10/21/1986 City Council1
C�
THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO
NOVEMBER 3, 1986 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 21, 1986
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Larry
Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag sa-
lute.
PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor
Laura Hall, Council Pres.
Steve Dwyer
Jo -Anne Jaech.
Bill Kasper
John Nordquist
Lloyd Ostrom
Jack Wilson
Tom Peterson, Student Rep.
STAFF PRESENT
Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Dir.
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Bobby Mills, Pub. Wks. Supt.
Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr.
Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Dir.
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Margaret Richards, Recorder
Councilmember Kasper arrived at 7:.03 p.m. and did not vote on the Consent Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Naughten noted that item (E) was removed from the Consent Agenda and rescheduled at a later
date. Councilmember Hall asked why item (E) was -rescheduled. Item (B) was removed from the
Consent Agenda, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE THE
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include
the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
(C) SET NOVEMBER 16, 1986 FOR HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION ON RESOLUTION TO
VACATE UNBUILT RIGHT-OF-WAY OF A PORTION OF SIXTH AVENUE SOUTH LOCATED BETWEEN THE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS OF ELM PLACE AND WILLOW CREEK (ST-3-86)
(D) REPORT ON BID OPENING FOR WADE JAMES THEATRE PARKING LOT AND AWARD TO OLDS OLYMPIC,
INC. ($9,156.26)
(F) SET NOVEMBER 3, 1986 FOR HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION UPHOLDING STAFF
DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT AT 7400 - 158TH ST. S.W. (APPELLANT: JOHN .PECK./AP-13-86)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 1986 [ITEM (B) ON THE CONS.ENI AGENDA
Councilmember Hall noted a correction on page 9, paragraph 5 as follows: Sue Hillman's last
name is spelled H-I-L-L-M-O-N. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO MASSAGE PARLOR ORDINANCE [ITEM (E) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA]
City Attorney Scott Snyder said because inquiries have been made within the past few weeks, the
matter has been referred to the Public Safety Commission for general discussion and to insert a
paragraph into the ordinance.
Councilmember Hall noted that the Council President had approved the agenda on Thursday, but it
was amended without her knowledge on Friday.
Councilmember Hall inquired if the massage parlor ordinance was related to the beauty and massage
parlor and, if so, why the ordinance could not be revised instead of referring it to the Public
Safety Commission. Mr. Snyder said inquiries had been made from licensed therapists who work in
the City. They were offended that their occupation was grouped in the same category as body
painting studios and bath houses and requested consideration for their profession in terms of
licensing requirements. Councilmember-Hall said she did not believe that issue should be re-
ferred to the Police and Fire Departments. Councilmember Dwyer notedthat the issue originated
out of the Public Safety Committee because the ordinance is a public regulatory ordinance.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO REFER ITEM (E) TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED.
AUDIENCE
Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting. No audience input was offered. Mayor
Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting.
Councilmember Jaech raised a point of order. She requested that item 11, Discussion on Proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Appeal of ADB Denial of Proposed Retail Store
be discussed prior to item 9, Council Discussion of Consulting Contract for Review of Public and
Private Financing Options for Secondary Treatment. She said if the meeting lasted until a late
hour, she would prefer that the Findings of Fact be discussed while the Council was still alert.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO DISCUSS ITEM 11 PRIOR TO ITEM 9.
MOTION CARRIED.
DISCUSSION ON REBATE FROM PUD
Mayor Naughten reported that the City is near the deadline as to the application of the $3,001
rebate. Two uses have been discussed: Use it for needy, elderly discounts on 1) electric bills
(PRIDE), or 2) water bills (Water/Sewer Fund). Staff has recommended to give the rebate to the
PUD to- be used solely for Edmonds residents who qualify for Project PRIDE assistance (Provide
Relief for Individuals Dependent on Energy).
Councilmember Hall noted that Councilmember Dwyer had stated in an earlier discussion, that he
would prefer that the rebate is applied to the line item. She questioned if he had intended that
the rebate not be given to the PUD. Councilmember Dwyer said he had suggested that the money be
appropriated to the City's Water/Sewer Fund and be applied towards needy citizens of Edmonds.
However, he said it has been guaranteed that the money will .be applied towards Project Pride for
Edmonds citizens and will actually benefit more people. Ile said the Mayor's recommendation is
consistent with his desires.
