19790611 City Council Minutes386
June 11, 1979 - Work Meeting
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Councilwas called to order.at.7:40 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds.Civic Center. All. present joined in the flag
salute...
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor Leif Larson, Public Works Director
Mike HerbJohn LaTourelle, Community Development Director
Bill Kasper Art Housler, Finance Director
Katherine Allen Marlo Foster, Police Chief
John Nordquist Jack Weinz, Acting Fire Chief
Ray Gould - Mary Lou Block, Assistant City Planner
Tom Carns,� Fred Herzberg, City Engineer
Larry Naughten Jim Murphy, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
OATH OF OFFICE FOR COUNCILMAN WILL.IAM J. KASPER
Judge Richard Thorpe administered the oath of office to William J....Kasper who was selected by the
Council to. fi.l:l% the Council position vacated by Phil Clement.
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED. The Consent Agenda included.the following:
(AY' Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of June 5, 1979.
(C) Passage of Resolution 445 for the City of Edmonds to join other cities in
the funding of a feasibil.ity.s.tudy regarding pooling of risk management
and/or insurance coverage.
(D) Setting of June 26, 1979 for hearing of preliminary approval of PRD-1-79
located in Shell Valley.
MAYOR
Mayor Harrison asked for confirmation of two:appointments to the Arts Commission. The Council
MOTION: had interviewed the candidates prior to this evening's Council meeting. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS OF A. LYALL LUSH TO
POSITION 2 ON THE ARTS COMMISSION, TERM TO.EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1980, AND OF DICK MARKLE TO
POSITION 6 ON THE ARTS COMMISSION, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1982. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 616 RECOMMENDING_DENIAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
OFFICIAL'ZONING MAP TO REZONE LOTS 6; 7.5.:85*,AND 9; BLOCK 5; YOST:S FIRST'ADDITION
TO THE CITY'OF EDMONDS;'FROM'RS'6 TO RS=12 File R=1-79
Assistant City Planner Mary Lou B.lock.reviewed..this item. The rezone had been proposed by the
neighbors because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the.site. Shellabarger Creek
bisects the property from north to south. The Planning Commission.had heard this item on March
45 1979 and recommended denial because the property is located in an area near to downtown
Edmonds where RS-6 is an appropriate density..and they.found it'would be improper to single out
this one block and zone it RS-12, and because.they felt there were alternatives to protect the.
stream in this area which were more desirable than changing the zoning. The Community Development
Department recommended to the Council that the Planning Commission's denial be upheld, but in
addition, at such time as any action is taken on this property that it be a requirement that
vehicle access be from the alley to the.east and that the alley be improved accordingly. The
purpose of that requirement was to prevent the culverting of Shellabarger Creek as it would be
culverted in numerous places if the access.were to be from "A" Ave. which borders the property
on the west. Although zoning in the surrounding area is RS-6. it has generally been developed
with one house on two lots. When thismatter went before the Planning Commission the Staff had
recommended approval of the rezone, concern being for the protection of the stream. However,
they now felt the same result could be accomplished if the stream is allowed to be left in its
natural state, and it appeared that there was enough space to develop as RS-6 lots with certain
restrictions to protect.the stream. The question was asked if this could not be considered
"spot zoning" if this one block were rezoned -to RS-12 when the surrounding zoning was RS-6.
City Attorney Jim Murphy responded that..if the property is different from other surrounding
properties, such as by having a creek on.it, it could justify having a.different zoning classification.
