12/05/1989 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO
DECEMBER 19, 1989 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
DECEMBER 5, 1989
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
Steve Dwyer, Councilmember
Laura Hall, Councilmember
Roger Hertrich, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Jack Wilson, Councilmember
Doug Merlino, Student Rep.
ABSENT STAFF
Bill Kasper, Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr.
Council Pres. Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director
Jo -Anne Jaech, Bobby Mills, Public Works Supt.
Councilmember Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Margaret Richards, Recorder
Councilmember Dwyer arrived a few minutes late and did not vote on any item preceding Item #3
(Hearing on Planning Board recommendation regarding proposed amendment to Edmonds Community Devel-
opment Code establishing regulations governing recycling boxes) on the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item (8) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM-
BER WILSON, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on
the Consent Agenda include the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
01 �(C) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SHOP LUBRICATION EQUIPMENT ($4,000)
Ltd (D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES
(E) ACCEPTANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENT FROM THOMAS BRADDER AT 7306 - 172ND S.W.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 1989 AND NOVEMBER 28, 1989 ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA]
Councilmember Hall referred to the memoranda from City Clerk Jackie Parrett noting the following
corrections to the November 21, 1989 minutes: page 5, fourth paragraph from the bottom, prior to
the last sentence in that paragraph, insert the sentence at the request of Councilmember Kasper:
"The 106% is justified because the public survey said roads repairs were the number one priority .
P and, therefore, they expect them to be funded out of the general fund because the bond issue was
turned down in 1988".
Page 8 in the budget discussion regarding the cash reserves include the following paragraphs at
the end of paragraph 6 at the request of Councilmember Dwyer: "Mr. Housler called the Council's
attention to the fact that the General Fund ending cash balance of $283,000 has been reduced to
$100,000 (by eliminating the 106% property 'tax revenue of $183,000). He said the Cumulative
Reserve Fund is a fund that was set up in 1979 to establish money that would be available during
lae d the year when we were awaiting the receipt of property taxes revenue and was .used when we could
not meet expenditures during those periods. So this is to be replaced every year back to its
current position of $250,000. It is working cash. The Emergency Financial Reserve Fund #006 has
an actual reserve of about $200.000.
"COUNCILMEMBER DWYER WITHDREW HIS SECOND TO THE MOTION. He said he would do so, at least for
now, because that takes them down to $300,000, which is less than half of what they talked about,
and they would be spending more than 50% of their total reserves as things stand now".
COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 21, 1989, AS AMENDED, AND OF NOVEMBER 28, 1989. MOTION CARRIED.
AUDIENCE
Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting.
f
Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, requested the Council to consider two issues before finalizing the
1990 budget.
Ms. Shippen said she thought the Council's proposal to hire a lobbyist to monitor discussions in
Olympia regarding the Edmonds ferry dock would not be in the best interest of the City. She said
the Mayor is in a better position to find out what is going on in Olympia over a long period of
time rather than a lobbyist, who would serve the City on a temporary basis. She said the Mayor
can keep abreast of upcoming discussions in the legislature by requesting the Transportation
Commission and legislative committees to send him their agendas and he could then inform the
Council. She said if an issue is of interest to the City, Staff can write a letter to the legis-
lature or appear before them. Ms. Shippen said she thought it would be better if the Mayor and
Council got in the habit of dealing with the legislature rather than hiring a someone on a tempo-
rary basis. Ms. Shippen noted that the disposition of the Edmonds ferry terminal is not going to
be resolved for at least another ten to fifteen years.
Ms. Shippen said the Council has not taken a position with any issue that is going to be before
the legislature. She thought the first step for the Council to take is to have discussions on
where they stand on some of the upcoming issues before the legislature prior to hiring a lobbyist.
Ms. Shippen requested the Council to reconsider its action not to levy the 106% property tax.
Ms. Shippen pointed out that the City has spent $833,362 on the Meadowdale/Lynnwood play field.
She compared the revenues of the Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood, noting that Lynnwood has signifi-
cantly more revenues than Edmonds. Ms. Shippen said the Council must wonder, then, if they can
truthfully say that they are saving Edmonds citizens money by not levying the 106% property tax
(a savings of $183,000) when the City spends large sums of money for a project in another town.
