORMS 393 AND 1200 SUBMITTED BY
CHAMBERS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO A) PREPARE
FORMAL FINDINGS OF FACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS
OF TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING; AND B) PREPARE A REFUND ORDER AND
AN ACCOUNTING ORDER PURSUANT TO THE POWER GRANTED TO THE
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL BY THE FCC AND THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Dwyer expressed his pleasure at his perception as to how this has all worked so far.
Mr. Mar added further comment. Chambers had offered that the rates be adjusted at permanent levels
as of December 1, 1994. Also the refund order will have stated in it that they will provide the City
Council with a report on the funds by the 15th of November, and all overcharges will be by
December 1. Those will be incorporated in the specific language of the documents being prepared.
Sylvia Sycamore expressed concern over being able to have a report by November 15 as that is the
date they get their data base information. It was determined that the date for Chambers' report to
Council will be discussed and the Council advised. Council President Nordquist suggested we should
give Chambers time to accomplish the refunds.
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 11
Councilmember Hall asked about the FCC requirement to make a decision by October 14 and whether
tonight's vote counted as being within that time or whether we needed to have formal findings of fact.
City Attorney Snyder indicated it needed to be confirmed. It was thought the final documentation
could be presented to the Council next week.
HEARING ON DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT PLAN
Rob Chave, Planning Manager, gave a brief summary of the history of the project and directed the
attention of the Council to Exhibit 4 of their packet. This exhibit is a letter from Rob Morrison,
Chairman of the 3M-T Task Force, Subcommittee of Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, relating to the
"near term" waterfront plan.
Rob Morrison explained the 3M-T Task Force as an advisory and investigatory group of members of
the Chamber of Commerce charged by the Economic and Development Committee to ask questions
and make determinations for the board of directors and for the Chamber at large. He indicated the
members of the task force. Mr. Morrison then went through the 11 items included in his letter,
providing more detail on each item. He invited members of the audience to contact him at the
Chamber with any questions they may have. The consensus of the Council allowed Mr. Morrison to
complete his report on the 11 items. Mr. Morrison further requested that the 3M-T Task Force be
involved in any technical discussion of various issues presented. He indicated that residents of the
waterfront area are not in favor of a walkway on the waterfront. He offered to the Council an 18-page
list of signatures in that regard.
Bill McLaughlin, business owner, 114 Second Avenue South, Shoreline resident, was the next to
speak. He indicated one of the things the waterfront plan focuses on is that the ferry terminal will be
moved to Pt. Edwards. He further indicated that the 11 points as presented by Mr. Morrison had gone
before the Chamber Board and was ratified by that group. He says the important thing is to look at the
2-5 years and 5-12 years before the terminal is moved. He expressed concern about the traffic backup
at Westgate. He expressed his concern that while the Council is adopting its waterfront plan, it must
be very cognizant of what is going to happen in the next 12 years.
John Beck, 200 Beach Place, #103, asked if the Council's action tonight was to adopt the plan as
submitted. Councilmember Dwyer indicated this was the first time the Council has had input from the
public. Mr. Beck also asked if there were any easements on the properties that would effect the
walkway mentioned. Rob Chave indicated this was an option, and no decision had been made on that,
that any walkway may end up winding in and out. Mr. Beck's concern was brought about by the fact
that before he purchased his condominium an easement was granted to the City at mean low tide. He
doesn't want a walkway in his front yard.
City Attorney Snyder announced the City has a lawsuit pending in which an individual or business has
claimed the City has had a taking of their waterfront rights in the area. It should be clear that the
drawings in the Comprehensive Plan are conceptual in nature, and unless the City owns the right-of-
way it could only require dedication of property in conjunction with the two -prong U. S. Supreme
Court test in Dolan v. Tigard, OR, or pay compensation. Both the ordinance that adopts the
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 12
Comprehensive Plan and future enactments being put together as part of the Growth Management Act
will confirm that.
Jack Bevan, 19210 - 94th West, said he heard a lot of short term concerns about the waterfront
program. He reminded that the Jones Act was changing as well as other things he felt the Council
should not overlook.
Peter Beck, 719 Spruce Street, spoke as to land use as it pertained to transportation.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, hopes that in the future people who attend Council meetings get the
information Council is provided with regard to items being considered. He indicated it is very difficult
to participate at a hearing level if the public is uneducated on the subject.
COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Hertrich indicated the character of Edmonds has changed. It is now very pedestrian oriented. He
supports the walkway plan today, even though several years ago he was absolutely against it.
Shilah Cook, 904 - 7th Avenue South, agrees wholeheartedly with Mr. Hertrich and indicated she
strongly supports a walkway as far along the beach as they can get it.
Lars Olson, 561 Pine, spoke to ferry traffic and requested the City make every effort to keep this traffic
off of Pine Street and other residential streets. He also expressed an interest in regulating the length of
time a car would be allowed to idle while waiting in he. He feels it would help with the air quality
issue to have such a regulation.
The public portion of the hearing was closed. Council President Nordquist asked if they could consider
this the first reading. Councilmember Dwyer indicated that on August 23 it was determined that a date
be set to hear from the public and then at that time a later date would be set to get more specific. It
was the consensus of the Council to consider this a first reading.
Councilmember Petruzzi suggested it was a good idea to have extra materials available for the
audience. He indicated the 3M-T Committee raised a lot of transportation issues. He asked if the
issues raised will be primarily addressed in the traffic segment. Rob Chave indicated he had not seen
anything as specific as what the 3M-T Committee is bringing forth.
Councilmember Earling stated he thinks it would be helpful at the next hearing to address some of the
concerns on the kinds of resolution that could be brought to some of the problems. What kinds of
techniques are we going to look to to solve some of the short term problems.
Councilmember Kasper asked about the time frame on the economic study. Rob Chave indicated that
was preliminarily in the budget for 1995.
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 13
Another hearing will be scheduled for a date certain.
MAYOR
Mayor Hall announced an Everett City Council workshop regarding RTA to be held the morning of
�.. October 12. She further reported that we have received funding of $400,000 earmarked for a
feasibility study for the multimodal. She advised it has been stated that the multimodal plan may
become a national model for intermodal transportation coordination. It was announced that because of
a Tsunami warning, the Edmonds beaches were closed. Findings of Fact on the Aurora Marketplace
annexation are due on November 1. Brusseau's of Edmonds has discontinued liquor sales.
R�0 . Mayor Hall requested confirmation of Shirley Frank's appointment to the Architectural Design Board.
COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI, THAT SHIRLEY FRANK'S
APPOINTMENT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD BE CONFIRMED.
MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL
Council President Nordquist confirmed a couple of agenda requests for future meetings. He also raised
the issue of an unpaid bill from Financial Center for appraisal. Payment has been authorized, but we
don't have a report yet.
/A� COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY TOM
PETRUZZI, TO BE EXCUSED FROM THE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 9 AND 16.
Vd MOTION CARRIED.
Council President Nordquist announced he had received a memo from Citizens for Waterfront Access
requesting a hearing. Councilmember Dwyer suggested this would be a good item for a working
meeting
Councilmember Tom Petruzzi passed.
Councilmember Earling indicated he had received a petition from 175th Street S.W. regarding reducing
speed and speed bumps. He also reported he attended a transportation conference on the East Coast
last week, and a lot of good things are being done. He would be happy to share information with
anyone interested.
COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER, TO EXCUSE DAVE EARLING'S ABSENCE
ON SEPTEMBER 27,1994. MOTION CARRIED.
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 14
' Councilmember Hall further suggested the Council needs to work out some sort of transportation plan
f on getting the meeting video tapes delivered to the library. Council President Nordquist feels that job
falls within the duties of the Clerk's Office.
Councilmemb Ir Fahey passed, as did Councilmember Dwyer.
Councilmember Kasper reported that a major hearing had been held on Amtrak and all of the accidents
P P
occurring. He ,requested information from anyone who has anything regarding that hearing.
At 10:25 p.m. the Council adjourned to executive session on real estate, personnel and legal matters
and adjourned from there.
R ONDA�JMARCH, CITY CLERK
Approved City Council Minutes
October 4, 1994
Page 15
.>::::.. AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING
7:00 - 10.00 p.m.
OCTOBER 4, 1994
SPEC/AL MEETING
6:45 P.M. - INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS #944482 THRU #944939 FOR WEEK OF
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994, AND #944781 THRU #945059 FOR WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 26,
1994. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS FOR #944729 THRU #945020 FOR THE
PEROD OF SEPTEMBER 1 THRU SEPTEMBER 15, 1994
(D) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON THE HEARING
OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL
(FILE NO. AP-94-89) OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO
DENY A PERMIT REVIEW (FILE NO. PR-93-219) OF AN APPROVED AND BUILT
PROJECT UNDER FILE NO. ADB-15-85 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8130 212TH ST.
S.W. (Appellant: Jennifer Markestad/File No. AP-94-120; Applicant: Robert Klepinger/File
No. ADB-15-85) [from August 2 and August 16,1994]
(E) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES ON CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL
(F) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CITY
ATTORNEY SERVICES
(G) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROSECUTOR
SERVICES
(H) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR HEARING
EXAMINER SERVICES
3. AUDIENCE
4. (S Min.) OBSERVANCE OF "NATIONAL FIRE PREVENTION WEEK"
5. (20 Min.) CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S APPROVAL OF
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT
23910 74TH AVENUE W. (Appellant: William Lancaster and C.D. Coffelt / File No. AP-94-
144; Applicant: Antonia Bryant / File No. CU-94-108) [from September 19,19941
6. (IS Min.) HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR . PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED 6
UNIT/LOT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/PRELEW NARY SUBDIVISION
LOCATED AT 8606 196TH STREET SOUTHWEST (Applicant: Jordy Kostelyk / File No.
PRD-94-12)
continued
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PAGE 2
OCTOBER 4, 1994
7. (45 Min.) ' HEARING ON CHAMBERS CABLE PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
8. (30 Min.) ; HEARING ON DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT PLAN
9. (5 Min.) : MAYOR
10. (1SMin.) ; COUNCIL
11. (20 Min)EXECUTIVE SESSION ON A REAL ESTATE MATTER
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24
hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda and delayed telecast of the Council
Weeting appear on Chambers Cable, Channel 32.