Councilmember Jaech requested that the City Attorney state, for the record, that appropriating
the funds to Project Pride would be a proper way to allocate the funds. City Attorney Scott
Snyder said Article 7, Section 8 of the Washington State constitution prohibits cities from lend-
ing their credit or donating funds for private purposes. However, he said there is an express
exception for, grants to the poor and the infirm. Mr. Snyder said the only proviso would be some
assurance from the PUD that the money is appropriated to Edmonds citizens. Councilmember Jaech
inquired what assurances could be obtained. Mr. Snyder recommended that a formalized procedure
be stated on the record indicating the Council's desire that the funds be applied solely for
Project Pride. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the City would have any obligation to audit the
appropriation of the funds. Mr. Snyder said the costs of auditing and tracking the funds would
exceed the amount of the rebate. Councilmember Jaech inquired why the funds could not be appro-
priated to citizens who were unable to pay their water/sewer bill, etc. Mayor Naughten said
there are only eighteen people in Edmonds who qualify for a discount on their utilities, but
there are approximately one hundred people who qualify for Project Pride.
Councilmember Hall recommended that the funds be appropriated to individuals who experience an
unanticipated emergency and are unable to pay their utility bills.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO DEDICATE THE PUD REBATE TO
PROJECT PRIDE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE MONIES ARE SPENT ON PUD CUSTOMERS WHO QUALIFY FOR
PROJECT PRIDE AND RESIDE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF EDMONDS.
Councilmember Hall suggested that the project guidelines are published.
MOTION CARRIED.
PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD TO FRANCES MURPHY .
Mayor Naughten said the Community Service Award is given to individuals or corporations who have
made a significant contribution of improving the quality of life in the City of Edmonds.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 OCTOBER 21, 1986
Mayor Naughten said Frances Murphy moved to the Northwest thirty years ago and has taught in the
Edmonds School District for approximately the same -length of time.
Ms. Murphy established the Beach Ranger Program in 1979. Since that time, over twenty-one rang-
ers have educated, assisted, and helped the public to attain a greater knowledge and respect for
the waterfront. Ms. Murphy serves as the program's Director and volunteers approximately twenty
hours a week to that program.
The Beach Ranger Program has become a model program for other communities. It was recently hon-
ored by receiving the President's Environmental Protection Agency Award.
Ms. Murphy is also active in the Household Waste Committee in the solid waste problem.
Mayor Naughten presented Ms. Murphy with the Community Service Award.
Ms. Murphy expressed her gratitude. She said the City of Edmonds has been very good to her and
to itself.
Ms. Murphy said one of the rangers has been promised a grant. She said she was hopeful that the
other rangers would also receive support for their education from the community.
PRESENTATION BY TERRY VEHRS ON WATERFRONT FESTIVAL
Terry Vehrs, 9216 - 183rd Place, presented a new concept of promoting the City of Edmonds via
a Waterfront Festival. He said the event is tentatively scheduled for August 28, 29, and 30.
The festival will consist of numerous promotions and events throughout the Edmonds Port District,
i.e., boat show, vendors, classes and demonstrations, food booths, City/Port barbeque, etc.
Mr. Vehrs requested the City's permission for the use of Olympic Beach and Marina Beach during
the festival. He also requested that the City provide its picnic tables and garbage cans.
Mayor Naughten inquired about insurance coverage. Mr. Vehrs said he anticipated that the same
amount of coverage would be applied for as for the Arts Festival, if not more. Mayor Naughten in-
quired if the public would only be on the water for boat rides. Mr. Vehrs said the public
would only use the new dock to access boats.
Councilmember Ostrom expressed reservation about the dance event. He said he would like to avoid
a situation of drunken brawls as was experienced at the Taste of Edmonds. Mr. Vehrs said alco-
holic beverages will not be served at the dance event.
Councilmember Jaech inquired when the Taste of Edmonds event is held. Community Services Direc-
tor Peter Hahn said approximately mid -August. Councilmember Jaech expressed concern that the
Police and Fire Departments may be overworked if the two events are held on consecutive
weekends. Mr. Vehrs said the event must be planned during the summer months to insure that
weather conditions permit outdoor activities.
Councilmember Jaech inquired if the cost to utilize City employees to move and remove the picnic
tables and garbage cans has been estimated. Mr. Vehrs said that issue will be investigated.