Ms. Block was asked what the alternatives were for preserving the stream, and she responded
that access from the.alley was the best,.alternative. She added that the Policy Plan strongly
recommends leaving streams in their natural...state, and that this is identified as an environmentally
sensitive area. She said the properties.would.have to be subdiv.ided.before.they could be
developed as RS-6 and at that time conditions as to access could be placed on them. She showed
slides ..of;the.site which included some taken after the April rainstorm and they demonstrated
engorgement of the creek. The hearing was -then opened to the public. Dean Shepherd of 112 3rd
Ave. S., attorney for the owner of the property under consideration, said any decision on the
future use of the right-of-way should be deferred until some definite proposals have been made
and appropriate studies completed. Other than that, he supported the Planning Commission's ,
recommendation. The public portion of the hearing was then closed.-. Councilman Gould observed-.:
that to leave the property RS-6 would result in having more homes on the property and he was
387
• June 11, 1979 - continued
very concerned about the drainage.. Public Works Director Leif Larson said the only drainage system in
that area now is that creek and the only way drainage to the creek can be reduced is to install a
separate system in the street to bypass the creek and. take it -to the Sound, which is an expensive
project but under consideration in the.overall drainage study of .the City. Councilman Carns,noted
that the property currently -is used as if it were RS-12 and..the zoning could be changed to that to
keep the environment in a healthier state. Community Development Director John LaTourelle responded
that this property is mapped as being in an.environmentally sensitive area so it is given careful
attention when any plans for development are presented. Councilman Nordquist was uncomfortable that
this action had been started by a neighbor.. He asked how the Planning Department would -have handled
development of the property if this action.had not occurred_.Mr. LaTourelle said they would have
done exactly the same thing, requiring access from the alley.. Mr. Larson said he would prefer to
see the property RS-12 from an engineering standpoint, because at this point every additional house
MOTION:
affects the drainage. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RS-6 TO RS-12,
OVER-RIDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT ADDITIONAL HOUSES ON
THE STREAM WOULD HAVE A STRONGLY ADVERSE EFFECT ON*THE STREAM. COUNCILMAN GOULD SECONDED THE MOTION
BECAUSE SUCH A REZONE WOULD BE CONSISTENT.WITH THE POLICY PLAN WHICH STATES THAT WHERE NATURAL
DRAINAGE EXISTS LARGE LOTS SHOULD.BE USED TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND PRESERVE THE SITE.
Councilman Carns felt RS-12 would be more in concert with.the current use and RS-12 zoning would
cause less impervious surfaces and fewer drainage problems. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN
NORDQUIST VOTING NO.
SECOND READING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE.VACATING PORTION OF 75TH.AVE..W. AND PORTION
OF NORTH`MEADOWDALE RD. N'ACCORDANCE. ITH COUNCIL.: CTION J KEN MAY 5
Councilman Gould had requested_this.second reading because.after.the last heari.ng a number of people
had indicated.to him that they did.not.understand the action -taken. He wanted them to have an
opportunity to understand it, but there was no one present -in the audience for this item. He therefore
suggested that Mr. LaTourelle send to each petitioner a copy of the explanatory memorandum provided
MOTION: to the Council. COUNCILMAN GOULD.THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE
2073, PURSUANT.TO P.C. RESOLUTION.617. AND THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS STATED BY THE COUNCIL ON
MAY 15, 1979 RELATIVE TO THE SUBJECT PROPOSED STREET VACATION. Councilman Carns said he would vote
no to be consistent with his action at the May 15 hearing. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH. COUNCILMAN
CARNS VOTING NO.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION RE WATERFRONT..W.ITH..PARK BOARD, PORT, PROPERTY OWNERS, ETC.
