08/21/1990 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO
AUGUST 28, 1990 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 21, 1990
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
Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Duane Bowman, Asst. City Planner
Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director
Bobby Mills, Public Works Supt.
Brent Hunter, Personnel Director
Dan Prinz, Police Chief
Gordie Hyde, Traffic Engineer
Gary McComas, Fire Marshal
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Alice Brown, Recorder
Mayor Naughten informed the audience of their opportunity later in the meeting to express opin-
ions on items which concern them, asking that they sign up for public hearing items indicating
their names and addresses.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items (D), (E), (I), (L), (P) and (Q) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 1990
(C) ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE FROM LAURA AND JAMES BARRETT ($28,961) AND
DONALD AND SHIRLEE HALL ($500,000)
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SNOHOMISH COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT CONSORTIUM INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
(G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 15, 1990 FOR SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO -
It/ BLACKLINE, INC. ($31,500)
(H) REPORT OFTBIDS OPENEDIED AUGUST 6IN199 FOR FL84)ED, CRANE, AND TOOL BOXES AND AWARD OF
CONTTo� y(J) AUTHORIZATION JO CALL FOR BIDS FOR CARPETING AND INSTALLATION AT EDMONDS LIBRARY
�'i` dv 0yy (K) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR CONTINUING METAL CAP AROUND LIBRARY AND PLAZA AREA
A�(M) ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 706 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY CONSERVATION
FUTURES GRANT TO FUND PASSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF PINE RIDGE PARK
Yea
�(N) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY INSITE, A DIVISION OF NU -STONE SURFACING, INC., ON CENTEN-
NIAL PLAZA BRICKWORK PROJECT, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD
(0) ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2788 PROHIBITING DRIVING THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY TO AVOID TRAFFIC
CONTROL DEVICES
(R) OVAL OF AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH GAYNOR LANDSCAPING FOR MASTER PLAN OF PINE RIDGE
PARK
IVA
S) ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 707 EXTENDING CHAMBERS CABLE TV FRANCHISE TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1990
C AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH SHANNON TOWING FOR TOW AND IMPOUNT SERVICES [ITEM
D�FCONSENT AG1
Mayor Naughten,announced this item would be continued until a date uncertain.
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH SEATTLE TILTH ASSOCIATION FOR
Councilmember Kasper stated that the city has a grant, and he questioned why we are not using
grant money, rather than taking it out of the General Fund. He stated he felt the word "appropri-
ate" should be used instead of the term "grant".
Mr. Hahn explained the process whereby the money needs to be placed wherever it is going to be
spent, and the recommendation is that $1,000 of it be put in the budget, and spend the money for
the purposes of the contract. A grant is a revenue fund, and expenditures are done by BARS code,
and this catetory is a consulting services category. The way it reads is ..approve the con-
tract and appropriate $1,000 from the recycling grant to be made available for transfer to the
Commercial Services Consulting Project."
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE ITEM (E) OF THE CONSENT
AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO INSTALL HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRY DOORS AT EDMONDS LIBRARY
ITEM (I) ON CONSENT AGENDA] and
AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR REPLACEMENT OF FIRE ESCAPE STEPS AT EDMONDS BOYS AND GIRLS
CLUB LITEM L N CONSENT AGENDA]
Councilmember Kasper addressed the from the 116 Fund, since it has been Council's position not to
use 116 funds for construction. He noted in one instance they are replacing doors, and in the
Boys/Girls Club they are replacing a fire escape that was in the original block grant. He felt
that the city should go back to the block grant for these funds for the handicap door replace-
ments, and that other door replacement projects should be done all at once --for example, the
brass doors in the Anderson Center.
Mayor Naughten stated he did not believe they would qualify for block grants.
Mr. Hahn suggested that Bobby Mills, who put the package together, would be able to explain fur-
ther about the block grant eligibility issue, since obviously the stairs are not handicapped
accessible, but the facility was paid for from a block grant.
Mr. Mills stated that at the present time there was no reason not to go to HUD block grant, and
in September they will take funding projects for the next three years. He said the city can
submit in the block grant category, and if it can be funded it would be great, since many facili-
ties need to have closers and openers to make them accessible to the people. The steps at the
Boys Club are in real need of repair and that was part of the block grant of two years ago. The
exit is from the upper part of the building (fire escape).
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the balance of the 116 Fund, and Mr. Mills replied that while
he did not have exact figures for this meeting, these items under discussion were budgeted for
this year. Councilmember Wilson stated that the spirit of that fund is a maintenance contingency
program.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, NOT TO APPROVE ITEMS (I) AND (L).
MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2789 RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICIAL DISCLOSURE [ITEM (P) ON CONSENT AGENDA]
Councilmember HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY Councilmember JAECH, TO MOVE ITEM (P) TO THE END OF THE
AGENDA, MAKING IT ITEM 10, WITH THE MAYOR'S SECTION BECOMING ITEM 11. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE LIMITING THE DISCHARGE OF FIREWORKS TO JULY 4 H TEM (0) ON CONSENT AGENDAI
ouncilmember Palmer referred to the Fireworks Ordinance, Page 2, where it speaks about only
discharging on the July 4th, but allows them to be sold until July 6th.
City Attorney Scott Snyder stated that the State legis.lature has pre-empted certain ordinances,
and that local ordinances must contain certain provisions. In order to limit ordinance restric-
tions as much as possible, the fireworks industry has protected itself by pre-empting hours of
sale and ensuring that they can sell fireworks certain days. They do not restrict cities from
prohibiting the discharge of fireworks. Mr. Snyder said the State legislature determines what
powers remain, and what the City is attempting to do is to limit what is sold to only sparklers
and smoke bombs, and prohibit discharge. He said, in effect, the City is doing all it is re-
quired to do.
COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2789. MOTION
CARRIED.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 August 21, 1990
SEIU LABOR AGREEMENT
Mayor Naughten announced that Item 7, APPROVAL OF SEIU LABOR AGREEMENT will be dealt with in
Executive Session before it is addressed publicly.
COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER TO MOVE ITEM 9, REVIEW STATUS OF
YOST POOL COVER, TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE WORK SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1990. MOTION CARRIED.
AUDIENCE
Mr. Dick Burgoyne, 751 Brookmere Drive, Edmonds, inquired about the status of a petition submit-
ted in July as it concerns the walkway that is proposed between Hindley Lane and Brookmere Drive
at 8th Avenue. Mayor Naughten explained that the Council had only received this information at
this evening's meeting, and there will be a public hearing scheduled. Mr. Burgoyne will be in-
formed when the hearing will be held.
Ms. Beth Schlaegel, 20800 - 78th West, represented the citizens in a three -block area who are
requesting attention be given to their streets. More specifically, the streets are 77th West,
78th West, 208th S. W., and 209th S. W. between 77th and 78th. The areas of concern of the resi-
dents involve the construction of storm water drainage, reconstruction of the streets with as-
phalt (not chipseal), and a reasonable amount of time for the reparations to take place.
Ms. Schlaegel submitted a petition with signatures from 32 households, and also provided a dia-
gram to the Council for their perusal. The diagram indicated the three -block area where their
concerns were (highlighted in pink), and the streets to the north and south of the area (high-
lighted in yellow) which have recently been resurfaced with asphalt.
