06/26/1990 City CouncilI IILJL 1'1111V I LJ JVUV LV I IV
JULY 17, 1990 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 26, 1990
(WORK MEETING)
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry
Naughten at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main St., Edmonds. All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor
John Nordquist, Council President
Steve Dwyer, Councilmember
Roger Hertrich, Councilmember
Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember
William Kasper, Councilmember
Jeff Palmer, Councilmember
Jack Wilson, Councilmember
STAFF
Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr.
Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Director
Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director
Dan Prinz, Police Chief
Bobby Mills, Public Works Supt.
Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager
Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks & Rec. Mgr.
Dick Mumma, Building Official
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Margaret Richards, Recorder
Councilmember Kasper said it was his understanding that it was the Council's policy that agenda
items were to be accompanied with a time ,frame for discussion. Mayor Naughten said Council Presi-
dent Nordquist had suggested that only hearing items have time frames.
Councilmember Kasper inquired about the Council's policy with respect to placing items that were
removed from the Consent Agenda at the end of the regular agenda. Mayor Naughten did not recall
that the Council had set that policy. He explained that items that are removed from the Consent
Agenda are discussed before regularly scheduled items in consideration of Staff members who are
present at the meeting for a particular Consent Agenda item. Councilmember Jaech said she did
not think it is fair to the public to delay hearing items to discuss Consent Agenda items and
Consent Agenda items should be placed at the end of the regular agenda. It was suggested that
the Council indicate if a Staff member should remain when an item is moved to the end of the
agenda.
In response to Councilmember Kasper's first question regarding agenda times, Council President
Nordquist said he thought that eliminating times for non -hearing items may help expedite a partic-
ular item because people are inclined to discuss an issue for 20 minutes if it is scheduled for
20 minutes when, in reality, it can be discussed in 5 minutes.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items (B) and (H) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The
approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
a,,-, �(C) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2782 ADOPTING STATE LAW PROHIBITING USE OF DOMESTIC DOGS AND CATS AS
BAIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAINING OTHER ANIMALS
'lJ�� (D) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2783 ADOPTING -STATE LAW PROHIBITING THE FAILURE TO STOP A VESSEL UPON
THE REQUEST OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
(E) ADOPTED RESOLUTION 701 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FROM AQUATIC
Y LANDS ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT OF DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR INTERPRETIVE PORTIONS OF
BRACKETT'S LANDING UPLAND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
(F) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF TRANSFER OF UNEXPENDED FUNDS FROM 1989 MEDIATION APPROPRIA-
TION TO ENGINEERING CONSULTANT BUDGET FOR ADDITIONAL SOIL TESTING ASSOCIATED WITH HARBOR
HILLS DEVELOPMENT
(G) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM WILLIAM E. McANDREW ($294.02)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 1990 rITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA]
P�Mayor Naughten referred to page 8, last paragraph, third sentence, where Councilmember Palmer
stated, "Kirby White wrote the Mayor a letter advising that the Planning Board opening be filled
by someone residing in the Edmonds High School area or Ballinger area, and Councilmember Palmer
pointed out that the position is not represented by someone from that area. Councilmember Palmer
noted that there are three members from the bowl area, three members from the Meadowdale area,
and no representation on the Planning Board from the high school area of Ballinger area". Mayor
Naughten clarified that Mr. White sent the letter to the Mayor back in February of 1990, and not
recently as the statement implied, in response to a newspaper ad that was placed by the City for
another vacant position on the Planning Board. He noted that that position was filled by a per-
son that resided in the high school area.
The Council discussed the process by which Planning Board candidates are selected and appointed.
Because Councilmember Wilson was dissatisfied with the present selection process, Mayor Naughten
suggested that the Council change the present policy of the Mayor appointing a member and the
Council confirming his appointment. Councilmember Palmer said he would like the ordinance to be
applied in its entirety, which included a provision to strive for a geographic balance of candi-
dates throughout the City.
MAYOR NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MO-
TION CARRIED.
REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 12 1990 FOR REROOFING ANDERSON CENTER AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
KATHOL ROOFING, INC. 66,423.12, N L D NG L X I EM N THE CUNSENTAGENDA]
Councilmember Hertrich noted that Staff recommended that the roof not be insulated, but he
thought it would be an opportune time to insulate the roof while the building is being reroofed.
Councilmember Hertrich said Staff based their decision whether or not to insulate solely on cost
savings for heat. He suggested that the Council approve the contract with the ability to insu-
late if, after the Council discusses the issue further, they decide to approve insulation.
In response to Councilmember Kasper, City Engineer Bob Alberts said it was estimated that a 15%
heat savings will be realized with the new furnace that heats the west wings.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER FOR DISCUSSION, TO APPROVE THE
ROOFING CONTRACT, LEAVING THE ISSUE OF INSULATION OPEN.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the roof will be replaced entirely. Mr. Alberts replied nega-
tively. He saidthe decking will remain in place but the leveling board will be replaced to help
drainage. Counc.ilmember Kasper inquired if any part of the building is insulated. Mr. Alberts
replied negatively. He said, however, the new windows will provide some form of insulation when
they are installed.
