Loading...
09/30/1986 City CouncilTHESE.MINUTES SUBJECT TO OCTOBER 7, 1986 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag sa- lute. PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr. John Nordquist Bobby Mills, Pub. Wks. Supt. Steve Dwyer Bob Alberts, City Engineer Laura Hall Peter Mahn, Comm. Svc. Director Jo -Anne Jaech Dan Prinz, Police Chief Bill Kasper Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Lloyd Ostrom Chris Beckman, Engineering Coord. Jack Wilson Scott Snyder, City Attorney Tom Peterson, Student Rep, Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Margaret Richards, Recorder CONSENT AGENDA Item (E) was removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilrnember Hall inquired if a set of minutes from.the recent past had been inadvertently not approved. City Clerk Jackie Parrett said she was not aware of any Minutes that had not been approved but would investigate the matter. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECOMOED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.ASPER, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CON- SENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 (C) ADOPTED RESOLUTION 619 COMMENDING STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE NIGEL EULING (0) SET DATE ON OCTOBER 21, 1986 FOR HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION TO VACATE A PORTION OF UNDEVELOPED RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 81ST AVE. W., ADJACENT TO 8204 - 182NO PL. S.W. (ST-2-86/10M SNYDER) (F) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY LAKEVUE CONSTRUCTION FOR 76TH W. AND MEAOOWOALE BEACH RD. CULVERT, AND SET 30 DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (G) APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENT 01 TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT SYSTEM OPERATION AGREEMENT GM-1149 (II) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK, BY UNITY ELECTRIC FOR WADE JAMES LIGHTING PROJECT ($7,907.25) AND SET 30 DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD .(I) ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED FROM STEPHEN AND JANICE NOFZIGER FOR STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY (J) REQUEST FOR CITY CONCURRENCE IN DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ORDER TO CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE TO INSTALL AUXILIARY SEWER FORCE MAIN AND BACKUP POWER AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT AND RECORD PROPOSED EASEMENTS FROM EMERALD.HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ANU SUTDRA-IWISSIAN FOR EQE9ERT PONU 11EM E ON THE CONSENT GENUA Councilmember Hall said she would like to place Item (E) on a future agenda. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO PLACE ITEM (E) ON THE OCTOBER 14, 1986 AGENDA. MO- TION CARRIED. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF COMMENUATION 10 STUDENT REPRESENTAI'IVE NIGEL EULING Councilmember ilall .read the. Resolution into the record. She presented Student Representative Nigel Euling with the Reso1ntion and, also, a memento. Nigel advised the new student representa- tive, Tom Peterson, not to be afraid to offer his input. Councilmember Hall welcomed Tom Peterson, who is a student at Edmonds Iligh School. PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD TO ED AND JANE ORNER Mayor Naughten said the Community Service Award is given to a person or entity who has made a' significant contribution to the improvement of the quality of life in the City of Edmonds. Mayor Naughten said Ed and Jane Orner have been very active in the community. Mr. Orner has affectionately been called "Buster Brown" over the years. Ile has been the City's official black- smith for over thirty years. However, the Orner's shoe store will be closing in the near future. Mayor Naughten presented Ed and Jane Orner with the Community Service Award. Mr. Orner said the shoe store first opened where the paint store is presently located on Main' Street. His assistant, Wanda, has been in his employ for twenty-nine years. He thanked the Council for the award. AUDIENCE Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting. No audience participation was of- fered. Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting. HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION ON APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT 10 THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION P-6-81 AND UNUI1109AL USE PERMIT CU-12-85 L C ION: EAST L N Mayor Naughten reviewed the time parameters allotted to each of the parties of the hearing as follows: Appellants - 60 minutes; Applicant - 60 minutes; Public - 50 minutes. City Attorney Scott Snyder informed the public that the appearance of fairness doctrine requires that Councilmembers disclose any ex parte communications that they have received. He said the City Clerk had placed copies of all letters which had been received through the City on the sign -in table. Ile noted that Councilmembers had received a letter from Doris and Les Garton dated September 27, 1986. Ile suggested that anyone who wished to review the letter contact the City Clerk. Mr. Snyder asked Councilmembers if they had received or sent any communications which had not been revealed. The Council replied negatively. Mr. Snyder inquired if any member of the Council was related to the appellants that might create any appearance of unfairness. Councilmember Ostrom said Brian Comstock and Royer Hertrich are friends of his, and Bill McCormick was an ac- quaintance as well as a co-worker. Mr. Snyder inquired if any Councilmember had a relationship of a financial nature or closeness that would not allow them to render a fair and impartial decision. The Council did not indicate so. Mr. Snyder inquired if anyone in the audience objected to the participation of any Council - member. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, said he objected to Councilmember Hall's participation on the basis of her relationship to the Ilanchett's. lie said he was informed that Boyce Clark was a prominent member in her recent campaign for election as a Councilmember. He said Councilmember ilall has openly expressed her closeness to the Clark family. Councilmember Hall said she, as well as Mr. Hertrich, have served on several committees and contributed more hours to issues than they have to the proceedings of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Snyder inquired if Mr. Ilertrich's objection to Councilmember Hall's participation was based not on the campaign relationship but, rather, personal relationship with the Hanchett's. Mr. Iertrich replied affirmatively. Mr. Snyder said the appearance of fairness doctrine specifically excludes the application of the doctrine to campaign contributions or to any part of the campaign process, as well as statements made during the course of elections. lie said there are two charac- teristics to the doctrine's application: 1.) the Court will peruse the proceedings retrospective- ly to see if a reasonable person in the audience would have perceived the hearing to be unfair, EUMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 and 2) neither Mr. Snyder nor the Council should make a ruling but rather, the individual Coun- cilmember should decide whether or not to participate in the proceedings. Mr. Snyder said he was doubtful that a Court would disavow a decision based upon e personal relationship unless it was by blood or financially related. Mr. Snyder inquired if any Councilmember Was not acquainted with any one of the appellants or applicant. The Council replied negatively. Mr. Snyder said the appearance of fairness doctrine provides an exception for situations in which all members of a public body or quorum would have to be removed. Ile said if personal relationships would disqualify the Council, then they would be unable to proceed with the hearing process. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block stated that the Council has been requested to rule on the adequacy of the environmental threshold decision by Staff of the review of a ten -lot subdi- vision of a 3.25 acre tract near Olympic Avenue. The appellants contend that a full Environmen- tal Impact Statement (EIS) is required and that Staff issuance of a mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) does not adequately address the environmental impacts. Ms. Block said the environmental sensitivity of the property and the potential impacts of the proposed development have not been taken lightly by Staff. She said approximately two years have been spent in the collection and analysis of data with particular emphasis on suitability of the soil to accoutmodate development, storm drainage and groundwater runoff, erosion control, and noise impacts. Ms. Block said after extensive review of the data submitted, Staff made a determination that no significant adverse environmental impact was likely to result if the property was developed as proposed and conditioned by the mitigated measures outlined in the Staff decision. She said the Hearing Examiner reviewed the adequacy of the environmental investigation and the appropriateness of the Staff determination. He recommended that the City of Edmonds threshold decision of a mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance be affirmed for all issues. He stated that the environmental review of the project has been complete and exhaustive. The Hearing Exam- iner went on to state that it was doubtful that an EIS would result in more information on the various environmental elements involved with the development of the site. He added that it was important to note that the SEPA review has been exhaustive and complete, and the Community Servic- es Department's mitigated DNS should be upheld. e Ms. Block said the issue before the Council at the present time was only the adequacy of the environmental review and not the subdivision itself. She said it is Staff's recommendation to uphold the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, submitted an article to the Council from the Herald regarding the County's consideration on water problems. Mr. Hertrich said one of his concerns was that alternatives have not been addressed. He read a passage from an article written by David Hoeh, "Introduction to Urban Planning", New York McGraw Hill, 1979, as follows: "An EIS is an evaluation sequence that concentrates on the alternatives. The evaluation should consider an alternative act designed to produce a similar result and a no action alternative. The EIS should describe the present conditions, alternative actions, probable impacts of each alternative by relating expected future conditions, to identify the alternative choices and indicate the evaluation that led to them, describe probable impacts in detail, and describe techniques used to minimize the impacts. Mr. Hertrich said testimony has been giver, that the total impact of the development of the subdi- vision. was unknown. The property was indicated to be a source of four surface streams which exit the property in more than one location. He said many people who live downstream and enjoy the streams stand to be impacted. He said none of the testimony given considered the existing condi- tions downstream. He said testimony has been given that the stream will increase by 11% as it exits the proposed development. Mr. Hertrich said the (tearing Examiner did not have a, the tapes of the hearings as requested by Council du e EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 Mr. Hertrich expressed concern regarding the Hearing Examiner's decision because he said many of. the vital issues were disregarded. Robert Ahlbeck, 731 8rookmere Drive, said he represented Charles Shepherd, et als. He - said he lives downstream from the proposed subdivision and possesses water rights to it. Mr. Ahlbeck reviewed his background as follows: degree in Public Relations; two years of col- lege level engineering work; Boeing employee for 28 years - Engineering Supervisor and Manager, Program Manager; concrete mixer; landscape contract worker. Mr. Ahlbeck expressed concern that the water supply of the stream be protected during summer: months and from overflowing during winter months. Mr. Ahlbeck referred to Staff Exhibit 13 and the Hearing Examiner's report regarding groundwa- ter. He inquired if the Council had reviewed any or all of the exhibits submitted during the proceedings before the Hearing Examiner. The Council did not respond. Mr. Ahlbeck's