No preview available
12/01/1998 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 1998 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Pro Tem Dick Van Hollebeke, Council Pres. Pro Tem John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ABSENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Dave Earling, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Andrea Reid, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Robin Hickok, Police Chief Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor James Walker, City Engineer Don Fiene, Hydraulic Engineer Michael Karber, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Pro Tern Haakenson announced that Mayor Fahey was attending the National League of Cities Conference, and Councilmember Earling was in Washington D.C. on Sound Transit business. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson introduced City Attorney Michael Karber. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Nordquist requested Items B, C, D, and G be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL SA for Judge (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACTS FOR PROFESSIONAL ro Tem SERVICES WITH DOUGLAS FAIR, KRISTEN ANDERSON, AND KATHLEEN FIELDS TO SERVE AS MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE PRO TEM SA Planning (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES oard Minute AGREEMENT WITH KARIN NOYES FOR PLANNING BOARD MINUTE TAKING aker SERVICES Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 1 1 Item B: Acknowledge Receipt of Claim for Damages from Edmonds Fire Department ($3,245.00) im for Councilmember Nordquist advised this appeared to be an unusual claim to the City and wanted it on ages record that he challenged the claim. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR PASSAGE OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda item approved is as follows: (B) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM EDMONDS FUZE DEPARTMENT ($3,245.00) oQ for Item C: Authorization to Advertise for Statement of Oualifications from Consultants for the esign of Design of the Perrinville Sanitary Sewer LID Project Sewer LID Councilmember Nordquist requested this item be subject to Council's approval of the formation of the LID. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR PASSAGE OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda item approved is as follows: (C) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FROM CONSULTANTS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER LID PROJECT oQ for Item D: Authorization to Advertise for Statement of Qualifications from Consultants for Sanitary wer Meter Sewer Meter Station A Rehabilitation Design Lion A Councilmember Nordquist said the proposal does not indicate this is for the Ballinger Lift Station and b'' requested that be specified in the title. He believed this lift station shared in funds from a settlement several years ago. City Engineer Jim Walker said this was part of a settlement and that is the reason there is funding from Fund 414 and Fund 412 -400. A small portion of the funding must be provided by cities /agencies, other than Olympic View, that participate at the plant. He said the meter relocation would eliminate the lift station. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR PASSAGE OF ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED. The item approved is as follows: (D) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FROM CONSULTANTS FOR SANITARY SEWER METER STATION A REHABILITATION DESIGN SA for Item G: Authorization for Mayor to Sign Professional Services Agreement with Jeannie Dines for Council mute Taking Services Minute Taker Councilmember Nordquist requested the statement in the agenda packet regarding the minute taking services be included in the record, "Ms. Dines performs her services in an outstanding manner; she is very reliable and the quality of her work is excellent." COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM G. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda item approved is as follows: (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JEANNIE DINES FOR MINUTE TAKING SERVICES Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 2 Public 3. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENDING THE LIFE OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ENACTED Hearing re: PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 3209 RELATING TO A -FRAME AND SANDWICH -BOARD -Frame and DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND REAFFIRMING ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES Sandwich Board Enforcement Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson explained the Council's adoption of Ordinance No. 3227 on October 20 which extended the interim ordinance for an additional six -month study period also required a public hearing. He said no action other than holding the public hearing is required tonight. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Council's adoption of Ordinance No. 3209 in April 1998, established a study period relating to A -frame and sandwich board signs. During the initial study period, staff researched how other jurisdictions regulate these types of signs, developed proposals for other types of directional signage, held an open house, and distributed a survey among the business community. The Planning Board has now initiated its review of sandwich board signs as well as signs in general in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Due to the limited participation, the Planning Board's need for more time to develop proposals and to seek more public input, the interim ordinance was extended for six months. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. With the approval of the Council, he indicated audience comments for each of the public hearings would be limited to three minutes. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said he was opposed to any restrictions on signage until all the business owners met to determine what they want done. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said before this ordinance was adopted, the City Code did not allow A -frame signs. Now businesses are allowed one A -frame although he observed when none are allowed, some are erected and when one is allowed, more than one is displayed. He did not believe there was a limit in the Code on the size of A -frame signs. He said A -frames were not originally allowed because they are not counted in the signage formula for each business and inequality results if one businesses has an A -frame sign and another does not. He questioned the need for the change due to the limited number of people interested in participating and said he preferred A -frames not be allowed. He pointed out the difficulty the City currently has with Code enforcement. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Chave explained the purpose of the ordinance was to extend the study period, not to eliminate options. Several options have been developed that hopefully would allow sandwich board signs to be replaced with a more positive sign type. He said the ordinances include size limitations for sandwich board signs as well as placement guidelines. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson asked if merchants could have sandwich board signs now. Mr. Chave said merchants are permitted to have a sign in the proximity of their business as long as it does not block pedestrian traffic, cause a hazard, or if it is located on their property. blic 4. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT earing re: DISTRICT (LID) TO BE KNOW AS THE PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER LID, FOR THE errinville PURPOSE OF EXTENDING SEVER MAINS AND SERVICE ewer LID Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 3 1 City Engineer Jim Walker explained this area was annexed approximately a year ago; one of the reasons so many residents were interested in annexation was to gain sewer service. He said this is an area in the Alderwood Water District where water is provided but no sewer service. He explained the LID process is a method to allow residents to fund improvements they are interested in, with the City taking responsibility for design and construction of the improvements. He displayed a map illustrating the property owners who are interested in participating in the LID. He explained the City issued a survey to residents in the area to determine who was interested in sewer service and who was opposed. To the extent possible, only those residents who are in favor of the LID have been included. It is possible to do further LIDs to sewer the remaining area. He said the LID will sewer the majority of the annexation area. He acknowledged the LID area may include residents who are opposed to it and there may be residents outside the LID area who wish to participate. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson asked how payment takes place after the LID is completed. Mr. Walker explained there are two options once the LID is complete, payment in full or yearly billings for ten years (there is a one year period before the first payment is required). He explained there is interest added to the cost of the LID as well as administrative expenses. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson estimated the cost would be approximately $1,000 per year. Mr. Walker agreed that amount would be correct if the estimates are accurate. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson inquired about discounts for senior citizens. Mr. Walker explained it is not actually a discount; the state offers a program for qualifying seniors. The state pays the fee and places a lien on the property and charges an interest rate (8% at this time) on the LID expenses. City Attorney Michael Karber said upon sale or other disposition of the property, the full lien value would be payable to the state, including the 8% .interest accrued per year for the period the lien was in effect. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson inquired about the qualifications for this program. Mr. Karber explained the senior must have been a resident on the property since January 1 of the year the assessment is made and reside there the entire year, be over age 61 (age 57 in some circumstances), and have an annual gross income that does not exceed $30,000. He said the County Assessor determines whether a resident qualifies for the program. The applicant must apply for the deferment each year and show they are still eligible for the deferment. In some instances, the deferment can be transferred if the individual moves. Hydraulic Engineer Don Fiene displayed a list of the Senior Citizen Deferral Requirements. He clarified the state pays the City, and the resident, upon sale of the property, repays the state. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson asked if there was a hook up charge in addition to the LID cost. Mr. Walker answered each property owner is responsible for installation of a side sewer from the edge of the right -of- way to their house. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson asked the approximate cost of a side sewer. Mr. Walker answered approximately $1,000 - $1,500, noting the cost depends on the distance, depth, etc. He said residents might be able to get a better price from a contractor as a group. Mr. Fiene estimated the cost at $1,000 - $2,000. Councilmember Miller referred to Exhibit 1, the map of the LID area, and questioned how each property was identified. Mr. Fiene explained the properties are indicated one of three ways, 1) signed the petition, 2) indicated on the initial survey they were' opposed to the LID, and 3) neither signed a petition nor indicated a preference regarding the LID. Councilmember Plunkett asked the percentage of the area required to be supportive of the LID. Mr. Karber answered 60% of the property ownership within the boundary of the proposed LID is required. Councilmember Plunkett asked the actual percentage of residents in favor of the LID. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 4 Mr. Fiene answered 108 of the 173 residents indicated they were in favor of the LID - approximately 62 %. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke clarified seniors who chose to participate in the deferment program would have a lien on their property and have an obligation for 8% interest as long as the debt was outstanding. He stressed there was no other adverse impacts on a person who qualifies for the deferment program. Mr. Karber agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Henry Norris, 18320 73' W, Edmonds, stated his opposition to the LID because he is on a fixed income and his wife is unable to work. He has lived in his residence for 20 years and has had only one problem with his septic that he had fixed. He also pays $300 every 3 -5 years to have the septic pumped. He understood residents would pay $40 for sewer, plus the assessment, plus the hook -up, which he estimated would be $5,000 depending on the distance. He said most of his neighbors are also against the LID. Rosemary Titus, 17804 69' Avenue W, Edmonds, said originally she was in favor of the LID until she began researching it. She requested clarification of several issues including administration fees added to their assessment, the statement that the assessment is based on probable increase in value of their property, how access to their dead -end street would be maintained during sewer installation, whether hook -up was necessary upon sale of the property, whether a lien was placed on a property if the owner chose not to hook -up, and what happens to the remainder of a block if only half the block is included in the LID. She stressed this was a very expensive proposition but specific cost information had not been provided to residents. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson advised staff would address her questions at the conclusion of the public comment portion of the hearing. Ken Case, 7601 Ridge Way, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the LID. Although he agreed it was expensive, he felt it was long overdue and would not get any cheaper in the future. Mr. Fiene identified Mr. Case's property on the map. Mr. Case explained he has two parcels, one that his house is located on and another that is vacant with the exception of a detached garage. He explained the west side of the vacant lot has a steep slope 60 -70 feet high. He hoped the lot could be sold as a building lot or a house constructed on it in the future. His conversations with a builder indicated it would be problematic to obtain a building permit for a lot with a steep slope. Mr. Case said he discussed this with Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson, who indicated there is a 50 -foot setback plus a 15 -foot buffer zone for a slope in excess of 40 %. Mr. Case said the lot is only 85 feet wide; Mr. Wilson advised him he could apply for a variance to reduce the setback. Mr. Case requested a latecomers agreement be allowed for this parcel and offered to enter into an agreement to require the sewer assessment be payable upon issuance of a building permit for that parcel. He reiterated regardless of the decision regarding this parcel, he was in favor of the LID. Terry Gross, 18105 72nd Ave W, Edmonds, said he did not respond to the survey. His property is located outside the proposed LID and he requested it be included because he has no other way to connect to sewer. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson asked Mr. Gross if he had discussed this with staff. Mr. Gross answered no. He currently has a good septic system but unless he is included in the LID, he will not have sewer hook -up in the future. He asked how far the City would install the sewer line. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson said sewer is installed to the property line and residents are responsible for hook -up from the street to the house. Mr. Gross said his experience has been the cost of hook -up is closer to $5,000. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson said the cost appeared to range from $1,000 to $5,000. Mr. Gross asked if a property owner could dig the ditch themselves or if a licensed contractor was required. Mayor Pro Tem Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 5 Haakenson advised staff would answer his questions at the conclusion of the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Gross said the sewer was a good idea but questioned whether the value of his property would increase $10,000. Further, he will need an easement across another property to be connected. George Herr, 18220 72 "d W, Edmonds, said they have never been provided maps of who is interested in participating in the LID. He and his neighbors circulated petitions for sewer and found most residents want sewer service to add value to their homes and eliminate the need to pump their septic tanks. He asked when the sewer will be installed. He noted some residents are waiting to find out where the sewer will be so they can pave their driveways. John Walvantne, 7504 Ridge Way, Edmonds, said an estimate for side sewer installment for his property was $1,500 for approximately 80 -90 feet. He recommended those estimating the cost of the side sewer at $5,000 - $10,000 seek an estimate for their specific property. He described recent problems with his 40- year -old septic system, remarking other residents are likely to have similar problems. Replacing the drain field would cost a resident $5,000 - $8,000 and pumping would still be required. He said installation of sanitary sewers was money well spent. He said residents in his neighborhood have asked if payments on the assessment could be done monthly. Mr. Fiene said the payments are normally made yearly. Mr. Karber advised the LID is a special property tax, most residents who pay mortgages pay property taxes on a monthly basis. Michael Murray, 1570 9 ' Avenue N, Edmonds, (office address 601 Union Street, Ste 2600, Seattle), representing the Kravagna Trust, stated that the Trust owns a large portion of the commercial property on the north and south of Olympic View Drive. He recalled the property north of Olympic View Drive is within the City of Edmonds, the property south of Olympic View Drive and east of 76' is the subject of an annexation proposal pending in Snohomish County Superior Court. He said his client did not receive copies of the original LID notice but has discussed it with Mr. Walker and Paul Mar, Community Services Director. He requested both the Kravagna Trust properties be included within the Perrinville Sanitary Sewer LID to permit the property to be provided sanitary sewer. Inclusion of the properties will also allow the discontinuance of the current septic systems that serve the property, which would benefit the overall area. Stephanie Graham, 18026 72 "d Avenue W, Edmonds, said she signed the petition but has been excluded from the proposed LID. She said the person next door to her signed the petition, Mr. Gross, who lives across the street also wants sewers, and a resident two houses up from Mr. Gross is also willing to sign the petition. She questioned why this block was omitted and what type of cost differences will be incurred if sewers are required in the future. She said her neighbor to the north is approximately 84 years old and her son, who handles most of her affairs, expressed interest in knowing more about the LID, including the cost. She stressed these individuals represent five residents on this block who are interested in sewer. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson observed the map indicated she had not indicated her preference regarding the LID. Ms. Graham said she signed the original petition and was not aware why she was not included. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, provided written information to the Council. He recommended the City hire an outside consultant to conduct a fiscal impact analysis to determine the level of service the City can provide as well as the cost. He also recommended the City appoint a real estate committee to work with planners on ways to encourage infill development. He stressed more information should have been provided to residents prior to this hearing. Marcia Hirst, 7530 Ridge Way, Edmonds, said the letter they received estimated the sewer would cost $10,000. She said others seated around them in the audience stated their letters also indicated a cost of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 6 $10,000. She asked if this assessment was based on the square footage of their property or if the amount was the same for all residences included in the LID. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson advised staff would answer her question at the conclusion of the public comment portion of the hearing. Gary Hirst, 7530 Ridge Way, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the LID. He said their septic system was replaced ten years ago and no guarantee was provided regarding how long it would last. He said two others on their block have also replaced their septic systems. He said their property is 180 feet wide and questioned if their assessment would be different than a property with less frontage. Andre Buleigh, 7327 Olympic View Drive, said he is opposed to the LID and wants to be sure he is not included. Councilmember Miller said the map indicates he is opposed to the LID. Mr. Buleigh asked if the LID is approved and there are problems with the sewer in the future, whether the City pays for the repairs. If so, do his taxes pay for that repair even though he is not in favor of the LID. Tim Garten, 18408 73rd Avenue W, Edmonds, said he is included in the proposed LID. He asked if it was optional for him to hook -up if the sewer is installed in front of his house. If he does not hook -up, does he pay to have the sewer hooked -up in the future? He asked the time frame for installation/completion of the LID. He expressed concern with the streets being dug up and recovered inadequately. He said he can have his septic tank drained numerous times for the cost of the $20,000 sewer. He indicated he was opposed to the LID. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, . SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Walker responded to questions raised by audience members. He advised when residents connect to the sewer, a $20 monthly fee is assessed. Residents who are not connected to the sewer still pay a fee for sewer service based on the fact that the City constructed a sewer treatment plant for public benefit. He said the fee also funds maintenance of the system once it is installed. The owner is responsible for installing and maintaining the side sewer (from the property line to the house). He said the administrative fee covers attorney fees, appraisals, and staff time (if the Council elects to include charges for staff time). He said a new public hearing would typically be held if costs exceed the estimates by more than 10 %. The estimates include contingencies and it is hoped actual construction will be less than $10,800 for each property owner. He said the City Code states any property owner adjacent to a sewer must hook -up upon purchase of the property. He said residents on Olympic {View Drive were not included in the LID because they have the ability to hook -up to the sewer. As the Code currently exists, whenever those properties sell, they are required to connect to sewer. The Code also requires residents to connect following completion of the LID. The Council can modify this time period if they wish as has been done in other LIDS. Mr. Walker said although a street may need to be closed during the workday, the City would intend to maintain access to all properties at the end of each workday particularly on a dead -end street. He said this would be discussed with any residents of a dead -end street. A parcel that would not benefit from the sewer would not be charged the sewer assessment if the property owner can demonstrate the property cannot be developed. He explained residents can install their own side sewers although he did not recommend it for safety reasons. He said a permit and inspection would be required. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Walker described the LID construction time frame including a consultant to do design. He hoped the project could be bid in summer 1999 and the majority of work completed and available for connection within one year. He said construction time depends on requirements placed on the contractor (i.e. two crews to do separate streets simultaneously). Mr. Walker explained the cost is based on unit, each buildable lot or existing unit is charged a cost based on the number of lots that exists rather than the property frontage. Mr. Fiene described the process up to this time including selection of the LID area. He said only four signatures in favor of the LID were obtained from the 62 properties outside the LID area that are within the annexation area and not abutting Olympic View Drive. He pointed out the area excluded was heavily neutral or opposed to the LID. He said copies of the signed petitions are available. To extend the LID area would slow down the process for the proposed area. He said staff has heard from a lot of residents and provided a lot of information to the public regarding the process. He displayed a chronology of the events leading to the formation of the LID including a survey to everyone in the annexation area prior to annexation. Approximately one -third of the residents responded, two- thirds favored the LID. A letter was sent in October 1997 to all residents in the annexation area informing them of the public hearing on November 6, 1997. Residents in the area approved the annexation on November 4, 1997. At the November 6, 1997 public meeting, information regarding the LID process and petitions were made available as well as approximate costs based on previous LIDs ($8,000 - $12,000). On November 10, 1997, the feedback from the public hearing and the survey was discussed at Council Committee meetings. From November to March 1998, petitions were circulated in a small area. In March 1998, the area that appeared to be in favor of the LID was presented to Council and the Council was informed of the intent to move forward with formation of a LID in this smaller area. Council indicated they preferred a LID be formed for a larger area; therefore a letter was sent to the residents showing the proposed LID area which resulted in more residents indicating a desire for sewers in their area and agreement to petition their area. Additional petitions were submitted which resulted in the proposed LID area. In October 1998, this area was included in the Resolution of Intent, which was advertised as required. Letters were sent to residents in the annexation area regarding the proposed LID area,' and residents within the proposed LID area were provided the estimated cost. Mr. Fiene displayed a breakdown of the estimated cost, stating the per foot for a similar LID was used to determine the per lineal foot cost for this LID. The cost was adjusted for inflation (3.5% per year) and a 15% contingency added due to the possibility this sewer may be deeper than the LID used to determine the per lineal foot as well as the need to pump in some areas. The result was a total construction cost of $1,879,200 divided by the number of lots to determine the cost per lot ($9,350). Estimated Administrative costs including attorney fees, possible staff and appraisal fees ($350), and engineering fees ($1,110) were added for a total of $10,800 per lot. Mr. Fiene responded to a question from the audience, whether the cost would be less if a larger area were included in the LID. He said the cost per lot would be slightly less if a few more lots were added. Mr. Fiene displayed an outline of the LID process and addressed the time frame for the LID process. He said this outline was presented at the public meeting and was sent to all residents of the annexation area. He said the process is now at the public hearing stage, which will be followed by a 30 -day appeal period if the Council approves formation of the LID. Staffs intent is to move forward with design concurrent with the 30 -day appeal period (Consent Agenda Item Q. A month would be required to receive qualifications, conduct interviews, and select a consultant. After selecting a consultant, a design is anticipated to be completed in three months. The project would then go out for bid, a one -month process. He summarized the process is approximately 4 -6 months. He said another public hearing will be held regarding the final assessment and actual costs. Residents have 30 days after the total cost is determined Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 8 to pay the assessment in full without interest. If the assessment is not paid within 30 days, the yearly installments begin. Mr. Walker said it is still possible for a separate LID to be formed if another area wanted to circulate a petition. That additional area could be combined with this project for financing. The second LID would gain the benefits of economy of scale in those portions of the process and not delay the LID in the larger area. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING AN ADDITIONAL 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson advised there were two letters in the Council packet from citizens, Tom Saxon, 7508 Ridge Way, and Donald & Lois Schatz, 18403 47'li Place West, in favor of the LID. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson advised he received a letter from Barbara Jones, 18312 73`d Avenue West who was opposed to the LID. Councilmember Nordquist referred to the comments made regarding the Kravagna Trust and asked if this area was not included as it borders on Olympic View Drive. Mr. Walker said the properties that border Olympic View Drive and are in the City limits have the ability to connect to sewer. The City's agreement with Lynnwood states any property outside the boundaries of either city, if both cities jointly agree, could be provided sewer service. He said staff could begin discussion with Lynnwood, noting it is to everyone's benefit for the property to gain sewer service. He said Lynnwood has a roadway expansion project that is nearly funded on Olympic View Drive. Lynnwood would prefer to have all sewer projects completed prior to the roadway project. Councilmember Nordquist pointed out the possibility of residents overlooking the notification regarding the LID. Councilmember Nordquist asked what type of mechanism could be established for those residents who were omitted from the LID but now indicate an interest in being included. Mr. Walker suggested those residents call him. If an additional block wants to be included and signs the petition for a LID, another LID process could begin that would be combined with the first LID in the future. Mr. Walker said the time frame would depend on how soon the petitions could be signed and another public hearing before the Council scheduled. Councilmember Nordquist recommended staff develop a mechanism for these residents to pursue the LID. Mr. Walker said if Council directs, staff could send an additional letter to properties outside the boundary and explain the process. Councilmember White supported staff sending a letter to the property owners outside the boundary, inviting them to participate in a second LID and providing simple, basic instructions on how to do that. Councilmember White asked how jagged the LID boundary could be. Mr. Walker said there are no real limitations, as long as there is a way to make a connection. The sewer could not "jump over" properties; if the sewer line goes in front of a property and they are gaining benefit, they must be included in the LID. Councilmember Miller shared the concern of the homes that were omitted. He expressed concern a letter inviting residents to participate in a second LID may again be overlooked and asked if staff can personally contact the approximately 50 properties involved. Mr. Walker said staff could deliver letters to the properties as it is a small area. Councilmember Miller preferred that be done. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson expressed concern with the communication with residents, acknowledging Mr. Fiene's comments that there was a lot of public input and a public meeting. Mr. Fiene said there was a public meeting in October 1997 and a total of three public mailings. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson said it appeared since the proposed assessments were mailed, there had been no public meeting. He said many Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 9 1 of the questions residents had tonight should have been answered before this point in the process and it appeared staff had not adequately communicated all the answers to residents. He commented the questions raised by Mr. Case and Mr. Gross will need to be answered at the staff level. He recommended communication with the residents be improved in the future. Mr. Walker said the LID process is a formal, structured process. He offered to meet with individual residents to address their concerns. Mr. Fiene said he has spoken with approximately one -third of the residents included in the LID and has responded to every letter and telephone call he has received. Councilmember Miller agreed there were a lot of questions that should have been answered prior to the public hearing. He suggested a letter in a question/answer format be sent to residents included in the LID. Mayor Pro Tern Haakenson remanded the matter to the Council for deliberation. Councilmember Nordquist asked how amending the LID area would affect the action Council took to Mr. Karber answered the matter could be remanded to staff. to re- examine the boundaries and determine if the boundaries need to be expanded. Councilmember Nordquist said remanding the LID to staff would slow the process of the proposed LID. If the Council wished to expand the scope/boundaries of the LID and not slow down this process, Mr. Karber suggested the Council move forward with this project and form a second LID concurrently. The LIDS could be joined in the future for financing and final assessment. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FOR LID 215 AND ADOPT THE ORDINANCE FORMING LID NO. 215. Mayor Pro Tern Haakenson requested staff notify seniors included in the LID of the option to defer payment. He felt the LID was very important but said it was not an easy decision for the Council to make when 62% of the residents favor the LID and 38% oppose it. He was . interested in identifying creative ways for residents to pay the assessment. MOTION CARRIED. The Ordinance reads as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3233 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY THROUGH THE EXTENSION OF SANITARY SEWER MAINS AND SERVICE TO THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PERRINVILLE ' ANNEXATION AREA, FORMING AND ESTABLISHING LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 215 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE CARRYING OUT OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS AND FOR THE FINANCING THEREOF; PROVIDING THAT PAYMENT FOR SAID IMPROVEMENTS BE MADE BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS UPON THE PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING THE ASSESSMENT METHOD FOR DETERMINING SUCH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO RCW 35.51.030; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LID BONDS AND FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WARRANTS OR OTHER SHORT TERM OBLIGATIONS IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF LID BONDS; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO SUGGEST STAFF MOVE FORWARD WITH MEETING WITH Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page .10 OTHERS WHO HAVE INDICATED AN INTEREST IN FORMING ANOTHER LID THAT WOULD BE WEBBED WITH THIS AT SOME POINT IN TIME. Councilmember White asked if the intent was to have staff personally notify property owners in the area. CouncilmemberNordquist suggested staff do whatever it takes to adequately inform the residents. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Pro Tern Haakenson declared a brief recess. Public 5. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD Hearing re' RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION BY EASTERN INVESTMENT CORPORATION -stern em FOR THE PROPOSED REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES LOCATED AT Investment APPROXIMATELY 81s" AVENUE WEST AND 240TH STREET SOUTHWEST FROM RM -3.0 TO RM -1.5 (File No. R- 98 -81) Mayor Pro Tern Haakenson advised this is a quasi-judicial hearing and requested Councilmembers make any necessary disclosures. There were no disclosures. Mayor Pro Tern Haakenson stated that staff and the applicant would each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and public comments would be limited to three minutes each. Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained this is a request to rezone approximately 2.9 acres from its current RM -3 designation to.RM -1.5 designation. He explained RM -3 allows one dwelling unit for every 3,000 square feet of lot area; RM -1.5 allows one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area. He identified the property on Attachment 1 (vicinity map) and explained it is located between 240'x' Street SW on the north side, 242nd Street on the south side, and has access to both rights -of -way. The request is a non- project rezone, which does not identify any specific development activity for the property but only a change in the zoning designation. At a future date, a separate permit process would be required for a specific development proposal. He said if the rezone were approved, the only discretionary permit necessary would be review by the Architectural Design Board and a building permit. As part of the rezone application, since a specific project was not proposed, an Environmental Determination of Non - Significance was issued which indicated when a specific project proposal is made in the future, additional environmental review would be necessary. The City's initial environmental determination was appealed and the Hearing Examiner upheld this administrative decision. That information was included in the record provided to the Planning Board and to the Council. Mr. Wilson said on October 25, 1998, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter; written testimony was included in the Planning Board's packet and considerable oral testimony was provided. At the conclusion of the hearing and review of the materials provided, the Planning Board unanimously adopted the recommendation to deny the proposed rezone request, which has been forwarded to the Council. He advised the Council had the complete packet provided to the Planning Board, materials provided to the Planning Board at the hearing, and any materials received to date. Mr. Wilson said the Council also received a letter from Betty Mathay, a resident in the area. Applicant Ross Radley, representing Eastern Investment Corporation, 999 3`d Avenue, Ste. 4100, Seattle 98104, referred to the zoning map and said his intent was to convince the Council that the Planning Board's recommendation should be ignored. He pointed out their difficulty determining the specific reasons the Planning Board used to deny this application. He said the Planning Board's report does not indicate what policies or goals are not met; they simply refer to the six criteria for rezone and indicate a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page I1 negative for each one. He said the Planning Department's letter refers to two policies, both are under the commercial land use and have nothing to do with residential. He referred to page 8 of the Council packet (page 4 of the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations) and explained the first policy referred to by staff "protect residential areas" is intended to protect residential areas from commercial areas, not from other residential areas. He said C.12 and C.13 on page 34 of the Comprehensive Plan were intended to address development of commercial land, not development of residential land. He said C.13 addresses design review which is not yet under consideration. He said the only reason described with. any specificity is that the application does not meet established zoning criteria. He said zoning pattern is not addressed in the six criteria in the rezone ordinance and he did not feel it was a proper criteria for evaluating a rezone proposal. As a result of comments made from the audience, Councilmember White explained this was a non- judicial hearing and was not an informal process. He stressed a record of this matter will go to the appellant court for review and the hearing cannot be conducted with interruptions from the audience. He advised the audience they will prejudice their own interests by their comments. Assuming the zoning pattern was relevant, Mr. Radley explained zoning patterns across Hwy. 99 are exactly the same as proposed in this application - RM -1.5 adjacent to single family for four blocks. He said the Planning Department's report contained an error that indicated the parcel to the north is zoned RM -3 but it is actually RM -2.4. He said the east side of Hwy. 99 is zoned primarily RM -2.4. The only property zoned RM -3 is the subject property. He was aware of no zoning principles and none bad been cited that only one side of the street is considered. Further, if SR 104 is considered, it is zoned exactly as proposed by this application RM -1.5 adjacent to a single- family zone. He said one of the reasons the Planning Board gave for denying the rezone was it adversely affected the public safety, health, and welfare of residents in the single - family zone. He questioned why the other single- family zones adjacent to RM -1.5 were not similarly adversely affected, or single - family zones adjacent to a commercial zone were not adversely affected. He said the Planning Board decision was inconsistent and discriminatory by stating this parcel would adversely affect the public safety, health, and welfare when none of the other RM -1.5 areas do. Further the Planning Board's decision states there has been no change in the area. He said there is nothing in the report that discussed any change and he questioned what evidence in the record was used to determine there has been no change. Mr. Radley said the Comprehensive Plan indicates on page 16 that there are only 8.5 acres of vacant multi - family residentially zoned property. This parcel represents over one -third of the available, vacant multi- family residential property in the City. The Comprehensive Plan (page 4) also contains a statewide goal, adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan, "Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state. Promote a variety of residential densities and housing types and encourage preservation of existing housing stock." He said this proposal represented an opportunity to create affordable housing, more affordable than if the property owner is required to develop the property at the RM -3 zoning. He said this goal is as important as any of the other goals not mentioned by the Planning Board. Mr. Radley reserved the remainder of his time for rebuttal. Councilmember Nordquist asked Mr. Radley why he compared Snohomish County zoning to Edmonds zoning. Mr. Radley clarified he intended to indicate only property in the Edmonds portion of the zoning map. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council received a letter from Betty Mathay who strongly opposed the rezone. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 12 Jack Wise, 23926 80`h Way W, Edmonds, a 40 -year resident, said he attended the Planning Board meeting and concurred with their recommendation. He strongly objected to the rezone because 240'h and 242 "d are two very small streets. The City has placed barriers on 240'h to slow the traffic and 242" does not access Aurora, therefore all the traffic must go down the hill. He said improvements on Hwy. 99 will further impact access to this area. He questioned the addition of higher density on a road that cannot accommodate it. He said there is also a drainage problem in the area that has existed for years. Carol Detomasi, 23920 80 " Way W, Edmonds, said she and her husband agree with Mr. Wise's comments. She said they have many objections but their primary objections are traffic and noise. She said this is a well- established neighborhood; they have resided in their home 31 years and many others have lived in the neighborhood 40 or more years. This has always been a quiet neighborhood and construction of a multi - family project would vastly increase the traffic as the only way to access the property is from 240'. She reiterated she was strongly opposed to the rezone. Chris McDaniel, 24231 78 " Place W, Edmonds, said the reasons he stated for his opposition to the rezone at the Planning Board public hearing still stand. This is a very established neighborhood, he has lived there 12 years and questioned how the additional traffic from a development would be accommodated on the very narrow, steep street. He said 40 -60 children catch buses in that area and use the park and questioned the impact additional traffic would have on the children's safety. The property owner has made no provisions for pedestrian safety, fire, police, emergency services, or water runoff. He said the property owner wants to construct a 140 -unit building even though he has a signed agreement with the City that was developed so the Doces/Burlington Coat Factory building could be constructed. He recommended the property owner abide by the agreement. He said this is not an issue of his needs versus the property owner's needs but what the community needs. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, distributed written material to the Council. He requested a project design process be provided. He described traffic patterns in the area noting the development on the property will result in increased traffic. Ken Christianson, 24206 76`h Place W, Edmonds, said he recently purchased his home on the corner of 240"' and 76'h, a dead -end street. He said 240' is narrow and steep and vehicles speed on the street. He said there are only two ways to access this property, down his street and the street that already has speed bumps to slow traffic. He said the adverse impact to public health, safety and welfare is due to the residential nature of the neighborhood with numerous school children and a park that a nearby private school uses. He stated he was opposed to the rezone. Darrell DeRochier, 24307 77 " Place W, Edmonds, said he was born and raised in Edmonds and chose to purchase a home in Edmonds due to the quality of life in the City. He was opposed to the rezone and applauded the Planning Board's recommendation to deny the rezone. He agreed there was only one way to access 242nd and there is already a lot of traffic on this road. He began a Block Watch program eight years ago for the 22 homes on 77' Place West and the biggest concern has always been traffic volumes and traffic speeds. Three times a year he requests increased traffic patrol in their area. He observed Mr. Radley said one of Edmonds' goals was to provide for low income housing, but said he did not feel it should be provided at the expense of the safety or quality of life of the existing residents. He said the property is already zoned for multi - family but he did not want twice as many homes than are allowed by the current zoning. Gerald Igl, 13507 North Park Ave N, Seattle, referred to the vicinity map and said he was speaking on behalf of his son and family, Damen and Mary Igl who own Lot 7 immediately adjoining the subject site and who have a deep interest in the rezone. He said the existing contract zoning on the property has been in effect since 1977 and was the result of litigation between Doces and the City of Edmonds. The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 13 contract rezone was a compromise /settlement for the litigation and has resolved the problem since that time. There was also a buffer transition between the residential and RM -3 (formerly RD - duplex). He said the contract rezone included a 25 -foot setback, screening, 25 -foot height limit, landscaping, etc. to protect the residential area from multiple family development. He agreed with Planning Board member Dewhirst's comment that the contract rezone was "a stroke of genius" because it allowed the developer the economic benefit of multi - family zoning but also protected the residential area on the other side. He noted the property is also higher than the property to the east so any building of any great height would be very visible. He said the contract rezone is still in effect and will be until there is a rezone. Any rezone eliminates the conditions in the contract rezone. Vincent Fong, 8011242 "d Street SW, Edmonds, agreed with the issues other residents have raised such as traffic, safety, and quality of life. A resident of Edmonds for the past 19 years, he said the quality of life in the City helped him make the decision to purchase a home in Edmonds. He said this is a well - established family area, particularly on 242nd Street. He agreed the buffer was a "stroke of genius" that looked to the future. He said the zoning was already very dense and he opposed a rezone from RM -3 to RM =1.5. He said development must abide by the rules established in the past and any changes would have effects that cannot be foreseen. Joe Spitz, 24032 79 " Place W, Edmonds, agreed there was an excellent buffer between the commercial zone adjacent to the residential area. The neighborhood is a very mature area with little new construction and the zoning allows for a good quality of life. He said the contract rezone is very effective and guarantees privacy to this mature neighborhood. He agreed the Hwy. 99 improvements will impact the residents' ability to access their neighborhoods. He said there is already a lot of traffic near Burlington Coat Factory, an uncontrolled intersection, and said doubling the density would not benefit the area. He strongly opposed the rezone and urged the Council to deny it also. Joyce Bechncke, 24032 791h Place W, Edmonds, said her backyard is adjacent to the proposed rezone. When this rezone was proposed, she and Mr. Spitz initiated several petitions and discovered this is a very unpopular project in the neighborhood due to the concerns that have been voiced -- traffic, water runoff and the density of the proposed project. She said law enforcement officials, contracted when the initial proposal was submitted, indicated due to the commercial nature of Hwy. 99, luckily there is not a high crime rate but there is a need for a lot of police in the area. She felt a project would increase the need for police and fire, which would affect taxes and quality of life. She agreed the contract rezone was brilliant because it allowed the newcomer to adapt to the neighborhood instead of the neighborhood adapting to the newcomer. She thanked the residents who signed the petition and attended tonight's public hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled the great protections this neighborhood acquired via the contract rezone. He said this is a fragile area, an island that is surrounded by development and eliminating the protection provided by the contract rezone by changing the zoning would have a disastrous effect on the area. He recalled the barriers helped address traffic concerns. He said rezoning the property would deteriorate the quality of the area. He pointed out the City Code requires "protecting the residential quality of neighborhoods." He agreed this property was not being treated like other properties in the area because conditions are different. He said an arterial would be necessary to accommodate increased density as the existing street cannot accommodate the extra traffic generated by a development. He urged the Council to listen to the residents of the neighborhood. Betty Mathay, 8006 240`h Street, Edmonds, expressed concern the Planning Board has done so much work on this issue since 1977. She recalled a task force, initiated by the City of Edmonds, that included consultants from the University of Washington addressed this property. She said the buffer required by the contract rezone provided an excellent buffer between the single - family area and the commercial development. She said her letter addresses her concerns in more detail. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 14 Teora Konger, 7818 240`h SW, Edmonds, said she has lived in her home for 44 years and has always felt safe. She agreed with what has been said regarding opposition to the rezone. She felt it would be sad if neighbors sold their homes due to the rezone. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Pro Tern Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE HEARING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. ,Radley said although the history of this parcel may be important, it is also important to look at the language of the compromise, particularly paragraph 5 on page 4, which anticipates that Doces could bring a rezone application within five years of the agreement. The compromise also indicates any successor of Doces, after the five years, could also apply for a rezone. He said the proposed rezone is not inconsistent with the agreement and was anticipated and specified it could occur after five years which he assumed Doces planned to do something in five years and if not, sell the property. Eastern Investment purchased the property with the belief, based on the agreement, that a successive owner could apply for a rezone. He pointed out traffic created by development is addressed at the design review stage of the process. He noted the only information in the record regarding traffic was a decision by the Hearing Examiner that the traffic impacts were not sufficient to justify an EIS. He said traffic is not mentioned in the staff report or the Planning Board's recommendation and traffic is not an appropriate issue on which to deny this rezone. Mr. Radley said the goal he referred to in the Comprehensive Plan relates to affordable housing, not low - income housing. He said the development most likely will not be low- income housing but will be affordable. Regarding the reference to traffic and the need for more police for apartment dwellers, he said no studies are available that indicate that people who cannot afford to purchase a home are more prone to crime or are worse drivers. Mr. Wilson said there might be confusion regarding the status of this hearing. He clarified this is an open record hearing and new information can be entered into the record for the Council's consideration. In response to the applicant's reference to Comprehensive Plan policies cited in the staff report, he explained those policies were chosen because this area is identified in the map as corridor development. Corridor development provides for a range of activities from commercial to multi- family as acceptable uses. Therefore, the commercial policies, such as a policy regarding protecting adjacent residential uses are appropriate. Mr. Wilson recalled the applicant said there is no specific criteria or guidance citing surrounding zoning is an applicable standard. Mr. Wilson said Section 20.40.010(C) cites the review criteria the Planning Board is to use when reviewing a rezone application, "the relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning on surrounding or nearby property." The Planning Board considered whether the proposed zoning classification is consistent with existing zoning and determined it was not. Mr. Wilson explained comparable Snohomish County zoning was adopted by the City upon annexation of the property on the west side of Hwy. 99 (near Aurora Marketplace) and west on Edmonds Way. He further explained zoning/development patterns in this area were not developed by the City; the City accepted the existing zoning to prevent a series of non - conforming uses in the area. Regarding the statement that the Hearing Examiner found that traffic was not a valid issue to base the denial on, Mr. Wilson explained the Hearing Examiner found that it was not appropriate to raise traffic as a challenge to the environmental determination for a non - project rezone. Mr. Wilson said the Hearing Examiner as well as the Planning Board stated that additional project - specific environmental review Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 15 ti would be necessary. Therefore traffic is not a closed issue and will be subject to review in the future. He explained the range of density, a RM -3 designation would be approximately 42 units and the RM -1.5 designation would be approximately 84 units. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineer's manual that establishes trip generation rates, the range is approximately 5 -7 trips per unit. For a 42 -unit project, trips would range from 210 -294 generated by the project on a daily basis and 21 -29 peak hour trips (trips occurring within an hour period at the peak time of the day). For an 84 -unit project, trips would range from approximately 420 -588 generated by the project and peak hour trips of 42 -58. If a rezone is approved, the traffic would be considered based on the specifics of the project, access points, etc. If the rezone is denied and they develop under the present designation, this review would also take place. Mr. Wilson agreed under the current contract rezone there was a five -year "shelf life" before any parties could proceed with a rezone but the property owner was not obligated to rezone the property after five years. He explained the Council cannot obligate an applicant to pursue a contract rezone process, it can only be suggested. Mr. Wilson said the misapplication of a zoning density to the north of the property (indicated in the staff report as RM -3 but is actually RM -2.4) referred to by the applicant, was corrected during staff presentation to the Planning Board (second paragraph on page 196). He explained the City has three different multi - family zoning designations -- RM -3, the lowest density, to RM -1.5, the highest density. The City's Comprehensive Plan does not obligate the City to develop all multi - family properties at the highest density; it provides a range to consider different circumstances in applying the appropriate zoning classification based on the surrounding characteristics, the neighborhood, the impacts, buffer transition, etc. Although the Comprehensive Plan identifies the goal of affordable housing, the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that based on the present zoning classification and available land in the City, the GMA population targets can be met based on the present zoning classifications. He further explained there was not a need to upzone property to meet the goals of the GMA. Councilmember White referred to the zoning map and inquired about the zoning. density north of this property (shown in orange). Mr. Wilson answered it is presently zoned RM -2.4. He noted there are a series of RM -2.4 designations along the eastern side of the Hwy. 99 corridor providing a transition between the general commercial and residential designation. Councilmember White inquired about the designation (brown) on the east side of Hwy. 99. Mr. Wilson said these areas are zoned RM -1.5 due to comparable Snohomish County zoning adopted upon annexation into the City. Mayor Pro Tern Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Councilmember White said during his review of the 203 -page packet, he had difficulty understanding how the Planning Board reached some of their conclusions although he did not disagree with the ultimate conclusion. He pointed out the record only supports Finding E of the Planning Board's findings A through F and speaks against the other findings. He said the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) contains criteria the Council is required to consider and additional criteria can be added at the Council's discretion. He said criteria A is whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which he felt it was. Criteria B is whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, which he felt it was. Criteria C is the relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby properties is a factor to consider. He said that factor did not persuade him either way. He felt Criteria D was too ambiguous to be considered. Criteria E, whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning. He said the property can be utilized and can be economically viable under the existing zoning and is not unreasonably economically deprived under the existing zoning. Based on that criteria, the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 16 project fails to meet the criteria in the ECDC: Criteria 6 refers to the relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare and potential compared to the potential increase or decrease in the property values. Councilmember White questioned whether there would be any gain to public health and safety, although the higher density may produce some gain to public welfare in terms of economic value. However, the higher density would likely have a detrimental effect on the property values in the surrounding area. Most importantly is Criteria G, a criteria he added, which is a fundamental consideration the Council has always considered -- how the change would affect the character of the neighborhood, how it would enhance or diminish the overall quality of life in the area. He felt there was no reasonable enhancement of the quality of life and the quality of life in the area would actually be diminished. He stressed there was no better judge of this than the neighbors themselves who have spoken tonight. He commented that he was disappointed in how the Planning Board reached their decision. Councilmember Miller disagreed with Councilmember White's assessment of the Planning Board's decision process and felt they reached rational conclusions on most of the criteria. He said although this is a non - project rezone request, approving it would give the applicant implied consent to develop the property to the maximum allowable zoning. He supported Criteria G as referenced by Councilmember White. He also pointed out there was no gain to public safety, health or welfare (Criteria F) and most importantly, the current zoning cannot support what potentially could be developed on the property. He said the packet contains substantial information regarding water runoff and the potential of intense development. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO REAFFIRM THE PLANNING BOARD'S DECISION TO DENY THE PROPOSED NON PROJECT REZONE. MOTION CARRIED. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS pposed to Ruby Rockwell, 1561 91h Avenue N, Edmonds, a resident of Edmonds since 1953, . objected to the 6% ax Increase increase in property taxes and the 3% increase. She said the City does not need a raise, as there are sufficient funds available for this year. She said residents defeated Ascent 21's proposal to prevent property tax increases. She submitted petitions from property owners opposed to the proposed property tax increase and requested an extension of the Council vote to allow them to obtain more signatures on petitions. She said she and many others are on fixed incomes although she still works to supplement her income. Councilmember Plunkett thanked Ms. Rockwell for waiting three hours to speak to the Council. Encouraged Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled citizens had an opportunity to speak to the udgetCut Council regarding the budget last week. He observed Boeing announced today they plan to have 20,000 fewer employees in the next few years and their 747 production in Everett will decrease from five per month to one. He said predictions are that the decrease in employment will increase over 20,000. He said in an emergency, the City. does not hire new employees even though the consultants say its necessary; the City should reduce expenditures and start "counting our money." He recalled one year all funds were placed in the Contingency Fund and decisions were made to fund items as they arose which increased the Council's control over spending. He recommended the Council consider this an emergency and preferred the City have reserves in the event the emergency did not develop. He recommended the Council determine how. the 9% increase in the budget could be reduced. On another matter, Mr. Hertrich requested the City provide a status report regarding the Public Safety Complex construction. Responding to Councilmember White's question, Mr. Hertrich answered his request was for the reports to be provided to the Council as well as the public. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 17 eration of I Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, provided written materials and said he is concerned Meetinngs about the problems that have occurred at recent Council meetings which he felt violated ethic laws. He suggested several guidelines for the Council to follow. He recommended the operation of City meetings be changed so that the audience comment portion takes place earlier in the meeting and each person be provided more time to make comments. He said funding he requested in May was not included in the budget. Requested Charles Warner, 20021 88`h Avenue W, Edmonds, recalled last week the Council was advised Council reconsideration of his application was not an option available under Regulatory Reform and therefore the Assistance in Council supported a new application and agreed to waive the application fees. He advised the application Fxpediting velopmen has been submitted to the Planning Department. He stressed the urgency of this situation and need for a pplication viable solution by the end of December or he "contractually loses everything" if a decision is not issued by that date. The application submitted is basically the same application submitted before with one difference, a report by a licensed surveyor delineating the toe and top of the slope. Without a critical area, only a staff decision is required. As the same application has been resubmitted, staff does not need 30 days to review and determine whether it is complete. The only new information is the letter to Mr. Chave and the surveyor's report. If the application is complete, the property can be posted and the public comment period begun. He noted no public comment was submitted previously and did not anticipate any for this application. Following the two -week comment period, he requested staff issue a decision within a week. He requested the Council direct staff to 1) post and mail notice 2) begin the public comment period concurrent with their evaluation of the slope report, 3) issue a decision within one week of the closing of the public comment period. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson advised he would discuss the status of the project with Mr. Wilson. Iposed to Carmen Johnson said she was notified there would be a budget hearing this evening. Mayor Pro Tem . increase Haakenson advised there was not a budget hearing this evening. Ms. Johnson said The Edmonds Paper contained some marvelous letters to the editor, which she provided to the City Clerk. She supported the letter by Nicky M. Marshall regarding the proposed 6% property tax increase. She was greatly disturbed the Council was considering this much of an increase. As a resident since 1954, she does not want to move out of her home as others have had to because they cannot afford to maintain their homes after retirement. She urged the Council to be sincere in their budget requests. She requested a copy of the preliminary budget requests and said she planned to attend next Tuesday's Council meeting. pposed to Chris McDaniel, 24231 78"' Place W, Edmonds, said he was also informed this would be a budget Fax Increase hearing. He said the assessment for his home increased $18,000 which results in additional taxes for the City. He said he has not received a wage increase in the past two years yet the Council has not failed to raise taxes any year. He said his mortgage company wants an additional $200 per month to be placed in his escrow account due to estimated new taxes. He said he already pays $2300 per year in property taxes. He questioned how the money was being spent. He felt the City did not need to spend "all this money" and recommended the City tighten its belt and budget. He felt there was no reason to continually raise taxes, noting the defeat of Ascent 21 indicated residents do not want more taxes. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke asked where he had heard this would be a budget hearing. Mr. McDaniel answered he received an e -mail through the Republican Council. Councilmember Miller asked Mr. McDaniel if he has read the proposed 1999 budget. Mr. McDaniel answered no and requested the Council highlight the reasons for increased spending. Councihnember White answered two examples are union contracts that require increases in.police officer and firefighters' wages. Mr. McDaniel asked if the increases in union wages were tied to the vote to increase the minimum wage. Councihmember White answered no; they were the result of collective bargaining Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 18 agreements. Mr. McDaniel asked how much those increases actually amounted to. Councilmember White explained the Council has held several open budget hearings where these issues have been discussed. The next meeting is Tuesday, December 8. Mr. McDaniel asked if there were any pie charts showing actual increases from the previous year, noting they used to be published in the local newspaper. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson responded the budget book is available at City Hall and has numerous charts. He said the Council has thoroughly reviewed all expenses and revenues in the budget during the past several weeks. Minutes are available from those meetings that he suggested Mr. McDaniel review. City Clerk Sandy Chase provided a draft copy of the minutes from the November 24 budget hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson stressed the Council does not just "rubber stamp" the budget; for example, the Council requested he identify $171,000 in.cuts that could be made to the budget. Mr. McDaniel said yet the Council is requesting a 6% increase plus 3 %. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson explained the Mayor's proposed budget includes a 6% increase; the Council has not requested any increase and is deliberating whether there. will be an increase in the range of .85% to 6 %. He said the Council would make a decision on the increase at the December 8 Council meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson clarified anyone who spoke at the levy rate hearing on November 24 will not be eligible to speak at the continued hearing on December 8, 1998. Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Lane, Edmonds, commended the Council for the spirit of cooperation ncourage udget Cut shown between the Council and citizens opposing the rezone of the School District property. He said Boeing is considering a 48,000 person layoff that equates to the elimination of three additional people in supporting industries, a total of 150,000 people. He said Snohomish County approved a 6% tax increase. He recalled when the tidelands purchase was being considered, many supported it because the funds were provided by Snohomish County. He pointed out it was still the taxpayers' money. He believed there were opportunities for cuts in the budget and referred to questionable spending in the past such as for a skatepark. He displayed a pie chart showing more than half of a citizen' income from January to June goes to taxes. He said there was fat in the budget that he had faith the Council could cut. -Lot s ort Councilmember White recalled the hearing regarding appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision to Deny lat App. a Four -Lot Short Subdivision (Applicant: Charles Warner) took place late in the evening. He said he has amen reconsidered his decision more. than once but Mayor Fahey determined reconsideration was not permissible under Regulatory Reform. He said it was important to make a decision on this issue quickly, as it should have been decided with better information and better deliberation than when it was originally scheduled. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO DIRECT STAFF TO MAIL AND POST THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION. HE REQUESTED THE APPLICATION BE RETURNED TO THE COUNCIL WITH A DECISION ON DECEMBER 8, 1998, AS THE ONLY NEW INFORMATION IS THE SURVEYOR'S REPORT, WITH COMPLETION PRIOR TO THE END OF THE MONTH. Councilmember White stated his belief that staff has an opinion on this project that they do not want it to be completed as proposed and if staff is allowed to "prevent this from happening by stalling" he. believed they would. He preferred staff be given direction to make a decision by next week based on the new application and that this process move forward with a completion date prior to the end of the month. Councilmember Miller indicated he would support the motion but disagreed staff had an adverse opinion about the proposed application and would intentionally delay the project. Councilmember White said staff has already offered an opinion that this project should not be advanced as proposed. If this Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 19 application was taken in the regular application process, by default the project will be defeated and staff would be justified in doing that absent other direction from the Council. Councilmember White said he would contact Mayor Fahey to ensure she understands his intentions. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST ABSTAINED (due to his absence during a portion of the discussion). 7. ANNUAL REPORT - MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE CONROY nual Rpt. Municipal Court Judge Steve Conroy referred to the materials in the Council packet, which include udge coj historical account of case filings and revenues. The packet also includes itemized monthly revenues and expenditures for 1998. He pointed out the court operates very efficiently. He agreed a great deal of funding is necessary for public safety (police, fire, courts) and the public does think there is not much return on it, but citations written by Police Officers produce revenues. He explained to date (as of November 1) $227,297 has been expended to operate the court; expenditures will likely be slightly higher by year -end. He said this expense has generated revenue of $858,689 as of November 1 and an additional $76,366 was present to the City for November for a total of $935,055. Revenues received in December will bring the total to over $1 million for the first time in the court's history. He summarized the money allocated to the court is money well spent because it generates revenue to the City, demonstrating a prudent use of taxpayer funds. Judge Conroy said cases are processed through the Edmonds Municipal Court at a rate of approximately $29 per case. The average rate to file the same number of cases in the Snohomish County District Court; would be $55 per case. Filing a criminal case with the state costs $46; a traffic infraction costs $57. He summarized if all the cases had been filed in Snohomish County District Court, the cost would have been $421,941 rather than the $227,297 expended by Edmonds Municipal Court. This illustrates that taxpayers are saving a great deal of money by having a Municipal Court in the City. Judge Conroy recognized his staff for their hard work, efficiency, loyalty, and excellent customer service. He said the court has a tremendous computer system, provided by the state that assists in balancing case filings, speedy trial issues, collection fines and forfeitures, reporting to the Department of Licensing, etc. He said changes in the DUI laws will have incidental costs to the City such as increased jail costs. He noted revenues may also increase as a result. Councilmember White asked Judge Conroy to address the likelihood of revenue increases based on the way costs are now handled. Judge Conroy said the court does not have an active probation department but members of the clerical staff have been certified to be Probation Counselors /Officers. They can then collect data from alcohol agencies and maintain information on individuals on probation. The City can charge a probation monitoring fee for these services. He said that fee has been established at $100 per month. When a penalty is assessed, court costs are paid first and additional funds are fines, which are distributed between the City and state. He commented other courts have been doing this in the past. Councilmember White observed home detention is currently handled by Snohomish County. He asked if the City had considered owning the home detention equipment due to the new mandatory 30 -day home detention under the new DUI statute. Judge Conroy said this would be a police /administrative decision. He suggested the City experience the effects of the new law before making any decisions. He agreed it might be prudent for the City to get its own home detention equipment. He said if home detention is violated, the mandatory sentence is 30 days jail time. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 20 Councilmember White observed the jail budget is currently within the police budget and asked if the jail budget would be more appropriately placed in the court's budget. Judge Conroy said it shouldn't be under the court budget so that a judge would not be tempted to keep an eye on it. He said it may be appropriate to have it separate from the police budget as well. Judge Conroy advised Edmonds DUI conviction rate is 76.5% (including DUI cases that were reduced), the highest rate in the state. Statewide, the percentage for all courts is 61.6 %, the percentage for municipal courts is 59 %, and 62% for district courts. He summarized the police and prosecutor are doing a good job and the system is working well. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke preferred the report from the Edmonds Municipal Court focus on the justice the court provides rather than revenue. Judge Conroy said this information was provided because it appeared that is what the Council wants to hear. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke said it was important to remember the City has a good justice system and the court has a reputation for providing fair and appropriate justice. Judge,Conroy stressed the funds allotted to this portion of the criminal justice system results in a great deal of savings for citizens. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson thanked Judge Conroy for the job he does for the City. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson advised no action was necessary, as Judge Conroy's contract does not expire until April 1999. Annual Rpt. g' ANNUAL REPORT - PUBLIC DEFENDER JAMES FELDMAN Public Defender Public Defender James Feldman echoed Judge Conroy's comments regarding the increase in problems Feldman over the next year due to the new DUI laws. There will be more trials, as there is less negotiation room and more costs that must be borne by the City. He noted his clients likely will argue if they qualify for state assistance for an attorney, they cannot pay for bracelets, vehicle ignition locks, etc. Based on past experience, it was his belief the state would require the City to provide and fund that. Mr. Feldman said the system has worked well over the last year. He appreciated Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke's comment regarding justice rather than money and agreed with his comment regarding the court's reputation. Although he is a contract employee, he considered himself part of the justice team. His contract did not seek an increase and he was willing to accept a general decrease if one is imposed on all departments. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson thanked Mr. Feldman for the job he does. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson advised Mr. Feldman's contract would be on the December 15 consent agenda and requested Councilmembers raise any issues they may have before then. udget Wo 9. ession Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson requested the Council indicate their desire regarding the proposed budget cuts discussed at the last Council budget work session. He suggested the Council discuss only the budget tonight and avoid discussion of the levy rate until the continued levy rate hearing on December 8. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson recalled one of the suggested budget cuts was to hire a Police Officer in July rather than January which was an approximately $30,000 expenditure cut. He said a memo from Assistant Police Chief Greg Wean indicated some funds from confiscated funds and holiday buy -back they do not intend to use could be utilized to cover the $30,000 so the officer could start work in January. BUDGET WORK SESSION Councilmember Miller observed the cuts Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson proposed reduced Community Grants from $25,000 to zero. He preferred at least $15,000 be retained for Community Grants and suggested staff be directed to determine how those funds could be identified. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 21 u F� Police Chief Robin Hickok said Steve Perry was an employee of the City for 24 years. When he went to SnoCom, his salary was offset over the past year by SnoCom and his salary and benefits were used for budget cuts last year. This year, by using COPS FAST funds ($75,000 over three years) and Mr. Perry's salary, $25,000 is actually saved. He said the budget cut indicated $32,500 would be saved over six months, but he noted only half is actually saved because half is paid by a COPS FAST grant. Councilmember White observed there is still $2,500 to be identified. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson agreed Police Chief Hickok identified $30,000 and the cost of the Officer is $32,500. Councilmember Nordquist referred to a memo he circulated, noting the Community Services Director position, with a revised job description, will be retained for 1999. At that time the possibility of a Mayor's Administrative Assistant may arise and the Community Services Director position would be eliminated. Councilmember Nordquist asked if any funds would be necessary in the 1999 budget to address the possibility of an underground parking garage. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson recalled this was discussed at the November 19 budget work session and the conclusion was if the concept comes to fruition, the City would find funds during 1999. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson said the President of the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce indicated the Chamber Board of Directors issued a vote in support of the concept of the underground parking garage and has asked for support from the City. He planned to write a letter to the Chamber to clarify the garage issue, which would be copied to the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson said he assumed the proposed cuts were satisfactory other than the two issues the Council addressed tonight and the cuts will remain at $171,000, assuming staff can find $17,500 in additional cuts. He said Councilmember Earling, who is in Washington D.C., called him to indicate his only concern was to reinstate the community service grants. Councilmember White said in an environment when the City is inundated with demands to cut budget items and not raise taxes for necessary items, he could not support the community grant program. He said the grants represent tax dollars the Council awards to organizations the Council deems worthy. He noted citizens, whose money is being distributed, may not agree with the grants awarded. He agreed with the cut suggested by Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson to eliminate the community grants He encouraged the public to inform him of their feelings regarding this cut. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson agreed with eliminating the Community Grant program. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke also agreed, pointing out it was inappropriate for the Council to distribute the citizens' money in view of the $171,000 in cuts that were necessary. He said there are items being eliminated from the budget that he felt were very important for issues such as the economic development of the City but he was willing to accept the cuts due to a lack of funds. He hoped there would be an economic resurgence similar to what occurred in 1998 and additional funds could be identified during 1999 for projects the citizens want the Council to pursue. He summarized the City is not a charity and should run a financially fiscal city. Councilmember Miller pointed out the issues and organizations that typically apply for the grants are non- profit organizations that provide services that otherwise would be the burden of local government. He did not feel the percentage represented by $15,000 in community grants was unreasonable. Councilmember Plunkett said his opinion was reflected on page 10 in the November 24 minutes. Councilmember Nordquist preferred the cuts remain unchanged until next week's continued levy hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson said the community grants would be the first item of discussion during the levy hearing. He advised Administrative Service Director Art Housler to find $2,500 in cuts and identify $15,000 in cuts that could be made based on the Council's decision on Tuesday, December 8. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 22 10. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson said Ray Albano called him and said although he is normally the City's budget watchdog, he has been watching the meetings on television and reading the minutes due to illness and was very proud of the Council's deliberations on the budget thus far this year. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS [Visioning Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke encouraged citizens to attend a visioning project on project December 17 at the Floral Center (7:00 - 9:00 p.m.) Itizen Councilmember Nordquist observed tonight the Council had the experience of hearing residents of articipation Edmonds share their true feelings regarding the community. He said it was enriching to see this type of spirit and made the job of a Councilmember more fun. He thanked the citizens who took the time to attend the Council meeting. i dmonds- or Pro Tem Haakenson stated the Council did a fantastic job deliberating on the Edmonds - Woodway oodway High School rezone issue and it was obvious the Councilmembers had done their homework. He noted ezone some of the public hearings before the Council recently have not been easy but the Council has shown that a lot of thought goes into their work. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. I 1 BARBARA S. FAH Y, MA OR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 1, 1998 Page 23 1 1 LL AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. DECEMBER 1, 1998 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT ($3,245.00) (C) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FROM CONSULTANTS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER LID PROJECT (D) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FROM CONSULTANTS FOR SANITARY SEWER METER STATION A REHABILITATION DESIGN (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACTS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH DOUGLAS FAIR, KRISTEN ANDERSON, AND KATHLEEN FIELDS TO SERVE AS MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE PRO TEM (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KARIN NOYES FOR PLANNING BOARD MINUTE TAKING SERVICES (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JEANNIE DINES FOR MINUTE TAKING SERVICES 3. (20 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENDING THE LIFE OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ENACTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 3209 RELATING TO A -FRAME AND SANDWICH -BOARD DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND REAFFIRMING ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES 4. (45 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) TO BE KNOWN AS THE PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER LID, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING SEWER MAINS AND SERVICE 5. (45 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION BY EASTERN INVESTMENT CORPORATION FOR THE PROPOSED REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 81ST AVENUE WEST AND 240T" STREET SOUTHWEST FROM RM -3.0 TO RM -1.5 (File No. R- 98 -81) 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 7. (15 Min.) ANNUAL REPORT - MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE CONROY 8. (15 Min.) ANNUAL REPORT - PUBLIC DEFENDER JAMES FELDMAN 9. (30 Min.) BUDGET WORK SESSION 10. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 11. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORT 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 lf,`cdnesdgy, Friday and Afonday at noon on Channel 32.