Mr. Alberts noted that insulation for the west wings should be provided from the roof if the
Council decides to approve insulation, but insulation can be blown in through the walls for the
remainder of the building. He recommended that insulation only be installed in the west wings at
this time if the Council approves any insulation.
Councilmember Jaech inquired if the contract will be affected'if the Council approves insula-
tion. Mr. Alberts said the contract must be awarded by July 17, and it will be difficult to
award a contract without specifying what the award is.
Mr. Alberts said an additional $80,000, including contingencies, will be necessary to insulate
the west wings. He said monies could be transferred to do the insulation from projects that were
budgeted in the Building/Maintenance Fund 116 this year but will probably not be accomplished
until 1991 and they can be rebudgeted.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO AMEND THE MOTION.TO APPROVE THE
CONTRACT AND INSULATE THE. TWO WEST WINGS. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUN-
CILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, AND COUNCILMEMBER KASPER IN
FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED.
Mr. Alberts noted that there is $50,000 earmarked for seismic work, $5,000 for Sno/King space
renovation, $15,000 for unanticipated projects, $9,000 for a boiler, and $4,000 for seismic de-
sign that can be used for insulation.
Councilmember Palmer expressed a concern with spending monies that were earmarked for other
projects to insulate the west wings.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, THAT MONEY FOR ITEMS MENTIONED BY
MR. ALBERTS FOR ELIMINATING THEIR PLACE IN THE BUDGET THIS YEAR BE MOVED TO THE ROOFING BUDGET,
REFERENCING THE.LIST OF ITEMS EQUIVALENT TO $83,000.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 June 26, 1990
COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO TABLE THE MOTION UNTIL THE COUN-
CIL HEARS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THOSE REDUCTIONS (PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMU-
NITY SERVICES DEPARTMENTS). A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO TABLE. MOTION CARRIED
WITH COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN
FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, AND COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO DISCUSS AWARD OF THE CONTRACT ON
JULY 10, 1990 IN A STUDY SESSION PRIOR TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING. MOTION
CARRIED.
CWC-HDR MONTHLY REPORT
Gordon Culp, CWC-HDR, Inc., reported that operation of the new Phase I primary treatment facili-
ty ties and hauling of primary sludge to Seattle Metro continues. The contractor is working to
T complete the Phase I deficiency items in the raw sewage pumping station and solids process build-
ing. Rehabilitation of primary clarifier no. 1 is near completion.
Mr. Culp said construction of the solids processing and sludge incineration facilities is pro-
gressing toward completion in August 1990.. The contractor is preparing for initial start-up and
curing of the incinerator in July 1990. The belt filter presses and sludge pumping facilities
are undergoing start-up and operational checkout at the present time. Construction of the odor
control facilities is behind schedule. Ventilation equipment will be operational for start-up of
the solids processing equipment. However, odor removal equipment will not be operational until
the end of August 1990. Fuel oil has been added to the underground fuel oil tank in preparation
for start up of the incinerator.
Mr. Culp said construction of the secondary treatment units on the north end of the site contin-
ues. The contractor has completed 50% of the aeration basin walls and has completed the concrete
floor slabs for final clarifiers no. 1 and 3 and the effluent pumping station.
Mr. Culp noted that change order no. 7 is under review by the contractor at the present time,
which includes the increase in State taxes effective May 1, 1990 and a raise of primary sludge
dumping fees by Seattle Metro.
Mr. Culp said the meter station construction is near completion and will be ready for final in-
spection in early July 1990. The concrete vault structure for meter station no. 3 at SR-99 near
the off -ramp from SR-104 is constructed and backfill is near completion. The contractor has had
a delay in removal of the shoring system at meter station no. 3 and will be completing that work
at the end of June 1990. Negotiations with the contractor regarding the underground debris and
gas line encountered will be complete by the end of June 1990.
Councilmember Kasper inquired when actual expenditures will coincide with the revised projected
expenditures. Mr. Culp said the contractor has met the revised schedule and the project will be
completed within the budget. i L
In response to Councilmember Palmer, Mr. Culp said curing of the incinerator is not related to
actually burning sludge. He said the earliest sludge will be burned is mid -August, and there
will be no odors emanating from the treatment plant during the City's Centennial celebration.
Councilmember Dwyer inquired if there will be a surplus of funds on the meter station. Dan
Harmon, CWC-HDR, Inc., said there is additional work to be done on the meter station, and he
hoped that the work will be completed within projected expenditures by next month.
REPORT ON CEMETERY STRUCTURE PROPOSAL BY HUBBARD TRUST AND CEMETERY BOARD
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks & Recreation Manager, reported that the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery Board
voted on November 1989 to continue progress toward the development of a building on the cemetery
grounds. The structure would be used for inside services with capacity for thirty to fifty peo-
ple and would have restrooms. The building is proposed to be constructed by the Hubbard Trust
and maintained in perpetuity by the Trust and donated to the City.
Ms. Ohlde said the Cemetery Board presented their proposal to the Community Services Committee on
January 9. She noted that the proposal, if approved, would necessitate a change in the cemetery
zoning to allow the project to proceed.
