Loading...
South Esperance Annexation�T d 5ol,�,Ty ESPBR�i�B /�NN�x�T/O�1 4 laim for D amages (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SCOTT A. BLAIR ($500,000.00) Purchase (E) REPORT ON QUOTES AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE AN AIRLESS WALK Roadway BEHIND ROADWAY STRIPER ($4,756.68) triner ]Position (F) APPROVAL OF POSITION RECLASSIFICATIONS FOR CITY CLERK AND liteclass. ACCOUNTING MANAGER Prisoner (G) AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN AMENDMENT TO PRISONER DETENTION ❑etention AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS A ement POLICE DEPARTMENT Item B: Approval of,City ConnciC Mee . g Minutes of Fe rHary 112000 Councilmember Orvis requested the February 15, 2000 minutes be revised to reflect that he (rather than Councilmember Davis) voted against the motion for approval of Consent Agenda Item N on page 2. Approve COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, FOR a/t5 APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. The item iMinutes as approved is as follows: Amended (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2000 e Resolution No. 277tl i I zing—Urculation of 60 Percent Petitions in th u d 's A—nn-exation Area Sundquist Councilmember Petso advised she would abstain from the vote as she had not participated in the prior etwo discussions. ist Annexation 600A Petition Councilmember Earling explained he had a telephone call subsequent to the annexation hearing from Phil Assink who requested the Council consider withdrawing the condition requiring assumption of the bonded indebtedness. Councilmember Earling said he had not had an opportunity to discuss this with the Council and after further consideration, decided the requirement to assume the bonded indebtedness should be included in the annexation. He commented the City has made exceptions to that requirement in the past but over the history of annexations, the City has, for the most part, always requested areas assume the bonded indebtedness. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM H. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED. The agenda items approved is as follows: (H) RESOLUTION NO. 977 AUTHORIZING CIRCULATION OF 60 PERCENT PETITIONS IN THE SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AREA 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Revenue Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said at the February Finance Committee meeting, it was said the $300,000 in unanticipated revenue would not be spent. The Finance Committee Chair then announced at the next Council meeting that the funds would be added to the General Fund. He encouraged the Council to watch how those funds were spent. Mr. Rutledge requested an update on the Public Safety Complex, and advised there was a rumor that a court case was coming up. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 2 J Change to the Agenda EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2000 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. for the City Council to meet with Appointees to the Library Board and Civil Service Commission, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Thomas A. Miller, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Maia Krause, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Ray Miller, Development Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Jeff Wilson, Senior Planner Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO ADD CONFIRMATION OF CANDIDATES TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA AS ITEM 3A. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA, ITEMS Councilmember Orvis requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Petso requested Item H be removed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #39076 THROUGH #39231 FOR THE WEEK OF Warrants FEBRUARY 14, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $459,023.11. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #27608 THROUGH #27708 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $440,847.06. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 22, 2000 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Originator: Planning Division Agenda Memo For Action: X Item #: 1��--W-9'7`7 For Information: Subject: PROPOSED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CIRCULATION OF 60 PERCENT PETITIONS IN THE SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AREA (FILE NO. AX-98-101). Agenda Time: Agenda Date: Exhibits Attached: Consent February 22, 2000 1. Draft Minutes of the February 15, 2000, Council Meeting re: AX-98-101 2. Proposed Resolution Clearances: Department/Initials Admin Svcs/Finance _ City Attorney City Clerk Court Personnel Community Svcs Engineering Parks & Rec Pianniliij--tr a Public Works Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council , Development Svcs -� �,. _ _—Mayor Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Services Public Safety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 w Funding Source: Not applicable. Previous Council Action: On February 15, 2000, the Council held a public hearing on the proposed "Sundquist" Annexation, File No. AX-98-101. After consideration of the testimony, the Council approved a motion to allow the proponent to circulation the Formal 60% Annexation Petitions. Furthermore, the Council approved by motion that the boundaries of the annexation area would be as proposed, the area would be subject to assumption of the existing bonded indebtedness of the City, and that the City would adopt "comparable" zoning and land use designations for the property in the annexation area (see Exhibit 1). Narrative: The Resolution to allow circulation of the formal annexation petitions within the proposed annexation area has been prepared in accordance with motion passed by the Council on February 15`h (see Exhibits 1 and 2). AX-98-101_COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 60°/. OI.DOGl7-FEB-00 Pagel of 2 FILES/REPORTS/COUNCIL Additionally, staff is proposing, after consideration of testimony provided during the February 15'h hearing, the name on the formal petition for the proposed annexation area be changed from "Sundquist" to "South Esperance" to provide the residents considering annexation a more location descriptive annexation name to assist them with identifying the proposed area. Recommended Actions: 1. Adopt the proposed Resolution to authorize circulation of formal annexation petitions within the proposed annexation area (see Exhibit 2). 2. Direct staff to prepare the formal annexation petitions identifying the proposed annexation area as the "South Esperance Annexation Area." Council Action: (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM FORREST & CHERRYL BAILEY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND JAY McCOLLUM ($125.00) (E) APPROVAL OF TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSES FOR CHECKER CAB CO., INC. AND YELLOW CAB (F) AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD GRANTS TO LOCAL ARTS ORGANIZATIONS FOR PROMOTION OF ARTS EVENTS AND CULTURAL TOURISM (G) APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT OF OLYMPIC VIEW CREST, 20-LOT FORMAL SUBDIVISION (File No. P-98-72; Property Location: West Side of Olympic View Drive Between 1801h Street SW and 181" Place SW; Applicant: R. L. McDuffy Associates and NW Independent Builders, LLC) (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (I) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL WAIVER OF EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 20.80 — PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ELLIOTT CONSULTING, INC. (J) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A DUAL DRIVE UPGRADE FOR EXISTING KLAMPRESSES AT THE TREATMENT PLANT FROM ASHBROOK ($29,702, Including Sales Tax) (K) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE 2000 FORD EXPEDITION FROM THE STATE CONTRACT (L) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE INTERNET SOFTWARE (M) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE NETWORK SOFTWARE TO IMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGY PLAN Item N: Resolution No. 976 Interpreting and Applying the Feelto be Charged a Variance Aw JcanLrursuan.t_to__Respbtt on Nn. 967,_t1le Annual Fee, ResQlution for the Year 2400 Councilmember Orvis explained he wished to vote no on the proposed resolution as he voted against this issue when it was discussed with the Council previously. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM N. UPON ROLL CALL, THE MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBERS DAVIS AND EARLING OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: (N) RESOLUTION NO. 976 INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE FEES TO BE CHARGED A VARIANCE APPLICANT PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 967, THE ANNUAL FEE RESOLUTION FOR THE YEAR 2000 3. EUBL,1C HEARMG TO CONSIDER PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 193 ACRES KNOWN AS THE "SUNDQUIST"_ANNEXATION,, WHICH 1S GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF 228T",STREET SOU�WEST: WEST OF._HIGHWAY 49: EAST OF_$$T" AVENUE_ WEST; AND, NORTH OF MAPLE LANE AND234'" STREET SOUTHWEST (File No. AX-98-IOI) Councilmember Petso excused herself from participation in this matter due to prior involvement dating back to last summer. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes EXHIBIT I February 15, 2 EXHIBIT Pagee 2 2 Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson displayed a map illustrating the boundaries of the proposed annexation area and landmark parcels within the proposed annexation area. He explained at the Council's January 18 meeting, the Council met with the proponent, Eric Sundquist, the resident who brought this issue forward. At that time, the Council discussed, 1) the final boundary, 2) whether the area would be subject to existing bonded indebtedness, and 3) what zoning would be applied to the area (pre -zoning process or other method). At the January 18 meeting, several questions were raised by the Council and a decision was made to delay determination of the final boundary as well as the decision regarding assumption of existing bonded indebtedness until public testimony had been provided. Regarding zoning, the City typically adopts comparable zoning to Snohomish County's zoning to maintain/mimic existing zoning. Mr. Wilson explained the proposed annexation area was approximately 193 acres and he identified the boundaries of the area. He identified the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property on 228'11 and Fire Station #10 which is owned, operated, and maintained by the City but is currently in unincorporated Snohomish County. He advised the proposed annexation area abuts the City limits on the south and east and the area to the north was unincorporated Snohomish County although a small portion on the north side was within the City. Mr. Wilson said one of the issues raised by the Council was what revenues and expenditures could be expected over the next two years and whether there would be a positive or negative cash flow. Mr. Wilson advised that information was outlined in detail in the Council packet and Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler was present to provide further information if necessary. He suggested that issue be addressed following public testimony in the event similar questions were raised. In response to questions raised regarding the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property that is within the proposed annexation area, Mr. Wilson explained the total valuation of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property was approximately $702,000 and the total assessed value of the proposed annexation area was approximately $66 million. The petition method annexation process requires signatures of property owners representing at least 60% of the total valuation of the proposed annexation area for an annexation to be considered for final approval. He pointed out $702,000, the value of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property, was an insignificant amount of the total assessed valuation. He advised there were few commercial properties or multi -family properties included in the proposed annexation area and their total assessed valuation ranged from $5-7 million. He said none of these properties could individually or collectively "make or break" the annexation. In order to succeed, the annexation would require the overwhelming support of single family property owners in the area. In response to an inquiry regarding whether the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property should be excluded from the boundary of the proposed annexation area, Mr. Wilson explained during annexations, Snohomish County looks to cities to annex the full right-of-way as part of annexation thereby transferring ownership, maintenance, public safety issues, etc. to the local jurisdiction. If the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property on 228' was excluded, the City would either have to propose to eliminate 228`h from the annexation which the Snohomish County Council and staff have effectively lobbied the Boundary Review Board in the past to ensure those areas are included. Another option would be to include a portion of the right-of-way and exclude a portion of the right-of-way, such as excluding the right-of-way which would result in a gap of approximately one block that would be unincorporated. This would lead to confusion over which jurisdiction had the public safety responsibility in this area. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Wilson said Olympic View Water and Sewer District currently had other property within the City limits; the main headquarters building on Edmonds Way, which was annexed into the City several years ago. Although Olympic View Water and Sewer District's property on the north side of 228`h would not be included in the proposed annexation area, by annexing the entire right-of-way, there would be improved access to the City as the right-of-way permitting agency. He pointed out most of the work between the two properties would occur in the right-of-way. Mr. Wilson said staff recommends the Council authorize circulation of the petitions with the boundaries as presently drawn. He said the Council must make the decision regarding .bonded indebtedness. Staff also recommends comparable zoning be adopted as part of the annexation to maintain continuity and then any zoning issues could be re-evaluated as part of the City's annual Comprehensive Plan review process. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the City received three letters and a telephone call, 1) L. Smithson (no address) opposed to annexation, 2) C. R. Maier, 8727 Holly Lane, Edmonds, opposed to annexation, 3) an additional letter from C. Maier, opposed to annexation, and 4) Barbara Abruzzo, 23018 81" Place W, Edmonds, in support of ~ annexation. John Hidell, 22430 86`h Avenue W, Edmonds, a resident since 1965, said they went through this about two years ago when a vote was taken not to annex. He questioned why annexation was being sought again and why by this method. He was opposed to annexation and said Snohomish County had been very good to their neighborhood in addressing any street and light problems. Bob Brown, 23014 83rd Avenue West, Edmonds, said in the past 35 years, there had been '/2 dozen votes rejecting annexation to Edmonds. He asked why it was thought this annexation request would be more palatable to residents in the proposed annexation area than past efforts. He questioned why he would want to annex into Edmonds. Patricia Meeker, 22711 96`h Avenue West, Edmonds, a commissioner with Olympic View Water and Sewer District, said she was present to answer any questions regarding Olympic View Water and Sewer District's position on the annexation. Steve Kish, 8925 229"' Place SW, Edmonds, (outside the annexation boundary), asked how the annexation boundary was established, who Mr. Sundquist was, whether he was related to the "Woodway Sundquist development," and how annexation would change the neighborhood as it would cut the neighborhood in half. Pat LaJambe, 22921 85`h Place W, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to annexation. She said previous votes indicated the majority of residents were opposed to annexation. She recalled Perrinville voted to annex into the City but voted not to accept the bonded indebtedness. She said City records indicate the Council voted to include the bonded indebtedness for their area. She said Mr. Wilson indicated residents in the proposed annexation area would have to accept the bonded indebtedness if the annexation effort was successful. She questioned why the Council found it acceptable for other areas not to be included in the bonded indebtedness but their area would not have any say in the matter. She said the Council also voted to include the $770,000 value of the fire station property as part of the required 60%. She objected to including the fire station property as it was not a private property and would not be included in property taxes. She recalled that although Mr. Wilson indicated the value of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District and the fire station properties were insignificant and could be included on the petition Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 4 in favor of annexation, those properties represented $1.5 million, the equivalent of 5-10 houses. She requested any annexation petition state that assumption of the bonded indebtedness would be required. Eleanor Howard, 22815 80th Place W, #8, Edmonds, a resident since 1989, said there had been at least two ballot issues regarding annexation during the time she lived in the neighborhood; both times, the ballot issue was rejected by citizens in that area. She said she saw only two signs announcing tonight's meeting, signs that required exiting your vehicle and getting down on your knees to read. She said when Olympic View Water and Sewer District had a hearing, everyone got a notice on their door. She questioned why there had not been more publicity regarding this effort. She questioned what final say residents of the area would have. Mark Strom, 8826 228" Street SW, Edmonds, adjacent to (but outside) the proposed annexation area, said he did not know much about this annexation effort and was unable to find out what the public process was to move this effort forward. He understood annexation efforts have occurred in this area in the past. Larry Brainerd, 23118 84"' Avenue W, Edmonds, asked what was motivating Mr. Sundquist's efforts to have this area annexed. He expressed his appreciation for the flyer mailed to him regarding tonight's meeting. He questioned how annexation would impact him, what costs he could expect and what different services or service levels he could expect. He said annexation had been rejected twice and unless the benefits were clearly established, it would likely be rejected again. Bailey Vickell, 8427 Holly Lane, Edmonds, said in 1997, residents of the Esperance area rejected annexation 67% to 33%. He stressed residents in this area had repeatedly said no to annexation. He said those seeking signatures on the annexation petition asked people if they wanted to receive information about annexation, thereby misleading those who signed the petition. He questioned what the benefits of annexation were, explaining their water is provided by Olympic View Water and Sewer District, their power from PUD, and police from Snohomish County. He said The Edmonds Pam indicated a new police officer would be hired at a cost of $90 for a $300,000 home. He said they already have police protection. He said residents inside and outside this area still experience car and home invasions which Edmonds Police have not stopped. He said their being annexed to Edmonds would not be better for them. He reiterated the City needed to show what they could do for them, commenting most people have been misled by information in the newspaper. He questioned how many of the property owners' voices in the 193 acres were being heard. He objected to property owners being the only ones with a voice in this vote. Rich Johnson, 8706 Holly Lane, Edmonds, a resident since 1965, said he came tonight to hear the latest "fairy tale" regarding how much better his life would be via annexation. John Justice, 8808 223rd Place SW, Edmonds, outside the annexation area, said there were numerous young families in the proposed annexation area as well as older residents on fixed incomes. He said due to the size of many properties in the proposed annexation area, their taxes would increase if annexed to Edmonds. He said this was unfair to older residents as well as young families. He said anytime a city or company undertook annexation or a merger, there was something in it for them and not for the citizens or employees. He was opposed to annexation, indicating once that area was annexed, his neighborhood would likely be annexed next. He urged the Council not to overturn the public's vote and to leave them alone. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 15,2000 Page 5 Phil Assink, 23202 83" Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke "mostly" in favor of annexation due to the proximity of Council meetings and the gracious response to his inquiries to City Hall. He indicated he made some suggestions to Mr. Wilson regarding the process and suggested they be pursued. He observed there was some resistance to annexation in the neighborhood and suggested the Council consider not requiring assumption of the bonded indebtedness as a gesture of solidarity to the area. He understood the GMA had some impact on how annexation of small unincorporated areas occurred. He expressed his appreciation to Edmonds' mutual aid response into their area as they do not have Sheriff Department's presence voluntarily, only on an emergency basis. Karen Zollman, 8826 228'h Street SW, Edmonds, adjacent to the annexation area, said she was concerned with the financial impact of annexation. She said they moved from Seattle to the unincorporated area due to King County's history of asking voters for things, voters voting them down but then getting them anyway (such as the stadium). She was concerned with repeatedly rejecting votes and having the same issue brought up again. She commented property values were increasing astronomically and it was painful to be stuck with increased taxes when incomes did not increase at the same rate. She said their choice was to subdivide their property or move. Larry Brainerd asked if there was a significant development project that underlies- the move for annexation. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. In response to questions raised by the public, Mr. Wilson explained in the state annexation statutes that govern the way cities review and process annexations, there are two processes for annexation — the election method (voted upon at a special or general election) or petition method. The state did not specify which method could be or must be used, both are provided as options. In either option, the City did not have the unilateral authority to annex an area without participation or "vote" by residents in the area. He said unlike the election method process, the petition method was a two step process, a resident interested in annexation approaches the City requesting initiation of an annexation process which is what Mr. Sundquist did. In this instance, staff discussed the petition method annexation process with the resident interested in pursuing annexation and City staff, utilizing the past history, state law and Boundary Review Board requirements for evaluation annexations, determined the annexation boundaries. Mr. Wilson explained the Boundary Review Board considers whether the proposed annexation area was a defined area, was easily identifiable and was a logical service area which generally equates to boundaries along major streets. Another criteria is that an annexation area be contiguous to an existing City limit boundary. In this instance, approximately 40-50% of the annexation boundary was contiguous to existing City limits. Once the boundaries had been established, the petitions were prepared by the City to ensure they met the requirements of state law and the Boundary Review Board. The proponent's responsibility in the first phase was to seek sufficient signatures to indicate interest in the annexation — signatures of property owners representing at least 10% of the total assessed valuation. The signatures are sent to Snohomish County Auditor who verify the signatures and issue certification that the signatures are from property owners in the annexation area. In this instance, the petition that was certified had signatures of approximately 12% of the total assessed valuation. This initiates the process to the City Council for consideration whether to allow circulation of a formal petition. He stressed after certification of the initial petition, the Council could not simply annex the area, they could only authorize circulation of Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 6 petitions for formal action. Whether this petition succeeds or fails will be determined by the participation of property owners in the proposed annexation area. . If the Council approved circulation of the annexation petition tonight, that would allow the proponent to gather signatures. He would have up to six months to gather signatures (under state law a signature on a petition is only valid for six months from the date signed). If the proponent was unable to gather signatures from property owners representing 60% of the assessed valuation, the annexation dies. If he was successful in gathering sufficient signatures from property owners representing 60% of the assessed valuation, the petition would be forwarded to the Snohomish County Auditor for certification of the signatures. If the 60% was gathered and certified, the City would prepare a report that was submitted to the Boundary Review Board who designates a review period for soliciting comments from other agencies that may be affected by annexation such as Olympic View Water and Sewer District, Snohomish County, emergency services agencies, etc. as well as comments from residents within the proposed annexation area. If after 45 days the Boundary Review Board found the annexation was consistent with state requirements for approving the annexation, they could approve it or hold a public hearing to determine whether the boundaries should be modified, the annexation denied, or the annexation approved. Once the annexation was approved by the Boundary Review Board, it would be returned to the City and the Council was required to hold an additional public hearing which will be followed by Council action to adopt an ordinance to accept the annexation and establish an effective date. Mr. Wilson said as part of the process, the Council met with the proponent to discuss the boundaries and the Council will now determine if the boundaries were logical and represented good service areas. Regarding bonded indebtedness, the Council will make a decision regarding whether the proposed annexation area will be subject to the bonded indebtedness. If so, state law requires that it be clearly stated on the formal 60% petition. He stressed the Council had not yet made a decision regarding whether the area would be subject to bonded indebtedness and that would be part of the decision made tonight. He explained signing the petition was a vote in favor of annexation, not signing the petition was a vote against annexation. In response to the question of why the issue of annexation was being brought up again, Mr. Wilson explained there was no limit on the number of requests that could be made for annexation. In the past, the City put annexation out for public vote as part of multiple requests for annexation. This time, the process was citizen driven. If a resident asks to pursue the annexation process, the City could not refuse them the opportunity to pursue the process. In its public role, the City must remain neutral on the issue and provide factual information regarding the annexation to the proponent and the public. In the past, fact sheets have been prepared and made available to the public that address issues that are frequently raised. Regarding the question of Perrinville's assumption of bonded indebtedness, he explained the election method process required the annexation area to vote on whether to annex as well as whether to accept the bonded indebtedness. If residents vote against accepting the existing bonded indebtedness, the Council makes a decision whether to accept the annexation without the bonded indebtedness or the Council could choose not to accept the annexation. He summarized the question regarding assumption of bonded indebtedness is asked in both methods of annexation. In response to assessed valuation of Olympic View Water and Sewer District and the fire station property, he said staff considered the top ten valuations of property in the area based on Snohomish County records. The top ten were chosen as the lowest value in the top ten was $501,000 with remaining properties valued at below $400,000, indicating predominately single family properties. Property values Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 7 for the top ten properties ranged from $501,000 to $1.3 million. Only three properties are assessed over $1 million, one in the $800,000 range, two in the $700,000 range and three in the $500,000 range. The top ten properties account for only approximately 13% of the total assessed valuation of the entire proposed annexation area. He stressed it required 60% for the annexation to succeed under the petition method process. Even if all the top ten property owners signed the petition, signatures from at least 47% of the remaining assessed valuation would be required for the annexation to proceed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote.) Regarding notice, Mr. Wilson explained staff did the best they could to provide notice. The area was posted in seven locations. Notices were mailed to all property owners of record within the proposed annexation area (utilizing records obtained from Snohomish County), and notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the proposed annexation area in an effort to have as wide spread public notice as possible. He said notice was mailed at least ten days prior to the public hearing. Regarding what benefits a resident might derive from the proposed annexation, he said what was felt to be beneficial varied by individual. When comparing the tax rate property owners in Snohomish County pay versus the property taxes that would be paid if the area were annexed into the City, the City's taxes and fees (stormwater, etc.) are $1.18 less per $1,000 of assessed valuation. For a home valued at $200,000, the annual savings would be $159 or an 8.9% reduction. He clarified the City did not establish property valuations, that has been and would continue to be the responsibility of Snohomish County. He pointed out some taxes would remain the same whether a property was located in unincorporated Snohomish County or the City such as state schools, local schools and hospital district. The City's additional tax rates include the EMS levy and public safety bond. The proposed annexation area would still be required to pay off the Fire District 1 bond voted on previously. He explained even including the public safety bond and the Fire District's existing bond, the savings would still be $1.18 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. He said the tax applicable to the City's public safety bond was approximately $0.27 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. He said although Snohomish County did not have a public safety bond or the EMS levy, they have a road tax and library tax and Fire District 1 has a regular levy, a special levy, and a bond that are included in the property taxes currently paid by property owners in the proposed annexation area. Councilmember Plunkett referred to page 52 of the Council packet, "South Snohomish County vs. City of Edmonds 2000 Detailed Comparison of Property Tax, Single Family Residence," and asked whether that could be made available to the public. Mr. Wilson answered in past annexations, an annexation fact sheet has been prepared and made available to the public. He said the fact sheet would include the information on page 52 and page 53 (2000 Comparison of Costs including property taxes, surface water charge, utility taxes and street lighting charges). Council President Pro Tem White asked Mr. Wilson to address the affect GMA has on annexation. Mr. Wilson explained the Planning Principles of GMA attempted to identify areas that were urban in nature that should receive their urban services from urban entities rather than from the county, a regional service provider. He explained urban services include sewer, water, police, fire, road maintenance, etc. versus regional services such as criminal justice, etc. GMA required urban growth area boundaries to be established by the county; everything within South Snohomish including this area was considered to be within an urban growth area. Therefore, the logical entity to provide services and planning would be the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 8 local jurisdiction rather than the county. He said urban areas would provide urban levels of service such as transportation, housing, employment to take advantage of scales of economy such as not extending sewers to unincorporated/rural areas and take advantage of areas that are already urban in nature. He pointed out GMA did not mandate that areas be annexed but it was logical that local services should be provided by the urban entity. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Snohomish County Sheriff's Department patrolled this area. Police Chief Robin Hickok answered they may send an occasional deputy through the area but he was not aware of the schedule for patrols. Councilmember Plunkett recalled a comment was made by a member of the public that public safety was provided on an on -call basis. Chief Hickok answered for situations such as domestic violence or felony in progress, they would send a vehicle likely from the South Precinct (164' Street in Lynnwood). Councilmember Plunkett asked if that differed from how the City of Edmonds would patrol the area. Chief Hickok answered the City's traffic unit would respond to a traffic complaint within a day and there would be a 4-minute response to most calls with a 2 minute or less response for a "hot" call. He stressed he was not criticizing the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office, the City was simply closer and could provide faster service. He explained Edmonds would also provide routine patrol through the area 24 hours a day. In response to the question regarding whether the proponent was seeking a development proposal, Mr. Wilson said in his conversations with Mr. Sundquist, there had not been any indication regarding a specific development proposal. Mr. Sundquist owns a property approximately the size of a single family lot and had not mentioned any development proposals during this process. As there were additional questions from the audience, Mayor Haakenson reopened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Council President Pro Tern White requested residens address their historical objection to annexation. Eleanor Howard, 22815 — 88"' Place W #8, Edmonds, asked if there would be an opportunity during the second step of the petition process to find out why Mr. Sundquist wanted to pursue annexation. She said they have been opposed to annexation in the past because they were lead to believe their taxes would increase. Councilmember Earling asked who lead her to believe her taxes would increase. Ms. Howard answered that was the talk in the neighborhood and what her landlord told her. Steve Kish, 8925 229" Place SW, Edmonds, said he was still unclear where the existing Edmonds boundaries were. Observing Mr. Sundquist apparently owned property in the area and thereby had the right to petition for annexation, he asked if anyone could petition for annexation. If so, could he (Mr. Kish) request the boundary be amended to include another area? John Hidell, 22430 86" Avenue W, Edmonds, asked how the decision was made to discount the votes taken in the past. Mayor Haakenson responded state law allowed any citizen, including Mr. Sundquist, to petition for annexation regardless of previous votes. Mr. Hidell said the previous vote had no life. Mayor Haakenson agreed. Rich Johnson, 8706 Holly Lane, Edmonds, commented that Mr. Sundquist owned property in the area and asked if he lived in the area. Larry Brainerd, 23118 84" Avenue W, Edmonds, said the lack of opportunity to vote on this issue brought people who were passionate about it to meetings. He said he and many others live in this area in quiet enjoyment. He said the petition process was begun by someone with a personal motivation, and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 9 long before he became aware of that effort. He was skeptical when he learned only last week that a meeting was being held this week regarding this process. He was more skeptical upon learning there had been two previous votes and a process had been determined that did not include voting. City Attorney Scott Snyder said this was a required step, the second of eight under state law that would be required to annex the area. The City received a petition, this hearing was required by state law to allow the Council to establish the boundaries for the next petition to be circulated. Regarding the question of how the annexation boundaries could be amended, he said they could be amended by the Council tonight, amended by the Council when the petition was returned, or amended by the Boundary Review Board. He stressed when the City received a petition, as it did from Mr. Sundquist, its obligation was to consider it and that was what the Council was doing — determining whether to authorize circulation of a petition that requires signatures from property owners of 60% of the assessed valuation in the proposed annexation area. Mayor Haakenson asked if the City could turn down a citizen's request for annexation. Mr. Snyder answered staff was obligated to accept the petition, forward it to Snohomish County to have the signatures certified and the petition returned to the Council for this public hearing. Ed Poole, 8708 228" SW, Edmonds, asked Olympic View Water and Sewer District's position on the annexation. Pat LaJambe, 22921 85" Place W, Edmonds, reiterated her question regarding the $770,000 valuation of the fire department property and her understanding that the Council had authorized the mayor to sign the petition on behalf of the City. She said only this area was paying the bond debt for the fire department and suggested that be reason for reconsidering this area's assumption of the public safety bonded indebtedness. She said she had not seen or received notification of the January 18 meeting but expressed. appreciation for the notice of tonight's meeting. Regarding the implication that Snohomish County did not address public safety issues in their area, she described incidents when the Sheriff's department responded in less than ten minutes regarding a traffic issue and a follow-up response to an accidental 911 call she made. She commended the service that Snohomish County provided in these two incidents. John Justice, 8808 233" Place SW, Edmonds, said he was under the same assumption that taxes would increase upon annexation. He said many of the homes in the proposed annexation area are single family homes according to Snohomish County and his understanding regarding the differences between Snohomish County and City lot sizes, annexation would result in some lots accommodating another home. He asked if this would result in another lot and thus increased property taxes. Paul Stevens, 8631 231" Place SW, Edmonds, asked what other differences between City and County they might expect other than taxes and fire and police service. He verified his taxes increased when he moved from the City of Edmonds to unincorporated Snohomish County in 1996. Pat Meeker, 22711 96" Avenue West, Edmonds, a commissioner with Olympic View Water and Sewer District, said in August, the district was approached by Mr. Sundquist to sign the petition that would begin the process for annexation. Olympic View Water and Sewer District did not want to be involved and felt if they signed, their property would become part of the annexation process although the property was not taxed. The district felt it was up to the single family residents to determine whether they wanted to be annexed. However, if they did not sign the petition, they were still became part of the process; therefore, had asked to be removed from the annexation area. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 10 Larry Brainerd asked if Mr. Sundquist discussed his intent regarding development with Olympic View Water and Sewer District. Ms. Meeker answered no, he had not. Mr. Brainerd said he was concerned because Olympic View Water and Sewer District's property was valued at approximately $800,000 and he felt it would have an affect. However, as indicated tonight, the property represents only 1.2% of the total assessed valuation of the area and therefore had little affect. Lorraine Garrett, 22818 861h Place W, Edmonds, asked the affect of annexation on zoning and whether it would result in multi -family housing rather than single-family homes. Mr. Wilson identified the existing City limits on the map. In response to the question regarding whether there would be an opportunity to determine Mr. Sundquist's interest in annexation, Mr. Wilson said Mr. Sundquist owns one parcel of land with a single family home valued at approximately $168,000. In response to the question whether anyone could petition for annexation, Mr. Wilson answered yes, in the past, commercial property owners typically initiated the petition method annexation. It was unusual for an individual to pursue a petition method annexation for such a large area, approximately 193 acres and 800 residents. Mr. Wilson referred to Mr. Snyder's response regarding past votes, and explained the annexation statutes do not include a shelf life for a vote. One vote would not preclude someone else initiating annexation immediately for the next ballot or initiating a petition method annexation. He said staff was simply responding to inquiries as they arise and assisting the proponent in adhering to the state statues regarding annexation. Mr. Wilson said he was unaware whether Mr. Sundquist lived in the area but was aware he owned a single family residence in the proposed annexation area. Regarding the City signing the petition for the fire station property, Mr. Wilson said the City, as a property owner, had the proprietary right of any property owner to sign the petition. In this instance, the City has a facility owned, maintained and operated by the City in an unincorporated area. The City was asked and agreed to sign the petition of intent but that was the only document that had been signed. This allowed sufficient signatures to allow the process to proceed to this point to allow discussion with the public regarding the appropriate course of action but the City was not obligated to sign any future petitions. He said the valuation of the City's property represented only approximately 1 % of the total assessed valuation, not a significant player in obtaining the 60%. In response to whether this was the only area that currently paid the Fire District bond, Mr. Wilson answered no. Any of the areas that annexed within the past five years south of 220' such as Firdale Village and in the Westgate area, were in Fire District 111 and as part of the