impres-• sion was that the Council had not reviewed any exhibits. He referred to an exhibit submitted by himself depicting tine depths of the test pits that were dug. He said the average wet and saturat- ed condition extended to a depth of 8 feet. Ile submitted the exhibit to the Council. Mr. Snyder clarified that it was his understanding that the Council has reviewed it d. He' said the exhibits have been on file at the City Council's office for approximately ;ix weeks for review. Mayor Naughten affirmed that the Council has reviewed the evidence. Mr. Ahlbeck said four pits were terminated due to sloughing; three pits had slo,=. ­g problems at termination; three were terminated at refusal; three reflected no comment on r asal condi- tion. He said the status of the pits are unknown at the present time because the basis of deter- mination was unknown. Mr. Ahlbeck pointed out that the schematics of the interceptor system have not been revealed. He said the interceptor system will be built but the public will be unaware of its location. He illustrated the size of the interceptor system through the use of a tape measure. Mr. Ahlbeck said no sedimentation control plan exists for the final development in terms of the recommendation of the State UeparLment of Fisheries per a letter dated March 28, 1985. He said the letter was submitted as an exhibit before the Hearing Examiner but was not included in his report. tie read the letter into the record which stated, in essence, that a detention pond is necessary to remove the pollutants typical of urban water runoff. Mr. Ahlbeck said the streams are flooded every year due to heavy rains which, in turn, cause the culverts to back up. He said there are four areas where the culverts back up on the unnamed stream before it enters Shell Creek. lie said a hazard is created by the retention ponds. He cited Ordinance 1924 which does not permit a condition of that kind to exist. He questioned how the Council would feel if a child was drowned as a result of falling into one of these retention ponds. Mr. Ahlbeck said there are discrepancies in testimony regarding stormwater flow as well as the peaty material on top of the soil. Mr. Ahlbeck noted that he discovered that Miles Hanchett is the registered tax payer of the property, lie said when inquiries were made of Mr. Hanchett, he could not explain why he was still the registered tax payer. Mr. Ahlbeck said it was indicated in Exhibit 11 that no future additions, expansion, or further - activity related to or connected with the proposed subdivision were planned. However, he said an article in the Everett Herald staged that the family would like to have a conmion playground, swimming pool, jauging path, and a large greenhouse installed. lie questioned whether the pro- posed subdivision would evolve into a planned residential development. Hulda Humola, 516 Olympic Avenue, said she owns property on the north side of the proposed access. Ms. Humola said the Hanchetts have referred to the proposed access road as a previously exist-' inq road. In accordance with Chapter 18.80.000 of the Edmonds C.onmtunity Development Code, confor- mance only to street standards must be met, and not for variances. She referred to a statement by the Ilanchett's that; the access road was used -as a road as early as 1932. She said 1 EDMONDS C11Y COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 she has resided at her home since 1956. She said the Hanchett testimony that there was an existing asphalt road from Olympic Avenue to the Ianchett home was incorrect. Because Ms. Humola lost her train of thought, Councilmember Hall suggested that Bill McCormick give his testimony, thus allowing. Ms. Humola to regain her thoughts and resume her testimony subsequent to Mr. McCormick. Bill McCormick, 502 Olympic Avenue, reviewed the proposed subdivision and alternate access points on the overhead projector as follows: alternative N1, Mattison property, is for sale and offers a full right-of-way access; alternative #2 is owned by Mr. Von Gater and offers a full 40 foot right-of-way. lie said Mr. Von Gater has indicated that he is willing to trade properties but is not willing to sell; alternative 113 is the 20 foot access with a minimum of a 25 foot setback to any residence. Mr. McCormick said the proposed access will be located only 10 feet from his home. He said Mr. Richards, Towne, Richards, & Chaudiere, suggested that a 15 foot wall on Mr. McCormick's property and an B foot wall on Ms. Humola's property be erected to mitigate the noise. Mr. McCormick contended that several statements contained in the report regarding noise impacts, as well as points raised by the Hearing Examiner, were erroneous. Mrs. Humola resumed her testimony by stating that construction is usually short term and, there- fore, does not seriously affect the environment. However, she said the proposed development of the ten -lot subdivision would occur over a period of three to ten years. She said vibration, visual disturbance, and pollution would be exaggerated during the proposed construction period and would significantly impact the surrounding residences. Ms. Humola said the proposed access road does not meet the twenty-five foot street setback requirements. She said she believed that the granting of a variance to build ten homes on a twenty foot access road would be detrimental to her welfare as well as Mr. McCormick's. Mr. Snyder stated that he was lace, who represents the City. the firm of Roberts & Shefelman 212. Mr. Snyder said no member any land use decision during the ing the City or representing the cess. Mr. Snyder said he has Hanchett proceedings. an employee of the legal firm of Ogden, Ogden, Murphy & Wal- He said Mr. Chapman, the applicant's attorney, is an employee of which the City is currently employing as bond counsel for LID of the firm of Roberts & Shefelman has represented the City in past two years, to his knowledge, and is not involved in advis- City during that time period with the exception of the LID pro - been the City's sole representative during the course of the Bill Chapman, Roberts & Shefelman, representing the Hanchett's, said he would like to reserve the last six minutes of time allotted to the applicant for rebuttal