Kirk Clothier, Vice -President of the Hubbard Trust, submitted a preliminary drawing of the propos-
al to the Council, which was a nondenominational chapel duplicating the first church that was
built in Edmonds.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 June 26, 1990
Councilmember Nordquist inquired where the chapel is proposed to be located. He. also inquired if
any grave sites would be displaced. Rosemary Speck, member of the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery
Board, said the chapel isproposed to be located on the west side of the cemetery on a road be-
tween Block 2 and Block 3 that is no longer in use. She said a map of the cemetery does not show
any burials in that location.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired if additional parking would be necessary. Ms. Speck replied
negatively.
Councilmember Palmer inquired about yearly maintenance and operation costs. Mr. Clothier said
those costs have not been estimated, but he reiterated that the Hubbard Foundation will maintain
the structure entirely. Councilmember Palmer inquired about revenues for the use of the facili-
ty. Mr. Clothier said any revenues will go to the Cemetery Board or the City. Councilmember
Palmer inquired about the height of the structure at its highest point. Mr. Clothier said it is
proposed to be 20 feet at its.highest point.
COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO DIRECT THE MATTER TO THE COMMUNI-
TY SERVICES COMMITTEE FOR COST FIGURES IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PLAN (MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION
COSTS, POTENTIAL REVENUE, SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND A DRAWING OF THE CEMETERY, INCLUDING
THE SITE). Councilmember Palmer said he would like the City Attorney to address the propriety of
a rezone at the Community Services Committee meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
Lee Rae Esterberg, Hubbard Foundation, said she did not understand the Council's concern regard-
ing cost of maintenance because the Hubbard Foundation will guarantee to underwrite those costs
in perpetuity. Councilmember Palmer said he misunderstood Mr. Clothier, then, and thanked Ms.
Esterberg for clarifying that issue. He said he would like the other issues discussed in detail,
though. Councilmember Nordquist explained to Ms. Esterberg that the Council would like to see a
plot plan of the cemetery showing the relationship of existing structures to the proposed struc-
ture, ingress and egress, and the size of the building. He said the Council is appreciative of
the gift, but they need more information to make a decision.
Mayor Naughten noted that the issue will be discussed further on July 10, 1990.
DISCUSSION WITH MARY HUGHES ON SEWER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
Community Services Director Peter Hahn reported that the proposal to retain a.consultant to pre-
pare a financial analysis for system development charges for new developments (also known as
connection charges) was originally brought to the Community Services Committee in April, and the
Committee recommended that Mary Hughes discuss the concepts with the Council as a whole.
Mr. Hahn said the concept of connection charges is well accepted in utility financing, and the
fees are consistent with the New Growth Management Act, which requires new development to pay for
impacts. He said the connection charges are related primarily to the new treatment plant which
has capacity for future connections. He noted that capacity is currently being paid for only by
existing rate payers who are "front ending" the capacity until someone connects. He said a con-
nection charge essentially reimburses the whole system for this "front ending".
Mr. Hahn said it is the recommendation of Staff to approve the contract with Mary Hughes for
$4,000 from the Combined Utility Fund 412. -
COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH MARY
HUGHES. MOTION CARRIED.
YEASTINGS & HUGHES ASSOCIATES PRESENTATION OF THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSAL, SUBMITTED BY
U�DAIN W R , INC., TO REFUND THE 1980
Administrative Services Director Art Housler reported that on June 12, 1990, the Council Adminis-
trative Services Committee approved Yeasting & Hughes Associates to analyze the proposal submit-
ted from Dain Bosworth, Inc. to refund the 1980 G.O. Bonds.
Mary Hughes, Yeasting & Hughes, said the City has contemplated a refunding of the 1980 General
Obligation Bonds for several years, and Yeasting & Hughes had recommended that the City wait
until the bonds became callable before refinancing. Ms. Hughes noted that the bonds first become
callable on September 1, 1990. She said in her view, the City should act now if it wishes to
accomplish the refunding.
Ms. Hughes stated that the municipal bond market has been relatively stable for the past year.
She said there are no strong prospects for a major downturn in ten-year interest rates in the
next two years.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 June 26, 1990
Ms. Hughes recommended that the City proceed with a negotiated sale of the bonds with Dain
Bosworth, Inc., on or about July 24, 1990 so that funds will be available for the September 1,
1990 retirement of the 1980 bonds. She said timing is rather inflexible because the call notice
must be published by August 1, 1990.
Ms. Hughes noted that the projected present value savings of refunding is between $110,000 and
$140,000, due to an estimated interest rate change between now and the time the bonds are issued.
Ms. Hughes said the underwriters have presented three alternate means of taking the savings. She
recommended a level savings if the City's object is to provide a saving to .taxpayers or front-end
savings .if the City, intends to spend the savings for a specific project.
Ms. Hughes said Yeasting & Hughes will monitor the process to see that it is carried out in the
City's best interests and will assist in negotiating the actual interest rate and underwriters'
spread prior to the bond sale.
Dick Ehlers, Vice -President of Dain Bosworth, Inc., said in order tomet the August 1, publica-
tion requirement, an offer to purchase the bonds will be presented to the Council on July 24,
1990.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE YEASTING & HUGHES ASSOCI-
ATES RECOMMENDATION AND AUTHORIZE DAIN BOSWORTH, INC., TO PROCEED WITH REFUNDING THE BOND ISSUE.