original bond, were still required to pay for it. Regarding why the public did not receive notice of the January 18 meeting, Mr. Wilson explained the annexation regulations established by the state require the Council to meet with the proponent to discuss issues such as the boundaries, bonded indebtedness, zoning, etc. The meeting with the proponent did not replace the public hearing and was intended to be a fact-finding opportunity for the Council with the person initiating the process. In response to questions regarding zoning, Mr. Wilson displayed a map illustrating comparable zoning designations for the area. In response to the question whether lots could be developed with an additional single family home, Mr. Wilson said it was possible but may not be any different than was currently Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 11 allowed by Snohomish County. He explained Snohomish County's single-family designation, R 8400 requires 8,400 square feet of lot area per single family unit. The City's comparable zoning designation is RS 8000 which requires 8,000 square feet of lot area per single family unit. He explained if a property owner in unincorporated Snohomish County with 16,000 square feet was annexed into the City, they could have the potential to subdivide into two single family lots. One difference between the City's single family zoning designation and Snohomish County's was the City did not have a duplex zone but the county did. Snohomish County regulations allow a single family lot that is 1'/2 times the size of the minimum lot size, requirement to construct/establish a duplex on the property. Therefore, a property owner with a 12,600 square foot lot in Snohomish County could have a duplex; however, a 12,600 square foot lot in the City would still be one single family lot. Regarding other changes in service that could be expected, Mr. Wilson said this was similar to the question regarding what benefits would be derived from annexation. He commented one person indicated to him that annexation would allow greater ease to attend City Council meetings locally and in the evening versus attending Snohomish County Council meetings during the day in Everett. Others like the ease of accessing services in the community, including some who already utilize those services and feel it would be appropriate to annex and help pay for those services. He said other benefits may include locally processed building permits and locally held hearings. Mr. Wilson responded to the question whether zoning would change if the area was annexed, stating the only significant change was in single family that he addressed previously (RS 8000 in the City versus R 8400 in Snohomish County). He identified the boundaries of the proposed annexation area, explaining nearly all zoning to the west was single family R 8400 zoning. There are portions along Hwy. 99 that are zoned GC (General Commercial) and one parcel currently zoned multi -family residential that would be annexed with a comparable zoning. He said staff recommends adoption of comparable zoning to keep zoning as status quo as possible. He said the only changes that would/could occur would be via amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan which requires a public hearing process. He explained the City was attempting to make the Comprehensive Plan amendment process a neighborhood -based process to encourage neighborhoods to participate. He said staff did not foresee any changes to zoning at this time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC REARING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote.) Councilmember Orvis asked if the zoning information would be included in the information packet that is made available to the public. Mr. Wilson explained the zoning is required to be part of the petition just as the issue of bonded indebtedness is required to be included on the petition. The back of the petition would include a map illustrating the existing zoning in Snohomish County and comparable zoning in the City. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Council President Pro Tem. White pointed out Councilmember Petso, who removed herself from consideration of this item, was an Olympic View Water and Sewer District Commissioner and that aspect of the annexation had been thoroughly discussed by the Council. Council President Pro Tem White said he found this process offensive because the law required a citizen to obtain permission to petition fellow citizens and this public hearing was required to determine whether Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 12 the Council would grant that fundamental right. He said regardless of how citizens in the proposed annexation area may respond to the petition for annexation, he expected any citizen to be granted the right to petition fellow citizens. Councilmember Davis echoed Council President Pro Tern White's comments, pointing out the need for the process to move forward. Regardless of whether he agreed with the outcome, he agreed it was important to allow citizens to ask other citizens whether they wanted to be annexed. Councilmember Orvis said he was primarily concerned with the information that would be distributed to citizens and was satisfied staff would distribute accurate and thorough information during the process. Councilmember Earling said he understood the intensity of residents who have gone through this process a number of times but pointed out citizens had the right to petition government, a right any citizen would expect to have. He observed statements have been made that this process did not allow citizens to vote, however, property owners would have an opportunity to sign or not sign a petition for annexation. He supported moving forward with the annexation petition and said the property owners in the proposed annexation area had the opportunity to do whatever they felt was right. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CIRCULATION OF FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS FOR THE PROPOSED "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION AND PLACE ON THE FEBRUARY 22, 2000, COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 1) THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 1, 2) THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ASSUMING THE EXISTING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY, AND 3) THE CITY SHALL ADOPT COMPARABLE ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 11 FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote.) Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Councilmember Petso returned to her seat on the Council. • i 1 / / �. / I 1 / / li.l i .il :..tw. � / • ; 1 Planning Manager Rob Chave said this ordinance was proposed to simplify the application process for a lot line combination. He explained this issue typically arose when there were two properties under the same ownership and the property owner wished to construct something that would exist across both properties. The City requires the lot line in common between the properties be removed. This is a simple process but in the past required a survey which resulted in a fairly significant cost to an applicant. Research indicated a survey would not be required to combine the two lots. Removing the survey requirement reduces the cost for a lot line combination, making it easier for the applicant. When the Planning Board considered the ordinance, they recommended paragraph B of Section 20.75.055 be revised to read, "An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments" deleting the remainder of paragraph B. He said staff was agreeable to the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 13 Claims for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM FORREST & Damages CHERRYL BAILEY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND JAY McCOLLUM ($125.00) Taxicab (E) APPROVAL OF TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSES FOR CHECKER CAB CO., INC. Operators I AND YELLOW CAB 3rants to (F) AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD GRANTS TO LOCAL ARTS ORGANIZATIONS FOR Arts Organi PROMOTION OF ARTS EVENTS AND CULTURAL TOURISM cations (G) APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT Final Pla ,Approve OF OLYMPIC VIEW CREST, 20-LOT FORMAL SUBDIVISION (File No. P-98-72; t P-98-72 Property Location: West Side of Olympic View Drive Between 180" Street SW and 181" SW Sno. Co. Place SW; Applicant: R. L. McDuffy Associates and NW Independent Builders, LLC) Safety Safety (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL COMM. COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST SNOHOMISH COUNTY Agency PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (I) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL WAIVER OF EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 20.80 — -ons lt PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN Consulting PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ELLIOTT CONSULTING, INC. Purchase (J) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A DUAL DRIVE UPGRADE FOR EXISTING Dual Drive KLAMPRESSES AT THE TREATMENT PLANT FROM ASHBROOK ($29,702, Including Upgrade Sales Tax) IPurchase (K) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE 2000 FORD EXPEDITION FROM THE STATE Vehicle CONTRACT Software j (L) Software AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE INTERNET SOFTWARE Purchase (M) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE NETWORK SOFTWARE TO IMPLEMENT Software TECHNOLOGY PLAN Item N: Resolution No. 276 Interpreting and Applying the Fees to be Charged a_ V_ ariance Applicant Pursuant to Resolution No. 967, the Annual ice Resolution for the Year ZQQQ Councilmember Orvis explained he wished to vote no on the proposed resolution as he voted against this issue when it was discussed with the Council previously. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM N. UPON ROLL CALL, THE MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND EARLING OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: 'Vero (N) RESOLUTION NO. 976 INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE FEES TO BE 'Variancence Fees CHARGED A VARIANCE APPLICANT PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 967, THE ANNUAL FEE RESOLUTION FOR THE YEAR 2000 3. PUBLIC HEARINQ TO CONSIDER PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION proposed OF APPROXIMATELY 193 ACRES KNQWN AS THE "ST NDQ II[ ST"ANNEXATIQN. WHICH, Sundquist IS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF r" STREET SOUTHWEST; WEST OF HIGHWAY Annexation 99: EAST OF 88"" AVENUE WEST; ,228 AND NORTH , -OF MAPLE LANE AND 234"" STREET SQUTHWEST_(File No. AX-98-101) Councilmember Petso excused herself from participation in this matter due to prior involvement dating back to last summer. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 2 Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson displayed a map illustrating the boundaries of the proposed annexation area and landmark parcels within the proposed annexation area. He explained at the Council's January 18 meeting, the Council met with the proponent, Eric Sundquist, the resident who brought this issue forward. At that time, the Council discussed, 1) the final boundary, 2) whether the area would be subject to existing bonded indebtedness, and 3) what zoning would be applied to the area (pre -zoning process or other method). At the January 18 meeting, several questions were raised by the Council and a decision was made to delay determination of the final boundary as well as the decision regarding assumption of existing bonded indebtedness until public testimony had been provided. Regarding zoning, the City typically adopts comparable zoning to Snohomish County's zoning to maintain/mimic existing zoning. Mr. Wilson explained the proposed annexation area was approximately 193 acres and he identified the boundaries of the area. He identified the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property on 228' and Fire Station #10 that is owned, operated, and maintained by the City but is currently in unincorporated Snohomish County. He advised the proposed annexation area abuts the City limits on the south and east and the area to the north was unincorporated Snohomish County although a small portion on the north side was within the City. Mr. Wilson said one of the issues raised by the Council was what revenues and expenditures could be expected over the next two years and whether there would be a positive or negative cash flow. Mr. Wilson advised that information was outlined in detail in the Council packet and Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler was present to provide further information if necessary. He suggested that issue be addressed following public testimony in the event similar questions were raised. In response to questions raised regarding the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property that is within the proposed annexation area, Mr. Wilson explained the total valuation of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property was approximately $702,000 and the total assessed value of the proposed annexation area was approximately $66 million. The petition method annexation process requires signatures of property owners representing at least 60% of the total valuation of the proposed annexation area for an annexation to be considered for final approval. He pointed out $702,000, the value of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property, was an insignificant amount of the total assessed valuation. He advised there were few commercial properties or multi -family properties included in the proposed annexation area and their total assessed valuation ranged from $5-7 million. He said none of these properties could individually or collectively "make or break" the annexation. In order to succeed, the annexation would require the overwhelming support of single family property owners in the area. In response to an inquiry regarding whether the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property should be excluded from the boundary of the proposed annexation area, Mr. Wilson explained during annexations, Snohomish County looks to cities to annex the full right-of-way as part of annexation thereby transferring ownership, maintenance, public safety issues, etc. to the local jurisdiction. If the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property on 228' was excluded, the City would either have to propose to eliminate 228' from the annexation which the Snohomish County Council and staff have effectively lobbied the Boundary Review Board in the past to ensure those areas are included. Another option would be to include a portion of the right-of-way and exclude a portion of the right-of-way, such as excluding the right-of-way which would result in a gap of approximately one block that would be unincorporated. This would lead to confusion over which jurisdiction had the public safety responsibility in this area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Wilson said Olympic View Water and Sewer District currently had other property within the City limits; the main headquarters building on Edmonds Way, which was annexed into the City several years ago. Although Olympic View Water and Sewer District's property on the north side of 228' would not be included in the proposed annexation area, by annexing the entire right-of-way, there would be improved access to the City as the right-of-way permitting agency. He pointed out most of the work between the two properties would occur in the right-of-way. Mr. Wilson said staff recommends the Council authorize circulation of the petitions with the boundaries as presently drawn. He said the Council must make the decision regarding bonded indebtedness. Staff also recommends comparable zoning be adopted as part of the annexation to maintain continuity and then any zoning issues could be re-evaluated as part of the City's annual Comprehensive Plan review process. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the City received three letters and a telephone call, 1) L. Smithson (no address) opposed to annexation, 2) C. R. Maier, 8727 Holly Lane, Edmonds, opposed to annexation, 3) an additional letter from C. Maier, opposed to annexation, and 4) Barbara Abruzzo, 23018 81" Place W, Edmonds, in support of annexation. John Hidell, 22430 86th Avenue W, Edmonds, a resident since 1965, said they went through this about two years ago when a vote was taken not to annex. He questioned why annexation was being sought again and why by this method. He was opposed to annexation and said Snohomish County had been very good to their neighborhood in addressing any street and light problems. Bob Brown, 23014 83'd Avenue West, Edmonds, said in the past 35 years, there had been %2 dozen votes rejecting annexation to Edmonds. He asked why it was thought this annexation request would be more palatable to residents in the proposed annexation area than past efforts. He questioned why he would want to annex into Edmonds. Patricia Meeker, 22711 96"' Avenue West, Edmonds, a commissioner with Olympic View Water and Sewer District, said she was present to answer any questions regarding Olympic View Water and Sewer District's position on the annexation. Steve Kish, 8925 229`h Place SW, Edmonds, (outside the annexation boundary), asked how the annexation boundary was established, who Mr. Sundquist was, whether he was related to the "Woodway Sundquist development," and how annexation would change the neighborhood as it would cut the neighborhood in half. Pat LaJambe, 22921 85'h Place W, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to annexation. She said previous votes indicated the majority of residents were opposed to annexation. She recalled Perrinville voted to annex into the City but voted not to accept the bonded indebtedness. She said City records indicate the Council voted to include the bonded indebtedness for their area. She said Mr. Wilson indicated residents in the proposed annexation area would have to accept the bonded indebtedness if the annexation effort was successful. She questioned why the Council found it acceptable for other areas not to be included in the bonded indebtedness but their area would not have any say in the matter. She said the Council also voted to include the $770,000 value of the fire station property as part of the required 60%. She objected to including the fire station property as it was not a private property and would not be included in property taxes. She recalled that although Mr. Wilson indicated the value of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District and the fire station properties were insignificant and could be included on the petition Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 4 in favor of annexation, those properties represented $1.5 million, the equivalent of 5-10 houses. She requested any annexation petition state that assumption of the bonded indebtedness would be required. Eleanor Howard, 22815 80`h Place W, #8, Edmonds, a resident since 1989, said there had been at least two ballot issues regarding annexation during the time she lived in the neighborhood; both times, the ballot issue was rejected by citizens in that area. She said she saw only two signs announcing tonight's meeting, signs that required exiting your vehicle and getting down on your knees to read. She said when Olympic View Water and Sewer District had a hearing, everyone got a notice on their door. She questioned why there had not been more publicity regarding this effort. She questioned what final say residents of the area would have. Mark Strom, 8826 228Ih Street SW, Edmonds, adjacent to (but outside) the proposed annexation area, said he did not know much about this annexation effort and was unable to find out what the public process was to move this effort forward. He understood annexation efforts have occurred in this area in the past. Larry Brainerd, 23118 84`h Avenue W, Edmonds, asked what was motivating Mr. Sundquist's efforts to have this area annexed. He expressed his appreciation for the flyer mailed to him regarding tonight's meeting. He questioned how annexation would impact him, what costs he could expect and what different services or service levels he could expect. He said annexation had been rejected twice and unless the benefits were clearly established, it would likely be rejected again. Bailey Vickell, 8427 Holly Lane, Edmonds, said in 1997, residents of the Esperance area rejected annexation 67% to 33%. He stressed residents in this area had repeatedly said no to annexation. He said those seeking signatures on the annexation petition asked people if they wanted to receive information about annexation, thereby misleading those who signed the petition. He questioned what the benefits of annexation were, explaining their water is provided by Olympic View Water and Sewer District, their power from PUD, and police from Snohomish County. He said The Edmonds EDP indicated a new police officer would be hired at a cost of $90 for a $300,000 home. He said they already have police protection. He said residents inside and outside this area still experience car and home invasions, which Edmonds Police have not stopped. He said their being annexed to Edmonds would not be better for them. He reiterated the City needed to show what they could do for them, commenting most people have been misled by information in the newspaper. He questioned how many of the property owners' voices in the 193 acres were being heard. He objected to property owners being the only ones with a voice in this vote. Rich Johnson, 8706 Holly Lane, Edmonds, a resident since 1965, said he came tonight to hear the latest "fairy tale" regarding how much better his life would be via annexation. John Justice, 8808 223rd Place SW, Edmonds, outside the annexation area, said there were numerous young families in the proposed annexation area as well as older residents on fixed incomes. He said due to the size of many properties in the proposed annexation area, their taxes would increase if annexed to Edmonds. He said this was unfair to older residents as well as young families. He said anytime a city or company undertook annexation or a merger, there was something in it for them and not for the citizens or employees. He was opposed to annexation, indicating once that area was annexed, his neighborhood would likely be annexed next. He urged the Council not to overturn the public's vote and to leave them alone. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 5 Phil Assink, 23202 83rd Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke "mostly" in favor of annexation due to the proximity of Council meetings and the gracious response to his inquiries to City Hall. He indicated he made some suggestions to Mr. Wilson regarding the process and suggested they be pursued. He observed there was some resistance to annexation in the neighborhood and suggested the Council consider not requiring assumption of the bonded indebtedness as a gesture of solidarity to the area. He understood the GMA had some impact on how annexation of small unincorporated areas occurred. He expressed his appreciation to Edmonds' mutual aid response into their area, as they do not have Sheriff Department's presence voluntarily, only on an emergency basis. Karen Zollman, 8826 228" Street SW, Edmonds, adjacent to the annexation area, said she was concerned with the financial impact of annexation. She said they moved from Seattle to the unincorporated area due to King County's history of asking voters for things, voters voting them down but then getting them anyway (such as the stadium). She was concerned with repeatedly rejecting votes and having the same issue brought up again. She commented property values were increasing astronomically and it was painful to be stuck with increased taxes when incomes did not increase at the same rate. She said their choice was to subdivide their property or move. Larry Brainerd asked if there was a significant development project that underlies the move for annexation. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. In response to questions raised by the public, Mr. Wilson explained in the state annexation statutes that govern the way cities review and process annexations, there are two processes for annexation — the election method (voted upon at a special or general election) or petition method. The state did not specify which method could be or must be used, both are provided as options. In either option, the City did not have the unilateral authority to annex an area without participation or "vote" by residents in the area. He said unlike the election method process, the petition method was a two step process; a resident interested in annexation approaches the City requesting initiation of an annexation process which is what Mr. Sundquist did. In this instance, staff discussed the petition method annexation process with the resident interested in pursuing annexation and City staff, utilizing the past history, state law and Boundary Review Board requirements for evaluation annexations, determined the annexation boundaries. Mr. Wilson explained the Boundary Review Board considers whether the proposed annexation area was a defined area, was easily identifinable and was a logical service area, which generally equates to boundaries along major streets. Another criterion is that an annexation area be contiguous to an existing City limit boundary. In this instance, approximately 40-50% of the annexation boundary was contiguous to existing City limits. Once the boundaries had been established, the petitions were prepared by the City to ensure they met the requirements of state law and the Boundary Review Board. The proponent's responsibility in the first phase was to seek sufficient signatures to indicate interest in the annexation — signatures of property owners representing at least 10% of the total assessed valuation. The signatures are sent to Snohomish County Auditor who verify the signatures and issue certification that the signatures are from property owners in the annexation area. In this instance, the petition that was certified had signatures of approximately 12% of the total assessed valuation. This initiates the process to the City Council for consideration whether to allow circulation of a formal petition. He stressed after certification of the initial petition, the Council could not simply annex the area, they could only authorize circulation of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 6 petitions for formal action. Whether this petition succeeds or fails will be determined by the participation of property owners in the proposed annexation area. If the Council approved circulation of the annexation petition tonight, that would allow the proponent to gather signatures. He would have up to six months to gather signatures (under state law a signature on a petition is only valid for six months from the date signed). If the proponent was unable to gather signatures from property owners representing 60% of the assessed valuation, the annexation dies. If he was successful in gathering sufficient signatures from property owners representing 60% of the assessed valuation, the petition would be forwarded to the Snohomish County Auditor for certification of the signatures. If the 60% was gathered and certified, the City would prepare a report that was submitted to the Boundary Review Board who designates a review period for soliciting comments from other agencies that may be affected by annexation such as Olympic View Water and Sewer District, Snohomish County, emergency services agencies, etc. as well as comments from residents within the proposed annexation area. If after 45 days the Boundary Review Board found the annexation was consistent with state requirements for approving the annexation, they could approve it or hold a public hearing to determine whether the boundaries should be modified, the annexation denied, or the annexation approved. Once the annexation was approved by the Boundary Review Board, it would be returned to the City and the Council was required to hold an additional public hearing which will be followed by Council action to adopt an ordinance to accept the annexation and establish an effective date. Mr. Wilson said as part of the process, the Council met with the proponent to discuss the boundaries and the Council will now determine if the boundaries were logical and represented good service areas. Regarding bonded indebtedness, the Council will make a decision regarding whether the proposed annexation area will be subject to the bonded indebtedness. If so, state law requires that it be clearly stated on the formal 60% petition. He stressed the Council had not yet made a decision regarding whether the area would be subject to bonded indebtedness and that would be part of the decision made tonight. He explained signing the petition was a vote in favor of annexation, not signing the petition was a vote against annexation. In response to the question of why the issue of annexation was being brought up again, Mr. Wilson explained there was no limit on the number of requests that could be made for annexation. In the past, the City put annexation out for public vote as part of multiple requests for annexation. This time, the process was citizen driven. If a resident asks to pursue the annexation process, the City could not refuse them the opportunity to pursue the process. In its public role, the City must remain neutral on the issue and provide factual information regarding the annexation to the proponent and the public. In the past, fact sheets have been prepared and made available to the public that address issues that are frequently raised. Regarding the question of Perrinville's assumption of bonded indebtedness, he explained the election method process required the annexation area to vote on whether to annex as well as whether to accept the bonded indebtedness. If residents vote against accepting the existing bonded indebtedness, the Council makes a decision whether to accept the annexation without the bonded indebtedness or the Council could choose not to accept the annexation. He summarized the question regarding assumption of bonded indebtedness is asked in both methods of annexation. In response to assessed valuation of Olympic View Water and Sewer District and the fire station property, he said staff considered the top ten valuations of property in the area based on Snohomish County records. The top ten were chosen as the lowest value in the top ten was $501,000 with remaining properties valued at below $400,000, indicating predominately single family properties. Property values Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 7 for the top ten properties ranged from $501,000 to $1.3 million. Only three properties are assessed over $1 million, one in the $800,000 range, two in the $700,000 range and three in the $500,000 range. The top ten properties account for only approximately 13% of the total assessed valuation of the entire proposed annexation area. He stressed it required 60% for the annexation to succeed under the petition method process. Even if all the top ten property owners signed the petition, signatures from at least 47% of the remaining assessed valuation would be required for the annexation to proceed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote.) Regarding notice, Mr. Wilson explained staff did the best they could to provide notice. The area was posted in seven locations. Notices were mailed to all property owners of record within the proposed annexation area (utilizing records obtained from Snohomish County), and notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the proposed annexation area in an effort to have as wide spread public notice as possible. He said notice was mailed at least ten days prior to the public hearing. Regarding what benefits a resident might derive from the proposed annexation, he said what was felt to be beneficial varied by individual. When comparing the tax rate property owners in Snohomish County pay versus the property taxes that would be paid if the area were annexed into the City, the City's taxes and fees (stormwater, etc.) are $1.18 less per $1,000 of assessed valuation. For a home valued at $200,000, the annual savings would be $159 or an 8.9% reduction. He clarified the City did not establish property valuations, that has been and would continue to be the responsibility of Snohomish County. He pointed out some taxes would remain the same whether a property was located in unincorporated Snohomish County or the City such as state schools, local schools and hospital district. The City's additional tax rates include the EMS levy and public safety bond. The proposed annexation area would still be required to pay off the Fire District 1 bond voted on previously. He explained even including the public safety bond and the Fire District's existing bond, the savings would still be $1.18 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. He said the tax applicable to the City's public safety bond was approximately $0.27 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. He said although Snohomish County did not have a public safety bond or the EMS levy, they have a road tax and library tax and Fire District 1 has a regular levy, a special levy, and a bond that are included in the property taxes currently paid by property owners in the proposed annexation area. Councilmember Plunkett referred to page 52 of the Council packet, "South Snohomish County vs. City of Edmonds 2000 Detailed Comparison of Property Tax, Single Family Residence," and asked whether that could be made available to the public. Mr. Wilson answered in past annexations, an annexation fact sheet has been prepared and made available to the public. He said the fact sheet would include the information on page 52 and page 53 (2000 Comparison of Costs including property taxes, surface water charge, utility taxes and street lighting charges). Council President Pro Tem. White asked Mr. Wilson to address the affect GMA has on annexation. Mr. Wilson explained the Planning Principles of GMA attempted to identify areas that were urban in nature that should receive their urban services from urban entities rather than from the county, a regional service provider. He explained urban services include sewer, water, police, fire, road maintenance, etc. versus regional services such as criminal justice, etc. GMA required urban growth area boundaries to be established by the county; everything within South Snohomish including this area was considered to be within an urban growth area. Therefore, the logical entity to provide services and planning would be the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 8 local jurisdiction rather than the county. He said urban areas would provide urban levels of service such as transportation, housing, employment to take advantage of scales of economy such as not extending sewers to unincorporated/rural areas and take advantage of areas that are already urban in nature. He pointed out GMA did not mandate that areas be annexed but it was logical that local services should be provided by the urban entity. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Snohomish County Sheriff's Department patrolled this area. Police Chief Robin Hickok answered they may send an occasional deputy through the area but he was not aware of the schedule for patrols. Councilmember Plunkett recalled a comment was made by a member of the public that public safety was provided on an on -call basis. Chief Hickok answered for situations such as domestic violence or felony in progress, they would send a vehicle likely from the South Precinct (164th Street in Lynnwood). Councilmember Plunkett asked if that differed from how the City of Edmonds would patrol the area. Chief Hickok answered the City's traffic unit would respond to a traffic complaint within a day and there would be a 4-minute response to most calls with a 2 minute or less response for a "hot" call. He stressed he was not criticizing the Snohomish County Sheriffs Office, the City was simply closer and could provide faster service. He explained Edmonds would also provide routine patrol through the area 24 hours a day. In response to the question regarding whether the proponent was seeking a development proposal, Mr. Wilson said in his conversations with Mr. Sundquist, there had not been any indication regarding a specific development proposal. Mr. Sundquist owns a property approximately the size of a single family lot and had not mentioned any development proposals during this process. As there were additional questions from the audience, Mayor Haakenson reopened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Council President Pro Tem White requested residents address their historical objection to annexation. Eleanor Howard, 22815 — 881' Place W #8, Edmonds, asked if there would be an opportunity during the second step of the petition process to find out why Mr. Sundquist wanted to pursue annexation. She said they have been opposed to annexation in the past because they were led to believe their taxes would increase. Councilmember Earling asked who led her to believe her taxes would increase. Ms. Howard answered that was the talk in the neighborhood and what her landlord told her. Steve Kish, 8925 2291' Place SW, Edmonds, said he was still unclear where the existing Edmonds boundaries were. Observing Mr. Sundquist apparently owned property in the area and thereby had the right to petition for annexation, he asked if anyone could petition for annexation. If so, could he (Mr. Kish) request the boundary be amended to include another area? John Hidell, 22430 861' Avenue W, Edmonds, asked how the decision was made to discount the votes taken in the past. Mayor Haakenson responded state law allowed any citizen, including Mr. Sundquist, to petition for annexation regardless of previous votes. Mr. Hidell said the previous vote had no life. Mayor Haakenson agreed. Rich Johnson, 8706 Holly Lane, Edmonds, commented that Mr. Sundquist owned property in the area and asked if he lived in the area. Larry Brainerd, 23118 84" Avenue W, Edmonds, said the lack of opportunity to vote on this issue brought people who were passionate about it to meetings. He said he and many others live in this area in quiet enjoyment. He said the petition process was begun by someone with a personal motivation, and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 9 long before he became aware of that effort. He was skeptical when he learned only last week that a meeting was being held this week regarding this process. He was more skeptical upon learning there had been two previous votes and a process had been determined that did not include voting. City Attorney Scott Snyder said this was a required step, the second of eight under state law that would be required to annex the area. The City received a petition; this hearing was required by state law to allow the Council to establish the boundaries for the next petition to be circulated. Regarding the question of how the annexation boundaries could be amended, he said they could be amended by the Council tonight, amended by the Council when the petition was returned, or amended by the Boundary Review Board. He stressed when the City received a petition, as it did from Mr. Sundquist, its obligation was to consider it and that was what the Council was doing — determining whether to authorize circulation of a petition that requires signatures from property owners of 60% of the assessed valuation in the proposed annexation area. Mayor Haakenson asked if the City could turn down a citizen's request for annexation. Mr. Snyder answered staff was obligated to accept the petition, forward it to Snohomish County to have the signatures certified and the petition returned to the Council for this public hearing. Ed Poole, 8708 228"' SW, Edmonds, asked Olympic View Water and Sewer District's position on the annexation. Pat LaJambe, 22921 85"' Place W, Edmonds, reiterated her question regarding the $770,000 valuation of the fire department property and her understanding that the Council had authorized the mayor to sign the petition on behalf of the City. She said only this area was paying the bond debt for the fire department and suggested that be reason for reconsidering this area's assumption of the public safety bonded indebtedness. She said she had not seen or received notification of. the January 18 meeting but expressed appreciation for the notice of tonight's meeting. Regarding the implication that Snohomish County did not address public safety issues in their area, she described incidents when the Sheriff's department responded in less than ten minutes regarding a traffic issue and a follow-up response to an accidental 911 call she made. She commended the service that Snohomish County provided in these two incidents. John Justice, 8808 233`d Place SW, Edmonds, said he was under the same assumption that taxes would increase upon annexation. He said many of the homes in the proposed annexation area are single family homes according to Snohomish County and his understanding regarding the differences between Snohomish County and City lot sizes, annexation would result in some lots accommodating another home. He asked if this would result in another lot and thus increased property taxes. Paul Stevens, 8631 231" Place SW, Edmonds, asked what other differences between City and County they might expect other than taxes and fire and police service. He verified his taxes increased when he moved from the City of Edmonds to unincorporated Snohomish County in 1996. Pat Meeker, 22711 96th Avenue West, Edmonds, a commissioner with Olympic View Water and Sewer District, said in August, the district was approached by Mr. Sundquist to sign the petition that would begin the process for annexation. Olympic View Water and Sewer District did not want to be involved and felt if they signed, their property would become part of the annexation process although the property was not taxed. The district felt it was up to the single family residents to determine whether they wanted to be annexed. However, if they did not sign the petition, they still became part of the process; therefore, they had asked to be removed from the annexation area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 10 Larry Brainerd asked if Mr. Sundquist discussed his intent regarding development with Olympic View Water and Sewer District. Ms. Meeker answered no, he had not. Mr. Brainerd said he was concerned because Olympic View Water and Sewer District's property was valued at approximately $800,000 and he felt it would have an affect. However, as indicated tonight, the property represents only 1.2% of the total assessed valuation of the area and therefore had little affect. Lorraine Garrett, 22818 86`h Place W, Edmonds, asked the affect of annexation on zoning and whether it would result in multi -family housing rather than single-family homes. Mr. Wilson identified the existing City limits on the map. In response to the question regarding whether there would be an opportunity to determine Mr. Sundquist's interest in annexation, Mr. Wilson said Mr. Sundquist owns one parcel of land with a single family home valued at approximately $168,000. In response to the question whether anyone could petition for annexation, Mr. Wilson answered yes, in the past, commercial property owners typically initiated the petition method annexation. It was unusual for an individual to pursue a petition method annexation for such a large area, approximately 193 acres and 800 residents. Mr. Wilson referred to Mr. Snyder's response regarding past votes, and explained the annexation statutes do not include a shelf life for a vote. One vote would not preclude someone else initiating annexation immediately for the next ballot or