He noted that the benefit to the City would far outweigh the costs.
Mayor Naughten inquired what cost the City would bear for the event. Mr. Vehrs said the only
cost to the City would be to move and remove the picnic tables and garbage cans because volun-
teers have agreed to clean up the area utilized for the event.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the nucleus of support for the festival. Mr. Vehrs said
volunteers from the Arts Festival and Edmonds Main Streets Program have offered their
assistance. Councilmember Wilson asked Mr. Vehrs if lie has consulted the Police and Fire De-
partments. Mr. Vehrs replied negatively. Councilmember Wilson inquired about parking provi-
sions. Mr. Vehrs said Diamond Parking, Harbor Square, and Safeway will be requested to give
their permission to utilize their lots during the event.
Councilmember Hall said th.e Waterfront Festival was an excellent idea. She suggested more impe-
tus from the Port of Edmonds. She expressed concern that turnout would not be as good because
the festival would be held too closely to the Taste of Edmonds. Mr. Vehrs said the dates were
selected to insure good weather conditions as well as coordinating dates for events.
i' EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 OCTOBER 21, 1986
Councilmember Ostrom suggested that the month of July may be a better month to hold the event;
Mr. Vehrs said guest moorage will be utilized for the event, noting that the boating season is
at its peak in July.
Councilmember Dwyer reconnnended that Mr. Vehrs and Administrative Director Art Housler meet to
discuss the insurance aspect and consult with the insurance pool to determine what level of cover-
age is necessary before the Council approves of the event.
Mr. Snyder suggested that a contract be entered into between the City and the Waterfront Festival
sponsors for final review and approval by the Council.
REPORT FROM HEARING EXAMINER
James Driscoll, 520 Pike, Suite 1505, reported that the activity for the land use process has
increased dramatically over the past year; sixty-six hearing were held during the period of Octo-
ber 1, 1984 through September 30, 1985. Hearings increased to seventy-eight during the same time
period from 1985 to 198.6. Mr. Driscoll said, however, approximately one-fourth to one-third.
were multiple session hearings, and many controversial issues were encountered. He said the
controversy, though, was encouraging because it indicates that the citizenry is taking an active
interest in the development of the City.
Mr. Driscoll said he believed the controversial issues arose because of: 1) the obvious natural
protection of one's property rights to maintain the status quo of their property and surrounding
property, and 2) the definition section of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) is un-
clear and vague. He said because of changes that have occurred during the past seven years since
the zoning code was enacted, i.e., new developments, stronger economy, upgrading of facilities,
many of the deficiencies and weaknesses of the ECDC have been exposed.
Mr. Driscoll said lie often will come across words in an ordinance that are the key point of a
hearing but are not clearly defined under the definition section of the Code. He said when key
words are not defined, judgement then becomes subjective or discretionary on his part. Those
deficiencies, he said, weaken the zoning code and allow more discretion, judgements become more
subjective, and fewer guidelines are provided for the community to follow and adhere to.
Mr. Driscoll recommended that the ECDC be reviewed on a periodic basis to ascertain the deficien-
cies and revise the Code to correct them.
Mr. Driscoll said through his frustration he has referenced the Revised Code of Washington and
Washington Annotated Code (WAC) for definitions that the State may have adopted but they, also,
were unavailable.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if Chapter 16 should also be reviewed. Mr. Driscoll replied affir-
matively. He said although the definition section is the most pressing problem, review should
not be limited to the definition section.
Councilmember Ostrom expressed concern regarding the criteria for Declarations of Nonsignificance
(DNS) and Environmental Impact Statements. He said those areas are very subjective. The crite-
ria, he said, are not outlined for the Council that are used in making a recommendation when an
appeal is before the Council. Mr. Driscoll said the difficulty arises because the source of the
DNS is the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and it does not give very much instruction.
He said each case must be reviewed on its own merit. He agreed that a determination is subjec-
tive. He said the City may wish to amend the ordinance regarding SEPA reviews. Councilmember
Ostrom asked Mr. Driscoll if he felt that the City could establish those criteria. Mr. Driscoll
said criteria could be established as long as they did not conflict with State criteria.
Councilmember Hall inquired if Mr. Driscoll was recommending that the City take a leadership role
in establishing guidelines for SEPA reviews and integrate them into the WAC. Mr. Driscoll
replied negatively. Ile said the City of Edmonds must adhere to statutes regarding SEPA reviews
and criteria of WAC. The criteria cannot be made more definitive by the City.