Community Development Director John LaTourelle stated at the outset of this discussion that he was
recommending to the Council that the.Ci.ty at this time drop its plan for acquisition of property on
the waterfront and, further, that the Staff prepare plans for improvement of properties that -are
already owned by the City. There was a positive response from the audience, which filled the Council
Chambers and overflowed into the.foyer. Mayor Harrison asked the Council for comment: Councilman
Gould commented that what really:started out as a brainstorming session by the Council on what they
could do for the wonderful waterfront so people could enjoy it had turned into a "Why are you condemning
Mr. Anderson's property?" issue. He advised the. audience that if they had something to say about
what they wanted down there the Council would like to hear.it. Councilman Carns added that there
had been a very recent improvement as to the accessibility of the people to the Union Oil Beach and
Brackett's Landing by the changing.of the configuration of the parking lot and closing the parking
lots at 8:OO,p.m. He said there are now more citizens going down there to enjoy the beaches and he
could see the City spending some of its resources to further develop the Union Oil Beach. .The
discussion was opened to the public.. Bob Morrison, Chairman of the "Save Our Beach Committee" which
had organized in opposition to development of the waterfront told the Council he did not believe
they would let this drop and that after the election it would come up again. Mr. Morrison felt the
City does not have a good Citizens Shorelines Advisory Committee and he suggested a new one'be
formed, representing each section of the City. He took issue with any proposed walkway on the
waterfront and he asked about parking and unloading of buses there. He stated that he did not want
•
any federal funds in the City, with reference to the City's hopes to get grants for waterfront
development. He also stated that he did not believe Mr. LaTourelle represented the group of people
in the audience. He called upon several.members of his committee for comments. The first was.an
unidentified lady who said.she had approached the business people to sign their petition.against the
waterfront development and they were willing to sign. She stated that the beaches did,not.need
improving. Bill Crump of Bill's Hardware and Marine said waterfront parking facilities are inadequate
and further improvement'of the beachfront will compound the problem. He felt most of the parking
problems were caused by the ferry use and he described how his businesss had been affected adversely.
He described further how the ferry parking lot was misused and felt it should be managed better..
Ralph White, Deputy General Manager of the ferry terminal, said.the City could control the parking
lot if it wished. He said at Winslow they lease the lot to the City at $1.00 per year and the City
put in meters and any other improvements. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
GOULD, THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BE.REQUESTED TO WORK WITH THE STATE ON THE C.ITY'S ACQUIRING
THE FERRY PARKING LOT -PROPERTY THROUGH LEASE AND REPORT TO THE COUNCIL JUNE 19,. 1979. Councilman
Gould noted that an estimate of capital.costs for -metering would be needed. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Roger Hertrich, also a member of the committee, was concerned about the impact on the fishing pier
parking lot.- He said anytime there 'is a new waterfront business they will want in -lieu or joint use
parking, which is good so the waterfront is not all paved, but he asked where was the in -lieu parking
lot. Dale Galvin, attorney for Howard Anderson, said the Council should consider the thoughts of
some of the senior citizens, as.to the need of some sort of walkway from the Senior Center down
Railroad Ave. to the main part of.the City. He felt there should be some definitive study done of
the traffic patterns down there. Patti.Price, a businesswoman in Edmonds, displayed photographs to
illustrate the parking situation.along the waterfront. She pointed out the congested places and.
some..parking.space she felt people..were unaware existed. She recognized that parking patterns shift"
and she -said -she would continue to take pictures in the area to obtain a reflection of the ongoing
parking situation. Mr. Morrison introduced John Stuckey of 1134 "C" Ave. as representing Edmonds'
students, having just graduated from high school. Mr. Stuckey said he had not met a single person
who. was- i n favor of the Walkway or change to the beaches... He, di d not believe there should be more
access to the beaches. Rachel Bell of 264 Beach P1. said -the Senior Center has sliding glass doors
going to the beach but they are always locked. Senior Center Director Russ Berg said the Phase III
388
June 11, 1979 - continued'. •
MOTION:
MOTION:
MOTION:
Failed
MOTION
MOTION:
construction program would alleviate that condition. Bill Crump asked the status of the plans
for a walkway presented by Councilman Gould at a recent Rotary meeting. Councilman Gould
responded that the presentation had been a graphic description of a concept the Council had
discussed. He said there was no formal action, but it was a startingpoint, and the concept
was going hand in hand.with the Port..District's thoughts. Dean Hughes of Andy's Boathouse said
the Anderson Marine property has always been open to the public, even at the cost of some high
insurance premiums. Fremont Case of 1411.8th-Ave. N. said he has 700' of waterfront property
north of the City beaches and would like some police protection on that property because as the
teenagers are kept from the City beaches they.go north and continue their activities on private
property. He also felt the City should post the end of the public beach. An unidentified lady
said they have the same problems at the foot.of Wharf St. Larry Dalzell of 925 Maple said all
projects should be looked at with sensitivi.ty.to the citizens of Edmonds.. Don Nelson of the
Ebbtide Apartments said people use his beach all the time and:they.are not run off. Councilman
Herb commented that the Shorelines Advisory Board had spent many hours on their work and now
Mr. Morrison seemed to think everything they had done over the past two.years should be scrapped.
