Loading...
08/16/1994 City CouncilCOUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 V()V EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16 1994 Prior to the start of the regular City Council Meeting, the Council met in the small Plaza room for the purpose of interviewing a Fire Chief candidate. The City Council meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza. Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was preceded by a flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS Laura Hall, Mayor John Nordquist, Council President, ABSENT Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Michael Hall, Councilmember William J. Kasper, Council Pres. Pro-Tem Dave Earling, Councilmember Barbara Fahey, Councilmember Tom Petruzzi, Councilmember APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA STAFF Paul Mar, Community Services Director Tom Miller, Police Chief Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor Bob Alberts, City Engineer Mike Springer, Fire Chief Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Art Housler, Administrative Srv. Director Rhonda March, City Clerk Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator Done Fiene, Hydraulics Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Barb Mehlert, Recorder Mayor Hall requested time following Item 1 for the purpose of obtaining Council confirmation of a Fire Chief Candidate. Council President Pro-Tem Kasper removed item (F) from the Consent Agenda and placed it as Item 6A. CONFIRMATION OF FIRE CHIEF CANDIDATE. Mayor Hall introduced her recommendation to the City Council for Fire Chief for the City of l�^ Edmonds. Mayor Hall asked Acting Fire Chief Mike Springer to come to the podium. Mayor Hall e read a letter into the record in which she wrote to Acting Chief Springer earlier in this day. In part, G� the letter praised Acting Fire Chief Springer for his work, professionalism, and loyalty. Mayor Hall recommended Acting Fire Chief for the position of Fire Chief effective September 1, 1994. CITr COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 1 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 Chief Springer addressed the Mayor, Council, and citizens of Edmonds. Chief Springer thanked the Mayor and the Council and accepted the position. Chief Springer said he has lived in Edmonds for a very long time and takes great pride in the City. Chief Springer said he will serve the city with great honor. Chief Springer was given a standing ovation. Mayor Hall said the swearing in ceremony will be held later this month. CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM (B) AND (E) were removed from the Consent Agenda. (A) ROLL CALL (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #941907 THROUGH 944174FOR WEEKS OF 1t.160V"' �5 AUGUST i AND AUGUST 8, 1994 IN THE AMOUNT OF $673091.21 AND . 00*11 PAYROLL CLAIM WARRANTS# 943677 THROUGH 944035 IN THE AMOUNT OF W" $402,974.29 FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 16 THROUGH JULY 31, 1994 (D) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS FROM CONSULTANTS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE PERRINVILLE CREEK PROJECT e��� 5 (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE LIBRARY BRICK SEAL .rj c PROJECT �ikc e (H) APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR POSITION RECLASSIFICATIONS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT GpC-1w ORDINANCE #2991 AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 CODE SECTION 20.75.155 TO CONFORM CITY ORDINANCE TO GROWTH Y� MANAGEMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF SHORT PLATS. Discussion on removed Consent Agenda Items: (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 2 AND AUGUST 9, 1994. CO The August 9 minutes were approved as written. wy\ CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 2 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 A 21 "UMLA11UN I U FUR HAJE LAPTOP COMPUTER FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT Councilmember Fahey said the expenditure required is $3,382.82 while the amount budgeted is $4,000. Councilmember Fahey said the agenda memo states additional accessories will have to be Cji t`4 purchased, along with a printer and mounting brackets. Councilmember Fahey asked if these items will be purchased within the budgeted amount of $4,000. Tom Miller, Police Chief replied affirmatively and said the additional purchases will not exceed the $4,000 budgeted amount and everything needed is inclusive of the $4,000 budget. AUDIENCE Warren Murphy, spoke on behalf of Jerry Lovell who is recovering from heart failure, in which Edmonds medical personnel aided him and saved his life. He thanked Stevens Hospital personnel, as well as the city's Fire Chief, fire personnel, Police Chief and responding medical personnel. Josephine Fye, 520 Maple Street, gave her support to Item 4 on the agenda and asked that authorization be given for the Mayor to sign consultant contract for Phase lI of the Cultural Arts Plan Financing. Ms. Fye stressed the importance of art and culture in the City and said this plan will greatly move the city forward in this area. Jerry Ward, 1125 Vista, lended his support to Item 4 and urged the Council and Mayor to allow the City to move forward in the cultural and arts spectrum by co -funding Phase II of the Cultural Arts Plan. Bob Metzger, 7622 175th Street S.W., presented the Council with a board containing photographs C, 2,9-t`1 of 175th Street. Rhonda March, City Clerk, received the exhibit. Mr. Metzger said the street is in ���J Q terrible shape and is in great need of repair. Mr. Metzger said recently, the street was for some reason, removed from the City's list of streets to be repaired. Mr. Metzger requested the City correct the problem and appropriate approximately $14,000 which would be the approximate amount needed to fix the street. John Wilkens, Artistic Director for the Olympic Ballet, urged the Mayor and City Council to move forward with Phase II of the Cultural Arts Plan. Mr. Wilkens lended his strong support to Item 4 and praised Christine Sidwell, the City's Arts Coordinator for her work in this area as well as other individuals who have given their input into this. With no other member of the audience coming forward, Mayor Hall closed the audience portion of the hearing. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 3 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 DISCUSSION ON CULTURAL ARTS PLAN FINANCING AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR PHASE II (Continued Ck from July 26, 1994) 5 Christine Sidwell, Arts Coordinator for the City, presented the staff report. Ms. Sidwell said Phase I has been recently complet4 Phase II will create the Cultural Plan to be integrated into the City's Comprehensive Plan in' December. The Edmonds Arts Commission and the Edmonds Arts Festival Museum board feel that their private/public partnership has been successful and are currently working together to initiate and fund Phase 11. Ms. Sidwell said the Cultural Plan Steering Committee appeared before Council July 26 and recommended that the City continue working with their current Consultant, Patricia Steinhardt, for Phase H. The Edmonds Arts Festival Museum has committed up to $7,500 for Phase II, conditional on matching funds from the City! The Edmonds Arts Commission is requesting $7,500 from Council Under discussion, Councilmember Earling asked the balance of the Council Contingency Fund. Art Housler, Administrative Services Director, replied $92,000. Councilmember Earling said he would like to take the appropriation of 7,500 from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Earling said he appreciates the good work Phase I has brought the City. He said many people who have been involved in the arts community, including himself, over the past 15 - 30 years knows the City has put forward good products of the various art forms. Councilmember Earling said he believes the project at hand gives the City an opportunity to put focus on the future of the arts Councilmember Earling said with a well organized focused plan, it lays out a strategy for improving the arts, and raise the quality of performance of all the arts and at the same time raise the cultural enrichment of the citizens. Councilmember Fahey spoke in favor of the process and concurred with Councilmember Earling. Councilmember Fahey said, however, after speaking with Art and after she did some research, she believes the funding should come from Fund 123 which is money set aside for the arts commission. Councilmember Fahey said Fund 123 is projected to have an anticipated ending carry over cash balance of over $22,000. Coi cilmember Earling said he would accept this as a funding source. Councilmember Petruzzi said ,this plan will be excellent for the community and said he is extremely supportive of this type of activity and commended everyone involved. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 4 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 HEARING ON RECOMMENDATION OF HEARING EXAMINER ON AN APPEAL BY GERALD LOVELL OF CITY OF EDMONDS SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL'S ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION -MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE) ISSUED FOR THE PROPOSED 10- LOT PRELMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (File No P-94-55 submitted by Helleran Development for the Property located at 8511 188th Street Southwest) (Rescheduled from July 19, 1994) Councilmember Earling disclosed two members from the Helleran family contributed to his campaign. Councilmember Earling said even though the amount contributed does not meet the requirement for disclosure, he believed it to be in the best interest to disclose the fact. Mayor Hall asked for other disclosures. No other disclosures were brought forward. As this was a SEPA hearing, City Attorney Scott Snyder said it is a requirement that all individuals wishing to testify be sworn in. Several members of the audience arose and City Attorney Scott Snyder proceeded with the swearing in process. Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor, Responsible Official, provided his report. It was noted that as Jeff Wilson is the City's Responsible Official, it is required the City Council give substantial weight to his testimony. History And Summary Statement as provided by Mr. Wilson: The matter before the Council is an appeal of an environmental determination issued for the proposed 10-lot plat of "Helleren Lane". On May 3, 1994, the SEPA Responsible Official for the City of Edmonds issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for a proposed 10- lot Preliminary Plat application submitted by the appellant. The MDNS was issued for a 10-lot preliminary subdivision of approximately 3.25 acres in an RS- 12 zone, located at 8511 188th Street Southwest. The MDNS was issued to address potential adverse environmental impacts that could result from the applicants (appellants) proposal during site clearing and grading (see Exhibit 3). The MDNS included mitigation measures to (1) preserve native vegetation (i.e. trees) by limiting the amount of clearing and grading and, (2) to reduce the amount of dedicated right-of-way and street paving exceeding the minimum requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code (see Exhibit 2). As part of the environmental review process for this project, a draft copy of the proposed MDNS was provided to the appellant (applicant) prior to the issuance of the determination. This was done in hopes of addressing potential issues in advance of the issuance of the environmental determination. When an impasse was reached on the proposed mitigation measures, the MDNS was issued. On the date that the MDNS was issued by the City, the appellant submitted a letter appealing the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. On June 16, 1994, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the appeal of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued by the Responsible Official for a proposed 10-lot preliminary subdivision. During the hearing, testimony was provided by the staff, the appellant, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 5 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 and adjacent property owners. On June 30, 1994, the Hearing Examiner issued his recommendation to the Council on the appeal. Pursuant to ECDC Section 20.100.010.G, anyone who participated in the original hearing on the appeal may request the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his recommendation. On July 13, 1994, Victoria Rondel submitted a Request for Reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner. On July 14, 1994, an additional Request for Reconsideration was submitted by Richard and Dawn Norton Jacobs. On July 15th, the City's Planning Division also requested clarification of items contained in the Hearing Examiner's report . On July 19, 1994, the Hearing Examiner issued an "Order Amending Findings and Denying Motions for Reconsiderations". The Request for Reconsideration process in this matter raised several key policy issues. The following list of issues is provided so that the Council may address how these policies should be applied in future development situations. Statement of Policy Issue and Staff Analysis: In the Hearing Examiner's original recommendation and his denial of the requests for reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner applied a new standard for determining the required right-of-way width necessary with the development of a plat, or even short plat. The Standard created by the Hearing Examiner would base. the required right-of-way width on the total number of lots in a plat or short plat, not the number of lots served by the street. Using the standard created by the Hearing Examiner would result in a very dramatic shift in current City Policy. In general an applicant would be required to dedicate additional amounts of public right-of- way. This situation is best described by the following example: Under the Hearing Examiner's approach, a 10-lot plat which is served by two streets, one street serving 4-lots and the other street serving 6-lots would require that each access road be designed to the standards for a road serving 10 - 15 lots requiring dedication of 40 feet of right-of-way and 22 feet of paving. Current policy bases the right-of-way standards on the number of lots to be served by the street, thus resulting in the street serving 4 lots to only dedicate 20 feet with 16 feet of paving, and the street serving 6-lots to dedicate 30 feet with 20 feet of paving. The City's current adopted Comprehensive Plan provides two specific statements designed to minimize the dedication of right -of --way and its associated pavement width. 