In discussions with the Engineering Department, Ms. Schlaegel stated they concurred that the
streets are in need of repairs, and that the stormwater drain system was also in need of repair.
The neighborhood has been experiencing sinking driveways and lawns.
Ms. Schlaegel added there are 33 homes with 16 children, and safety is a factor. The request to
the Council is that this much -needed repair be included in the 1991 budget so that the work can
be completed at least by the fall of 1991. She thanked the Council for listening and added that
the residents hope the problems will be promptly addressed and appropriately resolved.
Councilmember Kasper asked if they had been told that the streets would be re -asphalted, and Ms.
Schlaegel replied that Mr. Stroud was the person to whom they had spoken about not wanting
chipseal, and at that time the slurry seal was mentioned.
Mayor Naughten thanked her, and told her she would be contacted regarding their request.
Mr. Fred Schuler, 20815 - 78th West, spoke regarding the needed repairs, and added that they were
told by Roy Whitcutt that the storm system would be put in.
Mr. Scott Mackie, 15120 44th West, Lynnwood, and Mike Kerwin (business partner), requested that
the Council consider revising the Video Arcade Ordinance of the code, specifically Section
4.21.027. They had submitted a letter for Council review describing their business concept, and
a timely response was requested.
Mayor Naughten informed them that the Council will need time to review the request at a future
Council Committee meeting, and will advise the petitioners when it is going to be reviewed. He
noted that the next Committee meeting is scheduled for September 11.
Councilmember Hertrich asked if they anticipated moving on this right away, and the reply was by
late October or early November. Mr. Mackie stated that their success will be dependent on the
video game income, which relates to the number of video games they are allowed, and they cannot
proceed any further until approval is given. Therefore, at this time the project was.at a stand-
still.
Mr. Mackie stated that Herm Villa had been in contact with the Chief of Police, and that it would
not pose a problem, since they are a family sports and entertainment complex. It is a total
family and sports entertainment business, where no alcohol, smoking or related activities will
take place inside the facility. He added that Mr. John Harter, the Sno-King Youth Club Director,
also was contacted, and he was in favor of the youth -oriented program.
Ms. Francena (Sini) Schmidt, 7815 - 192nd Place S. W., submitted a petition to the Council, and
stated she represented 25 residences. The petition was signed in April and they have been work-
ing with the City for four months. She commented on how pleased they have been to work with
Bobby Mills and Bill Stroud, but they are not satisfied with the City's position to overlay only
the turnaround only and patch up the "rough" spots.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 August 21, 1990
The main concerns of this group were that the final surface is too rough, with children receiving
nasty cuts if they fall on the surface; the loose gravel causes chips in car paint,.and.the grav-
el is carried onto driveways, lawns and flowerbeds, and the street sweeper is ineffective; tar
has been carried into homes and carpets; the overlay is not smooth, and low spots still exist
where water collects.
Ms. Schmidt said that there are 26 houses on the street, and one-third of the residents have
resided there for 25 years, with another one-third having lived there for 15 years or more. From
all of the reports, this has been an ongoing patch -up job for 30 years. They are definitely
requesting better than the chipseal work which was done over a year ago.
Mayor Naughten clarified with her that they are requesting an overlay of the street, and stated
that the City will get back to the requestors next week.
REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR VIDEO PRESENTATION RE FERRY TERMINAL
�IMayor Naughten gave a brief explanation for the presentation, stating that the concept of the
video as it relates to the proposed ferry terminal and waterfront is being looked at by the Coun-
cil to help as they look for solutions.
Ms. Jeannie McMacken, McMacken & Associates, 17000 - 73rd Place W., Edmonds, gave..a brief over-
view of what the video would consist of in the way of informing, stating that a 10-12 minute
media image would do the job. It would contain history of the system, ridership, current and
projected problems. They would solicit comments from ferry users, downtown merchants, and oth-
ers, working one-on-one with the Council before anything was done. She referred the Council to
the outline given them of the preliminary cost estimate.
Ms. McMacken stated the original video, or master video, would be kept by McMacken & Associates
with copies given to the City.
Councilmember Hertrich asked Ms. McMacken to whom the proposed videos would be shown, and she
replied that interested parties, service organizations, Department of Transportation, and others.
Mayor Naughten interjected that the Council would determine who shows the video and to whom.
Councilmember Hertrich could not see the scenario, saying they were dealing with one item, but
seemingly it does not address the whole program.
Mayor Naughten stated this is just one part of a total program, and depends upon whether the
Council desires to do it in this manner.
Councilmember Palmer asked for more information on the "Source Voyager", and Ms. McMacken replied
that purchasing it would not be appropriate since the price ranges from $700-/$800, and on a
rental basis would be $40 each time it is used. She offered to confirm the figures for the Coun-
cil.
Councilmember Palmer inquired about the cost of copies of the video to the City, and what the
timetable 'on developing such a program is. Ms. McMacken replied that the videos are $8.00 each,
and that there would be a minimum of five weeks between writing approval, getting the desired
shots, etc.
Councilmember Hertrich liked the idea of a video program, but was having difficulty visualizing
that this should be the lead-off item. He felt the Council would not know exactly what direction
it was going, and felt that a public relations firm should be retained, which would use video if
it is appropriate. He was not in favor of signing for this at this time.
Councilmember Nordquist felt that while something like this is needed, showing the basics of the
problems facing the ferry terminal and issues involved with the ferry, the program must be devel-
oped in a way that appeals to the citizens of Edmonds. As far as service programs and service
organizations, there are many people who belong to them that do not live in Edmonds at all.
Councilmember Nordquist felt it was premature to hire anyone to do something that the Council was
not prepared to promote wholeheartedly.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Nordquist. He felt that the dissemination of
information to the public at large is important and there is a need to communicate with them, but
could not conceive how the video would be used. He said the Council needs to put more study into
this.
Mayor Naughten stated that a slide show presentation had been discussed at the retreat, and the
idea was to take it to the community.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 August 21, 1990
Councilmember Jaech recalled that the suggestion to utilize slides or video presentations had
been talked about, but it was her feeling that the Council is not ready to hire anyone at this
time. She felt consideration should be given to what points need to be included and whether
video is the correct medium. She thought perhaps a brochure or a handbook would suffice.
Mayor Naughten said further discussion was needed.
Ms. McMacken wished to make two points with reference to the discussion, the first being that to
delay during these critical tourist traffic days will preclude being able to demonstrate the
impact. Secondly, she wanted the Council to be aware of her 15 years of public relations experi-
ence. She wanted to emphasize that she can help with any marketing project and agreed that this
is just part of a complete program.
Councilmember Kasper clarified that the Council was not saying the video was the problem. He
said the problem is not knowing what the Council wants to have in it and not getting to the gener-
al public. He felt most service organizations are well informed, but not all participants live
in Edmonds, and he said that is the problem.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST TO MOVE THE DISCUSSION OF THE
PROPOSED VIDEO PRESENTATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE FERRY TERMINAL TO THE NEXT WORK MEETING, SEPTEM-
BER 25, 1990, TO COME TO AGREEMENT ON WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS IT TO CONTAIN. MOTION CARRIED.
In conjunction with the meeting of September 25th, Councilmember Hertrich requested a letter from
Ms. MCMacken outlining some of the things she feels are important so that they can have these in
hand.
1JrHEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2790 LIMITING PARKING TO THREE HOURS IN 200 BLOCK OF 4TH AVENUE
SOUTH(BETWEEN DAYTON STREET AND WALNUT STREET)
Traffic Engineer Gordie Hyde presented the background of this proposed ordinance, stating that
Carol Elwell, a resident on 4th Avenue South had requested that the City Attorney draw up an
ordinance concerning imposing a 3-hour limit in the area, and a petition had been submitted at
the end of May, He showed a transparency on the overhead projector which indicated the existing
3-hour limits in the downtown area in the 4th Avenue section. This portion was apparently left
out in the previous ordinance, and the staff is recommending passing the ordinance.
Councilmember Palmer felt there was a discrepancy between the Dayton and Walnut locations, since
the ordinance uses "Maple" as the location. Mr. Hyde clarified this stating that the Council had
not received the corrected ordinance in time for this meeting, but that the existing ordinance in-
cludes the north 120' of 4th Avenue, and the new ordinance would extend it south on 4th. The
"Maple" reference is now corrected to "Walnut".
Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing.
Mr. Vernon Huck, 275 - 4th Avenue South, noted that the north 120' is already commercially zoned,
and he thought that was fine, but the west stretch from Dayton to Walnut is completely residen-
tial, with the exception of one chiropractor's office. His point was that it is predominantly
residential` and the fact is he is glad that it will restrict the commercial use. Mr. Huck was
concerned about what consideration is given to residents for permits, so that they will be able
to park their vehicles there.
City Clerk Jackie Parrett stated there is an ordinance on the books that provides for residential
parking permits as long as you do not have an area on your property to park your cars. The cost
of the permit is $10 per year. She added that if you do have an area on your property to park,
including a garage, driveway or other space, then a permit cannot be issued.
Councilmember Hertrich asked about guest parking, and Ms. Parrett explained that there are visi-
tor permits which are $5 each. If you are entitled to a residential parking permit, you may have
up to two visitor's permits. However, if you are not entitled to a residential parking permit,
the cost for the visitor permits is $10 each per year.
Mr. Huck questioned what the fee for the commercial people is, and Ms. Parrett replied that they
are not entitled to a permit. The ordinance was designed to help the residents of the street.
In conjunction with the discussion of permits, Mr. Snyder explained that with a permit the resi-
dents may park beyond the three-hour limit, whereas persons without a permit are limited to three
hours.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 August 21, 1990
Ms. Anne Ebbighausen, 209 - 4th South, Suite #101, was present to speak on behalf of businesses
in the area under consideration. She is the Legal Administrator for James Deal & Associates, and
questioned why this was being proposed. Mr. Hyde reiterated that the proposal is at the request
of the residents of that street who have found that the street is occupied many hours of the day
by vehicles. These vehicles belong to various people --owners, operators, clients of local busi-
nesses, or ferry patrons, making parking unavailable to the residents.
Ms. Ebbighausen stated their firm has 12 employees, with 6 spaces for clients in front, and 5
spaces in the rear of which 3 are available to their employees. With the 3-hour parking limit on
neighboring streets, this means that 9 people in their firm have to find parking spaces in order
to come to work. Naturally, the concern if this passes is where will the employees be able to
park --it will not be possible for employees to come to work.
Ms. Ebbighausen felt that one of the amenities of working in Edmonds, rather than in Seattle, was
that while salaries are generally lower in this area, there are some tradeoffs because there is
no paid parking involved and parking restrictions do not apply in general. Businesses are at-
tracted because of this atmosphere, but will not want to establish themselves here in the future
if the benefits such as street parking are eliminated.
Councilmember Hertrich stated that arguments both ways have been heard, and asked if there was a
problem for the patrons of the business, or if paid parking would be acceptable. Ms. Ebbighausen
answered that the difficulty at this point is for the employees, since they do have 6 spaces in
front for clients, and a couple in the rear for that purpose as well. She reiterated the fact
that pay scales are lower here, and businesses will not want to locate in Edmonds. Parking down
at the ferry dock makes for a long walk to work.
In closing, Ms. Ebbighausen noted that from the observations of her fellow employees, the 3-hour
limit is unenforced.
Ms. Carol Elwell, 242 - 4th Ave. South (on 4th between Dayton and Walnut), spoke about the park-
ing situation, and the fact that several of the neighbors felt strongly as she did, so they circu-
lated a petition and garnered 22 signatures. One of her complaints was that she cannot even pull
up in front of the building where she lives and unload her groceries. While they have a six -car
garage off the alley and have six places to park, it is not convenient. She cannot provide park-
ing for her family when they visit, since there is no place to park right by their building.
Ms. Elwell referred again to the alley and cited that one car has been parked there for three
weeks, and last weekend there was a car parked in front of the building for four days. The situa-
tion is impossible most of the time. She thanked the Council and stated she hoped they would
concur with the requests of the submitted petition on this matter.
Mr. Dan Johnson, 220 - 4th Ave. South, stated he felt the short-term parking was not the problem,
but rather it is the long-term parking, and he suggested that perhaps the curb could be painted
to signify somehow that residents of a particular building were to be able to park there. Mayor
Naughten responded that this could not be done since it is a public street.
The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2790 RESTRICTING
PARKING ON.4TH AVENUE SOUTH BETWEEN DAYTON STREET AND WALNUT STREET. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kasper commented that this would be a good place to use a video, as it would show
one of the areas for which there is no solution unless the ferry terminal is moved.
Councilmember Wilson responded that the Council has been sensitive to parking and has investigat-
ed purchasing property, even going as far as having it appraised, all done with parking in mind.
However, the landowner wanted more than the appraisal and had put a prohibitive price of
$160,000 on it, making it out of reach for that purpose.
Councilmember Hertrich requested that the Planning department research similar commercial occupan-
cies and check the present formula requiring parking, since perhaps they are no longer appropri-
ate. He felt that providing six parking spots, as spoken of here tonight, while in accordance
with the formula in the code, is perhaps inadequate. He asked that the Planning Department also
check as to whether "loading zones" might be appropriate in front of major condominiums.
Councilmember Kasper addressed the issue of employee parking, noting that employee parking was
not considered, but mostly it is the customers for whom the parking is meant. This project was
done and provided for by the Code. He noted that other cities, such as Bellevue, are promoting
carpooling and transit by making parking in the core costly. Councilmember Palmer noted that in
light of the testimony, each business that is parking on the street is affecting all businesses,
and there is a leap -frog effect with everyone impacting someone else.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 August 21, 1990
HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT/CIVIL
rJ - PENTE7TES
Mr. Bowman gave the staff presentation, noting that this matter was referred to the Community
Services Committee on June 12, 1990 for consideration. The Committee recommended that a hearing
be held to consider proposed amendments. The proposed amendments were to establish a code en-
forcement civil penalties section for enforcing the Edmonds Community Development Code. Up to
this time, the staff has been processing zoning violations as criminal offenses, and cannot effi-
ciently handle such matters. The draft copy of the ordinance would establish a civil process
using a Hearing Examiner method of appeal for enforcement actions.