Councilmember Hall inquired if Mr. Driscoll would participate with the Planning Board in the
City's review of the ECDC. Mr. Driscoll replied affirmatively. He said he would not, however,.
participate in any legislative recommendation or in any input of the drafting of the definitions.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 OCTOBER 21, 1986
City Attorney Scott Snyder said he felt there are a number of gaps and problems in the ECDC which
relate to the process of codification. He said the consultant who codified the ordinance had a
good deal of generalized and specific knowledge but had no sense of the history of the City. Mr.
Snyder said the participation of citizen groups and others who are familiar with Code administra-
tion will enhance the process.
Councilmember Dwyer recommended that Mr. Driscoll forward specific problems to the Planning Board
after a hearing is resolved so that the issues can be addressed as they arise and not years after-
wards.
Councilmember Ostrom said there have been times when an appeal was before the Council but the
Council was unable to determine how the Hearing Examiner arrived at his decision. Mr. Driscoll
said if he has reason to believe that an issue will be appealed, he will add a "Comment" section
in his report which briefly explains the process in which tie arrived at his decision. He said he
symphathized with the Council's frustration as decision makers attempting to render a fair and
equitable decision. Mr. Driscoll said he ascertains the points that are relevant in a hearing
and enumerates them in the Findings of Fact. The Conclusions are based upon the facts that have
been presented.
Mr. Driscoll said the lack of definition in the ECDC compounds SEPA reviews. However, if objec-
tive standards are implemented, they will assist decision makers in their process. The Council
thanked Mr. Driscoll for his report.
Mayor Naughten recognized a Boy Scout in the audience. Mike Cooper, 820 Maple Street, introduced
his son, Jim. Jim Cooper said he is a member of Scout Troop 312. He is working towards his
citizenship and community merit badge. Councilmember Hall noted that Mike Cooper is the son of
the former Fire Chief,
CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DENYING VARIANCE TO EXCEED Zb% LIMITA-
TION OF IMPROVEMENTS 10 NONCONFORMING RESIUENCE AT 132 BELL STREET V-19-86/APPELLANT: WILL
SMITH) (FROM OCTOBER 7, 1986)
Mayor Naughten noted that the issue was continued from October 7, 1986 Council meeting. The
public portion of the hearing was closed at that time.
Mayor Naughten said since October 7 two letters have been received by the City: one from Will
Smith and one from John Kaska. He inquired if the Council wished to admit the letters into the
record.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the two parties involved had a right to review the letters.
City Attorney'Scott Snyder replied affirmatively. Councilmember Kasper inquired if they had had
an opportunity to do so. Mr. Snyder said Mr.. Smith's letter was publicly seminated. He noted
that Mr. Smith indicated with a shake of his head that he had not seen Mr. Kaska's letter.
Councilmember Dwyer recommended that new evidence not be introduced into the record after a pub-
lic hearing has been closed in accordance with the policy adopted by the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO DISALLOW THE LETTERS TO BE INTRO-
DUCED INTO THE RECORD.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if the letter to Councilmembers from the City Attorney should also
be precluded from the record. Mr. Snyder said there is an attorney/client privilege between
himself and the City. He said tie does not view any statement by himself as testimony.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Nordquist said because he was not involved in the prior proceedings, he would ab-
stain from voting on this issue.
Mayor Naughten inquired if the Council's understanding of the proceedings before it was a continu-
ation of Council discussion only and that the public portion was closed. The Council responded
affirmatively.
Councilmember Dwyer said the variance request is unlike any other variance that has come before
the Council. He said he had questioned what the variance was from and has been satisfactorily
answered by the City Attorney in _that- it is a request for a.variance from the use of procedural
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 OCTOBER 21, 1986
requirements of the Code and is, therefore, ineligible to be varied. Councilmember Dwyer recom-
mended that the variance request be denied and the application fee reimbursed since the applica-
tion should not have been processed.
Councilmember Kasper inquired, then, if other applications for building permits are also ineligi-
ble because of a variance from procedural requirements. Councilmember Dwyer said he did not feel
that an answer to that question was vital in order to proceed with the issue before the Council.
COUNCILMEMB.ER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN
V=19-86 AND RETURN THE APPLICATION FEE. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON .HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION TO VACATE PORTION OF UNDEVELOPED_
RIGHT-OF-WAY _ F 81ST AVE. W., ADJACENT TO 820- 182ND PL. S.W. ST-2-86/TOM SNYDER
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that in July, Tom Snyder filed a petition with
the City to vacate a portion of the undeveloped right-of-way of 81st Ave. W. that abuts the
southeast corner of his. property at 8204 182nd PI. S.W. The subject right-of-way is
30'x3O' and is presently used as a sports court by the Snyders. It is fenced as part of their
yard.
On August 24, 1986, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the vacation request. The
Hearing Examiner issued his report on September 22, 1986 recommending that the right-of-way be
vacated subject to the City receiving compensation for the vacated land.
Based on the 1986 assessor's rolls, the value of the property to be vacated is $2,493 (900 square
feet at $2.77 per square foot). Since the City will not be retaining easements through this
property, the property should be presumed to have a value equal to 100% of the assessed value.
Ms. Block said a copy of the Hearing Examiner's report, the vacation petition, site plan, and
vicinity map were attached to Council packets.
Staff is recommending the adoption of the Hearing Examiner's findings and recommendation to ap-
prove the right-of-way vacation request of Tom Snyder.
Ms. Block then reviewed the Hearing Examiner's Conclusions and Recommendation as follows: " 2 )
the criteria of Section 2.0.70.020(B) of the ECDC have been reviewed, and the application satis-
fies these criteria; 3) the proposed right-of-way vacation is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Edmonds. The right-of-way is at the end of 81st Avenue West and provides
no access to other properties. The adjoining right-of-way is of a sufficient size to provide
access to one other lot to the east; 4) the right-of-way serves no usefulness to the general
public, residents of nearby areas, or owners of property adjacent to the street; 5) the right-of--
way has not been improved for street purposes. It has been improved as a sports court by a prev i-
ous owner; 6) there is no need for easements for utilities within the right-of-way; 7) Section
20.70.030 of the ECDC sets forth the presumptions of values of street rights -of -way. Because
the subject right-of-way does not require reservation or retention of utilities or other public:
easements, the property is presumed to have a value equal to 100% of the prorated square foot
value of the average of the abutting lots. As such, value has been determined in accordance with
the assessed valuation placed upon said property by the Snohomish County Assessor.
"It is hereby recommended to the City Council of the City of Edmonds that the petition to vacate
a portion of the right-of-way on 81st Avenue West be granted subject to the following: 1) the
City shall be paid compensation for the right-of-way based upon the formula of 100% of the as-
sessed value of the adjacent property. (The recommended compensation is not reduced from 100% of
the assessed value of the adjacent property. Because the right-of-way will be a benefit to the
Applicant's property, the City should receive compensation for the property. If the Applicant
believes that he paid for the 30'x3O' piece of land at the time of purchase, he should contact:
the seller of the property or the Title Insurance Company for repayment of the amount paid for
the 30'x30' right-of-way. To request the City to absorb the loss is not justified because the
City was uninvolved in the purchase and sale of the•Applicant's property.)
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the sports court was fenced. Ms. Block said it is fenced along
the south and east boundary. Councilmember Kasper inquired if any neighbors have objected to th(!'
existence of the court. Ms. Block replied negatively.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired about the dimensions of the court. Ms. Block said it is 30,x3O,.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 OCTOBER 21, 1986
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the property will be utilized as a turnaround or any other us-
age. Ms. Block replied negatively.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Tom Snyder, 8204 = 182nd P1. S.W., said he has requested the street vacation to .protect the
sport court and part of his back yard, which he was led to believe was part of the property when
he purchased his home in 1984.
Mr. Snyder requested relief of the 100% valuation of the property for the following reasons: 1)
the Snohomish County Assessor assessed the value of the subject property at $450 and estimated
that the acquisition of that property would increase the value of his property up to $500. He
submitted a Land Value Chart to the Council which was used by the County Assessor in determining
the valuation of the subject property'. He said the system used by the Assessor equated the value
of the subject property at 27t a square foot. 2) The value of $2.77 per square foot that was
determined by Staff was based on property which could be developed.
Mr. Snyder said lie believed that $450 was a fair market value for the property.
