Loading...
03/07/1995 City CouncilApproved City Council Minutes si2riv.) EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MARCH 7.1995 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:48 p.m. by Council President Tom Petruzzi in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. Following the flag salute, Council recessed to a 40 minute Executive Session on a legal matter and labor negotiations. The meeting was reconvened by Mayor Laura Hall at 7:30 p.m. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Laura Hall, Mayor Tom Petruzzi, Council President Barbara Fahey, Councilmember William J. Kasper, Councilmember Michael Hall, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Roger L. Myers, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT . Tom Miller, Police Chief Mike Springer, Fire Chief Jim Walker, Acting City Engineer Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Paul Mar, Community Services Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks & Recreation Manager Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Rhonda March, City Clerk Christine Laws, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MIKE HALL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS . Council President Petruzzi pulled Items B and Councilmember Bill Kasper pulled Item J. COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS 4950933 THRU #951102 FOR WEEK OF FEBRUARY 27, 1995; AND PAYROLL WARRANTS #950852 THRU #951147 FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 16 THRU 28, 1995 (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JANICE V. WILSON ($50.00 EST.) AND CHRISTINA J. REGER ($4,233.51), AND GUY SCHOONMAKER ($140.81) ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT FROM EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 FOR INSTALLATION OF WATER LINE AUTHORIZATION FOR SALE OF RETIRING POLICE DOG TO K-9 HANDLER Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 1 (G) e(G) ORDINANCE CE 3012 AMENDING SECTION 2.10.030 TO CORRECT A STATUTE REFERENCE ORDINANa 0�0 RELATIVE TO POSITION OF POLICE CHIEF � p' (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR 1995 SIGNAGE AND DOOR HARDWARE ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (HUD) (1) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS CENTER FENCING Q 11 PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT f �n fJ''�X' (K) `� APPROVAL OF 1995 TAXI LICENSE RENEWAL FOR NORTH END TAXI Council President Tom Petruzzi pulled Item B because of a memo received from City Clerk Rhonda March indicating the need for housekeeping corrections. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed is as follows: (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 1995 Councilmember Bill Kasper pulled Item J because he wished to vote against the item. COUNCILMEMBER MIKE HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE ITEM J. COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER VOTED NO. U" MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed is as follows: (J) APPROVAL OF IAFF FIRE UNION LABOR AGREEMENT 3. AUDIENCE Syd Locke, 110 Pine Street, asked about what the plans are at this time to move the maintenance facility. �"�.. Mayor Hall indicated that if Mr. Locke were to call in, she or another staff member would be happy to answer his questions. Tom Raetzloff, 1428 Ninth Avenue North, spoke to police staffing. He cited a recent incident where all three of Edmonds' on -duty officers were present. He feels the police department does a good job but is understaffed. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, spoke to the issue of swimming pools. He brought up • �, the fact that Yost pool is uncovered, only used about three months of the year, and has very little Q6" maintenance. He also mentioned that many boys and girls clubs have facilities such as this and that any such facilities should be taken into consideration during the planning process. He also spoke briefly on commuter park and ride lots and the new train system. Jackie Parrett, former Edmonds City Clerk, reported that she was in Washington, D.C., and complimented City Attorney Scott Snyder on his oral argument before the Supreme Court on the Oxford House case. She said he was well prepared, had ready answers to the Justices' questions, and appeared to do everything right. 4. INTRODUCTION OF NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MANAGER �q� Q Community Services Director Paul Mar introduced Stephen Koho as the new Wastewater Treatment Plant JI" Manager. Mr. Koho comes to Edmonds from Lebanon, Oregon. Mr. Koho expressed his pleasure at being in Edmonds and said he looked forward to working for the City. Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 2 5. RECOGNITION OF BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS Mayor Hall praised the efforts of board and commission members in general, and indicated her desire to recognize some of those members. She presented plaques to those present and will deliver them to those unable to attend this meeting. Those honored included: Brad Butterfield and Erin Putnam from the Architectural Design Board, Marc Strauch from the ADB and the Planning Board, Arts Commission member JoAnne Nelson, Civil Service Commission member James Mizell (Pam Harkins accepted on his behalf), Planning Board members Mike Cooper, Al Schweppe and Rudy Jones, Sister City Commission members Jack Dublin, Ken Harano and Evelyn Laurine. Mayor Hall further recognized newly appointed ADB members Jeff Oaklief, Shirley Frank and Carolynne Harris; Arts Commission members Donna Leavitt, Ramona Faries, Carolyn Stark and Providence Cicero; Cemetery Board members Marvene McGinness, Brian Comstock and Chuck Cain; Planning Board members Rob Morrison, Phyllis Becker, Gary Grayson, and Warren LaFon; and Sister City Commission members Jeanne Thorsen, Jan O'Malley, June Cornett, and Iyoko Okano. 6. HEARING ON DOGS IN THE PARK Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreations Manager, introduced the subject of the hearing. She called Council attention to the Agenda Memo attachments which included minutes of the November 1, 1994 Council meeting when discussion was held on the pros, cons and options available for allowing dogs in one or more parks and minutes of the August 10, 1994 Council meeting at which a public hearing was held on the draft ordinance amending Edmonds City Code Section 5.05.060 relating to dogs in certain city parks. It is Staffs recommendation that Council concur with the Planning Board's recommendation to continue to allow dogs at South Marina Beach and to open the inner trails of Yost Park to dogs. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, spoke to the need for emergency veterinary facilities. Other speakers, many of whom live next to Yost Park, included: Bill Hardman, 1029 Maple, Edmonds Rick Spellman, 21016 Shell Valley Way, Edmonds Joe Malan, P. O. Box 1505, Edmonds Beth Wright, 1029 Maple, Edmonds Brice Supler, 747 Olympic Avenue, Edmonds Andrew Brunsteill, 21412 - 96th Avenue West, Edmonds Ilene Lund, 8928 - 240th Street S.W., Edmonds Ben Brodie, 8209 - 181st Place S.W., Edmonds Nancy Brodie, 8209 = 181st Place S.W., Edmonds Robin Wright, 1039 Walnut, Edmonds Lisa Smith, 717 Fourth Avenue South, Edmonds Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds Bob Seborn, P. O. Box 752, Bothell Some of the sentiments presented were repeated by several speakers. It was stated that the Planning Board proposal was very different from the proposal a resident submitted over a year ago. It was believed residents should not have to drive across town to take their dogs out when there are other suitable areas in Edmonds. It was suggested there needed to be an easy access area where people downtown can take their Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 3 dogs and that City Park would be a perfect location. Council was urged to go to Yost Park and see for themselves that approximately 60-75% of the people will be walking their dogs. It was agreed that appropriate supervision and citizen responsibility is a must. It was suggested that there is far more littering from humans than from dogs. It was intimated that education was an important factor in this issue. It was thought that people not be ticketed for having their dog with them, but anyone leaving a mess should be subject to a fine. There was mixed reaction as to the necessity of leashes. Safety issues were thought to be more important than "bogus health concerns". It was generally agreed that dogs do not belong in the playground areas where children play. It was felt that if there were likely to be dogs in a park, there would be less chance of assault, vandalism and graffiti. It was felt perhaps the Parks Department was opposed to dogs in the park because it would cause more work for them. There was opposition to the necessity of leashes in South Marina Park as they hinder a dogs ability to go into the water. Based on audience question, it was determined four Council members owned dogs. It was repeated several times that without being able to walk dogs in the parks forces people to walk them in the streets which presents safety concerns. Judy Treckel, 16546 N.E. 98th Court, Redmond, represented Save Our Dogs at Marymoore Park. She indicated that her organization would be happy to discuss what they are doing and what is successful. She also offered help in addressing Edmonds' problem. Mayor Hall announced receipt of correspondence from Don Ralston, Bill Hardman and Jeannie Anderson. Todd Gruenhagen, 21035 Shell Valley Way, Edmonds, suggested Council needs to be dealing with adding trash cans more than the issue of allowing dogs in parks. Bill Waugh, 263 Fourth Avenue South, Edmonds, brought up the prize-winning picture seen throughout Edmonds showing dogs down by the ferry dock. He feels the City should live up to the picture of which it is so proud. Virginia Knouse, 9106 - 192nd S.W., Edmonds, announced she was pro -dog and asked how many in the room favored allowing dogs in parks. Almost the entire room stood. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Councihnember Barbara Fahey raised the issue of whether the present ordinance needs to be implemented. She also asked if consideration had been given to the proposal previously submitted by Lorraine Raymond of PAWS. Ms. Ohlde responded that the plan had been considered but that a trial period is difficult to monitor and measure. She suggested that if the park is opened it could be managed at that level. Discussion followed on Section 5.15.050 regarding placement of notices in parks. Council President Petruzzi received verification that Edmonds is the only city in Southwest Snohomish County that does not allow dogs in parks. Council President Petruzzi asked about the list that was requested by Mr. Grayson as noted in the August 10 minutes. Councilmember Fahey indicated the list of parks was in the packet material passed out tonight. Mr. Petruzzi stated he had a difficult time with why there are no dogs in the parks. He also cited with interest some of what Seattle does. He feels it logical our parks allow dogs and that more than one area should allow an area for free -running dogs. He sees no reason why Edmonds should be the only place not to allow dogs and feels Council should try to find a way to be more accommodating to the people in the community who own dogs. Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 4 It was determined that guide dogs for the blind are exempt from regular rules for dogs in parks. Councilmember Mike Hall brought up Section D of the ordinance. He expressed his belief that police efforts would be enhanced by citizens walking around the city with their dogs. He thinks it can legally meet that part of the need by providing people with the opportunity to bring policemen into the park. Councilmember Kasper agreed with the other three speakers. He also asked about the' outcome of the Seattle decision. Councilmember Roger Myers asked Police Chief Miller if allowing dogs in parks would cause a reduction in vandalism. Discussion followed. Councilmember Fahey feels the ordinance needs to be changed and that some areas of the park should be opened up. She does think, however, that there does need to be some control. She liked what PAWS presented as part of their recommendation. She feels the ordinance should be changed to read that dogs are not permitted in parks unless otherwise posted. She does not want to summarily propose a change in the ordinance, but wants to ask for indulgence for a brief time to remand the matter to the Community Services Committee to come forth with a specific proposal and analyze parks taking into consideration any need for reservations for other property uses. COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING, TO REMAND THE MATTER TO COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CONSIDERATION (NEXT MEETING IS NEXT WEEK) AND TO COME FORTH WITH A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL. CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT SNYDER ADVISED THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THIS MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE PLANNING BOARD. IT IS WITHIN THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF COUNCIL TO DECIDE WITHOUT HAVING TO PRESENT IT TO THE PLANNING BOARD IF THE COMMITTEE PROVIDES DIRECTION 4 ON HOW TO DEAL WITH DOGS IN THE PARKS. COUNCILMEMBER MIKE HALL ? SUGGESTED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT — COUNCIL SHOULD APPROVE STAFF'S 1� RECOMMENDATION TO OPEN YOST PARK AND SOUTH MARINA BEACH AND GET TOGETHER VERY QUICKLY TO SEE WHAT OTHER AREAS COULD BE OPENED UP. MOTION CARRIED. A five minute recess was called at 9:04 p.m. 7. 1 Councilmember Earling disclosed a conflict of interest on this matter and left the room for the duration of the hearing. HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 6.83 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS AT 9117 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND APPROVAL OF A CRITICAL AREAS REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION TO REDUCE REQUIRED CRITICAL AREA BUFFER AND BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF A STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREA (APPLICANT. GEORGE KAIREZ / FILE NO.9-93-216) Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson summarized the history of the issue. This is a request for preliminary approval of a 154ot subdivision located on the bluff at 9117 Olympic View Drive. Because of the property's location adjacent to Puget Sound and on top of a significant bluff, the applicant was obligated to apply for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Reasonable Use Exception from the steep slope buffer requirements of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on this application, Staff provided a report, there was testimony from the public, and there Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 