To illustrate the time consumed in processing a violation, Mr. Bowman showed a transparency on
the overhead projector (exhibit 2 in the Council packet). This graphic showed that the procedure
of enforcement of a zoning violation such as property nuisance, obtaining compliance with the
Sign Code, a home occupation violation, etc., is a lengthy process. He cited one case that was
an animal violation, with 32 cats, 2 dogs and a ferret, occupying a condominium unit, and while
the process was going on, the neighbors to this situation were living in a very unhealty environ-
ment.
* Mr. Bowman informed those present that the present process takes 293 days for a violation. In
contrast, the draft proposal shows a timeline of approximately 80 days for the procedure. The
purpose behind the proposed amendment is to provide for an efficient system to enforce the provi-
sions of the Edmonds Community Development Code, and further to provide for a fair hearing pro-
cess and an efficient procedure for abating the code violations and to decriminalize the enforce-
ment procedure. Mr. Bowman pointed out that this did not prohibit the city, if necessary, from
filing criminal charges.
Mr. Bowman continued by pointing out that "nuisance" has been redefined since it is the weakest
part of the code to deal with. The current code is unclear about zoning regulation violations,
but the problem with most of the complaints is that the staff is dealing with property nuisances
that are not clearly defined and are hard to enforce. Other municipalities, such as Redmond,
Everett and Bellevue, have all gone to this procedure for enforcement. He added that he had
attended a conference with the Everett woman who runs the program for that city, and where it has
been successful. This process is much more expedient.
Councilmember Hertrich asked who was going to issue the tickets, and Mr. Bowman replied that
citations would be issued by the Code Enforcement Technician, who presently does that. The main
thrust of the Technician is to enforce the Edmonds Community Development Code for all violations
of the code. At the present time the job is mostly geared to commercial enforcement.
The public hearing was opened, no one wished to speak, and the public portion was closed.
Councilmember Palmer mentioned that the question always arises on why the city cannot do certain
projects such as cleaning junk in vacant lots, side yards, and other areas, but it takes too much
staff time and costs the taxpayers too much money. Some of these minor items are the most visi-
ble to the day-to-day community. This ordinance will impact the quality of life in the city, and
any tool that can be given to the staff to aid them in enforcement should be given them. He
stated he liked the ordinance as presented.
Councilmember Hertrich reiterated he had a problem with the way the Planning Department is run at
times, and added this is not the kind of thing he would like to see the Planning Department in-
volved with. He said the Hearing Examiner approach is probably the superior course to follow,
but going through the court process is much better, so that the Code Enforcement person has to
give more proof to a judge, rather than a Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Hertrich stated he
would not vote to change the system until some improvement in the Planning Department was evi-
dent, but did not want to see them wearing a badge.
Councilmember Jaech felt it was a good ordinance. The Hearing Examiner idea is good, where all
taxpayers share equally in the cost, but otherwise if it went to a court procedure there would be
court costs incurred such as attorneys fees. Councilmember Jaech felt whether it was a permit
coordinator or police department was not important, but she said many calls that she receives
from citizens concern trash or unwanted blackberry bushes which harbor rats, and they are experi-
encing a real problem but have no recourse to deal with it. For the staff to enforce it is al-
most impossible, but this will give the staff the opportunity to do things that citizens want
done and is the least expensive way for everybody concerned.
Councilmember Nordquist asked for clarification of Section 00.00.030, Nuisance section, Item E,
Page 2, of the proposed ordinance, where it pertains to "Utility trailers or unmounted camper
tops..." He asked if he could move a trailer from his front yard to the street. Mr. Bowman
responded that the City Code does not allow overnight parking of trailers on the street.
* See Council Minutes of September 4, 1990 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 August 21, 1990
Mr. Bowman stated that according to the parking section of the code it states that it is a viola-
tion.
Mr. Snyder explained to the Council that the format under the proposal is that a notice will be
given that there is a violation; therefore, the trailer must be moved to the backyard or drive-
way, and after notification, if not moved, a citation would be given for the violation.
Councilmember Nordquist was bothered by the fact that there was no one from the public present to
speak about any of the conditions and the impact, even though the item was advertised in the news-
papers, and agenda information is readily available to the public. He believes the public would
comment on it.
Councilmember Kasper was concerned about procedures and suggested a second and third reading on
this ordinance. He stated that if he read the title in the paper he would not know what it was
that was being discussed.
Councilmember Kasper questioned whether the people of Edmonds wanted that much more enforcement,
but that hopefully the press would let the people know that public input is needed, then the
Council can talk about the contents.
Councilmember Hertrich expressed the opinion that this matter should have been before the Plan-
ning Board, and he said when it was before the Community Services Committee he disagreed with
it. He was concerned with who would be issuing tickets, with and all the various _items under the
"Definition" section, and with the "Nuisance" section. He said it is too general, and he felt
that some of the rights of the citizens were being taken away. Councilmember Hertrich stated he
believed this needed more study by other boards.
Councilmember Palmer stated he had no problem with the proposal and that the things it covered
were those which the citizens want enforcement on. He agreed that it should be published widely,
and that these things do not pertain to anything that anyone would store outside.
COUNCIL MEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO MOVE THE ITEM TO THE SEPTEMBER
4, 1990 AGENDA FOR A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION APPROVING 42-UNIT APARTMENT AT 348 3RD
AVE. S. (APPELLANT: R BERT B. S RENSEN APPLICANT: BELT ENTERPRISES. FIL -20-90 -3-90)
Councilmember Kasper stated Council received a letter in his packet from Mr. Belt, 917 - 9th
�* Avenue South, which should be given to the City Clerk for the records. (Marked Exhibit 1)
Mayor Naughten established that the appellant and the applicant were both present.
Mr. Bowman reported on the background of this appeal, stating that the Architectural Design Board
(ADB) granted final approval to this project at 348 - 3rd Avenue South, a 42-unit apartment, at
their July 5, 1990 meeting. Subsequently, on July 23, 1990, Robert Sorensen filed an appeal of
that decision. Minutes of the ADB meeting were included in the Council packets.
Mr. Bowman displayed transparencies on the overhead projector showing the site plan and the build-
ing elevations, with Building A housing 26 units and Building B the balance of the units. He
stated the access to the property would be along a driveway on the north property line. Mr.
Sorensen's concerns are with the driveway, the construction of that driveway, and ultimate impact
on his property.
Plans approved by the ADB were made available to interested parties, and included a landscape
plan.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired what the distance was from the edge of the driveway to the adjoin-
ing residence on the north side, and Mr. Bowman replied that it goes from "zero to basically 5
feet" in the area between the driveway and the appellant's driveway. The retaining wall will be
built from there.
Councilmember Hertrich asked how far the residence is .from the property line, the depth of the
wall, and slope of the driveway. Mr. Bowman answered that it is approximately 22' from the resi-
dence, the depth is zero to 9 feet, and the slope is 14-1/2%, but that the Engineering Department
has not approved the slope.
Concerning ADB procedures, Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the ADB gives final approval on any
project before any variances are decided, and Mr. Bowman stated they recommend to the Hearing
Examiner, but in that sense they (the ADB) comply.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 August 21, 1990
Mayor Naughten explained the procedure for the appellant and the applicant during the public
hearing portion, with the applicant to present his comments first, and then the appellant, each
being limited to seven (7) minutes.
The public hearing portion of the meeting was opened, and the applicant, Tom Belt, d/b/a Belt
Enterprises, was first represented by Mr. Bob Tjossen, 1313 Market Street, Kirkland. Mr. Tjossen
showed colored renderings, specifically addressing the driveway on the north side, and the fact
that Mr. Sorensen desired two driveways. However, the recommendation from the city was for one
driveway.
Mr. Tjossen pointed out that the slope of the driveway has been reduced to 14%; therefore, it
does not require a variance.
Regarding the issue of stability, Mr. Tjossen assured those present that lateral support would be
carefully done. He stated that Mr. Sorensen's house is over 12 feet from the property line, and
added that the architect, Charles Morgan, would present a plan to scale, but at the east side of
the Sorensen house. The height, he added, of the cut on the easterly portion of the house is
3'6% and the westerly side is 8'6".
Mr. Tjossen stated that the applicant's licensed Civil Engineer, Mr. Dale Watkins, would explain
what will be done to ensure stability of the retaining wall, and the.techniques which will be
used during the course of construction so that the Sorensens' property will not be.. damaged. He
noted that there is a daylight basement underneath Mr. Sorensen's house and his foundation wall
holds up the bank next to his house and supports the driveway much like the present project will
do on the applicant's side.
Mr. Dale Watkins, Civil Engineer, Lovell, Sauerland & Associates, Lynnwood, was present to speak
to the stability issue. He explained that there will be stability throughout the construction.
Prior to any construction, they plan to establish pilings at the property line at a depth greater
than what would be excavated. Cribs would be provided for shoring throughout construction (imbed-
ded just like a flagpole). Boards will be put in between piles. Then once it is complete the
perimeter retaining wall is built.
The appellant, Mr. Robert Sorensen, 338 - 3rd Avenue South, submitted a letter stating his appeal
(marked Exhibit 2) and told the Council that he had been born in Edmonds and his grandparents
came here in 1902, so he had always been interested in its development. His family purchased
their home on 3rd Avenue in 1919. He explained his reason for appeal was based on information he
received from the City of Edmonds, which stated that the slope exceeding 14% was requested and
that the depth of the driveway was going to be 10 feet. The depth is exactly 13'8" from his
home, and they will share a joint driveway, which is concrete.
Mr. Sorensen stated he had talked with the Street Department personnel, who told him that the
earth there is sand and it slips easily. He read from a soils report from Earth Consultants,
Inc., which referred specifically to "cutting and filling":
..in no case should excavation slopes be greater than those specified in local, state and
federal safety regulations...Temporary cuts greater than 4' in height should have an
inclination no steeper than 1.1 horizontal/vertical..."
The appell.ant stated the other reason for his appeal is taken from the Community Development
Code, Section 20.05.010 (C), which sets forth the criterial for Conditional Use Permits: "Not
Detrimental. That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significan- y
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improve-
ments unless the use is a public necessity."
Mr. Sorensen stated that if approval of this is the recommendation of the City, he must assume
that the City of Edmonds will be responsible, since there will be slippage and breakup. He added
that 10 feet is steep and deep.
Mr. Sorensen then showed three transparencies on the overhead, with one showing the area of 3rd
and Walnut, the second showed Walnut and the turns, and the third showed the density of the prop-
erty. (Marked Exhibit 3)
Mr. Sorensen concluded with emphasis that he is so concerned about damage to his house that he is
requesting a survey be made and metered for structural damages during this development, and a
sizeable bond (possibly $2,000,000) be required for damages directly caused by this project at
348 - 3rd Avenue South. At the present time, his home is plumb and square, but the many trucks
carrying tons of dirt near his home were another great concern.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9 ' August 21, 1990
Alluding to the 10' depth, Mr. Sorensen produced a pole that was 10' in height, stating that as
anyone could see "It's a helluva hole", and asked the Councilmembers what they would do if this
was their home that this was happening near.
Councilmember Kasper noted that there is a copy of the Belt letter available for those who would
like to read it, since it addressed some of the issues being raised at this hearing. Mr. Snyder
confirmed that a copy was available on the table for review.
Mr. Bob Crump, 501 - 2nd Avenue North, was present to speak in behalf of the appellant, stating
that parking had been an issue discussed as it concerns commuter traffic, ferry traffic, etc. He
said this area once had two single family homes with at most three cars per family, and this
project is for 42 families with 84 cars. He asked the question of what effect would this density
have on this neighborhood, and what the cumulative impact on downtown Edmonds would be. He felt
it was detrimental to the small town aesthetics, and questioned whether the loading zones, guest
parking, as referred to before, had been properly addressed.
Ms. Muryl Medina, property owner at 341 and 343 - 3rd Avenue South, spoke in behalf of the appel-
lant, presenting a petition which had been circulated in support of Mr. Sorensen's appeal and in
the hope that the Council would grant his appeal. The petition contained 100 signatures, and she
read the intent of the petition. (Marked Exhibit 4)
Ms. Medina was the spokesperson on the neighbors' behalf, and she questioned whether an Environ-
mental Impact Statement had been required. If it had, many of the problems with this project
might have come to light, such as the impact of the turnaround. She said side from being a haz-
ard to Mr. Sorensen's property, there is a traffic tangle at 3rd Avenue South and Walnut, and the
driveway should flow from Walnut into the project.
The results of 84 vehicles driving with 10 feet of the Sorensen's living space, continued Ms.
Medina, is unthinkable. She questioned why the entry could not go off Walnut Street, simply by
changing the driveway.
Ms. Medina addressed the parking issue, and strongly urged the Council to make the developers
provide parking on site. She stated she felt she was in a position to say this since she had
been on both sides of the fence, since she was a developer also.
Ms. Wendy Kay, 318 - 6th Avenue South had questions with reference to the architectural design,
and what provisions have been made for trees on the lot, and what provisions are made for recy-
cling of garbage for multi -family dwellings when this project is finished.
Mr. Charles Morgan, architect, 7301 Beverly Lane, Everett, answered for the applicant, stating
that the three trees in front will be retained and become part of the buffer zone along the
street, but the balance of the trees are not the type to be substantial enough to be retained.
Mr. Morgan addressed the recycling inquiry by stating that the current standards are being met
with the two 8' x 10' enclosures indicated on the plan, but for the new recycling requirements
the regulations are not known to anyone at this time.
Mr. Tjossen responded to Mr. Sorensen's comments, stating that the new drawing submitted to the
City Clerk -=showed the maximum cut west of Mr. Sorensen's garage. It will not have a slope when
there is an excavation, but essentially will put piling and cribbing in before excavation takes
place. He said this is a well -established means of construction.
With respect to the vibration factor, Mr. Tjossen emphasized that a retaining wall will be con-
structed next to the sheet piling and cribbing, and when the wall is built it will be backfilled
just to retain natural vertical repose of the soil between the retaining wall and the property
line. This backfilling will be done with mechanical compactors so that it can be landscaped or
asphalted. They will not be doing this in the same was as when the street was done.
Mr. Tjossen said they will be taking videos during all phases of construction of this driveway.
This will include the traffic, density, and other factors. Since they do comply with the code
with the location of the driveway, and the city proposed one driveway, he felt that the project
is consistent with the neighborhood.
Councilmember Nordquist asked the applicant how they were going to install the pilings, and Mr.
Tjossen replied that they will drill down, put in steel I-beam, and drop cribbing in as they go
down, much as they have done along I-90. Councilmember Nordquist did not feel that comparing it
to the I-90 method was much of a recommendation.
Councilmember Hertrich asked the petitioner if they could give a reason why the driveway location
could not be a driveway at the end of Walnut Street.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 10 August 21, 1990
Mr. Tjossen replied that while he was not involved with the original planning, it was his under-
standing that the original application was for two driveways at each side of the property, but
the Engineering Department suggested they put it in the location as now shown.
Councilmember Hertrich felt it should be built appropriately, and again asked if it was possible
to design this building with a different driveway, such as on Walnut Street.
Mr. Morgan replied that the traffic people desired it and that is why they asked the Fire Depart-
ment to look at it. At that time, with all of the turns to get the fire rigs into the back end
of the property, the Fire Department preferred a straight -on shot coming in.
Councilmember Hertrich asked for clarification of access, and reiterated his question on whether
this project could be redesigned. Mr. Morgan replied that it would break it into more buildings,
and architecturally would be a very poor project. With no view frontage it would destroy the
concept.
City Engineer Bob Alberts responded to the comments about the placement of the driveway, stating
that the original plan showed two entrances --one on the north side and one on the south. While
the Engineering Department did not select the access point, they did not want two accesses. He
emphasized that they had not selected the location of the driveway.
Councilmember Kasper asked about the phrase "joint driveway", and what is meant by that, and Mr.
Sorensen replied that Tom Belt's property and his share a driveway. He said there are no Class 2
footings underneath, and it will break up. He added that 13'8" is his portion.
Councilmember Jaech asked Mr. Sorensen if, although he shared a driveway, when this project is
finished would it be cut in half, to which Mr. Sorensen answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Tjossen responded to the question from Councilmember Jaech by informing all that there is no
joint driveway, as there is no legal easement. The driveways merely abut and run parallel.
Councilmember Hertrich questioned the information given to the Council for review regarding the
cut being different from what Mr. Sorensen presented to the Council. Mr. Tjossen clarified this
by stating that the architect showed the maximum height of the wall at 10', and what the appli-
cant is saying to the Council now is that 3'6" on the east side, and 8'6" on the west side are
the dimensions. The driveway slope is 14% and is in line with the Code.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired of the staff if there were any mitigation requirements, and Mr.
Bowman read conditions of the Declaration of Nonsignificance:
1. Prior to any grading activity, and Applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for review
and approval by the Edmonds City Engineer. All required erosion control devices shall be in-
stalled. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the erosion control devices to en-
sure that they are operating properly.
2. All excavation and grading shall comply with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. If
more than 500 cubic yards are to be moved, the Applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit
from the Edmonds Hearing Examiner.
3. The Applicant shall submit a truck route plan to the City Engineer for approval prior to
removal of any excavated material.
4. The applicant shall be responsible for keeping all streets clean and free of debris during
all phases of construction.
5. All grading and construction work shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekends and holidays.
6. If deemed necessary by the City, the Applicant shall provide traffic control during removal
of the excavated material.
7. Excavation, grading, filling and construction of foundations, slab -on -grade floors, retaining
walls, rockeries, site preparation, general earthwork and drainage shall follow recommendations
contained in the report entitled "Revised Geotechnical Engineering Study" dated January 12, 1990
by Earth Consultants, Inc.
B. Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed storm water plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Edmonds City Engineer.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 11 August 21, 1990
9. Facilities and utilities shall be provided to ensure that undesirable materials (e.g., soap,
oil, grease, etc.) are not washed into the wetland. A biofiltration system for storm drainage
shall be used.
10. No building foundations or rockeries are permitted with the 20-foot wetland mitigation set-
back area as established in the wetland identification letter by Lovell-Sauerland and Associates
dated December, 1989 and shown on the map dated April 11, 1990.
11. Plantings shown on the "Wetland Planting Plan" sheet by Shapiro and Associates shall be in-
stalled between the building and the wetland. Plant sizes and spacing shall conform to the City
of Edmonds Architectural Design Board landscape planting standards.
Councilmember Palmer spoke regarding the location of the driveway, asking if the driveway were on
the south property line, rather than the north property line, how would that line up with Walnut,
and Mr. Alberts replied that they merely took the developer plan and preferred to have one en-
trance instead of two. It still would be an offset with Walnut, and there would still be a jog.
Councilmember Palmer questioned why it does not line up with Walnut, and Mr. Alberts answered
that there were two exits, but there are no requirements saying that it should line up with Wal-
nut.
Fire Marshal Gary McComas clarified for the Council the question of whether this location of the
driveway lends itself to being serviced by emergency vehicles. He said they would. have no prob-
lem with the access point whether it be any where along 3rd. When they looked the property over,
there were some jogs and problems with accesses, but as long as there is the width and the height
to get equipment through, he said it was all right.
Councilmember Palmer asked Mr. Bowman what the requirements for a project of this size are as far
as off-street parking. Mr. Bowman replied two parking spaces are required per unit, and the plan
as presented provides those and meets the minimum requirements.
Mr. Palmer asked about trees and clearing of the parcel, and whether this project would have
fallen under the review of the ordinance the Council has been considering, and Mr. Bowman an-
swered that it would be subject to review for a clearing permit if there were an ordinance in
place.
Councilmember Dwyer inquired if this development is replacing one or two single family dwellings,
and Mr. Bowman replied that 348 and 406 - 3rd Avenue South are the two structures which will be
eliminated when this project is built.
Councilmember Dwyer referred to the parking, asking if the city has restrictions in this location
similar to the restrictions on 3rd Avenue. Mr. Bowman replied he was unsure, but would obtain
clarification during this proceeding.
Mr. Snyder addressed the city's liabiity in situations where there is earth subsidence. Each
private property owner owes his neighbor absolute duty of lateral and subjacent support, and if
you cut away the foundations at the corner of a property and damage your neighbor's dwelling or
structures on the property, you are absolutely liable for the damage you cause. The city enforc-
es Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code that is mentioned, and its ability to limit construc-
tion techniques is stated by the Building Code. The State Building Code is established by the
state legislature, and. the City enforces it.
Mr. Snyder continued by stating that the Council is aware of the approach of basically leaving
issues of damage of neighboring properties to the civil remedies of the court, such as the case
that was considered by the Snohomish County Court two weeks ago, a copy of which was given to the
Council for their information.
Referring to the parking situation, Mr. Snyder stated that the city's parking standards are estab-
lished by ordinance and as such become matters of right. When the developer files a building
permit, he agrees to develop the property in accordance with the ordinance restrictions that are
already in effect. That is, the city cannot amend parking requirements or deny a project if it
meets the ordinances in effect.
Additionally, Mr. Snyder reminded the Council that the Conditional Use Permit and the Mitigated
Declaration of Non -Significance were not appealed, and that the Architectural Design Board re-
quirements are the only thing being appealed.
Mr. Snyder informed the Council that the placement of driveway entrances, particularly if they
affect streets, is a discretionary matter that is within the province of the Council. The Coun-
cil can determine where driveway entrances should be and where street alignments are.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 12 August 21, 1990
Councilmember Hertrich felt that considering the problem of excavation and vibration with adjoin-
ing properties, he would like to know if the Council has the ability to limit the size of the
trucks used.