Mr. Snyder noted that Seaview Village was purchased at a price of $98,450 for ten lots, which
equates to approximately 79t per square foot. lie suggested that that assessment be utilized to
determine the value of the subject property.
Mr. Snyder, said that removal of the subject property from the right -of -.way map will enable the
property to be assessed for taxes.
Councilmember Kasper noted that the Council had established a.procedur.e within the last year for
assessing property values. He suggested that the Council not deviate from that policy and that
Mr. Snyder have the property appraised himself if he was dissatisfied with the City's
assessment. Councilmember Ostrom concurred.
COUNCIL.MEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO ADOPT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION REQUEST OF TOM SNYDER BUT 1HAT
THE ASSESSED VALUATION BY THE CITY BE APPLIED UNLESS AN APPRAISAL IS CONDUCTED BY AN ESTABLISHED
APPRAISER, AT WHICH TIME THE COUNCIL WOULD REVIEW THAT APPRAISAL. MOTION CARRIED.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF AUB DENIAL OF
PRUPOSEU RETAIL STORE 7ND SELF-SERVICE GAS STATION Al 8339 - 212-IH ST. S.W. B-5U-86 PI'€L-
L NT: RAINIER NAIIUNAL BANK)
City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that this item was heard on .October 7, 1986 at which time the
Council voted to remand the application to the Architectural Design Board and require a condition-
al use permit. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were provided in the Council packets
to reflect the motion.
Since action was taken on the matter, the Hearing Examiner has rendered a decision on a similar
situation at another location. His decision could have significant ramifications for the subject
application.
Mr. Snyder recommended that this matter is reviewed in light of the recent Hearing Examiner's
decision. The Hearing Examiner concluded that a modern gas station/convenience store was not
contemplated by the Code. Mr. Snyder said that decision raised a question whether the issue
before the.Council should be remanded through a process.
Mr. Snyder said lie found the record to be scanty in .terms of what used to exist on the site. He
said the issue regarding the nonconforming use is: Was a nonconforming use established? The
Council, he said, will have to make findings regarding the old use as well as what the proposed
use will be.
Mr. Snyder recommended that the site plan be remanded to the ADB with the injunction that the
Board waits until the Council rules on the conditional use permit issue. The Council could then
set another hearing date to hear the issue before the Council at the present time and the applica-
tion at 19.6th and Olympic View on the legal issues alone. lie said if the hearings are held in
conjunction, the Council will not have to consider all of the factual background, only the legal
issue.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 OCTOBER 21, 1986
Councilmember Hall inquired about the definition of a drive-in business. Mr. Snyder said the
Hearing Examiner stated that the City's definition of a drive-in business presumes that the cus-
tomer does not leave his/her car. He said the Hearing Examiner was uncomfortable in determining
how a convenience store with gas pimps would be interpreted and felt the Council should make that
decision.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if drive-in theatres fall into the drive-in. business category. Mr.
Snyder said theatres are specifically excluded.
Councilmember Jaech expressed concern regarding the direction of discussion and recommended that
the Hearing Examiner decision not be discussed. Mr. Snyder suggested that the Council adopt the
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law and set another hearing on November 18, 1986 to allow time
for the Council to consider the Findings and hearing Examiner Decision on 196th & Olympic View
Drive.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO ADOPT THE TWO -PAGE DOCUMENT OF
THE FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PROPOSED BY CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT SNYDER.
Councilmember Jaech inquired why the Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law should be adopted in
light of the fact that amendments may be made to that document. Mr. Snyder said the Findings of
Fact & Conclusions of Law are set up to render a decision on the ADB application that is before
the Council and set a new hearing (late requesting all interested parties to come forward and
present evidence regarding the legal issue and to present testimony regarding the nature and
extent of the past use and how it has been altered. Councilmember Jaech inquired why the hearing
could not simply be continued instead of setting a new hearing date. Mr. Snyder said a new hear.
ing date must be set because the public portion of the previous hearing had been closed.
Councilmember Kasper expressed concern because he said the appeal was filed because the A013
raised new issues on several occasions and the Council seems to be following that sanle pattern.
He questioned if the Hearing Examiner system was working.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST,
COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR AND COUNCILMEMBER HALL AND COUNCILMEMBER
JAECH OPPOSED AND COUNCILMEMBER KASPER ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE SAID HE WAS UNSURE OF THE DIRECTION
OF THE MOTION AND HOW IT WOULD AFFECT 111E ISSUE.
