Loading...
02/03/1998 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1998 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 John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember (arrived 7:39 p.m.) Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ABSENT Dave Earling, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Lisa Shin, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Michael Springer, Fire Chief Robin Hickok, Police Chief Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor Noel Miller, Public Works Director lames Walker, City Engineer Frances Chapin, Cultural Program Coordinator Dee McGrath, Executive Assistant Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City had received and reviewed a protest petition regarding the proposed vacation of portions of 164th Street SW, west of 72nd Avenue West, and determined that more than 50% of the abutting property owners on 164th were opposed. When more than 50% of the abutting property owners object to a vacation, the City cannot proceed; therefore, the vacation of that portion was removed from the agenda (Item 7(k) on the agenda). In order for the City to move forward with vacation of that area, a new resolution would have to be passed and the issue reinitiated including notice to property owners. He noted the petitions the City received indicated that while there was objection to a portion of the vacation of 164th, there was support for vacation of another portion of the right -of -way which staff may bring to the Council at a later date. Removal of COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM 3ER Item 7K MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED WITH THE REMOVAL OF from Benda ITEM 7K. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember White was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Nordquist requested Item I be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM I. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember White was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 1 1 (A) ROLL CALL pprove Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 27,1998 Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #19491 THRU #22867 FOR THE WEEK OF Warrants JANUARY 26,1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $598,401.55 HvAC (D) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE WASTEWATER Improve- TREATMENT PLANT HVAC IMPROVEMENTS AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF ents PROJECT Interim (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE Water Group INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE INTERIM WATER GROUP AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT NO.5 Purchase Flatbed (F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FOUR (4) ONE -TON FLAT BED TRUCKS FROM Trucks THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT ($80,250) lectrostatic Engineering (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE ELECTROSTATIC Copier ENGINEERING COPIER 6 Ave. W / 216 St. SW (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 76TH AVENUE WEST /216TH Signal STREET SOUTHWEST SIGNAL Ord. #3188 Vacate (J) ORDINANCE NO. 3188 VACATING A PORTION OF THE PLATTED BUT UNBUILT -O -W RIGHT -OF -WAY OF 237TH PLACE SW, WEST OF 107TH PLACE SW LOCATED IN 37th Pl. SW THE CITY OF EDMONDS RESERVING UTILITY EASEMENTS, SURFACE AND W. of 107th SUBSURFACE (Applicant: City of Edmonds / File No. ST -97 -157) Ord. #3189 Vacate (K) ORDINANCE NO. 3189 VACATING A PORTION OF THE PLATTED BUT UNBUILT O -W RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF PORTIONS OF 15TH STREET SW ADJACENT TO THE St. SW (Ce metery) EDMONDS CEMETERY AND PORTIONS OF 100TH AVENUE SOUTH ADJACENT TO (Cemetery) THE EDMONDS CEMETERY, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS (Applicant: City of Edmonds / File No. ST -97 -158) Item I: Approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding a Closed Record Appeal Findings of of the Hearing Examiner's Decision held before the City Council on January 20, 1998. act swig I (Appellant/Applicant: Charlotte Swift / Property Location: 17619 76th Avenue West / File Nos. 97 -155 1 AP -97 -155, AP -97 -119 & S -97 -3) Councilmember Nordquist said he intended to abstain from the vote on this item as he did not participate in the decision at the January 20 meeting. Councilmember Miller advised he did not attend the January 20 meeting but had read the minutes. He asked if he should vote on this item. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested Councilmember Miller abstain from the vote on this item. As there was not a quorum to vote on this item, Mr. Snyder suggested it be delayed until Councilmember White's arrival. He noted the Council was not making a decision on this item, this was only approval of the Findings of Fact. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO MOVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM I TO AGENDA ITEM 7A. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember White was not present for the vote.) 3. AUDIENCE ouneil Ray Albano, 20916 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Nordquist for his invitation to Retreat have lunch with the Council at their retreat. He reiterated his preference that the Council hold their retreat in Edmonds. He said the comment that Councilmember Plunkett arrange for a bus to drive the Council to its retreat was a good idea and would save the City money. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, referred to the recent National Sports Day for Girls and suggested the City consider proclaiming a Sports Day for Girls next year. He encouraged the public TA to attend the RTA meeting on Thursday, noting he has suggested the City consider a monorail since Meeting 1992. James Holland, City of Shoreline, read a letter from Shoreline's City Manager, Robert Dies (submitted acation of I to Edmonds today) regarding the proposed right -of- way - vacation of 237th Place SW. The City of -0-W 371h Pl. SW Shoreline has been tracking and commenting on the Woodway Highland proposal since the DEIS was issued in September 1996. On June 2, 1997, the Shoreline City Council approved several policy statements regarding the Woodway Highland project mitigation which were submitted and presented to the Woodway Planning Commission. Shoreline's concerns with the project include traffic impacts to Shoreline. The preferred alternatives continue to direct traffic to Shoreline streets and therefore Shoreline continues to encourage Woodway to consider other alternative access points; 237th Place SW was a potential alternative access point. The only access into the project is onto Timber Lane; the majority of this traffic flows onto 20th NW, a Shoreline street. The additional access point the Woodway Planning Commission is suggesting is at 205th/244th at 15th NW, the Shoreline/Edmonds border. The letter indicated Edmonds staff was aware of the suggestion to use the 237th Place SW right - of -way. Last week an Edmonds citizen informed Shoreline that this right -of -way process was underway. Shoreline was unaware of the progress on vacating this property and by the time they became aware, it was too late. While the City of Shoreline understood the vacation would not require notification to Shoreline, they expected notification would have been provided out of courtesy particularly in view of Edmonds' staffs awareness of Shoreline's interest. The letter observed Edmonds' plans to contract with Woodway for fire, police, and emergency medical services, and pointed out the elimination of 237th Place SW access, if only as emergency access to the Woodway Highlands property, may have a negative affect on response time and delivery of emergency services to the development. The letter indicated Shoreline would like to develop a relationship with Edmonds to address common cross -county issues with the goal of attaining mutually beneficial solutions. It .was hoped the lack of communication regarding 237th Place SW would not be setting a precedent for other issues in the future. and that the Council would postpone consideration on this vacation until all impacted jurisdictions discuss this issue together. The letter offered to provide further information if necessary and indicated the Shoreline City Council supported the points made in the letter. urchase of Rich Demeroutis, 92i Pine Street, Edmonds, referred to the proposed purchase of the tideland property ideland and expressed concern with the City Attorney's explanation of why the City must a $775,000 for under Pro e P h' Y P Y �' pay an acre of sand. He noted the City was not only purchasing the property but also the future development rights. He referred to a Port study regarding the tidelands in front of Bracketfs Landing. After the City's purchase, it was envisioned day slips could be constructed for use during good weather ,months only unless a breakwater was constructed. It was also indicated this would not be a revenue generating effort. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 3 He said, if the City was purchasing the development rights for the Waterfront Associates' tidelands, he suggested the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development determine if a joint venture was possible with the current property owner that would generate retail sales tax, hotel /motel tax, etc. and include beach access. Mr. Demeroutis referred to an article regarding a Federal Appeals Court ruling that Indian tribes in Washington State are entitled to share in shellfish harvest on private and public property and asked whether Native American's harvesting of shellfish would be considered trespass and, if not, whether restricting others' use of the property was discrimination. He preferred the grant be returned to the County for another "worthwhile" effort. LC Award Mayor Fahey explained the City's newest park, Brackett's Landing South, was considered an to Historical environmental breakthrough in the creation of this type of facility. Last fall, the City applied for the Society 1997 James C. Howland Award for Urban Enrichment which she was delighted to announce the park won. She explained the award is sponsored by the National League of Cities (NLC) and CHZM Hill Company. She noted although CHZM Hill does consulting for the City, they had no involvement in the selection process. She explained the award was established seven years ago to recognize and encourage communities who have enriched the quality of the urban environment through thoughtful, innovative and collaborative planning, and implementation of local projects. Through this award, NLC.is able to focus attention on the scores of successful initiatives that have and are being undertaken in cities and towns throughout the country. Mayor Fahey advised the award was presented at the recent NLC conference where Brackett's Landing South was described as a glowing example of community partnership in the purest sense. The grass roots of small town is seen in every inch of the site and visitors see the strong influence of the community, its respect for the past and the drive to preserve the natural amenities for the future. Mayor Fahey explained the City was also _given the opportunity to designate a non - profit community organization to be the recipient of a $2,000 check. She noted one of the components of the park was its emphasis on Edmonds' history. Parks and Recreation Manager Arvilla Ohlde explained the public process for the design of this park included numerous community meetings and input; one of. the most frequent requests was to include the City's history. History was included in the park via the use of 58 historical tiles depicting the history of the site and natural amenities in the brickworkand throughout the site. She recognized members of the Edmonds South County Historical Museum for their assistance in gathering this information. In addition, a brochure with the stories and further explanation of the history was developed. She stressed the content of the brochure and the amenities at the park would not have been possible without the dedicated participation of the museum members. She recognized a key individual, Milly Ingalls, for her verification of the accuracy of all information. Ms. Ohlde presented the award to Milly Ingalls, Fred Bell, and Grace Fiske, members of the Edmonds South County Historical Museum. Mayor Fahey recognized the value of the Edmonds South County Historical Museum and presented them with the $2,000 check. She looked forward to future partnerships, including preservation of the log cabin. Fred Bell accepted the check on behalf of the membership of the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society and Museum. He noted the museum was the only facility in South Snohomish County with a historical archive and encouraged property owners and businesses to contact the museum for information on the building they presently own/occupy. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 4 Milly Ingalls said it was a pleasure working with Ms. Ohlde, Mayor Fahey, and others on the Brackett's Landing project. She noted a lot of hard work went into the research and development of the brochure. The museum continues to work with the City on projects such as historical research for the new plaza. Mayor Fahey recognized others in the audience who participate in the Historical Society for their assistance. Mr. Bell encouraged the public to visit the "Edmonds by Way of the Rail" exhibit currently on display at the museum. ublic Art 5. HEARING ON PUBLIC ART FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX AND AUTHORIZATION or Public FOR MAYOR TO SIGN. CONTRACTS WITH ARTISTS HOGGATT / COURTNEY AND Safety MILLER TO PROVIDE ARTWORK FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX omplex Cultural Program Coordinator Frances Chapin identified the members of the Public Art Selection Jury and acknowledged their efforts. She explained the City's ordinances required 1% of construction costs be designated for public art; in this case $70,000 had been designated for public art for the Public Safety Complex. Of that amount, $1,000 is for administrative - .costs, $5,000 for the initial design phase and $64,000 for fabrication and installation. She explained a decision was made to have artists who could participate in a design team project so that the art could be integrated into the building by working with the architect at the beginning of the project rather than adding art at the completion of the project. She described the Edmonds Art Commission's development of a prospectus, review of artist applications by the selection jury, interview of five artists /artist teams, and selection of one artist team and one individual artist who have worked with the architect, City staff, and the selection jury in the design process. Ms. Chapin displayed a flowchart of the design phase which included research of the community's history. Following approval of the artists' designs by the jury, a recommendation was made to the Edmonds Arts Commission that a public meeting be held. Following the public meeting on January 22, the selection jury recommended the designs be approved by the Edmonds Arts Commission and recommended to City Council for authorization of the contracts. Ms. Chapin introduced the artist team of Norman Courtney and Tina Hoggatt and described their backgrounds. Norman Courtney, 4631 49th Avenue S, Seattle, and Tina Hoggatt, 23812 132nd Way, Issaquah, displayed proposed projects for inside the court/police building, the fire station, and exterior plaza. Ms. Hoggatt commented the award to the Historical Society was well deserved, noting the Historical Society welcomed them to access their collection. Mr. Courtney described their approach to the design -- connecting the indoor and outdoor spaces. This resulted in a design for the lobby floor using terrazzo material with a water theme. The same material will be used outside on benches and a panel in the plaza area. Ms. Hoggatt described the materials and colors that would be used in the 1,000 square foot lobby floor, walk -off mats to the exterior courtyard and entrance to the courtroom. Mr. Courtney described wall sconces whose design included text and texture and would be located behind the dais and on either side of the doorways. Ms. Hoggatt explained the exterior space was intended to serve as a meeting place; the terrazzo wall piece and various benches would bring some interior elements to the exterior. Mr. Courtney noted there would also be a terrazzo counter in the Fire Department lobby. Ms. Chapin introduced Brad Miller and described his background.. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 5 1 Brad Miller, 4005 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, described the nine foot high sun dial constructed of polished dark concrete. He explained the cutout shape recalls the siren formerly on the site that sounded daily at noon. When the shadow crosses the pattern on the ground at noon, a bell will ding in the plaza. A plaque nearby will describe the former siren on the site. He described the water installation near the Fire Station which directs rainwater collected by one downspout to a fire hydrant with the top removed as well as a companion piece, the red gas lamp with cast metal ladders. Councilmember Miller complimented the artists for their presentation and for the jury for their efforts. He complimented Mr. Miller on his design of the sun dial recognizing the siren that previously existed on the site. He also complimented the artist team Mr. Courtney and Ms. Hoggatt on their designs. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said he supported the project. With no further public comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council. Mayor Fahey expressed her appreciation to everyone involved, noting the building would be enhanced by the integration of artwork. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACTS WITH HOGGATT /COURTNEY AND MILLER TO PROVIDE ARTWORK FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO- EXCEED $64,000. Councilmember Van Hollebeke thanked the artists for their efforts, particularly in learning about Edmonds and incorporating it into their design. MOTION CARRIED. cnscD 6. DISCUSSION OF CULTURAL ARTS. STADIUM AND CONVENTION DISTRICT (CASCD) roposal PROPOSAL AND CONSULTANT REPORT Councilmember White referred to the consultant's report in the Council packet which was in response to questions posed to the consultant. Another meeting of the Council task force was scheduled for Friday (time not yet determined) to discuss the responses, meet with a representative from the consultant team, and to discuss financial issues and the next step. Mayor Fahey pointed out the first page of the consultant's report indicated the City of Edmonds' 1996 valuation represented 29.3% of the District and Table 1 - Distribution of Capital Funding indicated 24.2 %; she noted the 293 figure was correct. She advised another packet of information was delivered to her office and had been distributed to the Council, including a revised proposal from Lynnwood regarding the interlocal agreement. She noted the decision on this item had a very tight timeline. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 6 Council President Haakenson asked if the intent was to vote on this on Tuesday to meet the Wednesday deadline. Councilmember White answered yes. He explained he attended a Cultural Arts Stadium Convention District (CASCD) meeting earlier today and the Lynnwood City Council was meeting following the CASCD meeting to discuss the issue. He noted the revision provided by Lynnwood was different than was proposed before and encouraged Councilmembers to read it carefully. Councilmember Van Hollebeke advised a meeting was held last week with several other cities in the CASCD. Concerns discussed include the citizens of Edmonds being asked to vote for a bond issue for which they will pay over 29% of the burden as well as to support some of the anticipated deficit of a proposed convention center. The changes to the-interlocal agreement make it more clear and fair to Edmonds' citizens. 7. HEARING ON THE PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PLATTED BUT Vacation UNBOLT RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF: -0 Rights -o f -- - Way - eadowdale (a) 156TH STREET SW BETWEEN 68TH AVENUE WEST AND 70TH AVENUE WEST; Area (b) PORTIONS OF LUND'S GULCH ROAD WITHIN MEADOWDALE COUNTY PARK; (c) PORTIONS OF AN UNNAMED STREET-WITHIN MEADOWDALE COUNTY PARK; (d) 75TH AVENUE WEST NORTH OF 156TH STREET SW (e) 73RD AVENUE WEST NORTH OF 156TH STREET SW () PORTIONS OF 156TH STREET SW WEST OF 72ND AVENUE WEST (g) PORTIONS OF 172ND STREET SW BETWEEN 74TH AVENUE WEST AND 76TH AVENUE WEST; (h) 74TH PLACE SW BETWEEN NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD AND 164TH STREET SW; (i) PORTIONS OF 72" AVENUE WEST NORTH OF MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD; (j) PORTIONS OF 158TH STREET SW WEST OF 72ND AVENUE WEST; LOCATED IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, RESERVING UTILITY EASEMENTS, SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Council could hold a unified hearing but a separate decision on each section would be required. He reiterated consideration of Item k (portions of 164th Street SW west of 72nd Avenue W) was dropped due to submittal of a petition of objection signed by more than 50% of the abutting property owners. He explained State statute and City ordinance established the process for the vacation of street rights -of -way. The City's ownership of the easement areas is not the ownership in fee -- the City does not own the property; the abutting property owners, in most cases, own the underlying fee. The City has the right to build a street or operate utilities and may vacate their interest if it is determined they no longer have purpose for access. Staff proposes to retain surface and subsurface utility easements. He said the Council's decision was a legislative decision and was not subject to judicial challenge except on the basis of fraud. He noted none of the rights -of -way were required by the City, all were platted in Snohomish County prior to annexation to the City. Most are not buildable as streets within normal cost parameters. Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained the vacation of these undeveloped rights -of -way was initiated by the City. Although they may serve other functions such as utility or pedestrian easements, staff has determined they are not necessary for extension of the City's street system. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 7 City Engineer Jim Walker explained none of the rights -of -way are currently developed as roadways and in almost all cases, could not be developed as roadway. Although a few have potential, there would be significant costs to develop a roadway due to grade issues or other considerations. Item a: 156th Street SW between 68th Avenue West and 70th Avenue West Mr. Wilson displayed a map showing the location of the proposed vacation and. Mr. Walker explained this section of right -of -way was part of the original plat but was not practical for development as a roadway due to slopes that are beyond the 15% allowed by the City. He said the rights -of -way would be divided based upon how they were originally taken; it is expected most will be divided half to the north and half to the south but the exact determination would be made by Snohomish County. To the north is County park property and adjoining properties to the south have access from other roadways. The City currently has no utilities in this area and staff does not see a need to retain utility or pedestrian easements in this area. He noted there was a drainage system in this location but it appeared to run north of 70th Avenue into the County park and not through this section of 156th. Eric White, 15601 70th Avenue W, Edmonds, asked who would be the legal owner of the vacated property, whether there would be additional assessed value to the owner, and whether there would be a purchase price for the vacated property. Mr. Snyder explained the City has a street easement; when the City vacates the right -of -way, it does not warranty title, only the City's easement is removed. In most cases, State law provides that the property be divided to the center line between abutting property owners. If the right -of -way came from one tract, it would return to the tract from which it came. Further, the City can vacate the right -of -way and retain the utility easement as is proposed in many of the proposed vacations. In most cases, the abutting property owners already are the owner in fee of the right -of -way. The City can require the payment of compensation; in this case, staff is not recommending payment of compensation due to the public benefit (vacating right -of -way the City has no use for as well as retaining surface and subsurface easement). Council President Haakenson asked if Mr. Snyder's comments referred to all proposed vacations. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Mayor Fahey asked if the vacation of the rigl�of -way would impact the property owner's lot size. Mr. Snyder answered removal of the road easement resulted in a larger building pad as the City calculates its setback from the edge of a roadway easement. He noted there may be other setback restrictions due to steep slopes, etc. Mr. Wilson said the vacation would shift the property line that is used to measure setbacks and could provide more usable area. In response to Mr. White's question regarding the assessment of the property, Mr. Snyder explained the assessor generally considers building lots by category or size. Removal of an easement usually would not affect value unless the square footage of a lot was increased so that it was subdividable. Councilmember White asked staff to clarify why these vacations were being proposed. Mr. Wilson explained this process was initiated several years ago when the Council asked staff to look at right -of- way or other property the City owned and determine whether the property would be necessary to accommodate future street development or other needs. Staff identified areas in the north end of the City where rights -of -way are not necessary for construction of roadway with the exception of utility easement. Once these areas were identified, the intent was to vacate the property which may allow the property owner to make use of the property. Mr. Snyder said the existence of street right -of -way on the City's Comprehensive Plan triggers certain development obligations; by deleting the rights -of -way, those Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 8 obligations are eliminated. Further, although Washington Supreme Court has held that cities have no liability for earth movement or other problems that occur in platted but unbuilt rights -of -way, the Supreme Court will consider a case this term that will argue to change this. Councilmember White asked staff to indicate on each section whether retention of a utility easement was recommended. Mr. Walker said staff did not foresee a need for a utility easement in this area. Mr. Snyder clarified staff recommended no utility easement be retained in this section, but retention of the easement was a determination for the Council to make. If anyone felt their property would be deprived of access, he encouraged them to speak as the Council's primary inquiry was whether street access would be denied by a proposed street vacation. Jan Phillips, 7100 156th Street SW, Edmonds, asked if her son wanted to know if he had been trespassing on private property when he walked from 70th to 68th on 156th. Mayor Fahey said he would not have been trespassing as he would have been on public right -of -way. If the right -of -way was vacated, it would be park property and public access would be permitted. Ms. Phillips said her son was angry about the proposed vacation as he likes to walk around in the area and they like the concept of greenbelts. Although her property did not abut this area,.she said the City needed greenbelts. She did not object to the proposed vacation of this portion as it-would be in the park but planned to speak on several other proposed vacations. Mr. Snyder pointed out the City had the right to construct a street in the right -of -way; the only appropriate park use for a street would be street- intended uses such as a median, etc. As the property is owned by the abutting property owner, the City did not have the right to maintain a greenbelt. Item b: Portions of Lund's Gulch Road within Meadowdale County Park Mr. Wilson displayed a map showing the location of the proposed vacation (Exhibit C) and Mr. Walker explained this right -of -way exists entirely within the County park. Staff sees no practical use as a roadway and the County has no interest in developing it as roadway. There are no utilities in the right -of- way and staff does not recommend retention of a utility or pedestrian easement. There were no members of the public present who wished to comment on this proposed vacation. Item c: Portions of an unnamed street within Meadowdale Coun , Park Mr. Wilson displayed a map showing the location of the proposed vacation (Exhibit D) and Mr. Walker explained this right -of -way exists entirely within the County park and staff sees no potential use for it as a roadway. There are.no utilities in the right -of -way and staff does not recommend retention of a utility or pedestrian easement. There were no members of the public present who wished to comment on this proposed vacation. Item d: 75th Avenue West north of 156th Street SW Mr. Wilson displayed a map showing the location of the proposed vacation and Mr. Walker explained this is predominantly in the County park. He noted the proposed vacation was 75th Avenue; 75th Place is the roadway that enters the County park. Parcels on the south end of the right -of -way are privately owned and have access from other locations. He said the right -of -way serves no function as roadway due to steep slopes and staff does not recommend retention of utility or pedestrian easements. Jan Phillips, 7100 156th Street SW, Edmonds, recalled the Planning Board was told no alterations should be made unless it was for the public good. The packet indicates the vacation was for greater Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 9 public benefit but she was not convinced this was for the public good. She understood adjoining property owners would support the vacation as it would increase their lot size but was uncertain whether this would provide easier access to Meadowdale Beach Park. She asked if another public hearing would be held on this issue. Mayor Fahey said this was the first hearing; the Council could make a decision to extend the public hearing to another date. Don Nelsen, 700 Elm Street, Edmonds, observed most vacations were on steep slopes. He questioned how much the vacation would enhance property value and asked if the Council was aware of the State statute that required the City to abandon the vacation . if 50% of the abutting property owners were opposed. He asked if the City had informed residents of their right to that Statute. Councilmember White observed this issue arose as a result of the Council's request that staff identify areas that are encumbered by City rights -of -way that the City did not intend to use. Due to the confusion/concern that has been expressed, he suggested unless a request was made to vacate a right -of- way, they be left alone. Mr. Snyder said the process was initiated by the Council by resolution and the Council could withdraw from the process at any time by a majority vote of the Council. He noted the City was aware of the State Statue Mr. Nelson referred to and the proposed vacation of portions of 164th Street SW west of 72nd Avenue W was removed from consideration due to the objections received. Staff has also provided the Council with percentages of the objections to proposed vacations on other areas. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, THAT THE COUNCIL WITHDRAW OR STRIKE THE RESOLUTION AT THIS POINT AND LEAVE THIS IN ABEYANCE FOR THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT MAY HAVE A CONCERN TO COME FORWARD AT A LATER TIME. Councilmember Miller shared Councilmember White's concern and suggested the Council table this matter and discuss the policy issue at the Council retreat. He agreed the City appeared to be vacating property that the property owners had no interest in. Council President Haakenson shared Councilmember White and Miller's concern and suggested the Council take public testimony tonight and schedule a second hearing to allow the Council to discuss the issue at the retreat. Mr. Snyder said a motion to table or continue would always be appropriate. He said the Council could have a study session to discuss the City's policies, benefits, the pending Supreme Court case, etc. He outlined the Council options, 1) suspend the rules, 2) table the matter, 3) continue the hearing, or 4) conclude the hearings and dispose or continue the matters. UPON MR. SNYDER'S ADVICE, MAYOR FAHEY RULED THE MOTION OUT OF ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT, HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO MAKE THIS THE FIRST HEARING AND SCHEDULE A SECOND HEARING ON A FUTURE DATE TO ALLOW THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO OPPOSE WITH A PETITION AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 10 Councilmember White expressed concern with placing the burden on property owners to get 50% of the abutting property owners to agree with their opposition to the vacation. Mr. Snyder explained State Statute states any petition or objection must be submitted before the Council opened the public hearing. Council President Haakenson said the Council would have an opportunity to discuss the vacations individually or as a policy issue between this hearing and the second hearing. Councilmember Miller suggested the Council move forward with this hearing and then debate the issue. He was also concerned with requiring citizens to acquire petitions to oppose the vacation. Councilmember Nordquist suggested the Council conclude the hearing before making further motions. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST AND MILLER OPPOSED. Councilmember White observed additional petitions would not be allowed, the motion would allow citizens to make further comment. Mr. Snyder said if the Council wanted to give citizens the ability to circulate petitions, the item would need to be halted which would require the City to bring another resolution and allow objections to be submitted. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND THE HEARING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Item e: 73rd Avenue West north of 156th Street SW Mr. Wilson displayed a map showing the location of the proposed vacation and Mr. Walker explained the properties on the south are private properties; the remaining portion is within the County park. The right -of -way is located on a steep slope and could not be developed as a roadway. There were no members of the public present who wished to comment on this proposed vacation. Item f, of 156th Street SW west of 72nd Avenue West Mr. Wilson displayed a map showing the location of the proposed vacation (Exhibit 1) and Mr. Walker explained this right -of -way is located on a steep slope which could not be developed as a roadway. The Council may wish to retain the portion that approaches Puget Sound as a pedestrian easement to be consistent with shoreline policies. Mr. Snyder explained street ends which abut the shoreline cannot be vacated. In this case, Burlington Northern's right -of -way intervenes; therefore, the City is not prohibited from vacating, but the City's policy has been to maintain pedestrian access. There are no City-owned or franchise utilities in this area; therefore staff did not recommend retention of a utility easement. Lori Andahl, speaking on behalf of Alice Andahl, 15605 75th Place W, Edmonds, said they strongly oppose the vacation of this right -of -way due to numerous concerns including the steep hillside and public traffic utilizing the right -of -way for beach access. She asked how much of 156th from 75th Place West would be closed, pointing out City vehicles use this area as a turnaround. Bill Jessberger, residing at the intersection of 72nd Avenue and 156th, said while they do not object to the vacation of the vertical portion, they are concerned with the vacation of the paved area on 156th that is a pedestrian right -of -way to a scenic area. He noted other residents also want to ensure access to the scenic area is not eliminated. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Wilson explained in the early '90's, there was a request to vacate 156th Street to the top of the bluff. That vacation request was denied by the Council for the purpose of retaining the. viewpoint to Puget Sound. The area that is presently open to the public would remain accessible as part of the public right - of -way on 156th Street. Mr. Jessberger said, based on this explanation, he would have no objection to the vacation. In response to Ms. Andahl's questions, Mr. Walker said the typically required distance on a dead -end would be maintained, approximately 20 feet. He said it appeared this right -of -way was platted from the north, rather than equally from both sides; therefore, the entire right -of -way would vacate to the north. The final determination would be made by Snohomish County. Lynn and Mike Treseler, 15805 68th Avenue W, Edmonds, said they had the same concern with the pedestrian access to the scenic viewpoint which appears will remain accessible. Tom Degan, 15520 75th Place W, Edmonds, said the turnaround has been indicated as necessary by the neighbors, police, and park users as this is the only place to turn around for approximately six blocks. He was concerned with driveway use by park users which occurs now. He was also concerned that the vacation would not address run -off from the right -of -way which currently causes problems on his property. He said the City would be abandoning a situation that is currently a concern. He was unaware of the vacation of 75th Place and said many residents are concerned due to the height of slopes. He noted it would be nice if residents were educated about the pending Supreme Court case as well as the ability to submit a petition with signatures of 50% of the abutting property owners. He said the public notice did not indicate Item d as 75th. He questioned how the City would construct a pedestrian right -of- way to the beach due to the steep slope. He also had concerns with security due to recent car prowls, noting this vacation would increase access from the park to private property. For Council President Haakenson, Dr. Degan identified his property on the map. Theresa Aldridge, 15604 75th Place W, Edmonds, supported the non - vacation of 156th to the east of 75th if that is the neighbors' wish. She referred to the vacation of 156th to the west of 75th and said that if the City was not responsible for any earth movement on the right -of -way, the neighbors should be allowed to be. Dr. Degan and she are the adjacent property owners to the right -of -way, a delicate environmental property, and it may be necessary to construct a retaining wall on the property. If the property remains City right -of -way, this would not be permitted. For this reason, she supported the vacation of 156th to the west of 75th. She commented the topography of the area would not permit a pedestrian walkway to the beach. Mary Mezich, 7215 156th Street SW, Edmonds, said her property is at the top of the bluff to the north of the proposed vacation. She was opposed to the vacation due to liability arising from people walking to the end of the bluff. She was also opposed to the vacation of 73rd Avenue, north of 156th Street as half of the right -of -way would also be returned to them. Jan Phillips, 7100 156th Street SW, Edmonds, echoed the desire to have 156th retained as access to the bluff. Lori Andahl, speaking on behalf of Alice Andahl, 15605 75th Place W, Edmonds, recalled staff indicated a retention of a utility easement was not necessary in this area. She asked if catch basins and stormwater pipes were utilities. Mr. Walker answered existing utilities, a drainage system down the hill, were private and had been installed by the property owner above. There were no City utilities in that area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 12 Mayor Fahey asked if the City intended to retain an easement for drainage in that area. Mr. Walker said staff did not see a need to retain a drainage easement in that area. It was not an area the City would typically install drainage as. it would only serve one home that already has a drainage system. Ms. Andahl said there was a slide on this right -of -way last year that damaged their properties She said the City would not be taking responsibility for the right -of -way if this property was vacated. Councilmember White asked whether the City currently had responsibility for slide control in that area and whether the City currently has liability for people walking to the edge of the bluff based on the current status of the right -of -way. Mr. Snyder explained any situation that arose during the City's ownership and is currently the subject of a lawsuit (the Mezichs and Andahls are currently plaintiff and codefendants in existing lawsuits regarding movement of earth on the 156th right -of -way) already exist and was not affected by vacation of right -of -way. The Council could decide to make improvements in the area such as drainage improvements and to determine how to pay for such improvements. Regarding liability, the City has liability for the negligent operation or maintenance of its facilities. Typically, recreational property is subject to the State's Recreational Use Statute; the City's liability is limited to latent defects. The Mezichs or other private property owners who permit people to walk on their property have no liability under the Recreation Use Statute. If the City was maintaining an attractive nuisance or a dangerous situation, he would advise Public Works to post signs and bollards to clearly define the edge of the City's right -of -way if the easement was vacated. He said as long as the easement exists, the public has the right to traverse it. Mr. Walker said the City is continuing its drainage investigation and considering drainage improvements for the Meadowdale area. Mr. Wilson said an update on the Meadowdale Drainage Investigation would be on the Community Service Committee's agenda on Tuesday, February 10, 1998. Item g: Portions of 172nd Street SW between 74th Avenue West and 76th Avenue West Mr. Wilson displayed a map showing the location of the proposed vacation (Exhibit B) and Mr. Walker said some drainage improvements were done in this right -of -way last year. The area is too steep for continuation of a roadway and the City sees no future use for the right -of -way. Anthony Agoff , 7527 172nd Street SW, Edmonds, represented five property owners in the area who would benefit from the vacation. They would like to have this right -of -way vacated so that property owners can preserve the buffer /greenbelt. He explained neighbors illegally cut several large trees in the right -of -way to improve their views which also eliminated the abutting property owners' privacy. The City was not able to do anything other.than require replacement of the trees. The trees cut were 30 -36 inches in diameter but the replacement trees are only 4 -5 inches in diameter and were planted too close together. Vacating the right -of -way would allow the adjacent property owners to maintain the area as a buffer /greenbelt. For Council President Haakenson, Mr. Agoff identified the five property owners he represents. He would also support higher penalties for illegal tree cutting to improve views. Mr. Snyder explained. the City had an easement for a street in the right -of -way but did not own the trees. The City's ability to address the tree cutting was limited to the tree permit cutting requirements in the City Code. Pat Ford, 17207 76th .Avenue W, Edmonds, said her husband has called the City to determine how the vacation will impact them as land owners in the area. They were both in agreement with the proposed street vacation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 13 COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEI E, TO EXTEND THE HEARING ANOTHER 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Item h: 74th Place SW between North Meadowdale Road and 164th Street SW Mr. Wilson displayed a map showing the location of the proposed vacation (Exhibit H) and Mr. Walker explained this was a short section of right -of -way. He noted a portion of the right -of -way to the north was vacated. Staff has determined this portion would not be needed for City street right -of -way and did not serve as access for any adjoining property owners. Staff would recommend retention of a utility easement as there are existing utilities in the area. There were no members of the public present who wished to comment on this proposed vacation. Item is Portions of 72nd Avenue West north of Meadowdale Beach Road Mr. Wilson displayed a map showing the location of the proposed vacation and Mr. Walker explained this was several sections of the same street, the first section is entirely County property. He noted a significant number of people opposed the second area on 72nd but due to the way this vacation was formulated, the opposition did not total the 50% need to terminate the process. Staff would recommend retaining a utility easement due to the intent to add utilities. He noted most properties have access from other areas; however, some property owners with undeveloped property are concerned they would not have significant right -of -way access for future development. Although staff included this area in the initial proposal, he was reluctant to recommend this section of 72nd be vacated. The third section, at the far north end, is too steep for a roadway and would not provide access to properties. Retention of a utility easement is recommended. Staff would recommend utility easement be retained in the fourth section; this section is not necessary for access for adjoining property owners. Marvin Dyson, 15610 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, said his main concern with vacation (specifically 158th to North Meadowdale Beach Road) was that the area currently provides an excellent pedestrian right -of -way to North Meadowdale Beach Road. Norman Nelson, 15729 75th Place West, Edmonds, owner of lot 27, said the east portion of his property is accessible only on 72nd Avenue W. He noted their property is large enough that no zoning changes would be required for development: He objected to the vacations and asked the dimensions of "a portion." He explained in 1959 he had a primitive road built to the east portion of his property at his own expense. He said vacation of 72nd.Avenue W would diminish the value of the property and said other property owners also rely on 72nd Avenue W for access to their land. He requested no vacation of 72nd Avenue W be considered. Mr. Walker identified Mr. Nelson's property on the map. Mr. Nelson said he was also expressing concern for 8 -10 property owners on 72nd Avenue W. Mayor Fahey asked if the topography would permit construction of a road. Mr. Nelson said he can drive to his property now. Mr. Snyder said this was the section staff requested be deleted from consideration. He asked Mr. Nelson if he had concerns with the other, areas proposed to be vacated on 72nd. Mr. Nelson said no. Jvergen Kneifel, 15712 71st Avenue W, Edmonds, said he also owns the lot to the west that fronts 72nd Avenue W which would be impacted by this action. He was opposed to vacating 72nd Avenue W due to property in the area that has the potential to be developed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 14 John Gough, 6850 36th Avenue NE, expressed concern with Item k (portions of 164th Street SW west of 72nd Avenue W). Mr. Snyder pointed out the City received a 50% qualifying petition and therefore the City's consideration of the portion of 164th Street SW west of 72nd Avenue W will not proceed. Mr. Gough asked if the 50% opposed to the vacation was submitted in writing. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Mr. Gough asked why he was not notified. Mr. Snyder said citizens were permitted to submit their objections up until the time of the hearing. Mr. Gough asked why he was not notified and given the opportunity to respond in writing. Mr. Snyder said the City followed the. statutory procedure which includes public notification, etc. Barbara Glantz, 15910 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, was in favor of the City "cutting the street off." The trustee of the Glantz estate said they own two lots north of this property and were .concerned they would not have access from above to those two lots. When the property was purchased, there was access from 72nd. Mayor Fahey noted staff has indicated they would no longer recommend vacation of this section. Ms. Glantz reiterated she was in favor of "chopping it off." M. K. Bingham, 15805 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, said he owns 448 feet on the east side of 72nd Avenue W from 158th to the lower portion. He considered developing the 3%2 acres 4 or 5 years ago including a small road. At that time, a City engineer said there were 16 houses available on that street and a full 28 foot roadway with curbs, gutter and sidewalk would be required. He said he needed access on 72nd Avenue W to 158th in order to reach his property as his driveway currently crosses several easements. He did not support vacation of this section of 72nd Avenue W. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE HEARING 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Item j: Portions of 158th Street SW west of 72nd Avenue West Mr. Wilson displayed a map showing the location of the proposed vacation and Mr. Walker explained portions of this section of right -of -way were steep slopes. Staff recommends retention of a pedestrian easement in the lower area. A utility project, part of the Meadowdale Drainage Project, is occurring in this area now. It is a critical utility corridor but would not be necessary for a through street. Gil Thiry, 15810 75th Place W, Edmonds, expressed concern with the water drainage as it affects his property. During his ownership of the property, there has been only one earth movement which began at the road and went across the lower portion of his property. In past years, access to the beach was maintained by neighbors. He was concerned with drainage from the right -of -way as well as the vacant house next door. Norman Nelson, 15729 75th Place West, Edmonds, said the City currently has numerous catch basins, manholes, sanitary sewers, etc. on the upper portion. He and his neighbor have no interest in owning the property and therefore opposes vacating the right -of -way. Mr. Snyder said the City was not proposing to vacate any utility easements. Mr. Nelson reiterated the City should keep the property. Mr. Snyder said the City was only proposing to vacate the street easement but maintain the utility easement; whoever owns the underlying fee now would own it then. Mr. Nelson asked if he would be required to accept half of the right-of-way if it were vacated. Mr. Snyder reiterated the ownership already exists, the City. was only vacating the street easement. Cheryl Chrysler, 15917 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke regarding Item i (72nd Avenue West) and said she lives to the south, off North Meadowdale Road. She suggested the City vacate the lower (south) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 15 section and maintain the upper section. She objected to 16 homes being built in this area due to the water on the bank. Grady Howstadt, 14204 64th Avenue W, Edmonds, said he owns property north of the westerly portion proposed to be vacated. He preferred the areas be separated if there was concern with vacation of the portion east of 75th. He supported the vacation of the west portion as he would like to build on the lot in the future. He explained, due to surveys in the area, he has lost 5 -7 feet which may not seem like a lot but the lot is only 45 feet wide and has severe topographic challenges. He suggested the Council view the areas proposed to be vacated as a lot of it is unbuildable property. Further, the Council- would see property that presents serious liability to the City. Observing the City wanted to preserve a pedestrian right -of -way, he pointed out the railroad did not want the public to have access to the tracks. He said the last variance process resulted in an agreement for a zero setback; however, he cannot construct a retaining wall on the City's property which likely would be required for a zero setback. In order to make his lot buildable and to assist Mr. Thiry's concern with drainage, he requested the lower portion be separated and would support its vacation. With no further public comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council. Mayor Fahey observed the Council indicated they wished to discuss this issue at the Council retreat and notify the public of the next public hearing. She stressed the importance of citizens expressing their support as well as their opposition to the proposed vacations. Council President Haakenson announced the second public hearing would be scheduled for March 17. He asked Mr. Snyder to clarify the issue of petitions. Mr. Snyder explained if the Council continued this hearing to a date certain, the opportunity to submit new petitions would be past. If the hearing was closed and consideration halted by initiating new resolutions or holding a second new hearing, the Council would extend the opportunity to submit petitions. However, this action would require those who have submitted objections,or petitions to submit them again. He said if the Council wished to extend the time for citizens to submit objections, a new hearing date on the matter should be set. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO SET A NEW HEARING DATE ON THIS MATTER FOR MARCH 17, 1998. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder observed the City would be required to provide new notice and suggested the Council direct staff to reinitiate the 72nd Avenue W vacation to eliminate the portion that staff recommends and that most of the abutting property owners oppose. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO DROP THE MID SECTION OF 72ND AVENUE WEST. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder said the Council's next Consent Agenda would include resolutions for the two vacations that had no public opposition. Councilmember White requested at the next hearing staff address the concept that the City is trying to "dump" liability on the property owners. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 16 7A. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A CLOSED findings of RECORD APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION HELD BEFORE THE CITY act I COUNCIL ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (Appellant/Applicant: Charlotte Swift / Property Location: S`v'ft 17619 -76th Avenue West / File Nos AP -97 -155 AP -97 -119 & 5 -97 -3) (Formerly Consent Agenda P -97 -155 Item COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 7A (APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION HELD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 20, 1998. (Appellant/Applicant: Charlotte Swift / Property Location: 17619 =76th Avenue West / File Nos. AP -97 -155, AP -97 -119 & 5- 97 -3). MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBERS MILLER AND NORDQUIST ABSTAINED. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. 8. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Fahey had no report. 9. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmembers had no reports. xecutive 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER Session Mayor Fahey recessed the Council to Executive Session at 10:21 p.m. for approximately 10 minutes for discussion regarding a legal matter. No action was anticipated following the Executive Session. The Council meeting was adjourned immediately following the Executive Session. BARBARA S. FAHEY, MAYOR A14DRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 3, 1998 Page 17 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. FEBRUARY 3, 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 JANUARY 27, 1998 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #19491 THRU #22867 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 26, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $598,401.55 (D) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT HVAC IMPROVEMENTS AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE INTERIM WATER GROUP AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT NO. 5 (F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FOUR (4) ONE -TON FLAT BED TRUCKS FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT ($80,250) (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE ELECTROSTATIC ENGINEERING COPIER (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 76TH AVENUE WEST /216TH STREET SOUTHWEST SIGNAL (1) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION HELD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 20, 1998. (Appellant/Applicant: Charlotte Swift / Property Location: 17619 76th Avenue West / File Nos. AP -97 -155, AP -97 -119 & S -97 -3) - (J) PROPOSED ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE PLATTED BUT UNBUILT RIGHT -OF -WAY OF 237TH PLACE SW, WEST OF 107TH PLACE SW LOCATED IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS RESERVING UTILITY EASEMENTS, SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE (Applicant: City of Edmonds / File No. ST -97 -157) (K) PROPOSED ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE PLATTED BUT UNBUILT RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF PORTIONS OF 15TH STREET SW ADJACENT TO THE EDMONDS CEMETERY AND PORTIONS OF 100TH AVENUE SOUTH ADJACENT TO THE EDMONDS CEMETERY, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS (Applicant: City of Edmonds / File No. ST -97 -158) 3. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person) 4. (10 Min.) PRESENTATION OF AWARD TO EDMONDS HISTORICAL SOCIETY 5. (30 Min.) HEARING ON PUBLIC ART FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACTS WITH ARTISTS HOGGATT / COURTNEY AND MILLER TO PROVIDE ARTWORK FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 6. (15 Min.) DISCUSSION OF CULTURAL ARTS, STADIUM AND CONVENTION DISTRICT (CASCD) PROPOSAL AND CONSULTANT REPORT 7 8. (60 Min.) (5 Min.) 9. (15 Min.) 10. (10 Min.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 3, 1998 PAGE 2 HEARING ON THE PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PLATTED BUT UNBUILT RIGHTS -OF- WAY OF: (a) 156TH STREET SW BETWEEN 68TH AVENUE WEST AND 70TH AVENUE WEST; (b) PORTIONS OF LUND'S GULCH ROAD WITHIN MEADOWDALE COUNTY PARK; (c) PORTIONS OF AN UNNAMED STREET WITHIN MEADOWDALE COUNTY PARK; (d) 75TH AVENUE WEST NORTH OF 156TH STREET SW; (e) . 73RD AVENUE WEST NORTH OF 156TH STREET SW; (f) PORTIONS OF 156TH STREET SW WEST OF 72ND AVENUE WEST; (g) PORTIONS OF 172ND STREET SW BETWEEN 74TH AVENUE WEST AND 76TH AVENUE WEST; (h) 74TH PLACE SW BETWEEN NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD AND 164TH STREET SW; (I) PORTIONS OF 72ND AVENUE WEST NORTH OF MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD; Q) PORTIONS OF 158TH STREET SW WEST OF 72ND AVENUE WEST; (k) PORTIONS OF 164TH STREET SW WEST OF 72ND AVENUE WEST; LOCATED IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, "RESERVING UTILITY EASEMENTS, SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE MAYOR'S REPORT COUNCIL REPORT EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER 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.