Councilman Nordquist commented that people quickly forget the things that have been done right
on the waterfront. As to the origin of -the walkway idea, he said several years ago a group
from the University of Washington did a study which discussed a walkway and which said it would
be*a.dvantageous.to the citizens. At this time COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
HERB, THAT THE CITY STOP ALL NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE HOWARD ANDERSON PROPERTY.
MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Nordquist commented that there had been a lot of "roasting" this
evening and it was now time to set some plans and goals for the next Council. Patti. Price said
she had attended the May Shorelines Management Advisory Committee meeting and the three ladies
who were on the Bodrd said they were in,comp.lete agreement that.the beach.should be left as it
is, and their comments were that they work very hard but their recommendations are ignored.
Fremont Case added.that when he was on that committee he felt it was a useless job. He felt it
could be reorganized and be more effective. Mayor Harrison then called for a recess at 10:00 p.m.
and reconvened the meeting at 10:10 p.m. •
When the meeting was reconvened COUNCILMAN.NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT
THE CITY DROP ALL PLANS TO DEVELOP OTHER THAN CITY OWNED PROPERTY ON THE WATERFRONT. MOTION
CARRIED. Councilman Herb said he thought all of the committees had done a tremendous.job and
his—impressi.on.was that those,speaki.ng.this evening had been mainly an opposition group. He
did not see the'need to appoint another committee. Councilman Carns said there is still a lot
of long-range thinking to do regarding the waterfront, and he noted that Fremont Case had
suggested earlier that waterfront property should be purchased as it becomes available. He
noted that Kirkland had purchased its waterfront property as it became available and he felt
Edmonds should do that kind of planning. He.still felt the waterfront should be made as accessible
as possible for the citizens of the City. Councilwoman Allen's concern was that another committee
would be appointed that would go over the same ground and make the same recommendations. She
said they knew they needed to purchase property, but she did not know that another task force
was needed. Councilman Gould added that a long-range plan was needed, something for 10-20
years from now. He had listed a number of points.brought up this evening that a citizens'
group could address, some of the problems,being.handled by existing groups, such as parking
problems given -to the Parking Commission. He saw nothing wrong with a waterfront development.
long=range plan committee with a membership being broadly.'distributed across the geographic
area of the City and representing the business people, the Save Our Beach people, etc., and
with the members being appointed by the Mayor., Mr. LaTourelle said -that was just the type of
thing his department was proposing --the establishment of an advisory board and maintenance of a
roster of interested citizens from which to form it. He said such an ad hoc committee could
continue as long as there were things for them to do. He had found this a successful way to
accomplish things. Councilman Carns suggested such a committee should be formed by each Council
member and the Mayor appointing one or two people. Marie King, member of the Shorelines Management
Advisory Committee, said she felt their committee had done a lot of work on the proposal
brought up this evening, and she felt the,nine points Councilman Gould had brought up had been
discussed and studied by the committee and findings submitted to the Council. She felt land
acquisition was vital and that the Council should indicate they want funding set aside for the
•
purchase of properties that become available. She noted that the waterfront had been inventoried
for what was available or likely to become.avai.lable, and she did not know what else a new
citizens' advisory group could do for the Council. She felt if a new committee were appointed
they would be repeating practically everything that had already been done. Roger Hertrich felt
the policies should be changed. He said the Policy Plan describes.a hard surfaced waterfront
walkway and it also describes in -lieu parking. He suggested the Policy Plan may need some
changes. Councilman Gould said when the in -lieu parking fund was first discussed the Parking
Commission had discussed some potential pieces of.property for parking sites, and those were
what had been considered. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED THAT AT.THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING THE
MAYOR AND EACH COUNCIL MEMBER APPOINT.TWO PEOPLE TO FORM A TASK FORCE TO DISCUSS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE WATERFRONT. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A. SECOND.. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN.THEN MOVED, SECONDED
BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE COUNCIL.BE.THE .COMMITTEE,AND.THAT THEY REVIEW EACH ISSUE, ONE
BY ONE. Councilman Gould suggested that'a target date be set of December 1 of either 1979 or
1980 so that it will be just before budget time. He felt .they should take a part at a time
between now and December 1 and develop a plan, piece by piece. He said they could also ask for
input from the Save Our Beach Committee and the:Parking Commission. Councilwoman Allen asked
that the Shorelines Management Advisory Committee provide the Council minutes of the meetings
when each of the issues were discussed. THE MOTION CARRIED.. Establishment of a schedule was
discussed, after which COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT JULY 10,
1979 BE SET AS A DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION,OF A,CALENDAR.PROPOSING THE VARIOUS ISSUES AND TIMES
TO WORK ON THOSE ISSUES. MOTION CARRIED.. The issues enumerated by Councilman Gould were:
Move the ferry dock; waterfront parking is inadequate, acquire.the AMTRAK south lot; take over
the State parking lot; the senior citizens' walkway:should go down Railroad Ave., not along the
waterfront; makea-definitive traffic study of the waterfront;.there are police problems on
Driftwood Lane; signs are needed to indicate the.north end of the City beach; and have some
access for the handicapped.
l q
•
June 11, 1979 - continued
DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION PROCESS (BOARDS AND.COMMISSIONS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE)
Community Devel.opment Director John LaTourelle had prepared a detailed memorandum discussing what
was proposed, and he read this aloud.so the board and commission members would be aware of the plan
and how they _would be affected..•Felix Reisner, the consultant, said the main difference in this
proposal and...the present procedure was.that commissions and boards would not hold hearings and the
recommendations would be brought in under.one umbrella agency, the hearing examiner. He said whatever
notice standards were desired could be set.,in addition to those required by the State, but'it was
important that the notice procedures.'be more standardized. Muryl Medina, a Board of Adjustment
member and a developer, said the processof running a plan..through the Cityneeded improvement as
coordination through the departments was needed on the issuance of.permits.,She felt there would be
more citizen input and more objectivity from a board than from.one hearing examiner. She felt the
people in any community want to be sure -they are heard, andshe felt the democratic process of
government had made Edmonds what it is. She added that sitting on.the Board of Adjustment has been
very educational. Bert Stole, a developer,.felt one person should be made responsible to expedite
all the permits for a development. He felt if the Board of_Adjustment did not exist the City -would
lose a very valuable resource because it is something that.is outside the system. He said the Board
members go out and look at the problem and form opinions and the Staff does an excellent job of
preparing the item for hearing. The hearing examiner concept.bothered him because the hearing
examiner would be paid and be a part of the system. He asked who would train the person and would
the person be a'"why" personality.or a "why not" personality.' He did`not think the appeal of a
Board of Adjustment item should.be.to the.Council, and'that bothered him the most.. Keith LaBelle, a
member of the Planning Commission, noted that the boards and commissions had not had an opportunity
to discuss this concept among themselves and he felt they should be given that opportunity. He said
he had heard from citizens and builders who had problems with permits but he felt that was administrative,
and in the proposed change administrative procedure was being confused with policy. He noted that
it probably would be costly to hire a trained hearing examiner and he wondered if the permits coordinator
would be somebody already on the Staff. He noted that currently some appeal processes can go only
•
to Superior Court and that should..be addressed. He hoped this whole concept would be given very
extensive consideration. Harold Hatzenbuhler, on the Board of Adjustment, said they also had not
had time to discuss this among themselves and he asked when the Council was considering adopting
this. Ann Derleth, on the Board of Adjustment, said she did not have as much of a problem as some
of the others regarding the hearing examiner concept. She felt a seven -person board was not always
consistent. But she cautioned�that.if.t'hat concept were adopted the guidelines tb'the hearing
examiner would have to be much more .specific than they now are. She said"one of the reasons they
have difficulties in how they rule is that the criteria are open to interpretation. She also noted
that currently very few Board of Adjustment decisions are appealed to Superior Court, but she felt
if the appeal were to the Council there would be many appeals. Councilman Herb responded that the
Council had received very few ADB appeals, so that might not be the case. Councilman Gould said he
was one who felt appeals should be to the Council, not the courts, and even if it meant a heavier
workload for the Council, he thought they should give the final judgment --not the courts. Councilman
Carns added that the citizens should not have to bear the costs involved in going to court for an
appeal. City Attorney Jim Murphy noted that, historically, the Board of Adjustment is quasi-judicial
because it decides people's problems, rather than to create :.laws, so the appeal.has gone to the
court rather than to the legislative body. It was noted that both the Board of Adjustment and the
Planning Commission follow the Staff recommendation very frequently. Felix Reisner interjected that
the volume of appeals has not been.a problem in other cities which use the hearing examiner system.
He said if the appeal is on the.record it would lower the workload. At this time Laura Hall asked
for Mr. Reisner's credits. As he -had appeared before the Council numerous times an introduction
this evening had been overlooked.. Mr. Reisner introduced himself and reviewed his background, much
of which had been in planning in Snohomish County and even in early Edmonds planning. He said he
identified with the planning process in .smaller communities. Bert Stole spoke again and said he
would still rather have seven divergent points of view than one,, and Mr. Reisner responded that
there had been some studies conducted of people who had to deal with both hearing examiners and with
boards, and the consensus had been that they had received better treatment from a hearing examiner
than a board. John McGibbon, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said this system promises efficiency
•
and streamlining, but it should not compromise either the City or the applicant. He noted that it
appeared to have been successful in other cities, but the important thing was to determine how it
works. Jack Byrd, on the Board of Adjustment, said he had a great deal of experience with the
federal. administrative law process.and.many of the comments he would have made to the Council were
made by other members. He felt one thing that was very important was whether an appeal would be on
the record or de novo. In his.federa.l.experience he found that.when the appeals were on the record
the numbers of appeals were cut considerably, but when they.were de novo everything was appealed.
He felt the hearing examiner process is very efficient and evenhanded but it tends to be more.
legalistic.in its approach. He said he tended to favor it because of its efficiency and evenhandedness.
Jim Mueller of 209 Caspers said he.was concerned that a quasi-judicial group would have appeals
going to the Council. He said the Council did not have the time to do the legislative job they felt
they should be doing and yet they were going to burden themselves with this. He said the hearing
examiner process may be very efficient but it was highly improbable that the hearing examiner would
be a local citizen and he may not.have.the.feel and pulse of this town. He said this town is a
little different, and he felt the community should be such that.others look to.this one to see what
is being done. He felt the local input of the people and various boards and commissions and their
hearings were important. Mr. Reisner agreed that Edmonds does have a very definite character, but
he felt the proposed changes would be.helpful rather than a hindrance. He said the way you preserve
the character is to develop comprehensive plans and guidelines, based on a long-range, intelligent,
deliberate process by such as the Planning Commission and advisory boards, and that becomes a blueprint
of the community.. He added that the City does not have a good set of.comprehensive planning guidelines
by which any group can be guided and those guidelines are needed if the character of the City is to
be preserved, and this concept was designed to do just that. Mr. Reisner said the examiner is not a
member of the Staff but is hired separately by the Mayor.with.the consent of the Council, or he may
be hired by the Council; and he can be dismissed at will: He has limited authority because•a.specific
format must be followed based on adopted.City policy; he does not have the kind of discretion which
the.Board of Adjustment has. Jack.Byrd noted that there are.two ways of getting good, equitable
citizen input, one being the way.it is.now done with boards.and commissions; but he said the hearing
examiner can get something very close to this by the witnesses that appear before him, and he can
call expert witnesses or members of the community. Councilman Carns said he thought it would be
•
important that any appeal be only on the record so the people would not bypass the hearing examiner.