Mr. Snyder noted that if a Councilmember's opinion is not stated on the record, it will not be
preserved for the Court which will review the Council's decision. He urged the Council not to be
reluctant .to continue a hearing if it felt evidence was lacking and direct the appellant, appli-
cant, or Staff to provide that evidence.
Councilmember Jaech requested Mr. Snyder to state, for the record, what would transpire on Novem-
ber 18, 1986. Mr. Snyder said assuming that the Council receives an appeal on the Hearing Examin-
er, recommendation, he would suggest that a Bearing be held regarding the legal issue concerning
.the definitions as outlined in the Hearing Examiner Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law and
that a second factual hearing be held regarding the use.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR REVIEW OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FINANCING OPTIONS FOR
SECONDARY TREATMENT WITH SEATTLE NORTHWEST SECURITIES CORPORATION 5 OUO MAXIMUM
Community Services Director Peter Hahn reported that on November 10, 1986, the Council is sched-
uled to further discuss the topic of privatization vs. public financing of secondary
treatment. The Council had previously authorized Staff to retain a consultant to compare financ-
ing options, and it now becomes evident that an independent assessment of this issue is warrant-
ed. Staff is proposing to augment the November 10 discussion with a consultant study comparing
the financing.options.
He said Seattle Northwest Securities is a prominent and highly experienced investment banking
firm with extensive public and private sector financing background. Mr. Alan Dashen, Vice
President and Director of the Public Finance. Department, will be directly responsible for analy-
sis. Mr. Dashen holds an MBA from Stanford University as well as a BS and an MS in Civil
Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley. He has over ten years of experience
in financing and economic analysis, he has the computer systems and software in place to be able
to analyze such recent developments as tax reform and provide a full report to the City before
the November 10, 1986 Council meeting.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 OCTOBER 21, 1986
Mr. Hahn noted that a letter from Mr. Dashen and a proposed contract for consulting services
was attached to Council packets. The cost of the privatization analysis will be limited to under
$5,000. The source of funding w.ill be Fund 412.
Staff is recommending the approval of the consulting contract.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired what connection, ..if any, Mr. Dashen has had in preparing the
Lynnwood analysis for privatization. Mr. Hahn said Mr. Dashen has had no direct relationship
in working with the City of Lynnwood or with Arthur Young & Co. Councilmember Nordquist said he
does not want the City to receive a carbon copy of the studies which have been conducted
already. Mr. Hahn said Mr. Dashen's study will be totally independent. Councilmember Nord-
quist noted that the City had experienced a negative relationship with Seattle Northwest Securi-
ties in the past. Mr. Hahn said Mr. Dashen was not employed with Seattle Northwest Securities
at that time.
Councilmember Ostrom said he was in favor of hiring a consultant.
Councilmember Hall inquired if Mr. Dashen was aware that other analyses may be submitted at the
November 10 meeting. Mr. Hahn said although he was unaware of what offers may be posed on Novem-
ber 10, the product offered by Mr. Dashen will be an independent assessment and comparison of
options for secondary sewer.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the November 10 discussion was still scheduled. Mr. Hahn re-
plied affirmatively. He said Mr. Dashen's study will be reviewed at that time. Councilmember
Kasper suggested that the results of the study be published so that all interested parties are
aware of its contents. Mr. Hahn said the study will be available on November 3 by request.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROPRIATE $5,000 FROM FROM 412
TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SEATTLE NORTHWEST SECURITIES 70 DEVELOP A REPORT TO BE PRESENTED
TO THE COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 10. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER
JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR AND COUNCIL-
MEMB.ER HALL, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, AND COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST OPPOSED.
CityClerk Jackie Parrett inquired if the issue would be the only topic of discussion on November
10. Councilmember Hall replied negatively.
DISCUSSION ON CITY POLICY FOR COST ALLOCATION IN THE UPGRADING OF WATER LINES
There was no Council discussion on the issue.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO SUPPORT THE POLICY THAT THE
CITY'S REPLACEMENT CODE APPLY FOR ALL PIPELINES THAT ARE REPLACED DUE TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP-
MENTS. MOTION CARRIED.
MAYOR
Mayor Naughten noted that lie had requested that an Executive Session be held following the meet-
ing to discuss two legal issues for approximately fifteen minutes.