1) ECDC Section 15.25.000.C.1 (TRANSPORTATION - Streets and Highways) states: "Streets should be designed with the minimum pavement areas required in order to reduce impermeable surfaces. " 2) ECDC Section 15.25.000.D.4 (TRANSPORTATION - Streets and Highways) states: "Streets should not be designed to provide on -street parking as a primary function. " 2. In the Hearing Examiner's original recommendation and his denial of the requests for reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner adopted a standard for review of tree clearing plans that would remove them from consideration during the environmental review process, and relegate it to the plat review stage. It appears that the Hearing Examiner has adopted a CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 6 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 standard for reviewing tree removal plans which removes as a mitigation option. The emphasis would be on convenience during development rather than designing for tree preservation. This standard appears to be in conflict with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: 1) ECDC Section 15.15.000.C. La (ENVIRONMENT - Soils and Topography) states: "Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. " 2) ECDC Section 15.15.020.B.I (ENVIRONMENT - Vegetation and Wildlife) states: "The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should be designed so that existing trees are preserved. " 3) ECDC Section 15.15.020.13.3 (ENVIRONMENT - Vegetation and Wildlife) states: "Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside these areas should be preserved. " 4) ECDC Section 15.20.005.B.6 (LAND USE - Residential Development) states: "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation, and drainage. " Staff believes that the mitigation measures were "reasonable" and were based on information obtained during the environmental review and supported by adopted City policies Subsequent to the Hearing Examiner's "Order Amending Findings and Denying Motions for Reconsideration", parties to the requests for reconsideration have submitted letters addressing the Hearing Examiner's decision on their requests. Recommended Action: Review the environmental determination and Hearing Examiner recommendations and either uphold the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) or adopt the Hearing Examiner's recommendation Councilmember Dwyer asked for clarification from Mr. Wilson if the recommendation is his recommendation or that of staff. Councilmember Dwyer said he asks this because it is required the Council give substantial weight to his recommendation as the City's Responsible Official, and not the recommendation to the staff. Mr. Wilson said as the City's Responsible Official, he totally agrees with the recommendation listed under "Staff recommendation". During the course of the hearing, the following exhibits were entered into the record and distributed to the Mayor and City Council via the City Clerk: Exhibit # 15 State of Wildlife Letter to Steve Bullock regarding Proposed Subdivision and Pilieated Woodpecker conflict by Patricia A. Thompson, Wildlife Biologist (received August 2, 1994) CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 7 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 Exhibit # 16 Letter by Richard Jacobs of 8524 188th St. S.W. forwarding petition containing 18 signatures in support of Planning Department MDNS (received 8/4/94) Exhibit # 17 Summary and Chronology of Appeal by Attorney Peter Bennet of 400 Dayton Street on behalf of Gerald Lovell, appellant to MDNS (received at Council hearing on 8/16/94) It was noted Exhibits 1 through 14 were included in the Council packet of August 2 which was rescheduled and included in this evening's hearing. ( a copy listing Exhibits 1-14 are attached to these minutes) Testimony of the Appellant The appellants requested additional time be allotted to them for their testimony as they noted Mr. Wilson had a substantial amount of time to present his case. The Mayor and Council agreed to give 15 minutes to the appellant. Peter Bennett, 400 Dayton Street, representative for the appellant, spoke briefly to the issue. Mr. Bennett said the Scope is fairly limited to the following two issues: I . His client would like the street wider, not narrower, as the City is asking for, 2. His client does not want "phase cutting" of trees. Mr. Lovell would like to cut all of the trees at once for cost purposes among the reasons. Mr. Bennett said these two issues are the subject of the appeal. Mr. Bennett said as an advocate of land owners, he believes even though there are land use ordinances and zoning ordinance, you still have to pay attention to the fact that the land owner has rights. Mr. Bennett cited two cases in Washington that relate to the issue at hand. Councilmember Petruzzi questioned the City Attorney on the quoted "limited scope of the appeal". Mr. Snyder replied the environmental determination of the Responsible Official has finality. No appeal other than Mr. Lovell's, as the applicant has been filed and that appeal only addressed two issues. Mr. Snyder said normally in hearings before the Council, the ordinances are clear that the applicant always retains the burden of proof in the process and the Council has full scope to review issues. The one exception of the city's ordinances is SEPA determinations - the green book, the Washington Administrative Code Provision that controls SEPA appeals is clear that there can be only one appeal from an environmental official's determination. Mr. Snyder said this is why this comes to the Council on recommendation - this is not a second appeal. Mr. Snyder said the issues presented are limited to those issues raised in the appeal. The intent under both State law and the Washington Administrative Code provisions in the City's ordinances are to give a very narrow review process. Mr. Snyder said the Council will still hear the substantive issue of preliminary plat approval. Mr. Snyder said this appeal relates only to the environmental issues. Mr. Snyder said if the Council feels limited to the issues presented, he pointed out that substantively issues that may come before the Council tonight with reference to violation of