07/18/2006 City CouncilJuly 18, 2006
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Deanna Dawson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauni Moore, Councilmember (arrived 7:08 p.m.)
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager
Don Sims, Traffic Engineer
Mike Thies, Code Enforcement
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Moore
was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Moore was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
6/27/06
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2006.
Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #89042 THROUGH #89167 FOR JUNE 29, 2006, IN
Checks THE AMOUNT OF $400,400.13, #89173 THROUGH #89320 FOR JULY 6, 2006, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $323,907.39, AND #89323 THROUGH #89458 FOR JULY 1.3, 2006, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $523,308.75. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND
CHECKS #43241. THROUGH #43387 IN THE AMOUNT OF $831,582.23 FOR THE
PERIOD OF JUNE 16 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2006.
Claim for I (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JOHN G. FENTON
Damages
($150,000.00).
Edmonds Night (E) AGREEMENT WITH THE EDMONDS POLICE FOUNDATION TO PROVIDE $2,000
Out Event FOR PROMOTING THE EDMONDS NIGHT OUT EVENT ON JULY 27, 2006.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 1
Office Supplies
gs
and Furnishin (F)
Agreement
Postage Meter
Equipment (G)
Comcast Cable
Franchise
greement (H)
Comcast Cable
Franchise
greement
'o r thstreat" (J)
Storm Repa r
Improvements
EMS Supply
Agreement (K)
Fire Dept.
Surplus
Apparatus
Economic
Development (M)
Director Salary
Historic �N�
Preservation
Commissioners
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE OFFICE
SUPPLIES AND FURNISHINGS PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH OFFICE MAX.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
PITNEY BOWES FOR POSTAGE METER EQUIPMENT.
CITY OF EDMONDS AND COMCAST CABLE COMPANY FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.
AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR SENIOR CENTER FIRE ALARM
RENOVATION PROJECT TO ABSCO ALARMS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,056.23.
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH EARTH TECH, INC. FOR THE
NORTHSTREAM 30 -INCH STORM REPAIR/IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
EMS SUPPLY AGREEMENT WITH LYNNWOOD FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SURPLUS OLD SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS TO FIRE DISTRICT #1
AND EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT.
MODIFYING THE CURRENT L -5 SALARY RANGE FOR THE POSITION OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.
CONFIRMATION OF REAPPOINTMENT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSIONERS STEPHEN WAITE AND ROB VAN TASSELL.
PSRC Update 3. PRESENTATION BY PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL (PSRC) ON THE UPDATE OF
of Vision 2020 VISION 2020.
Councilmember Marin advised Bob Drewel, PSRC Executive Director, was unable to attend tonight's
meeting due to a family matter. He relayed Mr. Drewel's offer to make a presentation regarding the
Prosperity Partnership at a future meeting.
Norman Abbott, PSRC Director of Growth Management, explained the purpose of his presentation
was to introduce a regional conversation about the region's future, to present an overview of the Vision
2020 Update which builds on existing vision as well as adds new thinking, and describe the four
alternatives. He reviewed the organization and decision making responsibilities of PSRC and PSRC's
officers and member organizations. He described regional responsibilities including Vision 2020,
Destination 2030 and the Regional Economic Strategy. He advised the update of the Vision 2020 Plan
would be followed by an update of the transportation plan. He displayed a chart of transportation
investments planned over the next 30 years, a total of $106 billion.
Mr. Abbott described the two - pronged approach to Prosperity Partnership — rebuild the region's economic
foundations to meet the needs of the new economy and meet the unique needs of identified clusters —
explaining this approach has been successful and resulted in development of a regional economic strategy
and an 18 -point implementation program. He displayed a graphic of the 170+ partners in the Prosperity
Partnership.
Mr. Abbott described the regional agreement and regional framework in Vision 2020 that includes
regional geographies, urban form, regional growth centers, industrial centers, rural lands, and
transportation systems. The update would provide a vision with regard to how and where growth would
occur. Where growth would occur would be addressed by the adoption of a preferred alternative;
consideration was being given to four alternatives. How growth would occur would be determined via an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 2
update to the Multicounty Planning Policies. He reviewed the Growth Management Policy Board's
accomplishments with regard to the update including scoping, analysis of existing Multicounty Planning
Policies, creation of ten issue papers, scenario analysis, selection of four alternatives and the kick -off of
the DEIS comment period. He briefly described the creation of the ten issue papers that formed the basis
of the update and noted they are available on the PSRC website as well as in the Executive Summary.
Mr. Abbott described the value of the update including building on the existing vision and local
Comprehensive Plan: remain visionary; be ambitious and realistic — refine our common vision for how
and where growth should occur; and involve all communities in the region; establish priorities and
identify implementation; promote desired growth pattern through revised Multicounty Planning Policies;
and promote framework to coordinate resources and fund regional needs.
He described the four alternatives, emphasizing there was no preferred alternative at this time. The four
alternatives include, 1) growth targets extended, 2) metropolitan cities, 3) largest cities, and 4) smaller
cities. He described how growth in the region was organized around city types — metropolitan, core
suburban cities, larger suburban cities such as Edmonds, smaller suburban cities, unincorporated UGA
and rural. He explained that via this mechanism, the Growth Management Policy Board could consider
the role of cities without addressing individual cities.
Next, Mr. Abbott explained the existing Vision 2020 strategy did not have any numbers; however,
without numbers it was difficult to explain and monitor progress. The purpose of including numbers in
the update was to provide regional guidance regarding desired growth patterns, allow a conceptual
distribution of people and jobs, allow analysis, and make the vision more clear and measurable but he
assured the numbers were not targets or forecasts. He displayed population ranges for each city type,
advising the population growth range being studied for larger suburban cities was 26,700 — 160,000. He
explained the range was intended to allow a wide range of impacts to be studied.
He described common and different impacts of the alternatives, advising mitigation was the key to
managing impacts. Focusing growth on larger cities in the region would reduce impacts on outer areas of
the region and the most environmentally sensitive areas. He acknowledged that focusing growth on the
larger cities would impact those cities. Conversely, if growth was dispersed, it would impact the most
environmentally sensitive areas as well as impact smaller cities that lacked the ability to accommodate
growth. He reviewed evaluation criteria that the Growth Management Policy Board would use to
determine a preferred alternative. The criteria include overarching goals as well as several categories for
consideration including environmental quality, health, economic prosperity, land use, transportation,
social justice and human potential, rural character, resource lands, and efficient use of infrastructure,
public facilities and services.
Mr. Abbott described next steps that include the Policy Board collecting and reviewing public comment
in Summer 2006, developing a preferred alternative in Fall /Winter 2006, revising Multicounty Planning
Policies in Fall/Winter 2006, publishing a supplemental Draft EIS on the preferred alternative, a 60 day
comment period on the DEIS, with final action anticipated in Winter 2008.
Council President Dawson expressed concern with how Edmonds was viewed; although the theory
sounded great — larger cities absorbing more growth which had less impact on natural resources — the
cities that were grouped together as larger cities were not necessarily similar. For example Edmonds and
Marysville were both identified as larger cities, however, Marysville was experiencing and desiring
explosive growth versus Edmonds which was fully built out and constrained by natural features which
limit its ability to absorb large amounts of population growth. Further, she noted several of the cities that
were identified as smaller cities such as Mill Creek and Monroe, in 20 years would likely be larger than
Edmonds. She questioned how the unique features of various cities would be considered in this update.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 3
Mr. Abbott responded the regional geography approach focused on groups of cities and not on individual
cities. The group was organized based on city size. He acknowledged Marysville was more
able /aggressive about absorbing growth versus a city such as Mukilteo which was within the same
category.
Council President Dawson commented current population may not be the most appropriate means of
identifying city types because by 2025, Edmonds was unlikely to be similar to the cities identified as
larger cities and growth in smaller cities may result in their population being similar to larger cities. She
also questioned the use of artificial boundaries such as city boundaries, speculating it may be more
appropriate to identify areas such as south Snohomish County, north Snohomish County, Everett, etc.
versus specific cities. Mr. Abbott responded the Growth Management Policy Board also struggled with
that issue and considered organizing cities by growth areas and not using political boundaries but that
approach was rejected by the members who preferred to use groups of cities.
Council President Dawson commented it may not be appropriate to identify cities that were expected to
incorporate large areas of unincorporated Snohomish County as smaller cities. She also suggested
consideration be given to the features of each city such as geography. Mr. Abbott commented this could
be accomplished under the mechanism "painting the region" where a computer model was used to paint
the region and place growth in different ways within the regional geography. He acknowledged similar
concerns had been expressed by other cities. He commented on redevelopment in the region, such as the
Hwy. 99 corridor, an area that was viewed as having substantial redevelopment potential. He noted other
cities have made an effort to look for areas to absorb growth.
Council President Dawson commented city staff raised an issue regarding the current designation of the
Hwy. 99 corridor as an activity center and potentially reclassifying it as an urban center. She asked
whether PSRC was encouraging redesignation of areas as urban centers. Mr. Abbott answered PSRC was
not encouraging or discouraging "regional growth centers;" there was a process for becoming a regional
growth center which started locally in a city's Comprehensive Plan, then a countywide planning process
and a 3 -step process at PSRC whereby criteria was applied and the PSRC Executive Board made the final
decision.
Councilmember Wambolt asked how the forecasts of 1.6 million more people and 1.1 million more jobs
by 2025 were developed. Mr. Abbott answered PSRC produced forecasts approximately every five years
and over time they have been very accurate. He explained the forecasts were developed via the use of a
sophisticated model and the use of a consultant.
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether PSRC had taken a position opposing scheduled commercial
flights at Paine Field, noting the Edmonds Council as well as other cities passed resolutions in opposition.
Mr. Abbott answered PSRC had not considered that issue.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether expanded use of Paine Field had been factored into any scenarios.
Mr. Abbott answered it had not other than Paine Field was viewed as an industrial /manufacturing center
and was forecast to provide additional employment.
Councilmember Orvis pointed out the range of population increase would be 27% - 150% increase in
population, noting even a 27% increase in Edmonds' population would be very challenging. He asked
whether any of the scenarios factored in changes to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) or was the UGB
fixed. Mr. Abbott answered it was not assumed to be fixed nor was it assumed to move. He explained it
would be difficult to move the UGB generically by a percentage or number of acres as the model must
know where the boundary would be expanded and it was the county's responsibility to move the UGB.
The UGB was assumed to be static or at least not move in any substantial way during this time period.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 4
Councilmember Marin acknowledged the need to consider population growth and found it helpful to have
PSRC consider "what if' with regard to population increases in the region and how Edmonds
interconnected with other communities with regard to transportation and employment. He asked whether
there would be additional opportunities for the City to provide comment. Mr. Abbott answered yes,
advising a decision regarding a preferred alternative would be made this fall which would be followed by
another public comment period.
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would be discussing the PSRC update again at their July 25
meeting.
4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Six Year
Tr AND RESOLUTION NO. 1128 ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION
Improvement rovement IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND DIRECTING THE SAME TO BE FILED WITH THE
Program SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
BOARD.
Traffic Engineer Don Sims explained the State required the City to update the Transportation.
Improvement Plan (TIP) by July 31 each year. The TIP must contain all regionally significant projects
the City planned to undertake in the next six years. Edmonds has traditionally included all transportation
projects in the TIP. He explained each jurisdictions' TIPS were then used to create a statewide TIP.
Mr. Sims stated the TIP was required to be financially constrained in the first three years; the last three
years were not required to be financially constrained. He commented it was important to include on the
TIP all transportation projects because projects not on the statewide TIP were not eligible for state and
federal grant funding. He assured that approval and adoption of the TIP did not mean the Council had
given final approval for the projects; there were many additional opportunities for the Council to review
projects including during the update to the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, when staff
presented the draft CIP for adoption, during the budget submission process, when staff requests
authorization to bid projects and when the Council accepted the bids. He relayed staff's recommendation
that the Council approve the Six -Year TIP and adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Marin asked whether approving the TIP for the July 31 deadline would eliminate the
ability to include opportunities that may be identified on Hwy. 99 in the next few months. Mr. Sims
answered three new projects that were draft recommendations from the Hwy. 99 Safety and Circulation
Study were added to this year's TIP. He identified the additional projects: SR 99/76th realignment, an
area identified by WSDOT as a high accident location; a new signal at 228th which would provide a
connection to the new Park & Ride in Mountlake Terrace; and capacity improvement at the intersections
of 220th, 216th and 212th. He advised as other projects arose, they would be added to next year's TIP.
Councilmember Moore complimented Mr. Sims on his presentation and expressed her thanks for the 4-
way stop on 4th Avenue.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised citizens could call Public Works Director Noel Miller to report potholes
and City staff would come out to fix them.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 5
Resg 1128 1 COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
Six Year TIP APPROVE THE SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 1128 AND AUTHORIZE RECORDING OF THE DOCUMENTS BY THE
CITY CLERK. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Zoning 5
Moratorium -
CG & CG2
Zones
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3582, A ZONING
MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR CERTAIN USES IN
THE CG (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND CG -2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL 2) ZONES.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the specific uses addressed in Ordinance No.
3582 were mobile home parks, storage, mini - storage and ground floor residential uses. He recalled on
August 2, 2005, the Council passed Ordinance No. 3558 establishing the moratorium which was extended
on February 7, 2006, via passage of Ordinance No. 3582 to allow the Planning Board time to complete
their work. He advised the Planning Board developed a work program, planned to hold a public hearing
on the CG zone regulations on August 9 and forward a recommendation to the Council in September. He
relayed staff's recommendation to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to extend the
moratorium to allow the Planning Board to complete their work and forward a recommendation to the
Council for review and action in September.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, agreed the Planning Board needed more time to review this issue including
considering storage and mini storage facilities that had been built in the past three months in neighboring
cities to the south.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE
MORATOIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN USES IN THE CG AND CG2 ZONE
DISTRICTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Closed Record 6. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW: APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
Review - REGARDING THE DISCONTINUATION OF A DUPLEX USE IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE.
Duplex Use at
21100 shell THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 21.1.00 SHELL VALLEY ROAD AND IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY
Valley Rd. RESIDENTIAL (RS -8, PRD- 1 -75). APPELLANT: WILLIAM L. ENGLISH / FILE NOS. AP -05 -122
(English) AND AP- 06 -15.
City Attorney Scott Snyder described the procedures for a closed record review, explaining testimony was
limited to parties of record who appeared before the Hearing Examiner and was limited to argument based
on the record; no new evidence was allowed.
Mike Thies, Code Enforcement, explained the City received a land use complaint regarding the property
at 21100 Shell Valley Road alleging someone was living in the garage and there was a duplex or triplex
on the property. Staff researched the complaint and found none of the required permits. Staff contacted
the owner, William English, and advised he must either convert the dwelling back to a single family
dwelling or apply for and obtain a permit for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Mr. English appealed
staff's decision to the Hearing Examiner who held a public hearing on January 19, 2006, and denied Mr.
English's appeal. On February 6, 2006, Mr. English filed an appeal seeking to overturn the Hearing
Examiner's decision; that appeal was delayed until tonight as Mr. English lives in New Zealand.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 6
Councilmember Orvis asked how staff verified this was Lot 33, noting there was reference to Lot 31 in
Attachment 4. Mr. Thies advised Attachment 4 was the Assessor's Office field notes. He advised Lot 33
was identified in the record in Attachment 7. Councilmember Orvis asked whether that information was
accurate. Mr. Thies answered it was to the best of his knowledge.
Mayor Haakenson advised the appellant would have 15 minutes for his presentation.
William English stated he was seeking leniency, mercy, and clemency, and was not someone trying to
get away with something. He urged the Council to look beyond the undisputed code violation to issues of
greater importance. He explained the issues on which his appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision was
based were contained in Exhibit 2. First, he requested the Council provide some latitude, commenting
that a hearing before the Hearing Examiner did not seem the proper venue for this problem. When he was
about to purchase this property, he was told it was okay as a duplex and that the garage apartment was not
illegal. He clarified this information was not provided by the real estate agent but by the City's previous
code enforcement officer. He subsequently purchased the house which he anticipated using as a duplex
as it had been used as a duplex for many years. He noted the use did not come to the attention of the City
until a meter reader noticed someone was living in the garage, a space that was no longer a garage but a
studio apartment.
Mr. English recalled when talking with the Hearing Examiner before the hearing, he indicated that he did
not have the latitude to discuss all the issues Mr. English planned to address. He recalled the Hearing
Examiner also mentioned several times during the hearing that his review was constrained to the factual
issues of the code violation. He requested the Council consider something other than just that narrow
problem. He was willing to correct any lack of building permit or other code violations but wanted to do
it with what he purchased, which was a duplex. Mr. English commented that although the Hearing
Examiner was able to rule that the City's earlier advice was in error, he did not have the latitude to hold
him harmless from the City's error.
Mr. English's second point was the Hearing Examiner did not address the appellant's request for a
solution other than an ADU. He recalled in discussions with an attorney, the attorney suggested the City
and he identify a middle ground. He acknowledged the Hearing Examiner was not able to offer a
compromise and he hoped the Council could. He questioned the distinction between an ADU and a
duplex other than one had one rental unit and the other had two. He explained his ability to afford the
house was based on the ability to rent it out. He hoped to live in the house someday but for the time
being wanted and needed the revenue from the two rental units.
His third point was a suggestion by an attorney that the City was holding him to a private covenant
developed as part of the PRD for the subject property. He pointed out the concept of ADU post -dated the
covenant.
In his fourth point, Mr. English recalled there were several questions asked by the Hearing Examiner that
he felt were asked on his behalf such as how this viewpoint was reached and Mr. Thies' response that it
was based on logic. Mr. English questioned whether this implied that he (Mr. English) was illogical. He
recalled the Hearing Examiner asking Mr. Thorpe, a neighbor who testified before the Hearing Examiner,
whether there had been any problems with the units and his reply that there had not been. He noted this
answer was in spite of a complaint in 1999 in regard to a trailer that was hooked up to the property. He
explained that situation resulted in code enforcement by former Code Enforcement Inspector Jason
Tourtellot and the subsequent letter from Mr. Tourtellot that stated the house could be used as a duplex
and the unit in the garage was not illegal.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 7
Mr. English requested the Council look at the big picture, and consider whether a structure that had not
been altered but was changed admittedly without building permits into a multi family dwelling was a
danger to the neighborhood. He concluded the neighborhood was not deteriorated by the fact that more
than one family occupied the structure.
Mr. English summarized the error made by the City had consequences; not serious consequences to the
neighborhood but serious consequences to him. He urged the Council to consider the exceptional
circumstances that required an exceptional solution.
Councilmember Orvis referred to Mr. English's comments in Attachment 3 that the language regarding
use restrictions was vague, in particular the language, "no lot shall be used except for residential
purposes." Mr. English responded the first sentence was acceptable. He alleged the remainder of the
language `No building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than on
detached single family dwelling with a private garage..." was vague. He recalled making the point with
the Hearing Examiner that the person who originally built the structure could have interpreted that
language to refer to structures only, that more than one structure was not allowed on a particular lot
except for designated lots. In this circumstance, there was only one structure with three possible living
areas. He clarified he had never asked for a triplex only a duplex which he was told this was.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. English's comment that he purchased a duplex, pointing out a
person's purchase of a property was predicated on the title. He asked why Mr. English referred to this as
a duplex when the title stated it was a single family home. Mr. English replied Mr. Tourtellot stated it
was a duplex. He explained when he was looking at this house which was listed for sale as a duplex, he
was told to call the City to confirm the duplex which he did. He also provided a letter that confirmed Mr.
Tourtellot's statement. He suggested the word of the City should be sufficient evidence. Councilmember
Plunkett asked what the property title stated. Mr. English answered it said single family dwelling.
Mayor Haakenson opened the review to comment from parties of record.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on the requirement for an owner to reside in a residence with an
ADU for six months of the year. He pointed out property purchases included a real estate contract that
could contain amendments. He suggested investigating whether a real estate contract existed.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Snyder explained these were restrictions on the PRD, not covenants; if
they were private covenants, the City would not have any enforcement authority.
Mr. Snyder reviewed two rules the Council must operate under, the finality of vested permits and
conversely estoppel — if the City makes a mistake, the City is obligated to enforce its ordinances the way
they are written. He explained the Land Use Petition Act requires that any final decision on a permit
application or development permit be appealed within 21 days and if not appealed, the decision is final.
The Division 1 Court has held that the finality of vested permits rule applies even though the ordinance
may be vague or unconstitutional. Further, no City official including the City Council sitting as a quasi
judicial body had the authority to grant permission to do something that the City's ordinances prohibited.
He cited Miller v. Bainbridge Island in which the Bainbridge Island Mayor wrote a letter to a developer
granting permission to redevelop a dock and pier. The outcome of that action was that acts done without
legal authorization or authority were beyond the ability of the public official to grant.
Mr. Snyder explained there were good policy reasons for this distinction. Mr. Tourtellot's decision was
administrative — the public did not receive notice and the decision was not appealable. Conversely,
development permits were published and posted and the decisions were appealable. He summarized the
City did not have the ability to turn its back on a violation and was obligated to enforce its ordinances.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 8
He acknowledged Mr. English's remedy if he experienced a financial loss as a result of the negligent
statement made to him was to file a claim with the City. He reiterated the City could not negotiate code
violations and problems caused by staff error by allowing a violation to continue. He offered to discuss
the potential legal liability with the Council in Executive Session.
Rebuttal
Mr. English explained he was not asking the Council to turn their back on the code violation; he was
willing to correct that by obtaining the necessary building permits. He did not object to the City
enforcing its zoning code, pointing out this area was zoned for mixed dwellings and allowed duplexes.
He pointed out the three buildings adjacent to his property were duplexes. He summarized allowing him
to obtain the necessary permits to use the house as a duplex would not impact the zoning.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
Councilmember Orvis disagreed with some of Mr. English's argument regarding interpretation and found
staff had accurately interpreted the use restrictions on the PRD. He advised the only evidence in the
record was that Lot 33 required a single family dwelling unit on the lot. Although he sympathized with
Mr. English and would rather Mr. Tourtellot had made the correct statement in his letter, the party at fault
was the previous owners who divided the house without the appropriate permits.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO
DENY THE APPEAL AND AFFIRM THE HEARING EXAMINER'S JANUARY 26, 2006
DECISION TO DENY THE ORIGINAL APPEAL.
Council President Dawson also sympathized with Mr. English, commenting although it was an
unfortunate situation, Mr. Snyder's legal opinion was correct — there was no way for the Council to allow
a use not allowed by the zoning. She summarized the Council's hands were tied by the law and it was not
a situation where the Council had the ability to negotiate.
Councilmember Wambolt expressed sympathy for Mr. English, advising he would also support the
motion to deny the appeal. Although it was unfortunate Mr. Tourtellot wrote the letter, the letter would
not have been a factor had Mr. English retained a real estate attorney at the time of the purchase as the
attorney would have verified the allowed uses. Next, he pointed out this may not be a poor financial
transaction for Mr. English as he had purchased the property for $265,000 in 2002 and it was currently
appraised for tax purposes at $357,000, 35% more than the purchase price. As tax assessments were
typically 15% below market value, the value of the property was approximately $400,000.
Councilmember Marin advised he would support the motion. He agreed it was unfortunate the Council
had little latitude to compromise or make an exception as they must follow the City's rules and
regulations as written.
Councilmember Moore advised she would not support the motion. She recalled the last time she felt the
Council's hands were tied and she was unable to vote her heart, the Council's decision was overturned in
court. She planned to vote her heart this time and allow common sense to prevail. She disagreed a real
estate attorney was necessary to purchase a house. She believed Mr. English acted in good faith, pointing
out a buyer did not see the title until the property was purchased. She found Mr. English's ability to
profit from the sale of the property to be irrelevant to this issue.
Councilmember Olson commented although she would like to follow her heart and not support the
motion, she respected the City Attorney's opinion. She pointed out the Council was obligated to enforce
the rules and regulations the way they existed or risk a lawsuit from other parties. She sympathized with
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 9
Mr. English's position and hoped he could convert the house to a single family with an ADU. She
recognized there was no good solution.
Councilmember Plunkett commented a property purchase was subject to 8 -9 contingencies including
inspection of the title and verifying that the necessary permits had been obtained. He advised if a buyer,
upon inspecting the title, was not satisfied, he /she could decline to purchase the property. He emphasized
the need for a buyer to conduct due diligence particularly for an investment property.
Councilmember Moore commented this was an example of why she did not believe the Council should be
involved in quasi judicial decisions. Although she respected individual Councilmembers' expertise,
Councilmembers were not trained as judges and should not be interpreting the City's code. She clarified
she was voting against the motion for the reasons she stated previously.
MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER MOORE OPPOSED.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Old Woodway
Elementary Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reminded the Council of the petitions submitted with regard to retaining the
School site neighborhood park at the old Woodway Elementary School site the way it was.
Planned Ray Martin, Edmonds, recalled several years ago he opposed revisions to the PRD regulations, finding
Residential the were an attack on the quality of life in Edmonds promoted clear cutting, density and were
Developments y q y � p g� y
not consistent with the neighborhood. He recalled the result of the revisions were disastrous and the
subsequent PRDs alienated many citizens in Meadowdale. He acknowledged the PRD ordinance was
subsequently revised and improved but felt the regulations were still poor and existed for the benefit of
contractors, increased density, promoted clear cutting and were not necessarily consistent with the
neighborhood. He referred to a proposed PRD in Perrinville, questioning whether that was the reason
some elected officials sought to downzone the Seaview area to 10,000 square feet. He indicated his plans
to comment on variances in PRDs at a future meeting.
8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JULY 11, 2006.
Community/ Community Services /Development Services Committee
Development Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee discussed the Six Year TIP which the Council reviewed
Services
Committee and approved earlier this evening. The Committee also discussed the 2006 Comprehensive Sewer Plan
which will be reviewed by the Washington Department of Ecology before being presented to the Council
in September. Next the Committee discussed street vendor regulations. He explained in 2004 after much
difficulty enforcing street vendor regulations, the Council approved a change that prohibited trailers. As a
result of interest in allowing vendor trailers near the ferry, the Committee recommended staff forward a
recommendation to Council to modify the ordinance that prohibited trailers.
Finance I Finance Committee
Committee
Councilmember Olson reported the Committee received an overview of the proposed changes to the L5
compensation plan for non - represented employees. The formal redesigned policy will be presented to the
Finance Committee at their August meeting. The Committee also discussed changing the Economic
Development Director compensation which was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. Next, the
Committee discussed staffs request to open franchise negotiations with Comcast. The Committee also
discussed the results of the 2005 State Audit. She recognized Assistant Administrative Services Director
Kathleen Junglov and Administrative Services Director Dan Clements for the superb job they do; the City
received an unqualified opinion and had no findings or management letter.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 10
Public safety Public Safety Committee
Committee '
Councilmember Marin reported the Committee discussed the continuation of a very favorable contract
with the City of Lynnwood whereby Lynnwood purchased EMS supplies and made them available at
Stevens Hospital. This item was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. The second item the
Committee discussed was surplusing self - contained breathing apparatus to Fire District #1 and Edmonds
School District which was approved on the Consent Agenda. He advised the Public Safety Committee
would be discussing barking dog regulations at their August meeting.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reported he met with 15 other mayors in the State today to discuss issues that affect the
cities and to discuss ways to work with the legislature in next year's session. The mayors plan to meet
again in the fall to discuss the work plan developed at today's meeting.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
IStarbucks
Grand Opening Councilmember Olson reported she attended the Starbucks grand opening. She commented the opening
of Starbucks and the fountain were great additions to downtown. She also commented on the opening of
220th Street 220tH recognizing the great job done by the contractors.
Opening
Ei c Councilmember Wambolt clarified after the Finance Committee meeting, staff surveyed the salary for the
everopment Economic men
Develo t Director in other cities and revised the range to $80,000 - $100,000.
Director Salary h g
Employment Councilmember Moore reported on the Employment Recruitment Center at Paine Field, a community
Recruitment at
Paine Field college effort in partnership with Boeing to recruit and train employees for the new 787 program.
Psxc Councilmember Moore complimented Planning Manager Rob Chave for his memo to the Council
Presentation regarding the PSRC presentation and Hwy. 99. She suggested the Council invite the new Director of
and xWy 99 Stevens Hospital to make a presentation to the Council.
Councilmember Moore complimented Mayor Haakenson and Community Services Director Stephen
Clifton on their recent letter to the members of the legislative Joint Transportation Committee with regard
Crossing g l� g
to Edmonds Crossing. She expressed her gratitude to Mayor Haakenson for continuing to pursue funding
for this project. She was supportive of Edmonds Crossing not only because it would be a great
transportation link and would potentially provide more public open space on the waterfront, but because it
also represented a vision developed by pervious Councils. She complimented previous Councils who
created the vision for Edmonds Crossing.
Global Councilmember Moore complimented Mayor Haakenson for signing the City's agreement to comply with
warming the Kyoto Accords. She referred to Mayor Haakenson's announcement of a committee to make
recommendations regarding what individuals could do to help reduce CO2 emissions to fight global
warming. She urged the Council to also support policy changes to reduce CO2 emissions and suggested
adopting a baseline to allow improvements to be measured. Mayor Haakenson advised that would be
included in the committee's work.
Sound Transit Councilmember Marin reported Sound Transit made a decision last week to bring to the public for
comment a five- tenths of one percent sales tax increase funding scenario that would bring light rail to
Lynnwood in Sound Transit 2. Next, Councilmember Marin reported viewing on video the first light rail
car running on tracks. He advised two cars were being constructed; the first would arrive in Seattle in the
first quarter of 2006. Testing would begin on a section of track that had been completed from the south
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page I I
entrance to the downtown bus tunnel to the maintenance /operations facility across from the former
Rainier Brewery. He was ecstatic about the potential this would bring to the region and to Edmonds.
City Attorney Scott Snyder referred to Councilmember Moore's comments that alluded to the Day
decision. He reminded there were two parts to that decision. First, a non - conforming use in which he
represented staff and another attorney represented the City. Second, the Judge upheld the estoppel
argument, that a mistake did not obligate the City to allow the use to continue.
7 1
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2006
Page 12