5 was testimony from the applicant and his representative. The Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding the Shoreline Permit and the Reasonable Use Exception and adopted a recommendation to approve the preliminary plat. Mr. Wilson used the overhead to show the preliminary plat layout. It is Staffs recommendation that the Council adopt the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner granting approval of the preliminary plat application with an exception. There was testimony provided at the hearing by the applicant's representatives regarding the Critical Areas Ordinance and concern regarding the notice of the Critical Areas Ordinance when it was originally adopted and subsequent extensions of that ordinance. Testimony was provided that it had not been done according to appropriate local laws regarding public notice proceedings. He drew Council's attention to the packets which contain a supplement to the packet prepared by the City Clerk addressing all of the public notice provisions and notices that were given through the adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance. A copy of this material was faxed to the applicant yesterday afternoon so they would have an opportunity to review it. Mr. Wilson also provided his hard copy to the representative for the applicant so he had an additional opportunity this evening to review the material. Mr. Wilson reiterated that it is Staffs recommendations of the Hearing Examiner approving the Preliminary Plat Application with instruction to the City Attorney to modify or provide in the record the material provided by the City Clerk to show that adequate legal notice was provided in the City's original adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance in order to resolve some of the Hearing Examiner's questions. City Attorney Scott Snyder re-emphasized that the Reasonable Use Exception and the Substantial Development Permit were not appealed, and those decisions are final. The public portion of the hearing was opened by Mayor Hall. Mr. Philip Carter opened as representative of the applicant George Kairez. He confirmed with City Attorney Snyder that the entire record before the Hearing Examiner is part of the record of these proceedings. With respect to the issue of the validity of the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, he was supplied with a copy of some documents that were put in as a supplement to Council packets. He said they had already submitted their briefs and those are legal issues which need not be addressed this evening. He did suggest that what was submitted in the supplemental packet does not address the issue of what did or did not occur at the end of June 1994 when the original ordinance expired pursuant to a sunset ordinance. Mr. Carter indicated that the applicant is supportive of the Hearing Examiner's decisions and the comments that followed thereafter with a few exceptions. He caused to be handed out to Council materials that were for the most part included in their packets. Mr. Carter first referred to the February 22, 1995 letter from Lovell-Sauerland & Associates. He called Council's attention to Paragraph A. Condition 2 of the "Engineering Requirements" suggests a gravel or asphaltic concrete pavement access to all of the sanitary sewer and stormwater manholes for maintenance purposes. The unique thing about the subdivision is that the sewer line servicing it is already in existence. It is owned by the City of Edmonds, and it runs along the top of the bluff. In order to accommodate this provision, they would end up with very valuable lots having asphalt driveways within the 30' setback, across the side yards and front of the lots down to existing manholes. He doesn't understand the purpose because there is no easement to get to drive on that asphalt. This would seriously diminish the value of these properties. The applicant thinks it a requirement that is not justified. Mr. Carter asked that it be eliminated. Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 6 With regard to Paragraph B, Mr. Carter stated that it relates also to the existing sewer line. He said it asks that the applicant, regardless of damage, guarantee in perpetuity against damage to the existing sewer line. That is totally unacceptable, and there is no basis upon which to ask for such a guarantee. The City acquired an easement to construct and install its sewer line. If the owner, the developer, any subsequent property owner takes action that negligently, recklessly or intentionally interfered with or caused damage to the sewer line or the easement, they can be held accountable on the simple theory of negligence. The applicant asks that this requirement be eliminated. Paragraph C talks about stormwater detention which should be left as an engineering matter. The applicant has designed into the subdivision an open retention that provides minimum retention, but provides direct access to the direct line that already runs into Puget Sound. The engineers have indicated that having detention up there is a higher risk situation than simply allowing the water to flow into the Sound and let it be the detention vehicle. Paragraph D concerns the water quality amendments. They are not aware of any subdivision in the city that requires treatment of drainage off of roofs and other pervious surfaces. The letter indicates what the applicant is prepared to do. Lastly, the applicant is asking that the roads within the subdivision be allowed to be named rather than numbered. This area is not one that has numbered streets; it has named streets. Having numbered streets doesn't do anything other than make it more sterile. The applicant would like to name one of the streets in honor of his father. Mr. Carter then referred to their proposed addition to the Hearing Examiner's decision identified as Paragraph 7. It says that with respect to the 30' setback, the Reasonable Use Exception that has been determined on these properties, that for the sake of clarity that setback will vest with this decision and not be raised again when people apply for building permits. Mr. Carter feels the Hearing Examiner's decision to be vague on that point and requested that it be clarified. He believes from discussions with the City Attorney and Mr. Wilson that that is the intent. As a matter of detail, between Lots 9 and 10 there is an existing house on Lot 9 and there is a garage that sits right on the boundary between Lots 9 and 10. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the final plat not be allowed to go forward unless all those structures were removed. The applicant is asking for an exception that says that he can keep that garage there so long as Lots 9 and 10 are in the same ownership or a building permit is applied for on the vacant lot, whichever should first occur. They believe this to be a reasonable request. Council President Petruzzi confirmed with Mr. Carter that these items discussed tonight had been previously presented to the City. When asked if there had been discussions with Staff since the material was received, Mr. Carter replied there had been. It was Mr. Carter's understanding that the City Engineer or someone from that department will be present to respond to the February 22 letter and that Mr. Wilson is prepared to respond to the other two points. Mr. Carter stated it was not felt there would be major problems. City Attorney Snyder asked to address two of the issues in Mr. Petruzzi's question. Regarding the garage, the problem there is that City ordinances prohibit having a secondary structure unless you have a primary use on the property -- you couldn't have a garage unless you had a residence. The City has in individual building permitt cases or where an individual owns multiple lots, permitted the sort of staging that is suggested in the special condition relating to existing garages in the past. Mr. Snyder also concurred with Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 7 Item B in the Lovell-Sauerland letter of February 22 regarding acceptable guarantees. During construction of the subdivision improvements and any subsequent building development there are tools in place in the Building Code for bonding of improvements. It is virtually impossible in a steep slope environment to get permanent insurance on lots they have found in enforcement of Chapter 19.05 of the City Code. From a legal perspective, Mr. Snyder concurs with Paragraph 2.d amendment and Paragraph B of the February 22 letter. The others are engineering matters someone else will need to address. The public portion of the meeting was opened with Elizabeth Poll, 18401 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds. She indicated she wished to address some safety concerns that would take effect if this plat application goes ahead. She asked for clarification of where the access road is going to go onto Olympic View Drive. Jeff Wilson used the overhead to visualize his discussion of the location. He then turned the explanation over to Jim Miller, Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, 19400 - 33rd Avenue West, Suite 200, Lynnwood. He explained that the entrance road occurs 149' South of the beginning of the curve at the North end of the property. It was placed at that location to maximize the sight distance in both directions along the fringe of the property so that oncoming traffic would get the best view of traffic pulling in and out of the plat. Responding to Councilmember Myers, Mr. Miller indicated there was another access road onto Talbot Road but not Olympic View Drive and serves just the lots at the far North end of the plat. Ms. Poll confirmed with Mr. Miller that the 12 homes will be served by the access road. Three roads take access from a private road off Talbot Road. Ms. Poll expressed concern over safety. She says Olympic View Drive has become a major commuter route with a steady flow of traffic, both North and South. To allow a new access road for 12 homes with at least a minimum of 24 cars a few hundred yards south of the most dangerous comer on Olympic View Drive she thinks would be sheer negligence. Insisting that the developer be responsible for road signage would be pointless as signs do not work on Olympic View Drive. Now the speed is 25 m.p.h., but the average speed is 3540 m.p.h. To suggest that the police enforce it is impossible. They do the best they can being so understaffed. She suggested that if this development goes ahead, the developer or the City must put in either a three-way stop sign or a traffic light at that intersection. She and her neighbors enter Olympic View Drive from High Road and feel they are taking their lives in their hands each time. Ms. Poll invited the Council members to walk on Olympic View Drive and see what has happened to the road as far as traffic is concerned. With the development of South County Park there is more pedestrian traffic, and it is already designated a bicycle route. She feels the Council needs to look at the overall traffic problems on Olympic View Drive and then consider the plat application. Harry Poll, 18401 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, was next to speak. He stressed that Olympic View Drive is dangerous every time you access it from a side road. He thinks that adding these homes and vehicles will add to an already dangerous situation. He expressed his certainty that someone will die on Olympic View Drive. Bill Shovell, 18423 High Street, Edmonds, urged Council to walk along Olympic View Drive about 4:30 in the afternoon when the ferry traffic starts coming off and there is an abrupt stream of traffic going on to Lynnwood. Traffic is horrendous, and people don't go under 30 m.p.h. He has seen people just below there and a little farther South pass on that street. He thinks the safety factor really needs to be considered. Mr. Shovell said he noticed that between Talbot Road and Perrinville somebody has marked certain trees with red paint on either side of the road. He asked who did it and what it means. He said he had heard there had been some discussion in the Planning Board on widening Olympic View Drive in order to expedite the traffic. Mayor Hall suggested Mr. Shovel call the office and she would tell him about the trees and the street widening. Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 8 Laurie Niven, 17928 Talbot Road, Edmonds, indicated she can't make a left turn in the morning from Talbot Road onto Olympic View Drive. She asked the Council to check out Olympic View Drive. Mark Nirschl, 9215 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, asked about the plans for the piece of property adjacent to his. Mayor Hall turned the response over to Jeff Wilson. Mr. Wilson explained that Mr. Nirschl was referring to what is known as Tract 999 which is a small tract of land located adjacent to the proposed main street. Part of that was done as a buffer area as the street winds in rather than following the property lines. The homes on the other side of the property line are right to up the property line. Typically, those areas are held in equal undivided ownership by the property owners who are responsible for maintaining that area. It was to provide separation from the road and the homes adjacent to the property. The public portion of the hearing was closed Mr. Wilson reported on his conversations with Mr. Carter with regard to the two items brought forward tonight, especially the garage issue. Mr. Wilson said that Mr. Snyder was correct in saying that previously in plat applications they have received a structure has straddled a property line. The City has typically in the past bonded for the removal of that structure to insure that at the time the plat is recorded funds are available should the property owner not follow through on the requirement to remove the structure. Mr. Wilson does not have a problem with the proposal submitted by Mr. Carter. He did, however, express concern over the City's ability to know when a property has transferred ownership so the City could follow through on that condition. He indicated the only way it would be known is if a building permit was e, requested for that lot. Staff would like an opportunity to work with some language and come up with more specific language to protect against some of those situations. He thinks it workable, but thinks the language is nice and tight that the City is sure the structure will be removed when absolutely necessary. Regarding the vesting of the setback, Mr. Wilson is not concerned with it in the overall picture, but with Lot 11 the structure now intrudes into that setback area some distance -- to probably within its closest is 10-15' from the top of the slope. Part of the language included in the applicant's proposal would allow the building to be increased in size as long as it is not built any closer to the top of the slope. Mr. Wilson said there should be authority given to the building official so that if there is a history of instability of slopes for whatever reason, for new construction the City have the ability to require additional geotechnical analysis before issuing a building permit. Secondly, as in the situation of a non -conforming structure, if that structure is demolished, any new structure built on Lot 9 would comply with the 30' setback from the top of the slope as the other lots in the plat, as well as meeting all of the other setback requirements for the parcel that may not be complied with at the present time. Again, language needs to address the concerns. Council President Petruzzi noted that from the February 22 letter from Lovell-Sauerland, the City Attorney addressed Items B and garage conditions, leaving A, C, D and the request for the names of the street names left for response. Mr. Wilson indicated Acting City Engineer Jim Walker was present and could address some of the issues. He did state that the February 22 letter had been faxed to Staff on March 3. Regarding the issue on naming the streets has been reviewed and submitted to Building Official Jeannine Graf who is responsible for names and numbering of streets. Basically it has been the adopted City policy to number all of the streets within the city, especially if they fall within the grid system under the Emergency Response System (911). After Ms. Grafs review, she felt it inconsistent to change the policy to allow the streets to be named rather than numbered. She responded to Mr. Kairez, in writing, to that effect. Councilmember Hall asked what would be wrong with having the normal street numbers as far as the City maps and emergency responses go and allowing the name to be placed by the developer as well. It was Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 9 thought that if you placed the name at the street access point and the response is to a numbered street, there could be a lot of confusion as to location. Discussion followed. Councilmember Kasper questioned the lack of a requirement for a traffic study. He asked how many houses used the street that goes into Olympic View Drive. The only lots that will be accessed off of the access to the plat are the 12 lots not serviced by the easement road coming off of Talbot Road. The private road from Maple Manor does not access out on 92nd Place West or through the applicant's property. Discussion followed concerning the possibility of emergency vehicle access only. Mr. Wilson reported there was a traffic study done by the applicant as part of the environmental process. Some of these questions were asked about the siting of the access on Olympic View drive. The study was prepared by Mr. Watkins (Lovell-Sauerland) responding to the location of the access on Olympic View Drive, the amount of site distance and visibility available at different locations on Olympic View Drive, and the conclusion he reached which was included in the original Staff report indicated that the proposed location would probably provide the greatest sight distance visibility from both directions. Councilmember Kasper asked whether approval can be subject to no cars coming through on the other except emergency vehicles. He asked City Attorney Snyder if a restriction for only 11 houses using that road was possible. Mr. Snyder advised that Council can determine the points of access and how many vehicles would access from various locations. One distinction that should be made is one of the ironies of this process. As Council is aware, one of the most important things the City does each year is to establish a Capital Improvement Plans in October. This is one of the hearings that is least attended. Many of the issues raised by citizens tonight should be referred to that Capital Improvement and Transportation improvement Plan processes so that the City can clean up the existing problem. One difficulty is that it would be hard, if not constitutionally impossible, to deny this plat or to condition it on off -site improvements on Olympic View Drive in order to correct an existing problem. Testimony of the citizens, the expert testimony from the developer, and the testimony from the City staff are that the problems on Olympic View Drive are pre- existing this plat application. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Roger Myers asked for clarification of the bulwark that would be included. Mr. Wilson said there would be a retaining wall on the South side of the road adjacent to the properties to the South to hold the slope in place. That was a point of some discussion in the environmental review process as well as in working with the applicant in the subsequent plat process. The major concern was this huge retaining wall that was somewhere between 12-20' high backed up against properties. There were different options proposed in trying to reduce the amount of fill to lower the height of the actual visible retaining wall to the properties in order to reduce the impact to those properties. Some of those strides have been made to the previous processes. Responding to Councilmember Kasper's previous question, Mr. Wilson stated the original traffic report prepared to analyze this project actually focused on traffic generated by this project. There was a total of 15 lots, with 12 to access off Olympic View Drive, and therefore only analyzing the traffic generation based off of those lots on Olympic View Drive. From his perspective, Mr. Wilson feels it would be appropriate to restrict the access on the private road to the South only to emergency vehicles and trying to reduce the additional trips that may be generated by other parcels using that road. Councilmember Myers asked if the soil here was such as to preclude any immediate danger of landslides such that the recent ones in California. Mr. Wilson said he couldn't speak from a geotechnical point of Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 10 view, but advised that the City has very rigorous standards in Chapter 19.05 (Geotechnical Analysis Standards). When it looks at building developments in certain portions of the city that have been identified as slide areas, the City looks at the grade of the slope and can request very detailed geotechnical analysis that looks at the proposed development and ways to reduce and mitigate the possibility of slides or damage occurring to the adjacent properties. If these properties fall within that scope, then the building officials reviewing each individual building permit has the opportunity to review that and require that additional information. As part of the initial process the applicant submitted a generalized geotechnical report, not based off of specific location and designs of homes, but doing a general characterization of the soil stability and types in the area, particularly adjacent to the bluff. That is part of the information that was reviewed during the Critical Areas and Reasonable Use Exception in terms of how close could those structures be located adjacent to the bluff. In this instance, the geotechnic who reviewed the site had done tests and research in the area, indicated that a minimum of a 30' setback should be adequate to provide protection of that slope and of the properties. City Attorney Snyder advised that the record also indicates questioning by Mr. Carter of City staff indicating that the Staff had no questions regarding the potential stability of the area and it has been noted that the City already maintains a sanitary sewer line along the edge of the bluff. That