code or comprehensive Plan provisions can still be considered when the plat comes forward. CITr COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 8 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTEs Approved August 23, 1994 Testimony of the appellant Jurgen Sauerland, representative for the appellant, summarized the request to the City Council on the appeal. The appellant requests the City Council uphold the granting of the appeal as recommended by the Hearing Examiner and remand the MDNS back to the Planning Department to modify conditions 1B, 1C, 1D, 2C, and 3D to allow for one phase tree clearing during the plat development and a standard plat road right of way and standard roadway improvements. Mr. Sauerland said the preliminary plat included a preliminary grading plan, preliminary tree retention plan, preliminary drainage plan showing how each individual lot and subdivision would be served by road drainage. On that plan, they also outlined the appropriate building setback lines in accordance with the subdivision code and ordinance. Mr. Sauerland said everything was done in accordance with the rules, regulations, and code of the City. Mr. Sauerland said the wider road is needed for the increased right of way for PUD, and other utilities. Mr. Sauerland said it is also needed so that sidewalks can be installed on either side of the road for the safety of children and other pedestrians, as well as to provide parking. Regarding the trees, Mr. Sauerland said there are 234 trees, in which 28% or 66 trees will be saved. Mr. Sauerland said the tree retention plan took into consideration reasonable grading on the lot. Mr. Sauerland said certainly other subdivisions in the city have not complied to this. Mr. Sauerland said it has not been standard practice of the City on any subdivision to grade out the roads and driveways and then come back as each building permit is issued and regrade the lots to make sure the utilities conform to the streets previously installed. Mr. Sauerland requested the City Council uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision. Public Testimony Ri Victoria Rondell, 8527 188th Street S.W., said the forest is very important and named off many wildlife that has been seen in the forest such as a Bald Eagle, Woodpeckers, and Snowy White Owls. Ms Rondell said she is not against the development but is against the removal of so many trees. Ms. Rondell noted she was not aware of the earlier hearings at the beginning of this issue because she was not included in the mailing list and was not aware of what was going on. Ms. Rondell said when she did find out, she has missed the appeal deadline. Edward Abrahamson, 8885 188th Street, agreed with Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson and his recommendation and asked Council to adopt his recommendation. Mr. Abrahamson said the wider street will entice people to use the street as a turn around. Alvin Zahnow, 923 Maple Street, agreed with the appellants and asked the Council to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision. Mr. Zahnow said he is a developer and has been for many years. He stated the trees should be allowed to come down at once rather than being phased. He stated it is very expensive to cut the trees in a phases and said it would also be very disruptive to the people who will reside in the homes. David Wygon, 8601 188th Street S.W., supports the recommendation of Jeff Wilson with the exception of the phased cutting. Mr. Wygon suggested the phased cutting could be negotiated. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 9 COUNCIL APPROM MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 Richard Jacobs, 8524 188th Street, said he does not oppose the project, however does not agree with the Hearing Examiner regarding the trees. Mr. Jacobs agrees with Staff and supports their recommendation. Mr. Jacobs referred to a petition in which his signature appears, and was distributed to the City Council. Jerry Arentzenn, 8500 187th S.W., expressed concern over trees abutting his property. Mr. Arentzen said the trees pose a threat to his home and property and feels they should be removed. Regarding lack of notice to a neighbor, Victoria Rondell, City Attorney Scott Snyder questioned Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson on the procedures of notification. Mr. Wilson said it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the list of names and addresses to the City. Mr. Wilson said in this case, a list was received from the applicant, however for some reason Ms. Rondell's name did not appear. Mr. Wilson said along with the mailing, notices were posted in the area 300' surrounding the subject property. With no other member of the audience coming forward, Mayor Hall closed the audience portion of the hearing. It was noted by Mr. Jurgen Sauerland that the list was obtained from the County Auditor's office and they relied on this list to be accurate. As there were additional questions Council had of individuals, Council proceeded to ask questions of staff. City Attorney Scott Snyder said Rhonda March, City Clerk had input into this subject. As Ms. March was not previously sworn in so she could provide testimony, Mr. Snyder proceeded to swear Ms. March in. Ms. March said a hearing notice was sent to Ms. Rondell's address, however, it listed a previous occupant. Mr. March said because of this, the notice was returned to the City. Apparently, the County Auditor still had the previous owner of the property in which Ms. Rondell currently occupies. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Council discussion and deliberation Councilmember Petruzzi said he believes the Hearing Examiner made a quantum leap in his decision. Councilmember Petruzzi said code section 18.80.010 states that it is a street versus lot issue. Clearly there are only eight lots served by the new street, and he doesn't believe this is debatable. Councilmember Petruzzi said if that is the case, he thinks on that issue, the staff is correct. Regarding the tree issue, Councilmember Petruzzi said he sees a number of conflicting statements. He believes part of the difficulty in coming to a conclusion on the tree issue is one side said it will take nine individual trips into the area to clear up trees. Councilmember Petruzzi said if it does take nine trips, the trees are still going to go down and it is going to be extremely costly to CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 10 COUNCIL APPROVED PQPUTES Approved August 23, 1994 the developer. He read somewhere in the document that it could possibly be done in two trips. Councilmember Petruzzi said perhaps there could be some negotiated lesser amount of time for tree removal. Councilmember Petruzzi said he is open minded on the tree issue. Councilmember Hall said his overall impression on the whole issue is it is being micromanaged by the City Council. Councilmember Hall said these type of developments do not come before the City Council very often because there just isn't