Mr. Snyder replied that if this property has a history of earth subsidence or movement, or if the
slopes are in excess of the steep slope provisions defined by ordinance, the City has a variety
of tools, such as bonding and insurance, or requiring vibration testing of each specific piece of
equipment brought onto the property. The Building Official and Building Department have rather
broad powers in requesting this.
Councilmember Hertrich asked Mr. Snyder if the exiting point were more centrally located, whether
restrictions would be less, and Mr. Snyder replied that it seems logical that would follow.
Mr. Bowman answered an earlier question concerning parking, and stated that the 3-hour limitation
covers the northerly parcel, under the City Code, Page 394, Section 8.64.065.
Councilmember Palmer wished to know how this project would be affected if the access was to be on
the south, and Mr. Bowman replied he was not in a position to answer that since it was not some-
thing specifically looked at.
* Mr. Tjossen answered the question of moving it to the south citing that the three trees would
have to be removed if the access is altered.
Mr. Morgan stated that the grade is exactly the same going south as it is to the north. The
driveway could be flip-flopped, but the same problem would exist.
Mr. Tjossen stated there would be a cut, and the bulk of the building would be 25' closer to Mr.
Sorensen's house.
Mr. Sorensen said he would prefer the driveway going down directly across Walnut Street, but
would prefer to have the bulk of the building closer to his house and then he would never have to
deal with the traffic.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED TO APPROVE PROJECT WITH THE DRIVEWAY TO BE DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH
WALNUT STREET. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mr. Snyder stated that the limited 3-hour parking zone ends about 1/2 block from the subject site.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO DENY THE APPEAL. He said it has
been zoned for many years and this is considerably less excavation than the senior housing
project proposed there. Also, that the property as designed has a driveway which is joint, and
has been under development for six years. Further, the only location for the driveway is the
present location, and there seems to be no evidence of damage.
Councilmember Jaech stated she was going to vote against the motion, as what has been presented
is detrimental to the neighborhood: She further stated she could not go with the driveway on the
south side. The entrance can be in the middle of the project, and the Council needs to look at
the problems.
THE MOTION` FAILED, WITH 5 VOTING AGAINST, AND 2 VOTING IN FAVOR. There was a roll call vote,
with COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST, DWYER, HERTRICH, JAECH, PALMER VOTING NO, and COUNCILMEMBERS KAS-
PER AND WILSON VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, THAT THE DRIVEWAY OF THIS PROJECT
BE MADE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM WALNUT STREET, AND THE INTERNAL ROAD BE RELOCATED FROM THE NORTH
SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH SIDE.
Councilmember Palmer felt it should be sent back to the ADB with the direction the Council would
like to go.
Councilmember Wilson was adamant about desiring a strong opinion from the Fire Department on
regarding entering in the center.
Councilmember Dwyer stated the speaker who had had the greatest impact on him was Mr. Crump, and
regretably no traffic study was done on the project. He was not in favor of the replacement of
two dwellings with 42 dwellings in a area which is at the outskirts of the problem area in the
downtown core of the city. He said parking restrictions have been imposed on both sides of the
streets for seven to eight blocks from this site. His concern was the density of the 42 dwell-
ings, which has other impacts, and he felt that the Council did not have a feeling for what the
impact is going to be.
* See Council Minutes of -September 4 1990
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 13 August 21, 1990
Councilmember Wilson stated a study should be done, but the Council rejected a project which
would have created substantially less of a problem than this project, and he felt this was get-
ting in deeper, and that the zoning was the problem.
Councilmember Jaech inquired of Mr. Snyder if at this point the Council could request traffic
information. Mr. Snyder replied that if the Council wants to refer this back to the ADB, that
study could be prepared at city expense, but the issue of cost would be raised. Mr. Snyder ex-
pressed reservations about this project, since there are many things that the Council has ap-
proved, and this one meets the criteria.
Councilmember Kasper would like to know the magnitude of the redesign. He felt the dirt movement
was a major issue.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION; SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ADDRESS THE
EARTH MOVEMENT TO GET A CENTER ACCESS. (NO ACTION ON THE MOTION)
COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE ADB
FOR FURTHER REVIEW, AND THAT THE APPLICANT BE PERMITTED TO SUBMIT A REDESIGN FOR ACCESS TO THE
INTERNAL PORTION, AND BY REVIEWS OF THE SAME DEPARTMENTS THAT ORIGINALLY REVIEWED THE PROJECT.
THE MOTION TO AMEND WAS CARRIED.
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED.
Mayor Naughten stated he wished to move Item 8, Ferry Study, before Item 7, SEIU Agreement, be-
cause Don Nutter was in the Audience for the ferry study item.
DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY-STATE FERRY STUDY (CONTINUED FROM JULY
Mr. Hahn explained the Scoping Study document, stating that a product would be required if it
were to be moved to Unocal, and this Agreement is the first official step in going toward the
SEPA and NEPA studies. The State Ferry System has appropriated the money, but even for Phase 2,
this exact same process would be followed. This is presented at this time to see if the Council
is comfortable with it, or has minor changes at this time.
Councilmember Hertrich asked what "Phase 2" was and how much money was involved, and Mr. Hahn
stated that this is a big project, so Phase 2 would be much more detailed--i.e., concerned more
with hydrocarbons and their effects, as an example. A full Environmental Impact Statement would
be best, and the best estimate would be $300,000-$400,000, and we already have $120,000 budgeted
for Phase 1. Phase 1 may identify some of the special problems such as winds, tides, and other
unknown quantities, and that is why there are two phases.
Councilmember Palmer stated that under Section A that "all weather landing facility" should be
deleted, since "all weather" is not possible in extreme weather which occurs from time to time.
Mr. Hahn stated he would note this request for deletion. This would be an impact statement and
should be included.
Councilmember Palmer stated he was disturbed that on the last page it refers to a "Technical
Advisory Committee", and Mr. Hahn explained that they definitely need expertise and this is a
necessary committee.
Councilmember Hertrich requested more time to study this further, as he did not see the word
"safety", and questioned whether "Scoping Study" was regular terminology. Mr. Hahn stated his
concern would be noted, and that the Scoping Study title is indeed the correct term. The modi-
fied document will be on the next week's Consent Agenda.
AT 10:00 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING
BEYOND 10:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVAL OF SEIU LABOR AGREEMENT
The Council recessed to Executive Session at 10:01 p.m. to discuss the SEIU Labor Agreement. The
meeting reconvened at 10:21 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE THE SEIU LABOR AGREEMENT
AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH 6 VOTES IN FAVOR AND 1 OPPOSING VOTE. Councilmember Hertrich
voted against the motion.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 14 August 21, 1990
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2791 RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICIAL DISCLOSURE ITEM (P) ON CONSENT AGENDA
P Councilmember Hertrich stated he had trouble with $50 threshold on page 3, and felt $100 would be
more realistic.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT TO $250.00.
MOTION CARRIED, WITH 5 VOTES IN FAVOR AND 2 OPPOSING VOTES. A roll call vote was taken, and
VOTING IN FAVOR WERE COUNCILMEMBERS DWYER, JAECH, PALMER, WILSON AND NORDQUIST, with COUNCILMEM-
BERS HERTRICH AND KASPER VOTING AGAINST IT.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO ELIMINATE THE ORDINANCE. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE ITEM (P) OF THE CON-
SENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER VOTING NO.
MAYOR
Mayor Naughten announced that the Houston NLC participants will be Councilmembers Jaech, Nord-
quist and Hertrich. Councilmember Kasper stated if there is a vacancy and one of the designees
cannot go, that he would be a willing alternate.
COUNCIL
Councilmember Jaech called attention to the letter in the packet from Terrell Barnett, serving on
the Governor's Committee for disability issues. The letter addressed re -wording on utility rates.
Mr. Snyder stated he had sent her a letter, and mental disabilities will be included in an upcom-
ing ordinance.
Councilmember Wilson was unhappy about the late arrival of a letter from Senator Gary Nelson, as
it was dated June 15th.
Councilmember Wilson further wanted it to be known that he felt for the public hearings the staff
should put important concepts in the packets. He added that the Council seemed to be hearing two
different things this evening. He stated strongly, "Get the facts in thepacket." He said if
there is a traffic problem, the Council need s to know the sta s opinions, and he would like to
see the staff take a stand. An example would be that he would like to have known exactly how the
Fire Department felt about the access to the 42-unit complex in tonight's meeting.
Councilmember Hertrich was surprised that the determination of nonsignificance with the 11 points
on the mitigation were not included and spoken about, and the traffic problem was not mentioned
as one of the stipulations in the declaration.
Councilmember Dwyer concurred that while this has gone all the way through the system, the basic
facts such as how many car trips and other pertinent information had not been given to them.
Councilmember Palmer agreed that the staff needs to provide those key points in the packet.
Councilmember Dwyer had two items, the first being that he would appreciate it if there would be
some way to unlock the door into the vending machines on nights when there are public meetings,
as it would be a nice courtesy for both the audience and the staff. Ms. Parrett stated she has a
key, and will check on why it has been locked during these times.
The second item Councilmember Dwyer wished to speak about concerned the Oxford House, where Mr.
Snyder, Mayor Naughten, and six staff members heard from HUD representatives who have some ideas
which will probably involve the Council greatly where the code is concerned. He commended Mr.
Snyder on the good job he has done on this matter, and his resourcefulness in putting the city's
position forth.
Mr. Snyder requested that perhaps the HUD matter could be discussed at an Executive Session on
September 4th.
Councilmember Palmer called attention to the letters to the editor in the Edmonds paper regarding
Centennial activities --in particular the laser show. Mr. Snyder reported that 25% of the money
has been returned, and the balance will be in the form of a free laser show at Christmas time.
Ms. Ohlde has agreed to pay $2,000, but will get a free show later.
Councilmember Palmer spoke about changing the ordinance regarding mental disabilities, as the
draft does take into consideration all of Ms. Barnett's concerns. Mr. Snyder offered that it is
a complicated problem, since it could include recovering alcoholics and drug abusers. Councilmem-
ber Palmer stated he would like to put it on the consent agenda, but it will be discussed at a
later meeting.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 15 August 21, 1990
Councilmember Hertrich added that a person who is disabled but makes a lot of money --why should
they get a break. Since a monetary rebate was the whole purpose to begin with, perhaps this
should state "low income disability".
r
Councilmember Kasper stated he does not have the information on the senior housing at this time,
and would like to defer next week's scheduled item until October 23. What he would like to get
on with are other pressing matters, such as the ferry situation. He said the Council must get
started on things that the Council wants in the presentation for the public information.
Mr. Snyder questioned if the agenda is open, whether Les Page could come to speak with them for
at least 20 minutes next week. He will be making a report on the last negotiation session, and
he needs to report on a technical issue. Mr. Snyder noted that if that is a possibility, he will
need to notify Mr. Page, since he is coming a substantial distance to speak to the Council. That
report was scheduled for August 28.
Councilmember Kasper stated the Johnson easement needs to be cleared.
Councilmember Jaech was concerned that the ADB minutes reflect a hearing on "503 Walnut", and
requested that the staff check to see that it was posted correctly because that address was incor-
rect.
Mayor Naughten announced that he would be on vacation for two weeks.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 P.M.
THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO AUGUST 28, 1990 APPROVAL.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 16 August 21, 1990
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
PLAZA MEETING ROOM - L18RARY BUILDING
7:00 - 10:00 P.M.
AUGUST 21. 1990
SPECIAL MEETING
6:00 P.M. - TOUR MEADOWDALE BEACH PARK AND LYHNDALE PARK TO VIEW RECREATION STRUCTURES
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. CONSENT AGENDA
(A) ROLL CALL
(8) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 7. 1990
(C) -ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE FROM LAURA AND JAMES BARRETT
($28.961) AND DONALD AND SHIRLEE HALL ($500,000)
(0) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH SHANNON TOWING FOR
TOW AHD IMPOUND SERVICES
(E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH SEATTLE TILTH ASSN. FOR
BACKYARD COMPOST TRAINING ($1.000)
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SNOHOMISH COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONSORTIUM INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
(G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 15. 1990 FOR SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, AND
AWARD Of CONTRACT TO BLACKLINE. INC. ($31.500)
(H) REPORT ON BIOS OPENED AUGUST 6. 1990 FOR FLATBED, CRANE, AND TOOL BOXES.
AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ALLIED BODY WORK, INC. ($5.402.84)
(I) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO INSTALL HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRY
DOORS AT EDMONDS LIBRARY
(J) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR CARPETING AMD INSTALLATION AT EDMONDS
LIBRARY
(K) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIOS FOR CONTINUING METAL CAP AROUND LIBRARY AND
PLAZA AREA
(L) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR REPLACEMENT OF FIRE ESCAPE STEPS AT
EDMONDS BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB
(M) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 706 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY
CONSERVATION FUTURES GRANT TO FUND PASSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF PINE RIDGE PARK
(N) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY INSITE, A DIVISION OF NU -STONE SURFACING. INC..
ON CENTENNIAL PLAZA BRICKWORK PROJECT, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD
(0) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2788 PROHIBITING DRIVING THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY TO
AVOID TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
(P) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2789 RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICIAL DISCLOSURE
(Q) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2790 LIMITING THE DISCHARGE OF FIREWORKS TO JULY 4
(R) APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH GAYNOR LANDSCAPING FOR MASTER PLAN
OF PINE RIDGE PARK
(S) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 707 EXTENDING CHAMBERS CABLE TV FRANCHISE TO
SEPTEMBER 30. 1990
2. AUDIENCE
3. REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR VIDO PRESENTATION RE FERRY TERMINAL
4. HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2791 LIMITING PARKING TO THREE HOURS IN
(20 MINUTES)
200 BLOCK OF 4TH AVE. S. (BETWEEN DAYTON ST. AND WALNUT ST.)
S. HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING
(45 MINUTES)
CODE ENFORCEMENT/CIVIL PENALTIES
6. HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION APPROVING
(45 MINUTES)
42-UNIT APARTMENT AT 348 3RO AVE. S. (APPELLANT: ROBERT B. SORENSEN;
APPLICANT: BELT ENTERPRISES; FILE AP-20-90/ADB-3-90)
7. APPROVAL OF SEIU LABOR AGREEMENT
8. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY-STATE FERRY STUDY (CONTINUED FROM JULY 24)
9. REVIEW STATUS OF YOST POOL COVER
10. MAYOR
11. COUNCIL
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PROPERTY ACQUISITION
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND
'