would indicate at least that prior engineering studies would indicate that that. construction was consistent with slope stability. Acting City Engineer Jim Walker responded first to Condition A in the February 22 letter described earlier. The requirement for gravel or paving has been a requirement or request that the Public Works Department has submitted on plats in recent times. That has been waived in the past when the applicant has objected to it. Staff would have no objection to removing that one. Item B was already discussed by Mr. Snyder in terns of getting a life of the project guarantee. He thinks they are probably looking for the lines not being damaged during construction or for a period after that to make sure that settlement hasn't caused a problem with the lines. Mr. Walker then discussed Item C. The City had not had any contact with the applicant since December on this issue. They did get a request from Greg Campbell requesting a waiver of detention. On December 1 Mr. Walker responded to him. He told him that the past policy has been to not waive detention unless a study was done demonstrating that there is no impact to the downstream drainage system. In the cases where the culverts are owned by Burlington Northern, it is also asked that they receive some sort of agreement with Burlington Northern to waive detention. It is an area close to the Sound, and if those conditions can be met, Staff would have no objection to waiving it. As a general requirement, Staff would prefer to leave it in the general engineering requirements until they can complete those requirements. With regard to Item D, Mr. Walker indicated he would be in agreement with that. If they can be separated into two separate systems, Staff would have no objection to water quality improvements being for only those areas that are street travel areas. Roof and sidewalk areas could bypass water quality improvements. Councilmember Petruzzi clarified that Staff would have no objection to eliminating Condition D. Mr. Wilson reiterated that he had no problems with A, B or D. Item C has been responded to by writing a letter to the applicant explaining what would be necessary to obtain a waiver (Burlington Northern permission and an engineering analysis of the downstream system). City Attorney Snyder returned to the issue of Paragraph 7 suggested by Mr. Carter. Subdivision plat vesting is limited by state statute to a period of years. He doesn't have a problem with the proposal so long Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 11 as it is clarified to the extent that this vests to the extent permitted by law and does not imply any further vesting. Council President Petruzzi summarized his understanding of the situation. In the February 22 letter from Lovell-Sauerland, Council would agree to remove conditions that are listed under Items A, B and D, and it has general agreement on the special condition relating to existing garage and general condition on additional Paragraph 7 (paragraph 2e of the decision) to the decision of the Hearing Examiner. He asked Mr. Snyder how the matters would be dealt with on which there. is general agreement awaiting improved language. Mayor Hall suggested that the rebuttal of the applicant may answer some of his questions. Mr. Carter began his rebuttal by responding to the earlier question of Mark Nirschl regarding the small strip of property. They are prepared to have that as part of the subdivision or are prepared to convey it at the pleasure of Council. The only purpose with the strip was to be sensitive to the neighbor and was a good faith effort. They are amenable to whatever Council decides. He thinks the other gentlemen would probably prefer to buy it, the property owners would probably prefer not to maintain in, and he is sure the City doesn't want to maintain it. With respect to the traffic study, Jim Miller can comment on the safety issues contained in it. With respect to the turnaround, the offer has always been this: all of the properties within the subdivision will access off Kairez Drive with the turnaround. There will be no mixing of traffic between that drive and the street to the South with the exception that they are prepared, if Council chooses, to allow emergency vehicles to have access through a gate or whatever so that they can use it as a turnaround rather than them have to back a fire truck down that narrow road. There won't be any more traffic. It will be diverted to one street or the other. As a compromise, Mr. Carter asked to name the main street Kairez Drive and if important to the 911 system to number the other ones in accordance with the grid system. Regarding Paragraph C, they are prepared to do a study as was suggested by the City Engineer but would not be in favor of obtaining approval of waiver of detention from the Burlington Northern Railroad. They think that would mire them down into a bureaucracy that would never end. With respect to the geotechnical information, that has already been decided. Nelson Curvey not only did one, but two very detailed studies. Mr. Carter does not think there is concern there. Councilmember Fahey asked about the development that recently went in off of Maplewood and 206th where the street has a name instead of a number. Mr. Miller was unfamiliar with the development. Mayor Hall indicated her belief that the development has a name, but that the street has a number. Discussion followed on whether this was a dedicated street and how it was to be maintained. Mayor Hall closed the public portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BILL \ KASPER, TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND APPROVE THE CRITICAL AREAS AND REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED CRITICAL AREA BUFFER AND BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF THE STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREA. THIS IS ON FILE NO. P-93-216, GEORGE KAIREZ. THE MOTION INCLUDES MODIFICATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S APPROVAL ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: 1) SHOW THAT THE CITY HAD GIVEN ADEQUATE LEGAL NOTICE AND PROVIDED IT TO THE PUBLIC IN REGARDS TO OUR CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE AS INDICATED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM ADDED TO PACKETS THIS EVENING, 2) THE OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION WILL BE THAT ITEM Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 12 A, AS INDICATED ON A FEBRUARY 22 LETTER FROM LOVELL-SAUERLAND, WILL BE ELIMINATED, ITEM B ON THE FEBRUARY 22, 1995 LETTER FROM LOVELL-SAUERLAND WILL BE ELIMINATED, ITEM D OF THE LOVELL-SAUERLAND LETTER OF FEBRUARY 22, 1995 WILL ALSO BE ELIMINATED. COUNCILMEMBER ROGER MYERS EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER THE TRAFFIC ON THE STREET. HE THINKS THE STREET IS ALREADY DANGEROUS AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS TO LOOK AT THAT STREET AND SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Petruzzi asked City Attorney Scott Snyder for guidance on Item C of the Lovell-Sauerland letter of February 22 and also the issue of naming the streets, and the other two individual items that were presented on two separate pieces of paper dealing with the garage and Paragraph 2.d of the decision. Mr. Snyder expressed his understanding that Staff concurred in the amendment of special conditions 2.d and 7. Based on head nods of Mr. Carter, Mr. Snyder believes there is agreement on the vesting of the setback. Mr. Snyder suggested the next motion be to approve the amendments to the special conditions 2.d and 7 as proposed by the applicant. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROGER MYERS, TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS LISTED AS PARAGRAPH 2.1) AND PARAGRAPH 7 BY THE APPLICANT. MOTION CARRIED. With respect to Paragraph C of the Lovell-Sauerland letter of February 22, 1995, as Mr. Snyder understands the issue that the City's normal waiver process consists of conducting a study to show the capacity of the stream into which the discharge would go and, secondly, where that discharge utilizes a Burlington Northern drainage pipe to get under the railroad tracks, to get BN's permission in the form of a discharge permit or other approval. The applicant doesn't have any objection to the study. The only point of contention is whether or not the City's normal process of a waiver including a BN discharge permit or approval would be required. Council President Petruzzi asked if any action was needed or if that is something that could be solved in negotiation with Staff. Mr. Snyder responded in the negative. Following preliminary plat approval, a final plat approval by the Council consists solely of a determination that the conditions of the preliminary plat approval have been met. It is not a discretionary process, so there is no opportunity for negotiation or approval after Council's decision tonight. Council is setting the conditions which must be established. In this case it is the choice between following the City's normal waiver procedure for discharge permits at that time or accepting a study only without Burlington Northern approval. Councilmember Kasper asked Mr. Snyder if there had not been past subdivisions where things couldn't be accomplished and modifications were made on the final plat. Mr. Snyder said there are ways. The problem is that the applicant is at that point forced to come back in and request a subdivision modification which in a long plat requires them to basically follow the entire normal process of review. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER, TO APPROVE ITEM C FROM THE FEBRUARY 22 LETTER OF LOVELL-SAUERLAND TO THE EXTENT THAT WAIVER WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE BASED UPON A STUDY THAT THE STREAM BEARING CAPACITY WOULD NOT BE EXCEEDED. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Petruzzi announced that the last issue to be handled is that of the street. He expressed concern over public safety and expressed his desire to not have 911 calls delayed because they can't locate the street. Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 13 Councihnember Hall said that it was within the character of the neighborhood to have named streets. In reality the emergency response technology is coming to the electronic age, and all it is is plugging in a name to a computer rather than a street name. If the rest of the side streets were numbered, he feels that sufficient. He thinks there are ways of getting around the public safety issue. If a person owns a piece of property and wants to develop it, Councilmember Hall feels they should be able to name the streets whatever they want if it is not a public safety issue. Councilmember Myers disagreed. It is also just for the citizens of the area. You find places easily by the numbering, but might not know where Kairez Drive may be. He suggested that because there are a lot of named developments in the area, the development be named something like Kairez Estates without an official designation of street name. Councilmember Myers is not in favor of changing the numbering system. Councilmember Fahey agreed with Councilmember Hall. When she looked at Exhibit 1, Talbot Road is directly to the right of it and is coming right off of Olympic View Road. She said all she saw were named. She feels that when the developer is putting that much time and effort into it, if he wishes to have a name on his street instead of a number that there should be a way to accommodate him. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST, THAT THE DEVELOPER BE ALLOWED TO NAME THE MAIN STREET OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS KAIREZ DRIVE OR ANY NAME DEEMED APPROPRIATE. COUNCILMEMBER ROGER MYERS VOTED NO. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Earling returned to the meeting at 10:30. 8. MAYOR Mayor Hall called Council's attention to a letter received addressed to Mr. Herman regarding diesel buses that roar through downtown Edmonds, fracture the suburban area with noise and noxious fumes, and carry few people. The Mayor's office will respond to the letter signed by seven families. There is a National League of Cities Convention coming up which Mayor Hall will be attending in Washington, D.C. Today she also received a call inviting her to participate- on a Washington State Law and Justice Committee. They are adding to their membership, and Mayor Hall will represent the West side with one other representing the East side. Mayor Hall then called attention to a memo from Chief Miller on community policing costs and a memo from Gary McComas to Scott Snyder. 9. COUNCIL Council President Petruzzi said that next week's committee agenda is very heavy with eight items on the Finance Committee. He knows that the chair of the Finance Committee wishes to add an item. He thinks a number of items were put on without consultation with the chair of the committee. Community Services has six issues, and Public Safety has two (one of which is a duplicate of the Finance Committee). Mr. Petruzzi would like the chairs of the Finance Committee and Public Safety Committee to contact City Clerk Rhonda March on March 8 to reschedule anything that is not wanted on the list. Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 14 Mr. Petruzzi would like to set aside some executive session time with Scott Snyder at the next public meeting (March 21) to have about 20-25 minutes for a legal update on the key issues. Councilmember Hall indicated he hoped that at some point there would be a public briefing as well on areas that would not be injurious to the City. Council President Petruzzi confirmed with Police Chief Tom Miller that the memorandum to which Mayor Hall referred had been copied to all Council members. Councilmember Kasper passed. _. Councilmember Hall asked Chief Miller to introduce Edmonds' newest police officer. Chief Miller introduced Randy Richards who is the newest Animal Control Ordinance Enforcement Officer. Randy w comes to Edmonds from the King County Animal Control Department with 11 years background. He has spent the last two months in training with Debbie Dawson and is now out on his own. There is now animal o control and parking enforcement seven days a week. He will carry the message back that Yost and Marina Beach are now dog -friendly parks. Councilmember Hall also noted that at the retreat the subject of hearing rules had been discussed. He cited tonight's hearing as another example of getting things at the last minute, but suggested this would happen if there were no rules governing when such materials could be submitted. He also sees concern on the Council's collective faces when it has questions of City staff for a seemingly unlimited amount of time when the applicant gets a definitive amount of time to rebut. Council needs to make sure it knows what its rules are and that they are fair and publish them so that people