that much more developable sites in Edmonds, therefore, he believes the Council micromanages them when they do come before the Council. Councilmember Hall said in reality, the GMA is telling the City the City is going to have to something with all the folks in this area, and the City has to put them somewhere, and when we try to do that, he believes in some regards, there is over -regulation. Councilmember Hall said there is no question this is a good development, and as far as details are between the two issues, his views are as follows: Retaining of the trees: Councilmember Hall said he has a real problem with the Council at one point telling a land owner they have to retain a certain amount of trees. Councilmember Hall said he can see a day when there might be some liability on behalf of a tryer of fact who says "you have to retain a certain amount of standing trees alone there" Councilmember Hall said one day they could fall on a house, and somebody is going to say "wait a minute, they told me I had to keep this tree up", but in reality it was -not ecologically sound to do so. Councilmember Hall said his feeling is if they are willing to keep some trees for the aesthetic value and basically follow the arborist's recommendation on which trees to keep, it is their land. Regarding the wider street opposed to the narrower street: Councilmember Hall said usually, we are always saying that we want wider streets and sidewalks on both sides. Councilmember Hall said he doesn't believe we should be telling these people to narrow the street, when they are trying to provide us with good access and nice streets. Councilmember Hall said he believes we should take a "hands of' approach whenever possible because in reality, we have some very small pieces of developable land left in Edmonds, and believes they should be able to be developed in the best possible way without stepping on their toes all the time. Councilmember Kasper agreed with Councilmember Hall. Councilmember Kasper said lots have gotten so expensive, you have to build a large house on them. Councilmember Kasper said on a 35' street, if one car parks, everything has to go around it and no other car can get through. Councilmember Kasper said one of the sidewalks has to be on an easement, it can't even get into the street. Councilmember Kasper said he has left large trees on lots over the years, and every one of those trees are dying at the top. Councilmember Kasper this is a situation that is developing in the urban area. Councilmember Kasper said he has cases where he has financed subdivisions where the people who bought the houses before they were built and selected what trees were left, collectively sued the builder for all the trees that fell down. Councilmember Kasper said their experience over the years has been that they go by the land developing people who are doing the grading to try not to hit the trees, but it is almost impossible not to disturb the root systems. Councilmember Kasper said unless you have perimeter trees, it is very difficult to operate in an internal piece like this without causing much damage to the trees. Councilmember Earling said he used to live in this neighborhood when the Thanksgiving storm hit there several years ago. Councilmember Earling said during that storm, several trees went down. In regards to the tree issue, Councilmember Earling said if the trees were to be taken down in phases, he believes it will have an impact on the quality of the neighborhood as they would have to go through the redevelopment each time a builder is preparing to site his house. Councilmember Earling said there is a perception that all of these costs will be given to the developer, where in reality, the costs will be passed on to the homeowner. Councilmember Earling said in his industry, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MUMUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 11 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 he continues to see the escalation of prices and he knows that if the phasing of the trees were allowed, the collective cost would be an additional $30,000 out of somebody's pocket. Councilmember Earling said the ongoing spiraling cost of land in our community is overwhelming and said we have to acknowledge sometimes that with the good intentions of SEPA process, we have to get back to some point of reality and as he views this, it looks to him there has been a good faith effort to protect the good trees. Councilmember Earling said in regards to the street issue, he agrees with the Hearing Examiner and believes the wider street will allow for better safety and better parking. Councilmember Earling said he supports the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. Councilmember Fahey said she agrees with the previous Councilmembers who have spoken. Councilmember Fahey said she does have empathy with what the neighbors in the area are going through in seeing the last remainder of forest being affected and understands the heartfelt concerns for the wildlife. Councilmember Fahey said unfortunately when a development goes in, sooner or later wildlife is going to be impacted and whether the trees come down immediately or a little bit later in the process is not going to determine whether the wildlife stays in that area or not. Councilmember Fahey said in this respect, a prolonged removal of trees doesn't seem a fair argument. Councilmember Fahey said she is very conscious of the cost of development as is the rest of the Council and believes the developer should be able to do a development in the most cost effective way. Councilmember Fahey said her biggest concerns regarding the width of street isn't whether those streets should be wider, however the code states minimum widths for a street and if you want to exceed the minimum, you should have that right on your own private property. Councilmember Fahey said the code simply sets a minimum width in this regard, not a maximum. Councilmember Fahey said she is concerned along with Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson that in interpreting it the way the Hearing Examiner currently interpreted it, the City may be setting up a new problem whereby every development that have ten houses in it would have to have a wider road even though it might be accessed by two streets. Councilmember Fahey said in making the decision the Council is going to make, she would hope that there would be a way to go on record that we are simply supporting the idea that a developer can do something beyond the minimum without it impacting or creating a need for the Code to be interpreted in that manner in the future when in fact, it may be a totally different situation. Councilmember Dwyer said as is sometimes the case, after listing to his colleagues, he does not exactly agree with anyone. With regards to the issue of street width, he generally agrees with Councilmember Fahey that the minimum standards are minimum standards. Councilmember Dwyer said he agrees with Councilmember Hall