390
June 11, 1979 - continued •
Councilman Herb said the fine points would not have to be worked out -immediately, but the
Council wanted the boards to be brought up-to-date on what they were considering and the fine
points would be worked out when it went -to the Planning Commission,.but he fel-t the main thrust
was whether they'should be shifting the -responsibilities -around.. Mr. LaTourelle said they were
ready to start making.drafts of implementing ordinances and at this.time they needed to know on
what system they were to be working. They needed to know whether.or not it was to be a hearing
examiner system as -that was fundamental -to -their making their drafts. Councilman Carns-felt
the hearing examiner system would free.the Planning Commission to do planning. Laura Hall was
MOTION: not willing to sacrifice their people input. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED,'SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
HERB, THAT THE COUNCIL ENDORSE -THE HEARING EXAMINER CONCEPT AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD
CONCEPT AS OUTLINED THIS*EVENING. MOTION CARRIED.
REVIEW OF ORDINANCE ON ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS.FOR BOARDS.AND COMMISSIONS
Community Development Director John LaTourelle had prepared a memorandum which discussed the
attendance problems. He supported the -ordinance as it is'and.he noted.that the question had
been raised as to whether attendance should:be excused. Although there may be good reasons for
a member to miss meetings, he felt the City needed members who were able to attend the meetings
in order to make the,City function properly, and he noted that the attendance requirements
applied only to regularly scheduled meetings and not special meetings. It was noted that since
the current ordinance.had been in force two members had failed to.meet the attendance'requirements
and -action was taken as dictated by the ordinance. Councilwoman Allen said she had brought
this up and she felt Mr.. LaTourelle's report should be accepted. -Councilman Gould stated he'
was in favor of maintaining the policy as it is. The general consensus was that there should
be no change.
There was no further business to come before.the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 11:55 •
p.m.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, C fty- Clerk HARVE Fr- HARR-ISON, Mayor
June 19, 1979
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City.Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds -Civic Center: All present joined in the flag
salute.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor :. Mike Herb Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Bill -Kasper - Ray -Gould Leif Larson, Public Works Director
Katherine Allen John LaTourelle, Community Devel. Dir.
John Nordquist Mary Lou Block, Asst. City Planner
Tom Carns Irene,Varney Moran, City Clerk
-Larry Naughten Art Housler, Finance Director
Jack Weinz, Acting Fire Chief •
Fred Herzberg, City Engineer
Doug Albright, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, -Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION: Councilman Naughten asked that Item.(D) be.removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST; TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED. The approved portion -of the Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) .Roll call.
.(B) Approval of Minutes of June 11, 1979.
(C) Approval of Street Use Permit.for placement of street trees and marquee
over sidewalk on 5th Ave. N.
(E) Approval of fireworks stands permits.
(F),.Setting date of June 26, 1979 for hearing of Revised Comprehensive 6-Year
Street Construction Program, 1980-1985.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE REZONING LOTS 6, 7, 8, AND 9 OF BLOCK 5, YOST'S FIRST ADDITION,
FROM RS-6 TO RS-12 Item D on Consent. Agenda
Councilman Naughten said that all persons who desired to give,testimony.on this rezone had not
been heard, in that he had been contacted by Raymond Duitsman who said he had not been given
that opportunity. Mr. Duitsman was invited to speak. He gave his address as 17800 36th W.,
Alderwood Manor, and said he owns one of the lots involved which could be subdivided into two •
lots Under the RS-6 zoning. He read a letter, copies of which had been furnished to the