Loading...
07/19/2005 City CouncilJuly 19, 2005 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Richard Marin, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Jeff Wilson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Thomas Tomberg, Fire Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir. Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Megan Cruz, Video Recorder Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Marin requested Item G be removed from the Consent Agenda so that he could abstain from the vote. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: I (A) ROLL CALL Approve 7/5/05 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 5, 2005 Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #80783 THROUGH #80932 FOR THE WEEK OF Checks JULY 4, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $167,706.35. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #80933 THROUGH #81079 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 11, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $285,915.86. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #41.040 THROUGH #41174 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 16 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $869,736.47. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #41175 THROUGH #41207 FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 6, 2005 THROUGH JULY 6, 2005 IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,455.91 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 1 Claim for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MARK AND DAWN Damages BURGESS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). Pine Street Park (E) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL NEW PLAY STRUCTURE AT PINE Play Structure I STREET PARK. Surplus City (F) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO Vehicle I SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLE. Resrl 1101 Chinook (H) RESOLUTION NO. 1101 RATIFYING THE WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA Salmon (WRIA) 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN. Conservation Plan ITEM (G): APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF Liquor Control THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL Board BOARD. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM G. MOTION CARRIED (5 -0 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN ABSTAINED. Citizens Advisory 3. INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS OF THE NEWLY FORMED CITIZENS ADVISORY Transportation TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. Committee City Engineer Dave Gebert explained the City was facing significant challenges in its transportation program as a result of the passage of I -776 in November 2002 which resulted in a loss to the City of approximately $350,000 or 46% of recurring annual funds for the transportation program. As a result, the City was unable to accomplish many projects and the overlay cycle was approaching 60 years although the industry recommended standard was 20 -30 years. The City was also unable to accomplish many sidewalk, walkway, bikeway, signal, and traffic calming projects. In the City's continuing effort to address these challenges and provide citizen input, a new Citizens Advisory Transportation Committee (CATC) was formed. The primary purpose /goal of the committee is to monitor and make recommendations with regard to the City's transportation program, provide input and monitor accomplishment of the objectives of the Transportation Comprehensive Plan and enhance communication with the public on transportation issues. The committee meets on the third Thursday of each month and has held three meetings to date. Members must be residents of Edmonds; the members selected are a broad geographic representation of the City and bring an impressive range of expertise and experience to the committee. Mr. Gebert introduced the following committee members, described their backgrounds and experience and expressed the City's appreciation for their willingness to serve on the committee: William Angle, Stephen Bernheim, Stacy Gardea, Kristiana Johnson, Don Kreiman, Sharon Minton, Henry Moravec and D.J. Wilson. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Gebert explained the committee was in the process of formulating how they would operate, select a chair and make decisions. The first three meetings were primarily staff providing background regarding the Transportation Comprehensive Plan and funding options that were previously presented to the Council. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the committee's objectives. Mr. Gebert stated staff has asked the committee to consider and provide input regarding funding options to assist staff in making a recommendation to the Council during the 2006 budget cycle. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 2 Councilmember Moore inquired about the committee's reporting schedule to staff and to the Council. Mr. Gebert advised specific rules /procedures had not yet been established. Councilmember Moore commented this was a great committee and she commended staff and the Mayor for organizing it.. Crosswalk 4. AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT FOR BIDS FOR THE CROSSWALK PAVER RENOVATION Paver PROJECT AT THE 5TH AVENUE SOUTH / MAIN STREET AND 5TH AVENUE SOUTH / Renovation DAYTON STREET INTERSECTIONS. Public Works Director Noel Miller reported the replacement of the deteriorating concrete paver crosswalks at the 5th Avenue South & Main Street and 5th Avenue South & Dayton Street intersections was reviewed at the April 12 Finance Committee meeting. Since that time staff has reviewed three crosswalk replacement treatment options with the Downtown Merchants Association and Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin and the project has been designed and is ready to be advertised. As the project currently exists, additional funding is required to proceed to secure bids. Mr. Miller displayed photographs of the existing conditions, explaining a number of areas within the existing crosswalks have settled and are uneven. Settling was caused primarily by the sand bed beneath the pavers migrating out during rainy conditions as well as heavy bus and truck traffic in the area. The settling has created an uneven walking surface for pedestrians. He described the three options staff considered for replacement, 1) replace in -kind with the existing concrete pavers, 2) use cast -in -place concrete and stamping the wet concrete with a brick pattern, and 3) use asphalt and stamp with a brick pattern (not recommended as the asphalt color wears quickly). Mr. Miller explained the project goal was to restore the intersections to their original appearance when constructed in 1991. He displayed a photograph of the red brick pattern with a white border identifying the edge of the crosswalk. He compared the concrete pavers and stamped concrete: Options Cost Life Expectancy Time to Construct Stamped Concrete $100,000 50 years 4 weeks Pavers $ 84,300 12 -15 years 3 weeks Mr. Miller advised $25,000 was currently budgeted for this project in the 112 Fund. He explained via this project, the broken concrete curbs would be replaced, the entire intersection at 5th Avenue South & Dayton would be repaved, care would be taken at the 5th Avenue South & Main intersection not to disturb the concrete artwork, and pedestrian routes would be kept open during construction. Mr. Miller reviewed the project schedule that included advertising the project via the Small Works Roster and receiving bids in early August, awarding the contract and constructing the project in mid to late September. Staff recommends the stamped concrete option due to the life expectancy. An additional $75,000 must be appropriated for the project; staff proposes using $42,000 in additional fuel taxes with the remainder from Fund 111. Councilmember Moore inquired whether Community Transit had been notified that a route change would be necessary when the road was closed to traffic. Mr. Miller assured they would be. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN CROSSWALK PAVER RENOVATION PROJECT AT THE 5TH AVENUE SOUTH /MAIN STREET AND 5TH AVENUE SOUTH/DAYTON STREET INTERSECTIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 3 JEsperance 15. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ESPERANCE ISLAND ANNEXATION. THE CITY COUNCIL Island WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO THE POSSIBLE Annexation I_11►1►1D►INI[171`[17 a 1: 1 a N910 1/1 10 1Y211 61 1 1 01 001 N01tXVY9117 _\.791_IIT0Oki99171014 Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled on June 21, the Council voted to proceed with annexation of the Esperance Island via the election method. Before proceeding with that action, the Council requested a public hearing be scheduled. Mr. Bowman explained the annexation via an election method required only a majority vote. If a ballot issue was also included regarding the annexed area assuming the City's bonded indebtedness, a 60% majority would be required. If after considering public testimony the Council chooses to proceed with the election method annexation, the City Attorney should be directed to prepare the resolution to initiate the election. If the Council chooses to include assumption of the City's bonded indebtedness on the ballot, that should be incorporated into the resolution. Once the resolution was approved, it would be forwarded to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board and following a 45 -day review period by the Boundary Review Board, Snohomish County would establish when the election would occur. He noted it would be tight to make the November election. Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained all the pro formas to date have included residents assuming the City's bonded indebtedness. He estimated the cost to a property valued at $300,000 was $52 per year. Mayor Haakenson clarified the annexation calculator on the website included the assumption of bonded indebtedness. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Clements advised the bonded indebtedness was for the Public Safety bonds. Councilmember Moore asked the cost of a special election if the ballot measure did not meet the deadline for the November election. Mr. Clements answered the previous figure he provided of $60,000 was for a citywide election. The auditor's office has estimated the cost of a special election at $3 - $11 per vote depending on the election. He was confident the cost of a special election would be less than $10,000. If combined with a November election, the cost would range from $5,000 - $6,000. He advised he was told that a mail -in vote would be more expensive and Snohomish County would prefer it be conducted at the polls rather than a mail -in ballot for one issue. Councilmember Dawson referred to Councilmember Orvis' suggestion for an election regarding building heights, asking whether a citywide election would lower the cost. Mr. Clements answered it would depend on when it was held, whether it was at the general election in November or a special election with another issue. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council received two correspondences, one from Gordon and Joanne Boyles who indicated they were in favor of annexation, and another from J. H. Brown who indicated he was opposed to annexation. Mayor Haakenson suggested speakers provide the reasons they were in favor of or opposed to annexation. Steve Koho, 8422 221s' Place SW, Edmonds, commented the Growth Management Act (GMA) was having exactly the intended result— an isolated pocket of Snohomish County had been abandoned by the county in hopes the local city would provide the services citizens require. He requested the Council pursue annexation as it was the only way Esperance residents would receive basic services. To the Esperance residents opposed to annexation, he suggested the existing situation could only get worse, and in light of their budget deficit, Snohomish County had the motivation to provide fewer services to continue sending resources to areas of the county with growing populations. The result would be citizens Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 4 would eventually vote to annex to a neighboring city if the situation in Esperance got bad enough. During this time, the County would continue to collect tax revenue for services it did not provide. He expressed frustration with the existing situation including a large puddle that formed at the end of his street during rains that blocked access and weeds growing through the asphalt in front his home. He recalled at a recent open house in Esperance, the only response Esperance residents gave for not wanting to annex to Edmonds was that Edmonds would not let their chickens run free. He urged the Council to proceed with annexation to fulfill the intent of GMA. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council also received an email from Carol Riddell who was in favor of annexation. Amy Williams, 22722 88th Avenue W, Edmonds, who resides on property that has been in her family for 65 years, expressed opposition to annexation. She explained the house she previously lived in that is in Edmonds was now an apartment building. She referred to the large lots in Esperance, and expressed concern that her land and /or land around her house would be developed into condominium or multi -unit housing. She was satisfied with services received from Snohomish County and was opposed to annexation. Terry Trout, 221.09 86th Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to the estimated $150,000- $155,000 per mile cost to repair six miles of roads in Esperance for a total of $930,000. Assuming the annexation generated an operating surplus of $600,000, he questioned the source of the $330,000 shortfall. He questioned the rationale for the 6% increase or $460,000 the Police Department indicated they would require to police the Esperance area. He concluded Edmonds needed to retain the taxes the City collected as there were numerous existing projects that needed funding. If the City annexed the Esperance area, the Council would need to provide funding for projects in that area. He was opposed to annexation and in favor of existing Edmonds residents. Larry Wilson, 8707 228th Street SW, Edmonds, spoke in favor of annexation to provide Esperance improved police protection. He noted there were 1 to 2 Sheriff's officers covering the southeastern . unincorporated areas of Snohomish County. He recalled when a neighbor was involved in an accident a few years ago, an officer did not interview them until three days later. Leonard Banks, 8633 Maple Lane, Edmonds, commented they have lived in Esperance for 37 years and every time annexation has been proposed, they have supported it and continue to support it. He expressed concern with public safety, pointing out the amount of development occurring everywhere, not just in Edmonds, Esperance and Snohomish County but also in King County and Shoreline. Blockwatch Captains since 1999, their home was not in a high crime area; however, he knew of instances