initiating a petition method annexation. He said staff was simply responding to inquiries as they arise and assisting the proponent in adhering to the state statues regarding annexation. Mr. Wilson said he was unaware whether Mr. Sundquist lived in the area but was aware he owned a single family residence in the proposed annexation area. Regarding the City signing the petition for the fire station property, Mr. Wilson said the City, as a property owner, had the proprietary right of any property owner to sign the petition. In this instance, the City has a facility owned, maintained and operated by the City in an unincorporated area. The City was asked and agreed to sign the petition of intent but that was the only document that had been signed. This allowed sufficient signatures to allow the process to proceed to this point to allow discussion with the public regarding the appropriate course of action but the City was not obligated to sign any future petitions. He said the valuation of the City's property represented only approximately 1% of the total assessed valuation, not a significant player in obtaining the 60%. In response to whether this was the only area that currently paid the Fire District bond, Mr. Wilson answered no. Any of the areas that annexed within the past five years south of 220t' such as Firdale Village and in the Westgate area, were in Fire District 111 and as part of the original bond, were still required to pay for it. Regarding why the public did not receive notice of the January 18 meeting, Mr. Wilson explained the annexation regulations established by the state require the Council to meet with the proponent to discuss issues such as the boundaries, bonded indebtedness, zoning, etc. The meeting with the proponent did not replace the public hearing and was intended to be a fact-finding opportunity for the Council with the person initiating the process. In response to questions regarding zoning, Mr. Wilson displayed a map illustrating comparable zoning designations for the area. In response to the question whether lots could be developed with an additional single family home, Mr. Wilson said it was possible but may not be any different than was currently Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 11 allowed by Snohomish County. He explained Snohomish County's single-family designation, R 8400 requires 8,400 square feet of lot area per single family unit. The City's comparable zoning designation is RS 8000, which requires 8,000 square feet of lot area per single family unit. He explained if a property owner in unincorporated Snohomish County with 16,000 square feet was annexed into the City, they could have the potential to subdivide into two single family lots. One difference between the City's single family zoning designation and Snohomish County's was the City did not have a duplex zone but the county did. Snohomish County regulations allow a single family lot that is 1 `/2 times the size of the minimum lot size, requirement to construct/establish a duplex on the property. Therefore, a property owner with a 12,600 square foot lot in Snohomish County could have a duplex; however, a 12,600 square foot lot in the City would still be one single family lot. Regarding other changes in service that could be expected, Mr. Wilson said this was similar to the question regarding what benefits would be derived from annexation. He commented one person indicated to him that annexation would allow greater ease to attend City Council meetings locally and in the evening versus attending Snohomish County Council meetings during the day in Everett. Others like the ease of accessing services in the community, including some who already utilize those services and feel it would be appropriate to annex and help pay for those services. He said other benefits may include locally processed building permits and locally held hearings. Mr. Wilson responded to the question whether zoning would change if the area was annexed, stating the only significant change was in single family that he addressed previously (RS 8000 in the City versus R 8400 in Snohomish County). He identified the boundaries of the proposed annexation area, explaining nearly all zoning to the west was single family R 8400 zoning. There are portions along Hwy. 99 that are zoned GC (General Commercial) and one parcel currently zoned multi -family residential that would be annexed with a comparable zoning. He said staff recommends adoption of comparable zoning to keep zoning as status quo as possible. He said the only changes that would/could occur would be via amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, which requires a public hearing process. He explained the City was attempting to make the Comprehensive Plan amendment process a neighborhood -based process to encourage neighborhoods to participate. He said staff did not foresee any changes to zoning at this time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote.) Councilmember Orvis asked if the zoning information would be included in the information packet that is made available to the public. Mr. Wilson explained the zoning is required to be part of the petition just as the issue of bonded indebtedness is required to be included on the petition. The back of the petition would include a map illustrating the existing zoning in Snohomish County and comparable zoning in the City. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Council President Pro Tern White pointed out Councilmember Petso, who removed herself from consideration of this item, was an Olympic View Water and Sewer District Commissioner and that aspect of the annexation had been thoroughly discussed by the Council. Council President Pro Tem White said he found this process offensive because the law required a citizen to obtain permission to petition fellow citizens and this public hearing was required to determine whether Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 12 the Council would grant that fundamental right. He said regardless of how citizens in the proposed annexation area may respond to the petition for annexation, he expected any citizen to be granted the right to petition fellow citizens. Councilmember Davis echoed Council President Pro Tem White's comments, pointing out the need for the process to move forward. Regardless of whether he agreed with the outcome, he agreed it was important to allow citizens to ask other citizens whether they wanted to be annexed. Councilmember Orvis said he was primarily concerned with the information that would be distributed to citizens and was satisfied staff would distribute accurate and thorough information during the process. Councilmember Earling said he understood the intensity of residents who have gone through this process a number of times but pointed out citizens had the right to petition government, a right any citizen would expect to have. He observed statements have been made that this process did not allow citizens to vote, however, property owners would have an opportunity to sign or not sign a petition for annexation. He supported moving forward with the annexation petition and said the property owners in the proposed annexation area had the opportunity to do whatever they felt was right. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CIRCULATION OF FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS FOR THE PROPOSED "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION AND PLACE ON THE FEBRUARY 22, 2000, COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 1) THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 1, 2) THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ASSUMING THE EXISTING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY, AND 3) THE CITY SHALL ADOPT COMPARABLE ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 11 FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote.) Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Councilmember Petso returned to her seat on the Council. 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS kmendECDC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20,75 TO RENUMBER THE CURRENT !0.75 - Lot SECTION, 20.75.055_ -- REQUIRED INFORMATION ON PRELIMINARY PLATS AS 20.75.060. combination D THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 20. 5. — LOT COMBINATION TO PROVIDE MECHANISM FOR COMBINING PARCELS OF LAND OTHER THAN THROUGH THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS (File No. CDC-99-129] Planning Manager Rob Chave said this ordinance was proposed to simplify the application process for a lot line combination. He explained this issue typically arose when there were two properties under the same ownership and the property owner wished to construct something that would exist across both properties. The City requires the lot line in common between the properties be removed. This is a simple process but in the past required a survey, which resulted in a fairly significant cost to an applicant. Research indicated a survey would not be required to combine the two lots. Removing the survey requirement reduces the cost for a lot line combination, making it easier for the applicant. When the Planning Board considered the ordinance, they recommended paragraph B of Section 20.75.055 be revised to read, "An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments" deleting the remainder of paragraph B. He said staff was agreeable to the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 13 Item #: 3 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Planning/Finance For Action: X For Information: Subject: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 193 ACRES KNOWN AS THE "SUNDQUIST- ANNEXATION, WHICH IS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SOUTHWEST; WEST OF HIGHWAY 99; EAST OF 88"H AVENUE WEST; AND NORTH OF MAPLE LANE AND 234'H STREET SOUTHWEST (FILE NO. AX-98-101). Agenda Time Agenda Date Exhibits Attached: 45 minutes February 15, 2000 — See Attached Exhibits List — Clearances: Department/initials Admin Svcs/Finance _ Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering City Clerk Parks & Rec Court Planni t� Personnel Public orks Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council Development Svcs ayor Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Services Public Safety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: Not applicable. Previous Council Action: On August 17, 1999, the Council reviewed and approved a request by Eric Sundquist to authorize the Mayor, as property owner of the property located at 23009 88 h Avenue West (City of Edmonds Fire Station No. 20) to sign the proponents "Intent to Annex" petition for the proposed annexation (see Exhibits 2 and 3). The proposed "Sundquist" annexation boundaries contain City of Edmonds Fire Station No. 20, located at 23009 88'` Avenue West. On December 14, 1999, the Council was scheduled to meet with the proponent of the proposed "Sundquist" annexation as is required by the State Annexation Statutes. However, the proponent was unable to attend the meeting. Therefore, the item was tabled (see Exhibit 4), Page 1 of 3 AX-99-101 COUNCIL HRO_01MOG10-FEB-00 FB.ES/REPORTS/000NCIL On January 18, 2000, the Council did meet with the proponents of the proposed "Sundquist" annexation to discuss and make a determination on the following (see Exhibit 5): 1. Final boundaries of the proposed annexation; 2. Determine whether or not the proposed annexation will be subject to the existing bonded indebtedness of the City; and, 3. Determine whether to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the area. After meeting with the proponent, the council deferred a decision on the questions 1 and 2 above until after the February 15, 2000, scheduled public hearing on the proposed annexation. The Council did provide direction for the City Attorney to begin preparation of alternative resolutions to authorize circulation of the formal annexation petitions, which the Council would consider on February 22°d. Additionally, in preparation for the February 15" public hearing, Council requested staff to research and respond to the following questions (see Exhibits 5 and 6): 1. Would the City derive revenue from the property if it were annexed? 2. Outline the pros and cons of including/excluding Olympic View Water & Sewer District property for the nronosed annexation area. Narrative: The proposed "Sundquist" annexation encompasses approximately 139 acres of the remaining "Esperance" unincorporated island. The proposed annexation boundaries are generally defined as: south of 228th Street Southwest; west of Highway 99; east of 88th Avenue West; north of Maple Lane on the west side of 84th Avenue West and north of 234th Street Southwest on the east side of 84th Avenue West (see Exhibit 1). Based on revised information (year 2000) from MetroScan records, the total assessed valuation of the proposed annexation area is approximately $66,654,170. We have conservatively estimated the total population of the proposed area at approximately 800, a final count would occur with a census if the annexation completed. Information obtained from the Finance Department regarding a comparison of the County and City year 2000 property tax rate and costs for properties within the proposed annexation boundaries indicates that should the area be annexed a single-family residence valued at $200,000 would pay approximately $203 less per year in the City. This equates in general to a tax rate in the City of $1,1870 per $1,000 of assessed valuation less than that in the County (see Exhibit 7). The tax rate used for the City for these calculations and comparison includes the City's existing bonded indebtedness for the Public Safety Complex. The following are responses to the two questions raised by the Council on January 18'� 1. Would the City derive revenue from the property if it were annexed? a. The Finance Department has calculated the revenues which would result from the proposed annexation (see Exhibit 8). (1) Projected revenues for 2001 total approximately $178,191 (2) Projected revenues for 2002 total approximately $268,567 The major difference between projected revenues for 2001 and 2002 is that the City would not likely receive any property tax revenue until 2002. z b. The Finance Department has also calculated potential expenditures identified by the Departments and Divisions within the City (see Exhibit 9). (1) Projected expenditures for 2001 total approximately $157,876.96 (2) Projected expenditures for 2002 total approximately $155,200.00 c. The Finance Department estimates based on the above show the following revenue/expenditure forecast (see Exhibit 10): (1) Projected revenues/expenditures for 2001: shortfall of approximately $49,686 (2) Projected revenues/expenditures for 2002: surplus of approximately $43,367 2. Outline the pros and cons of including/excluding Olympic View Water & Sewer District property for the proposed annexation area. The total assessed valuation of the District's properties within the proposed annexation area is approximately $702,000, which is approximately 1.2% of the total assessed valuation for the proposed annexation area. Therefore, with such a low percentage value to the overall annexation area, the District's property would not present an undue influence under the petition method. In order for this annexation to proceed, it will require substantial support for the single-family residential property owners in the area. ■ The current annexation boundaries include all of the 228 h Street Southwest right-of-way. In order to exclude the two District parcels the boundaries would have to be redrawn to remove part of the right-of-way from the annexation boundaries which could lead to jurisdictional confusion related to public safety on 228`h. It is very likely that the County will push very stro«gly for the entire 228t` Street Southwest right-of-way to be in the annexation boundaries. • Currently the District has property both within the City and in the unincorporated area. ■ If the properties are included in the annexation boundaries, this should not present any permitting problems for the District. With the District properties included in the annexation area, the entire 228`s Street Southwest right-of-way would also be annexed. Therefore, any work they may need to do in the right-of-way between their properties most all be processed through the City of Edmonds. Recommended Action: Direct staff to prepare a Resolution authorizing circulation of Formal Annexation Petitions for the proposed "Sundquist" annexation and place on the February 22, 2000, Council consent agenda, subject to the following: 1. The boundaries of the proposed annexation shall be as shown on Exhibit 1. 