can follow them. There is not always an equal opportunity for the parties at a hearing to speak. Councilmember Myers passed. Councilmember Nordquist addressed Council President Petruzzi in regard to his eluding to the scheduling of the agenda. Originally the committee system worked whereby two councilmembers and the staff would meet and hold sessions where they would discuss issues. Then some of the Council members felt that they were not getting enough information, so the format was switched to the present one. Personally, after the memo he got over the weekend, Councilmember Nordquist thinks the committee system is dead. He thinks there should just be another Council meeting. The memo is from Brent Hunter, via Mayor Hall and goes over the agenda for the Finance Committee. Councilmember Nordquist has never received a phone call from any staff member or anybody in the city regarding the agenda for the Finance Committee, and yet there are four items on there that he knows nothing about. Before, the committee discussed the agenda with the staff and the City Clerk and set it up. He feels that the committee system is dead. Councilmember Nordquist and another Council member want to continue discussion of compensation for the temporary employees. He acknowledged that Mayor Hall would be out of town, and advised that he had already received a memorandum which says it cannot be put on the agenda because two people don't want it on, and the Council members have not even been approached. Something has to be done or the committee night eliminated. Mayor Hall agreed with Councilmember Nordquist about the benefit of the way the previous committee nights were handled. Councilmember Hall thinks there is room for compromise within the system that exists to allow committee members to have input on what is to be placed on the agenda coming through the committee, but he disagreed that the old committee system worked better. He always felt frustrated about not knowing very Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 15 much about what happened in the other committees and then coming to the City Council meetings and finding things on the Consent Agenda that were undiscussed with the rest of Council. Councihnember Nordquist advised that the original setup of the committee was that the chairman was to report the things that were conducted, and that fell apart when the chairmen were not reporting back. The system worked well at one time. If you look at a committee night agenda, it usually starts with Community Services, Public Safety, and Finance. So much time is consumed by the first committee that by the time you get to the last committee, it is rushed without enough concentration being given to the individual committees. Some interesting issues were run through committees. Councilmember Nordquist agreed that it is good to be well-informed, but feels there are times when it is healthy to break up like this and talk. Councilmember Nordquist suggested that at the next committee meeting, it be done away with if it can't be more responsive. Mayor Hall suggested maybe trying the old format. Councilmember Nordquist indicated that Councilmember Kasper did not like that system. Councilmember Kasper indicated that the system broke down when a member wanted to be involved in a meeting where there was not a quorum but not allowed to attend. When there were so many new Council people it was important for them to have that coverage because of what they learned. Councilmember Fahey indicated that Item G under Finance Committee on March 14 is discussion on formation of economic development. She recalled that was to start out in Community Services. It was decided it was part of Community Services. Councilmember Fahey asked if Council would schedule for the April committee night consideration of what is to be done with the rest of the parks and address those concerns. It was determined about one-half hour would be needed. Council President Petruzzi asked City Clerk Rhonda March to make that notation. Councilmember Earling thanked Councilmember Myers and George Janike from the Lynnwood City Council for attending a hearing in Olympia regarding Everett's attempt to alter the RTA legislation. He thought testimony from both councilmembers was influential. Last he heard, it sounded as though the Bill will probably die in committee. He also reminded all that Sunday will be the last demonstration ride for the F' commuter rail. Council President Petruzzi advised Councilmember Nordquist that based on Council reaction, there should be some discussion about breaking back into the regular committees. He suggested that could be placed on the next work meeting. Councilmember Kasper reminded everyone that when this system was established, it was not designed to be permanent. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m. THE ORIGINAL SIGNED COPY OF THESE MINUTES, AS WELL AS A TAPED RECORDING OF ALL COUNCIL MEETINGS, CAN BE FOUND IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. / � i onda J.�Mah, City Clerk Approved City Council Minutes March 7, 1995 Page 16 AGENDA >'<>```>» EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00.--10:00 p.m. MARCH 7, 1995 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. (10 Min.) CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 1995 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS #950933 THRU #951102 FOR WEEK OF FEBRUARY 27, 1995; AND PAYROLL WARRANTS #950852 THRU #951147 FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 16 THRU 28, 1995 (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.FROM JANICE V. WILSON ($50.00 EST.) AND CHRISTINA J. REGER ($4,233.51), AND GUY SCHOONMAKER ($140.81) (E) ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT FROM EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 FOR INSTALLATION OF WATER LINE (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR SALE OF RETIRING POLICE DOG TO K-9 HANDLER (G) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.10.030 TO CORRECT A STATUTE REFERENCE RELATIVE TO POSITION OF POLICE CHIEF. (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR 1995 SIGNAGE AND DOOR HARDWARE ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (HUD) (I) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS CENTER FENCING PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (J) APPROVAL OF IAFF FIRE UNION LABOR AGREEMENT (K) APPROVAL OF 1995 TAXI LICENSE RENEWAL FOR NORTH END TAXI 3. AUDIENCE 4. (3 Min.) INTRODUCTION OF NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MANAGER 5. (10 Min.) RECOGNITION OF BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS 6. (45 Min.) HEARING ON DOGS IN THE PARK 7. (30 Min.) HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 6.83 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AT 9117 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE, AND APPROVAL OF A CRITICAL AREAS REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION TO REDUCE REQUIRED CRITICAL AREA BUFFER AND BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF A STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREA (APPLICANT: GEORGE KAIREZ / FILE NO. P-93-216) 8. (5 Min.) MAYOR 9. (15 Min.) COUNCIL Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 171-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 3Z Delayed telecast of this Meeting appears the following Wednesday evening at 7.00 p.m. on Channel 36, and the following Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.