that usually when these come forward, usually what we are trying is to extort wider roads rather than preclude wider roads. Councilmember Dwyer said he can intellectually resolve that with the code provisions by viewing the term "necessary" as used in the code provisions. He said when it talks about not having more pavement widths than is necessary, he doesn't believe that "necessary" has to apply only to minimum standards. Councilmember Dwyer said he believes it can be reasonably interpreted to be "necessary to accomplish the reasonable and otherwise lawful purpose" that a development is taking. Councilmember Dwyer said in this respect, he does not agree with the approach the Hearing Examiner took but he does think we can view the idea of the minimum standards as minimum as being consistent with the notion of these other code provisions as setting forth desires we have for developments. Councilmember Dwyer said with regards to tree cutting, his problem comes with the area of reevaluation. Councilmember Dwyer said he believes that the City as a regulator needs to be able to do at the time the regulation is imposed, set forth what it is we are seeking to regulate, and in this case it is the trees and trees are categorized. Councilmember Dwyer said he has no problem with 1 B which is the provision that requires Grade 1 trees to remain, as he CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTB3 AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 12 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 believes this is entirely consistent with what we have tried to do in environmental ordinances. Councilmember Dwyer said he has problems with "1C" and "1D, sub l" which involves re- evaluations which puts forth phased cutting over time. Councilmember Dwyer said he doesn't have problem with "1D, sub2" because that in essence, allows the developer to extricate itself from any impracticalities that we have from saving the Grade 1 trees. Councilmember Dwyer said "1D sub 2" is the provision that allows, at the time the building permit is applied for or issued, for some of the trees referenced up above in the prior provisions, for some of those trees to be cut regardless of the category of tree they were found to be, if they are in a building footprint or if they are in the driveway. Councilmember Dwyer said on the street width, he agrees with the conclusion of the Hearing Examiner, but not for the reasons he set forth. Regarding the trees, he disagrees with the applicants with regards to 1D, and 1D2, but agrees with the applicant on the other tree cutting issues. Councilmember Petruzzi said if we agree with the hearing examiner in the issue of 2C, we are taking a quantum leap and are going against what the Planning Department has been working on for a number of years (street width). Councilmember Petruzzi said if we rule that the Hearing Examiner was correct, he believes the City will be opening up a "Pandora's box" that we may not be able to close. Councilmember Petruzzi said any motion that includes agreeing with the Hearing Examiner on 2C, he will vote against this. Under discussion, Councilmember Petruzzi said he will vote no for reasons he stated above. City Attorney Scott Snyder said the Council may wish considering the two issues raised to the Planning Board as it considers the zoning code. Council concurred. At 9:59 p.m., the Council recessed for four minutes and reconvened at 10:03 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL (FILE NO. AP-94-89) OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY A PERMIT REVIEW (FILE NO. PR-93-219) OF AN APPROVED AND BUILT PROJECT UNDER FILE NO. ADB-15-85 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8130 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST (APPELLANT: JENNIFER MARKESTAD/file no. AP-94-120, APPLICANT, ROBERT KLEPINGER/FILE NO. ADB-15- 85)(CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 2, 1994) Rhonda March, City Clerk, distributed an exhibit list to the City Council which was just handed to her by the appellant, Ms. Markestad. The exhibit list was approximately 150 pages. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 13 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 It was noted by the City Attorney and the City Clerk, that the appellant was to have the information to the City Clerk's Office no later than August loth so the Council could have time to review it, and more importantly, the applicant had time to review it. Don Fiene, Hydraulics Engineer for the City, distributed a memorandum to the City Council regarding this issue. Jeff Wilson, Planing Manager; reviewed the issues with the Mayor and City Council. Don Fiene, Hydraulics Engineer for the City addressed this issue. Mr. Fiene referred to a memorandum dated February, 7 in which Ms. Markestad is also referring to. Mr. Fiene said there was a subsequent memorandum which included clarification of the February 7 memo. Mr. Fiene said after he wrote that memo of February 7, he received additional information which basically voided this memorandum. The drainage issues he had raised concern with in the February 7 memo turned out not be concerns as stated in the aFebruary 7 memo - he did not have all of the information he needed. Mr. Fiene stated he does not believe there is a problem with the drainage and he also believes there has been no damage to the property. PUBLIC HEARING Jennifer Markestad, appellant,1 addressed the following concerns to the Council: 1. The northern parking lot is allegedly not connected to the on -site storm water detention system; 2. A fence required by the ADB was never constructed; 3. An elevated walkway separating pedestrians from automobiles along the side of the duplex is blocked by a stairway; 4. The embankment along the west property line is unstable, and according to the appellant, a rockery was submitted as an element of the approved engineering and ADB approval. Deloris Hoffman, 21223 82nd Pl. W, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Markestad and said she had a good faith agreement with Mrf Klepinger which he has not kept. Carolyn Sue, 21215 82nd Place W, Edmonds, agreed with the two previous speakers and asked the Council to require Mr. Klepinger to provide for the items listed one through four as they are listed under Ms. Markestad's statement. Bob Klepinger, 2114 80th Ave. West, said he does not see why this has caused so much concern. Mr. Klepinger addressed the four issues put forth by Ms. Markestad and said he can't understand why this has only recently become an issue. City Attorney Scott Snyder asked Ms. Markestad if any injuries have occurred because there is no fence. Ms. Markestad said there was an injury accident several years ago, where an individual CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 14 1, COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 crashed in his automobile and whereby a fence could have prevented this accident. Ms. Markestad said this is a public safety issue. As no other member of the