Councilmember Palmer inquired at which option. Councilmember Dwyer replied the long-term op-
tion. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED.
Councilmember Hertrich requested Councilmember Kasper to explain his reason for voting against
the motion. Councilmember Kasper said,' "I think the market is going further, and I think we
should wait until March".
Mr. Ehlers said the City will lose approximately $15,000 present value savings for every six-
month delay, assuming a stable interest rate market.
PRESENTATION ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Community Services Director Peter Hahn noted that the Council expressed an interest earlier this
year to review the Regional Development alternatives which the Puget Sound Council of Go
(PSCOG) is studying. He said the PSCOG Assembly plans to adopt a preferred vision inthe nFall,
and the Edmonds City Council may wish to express its opinions on which alternative it prefers.
He noted that comments on the topics are not limited to member jurisdictions. Mr. Hahn empha-
sized that the alternatives will affect Edmonds very little because the projected population or
density for Edmonds is virtually the same in any of the scenarios that will be presented.
Mr. Hahn introduced a staff member from the PSCOG, Grace Burns.
Ms. Burns played a video presentation of 'Regional Development alternatives, providing the follow-
ing information: We face a crossroads choice in the Central Puget Sound region this year. King,
Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties are asked to choose from among different visions about how
the region will grow in the long run and the type of transportation system that will suit us
best. We can choose the status quo or choose to go in a new direction. Impacts of our decision
will last well beyond our lifetimes. They will influence how and where our children and our
childrens' children will live, work and play.
Central Puget Sound is stirring with concern and debate. There is an impressive range of propos-
als about how to deal with the region's rapid growth and its effects. Our freeway congestion is
rated one of the worst in the nation. We have gridlock roads, long lines for ferries, sprawling
subdivisions, booming suburban office and shopping centers.
Even with our problems, we still have many reasons to be proud of the Central Puget Sound re-
gion. It is a special place. We enjoy the benefits of growth and our national and international
rankings. Yet, we worry about the pace and pattern we are setting for the future.
Growth and transportation are leading issues. We are not adequately prepared today to handle the
effects of growth that we expect tomorrow. Between 1990 and 2020, the Puget Sound Council of
Governments forecasts we will gain another 1.4 million residents, for a total population of over
4 million, which is equivalent to adding 15 cities the size of Bellevue or the entire Port-
land/Vancouver urban area. The Council forecasts another 860,000 jobs, for a total of 2.3 mil-
lion in 2020. We have no regional strategy in place for handling these challenges.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 June 26, 1990
We also need to turn our attention to transportation facilities and measures to control further
traffic congestion. Our development pattern is geared toward the car; yet, present regional plan
emphasizes transit. The Council of Governments predicts that if we do not change our present
plans and conditions, in 2020 the evening peak hour period of traffic congestion will last 5 or
more hours on much of the freeway and arterial systems.
We are also not prepared with a government structure to help us decide and implement regional
solutions to regional problems. These goal problems we have talked about transcend local bounda-
ries. In short, the Central Puget Sound region does not have a vision and strategy with the
appropriate geographic scope, balance and commitment to help us take control of our long-range
future. Fortunately, there is good reason to be optimistic that we can turn this around.
For several years, PSCOG, in association with local governments in King, Kitsap, Pierce, and
Snohomish Counties, has been analyzing the growth and transportation problems and the Council has
identified alternative solutions. Vision 2020, growth strategy and transportation plan for the
Central Puget Sound Region, will be the result of that effort.
The Council has been looking at a new structure for regional governments. The region has long
had a transportation plan, but Vision 2020 is notable nationally for its broad approach. Trans-
portation and land use affect each other clearly. Vision 2020 connects land use with our invest-
ment in transportation facilities.
Each of the five options being considered includes a growth strategy and a transportation plan.
Before the end of 1990, PSCOG will select one option, setting the course for the region for the
next 30 years and well beyond. Each of the five alternatives looks at growth and transportation
from a different perspective. They are: No Action, Existing Plans, Major Centers, Multiple
Centers, and Dispersed Growth.
Under the No Action alternative, local and State agencies would finish only those transportation
improvements that are currently or soon to be funded. There would be no further investment in
transportation except for maintenance. In other words, travel conditions would get a lot worse --
ten times worse.
Existing Plans alternative - We will depend on current plans of the various governments in our
region to accommodate our forecasted growth. There is no regional growth strategy under the
Existing Plans alternative. Each city and county determines its own. Local land use plans en-
courage nonresidential development to locate in loosely defined activity centers. Under this
alternative, we can expect new employment to continue to locate in downtowns, office parks, shop-
ping malls and strip centers across the region. Most new housing would continue to be built in
the suburbs. This type of land development puts pressure on rural and forest areas. Also, our
transportation system would be augmented by projects currently funded or planned. We would con-
tinue emphasis on transit and build a 100 mile light rail system and 185 more miles of diamond
lanes and expanded bus service and more passenger -only ferry routes and park 'n ride lots. One
hundred miles of freeways and 250 miles of major arterials would be widened.