where the police were called and the Snohomish County Sheriff's office could not respond unless it was an imminent, life- threatening situation. He noted in the event of an imminent life- threatening situation, it was the Edmonds Police Department that responded and Edmonds already provided fire protection to the area. He asked how many registered sex offenders lived in the Esperance area, how they were monitored and accounted for, and how this public safety concern would be addressed/improved via annexation. Mayor Haakenson invited anyone who had a question but did not wish to speak to provide their question to staff. Jerry Helman, 8511 228th SW, Edmonds, a 35 -year resident of Esperance, expressed his opposition to annexation. He recalled annexation of the area has been voted down in the past. He questioned whether the Interlocal. Agreement process would take annexation out of the voters' hands. He acknowledged someday Esperance may be annexed but he preferred it occur because a majority of Esperance residents supported it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 5 Vic Schultz, 8305 224th SW, Edmonds, expressed his opposition to annexation. He recalled when his family originally moved to their home in the Esperance area and their ongoing enjoyment of the wonderful community. He was opposed to another layer of government, commenting new rules were often ambiguous, duplicative and unnecessary. He acknowledged there were some problems in the Esperance area although not insurmountable, most were the result of over- zealous efforts to increase density. He commented on residents' efforts to develop a park and address surface water treatment/control. He commented on the former volunteer Fire Department that provided fire protection to the area and the road conditions that he estimated were better than within the City of Edmonds. He urged the Council to allow Esperance to remain as it is, noting as the population increased, the time would come for annexation but it was not time yet. Mark Daniels, 8614 238th St SW, Edmonds, commented when he moved to his current residence, it was not within the City limits and when annexation was proposed residents voted it down. However, the City circumvented the wishes of the residents and annexed the area via attaining the approval of a percentage of property values. Thus his first experience as an Edmonds resident was negative and since that time, he had not seen any improvement in the service. He pointed out Esperance was an island because Edmonds has annexed surrounding area in an illogical manner via annexation of small neighborhoods leaving this area isolated. He summarized residents' taxes would increase and it was unlikely there would be improvements. He commented the property taxes were about the same but the increase utility taxes increased taxes overall. He did not recommend annexation. Peggi LaPlante, 7717 224th St SW, Edmonds, commented the annexation appeared to be financially motivated — income for the City from property and utility taxes and business revenue from future development along Hwy. 99 as well as assistance with repayment of bonded indebtedness. She referred to Snohomish County records that indicated Esperance was a low crime area; in her experience, the Sheriff's response to emergency and non - emergency issues has been appropriate and there was no assurance the City would provide any increased level of service. She pointed out that as long as growth in the Esperance area was discouraged, it would continue to be a low crime, low risk area. She shared reasons for opposition including that Edmonds' vision for growth was not in line with Esperance residents' vision, a lack of leadership and listening skills, a lack of follow- through, and reports from friends /relatives in outlying areas of Edmonds of their dissatisfaction with the services the City offers and responsiveness to their neighborhoods. She urged the Council not to waste the $11,000 cost of an election and allow Esperance residents to continue to live in Snohomish County, pay their taxes to the County and have their services provided by the County. Jeff Ward, 22608 84th Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed his strong support for annexation. He described moving into the Esperance area four years ago, believing they were in Edmonds. He asserted Snohomish County viewed the area as an island and were not raising any opposition to annexation. Edmonds could offer a sense of community that was lacking in Esperance. He commented services provided by Snohomish County would only get less as the area was only a small representation of the County. He relayed their experience when a neighbor saw their house being broken into and it took the Sheriff 20 minutes to reach their home. He encouraged the Council to continue pursuing annexation. Vita Lobelle, 22424 77th Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to the view Councilmember Dawson had from her home on 12th Avenue NW, a view many Esperance residents also enjoyed before a 150 -foot monopole was erected that destroyed their views. She noted although residents pleaded with the City not to erect the pole, it was uncaringly accomplished anyway even though there are many other locations for the monopole such as adjacent to commercial property. She concluded this experience destroyed Esperance residents' confidence in the City. She referred to comments during the last meeting regarding the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 6 importance for Edmonds to get the Hwy. 99 property; however, there was no indication of the benefit Esperance residents would receive from development of the Hwy. 99 corridor. Terry Erickson, 222nd SW, Edmonds, commented Esperance residents liked things the way they were, and the main reason they did not want to annex was the potential for increased development. Eric Larson, 22217 82nd Place W, Edmonds, commented he was not fond of politicians and their lies and he hated to pay more taxes that were wasted more than they were already. He commented on the City's regulations against chickens and banning fireworks. He questioned why the City continued to pursue annexation when Esperance residents have been saying no for years. He summarized if there was a way he could stop annexation he would. Gianpietro Migla, 22424 77th Avenue W, Edmonds, was opposed to annexation. He described his experience with the Sheriff's office, both times they arrived within 15 -20 minutes. He commented the 150 -foot monopole reminded him daily what Edmonds provided. Although many of the statements supporting annexation sounded good such as increased police protection, in his opinion the City already had its hands full. He urged the Council to be sure they could deliver before they made promises. Greg Braun, 22207 90th Place W, Edmonds, previously a resident of the Firdale neighborhood, explained when he had an opportunity to purchase a home, he bought one in Esperance. He said Esperance residents do not want to be annexed, they get the services they want from Snohomish County. He suggested residents who wanted to live in Edmonds should sell their homes and move to Edmonds. He commented there was more sense of community in Esperance before it was surrounded by Edmonds. Michael Luke, Mike's Deli -Mart, Edmonds, referred to comments that the residents of Esperance received services from Edmonds for free; pointing out Esperance residents contributed tax revenue to Edmonds via shopping and /or visiting restaurants in the City. Bill Strickland, 22224 82nd Place W, Edmonds, explained he and his neighbors live on