audience came forward on this issue, Mayor Hall closed the audience portion of the meeting. Councilmember Petruzzi said Mr. Fiene this evening has very clearly stated that he does not feel there is a problem with the drainage and he does not feel there has been any damage to the property. Councilmember Petruzzi said that having been the only issue he had, he is prepared to uphold the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Under discussion, Councilmember Dwyer said he would vote in favor of the motion based on the testimony and evidence before the City Council. Councilmember Dwyer said he is of the belief that a fence was required and the folks who were in charge of making sure there was compliance back when this came through, which are not the same people who are employed by the City now, dropped the ball. Councilmember Dwyer said from his review, he doesn't believe the talk was idle conversation at the ADB level, he believes it clearly was a condition and he believes the City made a mistake when it signed off. Councilmember Dwyer said the law doesn't allow the City to go back and undo that mistake and said the City does owe these neighbors an apology for that mistake and maybe even owe them a fence for that mistake. Councilmember Dwyer said, however, we don't have the ability to make Mr. Klepinger put in the fence. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON JULY 5, 1994, AND CONTINUED ON JULY 19, 1994 ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO OVERTURN A STAFF INTEPRETATION REGARDING COMBINATION OF "NONCONFORMING LOTS" AT 20710 82ND AVENUE WEST ON AN APPEAL FILED BY GARY ALSTON AND LARRY WAX UNDER FILE NO. AP-94-56 (APPELLANTS: DAN AND JANIS MCLAIN/FILE NO. AP-94-106 (CONTINUED FROM JULY 26, 1994). This item was listed (F) on the Consent Agenda as was moved to the regular agenda so City Attorney Scott Snyder could address it. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 15 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 Mr. Snyder referred to a revised page two which was faxed to the Mayor and Council . Mr. Snyder addressed changes to the Findings which was included on the revised Page two. Mr. Snyder discussed the changes with the Mayor and City Council. Under a separate topic, Councilmember Kasper said we are going to have to look at the City's Code with regards to property rights. Councilmember Kasper believes the Code is not adequate the way it stands. Councilmember Fahey agreed with Councilmember Kasper. Mayor Hall asked Council President Pro Tern Kasper to amend the remaining agenda items due to the late hour. He suggested items 9 - 14 be removed and rescheduled. UPDATE BY COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR PAUL MAR REGARDING \TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND FUNDING FOR THE MULTIMODAL PROJECT Paul Mar, Community Services Director, said the OversightCommittee meeting held this morning went very well. Mr. Mar reviewed the materials presented at the Oversight Meeting for the benefit of the Council and audience members. It was noted that a full presentation will be made to the City Council on September 6. This will include a presentation by the Consultants. Mr. Mar said the Oversight Committee did complete all of their tasks at this morning's meeting. Mr. Mar said the Consultant studied all of the access potentials at all three sites (Main Street, Mid - Waterfront, and Point Edwards). With regards to all three sites, the consultants agreed the appropriate access would be an overpass at Pt. Edwards at the foot of Pine Street. In conclusion from the access potential that whether the ferry terminal and the multi -modal terminal is located at any of the three sites, consultants deemed the best access would be at Pt. Edwards for grade separation purposes. Mr. Mar said the Consultants have done a very rough cost estimate of the three alternatives as configured in a range from $85 million to $100 million for the Multi -Modal project components. Mr. Mar said there is very little differential at this point between the costs at the three sites. Mr. Mar reviewed view foils with the City Council depicting various information. One overhead illustrated a "ranking of the three alternatives". It was noted the Pt. Edwards site was the most favorable in all areas. Mr. Mar said as a result of a recommendation of the Consultants, the following policy direction was adopted by the Oversight Committee: "Focus Phase H on Pt. Edwards with mid -waterfront site as backup." It was noted that State Senator Gary Nelson voted no on this, and Councilmember Earlmg and Kasper abstained from voting. It was also a policy direction to implement near term improvements at the current site which include overhead loading. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MIPUTE8 AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 16 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1994 Phase 2 Scope of Work will include an implementation plan with a timetable, details on access, route design and costs. State Senator Gary Nelson, 9710 Wharf Street, said he was a participant at this meeting on the Oversight Committee policy direction. Senator Nelson said he was the one dissenting vote this morning as he opposes adding the mid -waterfront site as an alternative. Senator Nelson referenced the "4 No's" the City previously adopted and said by adding the mid -waterfront site as a "backup", it clearly goes against the "4 no's" and the direction the Council has set. Senator Nelson said he believes by having the consulting engineer proceed with a backup at Dayton Street does not meet the City's criteria at all. Senator Nelson said he believes it will become an excuse for deviating from where he believes this Council set a very clear direction. Senator Nelson said he doesn't believe we need to have the consultant proceed with the Dayton Street mid -waterfront access at all. Senator Nelson said it is his hope the Oversight Committee could brief the City Council thoroughly on what the consultants recommendations are going to be prior to the Oversight committee meetings. Senator Nelson said this will alleviate the problem where members are put into a position of having to abstain. Mayor Hall agreed with Senator Nelson and believes the money could better be focused on the multi -modal site. Councilmember Kasper said the "4 No's" still stand and Union Oil is still on record as being the City's chosen site. Councilmember Kasper said he and Councilmember Earling had no choice but to abstain on the policy direction. Councilmember Dwyer agreed with Senator Nelson's statements. Councilmember Earling said the reason he abstained today is the potential that he would have to step down from the Council discussion on this issue in subsequent hearings. Before the next item began, Mayor Hall asked if there were any objections to a liquor license being issued to the Vanilla Express Grocery on Highway 99. No objections were noted by Councilmembers. RECONSIDERATION OF 1994 STREET OVERLAY CONTRACT STREETS