Major Centers alternative - the majority of new employment will be directed to six major cen-
ters: Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Bremerton, Bellevue and South King County. Both residential and
job growth will be contained within defined urban areas. New multifamily housing will cluster
around transit stations and terminals. A maximum investment in public transit to connect the
centers would occur. This would include a 140 mile light rail system, commuter rail on existing
tracks from Seattle to Olympia, 300 miles of diamonds lanes and many new passenger -only ferry
destinations. Strong measures would be taken to encourage transit use and car pooling.
Multiple Centers alternative - this alternative concentrates jobs and housing growth in major and
medium-sized centers. The goal is to balance new jobs, housing, shopping and recreational oppor-
tunities within each center's influence area. A variety of housing types would be promoted with-
in a short commute of the centers with the highest density around transit stations. Neighbor-
hoods would be actively protected. Multiple Centers calls for transit investment but also more
highway capacity, especially in developing areas. This option anticipates a 120 mile light rail
system, commuter rail from Seattle to Puyallup, 250 more miles of diamond lanes and many new
passenger -only ferry routes. Strong measures would be taken to encourage use of transit and car
pooling. One hundred miles of freeway and 225 miles of regional arterials would be widened.
Dispersed Growth - major new growth would be in what are now small suburbs in Pierce, Kitsap,
East.King and North Snohomish Counties. New jobs and housing would be dispersed but also direct-
ed to Everett, Tacoma and Bremerton. Growth caps would be enacted where congestion on highways
exceeds a certain level. This alternative emphasizes highways to serve new areas and auto fer-
ries.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 June 26, 1990
About 400 miles of regional arterials would be widened and 60 miles of regional arterials added.
One hundred fifty miles of freeways would be widened to add lanes for cars. Bus service would be
expanded in most areas with more diamond lanes. There would be no rail.
The Council of Governments is circulating for public review a draft Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS) that evaluates the implications of all these alternatives. New transportation facili-
ties would cost abut $30 million in each plan, excluding the No Action alternative.
According to PSCOG, the estimated amount of undeveloped land that will be developed under the
four action alternatives is: Existing Plans, 750 square miles; Major Centers, 450 square miles;
Multiple Centers, 400 square miles; and Dispersed Growth, 1,000 square miles.
With respect to air quality, it is at the local level that differences among the options show
up. Under all action alternatives, various pollution hot spots develop while some districts
improve. For air quality in the region overall, the Centers and Dispersed Growth options are
about the same.
It will not be money that drives the selection but our values and attitudes about open space, the
environment, living styles, livability, transit accessibility, travel options and how best to
stay competitive in a changing economy.
The issues are tough and demanding. PSCOG invites all citizens to participate in helping select
the preferred growth and transportation alternative. Committees of the Council of Governments
are scheduled to choose a preferred alternative in July. A Vision 2020 Plan itself will then be
drafted. Adoption by the Council's governing assembly is scheduled in late October.
Mayor Naughten said these are exciting t'mes that we are living in with all the growth and plan-
ning. He said elected officials at all levels do have tough decisions to make, probably the
toughest they have had to make in the last one hundred years regarding growth in this area and
the future.
Councilmember Kasper said it appears that the PSCOG would like to increase high density in ferry
terminal areas. Ms. Burn said it is the recommendation of PSCOG that multifamily housing be
located near the passenger -only ferry terminals. She said that alternative would not increase
overall the amount of multifamily housing that would be locating in what might be considered the
greater Edmonds area.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired if more park 'n ride -type lots are envisioned on the Kitsap Penin-
sula. Ms. Burn said the Existing Plans, Major Centers, and Multiple Centers alternatives do
include expansion of park 'n ride lots, but there is a difference in the emphasis of those lots.
Councilmember Palmer inquired which of the options HB 202 most directly promotes. Ms. Burn said
Existing Plans, Major Centers and Multiple Centers would fit within the intent of the Bill be-
cause all three have a direction relationship between land use and transportation.
In response to the Mayor, Ms. Burn said the first half of a questionnaire that was disseminated
to 4,000 people revealed that 46% were in favor of Multiple Centers and 44% were in favor of
Major Centers. A survey of working people in the region revealed that 46% were in favor of Multi-
ple Centers, 28% were in favor of Major Centers, and 22% were in favor of dispersed growth. She
said the majority of people who attended the public hearings in Lynnwood, King county, and Kitsap
County were in favor of Multiple Centers but a majority of the people in Pierce County were in
favor of Major Centers.
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REDUCE COMPENSATION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED ALONG THE
REAST SIDE OF 8TH AVE. N. IN VICINITY OF 771 DALEY ST.
In 1980, the City approved the vacation of a portion of 8th Avenue North between Aloha and Daley
Streets. One of the adjacent property owners refused to pay compensation for the right-of-way on
the east side of 8th Avenue North adjacent to 771 Daley Street and the right-of-way was not vacat-
ed.
The area in question is a 15x110 foot strip of right-of-way. The City will retain a utility
easement across the entire 15 feet. Since this area was not previously vacated, the City has
planned to use it as a staging area during construction of the Shell Creek drainage project and
the vacation ordinance is written to retain that capability.