after the appellants give their rebuttal. Mayor Naughten said the appellants are entitled to final rebuttal. Mr. Chapman said he understood that the applicants had that privilege. Mayor Naughten asked Mr. Snyder for his legal opinion. Mr. Snyder said due process only requires that each party be given a fair opportunity to present their case. He said no particular forum was either right or wrong, noting that the City's rules of procedure were fair. Mr. Chapman said his final arguments would not be rebuttal unless conducted after the appellants made their point. Mayor Naughten conceded. Mr. Chapman pointed out that a decision did not need to be rendered at the present time regarding the approval of the subdivision or any of the permits associated with the development and con- struction of the proposed project. The decision that the Council was faced with was the thresh- old determination. Mr. Chapman said the project, as proposed with the thirteen mitigating conditions, was an asset to the City of Edmonds. He said it was carefully planned to be a landscaped project with high -quality homes. It: has been described as a welcomed addition by many of the neighbors. Mr. Chapman said the threshold determination made by City Staff was the issue before the Council at the present time. Because the DNS was appealed, a different standard must be applied to the City Council's decision on threshold determinations. Ile said the ECDC and State law provide that the City Staff's decision must be given substantial weight. The appellants have the responsibili- ty to prove that Staff was clearly. erroneous in its decision. Mr. Chapman said if the Council firmly and definitely believes that a mistake has been made after reviewing the record, it should reject Staff's determination and the hearing Examiner's Recommendation and require a Determina- tion of Significance. If the Council does not find that the determination was clearly erroneous, then it should uphold Staff's decision. -EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 Mr. Chapman said t:he Hanchett's are hoping that the Council will uphold Staff's decision. He said the Community Services Department has given extensive and detailed consideration to the proposal. As a result of this exhaustive effort by the Hanchett's and Staff, the Community Ser- vices Department issued a mitigated DNS that includes thirteen conditions to mitigate potential impacts of the proposal. Mr. Chapman cited cases in which local cities have considered projects similar to the Hanchett project in which ONS's were issued and were upheld by the courts. He enumerated projects in which DNS's were overturned, i.e., City of Kirkland, Juanita Bay Valley Community Association --the conversion of a 55 acre tract to an industrial park adjacent to a residential neighborhood --Cases which involved much larger projects, more land, or significant environmental impacts. Mr. Chapman said he is not aware of any cases where a DNS was reversed on the basis of temporary construction impacts or ol:her impacts of the level of significance associated with the Hanchett small, ten -lot, 3.25 acre project. Washington case law, he said, suggests that the authority vested in Edmonds' responsible official has been properly exercised by: 1) studying' issues of concern raised by Staff, citizens, and agencies with jurisdiction; 2) conditioning the subdivision to mitigate specific impacts; and 3) recognizing that the relative magnitude of the impacts are not sufficient to warrant a Determination of Significance. Mr. Chapman urged the Council to agree that Staff and the Hearing Examiner were not clearly erro-' neous and to allow the Hanchett's to move forward with their application for the subdivision. - . Mike Hanchett, 8516 - 231st S.W., said his brothers and sisters have a life - long investment and commitment to the Hanchett property. lie said they have owned it for twelve to thirteen years. He said because of concern for future residents, the project has involved considerable I,` -ning regarding both present and future terms. He said when the project is completed, the area will be representative of the high quality of life that is enjoyed in Edmonds. The Hanchetts, he said, have voluntarily provided more information to the City than any other subdivision of the same size. All of the areas of concern have been addressed professionally and thoroughly. Mr. Hanchett said the Hearing Examiner concluded that environmental review of the project has been complete and exhaustive. Mr. Hanchett said the record is very clear on all subjects even though they have been misstated and taken out of context. Mr. Hanchett reviewed the environmental issues as follows: The Hearing Examiner found that the environmental issues were adequately studied. The City Staff determined that none of these ef- fects would result in a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The Hearing Examiner concluded that the City Staff had considered each of these environmental effects thoroughly after an "exhaustive and complete" study by the Hanchetts. The Hanchetts retained Lovell-Sauerland to design a superior erosion control plan. Mr. Hanchett said the plan was based on the higher standards of the State of Virginia. He referred the Council to Exhibits 8, 9, 10, and 11. Currently, hillside seeps and one spriny are the source for small surface water courses that run across and off the Hanchetts' property. Downstream, these drainages enter the Edmonds stormwater control system. Except where the Hanchetts' access road is crossed, these drainag- es will continue to exist on the proposed subdivision as open water courses in landscape swales along property lines after development. The flow of these natural drainages will basically not change from present summer and winter flow levels (approximately 20-25 gallons per minute). Mr. Hanchett referred the Council to Exhibits 7, 16, 19, and 11. Rainwater falling into impervious surfaces, such as houses and driveway, will be collected and controlled through a stormwater retention and control system designed to current City of Edmonds standards. [luring the initial 4 to 6 weeks following installation of the intercept drain- age on site, flows could increase to a maximum of 81 gallons