Loading...
10/20/1998 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1995 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Gary Haakenson, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember ABSENT Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Kevin Taylor, Assistant Fire Chief Greg Wean, Assistant Police Chief John Westfall, Fire Marshal Paul Mar, Community Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor Noel Miller, Public Works Director James Walker, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Karissa Kawamoto, Planner Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Fahey welcomed Scout Pack 312, Den 311, who were attending the meeting to earn their government merit badge. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ffa—nge—sto--j COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER e Agenda EARLING, TO AMEND THE TITLE OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM J, RESOLUTIONS NOS. 922 THROUGH 936 937. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Haakenson requested Item I be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL pprove 10/6/98 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 1998 mutes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 1 f t pprove (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #25698 THROUGH #27988 FOR THE WEEK OF aim OCTOBER 5, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $472,431.19. APPROVAL OF CLAIM wants WARRANTS #27790 THROUGH #28164 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 12, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $949,143.19. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #22096 THROUGH #22254 FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 16 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $365,449.46. laims 901 (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM LOVA L. KACK amages (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), DANIEL AND DAWN THRASHER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) AND KATHY ANGVIK ($35.00) ater Main () REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1998 WATER MAIN Fteplacement REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT nclement Bather (F) REPORT ON QUOTES RECEIVED FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN INCLEMENT ehicle WEATHER SERVICE VEHICLE AND AWARD OF BID TO FRONTIER FORD 9 ire Labor t. (G ) APPROVAL OF FIRE UNION LABOR AGREEMENT arcade ate' (R) APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR CASCADE WATER ALLIANCE liance es 922 -937 (J) RESOLUTIONS NOS. 922 THROUGH 937 DESIGNATING EACH MEMBER OF THE onorary SISTER CITY HEKINAN DELEGATION AS HONORARY CITIZENS OF EDMONDS itizen D Doc. (K) AUTHORIZATION TO REQUEST PROPOSALS TO PURCHASE POLICE mt Sys. DEPARTMENT DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM d 3227 Item I: Ordinance No. 3227 Extending the Life of an Interim Ordinance Enacted Pursuant to andwich Ordinance No. 3209 Relating to A -Frame and Sandwich Board Directional Signs, Reaffirming oard Enforcement Priorities, and Fixing a Time When the Same Shall Become Effective. nforcement Council President Haakenson explained he originally voted against this interim ordinance because he did not feel sufficient alternatives had been provided prior to this ordinance taking effect. Since that time, he has had adequate opportunity to review alternatives provided by staff. He was disappointed with the lack of attendance by the business committee at the meetings staff held regarding sandwich boards. He stated that he is now impressed with the alternatives and supports extension of this ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM I. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda item approved is as follows: (1) ORDINANCE NO. 3227 EXTENDING THE LIFE OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ENACTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 3209 RELATING TO A -FRAME AND SANDWICH -BOARD DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, REAFFIRMING ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 3. CLOSED RECORD APPEAL MEETING - APPEAL BY ROGER HERTRICH OF THE HEARING Appeal EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY HIS APPEAL OF A STAFF INTERPRETATION (FILE NO. ertrich AP- 98 -85) PERTAINING TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION MAP-98-85 20.60 TO CONSIDER GAS PUMP ISLAND CANOPY LOGOS AS "WALL GRAPHICS," WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM HEIGHT AND AREA LIMITATIONS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1011 PUGET DRIVE AND IS ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS - BN." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 2 Mayor Fahey explained this a Closed Record Appeal; therefore, no information other than that contained in the record can be presented. She asked if the Council wished to make any disclosures. Councilmember Plunkett stated that he spoke with Community Services Director Paul Mar 2 -3 months ago about the procedural status of this matter. Mr. Hertrich had mentioned to him that he was working through this process before he (Councilmember Plunkett) was aware this would be a closed record hearing before the Council. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine did not disqualify a Councilmember for having ex -parte contact, it only requires the contact be revealed. He said the information discussed by Councilmember Plunkett with Mr. Mar and with Mr. Hertrich was contained in the record. Council President Haakenson said Mr. Hertrich has kept him informed of the process, but none of their conversations have been about issues other than are contained in the record. Mayor Fahey observed there were no grounds for challenge to any Councilmembers' participation and all Councilmembers would participate. She described the time limits for participants in the hearing. Senior Planner Steve Bullock said the definition of a wall graphic as well as applicable restrictions are contained in Chapter 20.60.050 of the Community Development Code. The definition of a wall graphic is "a wall sign in which color and form are part of the overall design of the building." There are no area restrictions on wall graphics or identification structures. He said the sign section of the code indicates wall graphics are not required to be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) unless staff finds the graphic is garish or otherwise obtrusive. In this instance, a previous staff member considered the proposed sign, a Texaco logo on the canopy of the Olympic View Deli (approximately 2 -2% feet in diameter, a red star with a "T" inside) and determined it was a wall graphic, was in keeping with the character and scope of the project, and did not require ADB review. As there are no restrictions for wall graphics or identification structures, the previous staff member made the determination that "no area restrictions" applied to sign area allowed as well as location (height) on the building, in this instance on the canopy. This staff interpretation was appealed by Mr. Hertrich to the Hearing Examiner who denied the appeal. Mr. Hertrich has now appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision to the City Council. Roger Hertrich distributed photographs and copies of the code, which were contained in the record. He recalled he came to the Council in April when the signs were installed on the canopy without a permit. The previous staff member, Mr. Bissell, inspected the sign and determined it was a wall graphic, which did not have any area restrictions. Mr. Hertrich said allowing Mr. Bissell's interpretation to stand (not applying area restrictions for business symbols /identification that take the place of names), would have a serious effect on the City Code. Mr. Hertrich said the ADB asked Mr. Bissell the interpretation of a sign. His answer was a sign must have words; symbols or letters were wall graphics. Mr. Hertrich said he was pursuing this matter (at a cost to him of $300) to prove the code intended to have area restrictions on business symbols /identifications. Mr. Hertrich said he was not asking for the sign to be removed, only to find that there be an objective review of the sign by the ADB rather than the arbitrary staff decision that was made. The code states a sign that exceeds maximum height, more than two signs, or obtrusive or garish signs must be reviewed. He said staff made an arbitrary decision to call this a non - garish, non - obtrusive graph. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Hertrich attempted to circulate photographs of the sign from the viewpoint of his home, commenting the Hearing Examiner did not have the opportunity to review these photographs as they were unavailable because the lights had not been turned on yet. Mr. Snyder said the Council is prohibited from considering testimony not contained in the record during a closed record hearing. Mr. Hertrich said it was unfortunate the Council could not view the photographs that illustrated the effect the sign has on his home. Councilmember White asked if the Council could see the photographs if they chose to. Mr. Snyder explained this is a closed record appeal and the Council is unable to review materials that were not available to the Hearing Examiner. If the Council reviewed the photographs, their decision would be suspect as it would be in violation of the Regulatory Reform Act. Mr. Hertrich said he brought up the impact the sign had on his home in his reconsideration appeal to the Hearing Examiner but did not submit pictures. Mr. Hertrich requested staff explain 1) how the lighted sign was not garish and how it was compatible with the neighborhood, 2) how staffs decision (that this sign does not require review by the ADB and is allowed) matches the downtown sign code which this is zoned to adhere to, 3) where in the code the height limit is described for wall - mounted signs. He said the code describes .a wall mounted sign and said a wall graphic description falls within the description of a sign. Further, height is addressed in the code for wall - mounted signs. The drawing submitted by the Sign Company indicates it is a sign and describes the materials, lighting, etc. for the "sign." He said once a determination is made that this is a wall - mounted (attached) sign, the height is regulated by Section 20.60.020, which states "attached signs shall not exceed 14 feet in height." Therefore, this sign is over height. Mr. Hertrich referred to previous ADB decisions regarding the ARCO sign, which mention red signs are garish and that gray and blue colors were neutral, fit with the neighborhood, and were not garish. He did not object to the red and black painted canopy, only that the attached sign was not reviewed properly by the ADB (who is charged with reviewing the design and livability of commercial establishments in the City). Mr. Hertrich encouraged the Council to request additional time to review this issue if necessary, pointing out the Council did not receive a copy of his letter appealing the Hearing Examiner's decision, his request for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's original decision, or a copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the reconsideration. He questioned how the Council could make an informed decision without the opportunity to review information staff had not provided to the Council. Mr. Hertrich summarized if the Council upheld his appeal, it- would give the ADB an opportunity to review the sign and require a variance for any attached sign over 14 feet. Mr. Snyder suggested staff address Mr. Hertrich's questions during their closing remarks. Regarding Mr. Hertrich's comments concerning the items contained in the record, he suggested the Council determine whether they wished to continue the hearing or proceed in the absence of those documents. If there were documents that were not submitted to the Council, he recommended the hearing be continued. Councilmember White asked where the matter was within the 120 -day time limit. Mr. Snyder said the 120 -day Regulatory Reform timeline applied to project applications. He advised the time limit was not applicable to this situation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 4 For Councilmember Van Hollebeke, Mr. Bullock explained the request for reconsideration and the Hearing Examiner's response was not included in the Council packet because the hearing procedures in the Code state reconsideration is only allowed for review of procedural matters not introduction of any new testimony. As the Hearing Examiner found his procedure was accurate, staff determined the reconsideration did not need to be included in the record submitted to the Council. Mr. Bullock agreed Mr. Hertrich's letter requesting appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decisions was erroneously omitted from the record. In response to Councilmember White's question, Mr. Snyder said the Council needed to have the entire record to make its determination. He said any items available to the Hearing Examiner should be available to the Council. Continue Baring to COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN 11/2/98: HOLLEBEKE, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO NOVEMBER 2, 1998, TO ALLOW THE Appeal COMPLETE RECORD TO BE PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL. ertrick -98 -85 Councilmember White asked if Mr. Hertrich would be allowed additional time to testify. Mr. Snyder said it is within the Council's discretion but not required. Council President Haakenson observed the Council still would be unable to see the photographs Mr. Hertrich attempted to submit. Mr. Snyder said the City Clerk should retain the photographs and mark them as an exhibit offered and rejected. Councilmember Van Hollebeke suggested staff and Mr. Hertrich be allowed an additional five minutes to comment on the materials provided. MOTION CARRIED. 4. CLOSED RECORD APPEAL MEETING_ _APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S [Appeal DECISION TO DENY A FOUR LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION, WHICH INCLUDED: A amer REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO A STEEP SLOPE, CRITICAL 98 -164 AREA BUFFER; TWO SETBACK MODIFICATION REOUESTS; AND ENGINEERING SITE IMPROVEMENT ALTERATIONS. THE DECISION RESULTED IN APPROVAL OF A THREE - LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION. (Property Location: 9222 - 240' Street SW / Applicant: Charles Warner / File No. AP -98 -164, S- 98 -83, V- 98 -84) Mayor Fahey explained the Closed Record Appeal procedures and described the time limits for each participant. She asked if any Councilmember wished to make a disclosure. There were no Council disclosures. Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson introduced Planner Karissa Kawamoto, the staff member who worked on this short subdivision application and presented the matter to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Snyder said he suggested to staff and Mayor Fahey that this appeal may best be handled in two portions. The first issue is whether the Council upholds the Hearing Examiner's decision. If so, the modifications do not need to be addressed. He suggested the Council first make that determination and then take additional staff and applicant comment regarding the reconfigured subdivision if necessary. He clarified none of the modifications are necessary unless the four -lot configuration is approved (Hearing Examiner's decision overturned). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 5 Ms. Kawamoto displayed a map of the existing site, explaining there are two parcels with one house on each lot, a sub - division done in the 1970's under Snohomish County regulations. She displayed the proposed development and explained staffs recommendation and the Hearing Examiner's decision focused on the Reasonable Use Exception request and resulted in staff and the Hearing Examiner's approval of a three -lot short subdivision. She explained the Critical Areas chapter of ECDC is intended to prevent impact to critical areas such as steep slopes, streams and wetlands in the City. In this instance the critical area was identified in the southwest corner of the site on Lot 3. The Critical Areas Ordinance requires a 50 -foot buffer from the top of the steep slopes as well as a 15 -foot building setback from the 50 -foot buffer. In an effort to subdivide this property, Lot 3 appears to be unbuildable and resulted in the applicant's request for a Reasonable Use Exception. She explained a Reasonable Use Exception is a provision in the Critical Areas chapter to allow some development when all reasonable use of the property is denied. Several criteria must be met before granting a Reasonable Use Exception. Staff and the Hearing Examiner found the criteria that states the Critical Areas chapter denies all reasonable use of the property was not met because the existence of a single family residence on the property is evidence of reasonable use. Further, Criteria #6 states the "inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant or predecessor in title in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition." Staff feels this is a self - created hardship and therefore recommended denial of the Reasonable Use Exception, which the Hearing Examiner concurred with. There were also two modification requests with this proposal; staff recommended approval of Modification No. 1 but denial of No. 2 because the applicant supported his request for the modification to increase the buildable area on Lot 3. Eliminating Lot 3 because it does not meet the Reasonable Use Exception, also eliminates the need for that modification. She said the engineering standard reductions were never mentioned on the application; they were identified on the plat map but not supported with documentation as required and documentation was not provided when requested by staff. Therefore, this hearing was not advertised as having an engineering standard reduction. Ms. Kawamoto summarized the Hearing Examiner concurred with staff s recommendation for a three -lot short plat and recommendation for approval of Modification No. 1. Councilmember Van Hollebeke observed the existing house, currently on Lot 4, barely meets the 50 -foot buffer and the 15 -foot building setback requirements. Ms. Kawamoto agreed. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the property could be developed without the four lot short plat. Ms. Kawamoto said both staff and the Hearing Examiner determined the site is developed based on the existing homes on the site that represent reasonable use. Councilmember Plunkett asked if upholding the appeal would increase the economic value of the property. Ms. Kawamoto answered yes. Councilmember Van Hollebeke observed there were existing houses on Lots 2 and 4; staff s recommendation, which was upheld by the Hearing Examiner, is that Lot 3 not be allowed. However, Lot 1 represents a buildable lot. Mr. Snyder explained when the Critical Areas ordinances were enacted, he recommended a Reasonable Use Exception be inserted. The intent was to ensure that the passage of the Critical Areas ordinance did not render existing properties within the City undevelopable and result Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 6 in a loss of all reasonable use (a regulatory taking). It was not intended to permit the subdivision of property to create an undevelopable lot and utilizing the Reasonable Use Exception to develop it. Councilmember White asked who provided the supplemental materials. Ms. Kawamoto answered the appellant provided those materials on October 16. Councilmember White; commented the material did not appear to be factual in nature. Mr. Snyder said the material was in the nature of a written argument of the facts contained in the record. Mayor Fahey recalled there have been situations when a PRD can be used to restructure the layout of the lots. Ms. Kawamoto said a PRD is designed for subdivisions of five or more lots. John Bissell, Baytown Design Group, representing the appellant, directed the Council's attention to the first paragraph on page 2 of the staff report, specifically, the statement "The preliminary plat map presented an easement width and emergency vehicle turnaround location that did not follow Engineering Division policy or the standards found in ECDC Section 18." He said the applicant contends the engineering standards have been met and no information has been presented by staff that they have not been met. Regarding Item 3 on page 2, "nothing was provided with the original application regarding the substandard engineering improvement," Mr. Bissell said the map indicated what the applicant proposed. The staff report also states, "a letter dated June 24, 1998 from Gordy Hyde, Development Services Engineer, to the applicant's surveyor /engineering firm requested justification for the deviations shown in the proposal. No response on that issue was received." Mr. Bissell said the applicant's response was submitted (page 70 of the Council packet), stating they believed the standards were met, that the map indicated how the standards were to be met, and that it was up to the Hearing Examiner to decide that issue. Mr. Bissell directed Council's attention to the supplemental information (a written argument and a flow chart), commenting the applicant believes the Hearing Examiner made several procedural errors. The Code requires a variance application to be considered as Criteria #7 but does not require a Reasonable Use Exception to be heard for a variance application. Therefore, an applicant ,could apply for a critical areas variance only without a Reasonable Use Exception which means they must be considered separately. The only reason the Hearing Examiner and staff have given for denial of the variance is that it does not meet the sixth criteria under the Reasonable Use Exception when in fact the variance from the critical areas ordinance is requesting a variance to the standards of that ordinance. He stressed the standard from which relief is being requested cannot be used to deny the application for variance from that standard. Therefore, no evidence has been provided why the variance should be denied. If the variance is approved, it would approve the Reasonable Use Exception by providing a waiver from the requirements to meet the setback requirement from the steep slope critical areas ordinance. Mr. Bissell stated the Hearing Examiner's report indicated the application met the standards for Modification No. 1 and should be approved; Modification No. 2 was primarily denied because it did not meet the standards of the Reasonable Use Exception. He pointed out Modification Nos. 1 and 2 must meet the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.85, not Chapter 20.15(B), therefore, the Hearing Examiner used criteria from the wrong section to determine Modification No. 2 should be denied. Further, the Hearing Examiner has refused to make a required finding regarding compliance with Title 18 (Engineering Division requirements). The applicant is not requesting a modification of the standards but disagrees with the City Engineer regarding how those standards should be interpreted. The Hearing Examiner refused to make the finding when requested to do so at the hearing, again when asked upon reconsideration, and to date no finding has been made. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 7 Charles Warner, appellant, said the engineering requirements were an important issue missed by the Hearing Examiner. Staff has repeatedly stated a modification must be requested and publicized when in fact he orally communicated his intent (to engineering staff as well as Ms. Kawamoto) that this was his proposal as he believed it was consistent with the standards. At one time, Ms. Kawamoto asked him to request a variance; however, he cannot request a variance from a standard that is not codified. He said the evidence within the code showing that the application met the standards was presented to the Hearing Examiner. The review criteria states "the following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions. The proposals shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways." Mr. Warner pointed out the grading was minimized in their application by utilizing a shared driveway access. Section 18.80.010 states access to two lots requires 15 feet of easement, access to four lots requires 20 feet of easement. He pointed out their proposal is a 20 foot access with a turnaround. To access the back two lots, a 15 -foot access is proposed. That conforms to the specific review criteria as well as the specific criteria in 18.80.010. He said he cannot request relief from a policy that is being implemented by engineering; his understanding is this is not a written policy but what engineering "would like to see done." He said his proposal was developed based on the code. He stated orally to Engineering and Planning staff, followed by a letter to Ms. Kawamoto, reasserting that Engineering wants something different but that this was his proposal. He said the proposal and whether it conformed to the code should have been considered by the Hearing Examiner but was not. Mr. Warner referred to Criteria #6, which states the inability to derive the economic use cannot be the result of any action by the applicant in subdividing the property in creating the undevelopable condition. He said the property is undevelopable because of the location of the slope. He said there is no other configuration that would provide four lots (the underlying zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation) without impacting that slope. Further, a geotechnical report has been submitted that indicates building can occur right up to the top of the slope without impacting the slope if specific guidelines are followed. He agreed they asked for a reduction of the 50 -foot buffer to zero but the code also allows staff to reduce the buffer to 10 feet. He said if the buffer is reduced to 10 feet, only a small variance would be required and measures can be taken during construction to prevent intrusion into the buffer. Mr. Warner said the remaining issue is the Reasonable Use Exception and what constitutes reasonable use. He said the position adopted by staff and accepted by the Hearing Examiner is the houses constitute reasonable use. He questioned whether the City's Comprehensive Plan intended reasonable use of the property to be urban properties that remain developed at less than their potential. He said reasonable use of the property, on an existing road with existing infrastructure, was to provide reasonable development on the parcel. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO EXTEND THE HEARING FOR 15 ADDITIONAL MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Warner referred to Criteria #6 which prevents the use of the Reasonable Use Exception if actions of subdivision have created the undevelopable condition. He stressed there was no other configuration that met the strict dimensional and area criteria of the lot size in the zone without impacting the slope in some way even if the existing houses were demolished. He said lot size averaging was not allowed, a PRD was not an option, and duplexes and other types of houses were not allowed in the zone. He pointed out the intent of the Critical Areas ordinance was to protect critical areas, and reduce impacts. The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 8 geotechnical report concludes there will be no impact if the property is developed. He pointed out the Critical Areas ordinance is also intended to allow property owners economic use of their property. Mr. Warner said the modification requests have been granted in the past although the Hearing Examiner did not recall any had been approved. The City Attorney said file references made in the reconsideration were not part of the record. Mr. Warner said they should be part of the record because the Hearing Examiner made his decision based on the fact that he could not recall granting this type of modification. When it was brought to his attention at the reconsideration that they had been granted, he accepted the information, read it, commented on it, and made decisions based on the content of those files. Mr. Warner summarized that subdivision of property utilizing the Reasonable Use Exception has been granted in the past. Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Warner if he felt the Hearing Examiner made serious, procedural errors. Mr. Warner answered yes. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked if there was an exhibit showing the proposed housing sites on lots 1 and 3. Ms. Kawamoto answered there was no map showing the proposed building sites only the building setback lines. Council President Haakenson asked how many lots currently exist. Ms. Kawamoto answered two; the Hearing Examiner's decision approved one additional building lot. Council President Haakenson commented that Mr. Warner stated there was no other way to configure this property into four lots and staff and the Hearing Examiner recommended three lots. Councilmember Plunkett asked if staff wished to comment on the allegation that the Hearing Examiner made serious procedural errors. Ms. Kawamoto said the Hearing Examiner concurred with her recommendation but she was unaware if procedural errors had occurred. Councilmember Earling said the varied width of the driveway was unusual. Ms. Kawamoto said the Engineering Department determined the access easement was to be 20 feet wide for the entire length of the access with the emergency vehicle turnaround at the end of the access easement. Councilmember Earling asked who is in title to the property. Mr. Snyder said that information is not in the record. In response to Councilmember Plunkett's questions regarding Hearing Examiner error, Mr. Snyder said his understanding is the Hearing Examiner stated no modification from street standards was applied for, therefore he could not grant a modification. The applicant feels he did not need a modification from street standards. Mr. Snyder explained this is an interpretation of City Code and therefore is up to the Council to determine. If the Council finds the applicant is correct in his interpretation of the code, then no modification is required. If the Council finds the applicant is wrong, the Council could handle it as did the Hearing Examiner by stating the engineering requirements must be met. Mr. Snyder said it did not appear to be an error but a semantic difference. Mr. Snyder said he indicated to staff that any attempt to discuss the details of the decision as contained in the Hearing Examiner reconsideration would be inappropriate because neither the files nor the appeal numbers were incorporated into the records, only a series of incidents were cited where modifications or Reasonable Use Exceptions were granted. He said a quasi-judicial body has a responsibility not to be arbitrary in its decision, but can consider a pattern of decision making. Mr. Snyder recalled none of the decision cited were Council decisions. He interpreted Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 9 the Reasonable Use Exception, and it was intended to be a protection against a taking. The language "all reasonable use" does not mean "most beneficial use of property" but to prevent the distraction of a lot's value. Unlike the Reasonable Use Exception, which relates to the subdivision of property by the owner, the variance criteria refers to actions of the owner or a prior owner. He pointed out the footprint of the property is a result of prior subdivision of property. He agreed a variance is to be applied for first to determine if the value of the property can be preserved before applying for a Reasonable Use Exception. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Council President Haakenson recalled Mr. Snyder suggested the Council first determine whether to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding three versus four lots because a number of the issues need only be addressed if the four -lot configuration is approved. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, Appeal 98 -164 TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION (TO DENY A FOUR -LOT SHORT Denied SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, WHICH INCLUDED TWO SETBACK MODIFICATIONS AND A REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE REQUEST. THE DECISION RESULTED IN APPROVAL OF A THREE -LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS GIVEN IN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S SEPTEMBER 3, 1998, DECISION AND SUBSEQUENT DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION). MOTION CARRIED. Regarding the supplemental information provided, Councilmember White commented that staff appeared to be struggling with what information should be presented to the Council. He said all materials provided to the Hearing Examiner must also be presented to the Council and any materials not provided to the Hearing Examiner must not be provided to the Council. He noted if the supplemental information provided to the Council had been factual, the Council's review of the material may have been problematic. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Fahey explained the Council made a decision several weeks ago to hold public hearings prior to audience comment. scent 21 Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said there should have been a vote taken within the Lake City of items citizens want funded. Those projects could then have been included in the Ascent 21 bond allin er issue. On another matter, he thanked Councilmember Nordquist for his assistance in getting the Snohomish County Health District to send him a letter regarding Lake Ballinger. Mr. Rutledge said the City needs to fund maintenance of Lake Ballinger. scent 21 Jeff Lewis, 23621 92nd Avenue W, Edmonds, stated his opposition to Ascent 21, quoting Snohomish County Councilmember Gary Nelson, "Ascent 21 is a boondoggle." Mr. Lewis said Edmonds' citizens already pay too many taxes and invited citizens to call him for a yard sign in opposition to Ascent 21 (206) 542 -7536. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, questioned whether the right -of -way and roadway along rain the west side of the railroad tracks would be reduced as a result of the expansion of the train station and ration double tracking. He said it appears the train station will not be moved and will be located on the west side of the track when double tracking occurs which will eliminate a large portion of the roadway on the west side of the tracks. He said if the City wants to save the roadway and double track to the east, the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 10 train station needs to be moved east. He said this would change the traffic pattern on the west side of the railroad tracks. ffra—in--1 Roger Oliver, 1031 2nd Avenue S, Edmonds, said the railroad owns Railroad Avenue as well as the ration train depot. He said the current thinking in the railroad community is that the front of the station will be eliminated to make adaptations for double tracking. Brian Benzel, 111 Main Street, Edmonds, spoke in favor of Ascent 21 as a positive example of the cent 2 1 coordinated efforts of citizens and elected officials. He said Ascent 21 provided a significant opportunity in Snohomish County to create a foundation for services to respond to recent growth (140,000 people in the past ten years) and to address future growth. He said the projects in the Ascent 21 proposal are specifically designated, and will be managed by local government including Snohomish County and various cities that will be lead by elected officials. He said the taxes to implement the projects are equally distributed among the entities that generate the taxes. The five Ascent 21 projects will address traffic, including a comprehensive program for local highway road and street improvements designed to address traffic flow to the State highway system; acquisition, construction and equipping and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities throughout the County; acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas and open space; and water and sewer projects. He said the projects were developed and reviewed by a citizen committee that included representatives from local government. City and County staffs were consulted, and specific projects were identified. Ascent 21 is an opportunity to address critical infrastructure in a way that will protect the environment and provide for the future. He said the ten -year program requires a vote of the people and the ten -year funding source will expire at the end of ten years. He encouraged the Council to support the Ascent 21 projects. Gary Nelson, 9710 Wharf Street, Edmonds (Snohomish County Councilmember), said before the ncrease Council or citizens consider voting for the largest tax increase in the history of Snohomish County, he recommended consideration be given to the effect of the proposal on the disposable income of citizens. He explained over ten years, property taxes would extract approximately $3,000; the motor vehicle fuel tax would extract $400 for the average family; and the real estate excise tax (for the purchase of a home at the County average of $194,300) will extract an additional $813. He acknowledged he liked a lot of the projects and commended those who participated in identifying the projects; however, he said the major impact of all these taxes at one time must be considered. He stressed the additional taxes would be a serious threat to seniors as well as young families. He said many of the taxes were a "misery tax" to home ownership because they add to the cost of an already inflated market. He observed everyone wants to talk about the projects but not the revenue source. He questioned whether citizens want property taxes to be used to fund transportation projects. He said many annexed to the City to get away from property tax being used for transportation. He said the gas tax would not apply to diesel fuel, only gasoline. Regarding the real estate excise tax for the purpose of purchasing conservation and open space, he pointed out residents already pay $0.065 per $1000 in property taxes for Conservation Futures projects. He urged the Council to inform their constituents where they stand and encouraged them to become knowledgeable about the funding. rain Mayor Fahey asked Community Services Director Paul Mar to respond to Mr. Hertrich's question ration_ I regarding the property lines the railroad has for double tracking and whether they encroach on Railroad ouble Avenue. Mr. Mar said Burlington Northern owns the Railroad Avenue right -of -way between Dayton and racking Main Street (except for a small portion of the western part of Railroad Avenue) and the City has an easement for a road. Mr. Mar said there are no specific plans for double tracking at this time; Sound Transit is working with Burlington Northern and WSDOT rail division to develop plans and a design for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page i l the second track. The portion in Edmonds that will be double tracked starts on the north side of Main street south to the City limits, into Woodway and around the bend on Puget Sound. Mayor Fahey asked if the City would be involved in discussions to determine where the track will be located. Mr. Mar answered yes; the interlocal agreement with Sound Transit requires the City to participate in the station and track alignment. Fake With regard to Mr. Rutledge's comments regarding the ecological health of Lake Ballinger and his allinger opinion that the City is doing nothing to address that issue, Mayor Fahey explained the City is involved in a partnership with Mountlake Terrace to monitor the lake. The lake is consistently found to be in good ecological balance and health. The City allocates funding each year as its share of the partnership with Mountlake Terrace. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO MOVE ITEM #6 (REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS) TO ITEM IIA. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey declared a brief recess. 7. PROCLAMATIONS IN RECOGNITION OF WEEK WITHOUT VIOLENCE MAKE A roclamations DIFFERENCE DAY AND NATIONAL ARTS AND HUMANITIES MONTH Mayor Fahey read excerpts from each of the proclamations and declared October 18 - 24 as Week Against Violence in Edmonds; Saturday, October 24 as Make a Difference Day in Edmonds; and October as Arts and Humanities Month in Edmonds. She encouraged the public to attend a symposium to explore the affects of violence that will be held at Mariner High School on Thursday, October 22. 8. DISCUSSION ON ASCENT 21 PROPOSITIONS Community Services Director Paul Mar recalled that following the Council's discussion regarding Ascent scent 21 21 at the September 21 meeting, staff was asked to make an informational presentation at this meeting that focused on the cost to the typical Edmonds taxpayer for each proposition. and the direct and indirect benefits. Mr. Mar explained Ascent 21 is a carefully designed process to address County and local jurisdictions' infrastructure needs as well as funds to match regional and federal funds to fund the project. He explained the infrastructure elements that are addressed by Ascent 21 include transportation, parks and recreation, open space, creek restoration, and utilities. The list of projects was developed with extensive governmental participation (he and several staff members attended meetings), as this was the only way the costs for each project could be identified. The total funding package is $599 million. The selected projects are contained in the five ordinances the Snohomish County Council approved earlier this year. He explained flexibility in the ordinance language allows funds to be shifted within each zone to meet needs in the next ten years. However, the ordinance restricts funding shifts from one zone to another, and the funds are further restricted to each of the five specific categories. Mr. Mar displayed a chart entitled "How Ascent 21 Propositions Benefit Edmonds" and explained $490 million will fund 99 high priority, regionally significant projects. The remaining $109 million will fund local projects that the local jurisdiction will determine. He reviewed the five propositions: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 12 PROPOSITION 1 Amount - $345 million for transportation ($245 million for regionally significant projects and $70 million for projects to be determined by local jurisdictions) Use - Transportation (regional and local projects) Funding - Excess property tax levy at $0.85/$1,000 of assessed valuation Vote required to pass - 60% Impact to Edmonds Taxp - $170 per year for owner of $200,000 home ($255 for owner of $300,000 home) Edmonds Taxpayer Share - $22 million over 10 years Direct benefit - $15.5 million (leveraging could easily double this benefit) Indirect benefit - $3.6 million Total benefit - $19.1 million Mr. Mar explained this proposition includes $10 million for the Edmonds Crossing project, and funds for the bike trail for Edmonds/Lynnwood/Mountlake Terrace. Edmonds' share of the locally determined projects is $5.29 million, which can be used for sidewalks and local street improvements. Other regionally significant projects in the immediate area include widening of 1641 Street SW between I -5 and Spruce Way, widening of Beverly Park/Edmonds Road from 52ND Ave W to Picnic Point Road, new southbound off and on ramps from I -5 to westbound 196TH Street SW, and a traffic monitoring system on major arterials in Lynnwood: The $10 million for the Edmonds Crossing project would be used as a local match to leverage regional and federal funding. PROPOSITION 2 Amount -$60 million Use - Transportation (local projects) Funding - $0.023 per gallon gas tax Vote required to pass - 50% Impact to Edmonds Taxpayer - $17 per year per vehicle driven 15,000 miles per year (assuming 20 mpg) Edmonds Taxpayer Share - $3.2 million over 10 years Direct Benefit - $3.1 million Indirect Benefit - $0 (roads upgraded in neighboring cities) Total Benefit - $3.1 million Mr. Mar explained the current funding level ($450,000 in Motor Vehicle; Excise Tax and $850,000 in Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax for a total of $1.3 million) is not adequate to fund the level of expenditure necessary to maintain and operate the City's roads. For example, many of the improvements in the bikeway and walkway plan have not been funded. He commented construction of one mile of sidewalk costs approximately $100,000, the same as paving/overlaying one -mile of a. two -lane roadway. PROPOSITION 3 Amount - $40 million Use - Active parks (regional projects) Funding - Excess property tax levy at $0.10 /$1,000 assessed valuation Vote required to pass - 50% Impact to Edmonds Taxpayer - $20 per year for owner of a $200,000 home Edmonds Taxpayer Share - $2.59 million over 10 years Direct Benefit - $8 million Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 13 Indirect Benefit -$0 Total Benefit - $8 million Mr. Mar explained this proposition includes $8 million for the regional aquatic center, which would be located in Edmonds. Although Edmonds will reap benefits from this project, it is a regional project and will provide functional and economic benefits to South Snohomish County. Funding for the entire aquatic center is $10 million; therefore, an additional $2 million will be necessary. PROPOSITION 4 Amount - $130 million Use - Conservation/passive recreation (regional and local projects) Funding - additional 0.41% real estate excise tax on each real estate sale Vote required to Pass - 50% Impact to Edmonds Taxpaver - $820 for purchaser of a $200,000 home ($1,230 for purchaser of a $300,000 home) Edmonds Taxpayer Share - $8.2 million over 10 years Direct Benefit - $3.4 million (leveraging could easily double this benefit) Indirect Benefit - $1.4 million Total Benefit - $4.8 million Mr. Mar explained this proposition includes $40 million in locally determined open space and low intensity recreation projects and $20 million for surface water projects. Edmonds' share is approximately $3.4 million (based on the formula allocation) and can be used.to fund projects Edmonds determines to be important including projects such as the Perrinville Creek repair, drainage improvements throughout the City, and acquisition of land that cannot currently be funded. There are two regional significant projects near Edmonds including the enhanced salmon/riparian corridor acquisition along Lund's Gulch ($2.8 million) and the Puget Sound Tributaries acquisition ($4 million). Additional funds will assist the City fund future open space and low intensity recreation projects. Mr. Mar acknowledged funding of this proposition would impact the affordability of housing. PROPOSITION 5 Amount - $24 million Use - Water /sewer (regional projects) Fundin>; -Excess property tax levy of $0.06/$1000 assessed valuation Vote Required to Pass - 50% Impact to Edmonds Taxpayer - $12 per year for owner of $200,000 home ($18 for a $300,000 home) Edmonds Taxpayer Share - $1.55 million over 10 years Direct Benefit - $0 Indirect Benefit - $200,000 (new systems would relieve growth here) Total Benefit - $200,000 Mr. Mar explained although there are no local projects, the Everett Water District $4 million water transmission line project will indirectly affect Edmonds citizens as Edmonds purchases a portion of its water from Alderwood Water Districts whose water source is Everett. Mr. Mar explained most of the projects within this proposition are located in urban areas that do not have the capability to fund the projects via fees. Due to continued growth in the County, if the infrastructure is not provided in other less urbanized areas, more urbanized areas (Edmonds) will be affected. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 14 Council President Haakenson recalled the Council requested staff provide a presentation with the goal of educating the public regarding the taxpayers share and benefit. He thanked Mr. Mar for doing just that. Councilmember Van Hollebeke echoed Council President Haakenson's comments. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said although this has been discussed as "Ascent 21," he said on the ballot it will be listed as Propositions 1 - 5. Mr. Mar said the voter's pamphlet refers to the issues as Snohomish County Propositions 1 - 5; the informational portion of the voter's pamphlet does refer to Ascent 21. Councilmember Van Hollebeke pointed out Proposition 3 would cost Edmonds' citizens $20 per year and the total over 10 years would be approximately $2.5 million; however, the direct benefit will be an $8 million contribution toward an aquatic center (with a $10 million total cost) that will benefit Edmonds as well as the entire South Snohomish County region. He pointed out the economic benefit of the aquatic center would increase the benefit to Edmonds citizens. He compared these propositions to Forward Thrust in King County many years ago. He commented the Council always has wishes for its citizens but there is never enough money. He said the impact of these propositions on Edmonds' citizens could not be described only in dollars. Councilmember White asked the cost of financing the aquatic center by Edmonds taxpayers only. Councilmember Van Hollebeke recalled figures used 2 -3 years ago were based on an average home value of $160,000; funding for an $8 million project (the estimated cost at that time) was $54 per year for 20 years. Councilmember Plunkett agreed with Councilmember Van Hollebeke's statements, that there is not enough money but pointed out there would never be enough money because Edmonds taxpayers will begin to object to increased taxes. Mr. Snyder interrupted Councilmember Plunkett, pointing out RCW 42.17.130 prohibits the Council from using public facilities to support or oppose ballot measures. The only exceptions are 1) a press conference called by a Councilmember for the purpose of stating his /her opinion and 2) notice of each ballot title and number must be published and a public hearing held to allow the public to speak in favor or opposition. As the Council had not published notice of the ballot titles and numbers, Councilmembers were unable to state an opinion tonight. Councilmember Plunkett asked if he could make a motion regarding a resolution in support or opposition of the Ascent 21 propositions. Mr. Snyder said a public hearing would be required first. Mayor Fahey recalled when Mr. Snyder explained the need for a public hearing during the Council's previous discussion of Ascent 21, the Council requested staff provide a factual presentation on how the propositions would affect Edmonds citizens. The Council indicated they would not take a position so that voters could make their own decision. Therefore, no public hearing was scheduled. Councilmember Earling agreed the intent was to educate the voters in an unbiased manner to assist them in making a decision. He commented Forward Thrust included multiple ballot issues and voters chose the ones they believed were appropriate for the community. He preferred the Council not take a position on this issue and allow voters to make their own determination. He thanked Mr. Mar for his presentation and invited the public to call the Council office to obtain a copy of the information regarding each proposition. 9. REPORT ON WINTER OPERATIONS inter Public Works Director Noel Miller explained the intent of this presentation was to inform the Council Aerations and the public of the plans the City is making for the more severe winter weather expected this year. The prediction is colder temperatures and more precipitation; 3 -5 degrees colder will result in more snow Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 15 than rain. He displayed photographs of Public Works snow removal equipment and described their use: one 10 yard dump truck equipped with a sanding unit and snow plow, and two 5 -yard dump trucks, one with a plow and one with a sanding unit. The City is in the process of purchasing another smaller plow that will be used to plow City-owned parking lots, primarily fire stations. He described the City's anti - icing equipment, a 300 - gallon tank mounted on a 1 -ton flat bed that sprays anti -icing material on roadways. He said the City is full staffed to operate the equipment in a major snowfall with 11 maintenance workers and two leads assigned to the Street Division. Mr. Miller explained Public Works' plan of operations to respond to a significant snowfall event includes 1) listening to NOAA weather forecasts, 2) using anti -icing equipment on primary arterials the day before if roads are dry, 3) prepare snow removal equipment the day before - plows, sanders, chains, 4) communicating with police patrol units for early morning road conditions, and 5) calling in crews by 4:00 a.m. to clear primary routes prior to morning commute traffic. Mr. Miller displayed a map of anti -icing locations in the City - major intersections and arterials on hillsides. One tank of anti -icing solution can be distributed on these areas; one tank costs approximately $300 for one application. If the roadways remain dry, the solution stays active for approximately three days (this is important if the snow falls later than predicted). He displayed a map showing the primary sanding routes (arterials and Community Transit routes). He said a serious storm with other factors (wind, trees down, etc.) could cause the City's equipment/capability to be overtaxed. Fire Marshall John Westfall described the City's priority response to events. When services expected cannot keep up with the demand, Department Directors or the Mayor may activate the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). He said the purpose of the EOC is to assemble and prioritize problems and resolve the situation that is causing a threat to the normal life, health, safety, property and environment for Edmonds' citizens. He explained the EOC structure comprised of Administration (set -up, notification, and information collections with the EOC), Operations (department managers who provide coordination and direction to field units), and Policy (EOC Board comprised of the Mayor and Department Director, who provide direction and control to resolve and recover from the disaster). He explained Edmonds is one of eight member cities that utilize the Emergency Services Coordinating Agency (ESCA) to assist in emergency planning. ESCA maintains resource lists from other governmental entities, private companies, and industry for locally declared disasters. He described the reporting chain; beginning with the City's EOC, then ESCA, followed by the State Department of Emergency Management, and finally Federal Emergency Management Agency. He explained the EOC is not a location but an operation. It can be assembled at a variety of locations; the primary site for the EOC is the Public Works facility. Since 1996, Police and Fire 4 -wheel drive vehicles have been purchased. In addition, emergency power is being installed for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Communication equipment for emergency operations will enable the EOC to communicate with field units. Food and water is being provided for workers in the EOC and field units. Refresher training has been provided for EOC staff including refinement of operating procedures. And, a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) was developed which provides 21 hours of training in fire suppression, search and other disaster functions to assist them in taking care of themselves and their neighborhood (there are currently 75 citizens who have completed the CERT training). Mr. Westfall urged citizens to prepare themselves for 72 hours on their own without emergency response. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING 40 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 16 Mr. Miller recalled two years ago, in addition to snowfall, there was flooding and heavy rains. To prevent problems caused by heavy rains and flooding, staff performs weekly checks of critical drainage system components such as the Meadowdale draining system and creek and stream roadway culverts. Staff also keeps the sewage pump stations operating by utilizing emergency generators to minimize the potential of sewage overflows, and has 2500 sandbags available at Public Works for citywide distribution. In the event of a landslide, an initial inspection is done by Public Works; if the landslide is major, Public Safety and Community Services officials will be notified, the Fire Department will order any evacuation, the Building Official coordinates building damage assessments, and the City Engineer addresses geotechnical concerns. He noted the City has ordered 25 ecology blocks to keep mud from flowing over primary access routes. Mr. Miller explained a meeting was held two weeks ago to determine what planning was necessary to ensure City workers can get to work and respond to emergencies as well as to ensure employees have plans established in their own homes. In an effort to ensure the Council is prepared, snow shovels were distributed to each Councilmember and Mayor (actually to be used by City employees). Fire Marshall Westfall explained Edmonds and ESCA are conducting a winter preparedness campaign that will include press information and preparedness classes to ensure citizens are prepared to spend at least 72 hours on their own without emergency services. He displayed a list of items citizens should have available including extra blankets, proper clothing, first aid kit, essential medications, battery - operated radio, handlight, extra batteries, canned food, non - electric can opener, bottled water, and snow shovel. Fire Marshall Westfall said Mayor Fahey is requesting Edmonds citizens who have 4 -wheel drive vehicles, snow mobiles, snow plow, bulldozer, etc. who are willing to assist the City in emergency conditions, to notify the City of their availability and equipment at the winter equipment citizen volunteer hotline (425- 775- 7741). For other preparedness information and training available, he invited citizens to contact the Fire Department (425 -771 -0215) or ESCA (425- 776 - 3722). Mayor Fahey said some citizens are hesitant to call 911 for non -life threatening emergencies and contact the Fire or Police Department instead. She stressed the Fire and Police Departments as well as Public Works on weekends or evenings are dispatched through 911 and that is the only way to get an emergency response during normal circumstances. However, during an emergency situation (such as a severe storm) when it is important to keep the 911 responses available to meet critical need, the City has established an emergency line that will provide telephone numbers for reporting non -life threatening emergency needs that will be prioritized and responded to via the EOC. She said this information is available on the City's home page and available in written format at City Hall. She said although the City is preparing for potential heavy snowfalls, these preparations are equally as important for other emergency events. She stressed it is important citizens are prepared to care for themselves for the first 72 hours, unless they are in a life- threatening situation. She reiterated the City is seeking help from any citizens with equipment that could be used to respond to non - emergency needs in their local area and urged citizens to register with the City. 10. REPORT REGARDING STATUS OF LOG CABIN tatus of Community Services Director Paul Mar reported the City is asking for help from anyone who has g Cabin expertise with log houses to determine the best way to repair /replace the lower logs that are rotting on the log cabin. He commented the City has estimates for a foundation and roof but needs to determine how the logs can be replaced in the most feasible, cost - effective manner. He said no funds have been spent on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 17 the log cabin because the Council directed staff in the fall of 1996 to ensure the repairs be done in the most efficient manner. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked if staff has contacted lob cabin builders. Mr. Mar answered yes; unfortunately most contractors are very busy this year and it is difficult to get a response. Mayor Fahey said there is a difference between building a new log home and restoring deteriorating logs. She said the logs at the base of the cabin are becoming so deteriorated that there is concern with the stability of the building. 11. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CEDAR RIVER ASSOCIATES AND APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO REFINE CITY'S DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVIEW PROCESSES Cedar River Community Services Director Paul Mar said at the last Council meeting, questions arose whether the sA to scope of work negotiated was consistent with the motion the Council made. He referred to the Refine clarification memo in the Council packet and said staff believes the scope of work and request for Design & Review proposals (RFP) are consistent with the motion the Council made regarding their expectations. [Processes Councilmember Van Hollebeke said the motion was to seek requests for proposals for consultant services to assist the City to refine its architectural design guidelines and review process. He said it appears the focus of the contract is on the Architectural Design Board (ADB) element. Mr. Mar answered the scope of work includes the design review process which begins the day an applicant applies for a project or requests a pre - application meeting to discuss a project and ends with the design review decision which is made by either staff or the ADB. For Councilmember Van Hollebeke, Mr. Mar said the building permit process follows the design review process. Mr. Mar reiterated a number of projects do not require design review, only a building permit. He said the consultant's study will include the design review process, not only the ADB's role in the process, but also the guidelines that are used, the codes, policies, etc. that the City uses, the processes staff utilizes, and the application submittal process. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked Councilmember Earling and Council President Haakenson whether they were satisfied the contract accomplished the intent of the motion. Councilmember Earling said it appeared staff tried to capture the spirit of the motion. He recalled there was testimony regarding the ADB process as well as the work staff does in preparation to present items to the ADB such as establishing clear time lines. He recalled this was the issue Council President Haakenson wanted explored - how the application is packaged for presentation to the ADB. He also was interested in involving citizens to provide input on the process. He said if staff felt these issues would be addressed by the consultant, he was satisfied. Mr. Mar said there will be stakeholder interviews and public input into the process, the consultant will review files which contain all dates, and will interview staff and ADB members. He said both the spirit of the motion and Councilmember Earling's comments are covered in the scope of work. Mr. Mar said approximately 4 -6 weeks into the process, if the consultant finds that everything is perfect within the design review process, the study will stop and a determination will be made whether there are other issues surrounding the design review process that need review and, if so, the scope of work will be modified. Council President Haakenson referred to the July 28 meeting minutes that stated "he (Council President Haakenson) pointed out the ADB may not be the cause of delays talked about by citizens and he would like the consultant to establish the reasons for these delays. Councilmember Earling explained his Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 18 motion included the recommendation for the consultant to further refine policy, guidelines and timelines." Council President Haakenson said his understanding of Councilmember Earling's motion was that this would be exclusive of the ADB process. Councilmember Earling agreed. Council President Haakenson said he was then comfortable with the scope of work. end COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN ��28�gg HOLLEBEKE, TO AMEND THE JULY 28, 1998 MINUTES TO CHANGE "CONFIRM" TO Minutes "AFFIRM" IN THE MOTION ON PAGE 10. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CEDAR RIVER ASSOCIATES FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO REFINE THE CITY'S DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVIEW PROCESS AND APPROVE FUNDING OF $34,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND FOR THE ABOVE NOTED CONSULTANT SERVICES AND ASSOCIATED CONTINGENCIES. MOTION CARRIED. 11A. REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS (formerly Item 6) Finance Committee nterprise Committee Chairperson Earling said the Mayor presented an update on the progress of establishing a and City Enterprise Fund. The City would sell posters, magnets, postcards, latte sleeves, etc. to retailers at wholesale prices and retailers could set the price of the items. The Finance Committee reviewed ncollect- uncollectable accounts receivable and agreed to recommend write -off of small, uncollectable balances on ble Accts the consent agenda for approval and authorize the Accounting Manager to write -off accounts under $50 if deemed uncollectable. Chief Hickok requested a reallocation of staffing in the Police Department D Staffing which he said together with funds available from the COPS Grant, would save the City $116,000 over a eallocation three year period. The Committee agreed with this proposal and recommended it be included for consideration in the 1999 budget. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER EARLING FROM THE OCTOBER 6, 1998, COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER EARLING ABSTAINED. Public Safety Committee D Staffing 11 Committee Chairperson Nordquist said the Public Safety Committee also discussed the reallocation of eallocation police Department staff and agreed with the proposal. The Committee discussed and recommended an Digital RFP for the new digital imaging system be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Councilmember Imaging Nordquist requested the Public Safety Committee's recommendation regarding the removal of the stem loading zone by Edmonds Bank be retracted as Councilmember Plunkett indicated new information oading would be available from the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee via a survey being conducted by one by the Engineering Department. He, Councilmember White, and Chief Hickok agreed this recommendation dmonds would be retracted and the matter reviewed again by the Public Safety Committee when the additional ank information is available. Community Services Committee Traffic Committee Chairperson Van Hollebeke said the Community Services Committee reviewed traffic Calming calming devices including an historical summary of City practices. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said evices a citizen, Tracy Fraker, is researching the concept of traffic calming throughout the City. City Engineer Jim Walker informed the Committee that any traffic calming program should be approached in a systematic and consistent manner with neighborhood input and concurrence of Fire and Police. The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 19 it Nailing Committee recommends support of efforts to seek or reallocate additional funds in the 1999 capital cbnique budget for sidewalks and traffic calming devices and involve neighborhood communities to seek answers on traffic calming devices including sponsoring public forums. Mr. Walker also provided an update regarding the soil nailing technique, commenting this would save the City in excess of $200,000 in the replacement of large, deteriorating rockeries on 76' West and on Olympic View Drive. A report was nterim made to the Committee on the Interim Water Group; the Committee recommended the Council authorize ater Group the City to proceed with application for membership in Cascade Water Alliance which was approved as Consent Agenda Item H. Lastly, an update on the 1999 Capital Improvement needs was provided to the committee and an extension of the study period for sandwich board was approved as Consent Agenda Item I. 12. MAYOR'S REPORT F" ---99--1 Mayor Fahey said the City is trying to get the Hwy. 99 project underway. Lynnwood is the lead agency roiect and Edmonds is scheduled to be Phase 1. Although Edmonds has had its share of the funds needed for this project in reserve for a number of years, the project requires funds from the State's Transportation Improvement budget and many other resources. They do not want to release funds until assurance is provided that the total project will be completed. Further, there are issues with phases 2 and 3 (Lynnwood and incorporated Snohomish County) primarily related to how transit enclosures will be addressed. She said if the project proceeds according to plan, Phase I would go to bid in November. Mayor Fahey said meetings regarding implementation of 800 MHz throughout Snohomish County are soo MHz continuing. The language in the interlocal agreement is being fine tuned including determining the type nterlocal of board structure and how the agency will be governed. She anticipated an interlocal agreement would be presented to the Council for consideration within the next month. She said the 1999 budget process would include how to fund Edmonds' share of the 800 MHz program. ;re Mayor Fahey explained a week ago the Fire Consolidation Task Force met to consider all the onsolida- information. The members present voted 9 -1 to finish Phase U of the consolidation study and to consider ion Task specific issues such as the savings provided by consolidation and what a consolidated fire department might look like. She said the consultant expects to finish the study by mid - November. Mayor Fahey recommended the replacement of Edmonds' Fire Chief be delayed until a determination is made regarding consolidation. ikeway/ Community Services Director Paul Mar announced that the Engineering Department would hold an open Plan house on Monday, October 26 at City Hall. regarding the bikeway /walkway plan. 13. COUNCIL REPORTS scent 21 Councilmember Van Hollebeke thanked Mr. Mar for presenting the information regarding Ascent 21 and encouraged voters to contact the City for copies of information provided. ading Councilmember Plunkett thanked Councilmember Nord uist for giving the Downtown Parkin one by q g g g monds Committee an opportunity to do a survey to determine the need for the loading zone by Edmonds Bank. ank Councilmember White commented that he has had several inquires regarding the possibility of integrating a parking structure in the Public Safety complex. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 20 COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, THAT Parking THE COUNCIL ASK THE MAYOR TO DIRECT STAFF TO INVESTIGATE INTEGRATION OF Structure in A PARKING STRUCTURE INTO THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY WITH THE Public UNDERSTANDING ANALYSIS WOULD INCLUDE COST, BENEFIT, NEED, AND HOW THE Safety Complex TIME FRAME WOULD BE AFFECTED, KEEPING IN MIND THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC omp HEARING PROCESS. IT IS IMPORTANT STAFF WORK CLOSELY WITH THE DOWNTOWN PARKING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THEIR RESOURCES. Council President Haakenson said he drafted a letter to Karen Wiggins, Chair of the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee, requesting she make a presentation to the Council to address this issue and answer the Council's questions. He mailed the letter today and copies would be provided to Councilmembers shortly. He anticipated a presentation would be made within the next two weeks. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Mayor Fahey explained staff has tried to assist the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee gather the necessary information including a recent attempt to determine the valuation of retail and commercial property in the BC zone to determine the cost of a business improvement district. The information provided contained some residences and staff is awaiting updated information. She said any information presented by the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee becomes another decision - making process within the budget or within the scope of a long -range plan due to funding issues. Councilmember Earling said when the presentation regarding a parking structure is made to the Council, a recommended funding mechanism or a variety of options need to be provided. He pointed out a revised public process likely would be needed because the addition of a parking structure would double the parking spaces and the potential for twice as much traffic. He requested staff and/or the City Attorney address this issue. Council President Haakenson said this issue was included in his letter to Ms. Wiggins. Councilmember Plunkett said nothing will happen until the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee comes to the Council with a project and funding proposal. He explained they are attempting to establish a LID for the downtown merchants. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:53 p.m. ARBARA S. FAHEY, S AP�D�RA S. CHAS� E, ZCITWY-CL'E-R'K Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 1998 Page 21 1 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 650 MAIN STREET 7:00 -10:00 P.M. OCTOBER 20, 1998 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 OCTOBER 6, 1998 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #25698 THROUGH #27988 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 5, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $472,431.19. APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #27790 THROUGH #28164 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 12, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $949,143.19. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #22096 THROUGH #22254 FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 16 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $365,449.46. (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM LOVA L. KACK (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), DANIEL AND DAWN THRASHER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND KATHY ANGVIK ($35.00) (E) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1998 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (F) REPORT ON QUOTES RECEIVED FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN INCLEMENT WEATHER SERVICE VEHICLE AND AWARD OF BID TO FRONTIER FORD (G) APPROVAL OF FIRE UNION LABOR AGREEMENT (H) APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR CASCADE WATER ALLIANCE (1) PROPOSED ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE LIFE OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ENACTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 3209 RELATING TO A -FRAME AND SANDWICH -BOARD DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, REAFFIRMING ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE (J) PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS NOS. 922 THROUGH 936 DESIGNATING EACH MEMBER OF THE SISTER CITY HEKINAN DELEGATION AS HONORARY CITIZENS OF EDMONDS (K) AUTHORIZATION TO REQUEST PROPOSALS TO PURCHASE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 3. (30 Min.) CLOSED RECORD APPEAL MEETING - APPEAL BY ROGER HERTRICH OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY HIS APPEAL OF A STAFF INTERPRETATION (FILE NO. AP- 98 -85) PERTAINING TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.60 TO CONSIDER GAS PUMP ISLAND CANOPY LOGOS AS "WALL GRAPHICS," WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM HEIGHT AND AREA LIMITATIONS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1011 PUGET DRIVE AND IS ZONED "NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS - BN." CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 20, 1998 Page 2 of 2 4. (30 Min.) CLOSED RECORD APPEAL MEETING — APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY A FOUR -LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION, WHICH INCLUDED: A REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO A STEEP SLOPE, CRITICAL AREA BUFFER; TWO SETBACK MODIFICATION REQUESTS; AND ENGINEERING SITE IMPROVEMENT ALTERATIONS. THE DECISION RESULTED IN APPROVAL OF A THREE -LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION. (Property Location: 9222 — 240'h Street SW / Applicant: Charles Warner / File No. AP -98 -164, S- 98 -83, V- 98 -84) 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 6. (15 Min.) REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS 7. (10 Min.) PROCLAMATIONS IN RECOGNITION OF WEEK WITHOUT VIOLENCE, MAKE A DIFFERENCE DAY, AND NATIONAL ARTS & HUMANITIES MONTH 8. (30 Min.) DISCUSSION ON ASCENT 21 PROPOSITIONS 9. (30 Min.) REPORT ON WINTER OPERATIONS 10. (5 Min.) REPORT REGARDING STATUS OF LOG CABIN 11. (10 Min.) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CEDAR RIVER ASSOCIATES AND APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO REFINE CITY'S DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVIEW PROCESS 12. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 13. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears; the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.