Chris Cox recently purchased the property at 711 Daley Street, and she has indicated a desire to
obtain the right-of-way. Staff calculated the compensation requirement per Chapter 20.70.030 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code at $3,369.09. Ms. Cox would like the amount reduced.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 June 26, 1990
Councilmember Kasper said he did not believe the right-of-way should be vacated until the Shell
Creek project is completed and the issue should not be discussed until that time. Community
Services Director Peter Hahn noted that the ordinance specifies that the right-of-way will not be
vacated until the project is completed. Councilmember Kasper inquired why the value of the
right-of-way needs to be determined at the present time. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou
Block said Ms. Cox purchase the property adjacent to the right-of-way *and has requested that the
amount of compensation be reduced. Councilmember Kasper noted that the utilities are not located
within the right-of-way, and he questioned the reason to retain the easement.
City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that matters of compensation should be referred to the Hearing
Examiner to make a recommendation to the Council, and a public hearing should be scheduled to
determine the value of the right-of-way.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER FOR ADJUDICATION. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL DELIQERATION ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block noted that this item was continued by the City Council
from the public hearing on May 15, 1990. The Planning Board recommendation and minutes from the
May 15th Council meeting were included in the Council packets.
Councilmember Hertrich said the intent of the proposed ordinance is to prevent developers from
clear cutting a site. He believed a "rooting period" should be included in the ordinance. He
said a rooting period would require a developer who has clear cut a site to replant vegetation
and that a specified period of time go by to insure that the plantings have rooted.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained that a rooting period would deter developers from premature-
ly clearing a site of vegetation before applying for the proper permits. He said there are a
number of permit processes for which the City cannot arbitrarily establish waiting periods after
cutting vegetation and before a development application. However, under SEPA and general ration-
al governmental purposes, the City could establish a process that requires a person who has prema-
turely cut vegetation to go to the Architectural Design Board so they can review and approve
neighborhood buffering and dust erosion control measures and require those to be implemented and
that a reasonable rooting period take place to insure that neighborhoods will be buffered when
development occurs. He noted that that administrative review and site restoration period would
be between six months to one year.
Councilmember Kasper was concerned with the City's ability to impose such an administrative peri-
od. He noted that there are many areas in the City that vary in characteristic, and one area may
value trees where another area values a view of the water. He thought the ordinance should. take
into consideration the different characteristics and be applied accordingly. Councilmember Kas-
per was also concerned that the wording In the proposed ordinance is confusing, and citizens are
under the impression that it will restrict a private owner of a large lot from cutting a single
tree. He recommended that the issue be remanded to the Planning Board for further review. Coun-
cilmember Wilson concurred. He said the ordinance should also address view corridors.
Councilmember Palmer said the overall concept of the proposed ordinance is incredibly valuable,
and he did not "want to throw the baby out with the bath water".
COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH FOR DISCUSSION, TO PASS THE ORDINANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS: 1) IN THE PERMIT SECTION ON PAGE 2, ADJUST THE LANGUAGE SUCH
THAT THE TRIGGER LEVEL WOULD BE LAND PARCELS OF ONE ACRE OR GREATER; 2) ADJUST 18.45.030(B) SUCH
THAT PRD'S WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE COVENANTS ESTABLISHING TREE HEIGHT LIMITS TO PROTECT VIEWS;
3) DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE LANGUAGE ESTABLISHING A PERIOD FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND SITE RESTORATION.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ELIMINATE
THE SECOND SENTENCE IN 18.45.030(H)(6) REGARDING TOPPING. MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED WITH COUNCIL -
MEMBER DWYER AND COUNCILMEMBER PALMER OPPOSED.
Mr. Snyder advised the Council, if the Council wished to approve the ordinance with a new substan-
tive, amendment, to refer the ordinance to the Planning Board. Councilmember Palmer disagreed
that the administrative period is a new substantive issue. He said he was heavily involved with
the proposed ordinance at the Planning Board level, and a waiting period or administrative period
was discussed at length. He pointed out that 18.45.075(D) specifically calls for a period of
administration.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 June 26, 1990
Councilmember Kasper requested a roll call vote on the amendment. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON
THE AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, COUNCILMEM-
BER JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER DWYER AND COUN-
CILMEMBER PALMER OPPOSED.
At the request of Councilmember Hertrich, Councilmember Palmer explained that the Architectural
Design Board would not be able to approve a PRD plan unless it included covenants establishing
tree height limits to protect views. Councilmember Hertrich said the proposed ordinance protects
existing trees whereas Councilmember Palmer's motion regarding PRD's addresses new plantings to
protect view corridors. Councilmember Palmer disagreed. He said he was simply recommending that
the City exercise its authority to control view issues in PRD's. Councilmember Hertrich believed
that view issues in PRD's should not be included in the proposed ordinance because they are a
separate issue from tree cutting.
Councilmember Dwyer said he would vote against the motion because he could foresee the City "be-
coming a City full of tree police climbing along people"s balconies and trying to see what you
Can and can'.t see (with respect to views) and deciding, then, whether you can or cannot cut the
tree". He said the City has met its match on its ability to regulate, and he did not believe the
existing or proposed ordinance fully addresses the issue of trees.
Mayor Naughten said the issue is confusing, but there must be some controls in place to provide
protection to people who want to preserve their views as well as to people who love trees.