large lots and he was concerned with the potential for development if the area were annexed. He commented development including condominiums and apartments has occurred everywhere in Edmonds. He was opposed to annexation. Stephanie Harris, 8523 224th Street SW, Edmonds, a property owner in Esperance for 32 years, wanted the area to remain as Esperance. She referred to the Council minutes, noting it appeared the primary reason the City wanted to annex. Esperance was the $300,000 in tax revenues. She commented on the City's 70 year overlay cycle and Snohomish County's 30 -year cycle. She referred to the tree removal that occurred on the Unocal property, relaying her understanding that there were Councilmembers who saw it happening and did nothing. She summarized she would always oppose annexation although she shopped in Edmonds. As Edmonds residents could have only five pets and she already owned two cats, one dog and two fish, she asked whether she could get more fish if the area were annexed. She concluded it was the financial aspect of annexation that concerned her most; it appeared the City needed Esperance but Esperance did not need the City and did not want to assume the bonded indebtedness. Gwen Strickland, 22224 84th Street W, Edmonds, spoke against annexation, pointing out the tremendous cost of rectifying flooding from a creek that occurs at the bottom of their street. She pointed out the impact that increased development has on flooding because the area is a peat bog. She had not experienced any problem with police response and surmised the reason some people may experience delays in police response was because their calls were inconsequential. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 7 Kelly Mueller, 22728 84th Avenue W, Edmonds, commented until their house was broken into last month she did not feel one way or another about annexation. She acknowledged the Snohomish County Sheriff tried to do as much as they could, however, they did not have adequate resources. She preferred to have police protection provided by the Edmonds Police Department. Bob Gregory, 7609 224`" Street SW, Edmonds, questioned how GMA would affect their area and whether more police protection would be necessary. He was happy with the Esperance community, commenting Edmonds had an awesome 4th of July parade, but Esperance had an awesome Easter egg hunt. Mayor Haakenson commented Edmonds also had an awesome Easter egg hunt. Shawn O'Donnell, 22716 86th Place W, Edmonds, commented when he moved into the Esperance area 26 years ago, he evaluated the area and the character of the neighborhood and found there was a sense of community. He was opposed to annexation and in his experience, Snohomish County has provided adequate services including the Sheriff's office, animal control, roadway maintenance, and surface water drainage. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Mr. Bowman read a question provided by an audience member regarding comments by two people in the latest Edmonds Beacon that the City failed to deal with a fireworks problem on July 4t''. Mayor Haakenson advised anyone with concern regarding fireworks should call 911; it was unclear from the letters whether 911 had been called. In response to questions /comments regarding increased development, Mr. Bowman explained Snohomish County classifies the Esperance area as urban medium density, 6 -12 dwelling units per acre which has resulted in the low density multiple residential rezones that are occurring in that area, a potential that existed today for any oversized lot in the Esperance area. Upon annexation, the area would be zoned the most comparable zoning, the predominate zoning in the Esperance area is 8400 which corresponds to a comparable Edmonds zoning of RS -8. The commercial areas would be zoned comparable to Snohomish County commercial zoning. The existing multi family areas would also be zoned comparably. Mayor Haakenson asked whether a property owner with a lot zoned 8400 today could develop it multi family upon annexation. Mr. Bowman answered no. With regard to the $330,000 for road improvements, Mr. Bowman answered it was envisioned that cost would be paid using revenues generated in the Esperance annexation area. With regard to the Interlocal Agreement, Mr. Bowman clarified the Council was not pursuing annexation via the Interlocal Agreement process, and had instead expressed their support for the election method. With regard to the monopole, Mr. Bowman explained it was a quasi judicial decision. The City must make provisions for allowing such uses and the City's code allows monopoles on the General Commercial zoned properties such as where the monopole was sited. As long as the monopole complied with the City's regulations, it must be allowed to be sited. Mayor Haakenson inquired why the City must allow the monopole. Mr. Bowman answered zoning as well as case law allowed property owners to develop their land consistent with land use regulations and the federal government mandates that jurisdictions provide for such uses. In response to the inquiry regarding number of pets, City Attorney Scott Snyder read from the zoning code. A resident was allowed to have five domestic animals such as cats and dogs and as many mice, hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, non - venomous snakes, birds, reptiles and fish as are normally associated with a house of that size. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 8 With regard to Hwy. 99, Mr. Bowman explained the City has studied that area and was applying for grants to improve pedestrian safety and signalization. He pointed out there was no way for a pedestrian to cross Hwy. 99 between approximately 228th and 238th Mayor Haakenson asked staff to respond to comments regarding chickens. Mr. Bowman acknowledged the City did not allow chickens, however, for a resident that had chickens and had established the use under Snohomish County, the chickens were a non - conforming use that could continue. Mayor Haakenson referred to a comment regarding the City annexing small portions of Esperance, recalling a vote in the late 1990s that resulted in annexation of some areas of Esperance. He asked whether these annexations occurred as a result of the City pursuing annexation or the residents of those neighborhoods requesting to be annexed. Mr. Bowman advised the Firdale area was annexed in 1997 via the election method. Small annexations have occurred over time via the petition method. He explained the petition method requires a majority of the property owners to petition the City for annexation and requires that their properties be contiguous to the City's boundaries. Should the Council make a decision not to pursue annexation via the election method, he explained neighborhoods contiguous to the City could pursue the petition method of annexation. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Bowman explained that under Snohomish County regulations, a duplex could be constructed on a property 1% times the basic zoning. Councilmember Orvis observed a duplex could be constructed on a 12,600 square foot lot, however, in Edmonds, only one house would be allowed. Council President Marin asked whether the monopole could have been built in Snohomish County. Mr. Bowman responded he did not quote Snohomish County regulations. Mayor Haakenson asked whether the monopole could have been a smaller antenna atop Olympic View's water tank if they would have allowed it. Mr. Bowman answered it was possible. Councilmember Moore asked staff to describe how Esperance residents could benefit from the City annexing the property on Hwy. 99. Mr. Bowman answered annexing that area would facilitate a consistent pattern for development of the Hwy. 99 corridor and increased revenue from development on Hwy. 99 would benefit residents. He referred to the area developing as an International District as an example. Councilmember Plunkett commented it was his understanding that Esperance residents contacted the Mayor and staff requesting that the Council consider annexation. Mayor Haakenson agreed. Council President Marin asked staff to describe the intent of the focus groups held by the Hwy. 99 Task Force. Mr. Bowman explained the intent of the focus groups was to talk to commercial property owners as well as residents in the area. Feedback from residents included a desire for services that the neighborhood could walk to as well as an ability to cross Hwy. 99, particularly in the Esperance area due to the current lack of controlled access points across the highway between 228th and 238th Councilmember Olson asked staff to respond to the comment regarding the trees cut on the Unocal property. Mr. Bowman explained the trees, located on private property, were cut in violation of the arborist's report for that development. The report determined most of the trees on the hillside suffered from disease and the arborist plan outlined a specific method for removing the trees which the developer violated via the removal of the trees. The City brought action against the developer who subsequently paid a substantial fine and were required to replant the hillside and adhere to monitoring and annual maintenance. Councilmember Olson noted there are no restrictions on the heights of the replanted trees. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 9 Mayor Haakenson asked whether anyone connected with City government watched the trees being cut and did nothing. Mr. Bowman answered no. In response to a comment that many existing residents were dissatisfied with the services provided by the City, Mayor Haakenson invited any resident who was dissatisfied with any service they received from the City to call him or any Councilmember. Mayor Haakenson provided assurance that he wanted Esperance residents to be part of the City and believed the City could protect their quality of life, could protect their zoning likely better than Snohomish County, and could provide better customer service for a lower cost than residents were currently receiving. He disagreed there was any subversive plot to take all the Esperance residents' property taxes, emphasizing the City's interest in having Esperance as part of the City. He summarized the reason the Council wanted to have a vote was to allow residents to determine whether or not they wanted to be annexed. Council President Marin inquired about including or excluding assumption of bonded indebtedness on the ballot. Mr. Clements answered there would be two separate ballot measures, annexation and assumption of bonded indebtedness. He commented if the annexation vote were approved and the assumption of bonded indebtedness were not, the Council would make a decision whether to accept the annexation without assumption of the bonded indebtedness. He noted the Firdale annexation was approved without the residents' assumption of bonded indebtedness. Councilmember Dawson questioned why an Esperance resident would vote in favor of assuming bonded indebtedness if they did not have to in order to be annexed. Mayor Haakenson recalled in 1997 several parts of Esperance voted to accept the bonded indebtedness. Councilmember Dawson asked whether that was with the caveat that the Council would not approve the annexation if residents did not approve assumption of the bonded indebtedness. Mayor Haakenson clarified there were two separate ballot measures and the Council voted to accept the annexation without assumption of bonded indebtedness. Councilmember Dawson asked whether two separate ballot measures were required. Mr. Clements responded if the Council decided not to require assumption of the bonded indebtedness, that could be omitted from the ballot. Councilmember Dawson questioned whether the Council should advise residents up front whether they would accept annexation if they did not approve assumption of bonded indebtedness. Mr. Bowman advised if the Council planned to have assumption of bonded indebtedness on the ballot, it must be included in the resolution to initiate annexation. If annexation and assumption of bonded indebtedness were combined in one ballot measure, a 60% majority would be required. Councilmember Dawson asked if residents approved annexation but not assumption of bonded indebtedness, could the Council decline the annexation. Mr. Bowman answered yes. She asked whether the Council could decline the annexation if the residents voted in favor of annexation and assumption of bonded indebtedness. Mr. Snyder advised the Council would make the final determination regarding annexation. He suggested if the Council agreed the only way they would annex the area was with the assumption of bonded indebtedness, that was how the ballot measure should be structured. If the Council wanted to keep their options open and make that decision following the election, he suggested two separate ballot measures. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OFFERING ANNEXATION VIA THE ELECTION METHOD WITH ANNEXATION AND ASSUMPTION OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AS SEPARATE BALLOT MEASURES. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 10 Councilmember Plunkett commented he did not care whether Esperance was annexed into the City but he did care about giving residents who contacted the City an opportunity to be annexed. He also supported allowing those opposed to annexation an opportunity to solicit their neighbors to vote against annexation. He summarized the majority would decide. Councilmember Moore agreed it was important to allow residents to vote on annexation as there were residents with strong feelings on both sides. To avoid misinformation, she encouraged residents to access the information on the City's website and to utilize the annexation calculator. In her opinion, the City could offer Esperance residents less development, lower taxes, benefits from improvements on Hwy. 99, and potentially return their taxes to the area via road improvements. Council President Marin commented he viewed residents of all the neighborhoods in the City including Esperance as part of the community and he was eager to have Esperance residents join the City. He explained the Hwy. 99 Task Force was interested in improvements on Hwy. 99 to benefit the City as well as nearby residents. He recalled the systematic process via the focus groups to solicit input from residents within a three block radius included Esperance residents. He encouraged Esperance residents to support annexation whether or not they supported assuming bonded indebtedness. Councilmember Dawson expressed her appreciation for the Council's decision to pursue annexation via the election method, commenting annexation via the Interlocal Agreement method forced the issue and did not allow residents to express their feelings. She supported allowing Esperance residents to decide whether to annex into the City, noting annexation would benefit residents of Esperance, particularly delivery of public safety services. She pointed out when Esperance residents called 911 with an emergency, the first responder was likely Edmonds Police Department. She was uncertain what her feeling regarding annexation would be if the residents did not vote to approve the bonded indebtedness, commenting their not assuming the City's bonded indebtedness was unfair to existing residents. Councilmember Olson expressed her support for the motion, commenting an election would allow the residents to choose whether they wanted to be annexed. She pointed out if Esperance were annexed, residents would only need to come to Edmonds to talk to City officials instead of going to Everett. Councilmember Orvis commented annexation was a good idea but should only occur if the residents of Esperance supported it. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Design 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT WOULD APPLY TO Guidelines COMMERCIAL AND MULTI FAMILY BUILDINGS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WITH SEPARATE GUIDELINES FOR BUILDINGS IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL AREA. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES CODE AMENDMENTS FOR SITE DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE STANDARDS, AS WELL AS GUIDELINES FOR BUILDING DESIGN. THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS WOULD ALSO BE UPDATED TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Design Guidelines were originally drafted through the Planning Board using a consultant and forwarded to the Council. The Council at this time has been reviewing the Guidelines with the intent of adoption. The difference this time is the old Design Guidelines chapters regarding building form and building facades were collapsed into a Building Guidelines section that incorporated many of Mr. Hinshaw's suggestions. The site guidelines are basically intact as forwarded by the Planning Board but were separated into two sections, one regarding Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page l I downtown and a second regarding other parts of the City. From staff's point of view, there was adequate differentiation between zones as well as adequate flexibility in the Guidelines. Mr. Chave suggested the Council would need to discuss the process in further detail; the process originally recommended by the Planning Board was for major projects (projects requiring SEPA review) to be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) as they are today. The difference is that all other projects would be staff decisions. He referred to a suggestion submitted by Councilmember Wilson that consideration be given to a different process for Hwy. 99 projects. The process recommended by the Planning Board also did not include Council review of any projects, the only review by the Council would be for public projects. Appeals on staff decisions or ADB decisions would be to the Hearing Examiner or court rather than to Council. Mr. Chave advised staff was seeking Council input regarding the Design Guidelines. Following public comment tonight, staff would incorporate suggestions from the public and the Council and return the Guidelines to the Council for review next week. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Pat Marker, 233 4th Avenue N, Edmonds, advised his property was currently zoned BC; the proposal to change one block of 4th Avenue N between Bell Street and Edmonds Street to a Conservation Zone would also restrict building heights to 25 feet. He advised the current height limit in the BC zone was 25 feet plus an additional five feet for modulation which has resulted in many buildings that are 30 feet in height. The proposed zoning surrounding this area would remain BC and only the one block would be Conservation. He pointed out the possibility that the height limit in the BC zone being increased to 33 feet, yet the maximum height in the Conservation zone would be 25 feet. He concluded via this proposal, their property would be down sized, adversely affecting his property's value. He expressed his opposition to the Conservation zone on 4th Avenue North. Councilmember Dawson commented that issue would be discussed next week and although the Council would consider Mr. Marker's comments, he may want to attend next week's Council meeting as well. Mayor Haakenson pointed out Council consideration next week was not a public hearing, therefore, the public would need to speak under Audience Comments. Joan Bloom, 600 8th Avenue N, Edmonds, inquired how one could obtain the draft map that identified the proposed heights for the downtown area. Mayor Haakenson suggested she confer with Mr. Bowman and Mr. Chave. Tony Shapiro, 18105 Sunset Way, Edmonds, noted he was an architect and commented it was everyone's objective to attain an interesting inspiring downtown that was quaint and had lively retail. After reviewing the proposed Guidelines as well as Guidelines utilized in other jurisdictions, he found the proposed Guidelines were not the best way to attain the objectives. The Guidelines created commonality among structures, shaving the peaks of a good and bad architecture, resulting in a mundane middle. He found the Guidelines did not provide adequate flexibility for alternate design motifs. Although he tended to adhere to more classical architecture, restricting architecture would limit creative solutions and result in a monotonous downtown with little interest. He referred to the highly regulated architectural environment at University Village where all aspects of design were regulated, noting cities could not control projects to that extent. He suggested the proposed Guidelines approached that level of detail and would stifle creativity and possibilities that otherwise might occur. Architecture was very trendy in the way it evolved over time; Guidelines written today may fit the context of today's design, yet may not be applicable in 5 -10 years and would require continuous modification. He suggested the Council consider Lynnwood's Design Guidelines written by Mr. Hinshaw and governed by the Director of Community Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 12 Development. He preferred Edmonds' review by the ADB and supported appeal to the Council rather than court. David Dwyer, 18709 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, expressed concern with incentives via Guidelines allowing a third story. He referred to the devastating impact a third story could have on views, displaying photographs illustrating the view over the Bob Gregg building, currently under construction at two stories and the view blockage when constructed to three stories. He recommended the Design Guidelines be written to promote 2 -story development in the BC zone to retain views for the neighborhoods behind. Strom Peterson, 9110 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, agreed the Guidelines needed to be considered as guidelines and not mandates, pointing out architecture was a living, breathing thing and change would happen. He supported steering architecture toward a certain look and feel to retain the existing great downtown Edmonds via proper guidance from the Council, staff, and residents. He encouraged the Council to move forward with the Guidelines, keeping in mind this was one small step toward a broader vision for Edmonds. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented he had attended many Planning Board meetings, meetings with the consultant and the joint meeting with the ADB. He commented unless the Council read the Guidelines and had a complete explanation, the Guidelines would be difficult for the Council to understand. He questioned the elimination of the objections regarding signage in Section 20.11.140. He recalled at the June 28 meeting, the Council discussed a number of issues that arose at the last minute such as decorative signage, lighting and awnings. These issues need further review by the Planning Board. He also referred to the massing section for multi family and mixed use projects that addressed buildings of 10,000 square feet and above and questioned whether the Council understood the size of such of a building. He suggested staff apply the massing section of the proposed Guidelines to a building such as the Bob Gregg building. He concluded the simplest answer to the height issue was to return to the old method of calculating heights — 25 feet plus 5 additional feet for a pitched roof. Rowena Miller, 8711 182 °a Place SW, Edmonds, pointed out all the photographs in Part 1 of the Guidelines for the downtown business district depicted 3 -story buildings, giving the appearance that 3- story, 33 -36 foot buildings were a done deal. She referred to the July 13 Planning Board meeting where 20 different developers said they could not do anything without at least 33 foot and preferably 36 foot building heights. She concluded the only good thing about the Design Guidelines was the inclusion of many of Mr. Hinshaw's ideas such as providing choices for architectural features. She recommended the Council refer to their notes from Mr. Hinshaw's presentation and follow his recommendation to retain the precious downtown and the 25 -foot height limits. Jack Jacobsen, 128 Sunset, Edmonds, commented there appeared to be a lot of controversy and a lot of things changing that residents were not aware of. He preferred building heights remain at 25 feet as he did not End any beauty in taller buildings. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Council President Marin asked staff to describe the process a project would go through to be approved and the mechanism with the Design Guidelines in place that would allow staff to approve /deny a project. Mr. Chave referred to the matrix in Exhibit 3 on page 6 of the Design Guidelines, explaining a project that required SEPA review would be considered a major project and would require ADB review similar to today's process. For projects that did not exceed the SEPA threshold, if the Design Guidelines were followed, the decision could be made by staff with no notice required. A project that departed from the Design Guidelines, such as proposing an alternative design, would require an ADB or staff process with notice to property owners within 300 feet. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 13 Council President Marin asked who would make the decision on a project that adhered to the Design Guidelines. Mr. Chave advised if there were no departures from the Guidelines and the project did not require SEPA review, a Planner would review the project, most likely during the building permit stage and approval would follow the standard building permit process. A larger project that required SEPA review would also require ADB review. For a project that deviated from the Design Guidelines, in exchange for that flexibility, public notice was required. Council. President Marin noted the Guidelines would allow staff to approve many projects that did not depart from the Guidelines without further review or notice. Mr. Chave provided examples such as minor additions or a small building that did not meet the SEPA threshold. Councilmember Dawson preferred appeals come to the Council. She agreed with Mr. Hertrich's suggestion that it may be helpful for staff to provide examples of applying the Guidelines to recently constructed buildings. She also agreed with Ms. Miller's observation that the illustrations in the proposed Guidelines appeared to be 33 -foot or taller buildings. She pointed out this may be deceptive to developers and give the impression that 3 -story buildings were acceptable. Many of the buildings depicted in the photographs would not be allowed under the current height restrictions and she found it inappropriate to have proposed Design Guidelines that illustrated buildings that she hoped would not be allowed in the future. Mr. Chave commented the illustrations were provided by Mr. Hinshaw. Councilmember Dawson questioned how the Council could approve Design Guidelines absent a height limit and /or the number of building stories. Councilmember Olson commented most of the people who participated in the special Planning Board meeting were property owners, not developers. Mr. Chave clarified the Planning Board's meeting was with property owners; some of the property owners are also developers. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern that the Architectural Design Board (ADB) worked on the Design Guidelines five years ago and many members were unsure about them today. He relayed an ADB member's comment that the attempt to amend the 5 -year old Design Guidelines with Mr. Hinshaw's input created a mishmash. He relayed comments from the ADB that the Design Guidelines were unclear and needed better definitions, commenting ADB members struggled with the "shoulds and shalls" in the document. He questioned why the Council was being asked to approve the Guidelines when the Comprehensive Plan had not yet been finalized? He summarized if the intent was for the Council to vote on the Guidelines next week, he would not vote and preferred the Design Guidelines be returned to the ADB to allow them an opportunity to provide input. Crosswalk at Ginny Burger, 22910 102nd Place W, Edmonds, introduced Laura Caparroso, 21503 801h Avenue W, 216 Ave. W W. �` Edmonds who introduced her guide do Gemma. Ms. Burger explained Ms. Caparroso moved to 216' St. sw � g g g p p Edmonds 8 months ago and in order to be independent, needed a safe crosswalk across 76`h Avenue West. Ms. Caparroso described the route she takes to and from her home on 80th to Top Foods, requesting the City install tactile domes on the north wheelchair ramp crossing at 216th Street SW and 76th Avenue West to assist her in activating the pedestrian signal and safely crossing the street. She also requested the City install an audio pedestrian signal on the 216`h Street SW crossing signal. Mayor Haakenson read City Engineer Dave Gebert's response to Ms. Caparroso's letter that referred to the loss of approximately $350,000 per year or 46% of the recurring annual revenues to the City's transportation capital project program as a result of voter approval of 1 -766 in November 2002. This resulted in a serious shortfall in the transportation capital projects fund (Fund 112) and insufficient funds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 14 to accomplish many important and needed projects such as street overlays, sidewalks, walkways, bikeways, signal and intersection improvements, traffic calming and ADA curb ramp improvements. The 2005 capital budget contains only $10,000 for ADA curb ramp improvements and no funding for citywide signal improvements. Approximately $5,000 (of the $10,000) has been committed to date for an ADA curb ramp near Sherwood Elementary School. The adopted 2005 -2010 CIP continues to program this same level of funding for these projects through 2010. Mr. Gebert's letter explained a product was available for installing truncated /detectable domes on existing ADA curb ramps and staff is investigating whether this project would be suitable for the existing curb ramps at the intersection of 76th Avenue W and 216th Street SW. If found suitable, the cost to install the domes at this intersection would be approximately $4,000 (a typical intersection with eight curb ramps would cost $8,000). If the product was not suitable, the estimated cost of removal