Mayor Naughten said he sent a letter to the mayors of South Snohomish County who are members of
the South Snohomish County Emergency Service supporting E-911.
Mayor Naughten announced that the United Way breakfast is scheduled on October 30, 1986 at 7 a.m.
at the Senior Center. Donations will be accepted.
Mayor Naughten said twenty-six people participated in the golf tournament on October 18.
Mayor Naughten noted that there was a memorandum in the Council packets regarding the Employee
Assistance Program.
COUNCIL
Council President Hall requested the Mayor to inform her if any amendments are made to the agenda
in the future.
Council President Hall reviewed the schedule for budget meetings. She asked the Council if the
schedule was acceptable. The Council concurred.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9 OCTOBER 21, 1986
Council President Hall noted that Council Assistant Sue Hillmon attended her first Council
dinner meeting and did a very good job of taking the minutes.
Council President Hall said the City has reviewed a letter from Rob Morrison promoting funding
of the Flower Program by the private sector.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the minutes of the discussion regarding secondary sewer treat-
ment on Saturday will be distributed. Council President Hall replied affirmatively.
Councilmember N.ordquist said E-911 does merit the Council's support. Ile suggested that the Coun-
cil President submit a statement to the local paper stating the City's support of the program.
Councilmember Jaech said Ms. Hillmon has been doing an excellent job. Councilmember Jaech said
the Community Service budget did not reflect any activity regarding the acquisition of the Civic
Center Playfield. However, Ms. Hillmon expeditiously researched the minutes and found that a
formal motion had been made. Councilmember Jaech..referred Staff to the minutes of October 2,
1984 and December 17, .1985 and the 1986 Budget. Councilmember Kasper requested that the minutes
be further reviewed regarding the Council's recommendation that no monies other than maintenance
be invested in the property until it was acquired by the City.
Councilmember Jaech requested that the gift given to the City by the Japanese dignitaries be
displayed at the next Council meeting. She suggested that it be cataloged by the Art Commission.
Councilmember Jaech inquired if the draft agreement for tidelands. has been completed. City Attor-
ney Scott Snyder replied affirmatively. Councilmember Jaech inquired about the length of time ii:
took to draft the agreement. Mr. Snyder said approximately 90 minutes. Councilmember Jaech
inquired about the cost. Mr. Snyder said approximately $150. Councilmember Jaech suggested, in
the interest of minimizing attorney fees, to direct the City, Attorney to conduct City business
only when a decision has been reached regarding a particular issue before he is rdque.sted to
draft City documents.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the sister city relationship with Hekinan. Mayor Naughten
said the City of Edmonds is one of two cities that Hekinan is considering. The City is in the
process of polling the business community for support of Hekinan as a sister city should Hekinan
select Edmonds as a sister city.
Councilmember Kasper requested information regarding the other city that was formerly pursued as
a sister city.
Councilmember Dwyer said he will be sending a memorandum to Staff, the City Attorney, and
Councilmembers stating his opinion .that Staff should not review an appeal from the Hearing Examin-
er regarding land use decisions. He requested that that issue be placed on the agenda. .They
issue was scheduled on November 3, 1986 for discussion.
COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO REFER THE ISSUES OF CLARIFICATION
OF THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE ECDC AND CRITERIA OF DECLARATIONS OF NONSIGNIFICANCE TO THE
PLANNING BOARD FOR STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION.
Councilmember Kasper reminded the Council that the Hearing Examiner stated that the City of
Edmonds must adhere to State statutes, and the criteria cannot be made more definitive by the!
City. City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that the SEPA rules had approximately forty pages of
material concerning Staff review and environmental procedures and only one paragraph regarding)
appeals. He said he has always interpreted the rules to state that the City can develop its own
appeal procedures as long as it gives Staff's determination substantial weight. Councilmember
Jaech said if they City had some sort of criteria to review, it would substantially shorten the!
appeal review process.
Councilmember Nordquist and Councilmember Kasper left at 9:32 p.m. and did not vote on the motion..
MOTION CARRIED.
The Council recessed to an Executive Session at 9:33 p.m. to discuss legal issues for approximate-•
ly fifteen minutes.
These minutes are subj t to November 3, 1986 approval.
ARRY . N GHTENJ Pla r
J UELI,NE G., P RRET , City. Clerk EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 10 OCTOBER 21, 1986