Councilmember Jaech inquired if lots less than an acre in size would be exempt from the proposed
ordinance if the language referencing lots of one acre or greater was included. Mr. Snyder re-
plied affirmatively, regardless of ownership, use, or inning.
Because there was confusion regarding the definition of developed and undeveloped lots, Council -
member Hertrich read sections 18.45.050(E) and (M) of the proposed ordinance into the record. He
said he lives on a partially developed lot that is capable of being subdivided but, in his opin-
ion, a one acre parcel of flat land does not fall into either one of the categories. He suggest-
ed that the proposed ordinance include wording to the effect of a partially developed lot always
having a structure on it in which someone resides.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION. MOTION FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBER PALMER AND COUN-
CILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH
AND COUNCILMEMBER JAECH OPPOSED; COUNCILMEMBER KASPER ABSTAINED BECAUSE HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN A SINGLE LOT OR,A DOUBLE LOT.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED TO REFER THE ORDINANCE TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. THE
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO PASS THE ORDINANCE BUT CHANGE
THE EXEMPTION FLOOR FIGURE TO ONE ACRE PARTIALLY DEVELOPED, AND EXCLUDE THE SECTION REGARDING
COVENANTS IN PRO'S AND INCLUDE WORDING ON PERIOD FOR ADMINISTRATION, REVIEW AND SITE RESTORA-
TION. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBER PALMER AND COUNCILMEMBER
WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, COUNCILMEM-
BER JAECH AND COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED.
In order to allow the Council to discuss the issue at more length, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO MOVE CDC-2-89 TO THE AUGUST 28, 1990 MEETING. MOTION
CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER OPPOSED.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 702 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
FOR GRANT FUNDS TO PURCHASEATERFRONT PROPERTY —
Parks & Recreation Manager Arvilla Ohlde said .the Mayor discussed the possible sale of a lot with
the owner of a lot on the waterfront but the owner is not interested in selling until perhaps
�August. She said there is a parcel of land for sale, however, at 264 Beach Place for $695,000 � that is 25x60 feet, is zoned commercial waterfront, has a 25 foot wide beach side an a 760 square
foot cottage.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO SUBMIT THE HENNING PROPERTY
FOR THE IAC GRANT. MOTION FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER AND COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH IN FAVOR;
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER PALMER AND COUN-
CILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED TO SUBMIT THE PROPERTY AT 264 BEACH PLACE FOR THE IAC GRANT. MOTION
FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9 June 26, 1990
Ms. Ohlde noted the Snohomish Conservations Futures Grant application provides a possibility for
open space purchases but must be submitted by August 30.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 702 TO SUBMIT
THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD FOR THE IAC GRANT. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED WITH
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER PALMER AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN
FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH AND COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED.
APPROVAL OF BUILDING DIVISION JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Personnel Director Brent Hunter noted that as a result of the new Combination Inspector/Plans
Examiner position (which was approved by the Council on May 22), some .of the job assignments of
the other positions in the Building Division have been shifted. The job descriptions for all
positions in the Building Division, including the new combination Inspector/Plans Examiner,have
been revised accordingly and are submitted for the Council's approval. He said the pay grade
level for the new position was established at an NE-11 but all other positions' grades will re-
main at their previous level. He noted that the Combination Inspector's position requires an
ICBO certificate within one year of hire.
Councilmember Palmer said he would like the educational requirements for the Building Official,
Combination Inspector/Plans Examiner, and Building Inspector to be changed to a Bachelor's degree
instead of an Associate degree in one of the fields indicated on the proposed job description.
Councilmember Nordquist suggested that the City hire people who have already obtained ICBO certi-
fication rather than hire employees and require them to obtain it within a year of hire. Build-
ing Official Dick Mumma said it is diffigult to find people who are ICBO certified. Councilmem-
ber Nordquist said he was not confident that an employee will obtain that certificate within the
specified time period. Councilmember Dwyer suggested that an employee be given the opportunity
to obtain ICBO certification within a year, taking the test the first date it is administered
after he/she is hired and the second time it is administered if he/she fails the first test, but
discharge the employee if he/she fails to receive certification within that time period.
Because the job responsibilities are almost identical for the Building Inspector and Combination
Inspector/Plans Examiner, Councilmember Hertrich recommended that the job classification for the
Combination Inspector/Plans Examiner be NE-10 rather than NE-11 until an ICBO certification is
obtained.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO REQUIRE THAT THE BUILDING
OFFICIAL, COMBINATION INSPECTOR/PLANS EXAMINER, AND BUILDING INSPECTOR HAVE A BACHELOR'S DEGREE;
THAT THE COMBINATION INSPECTOR/PLANS EXAMINER OBTAIN ICBO CERTIFICATION WITHIN ONE YEAR WITH NO
EXTENSION; AND APPROVE THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
Councilmember Dwyer inquired if Councilmember Nordquist was amenable to his suggestion that an
employee be required to take the ICBO test on the first opportunity that it is administered after
the date of hire and the second time it is administered if he/she fails the first test but that
he/she be discharged automatically if ICBO certification is not obtained. Councilmember Nord-
quist replied affirmatively.