and replacement of the existing concrete curb ramps with new concrete curb ramps meeting WSDOT and ADA standards was $20,000 - $25,000 for all the curb ramps at that intersection. The estimated cost to install audio pedestrian signals at this intersection was approximately $4,000; insufficient funds are available to replace existing outdated traffic signal controllers let alone upgrade to audio pedestrian signals. In addition, the Public Works Director advised that WCIA should be consulted before installation of these audio signals as there is some concern that having audible warning devices may increase the City's liability exposure in a pedestrian accident since they are not 100% reliable. Staff will consult with WCIA on this issue. There are numerous intersections throughout the City without curb ramps that meet current ADA and WSDOT standards including at the high school parking lot off 216th west of this intersection. Staff continues to investigate potential grant opportunities to address this and other pedestrian safety project needs citywide. If staff concludes the product for applying domes to the existing curb ramps is a suitable product and can be installed within the budgeted funds, staff recommends proceeding with a project to install them. Funds are not available in the adopted 2005 Fund 112 budget to install the requested audio pedestrian signal. Until the Council provides additional funding for the transportation capital Fund 112, improvements such as this audio pedestrian signal, curb ramp replacements, and many other needed projects cannot be accomplished. Staff plans to recommend options to Council for additional revenue sources for Fund 112 in the 2006 budget process. Planing Board Rowena Miller, 8711 182nd Place SW, Edmonds, concurred with Councilmember Olson's comment that special the 20 participants in the Planning Board's special meeting were downtown property owners , but many Meeting with were also developers and architects. She commented all 20 agreed they needed higher ceiling and higher Property Owners building heights. She recalled comments from Bob Gregg who supported building heights above 33 feet and said that people like her were special interest and should stop this political nonsense. Mr. Gregg also said nothing would be developed in downtown Edmonds if the building heights were not increased. She was concerned that the City invited developers to participate in a special Planning Board meeting where they were allowed to speak without any time limits and encouraged the Council to ignore their comments. resign Roger Hertrich,1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, suggested as the Council reviewed the Design Guidelines Gnieciines they consider Section 20.10.025 which indicates in order to obtain a departure, an applicant must demonstrate the intent and objectives of the Design guidelines are met and the project has provided other design elements that mitigate the impacts of the departure. He encouraged the Council to carefully review the Design Guidelines, paying particular attention to the "shoulds." Next, Mr. Hertrich questioned how Councilmember Moore was able to make comments to the Planning Board regarding design, commenting there was no introduction of her comments reflected on the agenda or in the minutes. Design I Tony Shapiro, 18105 Sunset Way, Edmonds, observed most of the graphic examples in the Design Guidelines Guidelines were illustrated as if on flat land. However, most of Edmonds was sloped and stepping retail Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 15 was highly difficult. He concluded the Design Guidelines were simplistic and did not address the sloped nature of downtown. In response to Mr. Hertrich's question, Councilmember Moore advised she was invited by the Chair to speak to the Planning Board. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Dawson explained several months of her emails had been inadvertently deleted; most were old but there were some to which she had not yet responded. She invited anyone who sent her an email and had not received a response to resend their email to her. Councilmember Moore commented Councilmembers also may change email addresses. She suggested the best way for the public to reach Councilmembers was via the Council's Executive Assistant Jana Spellman or City Clerk Sandy Chase who would distribute the email to all Councilmembers. Councilmember Moore congratulated the Mayor and Engineering Department staff for creating the Citizens Advisory Transportation Committee. Councilmember Moore encouraged Councilmembers and the public to listen to the audio recording of the special Planning Board meeting, commenting it was helpful to hear comments from downtown property owners. Councilmember Olson expressed her appreciation to the Planning Board for inviting the property owners to provide their opinions. With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:49 p.m. ALIA • Y i.O• ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19,2005 Page 16 AGENDA • 11111 .� EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL 11 Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. JULY 19, 2005 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order/Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 5, 2005. (C) Approval of claim checks #80783 through #80932 for the week of July 4, 2005, in the amount of $167,706.35. Approval of claim checks #80933 through #81079 for the week of July 11, 2005, in the amount of $285,915.86.* Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #41040 through #41174 for the period June 16 through June 30, 2005, in the amount of $869,736.47. Approval of payroll checks #41175 through #41207 for the period of July 6, 2005 through July 6, 2005 in the amount of$8,455.91. *Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us (D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Mark and Dawn Burgess (amount undetermined). (E) Authorization to purchase and install new play structure at Pine Street Park. (F) Authorization to contract with James Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus City vehicle. (G) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board. (H) Proposed Resolution ratifying the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. (Approved by the Community/Development Services Committee on 7/12/05.) 3. (10 Min.) Introduction of members of the newly formed Citizens Advisory Transportation Committee. 4. (10 Min.) Authorization to solicit for bids for the crosswalk paver renovation project at the Stn Avenue South / Main Street and Stn Avenue South / Dayton Street Intersections. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JULY 19, 2005 5. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on the Esperance Island Annexation. The City Council will take public comment in support or opposition to the possible annexation of the remaining unincorporated area of Esperance. 6. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on proposed Design Guidelines that would apply to commercial and multi family buildings throughout the City, with separate guidelines for buildings in the downtown commercial area. The proposal includes Code amendments for site design and landscape standards, as well as guidelines for building design. The design review process would also be updated to . implement the new Design Guidelines. 7. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 8. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 9. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television- Government Access Channel 21. Page 2 of 2