Loading...
08/08/1986 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO AUGUST 12, 1986 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES *AUGUST 8, 1986 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Laura Hall in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT John Nordquist Steve Dwyer Laura Hall Jo -Anne Jaech Bill Kasper Lloyd Ostrom Jack Wilson ABSENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Nigel Euling, Student Rep. STAFF PRESENT Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Dir. Bobby Mills, Pub. Wks. Supt. Bob Alberts, City Engineer Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Dir. Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr. Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Margaret Richards, Recorder In the absence of Mayor Naughten, Council President Hall presided over the meeting as Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Pro Tem Hall called an Executive Session after Item (H) on the Consent Agenda to discuss a real estate and legal matter. rnNCFNT ArFNna Mayor Pro Tem Hall requested that the informal dinner work meeting minutes of July 29, 1986 be added to Item (B) on the Consent Agenda. Items (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), and (H) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER OS- TROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE ITEM (G) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved item on the Consent Agenda is as follows: (G) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM ROBERT G. REIDBURN (.$424.75); ROGER CARR ($30,000); AND ARTHUR PARRISH ($100,000) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 29, 1986 [ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Jaech noted a correction on page 1, paragraph 1 on discussion regarding Report on Bids Opened July 22, 1986 for 1986 Pavement Overlays as follows: "Councilmember Jaech noted that the Administrative Services Committee will prepare" --not "has prepared" --"an outline of informa- tion..." Councilmember Hall noted that the minutes are subject to August 5, 1986 approval and not April 5 as reflected at the top of page, 1 of the minutes. She requested that tier verbatim statements be inserted on page 2 regarding the Hearing to Obtain Citizen Input on 1987.Budget as follows: "This year the Council decided to start right from the grass roots, so to speak, and take it to the people early on in the budgetary process. So this is your chance tonight, and I hope you shouted to all those neighbors that this is where they should be because when we start casting the Budget, people tend to come out of the woodwork and say, 'But I didn't know', or 'We didn't have a chance'. So we're trying to remedy that as best we can. There will be other chances because we will have the full-blown hearings when the preliminary budget is given to us from the Mayor, and we will probably have two hearings then. But at any rate at this point now, the Coun- cil i$ ready and willing to hear your suggestions, questions, or whatever. And if you'd like to move up in these front seats and make it a little more informal and less walk to the podium, feel free to do so. The hearing is now open." COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMEND- ED AS WELL AS THE INFORMAL MINUTES OF THE DINNER MEETING OF JULY 29, 1986. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER ABSTAINED FROM VOTING ON THE DINNER MEETING MINUTES BECAUSE THEY HAD ONLY BEEN RECEIVED THIS EVENING'. *See Council Minutes of August 12, 1986 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY GEMINI ROOFING FOR REROOFING OF COMMUNITY SERVICE AND PUBLIC SAFE- TY AND SETTING 30 DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD LITEM N H CONSENT AGENDAj FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY APPLY -A -LINE, INC., FOR 1985 PAVEMENT MARKING PROGRAM AND SETTING 3 E I' N THE CONSENT AGENDA FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY GORDON JAGER FOR YOST POOL TANK AND DECK REPAIR AND BUILDING ADD.1- TION CONTRACTS, ANDIN 30 DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD LITEM H N THE CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Dwyer noted that the memorandum reflects that there are sufficient funds to com- plete the project [Item (H)]. He inquired if additional work is needed, i.e., railing. City Engineer Bob Alberts replied affirmatively. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the contractor was released. Mr. Alberts said Staff will complete the project. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the projects are completed. Mr. Alberts said Items (C) and (D) were completed but Item (H) was not. Councilmember Jaech inquired if projects are presented to the Council in phases as they are completed or by total project completion. Mr. Alberts said Staff must receive Council approval to release a contractor or supplier before he can commence the thirty -day appeal period to submit claims to the City. Councilmember Jaech recommended that any remaining funds which were not utilized for a budgeted project be reflected in a memorandum to the Council if there is additional work which has not been completed. Councilmember Jaech requested that the remaining funds for Items (C) and (D) be transferred to the Council Contingency Fund and earmarked for an emergency project or another project which may arise during the year. Mayor Pro Tem Hall inquired if Councilmember Jaech felt that Items (C) and (D) were appropriately placed on the Consent Agenda at the present time. Councilmember Jaech replied negatively. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK PERFORMED ON ITEMS (C) AND (D). MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Services Director Art Housler expressed concern regarding the transfer of funds to the Council Contingency Fund. He said there are seven other projects in the 325 Fund which may exceed the original estimated costs. He suggested that the funds be set aside until these projects are completed. Councilmember Kasper suggested that a 325 Reserve Fund be established. He inquired if the Coun- cil is informed before remaining funds are utilized for other projects. Mr. Housler replied affirmatively. Councilmember Jaech said the Council has not been made aware of these expenditures in the past but would like to be informed in the future because it is charged with controlling the Budget. Mr. Alberts said projects have been prioritized in the past to insure that sufficient funds are available to complete projects. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO ESTABLISH AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 26, 1986 REGARDING EXCESS FUNDS THAT ARE NOT SPENT ON BUDGETED ITEMS, AND THAT FUNDS FOR ITEMS (C) AND (D) ARE NOT ALLOCATED TO ANY OTHER PROJECT UNTIL A PLAN IS DEVISED. MOTION CARRIED. (Approval of Item (H) is noted in the following section.) AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ONGOING TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH BELL -WALKER ENGINEERS, INC. LITEM E ON THE CONSENT AGENUAJ AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ONGOING ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WIT!+ MICR EL R. YAN IS & ASSOCIATES LITEM F ON THE CONSENT AGEND.i. Councilmember Jaech said she spoke with Community Services Director Peter Hahn recently and e;:- pressed her concern that mtside services not be over utilized by the City in an attempt to con- tain costs. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 AUGUST 5, 1986 Mr. Hahn noted that these consulting services are seldom utilized. He said the City was consider- ing changing the Code to enable special studies to be performed by a consultant working directly for the City. Councilmember Jaech inquired why consultants could not be hired on a case -by -case basis if they are seldom utilized. Mr. Hahn said the process of hiring on a case -by -case basis is very in- volved. He suggested that a $1,000 dollar limit be established to enable Staff to circumvent the process and hire a consultant when necessary. Councilmember Kasper said it appeared to him that the Council has required Staff to do that, and the question has arisen: "Was it valid?" He said Staff feels that the Help of an expert should be a management decision. Councilmember Jaech inquired why a request for outside help could not be presented to the Council instead of a retainer and ongoing contract. Mr. Hahn said that timing is essential, and requests to the Council could delay a project by several weeks. Mayor Pro Tem Hall expressed concern that local businesses were not being utilized. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block noted that there are no acoustical engineers within the City of Edmonds. She said that there are times when placing an item on the agenda poses a problem be- cause of legal requirements to complete a process within a specified time period. Councilmember Jaech recommended that Staff be authorized, on a trial basis, to Hire consultants with a set dollar amount and submit quarterly reports to the Council. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE ITE14 (E) BUT TO REFER ANY EXPENDITURE OVER $1,500 FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. MO- TION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE ITEM (F) BUT TO REFER ANY EXPENDITURE OVER $750 FOR MISCELLANEOUS CONSULTANTS TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. Action had not been taken on Item (H) above so COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM- BER OSTROM, TO APPROVE ITEM (H). Councilmember Jaech said she moved to approve Item (H) because there are additional funds in the 325 Fund which will be utilized. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed to an Executive Session at 7:27 p.m. to discuss a real estate and legal matter for no longer than 20 minutes. The meeting reconvened at 7:45 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Hall referred to a letter from Derrill Bastien, who represents Mr. Pomeroy in the Continued Hearing on Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Regarding Revocation of Home Occupation Permit for John Pomeroy (Appellants: Utter, Sargent, Harmer, Fisher, Komouras, Duvall/CU-9-85). She read the letter into the record as follows: "Gentlemen, the .undersigned represents John Pomeroy. His Home Occupation Permit; CU-9-85, was appealed to the Council. The matter came on the hearing before the City Council on July 1, 1986. The City Council took the matter under advisement at that time. No notice of future action was given. "The matter is on before the Council on August 5, 1986. I notified Mr. Pomeroy of that event. He is out of town. He had felt it important to be at the hearing, and he wanted to be at the hearing: However, not having received any notification of the matter, he has accepted employment out of town and is not able to be at the hearing. He, therefore, respectfully requests that you put this matter over until a later date when he can be there". Mayor Pro Tem Hall suggested that the hearing be rescheduled on October 7, 1986 if the Council so desired. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the public portion of the prior hearing was closed. City Attor- ney Scott Snyder replied negatively. Councilmember Dwyer requested a show of hands of people in the audience who were in attendance for the hearing. One person was in attendance at that time. City Clerk Jackie Parrett noted that people would be arriving later because she had received a number of telephone calls earlier EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 AUGUST 5, 1986 in the day inquiring when the hearing would start. She said she could put a note on the sign-up sheet to advise people that the hearing was rescheduled if the Council chose to reschedule it. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO RESCHEDULE THE HEARING TO OCTOBER 7, 1986. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE Mayor Pro Tem Hall opened the audience portion of the meeting. No public input was offered. Mayor Pro Tem Hall closed the public portion of the meeting. HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED 10 LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION FOR UNDEVELOPED TRACT OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN 112ND ST. S.W. AND ME DOWU LE BEACH RD., WEST OF 681­11 AVE. W. P-2-86/PATRICK RE G N Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on June 5, 1986, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the request of Patrick Reagan for preliminary approval of a ten -lot subdivision of the undeveloped tract of land located between 172nd St. S.W. and Meadowdale Beach Road, west of 68th Ave. W. The Hearing Examiner, on June 20, 1986, recommended approval of the proposed subdivision subject to the conditions l,isted in his report. She noted that a copy of the Hearing Examiner's report and a vicinity map are attached to the Council packets. Ms. Block said it is Staff's recommendation to adopt the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommen- dation approving P-2-86. Ms. Block reviewed the Hearing Examiner's Conclusions and Recommendation as follows: "1) The application is for the approval of a preliminary plat for a 10 lot subdivision; 2) The subject property is zoned RS-20; 3) The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and, in particular, Chapter 15.20; 4) The proposed preliminary plat satisfied the purposes of the Edmonds subdivision ordinance as set forth in Section 20.75.020; 5) The lot and street layout as proposed in the preliminary plat are adequate and meet the requirements as set forth in Section 20.75.085(B) of the ECDC; 6) The proposed preliminary plat will not adversely impact the environment, and a declaration of nonsignificance has been issued for the property; 7) The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has recommended approv- al of the plat subject to the conditions listed in Finding N18. "Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions; the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing; and upon the impression of the Hearing Examiner, it is hereby recommended to the City Council of the City of Edmonds that the preliminary plat (P-2-86) be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) The Applicant is to comply with all engineering requirements listed in Exhibit 2; 2) The Applicant shall submit a development plan for review and approval by the City Engineer of the City of Edmonds. The development plan shall include all required im- provements; 3) The Applicant shall dedicate a 10-foot right-of-way strip along Meadowdale Beach Road per the Official Street Map; 4) Lots 1, 6, and 9 are to be corner lots and shall have set- backs for corner lots; 5) All excavation and grading shall comply with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, 1982 edition. Any grading over 500 cubic yards will require a conditional use permit; 6) The Applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for review and approval by the City Engineer; 7) The Applicant shall be responsible for keeping all streets clean and free of debris and dirt. The Applicant shall be responsible for all costs incurred by the City if the City is required to remove dirt and debris as a result of the Applicant's construction; 8) All site devel- opment work shall be done during normal working hours of the City of Edmonds. The normal working hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday; 9) The Applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the Building Department and shall comply with all conditions of the permit; 10) The Appli- cant shall be required to submit a clearing plan which will show all areas outside of building padsthat will be cleared. In the areas where clearing is not designated, the Applicant shall identify them as greenbelts on the face of the plat; 11) Clearing and grading for the plat shall be restricted from May 1st to September 30th. The Applicant shall be required to post a $2,000 bond to cover any damage due to erosion during the clearing and grading; 12) Clearing and grading for the individual home sites shall be allowed according to the discretion of the City Engineer. The clearing and grading of each individual home site will require a $2,000 bond to cover any damage due to the erosion from the clearing and grading; 13) The Applicant shall comply with all the recommendations of the soils engineer's report dated May 9, 1986 and authored by Terra Associ- ates, Inc.; 14) The Applicant is to provide a walkway on 68th Avenue West. The walkway is to be improved with a cinder trail". EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 AUGUST 5, 1986 Ms. Block then reviewed a transparency of the plot layout on the overhead projector. She noted that 68th Ave. W. will not be opened other than to improve pedestrian access and to provide ac- cess to the lots via an improved right-of-way. Councilmember Jaech inquired if developers will be partially responsible for constructing a street when the lot is subdivided. Ms. Block said they will construct a street to serve the lots which front 68th Ave. W. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the City would be required, at any time, to improve the bottom half of the road. Ms. Block replied negatively. She said Meadowdale Beach Road will be improved with a meandering sidewalk to meet site limitations. Councilmember Nordquist inquired what action was taken on this property when it was before the Council in the past. Ms. Block said that this property was not before the Council before. Councilmember Nordquist inquired about upland drainage through the property. Mayor Pro Tem opened the public portion of the hearing. Alan Fure, Triad, 11415 N.E. 128th St., Kirkland, representing the applicant, said Triad endeav- ored to design the plat to meet slope, access, heavy cover of trees on site, density, as well as other concerns. He said a complete topographic survey was conducted of the entire site to accu- rately analyze the elevation across the site to properly plan the lots. A soils engineer was consulted, and he found that the site was very well suited for the proposal. Mr. Fure said there is essentially no off -site drainage coming onto the property. Oliver Meininger, 6710 - 172nd Pl. S.W., inquired how the road will restrict motorcycles from accessing Meadowdale Beach Road, and if the elevation of 68th Street will be changed. Ms. Block said there are several alternatives to restrict vehicular traffic through the right-of- way, i.e., additional bollards could be placed at the end of the turnaround, or fencing offset could be installed which would allow pedestrian traffic to pass but would restrict vehicular traffic. Councilmember Ostrom requested Ms. Block to depict on the transparency v.here the motorcycles are imposing and where the barriers would be placed. Ms. Block indicated the locations on the map. City Engineer Bob Alberts said grading would be limited to the right-of-way on 68th Ave. W. He said if cutting of trees has any impact along the existing fence, the City would require some type of retention system to mitigate the impact. Harley Crain, 17126 - 68th Ave. W., expressed concern regarding the clearing of trees. He said clearing for view will open the property up to a wind corridor and will directly affect his prop- erty. Mr. Fure said the imposition of motorcycles onto the property is also a concern to him. He said a slight fill in the construction of the road from lot 9 to lot 2 will preclude the passing of motorcycles or cars. He said a solid highway barrier placed adjacent to lot 2 would preclude motorcycles from passing but bollards would not. However, he was concerned that a solid barrier would direct traffic to the lots or closer to Mr. Meininger's fence. Mr. Fure said he believed the construction of the homes would help alleviate the problem. He said he would like to see how the development affects passersby and would prefer that a condition is written into the contract which will not prevent creating a solution which fits in with the design of the development. Mr. Fure said he is trying to maintain the grade at the existing ground line. He said in design- ing the road, he was sensitive to the privacy concerns of people's adjacent backyards. The re- quired pavement will be restricted to the western portion of 68th, leaving the eastern portion in'its native state as a privacy screen. Mr. Fure said oversizing of the lots, coupled with the requirement for the clearing plan and native growth protection easement, will provide significant areas where trees will be retained. He said he made a request before the Hearing Examiner to allow selective cutting of trees to provide a view corridor for lot 9, which will have a minimal effect on the total tree cover. Mayor Pro Tem closed the public portion of the meeting. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO ADOPT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVING P-2-86. MOTION CARRIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 AUGUST 5, 1986 HEARING ON ADOPTION OF FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, LID 212, SEA VISTA PL., AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL OF LID 212 Councilmember Kasper said that testimony should be taken this evening but recommended, due to the abundance of information contained in the report, that the Council further discuss this issue at an open work session, closed hearing, and make a determination at that: time. Mayor Pro Tem Hall said it would behoove the appellants to know if the Council would make a motion or hear the testi- mony. Councilmember Ostrom said he did not think that a motion was necessary to not take action. City Engineer Bob Alberts said because an LID is a lien on property, the Council should hear testimony this evening to ascertain if deferring a decision would be detrimental to the people upon which the LID affects. Mayor Pro Tem Hall ruled that the Council would proceed with testimony. Mr. Alberts displayed on the overhead projector a vicinity map locating. the project and the lots involved plus the basic configuration of the improvement that was constructed . Mr. Alberts reported that the project provided a street approximately 300 feet long and 18 feet wide with concrete curbs ano gutters, domestic water system, sanitary sewer system, and storm drainage to 9 parcels. The purpose of the project was to provide development of this property. The LID was formed in July 1983 to construct a street with water and sewer improvements to nine lots on Sea Vista Place. The construction was accepted in August 1985, and the final assessment roll was reviewed before the Hearing Examiner in April 1986. This project took a considerable length of time to complete and experienced a high increase in costs. The preliminary assessment roll was estimated: at $61,235 in July 1983. The original estimated assessment was revised in August 1984 at $83,642 with an assessment of $9,293.56 for each parcel. The revised estimated assessments were increased to cover costs for acquisition of right-of-way. The final cost was $125,293.62. The cost per lot on the preliminary assessment and the final assessment roll was $6,803.88 and $13,921.51, respectively. A benefit study was prepared which showed one property's benefit to be only $6,000. The final assessment roll reflects the $6,000 benefit to assessment No. 5. The difference of $7,921.51 is proposed to be borne by the City. The Hearing Examiner, James Driscoll, sat in review of the proposed final assessment roll for LID 212. In his report, he recommends adopting the assessment roll as proposed. The final assess- ment roll, vicinity map, and a summary of Exhibit "T", which shows the cost breakdown, were in- cluded in the Council packets. There were attached letters which qualified as protests. Mr. Alberts said Staff is recommending adoption of the final assessment roll proposed and that the City's LID fund absorb $7,921.51 in costs. Mayor Pro Tem Hall opened the public portion of the meeting. Robert Nowlan, 921 Sea Vista Pl., said the amount of time was excessive which elapsed from the time the hearing was held on the final assessment for LID 212 on April 24, 1986 and when the Hearing Examiner issued his report on June 11, 1986 and mailed it tot he City to the time the property owners received their notice on June 23, 1986. Mr. Nowlan said he felt unfair tactics were used by the City Attorney duriny the hearing because he felt he was on trial. He said in his opinion, the City Attorney should "keep quiet" unless a point of law arises or he is questioned about a point of law. Mr. Nowlan noted that it was understood that each parcel would share equally in the costs of the LID. The costs increased from $61,235 to $83,642 to $125,000. $4,175 was budgeted for power and one street light which, to date, have not been installed. Mr. Nowlan said that the construction contract awarded to. Grade, Inc. increased by 37.6%. He inquired if this was the usual practice of the City. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 AUGUST 5, 1986 Mr. Nowlan said it was ascertained in a survey that the center line of the right-of-way was off center by approximately 3-1/2 feet to the west. He said the monument at Gatewood is off center by approximately 3-1/2 feet to the west, which makes the western curb line the property line. Therefore, he said, a utility space cannot be provided without an easement. Mr. Nowlan added that approximately 56 square feet of pavement encroach his property, and he said he expects to be compensated for that error. He said the contractor charged the LID for 1,118 square feet of rockery, but the actual measure- ment he conducted was approximately 898 square feet. Mr. Nowlan referred to the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact as follows: paragraph 1, he in- quired if the sentence, "...improvements in accordance with the City of Edmonds standards..." included PUD, telephone, and cable; paragraph 4, "On May 8, 1985 a second contract change order was made...". Mr. Nowlan noted that the second change order was dated February 25, 1985 with a new completion date of February 17, 1985. He inquired how the second change order could have been executed after the project was completed; paragraph 9, "James Lema made an inspection of the properties and appraised their values before the project was built and after it was built". Mr. Nowlan inquired how Mr. Lema could appraise the property if he was hired after the project was completed; paragraph 21, Mr. Nowlan said no revisions to engineering were done, and the error was not ascertained by the City until after the completion date; paragraph 22, Mr. Nowlan said no corrections were ever made; paragraph 23, Mr. Nowlan said there are no parcels within the LID of 6,000 square feet; paragraph 24, Mr. Nowlan said there is a maximum of 9 lots which could be developed; paragraph 25, Mr. Nowlan said the right-of-way was reduced before the LID was formed; paragraph 27, Mr. Nowlan said no slope easement would have been required because the City has 7 feet on the east side of the curb line. Mr. Nowlan said it should be noted that the Hearing Examiner cleverly avoided mentioning electri- cal, telephone, and cable services. Mr. Nowlan said he did not believe, in view of the above statements, that the LID was properly managed by the City, that the engineering firm did a good job, or that the City kept communica- tion lines open. He requested that the total cost of the LID be reduced by 30%. Al Booth, 3725 E. Montecito, Phoenix, AZ., said he owns parcels 3 and 4. He said he is in total agreement with Mr. Nowlan. Mr. Booth read into the record a portion of a letter which he wrote which stated, in essence, that he dedicated 2,757.57 square feet of his property to the City of Edmonds for the right-of- way. He said he disagreed with the Hearing Examiner's report. fie referred to Findings of Fact #12. Mr. Booth said he had greater access to Sea Vista Place and greater potential for develop- ment of his lots than did the Barry property. He said because he had legal size lots and immedi- ate access to Sea Vista Place, he did not derive any special benefits from the LID. Mr. Booth referred to Finding #23. He said the parcels are not zoned RS-6 (sic) nor are they 6,000 square feet. All .of the parcels are zoned RS-12 (sic) and are 12,000 square feet. Mr. Booth said there is no potential to subdivide the lots. Mr. Booth then referred to Finding #24. He said the potential of more than 16 lots is not possi- ble, and the possibility of a 40 foot right-of-way would never have been required. Mr. Booth referred to Finding #25. He said the reduction of the right-of-way requirement was granted in February 1983. Staff recommended to the Hearing Examiner that the purpose behind the original amendment was to provide for access for future development. The Hearing Examiner stated in his Findings that the City of Edmonds Street Standards allow for a reduced right-of-way of 30 feet for access to 5 to 9 lots and recommended that the amendment be approved. Mr. Booth said the amendment was approved by the City but not for the purpose of allowing for errors to align the road. Mr. Booth said he believed that the extra costs were due to engineering errors and the City's lack of initiative in completing the project in a timely manner. He said due to the reasons stated in the hearing on the assessment roll and contradictions in the Hearing Examiner's report and Findings, he felt the final assessment should be reconsidered by the Council and the Hearing Examiner and. placed back on the August 19, 1986 agenda for a revised figure of $9,293.56 per parcel. Mr. Booth added that he did not believe that the Hearing Examiner's report justifies the increased assessment of $13,921.51 per parcel. - EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 AUGUST 5, 1986 City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that the Klepinger's.file.d a letter of protest but did not attend the hearing. He pointed out that there were three letters of protest in addition to Mr. Nowlan's and Mr. Booth's. Mr. Snyder asked that a copy of the handout which Mr. Nowlan provided to the Council be provided to the City Clerk so she could mark it as Exhibit "A". Mayor Pro Tem closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Snyder noted that the delay between the time the Hearing Examiner made his Decision and is- sued it to the City was due to the preparation of the transcript of the proceedings.. He said his questions to Mr. Nowlan are contained in the transcript. He specifically addressed the Council to page 25 regarding lot sizes. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the Council would be precluded from asking questions of Staff or Reid -Middleton & Associates because the public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Snyder said that part of the proceedings are not covered by the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine but is covered by due process rights. fie recommended that a day certain be set if the hearing is contin- ued so that the public will have an opportunity to be present. Mr. Snyder said the testimony is fixed and represented by the Hearing Examiner's report and transcript. He recommended that the Council address its questions directly to the testimony contained in the transcript. Councilmember Nordquist inquired if a copy of the transcript will be made available to the Coun cil. Mr. Snyder replied affirmatively. Councilmember Nordquist inquired if Reid -Middleton & Associates was a witness before the Hear- ing Examiner. Mr. Snyder replied negatively. He noted that the change orders and other informa- tion are contained in the report. Councilmember Nordquist said he would like to ask questions of the engineering firm. Mr. Snyder recommended .that the Council review the transcript. He said if the items that the Council was concerned about were not contained in the transcript that he would recommend to discuss those issues in committee meetings and make a recommendation to the Council to hold further hearings for that information. Councilmember Kasper said tie would like to dis- cuss those issues with Reid -Middleton at a committee meeting with Staff present. Mr. Snyder recommended that additional testimony be taken before the Council so that it is on the record. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO CONTINUE THE PROCEEDINGS AS AN OPEN HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 AND REQUEST REID-MIDOLETON & ASSOCIATES PRESENCE. Mayor Pro Tem Hall said she felt comfortable with the motion because the errors were in need of clarification. Councilmember Nordquist recommended that former City representative Jim Adams be notified of the hearing on the 2nd of September. Councilmember Dwyer said the Council has the ability to make inquiries of Reid -Middleton out- side of the hearing process. He said he doubted that the Council has the ability, within the hearing process, to submit a bill to them. He questioned whether inquiries of Reid -Middleton would change the outcome of the proceedings. He added that the Council would have to make an equitable decision regarding the grievous misjudgments that were made. Councilmember Ostrom said he would prefer that the hearing process is continued to ascertain information which was not contained in the Hearing Examiner's report because it was the recommen- dation of the City Attorney to do so, and the Council, as well as the public, would like the answers to those questions. Councilmember Kasper said he preferred to sit as a Council Committee with Reid -Middleton present to discuss this issue to enable the Council to make a better decision and, also, to pre- vent a similar situation from happening again. MOTION CARRIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 AUGUST 5, 1986 HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMATEUR RADIO TOWERT 7300 - 1 4TH ST. S.W. CU-1 -86/ PPELL N UL HIS Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on May 5, 1986 the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on a request of William Bulchis for a conditional use permit for a 70 foot retract- able amateur radio transmitting antenna at 7300 - 174th St. S.W. The Hearing Examiner issued his Decision on June 16, 1986 denying the requested conditional use permit. Subsequently, the appli- cant filed an appeal to overturn the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Ms. Block noted that a copy of the appeal and the Hearing Examiner's report are attached to the Council packets. Prior to the hearing, the complete file was available for review in the Council office. Staff has recommended to uphold the Hearing Examiner's Decision and adopt his Findings of Fact denying the conditional use permit. Ms. Block reviewed the Hearing Examiner's Conclusions, Decision, and Comments as follows: 1) The application is for the approval of a conditional use permit for the allowance of a 70 foot re- tractable amateur radio tower on property at 7300 - 174th St. S.W., Edmonds, Washington. The property is zoned RS-12. In order for the amateur radio tower to be erected in this zone, a conditional use permit is required; 2) The criteria of Section 20.05.010 of the ECDC must be satisfied. The applicant has failed to satisfy all the criteria; 3) The proposed radio tower conflicts with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds in that it does not protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures, and it encroaches on views of existing homes by new additions to the existing structures; 4) The proposed amateur radio tower does not conform to the zoning ordinanc- es of the City of Edmonds and, in particular, the purposes of the RS single-family residential zone in that it does not provide for a use which will compliment and be compatible with single- -family dwelling use; 5) The requested conditional use permit is detrimental to the other proper- ties in the area. "Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions; the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing; and upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is hereby ordered that the requested conditional use permit for a 70 foot retractable amateur radio tower at 7300 - 174th St. S.W., Edmonds, Washington, is denied. "This request was a very difficult matter to decide. Section 20.100.010 (B) of the ECDC sets forth the authority of the Hearing Examiner to act upon a conditional use permit and make a deci- sion thereon. In reviewing the material presented, it is incumbent upon the Hearing Examiner to review the criteria of Section 20.050.010 of the ECDC. As set forth in the Conclusions of the document, it is the impression of the Hearing Examiner that the criteria of Section 20.05.010 of the ECDC have not been satisfied. Accordingly, the Conditional use permit has been denied. "An unusual element is added to this particular request. As the Applicant has eloquently present- ed in his presentation at the public hearing and in his Memorandum of Authority, there is an issue as to whether the Federal Communications Commission's Order of September 19, 1985 restricts local regulation of height standards for the radio tower. According to the Applicant, this regu- lation preempts all the City's authority in the restriction of heights of reasonable amateur communications and the towers needed to conduct such operation. It is not the function of the Hearing Examiner to review the Federal law and apply Federal administrative regulations and Feder- al preemption rights to local land use issues. The only criteria that have been reviewed in this matter are the criteria as set forth in the ECDC. No determination has been made on the Federal preemption rights alleged by the Applicant". Councilmember Dwyer inquired if William Buchias and William Bulchis, as reflected in the Hearing Examiner's report, is the same person. Ms. Block replied negatively. Councilmember Kasper inquired if the existing antenna on the applicants property will remain. Ms. Block said she was unsure. Ms. Block reviewed a transparency of the proposed antenna design. Mayor Pro Tem Hall opened the public portion of the hearing. William Bulchis, 7300 - b 4th St. S.W., said it was his understanding that the proceeding was a de novo hearing and that the Council was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 AUGUST 5, 1986 He said it was the obligation of the Council to apply the facts as it received them and to apply the law to those facts. Because the Hearing Examiner did not follow this procedure, his Decision was fatally flawed. Mr. Bulchis said that the U.S. Constitution must be followed. Things which are not delegated to the states are retained by Federal government. Mr. Bulchis contended that the Hearing Examiner did not specify in his Conclusions what criteria were not met. He noted that there are U.S. Supreme Court cases which state that the Federal Communications Commission is the sole regulator of radio broadcasting, including interference. He submitted that there will be no interference problem and that interference is the province of the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Bulchis said he could have proposed a variety of towers which would have been less expensive, but he chose to propose the 70 foot retractable tower. He said in the high frequency spectrum of radio waves, height is necessary to lower the angle of radiation. The lower the angle of radia- tion, the less times the radio waves bounce between the ionosphere and the ground and more dis- tance is covered. Height also reduces the possibility of interference because it puts the radiat- ing area further away from surrounding residents. Mr. Bulchis said he proposed a tower which retracts to 21 feet to accommodate the neighborhood as best he could. He reviewed 47 Code Federal Register Part 25 as follows: "If a community chooses to enact an ordinance which differentiates in its treatment of different types of antennas, it must bear a high burden. Our objective is to insure that satellite receiving antennas are not treated less favorably than other antenna devices such as amateur radio antennas and satellite master antenna systems. Nonfederal regulations may impose, under our rule, reasonable requirements on all antennas as long as these local standards are uniformly applied and do not single out satellite -receive -only facilities for different treatment. An ordinance attempting to regulate all antennas by enacting restrictions on those of a certain shape, for example, a ban on all spherical antennas, would differentiate between satellite antennas and other types of facilities and, therefore, be preempted under our rule. Communities wishing to preserve their historic character may limit the construction of modern accoutrements provided that such limitations affect all fixed external antennas in the same man- ner. In adopting this rule, we intend that it be a valid accommodation of local interests as well as of two Federal interests, namely promoting interstate communications and historic preser- vation. Communities which are truly concerned with preserving their unique historic character may do so if they do not discriminate against satellite -receive antennas only". Mr. Bulchis contended that the City of Edmonds is seeking, by its ordinance, to regulate transmis- sion, which is impermissible. Mr. Bulchis noted that the City of Mountlake Terrace had an ordinance similar to Edmonds, and the City Attorney issued an opinion that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it regulated only amateur antennas. Mr. Bulchis said the tower he is proposing has four segments, elongates to 70 feet, and fully complies with the Uniform Building Code. Councilmember Kasper said he assumed a grid was on top of the tower. Mr. Bulchis said it was a rotatable yagi (phonetic) beam similar to most television antennas. Councilmember Kasper inquired if the existing structure on Mr. Bulchis' chimney would remain. Mr. Bulchis said if the proposed tower is approved, the structure will be removed. Councilmember Kasper inquired if Mr. Bulchis engaged in amateur radio broadcasting as a business or as a hobby. Mr. Bulchis replied as a hobby. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 AUGUST 5, 1986 Mr. Bulchis noted that amateur radio is one avenue in which people become involved in electron- ics., He said amateur radio operators are important in times of disaster; emergency communica- tions are extremely important, and this is one of the reasons why the Department of Defense and Red Cross supported PRB-1. Councilmember Kasper inquired if the proposed tower will be retracted when not in use. Mr. Bulchis said the tower can be retracted with a manual wench or electrical wench. Councilmember Nordquist inquired if the proposed antenna is similar to the antenna at 143rd in King County. Mr. Bulchis replied negatively. He said the proposed tower covers 20/15/10 meters and would be approximately half the length. Councilmember Nordquist inquired if the hillside located near Mr. Bulchis' property would limit the frequency. Mr. Bulchis replied negatively. He said the Coast Guard had a radio station in close proximity at one time. He said that hillsides above water are fairly good because of uni- form reflection off of salt water. Councilmember Wilson noted that there is testimony that operation of the radio will affect radio, c.b.'s, etc. Mr. Bulchis said that testimony was not credible. He said amateur radio operators must comply with a number of regulations. The'typical type of interference problem is caused by c.b. operators, and not by amateur radio operators, because they cause an overload of the front end of a receiver such as on a television set. Councilmember Ostrom noted that the Hearing Examiner's report said Mr. Bulchis' involvement in amateur radio broadcasting was an avocation. Mr. Bulchis said it is strictly a hobby. Councilmember Ostrom asked how long it takes to elongate and retract the tower. Mr. Bulchis said it would take approximately 1-1/2 minutes to retract the tower with an electrical wench. He said he was unsure about the time involved when Lhe tower is retracted manually. It is his intent to use a manual wench until he feels he can afford the expense of an electric wench. Councilmember Ostrom inquired how often Mr. Bulchis would operate. Mr. Bulchis said he very seldom has an opportunity to broadcast. In the winter he said he is able to get on the air more frequently, but only on weekends. He said when 1;e does use the radio, he uses it for approximate- ly 1/2 to 1-1/2 hours. Mayor Pro Tem Hall inquired if Mr. Bulchis can assure the Council that he will not interfere with neighboring television sets when he broadcasts. Mr. Bulchis said he believed interference would not occur. Patrick Donahoo, 17324 - 73rd Ave. W., said he supported the Hearing Examiner's Findings denying the conditional use permit because: 1) The proposed tower does not conform to the ordinances of the City of Edmonds, particularly with regard to RS zoning; 2) the proposed tower is detrimental to the property values of the neighborhood and any view of homes in the area; 3) there is no assurance that the tower will not interfere with radios or televisions or assurance when the antenna will be retracted. Mr. Donahoo said deni.al of the conditional use permit does not restrict Mr. Bulchis' freedom of speech or any of his constitutional rights. He urged the Council to uphold the Decision of the Hearing Examiner and to protect the rights of the surrounding residents as well as the City. Don Christensen, 17320 - 73rd Ave. W., said he does oppose the granting of a conditional use permit. He said he believed a 70 foot tower is totally incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr: Christensen said the neighborhood was unanimous in its rejection of the proposed tower. He expressed concern because sketches or drawings relating to the installation of the antenna on the tower on the site have never been provided. He said if it was located on the high side of Mr. Bulchis' property, it would extend well above the rooflines. Mr. Christensen said he owns two older television sets. He said he recalls that Mr. Bulchis conceded, in his earlier testimony, that some amateur radio transmissions were detrimental to older television sets. , EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 AUGUST 5, 1986 Mr. Christensen said if electronic interference is caused by radio transmissions that a complaint can be filed with the F.C.C. However, he said he ascertained in a conversation with the F.C.C. that at least two years would pass before the F.C.C. was able to examine the complaint. Mr. Christensen maintained that an antenna of any height of the proposed antenna type does not belong in his neighborhood. He encouraged the Council to uphold the Hearing Examiner's Recommen- dation. Thomas Gianelli, P.O. Box 1261, Lynnwood, said he used to room with Mr. Bulchis .at his home on 174th Street. He said he is a licensed ham radio operator, and his station license is on Mr. Bulchis' property so he cannot transmit from any other location. Mr. Gianelli said he felt he had been violated and horribly discriminated against by the Hearing Examiner in denying his right to transmit in his freedom of speech. He said he, as well as others, reviewed the Hearing Examiner's Decision with six attorneys, and they were dumbfounded at the gross violation of what the Hearing Examiner perceived to be the law. Mr. Gianelli said the City of Edmonds has no laws governing amateur radio antennas, and the zon- ing requirements do not apply. As a result, he said he could not fathom how the Council could deny Mr. Bulchis his right to build the tower. Mr. Gianelli said he has both recorded programs on his VCR and watched television while Mr. Bulchis was transmitting and did not notice any interference. He said that a lot of people in Edmonds have 50 to 70 foot towers with massive arrays of antennas constructed on their property. Councilmember Nordquist left the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Mr. Bulchis said the view of people who spoke against his proposal would not be blocked. He said when the tower is retracted, the antenna and tower will be below the peak of his roofline. Mr. Bulchis said it is human nature to oppose cnang.e but also to adapt to it. He submitted that the neighbors would adjust to the tower and barely notice it after a period of time. He requested that the Council think very carefully regarding this matter and make a very reasoned decision as to the applicable law and the facts. Mayor Pro Tem Hall adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUN- CILMEMBER OSTROM, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Dwyer inquired what Mr. Bulchis' argument was regarding constitutionality aside from preemption. Mr. Bulchis said the City's ordinance regulates amateur transmitting antennas and is attempting to regulate transmission. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if Mr. Bulchis would be subject to a 25 foot height limitation if he installed a marine antenna. Mr. Bulchis said that may be a possibility. Councilmember Dwyer said if Mr. Bulchis installed an antenna other than an amateur radio antenna, he would be subject to a 25 foot height limitation. He said with reference to equal protection purposes, Mr. Bulchis would be receiving greater rights by being allowed to comply with a conditional use per- mit. Mr. Bulchis said there are many television antennas of varying heights and installation throughout the City and there is n.o enforcement of these antennas. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if Mr. Bulchis contended that the City is preempted from any regula- tign. Mr. Bulchis said he did not say that but the Hearing Examiner did. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if Mr. Bulchis conceded that the City is not preempted from imposing a requirement that he meet conditional use permit criteria.. Mr. Bulchis,reasoned with the following inquiry: Does it then follow if you can require a conditional use permit that, therefore, you can deny a reason- able antenna apparatus for reasonable communications? Councilmember Dwyer said the City can impose conditional use permit requirements. Mr. Bulchis said the City could impose that require- ment if it is imposed uniformly on all external use antennas. Councilmember Dwyer inquired how Mr. Bulchis would be injured if he was the beneficiary of that discrepancy. Mr. Bulchis said lie cannot conduct reasonable^ communications at a 25 foot level. lie said there is no enforcement of non -amateur radio antennas that are over 25 feet. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 AUGUST 5, 1986 Mayor Pro Tem Hall inquired if any additional public input was desired. No input was offered. Mayor Pro Tem Hall closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Ostrom inquired if the Council is within its authority to rule on this matter anti an application for a conditional use permit. Mr. Snyder said PRB-1 regarding satellite dish antennas dealt with reasonable regulations in cities' abilities to regulate within traditional matters of zoning and in a nondiscriminatory way. In talking with the Planning Board, Mr. Snyder. said they were aware of the provisions regarding satellite transmission devices but were unable to ascertain how the F.C.C. ruling would be interpreted. They concluded that the City's ordi- nance regarding the 25 foot height limitation on structures and a 15 foot height limitation on accessory structures would apply. Mr. Snyder said there are provisions that limit television antenna dishes to 25 feet if they cannot technologically work in the setback that is required. He said Staff decided it would be best not to "dabble around" with the tower issue because it appears to extend additional privileges. Mr. Snyder said if the Council's grant of authority to permit transmitting towers in excess of the height limitation is void, then the 25 foot height limit would be applicable. He said he would like time to research this matter. Councilmember Ostrom inquired if Mr. Snyder was advising the Council to continue the matter to another date before it started discussing the merits of the conditional use permit to enable him to review the legal issues. Mr. Snyder said he would appreciate the opportunity. Mayor Pro Tem Hall said the Hearing Examiner's comments were very confusing. She read the Hear- ing Examiner's comments as follows: "It is not the function of the Hearing Examiner to review the Federal law and apply Federal administrative regulations and Federal preemption rights to the local land use issues. The only criteria that had been reviewed are the criteria set forth in the ECDC". She inquired where the "stop gap" was. Mr. Snyder said the Hearing Examiner was saying that he is without authority to review the validity of the ordinances but, rather, is to enforce and review under them. Councilmember Kasper inquired what generated the Planning Department's change in position when upholding the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Mayor Pro Tem Hall conferred with Mr. Snyder regarding closure of the hearing. Mr. Snyder said the .public hearing could be reopened at the discretion of the Council so long as no participant had left. Mr. Snyder said tie did not notice anyone leaving the room. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING. MOTION CARRIED. In response to Councilmember Kasper's question, Ms. Block said the Department's initial recommen- dation in favor of granting the conditional use permit was based upon the F.C.C. ruling. Howev- er, the Department's inclinations were contrary and confirmed by the Hearing Examiner's Decision and by the Edmonds Community Development Code. Councilmember Kasper inquired why the antenna was not regarded as an accessory unit. Ms. Block said radio transmitting antennas fall into a different category because the ECDC specifically refers to conditional use permits for radio transmitting antennas. Mayor Pro Tem Hall closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Ostrom recommended that the Council make a ruling on the conditional use permit contingent upon Mr. Snyder's review of the legal issues. He said the Hearing Examiner clearly stated what criteria his Decision was based on under Section 20.05.010 of the ECDC as follows: "It conflicts with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and does not protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures and encroaches on views of existing homes by new additions to the existing structures". Councilmem- ber Ostrom said that criteria is very relevant because there are no provisions that the antenna must be retracted. The antenna, he said, does not conform to the zoning ordinances because it does not provide for a use which will compliment and be compatible with a single-family dwelling use; it is detrimental to surrounding properties because the tower will impact the views of other property owners and will create an aesthetic disruption of views in the vicinity. EDMONDS ,CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13 AUGUST 5, 1986 COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION DENYING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON CU-17-86 AND ADOPT HIS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLU- SIONS OF LAW CONTINGENT UPON THE WORK. OF THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING RESOLVING THE AUTHORITY ISSUE. Councilmember Kasper said he would vote against the motion because the conditional use permit is impossible to comply with and should not be an issue. In addition, he said the tower will not exceed roofline heights. The City would have jurisdiction to remove the tower if Mr. Bulchis did not stay in compliance. Mr. Snyder suggested that the Council instruct him to bring back Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law with a legal opinion addressing the issues raised by Mr. Bulchis. The maker of the motion and the seconder agreed. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED. Mayor Pro Tem Hall noted that the Continued Hearing on Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Regard- ing Revocation of Home Occupation Permit for John Pomeroy was rescheduled on October 7, 1986. MAYOR Mayor Pro Tem Hall noter,' that the "Christmas in August" event in the City of Edmonds will be announced on public television. A television film will be made in Edmonds necessitating the Christmas decorations. Mayor Pro Tem noted that Steve Simpson has extended an invitation to the Council to a farewell "open boat" on the Barowyn on Wednesday between 5 and 7:30 p.m. COUNCIL Councilmember Jaech noted a correction to the September 17, 1985 Council minutes. She noticed, when reviewing the minutes of .the Pomeroy case, that the third paragraph from the top states, "Mr. Snyder asked the Appellant when fie had incorporated. Mr. Sider responded that he had incorporated in 1973. Prior to that time he operated the business as Gem Production Company". Councilmember Jaech said the minutes should '. reflect that Mr. Pomeroy responded that he had incorporated in 1973. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO CORRECT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 ON PAGE 8, THIRD PARAGRAPH, SECOND SENTENCE THAT BEGINS, "MR. SNYDER...", SHOULD READ, "MR. POMEROY...". Councilmember Jaech noted that conversations have taken place in the past regarding low mainte- nance of landscaped areas around the City. She said Olson's grocery store at Westgate has relandscaped the site and has since maintained it. She felt recognition and praise should be given when a site that was poorly maintained has been rectified. She congratulated Olson's and thanked them for their consideration. Councilmember Kasper inquired if the Mayor's memorandum to the Council regarding his involvement in the planning matters is a legal issue. City Attorney Scott Snyder said. the only legal issue (and he had so advised the Mayor) would be if the Mayor receives information through investiga- tion or outside of the hearing process and the Council is at an impasse because of a tie vote, then the Mayor would lose his right to vote. Mr. Snyder said the Mayor, as administrative head of the City, would not be prevented from participation so long as he did not participate in dis- cussions or a vote on that issue. Councilmember Kasper expressed concern because there are times when the Council is at a tie vote, and he asked that this be discussed at a future work session when the Mayor is present. Councilmember Kasper said he felt the memorandum from the Mayor several months ago regarding the elderly housing ordinance review should be discussed at a Council work session. The meeting adjourned at 10:29 p.m. These minutes are subject to August 12, 1986 approval. _ JACQUELINE G. PARRETr, City Clerk LARK S. NAUG=, P r EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 14 AUGUST 5, 1986