MOTION CARRIED. -
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2674 AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ESTABLISH LANDSCAPE STAN-
DARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD CONTINUED MOM MAY 21 HEARING AND MAY 20 CONSENT AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO RESCHEDULE THE. ITEM TO AUGUST
28, 1990 AND CLOSE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
SET DATE FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING CODE
ENFORCEMENT/CIVIL PENALTIES (SUGGESTED HEARING DATE: AUGUST 21 1990
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, TO SET THE DATE FOR THE HEARING ON
CIVIL PENALTIES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT ON AUGUST 21, 1990. MOTION CARRIED.
MAYOR
Mayor Naughten said the Police Department certification team is in the City of Edmonds. He noted
that there are only six agencies in the State that have obtained that certification.
Mayor Naughten said the NLC meeting will be held from December 1 through December 5 in Houston,
Texas.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 10 June 26, 1990
COUNCIL
Council President Nordquist asked Councilmember Palmer which Boards or Committees he is serving
r��,:,fs on. Councilmember Palmer said he currently serves on the Cable Committee but would prefer not to
serve on the Disability Board. Council President Nordquist said Councilmember Kasper has volun-
teer, to serve on the Disability Board in place of Councilmember Palmer.
Council President Nordquist noted that there are five weeks in July, and he recommended that the
Council meet with the Mukilteo City Council in Edmonds on July 31 at a dinner meeting to continue
the discussion that recently took place. The Council concurred.
Council President Nordquist said the City of Lynnwood would also like to meet with the Council in
the near future. He said he would schedule that meeting when Councilmember Kasper returned.
�. Councilmember Jaech said she and Councilmember Palmer are going to take each other's place on the
committees that they serve on so she will be on the Public Safety Committee and Councilmember
Palmer will be on the Community Services Committee.
Councilmember Jaech requested the Council to let her know in advance if they plan to attend the
4th of July celebration at her house.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO RECONSIDER ITEM (H) ON THE
CONSENT AGENDA (REROOFING THE ANDERSON CENTER).
As a procedural matter, Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER PALMER AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO AWARD THE CONTRACT AND INCLUDE
INSULATION ON THE TWO WEST WINGS, AND APPROVE THE FUNDS BY BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS OF ITEMS LISTED ON
EXHIBIT B THAT WILL NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED IN 1990. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED
WITH COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, AND COUNCILMEMBER
KASPER IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED.
The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO JULY 17, 1990 APPROVAL.
�JACQYELINE G. PARRETT, City Clerk
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mayor
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 11 June 26, 1990
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING
7:00 - 10:00 P.M.
JUNE 26. 1990
WORK MEETING - NO AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. CONSENT AGENDA
ZA) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 1990
(C) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2782 ADOPTING STATE LAW PROHIBITING USE OF
DOMESTIC DOGS AND CATS AS BAIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAINING OTHER
ANIMALS
(D) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2783 ADOPTING STATE LAW PROHIBITING THE
FAILURE TO STOP A VESSEL UPON THE REQUEST OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER t I I
(E) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 701 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR FUNDING
ASSISTANCE FROM AQUATIC LANDS ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT OF DEPT. OF
NATURAL RESOURCES FOR INTERPRETIVE PORTIONS OF BRACKETT'S
LANDING UPLAND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
(F) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF TRANSFER OF UNEXPENDED FUNDS FROM 1989
MEDIATION APPROPRIATION TO ENGINEERING CONSULTANT BUDGET FOR
ADDITIONAL SOIL TESTING ASSOCIATED WITH HARBOR HILLS DEVELOPMENT
(G) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM WILLIAM E.
MCANDREW ($294.02)
(H) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 12, 1990 FOR REROOFING ANDERSON CENTER,
AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO KATHOL ROOFING, INC. ($66,423.12, INCLUDING
SALES TAX)
2. CWC-HDR MONTHLY REPORT
3. REPORT ON CEMETERY STRUCTURE PROPOSAL BY HUBBARD TRUST AND CEMETERY BOARD
4. DISCUSSION WITH MARY HUGHES ON SEWER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
5. YEASTINGS & HUGHES ASSOCIATES PRESENTATION OF THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON THE
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY GAIN BOSWORTH, INC., TO REFUND THE 1980 G.O. BONDS
6. PRESENTATION ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REDUCE COMPENSATION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE
VACATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF 8TH AVE. N. IN VICINTIY OF 771 DALEY ST.
8. COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED
ORDINANCE AMENDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO LAND CLEARING AND
TREE CUTTING (CDC-2-89/CITY OF EDMONDS) (FROM SECOND PUBLIC HEARING MAY 15, 1990)
9. PROPOSED RESOLUTION 702 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE
FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION FOR GRANT FUNDS TO PURCHASE WATERFRONT PROPERTY
10. APPROVAL OF BUILDING DIVISION JOB DESCRIPTIONS
11. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2674 AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ESTABLISH
LANDSCAPE STANDARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (CONT. FROM MAY 21 HEARING
AND MAY 29 CONSENT AGENDA)
12. SET DATE FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT/CIVIL PENALTIES (SUGGESTED HEARING DATE: AUGUST 21, 1990)
13. MAYOR
14. COUNCIL
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND
PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE