Loading...
12/04/1990 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO DECEMBER 18, 1990 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 4, 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 Megan Renquist, Student Representative ABSENT STAFF Jo -Anne Jaech, Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr. Councilmember Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Ron Schirman, Acting Fire Chief Bobby Mills, Public Works Supt. Dan Prinz, Police Chief Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Director Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director Jim Walker, Hydraulics Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Margaret Richards, Recorder Councilmember Kasper arrived at 7:40 p.m. and did not participate until the conclusion of the hearing then in session. CONSENT AGENDA Items (B) and (D) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO DISCUSS ITEM (B) FOLLOWING THE REGULAR AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO DISCUSS ITEM (D) FOLLOWING ITEM (B). MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON 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 (C) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JOHN GALT FOR v1e HEARING EXAMINER PRO-TEM SERVICES FOR 1991 AUDIENCE Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting. With reference to the Concerts in the Park, Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, said not only was no effort made to discuss the problems that the Centennial Committee and the Arts Commission might encounter in establishing the concerts as a summer series, but she believed that there was a deliberate attempt made not to coordinate their efforts which, she said, has resulted in some confusion as to how many summer concerts will be held and how much they will cost. Ms. Ship pen said there are only four summer concerts in the park budgeted in 1991. She explained 'A. that the Arts commission approved six concerts, but two of those will be their traditional Arts U Festival concerts and four will be the summer concerts in the park that the Centennial Committee recommended. Ms. Shippen said they were not apprised of that situation and, consequently, only asked for two more summer concerts. Ms. Shippen said the Arts Commission was not aware that Mayor Naughten had allocated $5,000 for summer concerts and, therefore, only recommended four concerts. She noted that the Arts Commis- sion has an additional $4,000 for summer concerts. Ms. Shippen requested the Council to merge the $4,000 and $5,000 and designate that money to the Parks & Recreation Department as a budget line item for eight summer concerts in the park. Councilmember Hertrich said he was hesitant to redirect the $4,000 that was allocated to the Arts Commission budget to the Parks & Recreation Department to fund additional concerts. Ms. Shippen explained that the Arts Commission budget typically has approximately $2,000 to fund the concerts that are held with the Arts Festival, which are not organized or administered by the Arts Commis- sion. She said they more or less give them a grant to help fund the music program part of the Arts Festival. Ms. Shippen said administration allocated an additional $4.000 this year for the four summer concerts that the Arts Commission said they would fund. She noted that the Commis- sion does not want to administer eight concerts because they would like to maintain a balance in their activities. Ms. Shippen said she was disturbed with Staff's recommendation coming to the Council in the guise of citizen commission ideas. She recommended that the monies for the summer concerts,be allocat- ed to the Parks & Recreation Department as a line item so that that Department is accountable. Mayor Naughten said the Council will be discussing the administration of the $5,000 during review of the Administrative Services Department budget later in the evening. In response to Councilmember Hertrich, Ms. Shippen explained that the Centennial Committee re- quested that eight summer concerts be held in 1991 but four of those concerts are already includ- ed in the Arts Commission budget and two of the concerts have been traditional in the Arts Commis- sion budget. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the schedules of the concerts will conflict. Ms.'Shippen said the Arts Commission concerts will be held in June, and the Centennial concerts will be held in July and August. Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting. HEARING ON APPROVAL OF HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED 5 LOT PRD/SUBDIVISION AT 18208-18218 76TH AVE. W. PRD-2-90/-2-96/THOMA LT; AND HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED 5 LOT PRD/SUBDIVISION AT 18208-18218 76TH AVE. W. (APPELLANTS: WILLIAM & PAMELA H R LD. ET AL; APPLICANT: BEL AP-25-90/P- -90 Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on September 6, 1990, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the application of Thomas Belt to develop a five -lot PRD/subdivision at 18208-18218 76th Avenue West. The site of the proposed developed is environmentally sensitive in nature, has a stream bisecting the property, and the west side of the site is covered with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees. Ms. Block said the Council denied two short subdivi- sions at this location in 1988 due to the potential negative environmental impact to the stream and the west slope. Ms. Block said a PRD development was proposed to avoid the negative impacts associated with a standard subdivision layout. By clustering the homes to stay back from the stream, the PRO con- _ cept would protect the water course and heavily vegetated west side of the property. -She noted that the site in question provides a textbook case for development by the PRO method because it would protect the significant natural features of the site. Ms. Block said the Architectural Design Board (ADB) reviewed the proposed project and approved it, subject to several conditions. She noted that the conditions are included as numbers 14, 15, and 16 in the Hearing .Examiner's recommendation. Ms. Block said one of the conditions is that the proposal come back for final landscape review before any development takes places. She said it is possible that Staff may, at that time, recommend that no lawn areas be planted adjacent to the stream to avoid pollution of pesticides and fertilizers. Ms. Block said the main issues at the hearing were the pending report of the drainage basin by R.W. Beck and the potential effect on the stream as expressed by the downstream neighbrs. Subsequent to the decision of the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Block said R.W. Beck has issued their draft report. She noted that the memorandum from Engineering, which was included in the Council packets, outlines the pertinent issues of the report as they pertain to development. She said the issues raised by the neighbors would be addressed in the second phase of the hearing. Ms. Block said it is the recommendation of Staff to adopt the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, adding the conditions recommended in the Engineering memorandum. Ms. Block noted that any building permits will be subject to approval of buildin� techniques based on soils reports. If any specific problems are indicated in the soils reports, she said special requirements will be made. Ms. Block referred to the memorandum from City Engineer Bob Alberts, which stated,' "The draft drainage basin studies prepared by R.W. Beck & Associates identifies two recommendations which, if adopted, could impact the property in question. "The draft report recommends constructing a regional detention pond in the Perrinvil,le Creek to reduce downstream erosion and improve fish habitat.. Two sites were identified, in which all or a portion of the property was shown as an alternative to the recommended site. The pro�osed devel- opment was reviewed with a future pond in mind located in the northerly end of the property. The Engineering recommendation would be to construct no structure lower than the 100 year stream EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 DECEMBER 4, 1990 1 level measured at the mid point of the property. An alternative identified at this site is to build a pond further upstream, starting at the south end of the property. This would require purchasing the property, building a more expensive system, and would probably preclude any devel- opment. The possibility of a pond being built on or partially on this property, however, is very low. The stream falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Wildlife, and they are opposed to a pond at this location. Staff's concerns, therefore, seem to be addressed with the condi- tions already imposed. The references to the pond in the draft report are on pages VII-5, VII-6, and Appendix G, P-lcl. I would recommend, however, that the finished floor of any structure not be below the 225 foot elevation. This would provide the flexibility for any future pond and would be above the 223.8 foot, 100 year high level elevation. "The draft report on page IX-3, paragraph 4a(3), recommends stream buffer widths to be increased to 75 feet to coincide with the proposed Snohomish County Aquatic Resource Protection Plan (ARP). The City Code requires a 15 foot buffer, but City's proposed regulations call for a 25 foot buffer. The development proposes a 25 foot to 30 foot buffer from the stream. Since the development is being proposed under existing codes and exceeds code requirements, the ARP would probably not be appropriate". Ms. Block indicated the location of the proposed development on a vicinity map, and she reviewed a site plan, landscape plan, and house elevations. Mr. Alberts said the draft basin report identified. two possible locations for a detention pond: the Postal Service site or a location on the subject property. He explained how he arrived at the 225 foot elevation for the finished floor of any structure. In response to Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Alberts said the Department of Wildlife is not in favor of a pond on site because they do not want the cut-throat salmon to be disturbed, but they are in favor of a pond farther to the south off of the site. Councilmember Dwyer inquired about the purpose of alternate proposals for a pond when considering that one of the locations is the site where the Post Office is intended to be constructed. Mr. Alberts said the Post Office is a project that has not come through for final planning yet. He noted that the final drainage basin report may change the recommendation for a pond location after all input has been received. Mr. Alberts said there is a very low probability that a pond would be constructed on the proposed development or the postal service site. At the request.of Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Alberts explained that the purpose of a pond is to reduce downstream erosion and to improve fish habitat, but there are other structural alterna- tives, albeit more expensive, to controlling erosion if a pond is proven to be unfeasible. (Councilmember Kasper arrived at the meeting at 7:40 p.m.) Councilmember Palmer inquired if any of the storm water for the site drains into the stream. Ms. Block said the water will ultimately drain into the stream from swails after being biofiltrated. Councilmember Palmer inquired if there is documentation indicating the presence of any springs on the site. Ms. Block replied affirmatively. She said the applicant was required to provide the City with mapping of the site, which indicated several small water courses that were not identi- fied in earlier drawings. In response to Councilmember Hertrich, Hydraulics Engineer Jim Walker pointed out the location of the water sources on a plot plan, noting that they emerge predominantly on lot 3. He said the City requested Lovell-Sauerland to analyze those sources, and they submitted a plan to the City to construct French drain -type systems to carry the water to the edge of the native growth buffer and then return the water. At the suggestion of City Attorney Scott Snyder, the two hearings (PRD-2-90 and AP-25-90) were consolidated. Councilmember Wilson inquired if the City of Lynnwood might assist in mitigating the problem. Ms. Block noted that much of the problem of sedimentation and erosion has resulted from subdivi- sions that were constructed in Lynnwood. Mr. Alberts said it would be very difficult to con- struct a large system upstream because Lynnwood is at a higher elevation, but he said Lynnwood staff is willing to enter into an agreement with the City to mitigate the problems downstream. In response to Councilmember Hertrich, Mr. Snyder -stated that the applicant is required to show. that there is a clear public benefit through the adoption of the PRO. Ms. Block reported that on October 18, 1990, several of the downstream neighbors appealed the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for approval of the project. Their concerns were primarily EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 DECEMBER 4, 1990 erosion and water quality of the stream. They are also concerned with the potential management of development of the site by City Staff. Ms. Block said the area in question is definitely environmentally sensitive. City Staff is con- cerned with the impact of the development on the stream. She said the plans submitted indicate that the house nearest the stream will be set back approximately 30 feet, noting that�the current code requires 15 feet and the City's proposed regulations call for a 25 foot setback/natural buffer. Ms. Block said Phil Schneider from the Department -of Wildlife has reviewed the proposal and did not impose further requirements. Ms. Block said it is Staff's belief that the proposed development adequately addresses the envi- ronmental concerns of the site, based on the City's current codes and requirements. Ms. Block said it is the recommendation of Staff to uphold the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, with the additional conditions recommended by Engineering in regard to building elevation. Councilmember Dwyer inquired about the rationale of the ARP recommendation for a 75 .foot buffer. He also inquired if Mr. Schneider stated why the 75 foot buffer would not apply to the site. Ms. Block said Mr. Schneider did not make any recommendation with respect to ARP's buffer require- ments, but he commented that he did prefer to see as large a buffer as possible. Ms. Block be- lieved the County has larger buffer areas than the City because much of the land in the County is undeveloped and there are no constraints on the size of sites. She noted that thelCity's wet- lands regulations were developed with the assistance of Diane Sheldon, who is a prominent wet- lands biologist, and she did not object to the 25 foot buffer that is proposed for the site. Mr. Snyder noted that the final SEPA Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance (DNS)Iwas not ap- pealed and does not contain any specific reference to buffering beyond the comments that were referenced earlier. Mr. Snyder asked if any Councilmember had any ex parte communications with any of the parties in the matter before them. There was no indication by any of the Council that they had engaged in any ex parte communications. Because Councilmember Kasper was not present for a portion of Staff's testimony, Mr. Snyder recom- mended that Councilmember Kasper not participate in the decision -making process if a decision were made that evening. He said, however, Councilmember Kasper could participate in the process if a decision were deferred to another evening, provided that he listened to the tapes of the hearing. Mr. Snyder inquired if anyone in the audience objected to any member of the Council participating in the hearing process that evening. No objection was noted. Councilmember Palmer asked Mr. Snyder to review the criteria which the Council must I consider and what was and was not applicable with respect to the buffer zone. Mr. Snyder stated that the applicant filed his application under existing City ordinances and vested, as a matter of right, the 15 foot buffer. Mr. Snyder said, however, there are two exceptions: 1) if an element or mitigation had -been noted in the SEPA review process and, as a mitigating measure, !a further or extended buffer were required that could be imposed as a mitigating element subject to SEPA. Mr. Snyder said the only other way it could come into effect is if the Council were to make a finding under ECDC 20.35.050 that, for some reason, the applicant had not. carried his burden of proof that the project demonstrates a clear public benefit. Ms. Block noted that the 25, foot buffer was included in the DNS. Bob Tjossem, 10522 N.E. 187th, Bothell, representing the applicant, referred to a drawing enti- tled "Old Plan" (which was submitted later and marked Exhibit 7) to refresh the Council's memory of the previous eight lot short subdivision in 1988 where construction was proposed on both sides of the creek with two crossings of the creek to access the homes. He then referred to a drawing entitled "New Plan" which depicted development only on the east side of the creek. Ms. Tjossem said the significant public benefits of the new plan are preservation of the entire area (over one acre) west of the stream, the steep slope,. the area around the stream, as well as the 25 foot . setback. Mr. Tjossem noted that density has been reduced from eight homes to five homes. Mr. Tjossem said the applicant is in agreement with Engineering's recommendation that the fin- ished floor elevation be at 225 feet. He said the project will not preclude the City from acquir- ing and developing the in -stream retention pond if it so desires in the future. Mr. Tjossem referred to a drawing (Exhibit 10) depicting a cross section of the stream with a 25 foot setback, a berm and a swail, and the setback for a typical house. He noted that the berm and swail will pick up any sheeting action that might occur off of the lots and dispose of it through the proposed drainage plan. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 DECEMBER 4, 1990. Mr. Tjossem referred to a colored landscape plan (Exhibit 9) depicting development on the east side of the site. Craig Campbell, Civil Engineer for Lovell-Sauer]and & Associates, explained that a closed deten- tion 'system with a flow restrictor/oil separator is proposed to be constructed at the outfall. The outfall pipe will empty into a 200 foot biofiltration swail, which will empty into what is currently an occasional portion of the stream bed (most of the year it remains dry). Mr. Camp- bell said sand bags or some other appropriate device can be used if there is free -running water in that portion of the stream. Mr. Campbell said during construction, it is proposed to utilize a portion of the area that will eventually become the biofiltration swail as a sedimentation pond and provide a first -stage set- tlement area for any water running off of the site. He said if there are other areas of the site that are not going to be disturbed, other site waters can be diverted into existing drainage. Mr. Campbell noted that the proposal was submitted to the Department of Wildlife and met with their approval; it complies with City codes; and the Beck report does not preclude either alterna- tive for a detention pond. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if location of the possible one hundred year storm line was dis- cussed with the Department of Wildlife before R.W. Beck became involved with the project. Mr. Campbell replied negatively. He said Mr. Schneider from the Department of Wildlife was absolute- ly opposed to a pond on the downstream site. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if Mr. Schneider was aware that there were several small water sources on site. Mr. Campbell replied affirmative- ly. Mr. Tjossem reiterated the public benefits of the PRO. Diane Azar, 8202 Talbot Rd., said her property is downstream from the proposed development, and it is bisected by the Perrinville Stream. Ms. Azar noted that Mr. and Mrs. Ted Westlerlind asked her to voice their concern of the effects of stress on the stream running into Brown's Bay, and that Mr. Westerlind has noticed an increase in the sedimentation over the years. Ms. Azar said she is very much in favor of appropriate land use but was opposed to development in environmentally sensitive areas which can cause irreparable damage to the environment and wild- life habitat. Ms. Azar noted that the Associated General Contractors of Washington Methods Manual, which is a guidebook for contractors, states, "Site preparation causes sedimentation and erosion and affects water quality. How does this site preparation affect water quality? All earth moving, clearing and grading affect the quality of local streams, rivers, lakes and Puget Sound water when soil erosion occurs and sedimentation is carried away by water runoff. This sedimentation can impact adjacent properties, clog patch basins, fill lakes and wetlands, alter a stream's course, threat- en trout and salmon -spawning beds, or pollute water. Site preparation increases erosion by in- creasing the volume of stormwater runoff and the amount which is carried away". Ms. Azar recommended that the proposed PRD be denied because the site is unsuitable for its pro- posed use and because it is an identified wetland and riparian corridor. Ms. Azar submitted a packet of information to the City Clerk (marked Exhibit 1), which contained 11 pages, the pages marked Exhibit 1 through VI and VII through XII. Copies were distributed to the Council. She noted that one of the pieces of information stated, "This site is one of the few designated environmentally sensitive sites of the City of Edmonds". She emphasized that the area is located in a greater than twenty-five percent high erosion potential area of steep slopes, as indicated in the sensitive areas map. She said the area in question is located in a sensitive area of hydrogeologic problems of sewer sedimentation and erosion. Ms. Azar referred to a page in Exhibit 1 which showed the severe sedimentation and erosion site. Ms. Azar referred to a letter in Exhibit 1 submitted by the hydrogeology firm specializing in groundwater hydrology, which enumerated some of the problems that are apparent in the Perrinville drainage area. Ms. Azar referred to another page in Exhibit 1 which identified the sensitive wetlands and riparian corridor. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 DECEMBER 4, 1990 Ms. Azar said the proposed development is within the riparian slope of the creek where the con- tractor has actually identified some species of plants which are unique to the wetlands. She noted that the area includes a collection of small, permanent springs that flow into the stream. Ms. Azar said the soils on the subject property are unique to the site. She said the drainage basin study identifies the small wetland located on Perrinville Creek and it states, 'This small wetland does contribute on a small scale to the wetland habitat in the area". Ms. Azar noted that the R.W. Beck report stated, "Existing resources of fisheries, wildlife habi- tat, wetlands, steep slopes and riparian corridors found in this environmentally sensitive area can be seriously impacted if ignored". i Ms. Azar said the stream is very stressed at the present time, and the R.W. Beck study identified the sediment problems. She said the stream has a significant amount of fair to good spawning and rearing habitat potential, but the present quality of the stream is reduced by severe and exten- sive gravel impaction due to sediment deposition. She noted that the drainage basin study repeat- edly states that the stream has severe erosion problems caused by upstream development. Ms. Azar submitted two boards of photographs of the area (marked Exhibit 2 and 3) to the City Clerk. Ms. Azar said she spoke with a representative of R.W. Beck who informed her that they do not know how big the pond will be because it was only proposed at that point. Ms. Azar said it was not clear to her whether the construction of a pond on site was