Ms. Shippen said she did not believe the Council's action had anything to do with saving Edmonds
residents money or trying to build the best community that the City could afford but was, rather,
inconsistent action and political bureaucracy. She requested the Council to review its thinking
on that issue.
Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting.
HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS GOVERNING RECYCLING BOXES CDC-7- 9
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on September 13, 1989, the Planning Board
held a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to
create a new section under Chapter 17 regulating recycling boxes in the City. The Planning Board
unanimously voted to approve the proposed regulations. Ms. Block noted that a copy of their
recommendation, a proposed ordinance, and the minutes from the September 13, 1989 Planning Board
meeting were included in the Council packets.
Ms. Block said it is Staff's recommendation to approve the Planning Board's recommendation and
adopt the proposed ordinance.
Ms. Block reviewed the proposed amendments to the Code. Ms. Block said the Architectural Design
Board (ADB) will set general guidelines for recycling boxes, and any application that meets the
ADB criteria will be issued a permit by Staff at no charge. She said the criteria will require
that the name, address and telephone number of the owner of the recycling box appears on the box,
as well as the name, address and telephone number of the party responsible for the care and main-
tenance of the box and, also, the name and address of the party(s) who are financially benefit-
ting and type of materials in the box. Ms. Block said a box may be placed on commercially zoned
property or property that has a public use if it meets the criteria. If the ordinance is violat-
ed, the owner will be sent two notices within six months, and the City may remove the box or
require the owner to remove it if he/she fails to comply.
Ms. Block said the issue is before the Council because Staff has received calls from people who
wish to put up recycling boxes. Staff reviewed the Code and found it does not specifically ad-
dress th@t issue other than through a conditional use permit.
Councilmember Hall said the ordinance does not specify what the size of a box may be. Ms. Block
said the criteria set forth by the ADB will set a maximum size. City Attorney Scott Snyder stat-
ed that several different kinds of boxes are available, and the ADB would approve several stan-
dard designs. However, if a person wanted to place a box on his/her property that was different
from the standard designs, he/she would have to go through the APB process for approval. Council -
member Hall thought the ordinance should be very specific in order to avoid disputes with respect
to the size or shape of a container.
Councilmember Hertrich said he felt it would be more appropriate for the Planning Board to create
the standards for recycling boxes rather than the ADB. He noted that the ADB's function is to
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 DECEMBER 5, 1989
review proposals and either deny or approve them and not to design a project or an item. Ms.
Block pointed out that section 17.90.020 of the proposed ordinance provides that City Staff will
take general standards to the ADB for their approval.
Ms. Block noted that the ordinance contains a provision that it will sunset if the City adopts a
recycling program.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Jane Cunningham, 1030 Grandview St., asked Staff to submit two Polaroid pictures to the City
Clerk for distribution to the Council that she had submitted earlier to the Planning Board
(marked Exhibit #1).
Ms. Cunningham said there was a recycling bin for paper at the south corner of Olympic View Drive
and Grandview Street, but it has been moved against the fence adjacent to her property and is now
in the setback area. She said it is, in her opinion, unsightly and a fire hazard. She said
people leave bags of other materials besides paper. Ms. Cunningham said controls must be put in
place to regulate the use of recycling boxes and which provide a means for citizens to register
complaints and which specify who is responsible for damage caused to other property.
Chuck Cain, 1060 - 6th Ave. S., said he has a recycling box at Edmonds Lumber at 228 - 5th Ave. S.
Mr. Cain questioned the efficacy of the proposed ordinance because he said recycling boxes have a
tendency to become overloaded within a very short period of time. He also questioned whether the
City could legally govern what a person may have on private property. He said he would probably
fight the City if it tried to regulate his recycling box.
In response to a question by Councilmember Hall, Mr. Snyder said the proposed ordinance applies
to only nonresidential zones, excluding parks designated or used as a public site, or zoned as
residential when the recycling box is proposed to be located at a church or community facility.
He said the ordinance will apply to new boxes but existing boxes will be grandfathered.
Mayor Naughten closed the public.portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Hall said she thought the proposed ordinance is a noble gesture but she did not
know the aegis of it. Because recycling programs are a new concept and still in the experimental
stages, she recommended that the City not adopt the ordinance at the present time or that the
proposed ordinance be remanded to the Planning Board so that it is more amenable to the community.
Councilmember Hertrich thought recycling boxes do need to be regulated, and he was in favor of
adopting the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Dwyer asked what recourse a citizen would have if a person who has placed a recy-
cling box on their property does not properly maintain the box and it becomes a nuisance. Ms.
Block said because recycling boxes are not a permitted use at the present time, the City could
force the owner of the box to remove it. She said an ordinance would be very useful to Staff
because it would help them identify and locate the owner and because it defines what a nuisance
is.
Councilmember Wilson said he doubted that the City would pursue charitable organizations if they
do not comply with the ordinance. He said the ordinance is verbose but, in general, he was in
support of it.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD
RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. MOTION. CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH,
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER HALL AND COUNCILMEMBER
DWYER OPPOSED. (The City Attorney later advised the City Clerk that the ordinance could not be
passed because there were not four affirmative votes. The item was scheduled for a re -vote on
January 2, 1990 when all Councilmembers are present.)
HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7315
- 2 2TH ST. S.W. FROM RM-2.4 TO CG-2 R- -8 / PPLIC NT: PEEHL D UGL S
�i Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on October 11, 1989, the Planning Board
held a public hearing on the rezone application of Peehl/Douglas to rezone the property at 7315 -
212th St.S.W. from RM-2.4 (multiple family) to CG-2 (general commercial). The Board voted unani-
mously to approve the rezone request.
Ms. Block noted that the Planning Board's recommendation, a vicinity map, a current site plan,
and the minutes from the October 11, 1989 Planning Board meeting were included in the Council
packets.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 DECEMBER 5, 1989
Ms. Block said it is the recommendation of Staff to adopt the Planning Board's recommendation and
direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
Ms. Block noted that the YMCA is located on the site in question.
Ms. Block reviewed the Planning Board's Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.
Ms. Block pointed out the location of the site in question on a vicinity map.
Councilmember Dwyer inquired to what use the property is proposed if the site is rezoned. Ms.
Block said the applicant has indicated that a medical facility is a potential use, but she said
any uses that are allowed in the CG-2 zone will be allowed if the property is rezoned. Council -
member Dwyer inquired how many multifamily units are allowed on the property as it is presently
zoned. Ms. Block replied approximately ninety units.
Councilmember Hertrich noted that the area is already heavily traveled and oftentimes is congest-
ed. He inquired if Staff has reviewed the traffic impact to the area if the property is re-
zoned. Ms. Block said an in-depth traffic analysis will be conducted when a specific proposal is
submitted to Staff.
Councilmember Wilson inquired if the subject property was not rezoned when the surrounding area
was rezoned to CG-2 because of a request of the owner or because of an oversight. Ms. Block said
it was an oversight.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Guy Douglas, 17824 - 60th Ave. S., Lynnwood, said the subject property was purchased by a local
physicians group, and it is in the preliminary design phase for a medical facility. He said
although a medical facility is proposed for the site, he was not 100% certain that it will actual-
ly be constructed.
Mr. Douglas said the center of the north part of the site (lot 10) was purchased for ingress and
egress to the site from 210th Street Southwest. He noted that the entrance on 212th Street is
proposed for ingress only, and patient traffic will be directed to the back of the site. He said
the site is 22 feet below grade and public parking will be hidden from view. Mr.Douglas said
20% of parking will be on the front of the site and 80% will be at the back of the site.
Mr. Douglas said although CG-2 zoning allows a 45 foot building height, the proposed structure
will only be approximately as high as the building that exists on the site.
Mr. Douglas said the nature of development in the immediate area has gravitated towards general
commercial development.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Chris Rommel, Edmonds Family Medicine, 21616 - 76th Ave. W., said the property is intended to be
developed to its highest use as a commercial property if it is rezoned. She said Edmonds Family
Medicine has worked with City Staff in looking at the highest and best flow of traffic for the
subject property. She noted that the lot to the north (lot 10) was purchased to alleviate some
of the traffic problems. Ms. Rommel said 212th Street will be used for ingress only; the second
outlet on 212th Street will be closed off; traffic will exit the site on 74th Avenue West primari-
ly for staff and employees; and primary patient flow will be from 210th Street both for ingress
and egress and on 212th Street for ingress only.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Dwyer inquired why it would not be in the best interest of the City to execute a
contract rezone rather than rezone the site. Ms. Block said a contract rezone is appropriate
when another type..of use is proposed in an area and special buffering or special limitations
apply. She said the proposed use of the property in question does not seem inappropriate because
the surrounding area is zoned CG-2.
Councilmember Nordquist said the proposed use will adversely impact traffic on 212th Street and
steps should be taken to alleviate that problem. Ms. Block noted that the proposal is subject to
a full SEPA review, which will address traffic circulation.,
Councilmember Hall pointed out that Highway 99 has developed as a professional corridor through-
out the years. She said a contract rezone was not an absolute guarantee that a project will be
developed as proposed, and she used the contract rezone for Harbor Square as an example. She
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 DECEMBER 5, 1989
l
said the applicants for the project before the Council at the present time "know that the whoe
project will not be approved if they don't listen to the Council's concernsand it d
that they are looking toward that". , sounds to me
COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOM-
MENDATION AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY ORDINANCE.
Councilmember Hertrich said the site in question occupies a large percentage of the block that it
is located on, and the proposed use will have a significant impact to the traffic. He felt it
would be more prudent for the Council to have a specific proposal before them and a contract
rezone before rendering a decision.
Councilmember Hall said the Council has, in the past, approved p pp projects on a case -by -case basis
and not on a land use matter. She said when a proposal for the subject property is submitted to
the Council, the Council can then address the design of the project. Councilmember Dwyer was
concerned that the land can be sold to anyone after it is rezoned and can then be developed to
any use allowed in the CG-2 zone.
Mr. Snyder pointed out that a contract rezone application must be voluntary. He said the proper
procedure for the Council to follow would. be to identify zoning criteria that have not been met,
deny the application for those reasons, and then the applicant would be free to return with an
application that meets the criteria. In response to Councilmember Dwyer's concern, he said some
uses in a commercial zone have less of a traffic impact than the current RM classification and
some uses have more of an impact.
Mr. Snyder requested that the Council recess to an Executive Session to discuss criteria if they
wanted to deny the rezone application. He pointed out that any motion made by the Council must
pass by four votes.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL WITHDREW THE MOTION. THE SECONDER AGREED.
Mayor Naughten said he failed to understand the Council's concerns because there are criteria in
place that govern development of the property, and the applicant has purchased additional land to
alleviate traffic congestion. 'Councilmember Dwyer said there are many uses allowed in a CG-2
zone that would not be, in his opinion, an appropriate use across the street from a family living
in an RM-2.4 zone. He said some CG-2 uses may generate more traffic than a multifamily use and
some may not generate as much traffic. He said the Council would know what type of•use the sub-
ject site would be put to if a contract rezone was before the Council. He was concerned that the
use that the applicant intends for the site may not come to fruition, the site could be sold to
someone else after it is rezoned, and another use placed on the property that would adversely
affect the neighborhood.
Councilmember Hall did not feel that a rezone would adversely impact the area because she said
cars have been coming and going from the YMCA for years. She said the site is surrounded by CG-2
zoning and was probably overlooked when the area was rezoned to CG-2.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO RECESS TO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION
FOR TEN MINUTES FOR LEGAL ADVICE. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council recessed to an Executive Session at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION OF THE
ISSUE TO JANUARY 16, 1990.
Councilmember Dwyer said he made the motion because he wanted to ask Staff additional questions
regarding the potential uses in a CG-2 zone and about the various impacts, including traffic, of
those potential uses.
Councilmember Hall said she felt the motion was a "real copout on the part of the Council" be-
cause they could have called Staff for answers to their questions prior to the hearing.
MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER HALL OPPOSED.
HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 22211 - 76TH AVE. W. FROM RM-2.4 TO CG R-2-89/APPLICANT: DOUG IKEGAMI
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on October 25, 1989, the Planning Board
held a public hearing on the contract rezone application of Doug Ikegami to rezone the eastern
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 DECEMBER 5, 1989
portion of the property at 22211 - 76th Avenue West from RM-2.4 (multiple family) to CG (general
commercial). The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezone request.
Ms. Block noted that the Planning Board's recommendation, a vicinity map, current site plan, the
minutes from the October 25, 1989 Planning Board meeting, and the concomitant zoning agreement
were included in the Council packets.
Ms. Block said it is the recommendation of Staff to adopt the Planning Board's recommendation and
direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
Ms. Block reviewed the Planning Board's Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, as well as the
agreement by the owner as outlined in the concomitant rezone agreement.
Ms. Block noted that the condition regarding a multifamily use on the subject property would
change the CG zoning to allow a multifamily use. She said at the present time a multifamily use
is only allowed in a commercial zone above the first two floors of a building. Ms. Block said if
the contract rezone is approved with the condition for a multifamily use, the Council should
specify that the property be developed as an allowed use in a multifamily zone so that the bulk
I and dimension requirements are established.
Ms. Block pointed out the location of the subject property on a vicinity map.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
/ John Lange, 4210"- 198th St. S.W., Lynnwood, representing the applicant, said the applicant in-
tends to use the subject property as a parking area but has reserved two areas for possible fu-
ture building sites to add onto the existing building if necessary and to relocate the motor home
repair building to allow more frontage for automobile sales. He said the applicant has no inten-
tion of building a multifamily use on the property and will waive any requirement for a multifami-
ly use, if necessary.
Councilmember Wilson said he would like assurance that the area that is proposed for a multifami-
ly use will be developed in accordance with multifamily standards if it is developed in the fu-
ture and not to the CG standards. Mr. Lange said the applicant would happily and voluntarily
amend the agreement to state that the setback requirements of the multifamily zone will be ad-
hered to.
I
Mr. Lange submitted four photographs to the City Clerk (marked Exhibit #1).
Jeff Palmer, 17510 - 76th Ave. W., in response to a question by Councilmember Hertrich, said the
landscape buffer that is contiguous to 76th Avenue West was a requirement of the previous re-
zone. He said that buffer would be deleted from those requirements if the present rezone propos-
al is approved because the 15 foot landscape buffer would move to the southern boundary, as well
as the 15 foot landscape buffer to the western boundary.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOM-
MENDATION AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY ORDINANCE, AND INCLUDE THE AMEND-
MENT BY THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE REGARDING THE SETBACKS FOR THE MULTIFAMILY ZONE. MOTION
CARRIED.
REPORT ON NORTHWEST ENERGY CODE
PI-V, Community Services Director Peter Hahn reported that the Model Conservation Standards were pro-
posed by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) approximately six or seven years ago and have
been hotly debated at the State and local level. The debate has focused on the need for such
stringent conservation standards in building construction, the higher initial cost, the actual
benefits in lower energy consumption, and the complexity of administration and enforcement.
Mr. Hahn stated that fewer than ten cities west of the Cascades have adopted the standards. The
former Building Official, Hal Reeves, had followed this issue over the past five years in consul-
tation with fellow local officials and ICBO and had recommended against adoption of the standards.
Mr. Hahn said contrary to the perception given by PUD commissioners, the standards do not have to
be adopted by the end of the year. He said BPA monies will probably be available for the first
few months in 1990.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 DECEMBER 5, 1989
Mr. Hahn said the City can receive up to $74,000 from BPA to implement the Northwest Energy Code
and developers can receive up to $85,000 per year in direct subsidies.
Mr. Hahn introduced Dick Gorman, Snohomish County P.U.D.; Alan Aldridge, P.U.D. Energy Conserva-
tion Manager; Mike McCort, Associated Washington Cities (AWC); and Jean Irving, State Energy
Office.
Mr. Aldridge said the P.U.D. feels very strongly about energy conservation and energy efficiency
and keeping electrical rates to a minimum for consumers. He felt that energy conservation is the
least expensive and most effective source of additional energy supplies for the region.
Mr. Aldridge said new buildings are an important source of energy savings. He noted that a build-
ing cannot be retrofitted the way it can be built initially from an energy efficiency point of
view.
Mr. Aldridge stated that the Northwest Energy Code only addresses electrically heated buildings
and will not affect buildings heated with other sources of fuel. He -said the Code is flexible;
there is a baseline path that has energy efficiency values for components of a building (ceil-
ings, wall, windows, etc.). He said the intent of the Code is to achieve a total energy consump-
tion value for a structure, and a developer can trade off the amount of window space or amount of
insulation in the ceiling and floor to achieve that value.
Mr. Aldridge said the City may, at its option, contract with the P.U.D. for certain aspects to
implement the Code rather than utilize City Staff time.
Mr. Aldridge said an energy bill will be before the legislature in the next session for adoption
State wide. He could not say with certainty if the bill will pass.
Mr. Aldridge said there has a been a movement in the State within the last six months by local
jurisdictions to adopt the Northwest Energy Code; approximately 35 jurisdictions have adopted the
Code, which encompasses approximately 50% of the population of the State.
Mr. McCort said AWC has observed that individual property owners have experienced a savings by
adopting the Code because the cost of electrical energy is lower than other choices of fuels. He
said the Code also keeps dollars working in the community because builders, home owners, and
suppliers are involved; much,of the money spent to meet Code requirements stays within the commu-
nity.
Mr. McCort reiterated that BPA will make funding available to cities who adopt the Code to imple-
ment it. He said under the new State-wide bill, the amount of funding will be unknown if the
bill before the legislature passes. He surmised that the amount of funding would be less than is
offered by BPA.
Mr. McCort said twelve additional jurisdictions have adopted the Northwest Energy Code since
March 1, 1989.
Mr. McCort said AWC will provide information through publications and workshops and technical
assistance to the jurisdictions who adopt the Code.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired what standards the City of Edmonds would follow if it first adopt-
ed the Northwest Energy Code and then the bill before the legislature passed. Mr. McCort said
the City would receive funding from BPA through 1992. Mr. Aldridge said the intent of concerted
efforts to enact a State energy code is to have a State code that is identical or nearly identi-
cal to the Northwest Energy Code. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the City could opt to stay
with the Northwest Energy Code after 1992 if the State adopted a code of its own with different
provisions. Mr. Aldridge said the City could opt out of the BPA contract if the State adopted a
different code. He believed, however, that the City would get a better financial package for
assistance in implementing the Code from BPA than it would from the State.
In response to a question by Councilmember Hall, Mr. McCort said many of the initial concerns of
builders have been laid to rest because the code has changed, but they still have concerns about
cost.
Mr. McCort submitted a packet of information from AWC to the Council.
A hearing was scheduled on January 2, 1990 to discuss the issue.
MAYOR
Mayor Naughten said he received an invitation for the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Public
Officials reception at the Seattle Trade Center on December 6, 1989 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 DECEMBER 5, 1989
Mayor Naughten noted that the National League of Cities meeting in Atlanta, Georgia was produc-
tive, and he said he would submit a report to the Council.
COUNCIL
6 v Councilmember Hall noted that the Council received a letter from Walt Yaun regarding the street It 1.repaving. She said she knew Mr. Yaun personally, and he is suffering from Multiple Sclerosis and
he relies on a wheel chair for transportation. Councilmember Hall believed Mr. Yaun was dissatis-
fied with the chip seal program because it is very hard on the wheels of his wheel chair.
The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO DECEMBER 19, 1989 APPROVAL.
ACQ ELINE G. PA RETT, City Clerk ARRY NAUGHTEN, Mayor
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 DECEMBER 5, 1989
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING
7:00 - 10:00 P.M.
DECEMBER 5, 1989
CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. CONSENT AGENDA
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 1989 AND NOVEMBER 28, 1989
(C) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SHOP LUBRICATION EQUIPMENT ($4,000)
(D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE
SERVICES
(E) ACCEPTANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENT FROM THOMAS BRADDER AT 7306 172ND S.W.
2. AUDIENCE
3. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
GOVERNING RECYCLING BOXES (CDC-7-89)
4. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED REZONE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7315 212TH ST. S.W. FROM RM2.4 TO CG-2 (R-1-89/
APPLICANT: PEEHL/DOUGLAS)
5. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED CONTRACT
REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22211 76TH AVE. W. FROM RM2.4 TO CG
(R-2-89/APPLICANT: DOUG IKEGAMI)
6. REPORT ON NORTHWEST ENERGY CODE
7. MAYOR
8. COUNCIL
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND
PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE
(20 MINUTES)
(30 MINUTES)
(30 MINUTES)
(30 MINUTES)