No preview available
01/21/2003 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES January 21, 2003 Following a Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m. to interview candidates for the Arts Commission and the Architectural Design Board, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT -Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Michelle Trias, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Specialist Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Frances Chapin, Cultural Resources Coordinator Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY WILSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Marin requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2003 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #60116 THROUGH #60266 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 6, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $258,034.34. APPROVAL OF FINAL 2002 CLAIM CHECKS #60267 THROUGH #60442 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 13, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $707,954.88. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #34925 THROUGH #35013 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $935,126.94. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 1 (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ROBERT WELCH ($463.00) (F) APPROVAL OF CHANGE TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS AS FOLLOWS: PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE — DEANNA DAWSON AS CHAIR, AND MICHAEL PLUNKETT (G) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD (H) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE RECREATION SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER (J) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICALS (K) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Item E: Confirmation of Manor's Appointment of Mary Monfort to the Arts Commission and Rick Utt to the Architectural Desien Board Councilmember Marin explained he requested this item be removed from the Consent Agenda to recognize Ms. Monfort and Mr. Utt. He briefly described their backgrounds, explaining the Council and ADB interviewed Ms. Monfort and Mr. Utt and recommend confirmation of Mayor Haakenson's appointment. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF MARY MONFORT TO THE ARTS COMMISSION AND RICK UTT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR AN OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE PLANNED EXTENSION OF PIONEER WAY ON THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY FOR A THROUGH STREET. THE SITE IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY -8000 (RS -8). FILE NO. ST-02 -213 Senior Planner Steve Bullock clarified the issue before the Council was a request to modify the City's Official Street Map and it was not a development proposal to install the improvement that the amendments to the Street Map would likely lead to. It was only to establish the expectation of what the City would require of developers when these undeveloped properties submitted applications for development with regard to installing infrastructure or dedicating land to the City for the City to install infrastructure. He noted that although there may be some development proposals related to this area, he would respond in a general way to any questions the Council may have regarding those proposals as it was likely the proposals may proceed into development applications upon which the Council may have to render a decision and staff did not want to prejudge the Council's views on those projects. Mr. Bullock displayed an aerial map and described the background of the area. He explained Shell Valley was currently accessed solely from Bowdoin Way down Pioneer Way. He identified on the map where Pioneer Way proceeds down a hill into Shell Valley, becoming Shell Valley Road and Pioneer Way extending to the northwest. He identified where Shell Valley road dead -ends as it enters Yost Park and where Pioneer Way dead -ends at a small cul -de -sac, explaining the remainder of what would be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 2 Pioneer Way was undeveloped land. He explained the Shell Valley neighborhood consisted of approximately 100 dwelling units. He pointed out Pioneer Way as it enters onto Bowdoin Way is very steep and windy and recalled residents of the neighborhood in the past have requested the assistance from the Council in providing more reliable access to their homes in the event of a storm event. He explained a majority of Shell Valley was approved as a PRD in 1975 with some subsequent development up Pioneer Way in the mid- 1980's. Since Shell Valley was approved, there has been an understanding and has been part of the City's Official Street Map, that Pioneer Way would be extended to Main Street. Using an excerpt from the Official Street Map, Mr. Bullock identified where Pioneer Way dead -ends and the planned right -of -way for the future extension of Pioneer Way from its current terminus to Main Street, approximately in line with 86`l' Place West. He noted that has been the understanding by which plats and subdivisions have been reviewed and approved. He stated some of the testimony in the record indicated residents had the understanding, and purchased property with the understanding, that the road would go through and provide another means of access. He pointed out the neighborhood's opposition to rezones in the area due to concerns with traffic if a through road were constructed. This lead staff to analyze whether it would be desirable to extend Pioneer Way to Main Street as a through street or provide a bicycle and walkway connection but not a through street. Thus the reason staff requested and received Council authorization to proceed with a street map amendment. He explained this issue has been discussed with the appropriate departments and a public hearing held with the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Bullock explained some of the original intent behind the planned alignment of Pioneer Way was because access to Shell Valley is circuitous and via a steep road that is difficult to maneuver in inclement weather. It would be appropriate to have better access into Shell Valley for residents as well as for emergency response crews. The Park Master Plan has Pine Ridge Park to the east and Yost Park to the west and the Bicycle and Walkway Plans indicate this area as a connection between these park features. Mr. Bullock explained another reason the planned right -of -way was identified was because when Shell Valley was constructed, there was a means for providing secondary access to Shell Valley via a roadway in Yost Park. He identified the roadway on the aerial photograph, explaining the limited grades of this road were conducive to providing secondary access, however, the roadway is cut into the hillside of the Shell Valley ravine. Because of the cut, the roadway is susceptible to slide failures on the uphill and downhill sides and requires frequent maintenance. He pointed out a recent investigation revealed the roadway is 11 feet wide at its narrowest point and there is concern that large emergency response apparatus using the roadway may result in failure of the shoulders, possibly resulting in a greater catastrophe. The way to correct this would be to engineer a structure on the downhill side of the roadway to ensure the road did not fail, a very expensive and complex process. He pointed out the Pioneer Way extension was fairly flat, located at the bottom of a ravine, with a slight incline as it entered Main Street. A road in this location would have little opportunity for failure and ongoing maintenance difficulties. Mr. Bullock explained concerns with constructing a road through the Pioneer Way extension include increased traffic. Although the neighborhood is supportive of the pathway connecting Yost and Pine Ridge Park, they are concerned that a through road connected to Main Street may result in the road's use as a cut - through to avoid Five Corners. He noted this has not been substantiated by traffic reports. Staff also has concerns if a road were constructed to Main Street in line with 86th Place West, that this would be an awkward and potentially dangerous location for traffic entering onto Main Street due to the bend in the Main Street roadway, the topography of Main Street as well as limited sight distance to the southeast and northwest due to retaining walls on adjacent properties. Mr. Bullock stated there were concerns due to the Critical Areas Ordinance as this is a ravine and the proposed roadway would be located at the bottom of the ravine with steep slopes on both sides as well as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 3 a wetland in the north one -third that covers a portion of the ravine. The wetland is a Class III wetland, the lowest class wetland in the Critical Areas Ordinance. The combination of the steep slope and the wetland leave little room for a road. Staff's proposal to the Hearing Examiner and the City Council is to change the Official Street Map to eliminate the 60 -foot right -of -way shown on the current Street Map as well as the alignment on the Street Map. The request is that the right -of -way from the current terminus of Pioneer Way to Main Street be reduced to 20 -feet in width and the alignment be left to future development proposals with the condition that the alignment be based on providing the least impact to the steep slope and wetland critical areas. He explained a 20 -foot wide right -of -way in this area would allow the City to install the bikeway and walkway shown on the Official Bikeway and Walkway Plans, allow for the installation of an emergency access for emergency response vehicles (aid, fire, police) when Pioneer Way from Bowdoin was inaccessible. Any further development of the properties to the south and the property to the north must provide whatever access would be necessary to serve the dwelling units that were constructed but the right -of -way the City would require would be reduced to 20 -feet, nearly precluding the possibility that a connecting road could be established in that area. Further, any application would need to comply with the Critical Areas Ordinance process to construct a road to access units in that area. Mr. Bullock advised the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the proposal as staff presented with one condition. Staff recommends the Hearing Examiner's condition be modified as follows: The Official Street Map will contain a notation that specifically limits the vehicular use of that portion of the Pioneer Way extension encumbered by critical areas and subiect to the public agency exemption to emergency and maintenance uses. Councilmember Marin inquired if the developer or homeowners in Shell Valley provided funds for the future development of the street. Mr. Bullock answered no. Councilmember Marin further asked if a roadway were designed in that area today, given the critical areas, would a 60 -foot right -of -way be required? Mr. Bullock answered a road that would serve 100+ units would need to meet the City's standards for a roadway to serve 100+ units. A table in the Code identifies the right -of -way width based on the number of units, as well as requirements for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc. The right -of -way was always in excess of the improved road and sidewalk surface to accommodate additional utilities. Councilmember Marin inquired about the conflict provided by the critical areas. Mr. Bullock advised the Official Street Map would direct staff to require an applicant to construct a full roadway to meet the City's standards, however, that would be in conflict with requirements of the Critical Areas Ordinance to protect and minimize encroachment into critical areas. He noted that was part of the reason for this proposal; establishing the groundwork for where development would occur and minimizing encroachment into critical areas. Councilmember Plunkett asked why the Hearing Examiner reviewed this proposal. Mr. Bullock explained Street Map amendments required review by the Hearing Examiner with a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Bullock noted a street vacation would bypass the Hearing Examiner and only be reviewed by the City Council. Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether this was a quasi judicial matter. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered it was not. Councilmember Petso asked whether the access would be gated to prevent casual use. Mr. Bullock anticipated the roadway would be gated on two ends. He noted that would be addressed on a project - specific basis and would not be included on the Street Map amendment. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 4 Councilmember Petso referred to a Purchase and Sale agreement for the Main Street property, pointing out there was a provision in the Agreement that indicates the buyer and seller must agree on the trail and access road, how it would be located, etc. She questioned whether the amendment should establish the configuration of the roadway and whether the location, size, use, cost of the road would be negotiated. Mr. Bullock responded that while the City has notified the potential purchaser of the City's plans /intentions regarding the Official Street Map amendment, the amendment has been developed by staff in determining the right choices for alignment and width requirements. If a future owner of the property determined he wanted to place the access to his development in a different location, he could. This amendment only identifies a location for the bikeway, walkway, and emergency access. He noted there were reasons for the location of the access due to the underpass at Main Street and minimizing the impact on critical areas. He noted a developer would have to live with this regardless of what he wanted to do on his property. Councilmember Petso requested assurance that by not specifying the alignment, the City could locate the access where the City wanted. Mr. Bullock assured that was the intent. Responding further to Councilmember Petso, Mr. Bullock explained staff obtained a second permit at the same time as the amendment to the Official Street Map, a Public Agency Exemption which grants an exemption for meeting the needs and plans to provide service to its customers. One of the conditions of the Public Agency Exemption was the use of Best Management Practices for selecting the alignment as well as the installation of the improvement. In this instance, it would defer some studies and construction practices until a development proposal was submitted as some Best Management Practices would be related to the techniques for the construction of the access. Councilmember Petso recalled the materials as well as the presentation indicated some risk with allowing vehicles to access Main Street in that location as well as an indication that future developments would access in that location. She questioned why it was not safe for the City to construct access in that location but may be acceptable for developers to provide access in that location. Mr. Bullock answered there was only one lot that could potentially access onto Main Street. He explained the property at Main had the potential for 6 -8 units and their only potential access was onto Main Street. He explained they cannot be precluded from gaining access but their construction documents must indicate how the development would access in a manner that met the City's standards and was as safe as possible. He noted the number of vehicles that would access at that location would be substantially less than if the roadway were developed as a through road where the entire populous of Shell Valley could use the road. Councilmember Petso asked whether the City would be meeting its own standards during the few days this access was open to residents of Shell Park. She asked whether 20 feet of right -of -way would be sufficient to provide adequate sight distance when the access was open for emergency use. City Engineer Dave Gebert answered the volume of traffic during an emergency or inclement weather would be very limited. Councilmember Petso pointed out there was the potential for all the residents of the neighborhood to use the access during an emergency or inclement weather. Mr. Gebert answered it was his assumption the access could be designed to be safe. Councilmember Petso inquired whether additional right -of -way could be recaptured if right -of -way in excess of 20 feet were necessary. Mr. Gebert answered if development of that property accessed at that point, it must meet the standard for street width to serve whatever number of units are constructed and if the number of units required it to be a public street, the right -of -way would need to be rededicated to provide adequate width. He noted that access would only be to serve the lots on that property. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 5 Councilmember Petso inquired about the timing of the construction of this access. Mr. Gebert answered the timing was not certain but the expectation was that the property would be developed and, in the process of the development by a private developer, the access, bikeway and walkway would be constructed as well. Mr. Snyder referred to paragraph 12a of the Purchase and Sale Agreement that indicates, "the seller expressly agrees and acknowledges the City Council of the City of Edmonds, the Hearing Examiner, and the staff of the City retain their full respective legislative and administrative discretion and duty to make any and all regulatory, legislative, and quasi judicial decisions and recommendations relating to the development of the site." He noted the agreement went on to specify situations under which that might arise. The paragraph ends with, "nothing herein will be interpreted to contract away or in any way limit such exercise of discretion or decision making authority available under the laws of the State or the ordinances of this City." Councilmember Dawson acknowledged there were conflicting sentiments by the neighbors, desiring access but not wanting a through street as well as concerns with the wetland. With regard to the gates, she inquired about how the development at Main could gain access if it were gated. Mr. Bullock referred to the aerial map, identifying the approximate location of the emergency access and the gates. He clarified the gate would not be at Main Street but between the access and the lot at Main Street. He referred to the recommended change in the Hearing Examiner's condition which addressed this issue, "that portion of the Pioneer Way extension encumbered by critical areas and subject to the public agency exemption," explaining that was the portion from the north end of the wetland through the steepest slope area of the ravine. Councilmember Dawson referred to the lot that may gain access from Main Street, and asked whether the City might be limiting itself in what access could be required if the right -of -way width were reduced from 60 feet to 20 feet. Mr. Bullock explained that would be reviewed with any development proposal, the amount of access easement or right -of -way that was dedicated to the City to serve those lots would be determined by the street standards and the number of units. For a development with 5 -9 units, there was a specific right -of -way width required, specific arrangement of travel lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc. which would be required as far onto the property as the developer needed to gain access to their lots. Councilmember Dawson asked if there was potential for the roadway to be 20 feet through the wetland area and wider past that area. Mr. Bullock answered yes. He clarified the fact that 20 feet of right -of- way was required in this area was not implying there would be pavement 20 -feet wide. The minimum amount of paved surface would be constructed to accommodate the bikeway, walkway, and emergency access which could be from 11 feet to 16 feet. Mr. Snyder clarified the Council was being asked to amend the City's Official Street Map which was a planning tool. That was distinct from a vacation where the City owns the right -of -way. If the City required over - sizing of pavement or an extension from the backside of a development for the purposes of permitting emergency access, the City would be required to pay for that over - sizing regardless of whether this action tonight was taken. He noted as a planning tool, the amendment to the Official Street Map had more relevance to the City's CIP and TIP than to a developer's obligation. Councilmember Dawson commented the issue before the Council was only amending the Official Street Map to provide less access, not indicating a road would be constructed. Mr. Bullock agreed. He clarified that for the portion of the bikeway, walkway and emergency access between the gates, staff would expect it to be one feature and not separated. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 6 Councilmember Dawson questioned why the recommendation did not refer to the gates. Mr. Bullock explained the gates were project oriented. Staff understood what was desired with regard to the gates and made a determination not to include the gates on the Official Street Map as the Map, because it is a planning tool, was typically lines and dimensions only. He noted the Council could include the gates as a finding in its decision which staff would then use to justify the requirement in future development proposals. Councilmember Dawson commented the concern was that although it may be understood this would only be used for an emergency, casual use could not be precluded unless it was gated. Mr. Bullock agreed, noting the limited amount of right -of -way would preclude this being a through street. Mr. Snyder explained the access, speed, use of the street, etc: was a legislative decision that could be made by this Council and future Councils at any time. He reiterated this was a legislative action of the Council and unless someone's access was totally eliminated, it was not a compensatory injury. Councilmember Dawson inquired who would pay for the gates, the City or developer? Mr. Bullock answered it would be determined at the time of a project application. Mr. Snyder commented it should be assumed the City would pay for the gates. Staff indicated the cost of the gates was approximately $500 each. Councilmember Dawson asked how residents of Shell Valley would know when the gate was open. Public Works Director Noel Miller answered in inclement weather the "Road Closed" sign was put up at Pioneer Way into Shell Valley. When Pioneer Way was deemed safe for use, the gate to this access would be locked. Councilmember Wilson noted the proposal was to reduce the Official Street Map from 60 feet to 20 feet for the entire length. If the parcel adjacent to Main Street required additional right -of -way, was the City precluded from asking them to dedicate more than shown on the Official Street Map? Mr. Bullock explained that because a developer would be required to provide right -of -way based on the table of street standards, if they required over what the Official Street Map calls for to gain access to their lots, that could be required for the portion to gain access to their lots. The City would not be justified in asking for additional right -of -way over what was identified on the Official Street Map for the portions that did not provide access to their lots. Mr. Snyder explained since this was not right -of -way the City was vacating, the City was always limited by the standard takings analysis; the City could not require developers to dedicate or pay more than the impact of their development justifies. Councilmember Wilson commented his understanding of Best Management Practices was that rather than having a static provision in the Code that establishes a standard that was applicable when the Code was adopted, using the term Best Management Practices ensures the best practice in effect on the date development occurred would be used. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the extension of Pioneer Way was on the TIP or CIP. Mr. Bullock answered no. Councilmember Wilson noted the Council would have another opportunity to discuss an actual project in more detail at the time it was added to the TIP or CIP. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Wilson pointed out that according to the existing Official Street Map, if those properties developed today, they would be required to dedicate in accordance with the Official Street Map. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Wilson asked who would make the decision when it was an emergency and the access would be open to residents. Mr. Bullock answered the Mayor or his designee. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 7 Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Patrice Raplee, 21001 Pioneer Way, Edmonds, remarked it was the consensus of the neighborhood that they did not want a through street and that an emergency access would be sufficient. She explained other reasons that a through street would not be practical including the large amount of foot traffic on the park paths as well as potentially unsafe conditions at the intersection on Main Street. She summarized the neighborhood was supportive of establishing an emergency access, retaining it as a footpath and keeping the access gated. Ron Johnson, 21210 Shell Valley Road, Edmonds, commented Pioneer Way was dangerous not only when it snowed but also when there was black ice. He was supportive of providing an emergency access out of Shell Valley but did not support having the access gated. He preferred residents be allowed to make the decision when to use the emergency access. Mary Jo Sakoi, 21005 Pioneer Way, Edmonds, supported Ms. Raplee's comments, noting there are many families in the neighborhood with young children who are used to limited traffic in the neighborhood. If the roadway were opened to Main Street, there would no longer be limited traffic. With regard to the emergency access, she preferred it only be opened on days when emergency access was truly needed. She urged residents to drive slowly on the roadway on frosty days. Rick Spellman, 21016 Shell Valley Way, Edmonds, explained prior to purchasing their home 20 years ago, they inquired of the City regarding the future plans for Yost Park and efforts to improve access during snow and ice. He noted Yost Park had been left natural, however, nothing had been done with regard to the access to Shell Valley. He commented it was only a matter of time before inclement weather prevented emergency crews from responding to an emergency in Shell Valley. He noted staff's proposal for a gated road to be used under emergency circumstances would solve this problem. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON OPPOSED. Dennis Tessier, 21100 Pioneer Way, Edmonds, was opposed to a through street but supported a bike path. He was concerned whether development would continue to be single family 8,000 square feet or if a rezone would be requested for multifamily. He noted most residents of Shell Valley lived there because of the seclusion and weremell aware of the access restrictions. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented the timing of this street vacation was coincidental as there were two developments scheduled, one on Main Street where there is a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Rob Michel and the other a PRD planned by Sundquist. He noted both developers had a history of campaign donations. He commented the reason the vacation was important to Mr. Michel was that he would gain an extra lot. He noted Mr. Michel had much to gain from this vacation and residents of Shell Park who were concerned about safety would like a secondary access. He summarized a secondary access was important to Shell Valley and had been promised when Shell Valley was developed. He noted a 20 -foot right -of -way did not provide 20 feet of pavement and recalled the Fire Department indicated their preference for 20 feet of pavement. The right -of -way in that area did not need to be reduced until the access had been provided. Mr. Snyder clarified this was not a vacation of City right -of -way, it was a change in the plan line on the Official Street Map. Ray Martin, 18704 94"' Avenue W, Edmonds, questioned the difference in time for emergency crews to reach Shell Valley if they had to stop and open gates. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 8 Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. In response to Mr. Martin's question, Fire Chief Tom Tomberg explained that if the choice were taking more time to use a key to open the gate or a bolt cutter to cut the lock and entering via the emergency access versus parking on Bowdoin Way and carrying equipment into Shell Valley, he would choose the gate. Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Hertrich's comment that the Fire Department required 20 feet of pavement, noting that was the indication in the Fire Department's memo. Chief Tomberg answered that was always the Fire Department's preference. Councilmember Dawson asked whether Chief Tomberg would be comfortable with a 20 foot right -of- way with 15 feet of pavement. Chief Tomberg answered what was necessary was a road that was accessible, sometimes that was 20 feet paved and sometimes it was 15 feet with good shoulders and proper engineering, hence the process when development occurred, the Fire Department would balance public safety, access, etc. with the developer's plans. He indicated in the time he has been Fire Chief in Edmonds, there have not been any problems obtaining adequate access. Councilmember Dawson asked the minimum paved road width Chief Tomberg would be comfortable with. Chief Tomberg answered 12 feet, although he had not yet seen the proposal. Councilmember Dawson asked whether staff considered the Fire Department's memo that indicated a minimum of 20 feet of paved width. Mr. Bullock explained he had a number of conversations with the Fire Department and Fire Marshal Westfall was at the Hearing Examiner meeting. Fire Marshal Westfall identified 20 feet as their standard fire lane dimension but he was willing to accept less on a case -by -case project review. Councilmember Dawson observed staff's recommendation included input from the Fire Department. Mr. Bullock assured it did. Councilmember Petso asked whether it was too late to consider requiring more width for the right -of- way. She acknowledged staff had worked with the Fire Department but their memo indicated a 20 foot paved width and Chief Tomberg indicated it depended on the terrain, shoulder, curve, slope, etc. She noted with the location near a wetland, there may not be much shoulder and there may be more curves in the access than the Fire Department contemplated. Councilmember Petso indicated she was still uncomfortable approving this without an alignment and questioned whether more right -of -way should be reserved to address these issues. Mr. Bullock advised that because this was a legislative matter, the Council could make that decision. He explained his discussions with the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal indicated the latitude in the alignment provided more flexibility than identifying an alignment that may not be appropriate once the access was being designed. Councilmember Petso expressed concern with two -way traffic. Mr. Bullock commented the existing emergency access through Yost Park had at its minimum 11 feet of width and was approximately 1600 feet in length. This access would be less than 400 feet between the gates. As well as providing emergency access, the City obtained the Public Agency Exemption to allow encroachment in the critical area but in a manner that minimized the impact and the encroachment on the critical area. He summarized the 20 foot dimension was accomplished in an attempt to balance the needs of those competing interests. There was discussion early on of this being a 15 -foot access but it was increased to 20 feet to ensure adequate flexibility was provided to address emergency access for the Fire Department as well as residents. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 9 Councilmember Wilson asked if 20 feet could be paved in a 20 -foot easement; if the Fire Department needed 20 feet of pavement, the City would not be precluded from paving the entire 20 feet. Mr. Gebert answered the only thing that could preclude paving the entire 20 -foot width would be if it were not level with the area to the side of the right -of -way, requiring some cut or fill. Unless the cut/fill was within the 20 -foot right -of -way, the City would need to obtain a slope easement. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION, UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE STREET MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION TO HIS CONDITION OF APPROVAL: THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP WILL CONTAIN A NOTATION THAT SPECIFICALLY LIMITS THE VEHICULAR USE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PIONEER WAY EXTENSION ENCUMBERED BY CRITICAL AREAS AND SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AGENCY EXEMPTION TO EMERGENCY AND MAINTENANCE USES. Councilmember Petso hoped staff had determined correctly that 20 feet was sufficient so that it was not given up now and had to be bought back later. Although she supported this not being a through street, she preferred there be an alignment in place. Councilmember Orvis agreed it was appropriate to limit access on this right -of -way. Councilmember Plunkett commented staff took a great deal of time to develop a good proposal, their conclusions were reached analytically and with forethought and consideration of all concerned to develop a solution for the residents and the community as a whole. Councilmember Dawson commented the difficulty was balancing public safety against environmental concerns because additional right -of -way would impact the wetland, but protecting the wetland completely would not allow access for the residents. She indicated she would support the motion. Councilmember Wilson indicated he would also support the motion, noting this had not been a quick process as he recalled being involved in discussions regarding this access 13 years ago when he began working for the City and it had been worked on since and prior to that time. He pointed this was a positive solution and did not give up opportunities but rather indicated to the neighborhood the importance of providing emergency access. Although the actual alignment had not been defined, this provided adequate flexibility to identify the best location for the emergency access when development occurred. He recalled living in another community where a substantial rainfall eliminated all access to the area but access from the neighborhood was accomplished via a gated access. Had that emergency access not been available, there would not have been access to the neighborhood for over six months. He noted the City would be negligent if it did not provide opportunity for safe emergency access. Councilmember Marin indicated he would support the motion, noting the preponderance of residents supported providing this emergency access and preserving the neighborhood's privacy. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, Edmonds, recalled in order to construct the overhead loading and the agent shed, the Washington State Ferries (WSF) had to obtain a Shoreline Permit which Edmonds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 10 approved subject to conditions, one of which was WSF requesting an extension of the permit every five years. She recalled the permit was granted in 1996 or 1997 and assumed the five year period had expired. She questioned whether WSF had received a Eve year extension of the permit and if not, when would the Hearing Examiner consider the extension. Development Services Director Duane Bowman indicated he was aware of the condition and the extension; there was an issue whether the extension had lapsed and he was in discussion with WSF regarding their reapplying for the permit. He indicated he could provide specifics to Ms. Shippen and the Council tomorrow. Ms. Shippen pointed out the condition indicated the WSF was not to wait until the end of the Eve years to file for an extension; that was to occur one year prior to the conclusion of the Eve year period. She pointed out this was a very peculiar process; instead of doing an EIS at the time that structure was built, they were allowed to go 15 years and then submit an EIS. Mr. Bowman commented WSDOT was the party who failed to apply for an extension and staff was working with them. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented he was still waiting for an answer regarding the sign on Edmonds Way that was constructed without a permit by WSDOT. He recalled the ferry toll ery I booth had ADB review for design and as a result, changes were made to their original design. With Terminal I regard to the new ferry terminal and the discussions that would occur tomorrow, he pointed out the Oversight Committee, who makes many of the decisions, did not publish minutes. He pointed out the importance of minutes for historical reasons to know what steps had been taken, decisions made, etc. financing 5. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SALE OF REVENUE BONDS FOR FINANCING UTILITY CAPITAL PROJECTS Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager Stephen Koho explained the Finance Department was planning to refinance existing utility bonds in the amount of $5 million. Public Works was requesting authorization to issue $3 million in new debt to carry out the capital plan. He explained the proposed financing plan was consistent with the utility rate study, the 2003 budget, and the CIP. The proposed financing plan was supported by the Finance Committee who recommended it be forwarded to the Council for consideration. Mr. Koho explained the capital projects were in two categories, those likely to receive funding from low interest loan sources and those that were unlikely to receive funding from the low interest loans and would need to be funded via revenue bonds. He advised applications would be submitted this year for low interest loans, however, there were some projects whose funding would be acquired via the revenue bonds. Staff requests Council authorization to move forward with issuing new debt in conjunction with the refinancing of existing debt. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION, AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH A FINANCING PACKAGE THAT WOULD REFINANCE THE OUTSTANDING TREATMENT PLANT REVENUE BONDS AND INCLUDE $3 MILLION IN NEW REVENUE BONDS TO ACCOMPLISH THE 2003 CAPITAL PROJECTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR NEW CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUDIO - VIDEO EQUIPMENT Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained in early 2002 he forwarded the Council a packet submitted by AT &T /Comcast regarding their proposed merger. During that process, he advised the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 11 Council that the City Attorney and he were in the process of negotiating with AT &T to ensure they fulfilled the terms of the franchise agreement, specifically related to audio and video equipment. The terms of the agreement required that AT &T provide sufficient equipment to fully equip the Council Chambers to adequately broadcast to government channel 21. In May 2002, the City received a check in the amount of $57,525 and to date have spent $2,000 on a consultant to develop a list of specifications for Council Chambers as well as $2,000 for a laptop computer specifically for Council PowerPoint presentations. Mr. Clifton advised the consultant met with the City Clerk, Council offices, Public Works, Municipal Court, Police, Community Services, and other departments to discuss improvements that would provide for more effective Council recordings including cameras, projectors, recording instruments and touch - pad panels for operating equipment. Tony Locke, Audio Visual Frontier, described the audio and visual equipment, explaining the intent was to replace the existing cameras and recording equipment with permanently mounted cameras and add to the existing audio equipment to result in a better quality broadcast and/or recording for public access as well as sound audio and interfaces for computer access such as PowerPoint presentations, all of which would be tied to the existing audio system. Councilmember Plunkett asked where the cameras would be mounted. Mr. Locke advised there would be three cameras mounted throughout the room; the position of the cameras would allow viewing of the dais, the podium and elsewhere in the room via camera presets accessed by the camera operator. He advised the image would be clearer and sharper, and would provide a more consistent image without the need to pan the camera from one location to another. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether this system would have the ability to identify speakers via printing on the screen. Mr. Locke answered the current design did not include that feature; it could be added for an additional cost. Responding to Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Clifton explained per the terms of the franchise agreement, the City was required to expend these funds only on audio /visual equipment for the Council Chambers for Channel 21. Councilmember Dawson asked whether there was any ability to negotiate a franchise agreement that provided funds for other purposes. Mr. Clifton answered no. Councilmember Dawson asked for assurance that only the funds provided by AT &T would be expended. Mr. Clifton explained the consultant outlined a list of equipment and alternates and the preliminary pricing was several thousand under the estimated cost. He assured no equipment in excess of the funds provided by AT &T would be purchased. Councilmember Dawson commented it may be more advantageous to upgrade the system to serve those with disabilities rather than purchase this equipment. Mr. Clifton explained several options were considered, such as the equipment Councilmember Plunkett described that identified speakers via subtitles, but that equipment was very expensive. Therefore, consideration was given to the most effective way to spend the money on equipment such as cameras, recording equipment, portals on the dais to accommodate laptops, etc. He explained the new equipment would avoid panning the cameras from one location to another and refocusing. Councilmember Dawson asked whether this equipment would allow proceedings other than Council meetings to be broadcast on Channel 21. Mr. Clifton answered yes, explaining staff has been working with the Municipal Court to ensure this equipment could be integrated into video arraignment. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 12 advised any type of video or CD could be broadcast on the system provided it met the guidelines for broadcast on Channel 21. Councilmember Dawson recalled wanting to broadcast the League of Women Voters' debates and was told that was not possible. Mayor Haakenson advised anything on videotape could currently be broadcast on Channel 21. Mayor Haakenson advised the conditions of the franchise agreement were agreed to by Chambers Cable in 1996. One of the conditions when AT &T purchased Chambers was providing this funding. When Comcast proposed merging with AT &T, the City indicated they would not agree to the buyout unless this funding was provided. He noted the plans have been since 1996 to upgrade the videotaping of Council meetings. He noted viewers would appreciate not having to pan the camera from one location to another which was only possible via multiple cameras. He recalled this was done approximately four years ago when a consultant who had two cameras videotaped Council meetings. Council President Earling asked if any of the equipment had the potential to address the difficulty viewing the aerial map during tonight's presentation. Mr. Clifton advised the new equipment could zoom in on whatever image was on the screen. However, the key was developing displays that clearly identified features because although the projector would clearly display an image, the map, photograph, etc. must be presented in a precise manner. Mr. Locke explained one of the devices that will be included is a digital version of the overhead that projects a digital picture of a document onto the screen and the camera could zoom in on that image. In response to a question from Council President Earling regarding the timeline, Mr. Clifton explained if the Council authorized going to bid, staff would go to bid within a week and request responses within 2 -3 weeks. Staff would review the bids to ensure the equipment in the bid met the specifications and then negotiate a contract. He estimated installation of equipment would occur within a few weeks following the negotiation of a contract. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the recording would remain in the VHS format. Mr. Clifton responded there has been discussion of including equipment that would enable recording on VHS as well as CD. He noted many people do not have DVD recorders and the City must still provide VHS tapes to allow them to view Council meetings. Councilmember Wilson asked if there would be the possibility in the future to access Council meetings via the City's website and a library of stored images. Mr. Locke answered yes, the system has expansion capabilities and described the relative ease by which this could occur. Mr. Clifton commented the DVD format would allow a viewer to browse through a meeting more quickly to reach a certain item. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS ON THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUDIO/VIDEO EQUIPMENT. Mayor Haakenson asked the amount of City funds being expended on this equipment. Mr. Clifton answered none. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 2003 Councilmember Orvis reported the committee had a status report on the library roof repair. The consultant who was assessing the library roof repair developed a list of other repairs to be performed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 13 After further research, staff recommended and the committee concurred with proceeding with bids on only the library roof project with the base bid. Next the committee discussed funding sources for the additional library building projects including forming a joint City /Library District work group to discuss expenditures from the library repair fund. The committee then discussed financing for utility projects which was approved on tonight's agenda. The committee also discussed the 2003 work plan for Administrative Services and the process for donating surplus equipment. Councilmember Petso, a member of the Finance Committee, clarified during the discussion of the 2003 work plan for Administrative Services, she asked to be excused from any discussion regarding the franchise agreement with Olympic View Water and Sewer District. She was assured by staff that there would not be any discussion at the committee level. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson reported today was the final day for submitting comments to King County on their draft EIS on Brightwater. He learned from a newspaper reporter this afternoon that several entities had received extensions until February 5 and staff requested and received the same extension. Therefore, the City will not be submitting its comments to King County on their draft EIS on Brightwater until February 5. He noted a total of 18 entities were granted this extension. Mayor Haakenson reported in late December a citizen complaint was filed on possible violations of Edmonds City Code by Councilmember Plunkett. The Council forwarded that complaint to him, he forwarded it to the City's Prosecuting Attorney, who forwarded it to an independent prosecutor, James Zachor who works for Mountlake Terrace. Mayor Haakenson read Mr. Zachor's report following his review of alleged violation of ECC 1. 14.040 and ECC 1.14.070. His report itemized the materials he had reviewed and his conclusion that there were no grounds to pursue charging Councilmember Plunkett as the provisions of the code require there be a specific mens rea that any violators intentionally violates the provision of this chapter. Mr. Zachor found reasonable doubt that such could be established. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Orvis recalled he indicated he would review his records to verify his disclosures. He advised there was a $250+ contributor, his father, who was a party of record on the Unocal rezone which he did not disclose although it was not intentional. Councilmember Orvis advised he submitted a memo to the City Clerk and included public disclosure forms. Councilmember Marin reported he toured the newly completed Lift Station 1, explaining the upgrade of the lift station would virtually eliminate the possibility of discharge into Puget Sound. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 21, 2003 Page 14 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 2505 1h Avenue North, Edmonds 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. January 21, 2003 6:40 p.m. - Interview Candidates for the Arts Commission and Architectural Design Board. (The interviews will be held in the Jury Meeting Room.) 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 7, 2003. (C) Approval of claim checks #60116 through #60266 for the week of January 6, 2003, in the amount of $258,034.34. Approval of final 2002 claim checks #60267 through #60442 for the week of January 13, 2003, in the amount of $707,954.88. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #34925 through #35013 for the period January 1 through January 15, 2003 in the amount of $935,126.94. (D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Robert Welch ($463.00). (E) Confirmation of Mayor's appointments of Mary Monfort to the Arts Commission and Rick Utt to the Architectural Design Board. (F) Approval of change to Council Committee appointments as follows: Public Safety Committee - Deanna Dawson as Chair, and Michael Plunkett. (G) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board. (H) Community Services Department Quarterly Report. (I) Authorization for Mayor to sign the Recreation Service Agreement with South County Senior Center. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA January 21, 2003 Page 2 of 2 (J) Authorization to call for bids for Treatment Plant chemicals. (K) Authorization to contract with James Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment. 3. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on the application by the City of Edmonds for an Official Street Map Amendment to modify the planned extension of Pioneer Way on the Official Street Map to eliminate the possibility for a through street. The site is zoned Residential Single Family - 8000 (RS -8). File No. ST -02 -213. 4. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* "Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 5. ( 5 Min.) Discussion regarding the sale of revenue bonds for financing utility capital projects. 6. (10 Min.) Authorization to call for bids for new City Council Chambers audio -video equipment. 7. ( 5 Min.) Report on the City Council Finance Committee Meeting of January 14, 2003. S. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 9. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN 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 as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT &T Cable, Channel 21.