Councilmember Petruzzi introduced the subject. Councilmember Petruzzi said on June 21, there _ A was a Consent Agenda item which was an authorization to call for bids for the 1994 street overlay which included approximately 10 sections of streets, three of those sections being on 9th and Q � 100th. Councilmember Petruzzi said on July 26th, when it came back on the Consent Agenda, all were approved with the exception of two streets, one of which is 175th Street S.W. Councilmember Petruzzi said this is the street that was discussed during the audience portion as well as the street he lives on. Councilmember Petruzzi said the residents of this street have been waiting for years to have the street repaired, and when it finally made the list, it was deleted thereafter from the list. Councilmember Petruzzi said the utility came by and dug up the street in anticipation that there was going to be an overlay, which has left the street in terrible condition. Councihnember Petruzzi said there are nine new homes in this area which have a combined value over $3 million which will CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 17 COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Approved August 23, 1996 generate quite a bit of tax for the City. Councilmember Petruzzi said he is not asking for special consideration, however, would `like it added back to the list. Bob Alberts, City Engineer, addressed the subject. Mr. Alberts said the street was dropped from the list due -to budgetary concems. Mr. Alberts said there is not enough money to fix all of the streets that need fixing. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the street is not repaired this year, will it be added back to the list next year. Mr. Alberts said yes. Councilmember Petruzzi said if it is going to be on the overlay list next year anyway and if it is going to be done, why not do it this year. Mr. Alberts said if it is to be done, it,would be better to do it this year. Q: R ONDA J. MARC CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 16, 1994 PAGE 1s 4 COUNCIL EXHIBITS LIST FILL NO. AP-94-96 (Submitted as of July 28, 1994) 1. Letter of appeal of Environmental Determination (received 5/3/94) 2. Environmental Determination - (MDNS) Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (issued 5/3/94) 3. Staff Review and Analysis Memorandum ofEnvironmental Checklist -(prepared 5/3/94) 4. Environmental Checklist (Received 5/25/94) 5. Vicinity Map 6. Staff Advisory Report to Hearing Examiner on File No. AP-94-96 (prepared 6/10/94) 7. Exhibits List and Exhibits to Hearing Examiner for File No. AP-94-96 (as of 6/16/94) 8. Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for File No. AP-94-96 (received 7/5/94) 9. Request for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation submitted by Victoria L. Rondel (submitted 7/13/94) 10.. Request for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation submitted by Richard and Dawn Norton Jacobs (submitted 7/14/94) 11. Planning Division Request for Clarification of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendations (prepared 7/15/94) 12. Hearing Examiner's Order Amending Findings and Denying Motions for Reconsideration (received 7/21/94) 13. Letter from Richard and Dawn Norton Jacobs (received 7/27/94) 14. Letter from Victoria L. Rondel (received 7/28/94) t- 4 94-96CXn-27-94.RFP0RTSAC0UNCIL AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 7:15 - 10:00 p.m. AUGUST 16, 1994 SPECIAL MEETING 6:30 P.M. - INTERVIEW OF FIRE CHIEF CANDIDATE (45 Min.) CALL TO ORDER - 7:15 P.M. FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (8) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 2 AND AUGUST 9, 1994 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS FOR WEEKS OF AUGUST 1 AND AUGUST 8, 1994, AND PAYROLL CLAIM WARRANTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 16 THROUGH JULY 31, 1994 (D) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS FROM CONSULTANTS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE PERRINVILLE CREEK PROJECT (E) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE LAP TOP COMPUTER FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT (F) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON JULY 5, 1994, AND CONTINUED ON JULY 19, 1994 ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO OVERTURN A STAFF INTERPRETATION REGARDING COMBINATION OF "NONCONFORMING LOTS" AT 20710 82ND AVENUE WEST ON AN APPEAL FILED BY GARY ALSTON AND LARRY WAX UNDER FILE NO. AP-94-56 (Appellants: Dan and Janis McLain / File No. AP-94-106) (Continued from August 2, 1994] (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE LIBRARY BRICK SEAL PROJECT (H) APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR POSITION RECLASSIFICATIONS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT (1) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.75.155 TO CONFORM CITY ORDINANCE TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF SHORT PLATS 3. AUDIENCE 4. (10 Min.) DISCUSSION ON CULTURAL ARTS PLAN FINANCING AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR PHASE II (Continued from July 26, 1994) 5. (45 Min.) HEARING ON RECOMMENDATION OF HEARING EXAMINER ON AN APPEAL BY GERALD LOVELL OF CITY OF EDMONDS SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL'S ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (MDNS - MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE) ISSUED FOR THE PROPOSED 10-LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (File No. P-94-55 submitted by Helleran Development for the property located at 8511 188th Street Southwest) [Rescheduled from July 19, 1994] 6. (30 Min.) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL (FILE NO. AP-94-89) OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY A PERMIT REVIEW (FILE NO. PR-93-219) OF AN APPROVED AND BUILT PROJECT UNDER FILE NO. ADB-15-85 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8130 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST (Appellant: Jennifer Markestad / File No. AP-94-120; Applicant: Robert Klepinger / File No. ADB-15-85) [Continued from August 2, 1994] -CONTINUED- a 1 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 AUGUST 16, 1994 7. , (15 Min.) UPDATE BY COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR PAUL MAR REGARDING TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND FUNDING FOR THE MULTIMODAL PROJECT 8. (10 Min.) RECONSIDERATION OF 1994 STREET OVERLAY CONTRACT STREETS 9. (5 Min.) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING 1994 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS 10. (10 Min.) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 1994 11. (10 Min.) FURTHER DISCUSSION ON OPTIONAL GAS TAX 12. (5 Min.) MAYOR 13. (15 Min.) COUNCIL 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON A REAL ESTATE MATTER The public Is Inv►ted to attend. Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda and delayed telecast of this Meeting appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32.