per minute as the site is dried out. This would be a temporary increase during the summer period only. Once the property devel- opment is completed, the stormwater flow is expected to increase relative to present flows by only 2 gallons a minute ( a typical garden hose flow rate is 6 to 8 gallons per minute). Mr. Hanchett referred the Council to Exhibits 19 and 20. Work will be done in water courses on site only during July 2 through October 15 in order to insure protection of water duality for fish residing downstream. The two principal sources of water on site will be further protected with 20 foot wide strips of vegetation. Tree cutting and 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 trimming will occur pursuant to a City -approved tree cutting plan designed to preserve mature trees while accommada tiny development and views of the Sound for neighbors. Mr. Hanchett re- ferred the Council to Exhibits 10 and 2. Mr. Hanchett said a proposal for a 15 foot wall has never been considered because the firm of Towne, Richards, & Chaudiere concluded that there were no significant impacts of noise upon the residences that harder the other side of the road. Mr. Hanchett said the family has encouraged input from surrounding neighbors, and the majority of them were in favor of the subdivision. The direct participation was solicited of the Edmonds Concerned Citizens Conmrittee, but it declined participation because the project was of no inter- est to it. Jerry Lovell, Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, 23106 - 100th Ave. .West, said Lovell -Sauerland are the engineers and surveyors for the proposed subdivision. A topograhpic survey was conduct- ed on the property in 1984, as well as a title search. Several alternate access points were considered and determined to be unfeasible. A design study was conducted to arrive at a feasi- ble subdivision plan for the property, and it was -determined that the 20 foot access that was already a part of the property was the superior plan. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if alternate access 92 was considered unfeasible because the resi- dents of the cul-de-sac were resistant to opening the cul-de-sac rip. Mr. Lovell said although the residents were not contacted, he assumed that was the case. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if all of the lots in the cul-de-sac were developed. Mr. Lovell said one lot was undeveloped. Councilmember Dwyer noted that alternate N3 corresponds to Miles Hanchett's property. Fie in- quired if that area was topographically unsuitable for potential access. Mr. Lovell said alter- nate #3 was considered the least desirable access point because it would bisect Mr. Hanchett's carport and run directly adjacent to his home. Councilmember Dwyer inquired about the slope of alternate N3 and the slope of the proposed access point. Mr. Lovell said the slope of the pro- posed access point allows the access to be built along the road in accordance with City stan- dards. Councilmember Dwyer inquired about alternate N1. Mr. Lovell said there was a home and and garage on that property that would impede access. Councilmember Kasper inquired if the issue of access could be solved similarly to the development of Sierra Place. Mr. Lovell said the topography of the proposed development is typical of that area. Kevin Hanchett, 8504 231st S.W., referred to the transparency that Mr. McCormick dis- played. Mr. Hanchett said three streams converge and exit the property at the point of alter- nate N1. Ile said it is an environmentally sensitive area that is proposed to be left undis- turbed. Also, the road is very steep and the topography is unsuitable. Mr. Hanchett said he spoke to the owner of the property where alternate #3 was located who indicated to him that he was not interested in selling or trading his property. Mr. Hanchett said the City expressed concern that traffic would be routed through Emerald Hills if alternate #2 was developed as an access point. Fie noted that alternate N3 would involve removing his father's carport and home. Mr. Hanchett said his family has considered neighborhood concerns in the design of the proposed project as a token of goodwill and will continue to do so. Mr. Hanchett said the items referred to in the Everett Herald article are only a wish list that the family would like to consider after the subdivision is approved. Jan Hauge, Towne, Richards, & Chaudiere, Sound Consultants, 105 - N.E. 56th .Street, Seat- tle. Councilmember Dwyer inquired why traffic ten feet away from Mr. McCormick's home would not create a serious noise problem. Mr. Ilauge clarified that the closest vehicle would not be ten feet away but, rather, fifteen feet away. lie said Daley Place would essentially be a driveway serving ten homes, and only a small amount of traffic would be generated from these homes. The noise study that was conducted revealed that the noise that would be generated by Daley Place at the point on the McCormick residence would be clearly below a level that is considered to be noise impacts. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the noise impact would be insignificant because the decibel reading would be below an average day/night sound level or simply because of the frequency, or both. Mr. Ilauge said both factors determined the impact to be insignificant. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 Mr. Chapman noted that alternate access N2 was considered unsuitable not only because of the topography but also because it is only 20 feet wide. Mrs. Oldurn, he said, an adjacent property owner, entered a letter into the record opposing that alternate. The meeting recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:27 p.m. Mayor Naughten opened. the public portion of the hearing. Sonny Hancock, 1.028 Cascade Lane, said tie has owned his property since approximately 1968 and built his home in 1971. Mr. Hancock said the City installed an 18 inch culvert before 1971 which extended onto his property. The City remodeled the drainage system along Olympic Avenue and replaced the 12 inch culvert with a 24 inch culvert. Ile said the 18 inch culvert was the only outlet for the 24 inch culvert on Olympic Avenue. Mr. Hancock said several heavy rains have caused damage to his home. and property. He said tie informed the City, and a claim was filed with the insurance company but denied because the storm was considered to be a 25 year storm. He said he called the City, but Staff said they were unable to offer assistance. A storm flooded his home again in 1979. The City informed him that it was also a 25 .year storm. Mr. Hancock said there was another severe storm two years ago that was considered to be a 50 year storm. He said he wrote a letter to Mayor Hary Harrison informing the City of the continuous stormwater problem and requested that improvements be made. However, no improvements were made because no funding was available. Mr. Hancock said he also expressed his concerns to the Hearing Examiner, but they were dis- missed on page 10, paragraph 53 without mentioning the fact that the City has compounded the problem by turning a 24 inch culvert into an 18 inch culvert and taking no action to correct the water damage. Richard Burgoyna, 751 Brookniere Drive, said he moved into his home in April. When he decided to relocate, he was very concerned about the environment in which he would live so he paid above market price to move into his new home. Mr. Burgoyna said after the most recent storm, he crawled into the crawl space of his home and found no dampness. Mr. Burgoyna said stormwater runoff increases every year and needs to be addressed. Ile noted that the average family only lives in a dome for five years. He inquired who would take responsi- bility for damage to the hillside twenty years from now. Mr. Burgoyna expressed. concern that he would be unable to address water -related issues in his neighborhood when he is seventy or eighty years old. He said water damage and potential land slippage needs to be addressed both in present and future terms. Janet Shuh, 827 Walnut Street, said she did not understand why time and money was being invest- ed for a variance to permit an access road to the proposed subdivision when the road does not meet code requirements and there are alternate access points. She queried if the alternates were dismissed because of financial considerations. Ms. Shuh said the Edmonds Community Development Code was formulated to protect citizens and the environment. She said she hated to see it violat- ed. Ms. Shuh said that one alternate access point was considered unfeasible because it would intrude onto Mr. Ilanchett's home and carport. She said the granting of the variance would allow the proposed access to be constructed within ten feet of Mr. McCormick's property. She said that allowing that to happen would reverse the Golden Rule --"Do unto others as you would not have them do unto you". Ms. Shuh said alternate #3 would, at least, benefit the Hanchett family, but the proposed access is of no benefit to Mr. McCormick. Sarah Burns, 910 - 10th Avenue North, said she moved into her home ten years ago and no water problems were existent at that time. In 1979, she said tremendous amounts of water would cause the creek to divide and overflow but caused little or no damage. Ms. Burns said she called the Army Corps. of Engineers seeking advice regarding -retention of the water. She said the bridge collapsed in 1983 and caused erosion to the banks. She was informed by the Surface Water Manage- ment Department in Everett that she was eligible for a grant to help redesign the creek and in- stall plantings to retain the water. However, she received a telephone call from Donna Kilbrew in August of 1.986 informing her that the problem was so severe that she could not provide any, relief. Pastor Bob Gordon, 1002 - IOth Avenue North, said lie did not intend to thwart the Hanchetts' plans for their dream of a community. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 Pastor Gordon said when he first moved into his home sixteen years ago, the stream was almost pristine and sustained trout. Construction began, and the residents were assured that no signifi- cant impacts would result. Pastor Gordon said water drainage worsens with every passing year. He said the water has overflowed on numerous occasions onto the roads and remained there for long periods of time. Ile requested that a study be conducted to analyze the impact of water problems to property located downstream. Charles Jenson, 515 Olympic Avenue, said there is an existing road ten feet from his home that could extend to the proposed access. lie said the traffic does not generate enough noise to cause a disturbance. Mr. Jenson said he would defy anyone to travel twenty miles per hour on that road because five miles per hour is the maximum speed. He said he was in favor of the proposed subdivision. Ian McMillan, 411 - 12th Avenue North, said he has lost 50% of his view and some neighbors have lost 100% because of the Hanchett property. He said he, as well as his neighbors, are in favor of the proposed subdivision because it would provide them, once again, with a view. Robert Brown, 1037 Glenn Street, said lie was a professional engineer and hydrology was his spe- cialty. He said he disagreed with Staff's statement that an EIS was not necessary. Mr. Brown stated that a number of impacts do occur if trees and other surface materials are stripped from a watershed. Mr. Brown said his property adjoins the creek that runs across the proposed subdivision. He said he has observed the creek fill to a maximum level during periods of high water. He said if the proposed subdivision is approved, every measure should be taken to mitigate and hold water on the hillside. Mr. Brown said he believed an EIS was necessary. Andy Colombro, 404 - 12th Place North, said he has experienced many water -related problems during the twelve years he has lived in his home but they emanated from underground springs. He said if the subdivision is constructed as proposed, he believed the water problems would be im- proved. He said he was in favor of the proposed subdivision. Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 1.0 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM- BER JAECH, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Oerrill Bastien, 330 First Interstate Bank Building, Lynnwood, attorney representing the McCormicks, said the purpose of an EIS is to gain information so that decisions can be informed decisions. He questioned if the Council had enough information to render an informed decision on all of the points at issue in the proceeding. Mr. Bastien said everyone he has spoken with, including himself, admire the Hanchetts. He said everyone would like them to develop their property without impacting the neighborhood. Mr. Bastien contended that the Hanchett proposal is not very "neighborly" to the McCormicks or Humolas. Mr. Bastien urged the Council to review the letter written by Mike Hanchett dated July 23, 1985, Exhibit N17 regarding alternate access points. Fie said he believed the letter was the source of the proceedings. Mr. Bastien said Mr. Von Gater indicated to Mr. McCormick that he was willing to trade .properties at the time the letter was written, and the Mattisons were willing to sell their property, thus providing two alternate access points at that time (alternate N1 and #2). Mr. Bastien said lie thought alternate access #3 located on the Hanchett property was the most viable because it would not impact the neighbors, a twenty foot road from Sierra Place could serve as the access point, and the stream is the smallest of the three. . Mr. Bastien stated that the noise study conducted for the Hanchetts was inconclusive because it compared averages of larger cities where noise levels are much higher than in Edmonds, and the noise level was measured seventy feet from Olympic Avenue. The McCormicks' home is located ten feet from the proposed access road, and the noise level will seriously impact them. Mr. Hertrich, previously identified, requested the Council to refer to Exhibit N20. He said it states that following installation of an interceptor drainage, flows could increase to a maximum of 81 gallons per minute as the site is dried out. Mr. Hertrich said that statement was not true. He said disruption of landscaping could possibly create a disruption to the aquafer. No studies were conducted regarding water as it leaves the property. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 Mr. Hertrich said he was Vice President of the Edmonds Concerned Citizens Committee for two terms. lie said he was very interested in the. proposed subdivision., as well as other members of the Committee who were in attendance. at the hearing before the Council. Mr. Chapman noted that a statement was made that an EIS was necessary. He contended that none of the issues have been overlooked. Ile said there are 85 exhibits already in the file, and there was a surfeit of information, if anything, for any reasonable decision maker to digest. Fie sug- gested that the claim that additional information was necessary was a stall tactic. Mr. Chapman said Mike Hanchett contacted the Edmonds Concerned Citizens Committee several years ago and was told the Committee was not interested in the project. Mr. Hertrich suggested that that statement was not true. However, when Mr. Hertrich was questioned during the proceedings before the Hearing Examiner, it was ascertained that he did not represent that committee. Mr. Chapman said Mr. Hertrich should not state that he represents more than his own concerns. Mr. Chapman said the stream that Mr. Ahlbeck referred to is located approximately three-quarters of a mile down the hillside in a northerly direction. The stream, he said, is twenty times larger than the drainage that exits at the Hanchett property. The Hanchetts' contribution to the drainage is minimal. If the subdivision is approved, he said a s.tormwater control system will be installed which will meter the water. Mr. Chapman said an 11% increase in water flow only constituted 2 gallons on top of the 20 gal- lons. He said 2 gallons is only one-fourth of the water flow from a typical garden hose. He said the 11% increase would not be discernible to people downstream. Mr. Chapman noted that a lot of time and money has been invested to study the noise impacts. When Mr. McCormick moved into his home, the setback was less than 25 feet, as required by Code. Mr. Chapman said it was not the Hanchetts' fault that the setback was nonconforming, and they should not be forced to "pay the price". Mr. Chapman said the issue of whether or not Mr. McCormick would be adversely affected if the proposed access road is constructed has been extensively addressed. The issue was addressed in Mr. Haughe's letter which stated that maximum sound levels from Daley Place were no greater than maximum sound levels generated from Olympic Avenue traffic. Kevin Hanchett, previously identified, said there has been a great deal of information given to the Council to digest; in order to make its decision. He said the major frustration and problem the Hanchetts have encountered was not the voluminous information but the misinformation. Mr. Hanchett said several people that the Hanchetts were unfamiliar with gave testimony that evening. lie said all issues were addressed by the experts. Not one counter study was conducted to illustrate the feasibility of the studies conducted for the Hanchetts. Mr. Hanchett extended the offer to people who gave testimony that evening to approach the Hanchetts with any concerns they may have. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Dwyer said he would like to refrain from engaging in a full-blown discussion that evening. He said he would like the opportunity to peruse the record and enter into Council dis- cussion only at a later date and not reopen the hearing or accept additional testimony. Council - member Kasper said he concurred with Councilmember Dwyer with the stipulation that a date certain was set for Council discussion. Councilmember Jaech concurred. She requested that the discus- sion be continued to October ln, 1986. Councilmember Hall said there were several questions that she would like clarified that evening. Mr. Snyder suggested that the hearing he reopened if Councilmember Hall wished to ask questions because she would not have the opportunity to do so if people left the room. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO REOPEN THE HEARING. MOTION CAR- RIED. Councilmember flail inquired how the streams were impacted when homes on Olympic Avenue and Emer= aid Hills were constructed. City Engineer Bob Alberts said he did not know because he was not aware of the status of those areas prior to development. Councilmember Hall requested that that information be supplied on October 14. Councilmember Dwyer noted that that information was EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 not part of the record that the Council was reviewing. He said it would not be fair to the par- ties to open that record up. Mr. Snyder said an appeal has been established to review the Hear- ing Examiner's record but the actual appeal before the Council is de novo, and the Council could consider the hearing Examiner Recommendation. The parties have the ability, he said, to supple- ment the record, but the Council must give the Planning Department's determination substantial weight. He said the Council may continue the hearing, or it could decide that additional informa- tion should be addressed with the environmental impact review process. Councilmember Hall said she would like that information supplied on October'14. Councilmember Jaech noted that new testi- mony could not be introduced at a work meeting; the hearing would have to be reopened. Councilmember Jaech inquired why a variance was requested at the time the McCormick property was developed. Ms. Block said she did not know that a variance was requested. She said the setback from the north was considered a side setback. Councilmember Hall requested that that issue be investigated because she .said she was under, the impression that there was a nonconform- ing connotation on that property. Mr. Snyder said the hearing would have to be reopened if further testimony was taken. Fie recom- mended that the Council state, by motion, what: it wishes the parties to address. Councilmember Hall suggested that the discussion continue on October 21, 1986. Councilmember Dwyer said he thought the hearing should remain closed and that the Council should reconvene in the near future to deliberate the issue and render a decision. Councilmember Kasper inquired if the answers to COUnciimember Ila11's questions were contained in the record. Mr. Bastien replied affirmatively. Councilmember Hall asked Mr. McCormick to clarify her questions. Mr. McCormick said a variance was never requested nor granted when he purchased his property. He said after several attempts to ascertain who the.property belonged to which was located adjacent to his property, if was discovered that the twenty feet was not even on file. Councilmember Hall inquired if Mr. McCormick was informed by Staff what the appropriate setbacks were when he built his home. Mr. McCormick said the exhibits submitted by the applicant do not. depict a road; however, irictures from the 1950's do. Councilmember Hall inquired why the setbacks were not adhered to. Mr. McCormick said that information has not been supplied by the City. Mr. Jenson, previously identified, said he owned that property at one time. He said Mr. McCormick was shown the stake where his property line was. Mr. Chapman noted that Mr. Jenson lives across the street and is married to one of the former property owners. He suggested that the Council peruse the exhibits because he said they provide additional evidence. He said that issue will be dealt with in terms of the variance request and subdivision approval and does not affect whether or not Staff was clearly erroneous in issuing a DNS. Mr. Chapman noted that the Hearing Examiner, on page 11 of his report, stated, "the mitigated DNS cannot be overturned unless it is found that the City of Edmonds is clearly erroneous in determining that the proposed actions are not likely to have probable significant adverse environ- mental impacts". Mr. Bastien said Mr. Jenson's statement that there was a stake in the corner of the property was erroneous. Mr. Bastien said the survey stake was located on the corner of Mrs. Humola's property. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM TO CONTINUE COUNCIL DISCUSSION ONLY ON OCTOBER 14, 1986. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor Naughten said an application for a liquor license was submitted by a new Italian restaurant. Mayor Naughten noted that October 5, 1986 has been proclaimed as "Band Day in Edmonds". Mayor Naughten requested confirmation of Sharon Thatcher to the Personnel Director position. Councilmember Jaech noted that the Council wished to defer that issue to an Executive Session next week. Councilmember Hall noted that a candidate for the Parks & Recreation Manager position was also being interviewed next week. Tile Executive Session was scheduled at 6:30 p.m. on Octo- ber 7, 1986. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 COUNCIL Council President Hall inquired about Councilmember Dwyer's absence. Councilmember Dwyer said he went out of town on business on September 8 and returned on September 25. COUNCILMEMBER NORD- QUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER DWYER'S ABSENCE. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HALL MOVED, SECONDED 13Y COUNCILMEMBER JAECII, TO CLOSE THE OCTOBER 7, 1986 AGEN- DA. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Hall .announced the resignation of Council Resource Assistant Barbara Parsloe....,.- She said Barbara resigned to pursue full-time employment. Sue Millman has filled that position-,- and will attend the October 7 meeting. Council President Hall referred to the memorandum from Public Works Superintendent Bobby Mills regarding the hanging baskets. The Council concurred to remove the baskets around September 15 and the plantings at corner parks at the end of September. Councilmember Nordquist: left the meeting at 10:49 p.m. Council President Hall reminded the Council that an NLC candidate and alternate needed to be. delegated. Mayor Naughten volunteered to serve as the candidate. Councilmember Nordquist was: nominated as the alternate. COUNC1LMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED I3Y CUUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMB,.ER . NOROQUIST'S ABSENCE, M01I0N CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:51 p.m. These minutes are subject to October 7, 1986 approval. JACQUELINE G.- PARRETT, City Clerk 1ARRY NAUGHTEN Mayor EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 SEPTEMBER 30, 1986