possible. Ms. Azar.referred to the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetlands Guide Book, noting that it states, "Significant impact, as used in SEPA, means a reasonable likelihood of moreithan moder- ately adverse impact on environmental quality". Ms. Azar said the proposed development will have a more than moderately adverse environmental impact. Ms. Azar said the City issued the DNS based on information that it was provided. I She noted, however, that information with respect to water on site was not provided at that time. She re- ferred to an incomplete site map in Exhibit 1 that was used as a source of information. She said the site map does not show water on the site where the proposed project will be constructed. Ms. Azar said the original site plan did not identify the stream on the northeast property or the springs on lot 3. Ms. Azar said there still remain significant unanswered questions regarding the buildability of the lots. She said there are site conditions that could be hazardous to the foundations of the proposed houses. Ms. Azar requested that the Council deny the proposed development unless the aforementioned prob- lems are permanently corrected. She added that it is unclear at the present time that the public will benefit from the proposed project. In response to .Mayor Naughten's question if she was speaking for the.Harolds who were shown as appellants, Ms. Azar said she was one of the appellants but was speaking only for herself and the Westerlinds and did not represent the other appellants. i Councilmember Hertrich inquired if Ms. Azar was able to determine the boundary of the wetlands. Ms. Azar replied negatively. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. Kurt Koenig, 18104 Andover, was opposed to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for the follow- ing reasons: 1) the development would negatively impact Perrinville Creek; 2) the site is poorly suited for homes because there are several small streams on site which could create flooding problems during the rainy season; and 3) there already exist many capital improvements that are required to restore Perrinville Creek to proper health. Mr. Koenig said he could not envision more than two homes on the property in question, let alone the five that are proposed. Bill Harold, 8311 Frederick Pl., said he spoke with a representative from R.W. Beck recently who told him that the size of the proposed holding pond would be one acre in length and five feet deep. Sam Felton, 8415 Talbot Rd., fish biochemist with expertise in water chemistry, said a develop- ment in Hood Canal, similar to the proposal before the Council, ruined the water quality of a stream and killed the station that was set up for research despite the precautions that were required by the State. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 DECEMBER 4, 1990 Mr. Felton said he was familiar with the retention systems previously noted in the hearing, and he was certain that they would not prevent pollutants, such as fertilizers and herbicides, from entering the stream unless highly sophisticated chemistry were utilized. Mr. Felton said he walked the property in question and failed to see how the environment would not be disturbed by development. Mr. Snyder asked Mr. Felton if he could estimate, based on his experience, the incremental effect of the five additional houses on an urbanized area. Mr. Felton inquired where the sewer runoff is routed from the street. Mr. Walker said it is treated and then released to the Sound. In response to Mr. Snyder, Mr. Felton replied, "Something more directly to the stream is more apt to impact the stream than something across the road". He said a twenty-five foot buffer "is nothing when you think of a yard and people fertilizing flowers and all those kinds of things. That stuff will end up in the stream". Mr. Snyder noted that the City has imposed a natural growth buffer on the development. He in- quired if Mr. Felton would recommend extensions of that buffer. Mr. Felton said he would highly recommend extensions of the natural growth area. Charles Maki, 8235 Talbot Rd., said the stream runs constantly through his property in a four to six inch depth even in the driest parts of the summer. Mr. Maki submitted photographs of the stream in October 1986 when the 100 year storm was declared which, he said, seems to occur every 5 years. He said it is hard to predict how high the stream level will be every 100 years. Mr. Maki also submitted photographs of the•fish ladder on his property, as well as two photographs of a retention pond in Blue Ridge on the day of the storm in October 1986. (The seventeen photographs were marked Exhibit 4). He noted that that retention pond failed during the storm. Mr. Maki did not believe the proposed PRD would provide a public benefit, and he requested the Council to deny the project. Marilyn Adams, 7310 Soundview Dr., inquired if the setback for wetland areas differs from the setback for a stream. Mr. Snyder said the City has a wetlands proposal under consideration but it is not in effect yet. In rebuttal, Mr. Tjossem submitted to the City Clerk the portion of the R.W. Beck study that pertains to the Perrinville Drainage Basin (marked Exhibit 5). Mr. Tjossem pointed out that the study identifies 11 problems in the Perrinville Drainage Basin that are regional in nature, and it does not identify the site in question or the project as the problem. He asked the Council to contemplate, then, what incremental effect the project would have on the creek. Mr. Tjossem said the project does more to enhance the creek and drainage basin because it preserves over 1.1 acres as permanent open space, as well as a 25 foot buffer on the east side of the stream. Mr. Tjossem submitted the conditions of mitigation of the DNS (marked Exhibit 6) to the City Clerk. He reviewed several of the conditions, emphasizing that the applicant and City "are going the extra mile to insure that this project does not have a negative impact on the stream or the drainage basin". Mr. Tjossem said it appeared" to him that the applicant is taking measures to address the issues raised by the appellants and to resolve the issues in favor of the public benefit. Mr. Tjossem asked Staff to comment on whether they believed the project would have any signifi- cant adverse impact on the Perrinville Drainage Basin. Mr. Alberts said he did not feel the project, as planned, would have any significant adverse impact. He noted, however, that he has not seen the final erosion control plan. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if Engineering Staff was of the opinion that the conditions that have been imposed on the project address the issues raised by the Citizens Advisory Committee such that they are of no concern any longer, or if Staff was of the opinion that the Citizens Advisory Committee was wrong in opposing the project at inception. Mr. Alberts said he did not believe there would be an impact if the proper measures were taken. He noted, however, that he could not guarantee that sedimentation would not occur during construction even if a sedimenta- tion erosion control plan were approved because he said problems typically do occur with sedimen- tation. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if those problems could be prevented. Mr. Alberts said problems could be prevented with appropriate supervision and control measures. Councilmember EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 DECEMBER 4, 1990 Dwyer inquired what measures could be undertaken to prevent sedimentation and erosion from occur- ring. Mr. Alberts said the City could require access to a cash account from the developer or contractor if they do not satisfactorily address the concerns of the City so that the City could hire someone, at the developer's or contractor's expense, to carry out the task. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if Mr. Alberts was involved in establishing the mitigating condi- tions. Mr. Alberts replied affirmatively. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the wetlands were taken into consideration when the list was being formulated. Mr. Alberts said the issue of wet- lands was not within the purview of the Engineering Department. He noted, however, that the draft report from R.W. Beck identified approximately 500 square feet of wetlands on site, but it also identified 500 square feet of wetlands on the postal service property. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if Mr. Alberts was aware whether or not a soils analysis was conducted. Mr. Alberts said soils information was contained in the first proposal. In response to Councilmember Hertrich, Mr. Alberts said he did not have a complete soils report before any determination was made on the mitigating requirements. Additionally, he said information on other water sources was requested after the SEPA review, which will be made part of the final developmentiplans. Councilmember Palmer reiterated that a concern has been raised on the City's ability to guarantee that proper performance is executed during construction so that the stream will note be damaged. He inquired if the applicant,could be required to reimburse the City for its costs to designate a representative from the City Engineering Department to be on site as an erosion control supervi- sor who would have the authority to stop work at any time during any phase of construction that could potentially endanger the stream. Mr. Snyder stated the courts have typically held that criminal and civil remedies should be relied upon when criminal and civil activities have taken place rather than denial of the project. On smaller developments that have Significant impacts, he said cities typically require the applicant to notify the city prior to any significant step that would affect erosion or erosion control matters. He said if Staff does not have the current manpower to handle it, it could require the developer to pay the costs of overtime or to hire an additional inspector/independent contractor to perform those functions. Because the proposed development is located in an environmentally sensitive area and may fall within the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence/Landslide Hazard Ordinance, he said actual construction of the houses will have a large number of requirements, including hydraulics engineers and on -site inspection by the engineers themselves during the course of construction. In response to Councilmember Hertrich, Ms. Block said there were no wetland plants identified on site. She noted, however, that that type of vegetation would have died back during the winter months. She said because there was some indication of hydric soils in some locations, Staff recommended that a soils study be required for each building site and that construction not take place in any wetlands area. Councilmember Hertrich said it was difficult for him to conceive of a building plan until it is ascertained if wetlands do or do not exist on site and where the boundaries lie if they do exist. Councilmember Dwyer referred to page ten of the Hearing -Examiner's report in which he states, "With the ultimate approval of the erosion control plan, the City can prevent the applicant from doing damage to the stream". He inquired if the Planning Department's recommendation to approve the project would remain the same if damage to the stream was not guaranteed and 'the sentence read, instead, "The City might be able to prevent the applicant from doing damage to the stream". Ms. Block said she did not think the recommendation would change because in any case, there is never a perception that there is absolutely no risk. Ms. Block said she would encourage the Council to impose every possible condition to prevent damage occurring to the stream. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the Planning Department could render a decision without knowl- edge of the existence or nonexistence of wetlands. Ms. Block said it appears from information that was received and by an on -site inspection that there are no wetlands of a high classifica- tion. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if an expert has made an on -site inspection. Ms. Block replied negatively. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if, in terms of a public benefit, the Council was involved in a balancing act whereby they would search for a benefit and balance it against potential detriment, or if the Council was searching only for a benefit. Mr. Snyder said the wording of the ordinance states that the applicant must establish a clear public benefit, and it was not a balance test. Councilmember Palmer suggested that the issue be continued to a later date to allow the Council to review the information that was submitted by the applicant and appellant that evening. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED TO DENY THE PRO. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO CONTINUE COUNCIL 'DELIBERATIONS ON THE MATTER TO JANUARY 15, 1991. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER ABSTAINING. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 DECEMBER 4, 1990 COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO OPEN THE HEARING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT, APPELLANT OR STAFF TO PROVIDE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO WETLANDS. In response to a concern by Councilmember Hertrich, Mr. Snyder reminded the Council that the City has a wetlands ordinance that is still at the Planning level and has not been adopted yet. He said wetlands would only be of significance if they constituted something that the City would have to set back from. He said the issue of wetlands was only relevant in two ways: 1) is it some sort of wetlands that constitute a stream that would necessitate a setback; or 2) are there such significant wetlands on site that have not been identified in the SEPA process that the SEPA process itself is suspect. Mr. Snyder said if there are elements that have been omitted from the SEPA checklist and that review process was deliberate, the Council could remand the issue to the SEPA level and reopen the SEPA process. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST,.COUNCILMEMBER DWYER AND COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER PALMER AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED; COUNCIL - MEMBER KASPER ABSTAINED. Councilmember Wilson was opposed to the motion because he said it did not specify how the informa- tion would be obtained. Councilmember Palmer was opposed to the motion because he said Councilmember Hertrich was "propos- ing a fishing expedition" and Councilmember Palmer wanted to know what the process would be for obtaining that information. Councilmember Hertrich asked Staff how to proceed in obtaining the information. Ms. Block said she would request the applicant to have his engineering firm conduct a wetlands delineation, or hire another firm with expertise in wetlands delineation. Councilmember Dwyer clarified that the motion allowed the hearing to be opened only to hear addi- tional information regarding wetlands, but the motion did not require that anyone expend any amount of money to obtain that information. He said the motion simply defined the scope of what may be testified to at the next hearing. Councilmember Palmer inquired, then, if Staff was not directed to gather any' particular informa- tion if the Council would await information from either the applicant or the appellant_. Council - member Dwyer said a directive was not given to anyone. He said, however, it would be incumbent upon Staff, the applicant or the appellant to produce that information if it was at their dispos- al. The meeting recessed at 9:34 p.m. and reconvened at 9:42 p.m. In response to Councilmember Nordquist, Mr. Snyder said Councilmember Jaech could participate in the next hearing if she reviewed the tapes prior to the hearing. MAYOR Mayor Naughten noted that the new signalization at Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive will be activated on Thursday at 10 p.m. COUNCIL Council President Nordquist said he learned at the NLC convention in Houston, Texas that "they're going to throw it back to the Feds. They're tired of the Feds throwing it on the local govern- ments and saying mandates and not give them any money to carry out the mandates, and they're coming on head first and they're going to say, 'Back to you guys because we can't keep raising taxes and stuff to carry our expenses. It's your turn again'. So the shift is going the other way". Councilmember Wilson noted that Ray Johnson has a plan that the contractor for the treatment plant submitted for the west wall. He urged the Council to look at the plan because he thought their input was necessary. VC1� COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER JAECH'S ABSENCE FROM NOVEMBER 27 TO DECEMBER 10, 1990. MOTION CARRIED. WORK SESSION ON 1991 BUDGET - (A) REVIEW SNOTRAN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FUNDING REQUEST ($2,000) Mayor Naughten introduced Carolyn Feiss, Executive Director of SnoTran. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 DECEMBER 4, 1990 } Ms. Feiss requested $2,000 from the City as matching funds for the high -capacity transit programs analysis that is scheduled to commence in January. She said the analysis will dovetail with Metro's study, noting that Metro has been asked to continue their study up to 164th so that a. better understanding can be reached of the implications in Snohomish County. Ms. Feiss said the Board at SnoTran has requested the various -jurisdictions within the larger service area of the future system to contribute and join Snotran and the two other transit agencies in the effort. Councilmember Nordquist inquired why a percentage of the increased sales tax is not utilized for the analysis. Ms. Feiss said those funds were allocated to Community Transit (CT) for the devel- opment and operation of CT services, but there are certain elements that are going to be studied (facilities that can be used by CT at the present time) using CT funds . She noted that the future system is a regional system that will link Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties. Councilmember Palmer noted that the City of Mountlake Terrace is contributing less than the City of Edmonds is being asked to contribute. Ms. Feiss explained that each of the jurisdictions that were signators to the right-of-way agreement were asked to contribute funds to cover the entire match, but the funding was $11,000 short. Ms. Feiss said Mountlake Terrace then suggested that SnoTran ask the cities that were not signators to also participate. She said the funding that is being requested of those cities was not based on a scientific formula. In response to Councilmember Hertrich, Ms. Feiss said the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) is not involved at all in the process. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if any of the information in the studies that PSCOG has undertaken will be utilized. Ms. Feiss replied affirma- tively. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE $2,000 REQUEST AND THAT THE MAYOR IDENTIFY A FUNDING SOURCE. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER OPPOSED. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the City will be asked to participate in funding in11992. Ms. Feiss replied negatively. Councilmember Hertrich said he hoped the study included the intermodal facilities and ties in with the ferry system. Ms. Feiss said those are two of the major issue areas. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 1990 AND NOVEMBER 27, 1990 ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENTiAGENDA] Councilmember Hertrich referred to page 5*of the November 27 minutes and requested that the fol- lowing comments he made that were not included in the minutes be included approximately follow- ing paragraph 7, "The first question asked the amount that Mr. Dewar originally budgeted for use t`L of Tourism funds and that included an approximate of $60,000, and he also indicated most of the Tourism funds would be used up in that process. The second question was the amount of profit that the Chamber made from the Taste of Edmonds, and Mr. Dewar indicated that approximate amount was $50,000". COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO INCLUDE THOSE COMMENTS IN THE NOVEMBER 27, 1990 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 27, 1990 MINUTES, AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER ABSTAINING. As a matter of procedure, Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. With reference to the November 20, 1990 minutes, Councilmember Dwyer referred to thel memorandum from the City Clerk noting the following, "Councilmember Dwyer has requested a correction to the subject minutes. On page 7, 3rd paragraph, at the end of the 3rd line (in the discussion regard- ing the Fire Director's position), the words "Fire Director" should be changed to "Police Chief" so that the sentence reads: Councilmember Dwyer said he was also opposed to removing, the Police Chief from the Civil Service system". COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 20, 1990 MINUTES, WITH THE AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF STACKING CHAIRS AND HAND TRUCKS FOR ANDERSON CENTER FROM ADIRONDACK DIRECT 61. 0 N N Councilmember Nordquist said he was not comfortable ordering items from a mail order house be- cause the �warranty is questionable. Secondly, he noted that the State of Washington now requires n' j EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 DECEMBER 4, 1990 that sales tax be paid to the.'State on items even if they are purchased from another state that does not require sales tax. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, TO REOPEN THE BID AND THAT STAFF CONTACT LOCAL SUPPLIERS. MOTION CARRIED. In response to Councilmember Nordquist's concern regarding out-of-state purchases and warranties, . Mayor Naughten said he would be happy to consider a purchasing policy. Councilmember Kasper suggested that a City representative attend the December 13, 1990 Legisla- tive Transportation Committee meeting regarding the Department of Transportation's Marine Divi- sion Capital Refurbishment Program. Councilmember Hertrich and Councilmember Kasper were appoint- ed to represent the City. The Council recessed to an executive session at 10:12 p.m. to discuss labor negotiations for approximately 15 minutes and adjourned thereafter. THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO DECEMBER 18, 1990 APPROVAL. ACQU INE G. PARRE T, City Clerk LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mayor EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 DECEMBER 4, 1990 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. DECEMBER 4, 1990 r1U 1 TA Annrn FLAG SALUTE 1. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 1990 AND NOVEMBER 27, 1990 (C) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JOHN GALT FOR HEARING EXAMPER PRO-TEM SERVICES FOR 1991 (D) APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF STACKING CHAIRS AND HAND TRUCKS FOR ANDERSON CENTER FROM ADIRONDACK DIRECT ($4,561.20) (E) APPROVAL OF CABARET DANCE LICENSE FOR CLAIRE'S PANTRY AT 301 MAIN ST. 2. AUDIENCE 3. HEARING ON APPROVAL OF HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED 5-LOT PRD/SUBDIVISION AT 18208-18218 76TH AVE. W. (PRD-2-90/ P-2-90/THOMAS BELT; AND HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED 5-LOT PRD/SUBDIVISION AT 18208-18218 76TH AVE. W. (APPELLANTS: WILLIAM & PAMELA HAROLD, ET AL.; APPLICANT: THOMAS BELT) (AP-25,90/P-2-90) 4. MAYOR 5. COUNCIL 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION - LABOR NEGOTIATIONS 7. WORK SESSION ON 1991 BUDGET (A) REVIEW SNOTRAN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FUNDING REQUEST ($2,000) (B) CONTINUED REVIEW COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUDGET (C) REVIEW MAYOR'S BUDGET (D) REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUDGET (E) REVIEW FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET (F) REVIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE (60i MINUTES)