2. The proposed annexation area shall be subject to assuming the existing bonded indebtedness, of the City. 3. The City shall adopt the comparable zoning and land use designations as shown on Exhibit 11 for the proposed annexation. Council Action: 3 COUNCIL EXHIBITS LIST FILE NO. AX-98-101 (Submitted as of February 10, 2000) 1. Map of Proposed Annexation Area 2. August 17, 1999, Council Agenda Packet 3. August 17, 1999, Council Meeting Minutes 4. December 14, 1999, Council Meeting Minutes 5. January 18, 2000, Council Agenda Packet 6. January 18, 2000, Council Meeting Minutes 7. 2000 Detailed Comparison of Property Tax and Cost to a Single -Family Residence (prepared 2/9/00 by the City of Edmonds Administrative Services Department) 8. 2001 — 2002 Projected Revenue from "Sundquist" Annexation (prepared 2/10/00 by the City of Edmonds Administrative Services Department) 9. 2001 — 2002 Projected Expenditures for the "Sundquist" Annexation for the Years Ending December 31, 2001 — 2002 (prepared 2/10/00 by the City of Edmonds Administrative Services Department) 10. Revenues/Expenditures Statement for the "Sundquist" Annexation for the Years Ending December 31, 2001 — 2002 (prepared 2/10/00 by the City of Edmonds Administrative Services Department) 11. City of Edmonds/Snohomish County Comparable Zoning Map AX-9&101 COUNCILBXHIBITS_2-10.00.DOC110-FEB-00 REPORTSWAFREXHIMS 5 `I1: Item #: L For Informatinn- Subject: AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS — SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION (FOR FIRE STATION PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23009 88TH AVENUE WEST). Agenda Time: Consent Agenda Date: August 17, 1999 Exhibits Attached: 1. Proposed Annexation Boundaries (File No. AX-98-101) 2. Location of Fire Station No. 20 • 3. Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition Expenditure Amount Required: $0 Budgeted: Funding Source: Not applicable. Previous Council Action: None. Narrative: Clearances: Department/Initials Admin Svcs/Finance City Attorney City Clerk Court Personnel Fire Police Development Svcs Community Svcs Engineering Parks & Rec Plannin t,7 Public rks Treatment Plant City Council Mayor Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Services Public Seety_ Approved for Consent Agenda: �— Recommend Review by Fell Council: Appropriation $ 0 Reauired- $0 The proponent of the "Sundquist Annexation" is currently in the process of gathering signatures of property owners who own a minimum of 10% of the total assessed valuation of the property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation area (see Exhibit 1). Within the proposed annexation boundaries, the City of Edmonds owns and operates Fire Station No. 20 located at 23009 88'h Avenue West (see Exhibit 2). • The proponent has requested that the City of Edmonds, as owner of the property for Fire Station 20 which is within the boundaries of the proposed annexation area, sign the Notice Qf Intention t� o Comrxmence Annexation Pr ceedin s (the "petition') (see Exhibits 2 and 3). This petition is only the initial step in the AX,M-roi HR.esrnnON OimocnZAUG.9 PaP 1 oft FILEvREPORWCOUNCIL EXHIBIT 2 "petition method" annexation process. Under the petition method of annexation, the proponent is required to obtain signatures of property owners who own a minimum of 10% of the total assessed valuation of the proposed annexation area. In this particular instance, the proposed annexation area has a total approximate assessed valuation of $58,764,580 (based on 1998 assessed valuations). Therefore, the proponent is required to obtain signatures on the petition representing an assessed valuation of approximately $5.9 million. The assessed valuation of Fire Station 20 is approximately $777,000, therefore, signature by the City of Edmonds on the petition will not by itself be sufficient to initiate the annexation process. If the proponent is successful in gathering sufficient signatures on the petition, in order for the annexation to receive final approval, the proponent would then be required to obtain signatures on the final annexation petition of property owners representing 60% of the assessed valuation of the final annexation boundaries. Additionally, the City is required to hold a minimum of two public hearings on the annexation proposal to provide the public the opportunity to testify either for or against the proposed annexation. Recommended Action: Council authorize either the Mayor or her representative, as property owner, to sign the petition titled Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings for the proposed "Sundquist" Annexation, City of Edmonds File No. AX-98-101 (see Exhibit 3). Council Action: • 0 m '9JW ~ °� t30Md 4L City of Edmonds Planning Division File No. AX-98-101 +L t19° NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS • m x W =a w TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who ere the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Ceuncll of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the fob}owing aura to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" H The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with she undersigned to determine; (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexatIon. (2) Whether the City Council will n:quire the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to he annexed. (4) This pngc is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and 1s intended by the signers of the Naeice of Inrenflon to be presented and considered as one Notice of Inrenrion and may be filed with other pages containing lignatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Inrenrion. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS I. Petitioner most be property owner. 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 4. Petitions must be signed In ink. 3. Return all petitions to address on right. J.Each paritioncr must include the dale Ihny sign petition. T. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even If only one name is on them. RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: City of Edmonds Attn-. City Clerk 121 5'" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more then one of these petitions, or signs n petition seeking election when he or she Is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise no! ualined to sl n or who makes hereln anz false statement, shall be gElity of a misdemeanor. PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAMR HERE STREET ADDRESSICITYISTATErMP CODE TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER (OPTIONAL) DATE �sa►Mr.Iaawraeorraena pose_ar_ /o EXHIBIT "All LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at s point on the wesferty right -of -sway margin of aft Ave. W- aS its Intersection with the Wes" projectfurh of the northerly right-O way margin of 233rd Pi, S.W., being a point on the existing CRy omits of Edrnorhds as descrIDed in OmInancca Number 3163; thence-easlerly akxV said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its Intersection with the am!erly right-of-way margin of bath Ave. W,; thence sot&t ady along said easterly margin to tis irrtemecdon with the northerly right-d-Way of 234th St. SW: thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly Hoe of Let 21. Skalton's Lake MrAJear Five Acre Tracts• as recorded in Volume 8 of Phats. Page 21, reeords of Soohomish County. Weahinoonh; thence northerly along said westerly ins to the northwest comer of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the noiiherty lM of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projecton of said northerly 6ne [ohs i ters*Ulw with the centerline of the fight-ol-way of SR-9'} francs northasalsrly along said centerline to its khtersecdon wkh the easterly projeclkm of the southerly right -of -wiry margin of 228th SL S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projec of the westerly rlghl-oPAW margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly @" said southerly projection to its Intersection wth the northerly right-of-way margin of 228• St. S.W.; therhoa westerly hhlang said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-ol,*ay n'hargin of WAve. W.., therhoe southerly a" said westerly margin to the print of beginning. AX-98-101.doc September 10, 1098 • G']aimfor I (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JERRY LJUNGGREN Damages ($317.11) .,all for Bids - (E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR LIQUID CHLORINE FOR THE hiorine I WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, YOST POOL, AND OTHER AGENCIES mall for Bids— (F) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE A 48" ROTARY LAWN Lawn Mower MOWER WITH GRASS CATCHER LIFT SYSTEM FOR THE CEMETERY all for Bids-- (G) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE A SNOW PLOW WITH w Plow A V—BOX SANDER FOR THE STREET DIVISION �-ederal I (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ACQUIRE FEDERAL SURPLUS surplus Equip. EQUIPMENT arking Stall (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR PARKING ([,ease STALLS AT "OLD PUBLIC WORKS" SITE Public safety (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH F,omplex Art ARTISTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX TO EXTEND COMPLETION DATE Construction (K) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENT TO LEASE NO. 30092 offences set :Sunset & WITH BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION ;S 10Mn AND MAINTENANCE OF FENCES ALONG SUNSET AND OCEAN AVENUES 'Sundquist (L) AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE Annexation ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS — SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION (FOR FIRE STATION PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23009 — 88TH AVENUE WEST) ego 958 commending (3. Haakenson 3. Reap& Plaque ary Haekenson (M) RESOLUTION NO. 958 COMMENDING COUNCIL PRESIDENT GARY HA AKr+.NSON Mayor Pro Tem Miller explained Councilmember Haakenson served on the Council for the past four years and as Council President for the past 19 months. He relinquished his position as Council President on August 3 in accordance with an unwritten policy that no Councilmember shall be Council President while a candidate for office. Mayor Pro Tem Miller read Resolution No. 958 thanking Gary Haakenson for his service to the City Council as Council President and presented a plaque to him recognizing his service to the Council. Councilmember Haakenson thanked the Council for the Resolution and plaque and said it was his pleasure to serve as Council President. He said the Council, an overworked and underpaid body, has the best interest of the City at heart. Public Art for 4. rIHekinan, ,span ART PROJECT Cultural Program Coordinator Frances Chapin explained in 1998 the Sister City Commission developed the concept of locating a piece of public art outside the new City Hall being constructed in Edmonds' Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 17, 1 EXHIBIT 3 Page 2 /Z { J CONSIDERED. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER WHITE OPPOSED AND COUNCILMEMBER EARLING ABSTAINED. Findings of ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A CLOSED RECORD MEETING HELD ON iFact— DECEMBER 7 1999 — APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION TO Mallonee APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY DOUGLAS SPEE FOR A MIXED USE BUILDING INCORPORAIrG Appeal COMMERCIAL USES AND PARKING FOR THE FIRST FLOOR AND 18 RESIDENTIAL UNID ON AP-99-201 THE 2 AND Vu FLOORS. THE DEVELOPMENT ALSO IN LODES AN UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 307 BELL STREET AND 210 3 11D AVENUE NORTH AND IS ZONED "CDMMI INITY BUSINESS — BC." Appellant: James A Mallonee I File No. AP- 99-2011 A licant: Doa las 5 ee 1 File N . ADB.9$-191 Council President Miller advised a motion for reconsideration had also been submitted by Mr. Mallonee. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE MATTER OF MALLONEE V. SPEE AND NOTE THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. MOTION CARRIED. 3rd #3286 ITEM T: ORDINANCE NO. 3286 A PROVING AND CONFIRMING'THE FINAL ASSESSMENTS AND LID 215 ASSESSMENT ROLL OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 215 THE PERRINVILLE Assessment SANITARY SEWER LID WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED AND ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE D Roll EXTENDING SEWER MAINS AND SERVICE TO THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PERRINVILLE ANNEXATION AREA AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE N . 3233 AN&bEVYrNGAND ASSESSING THE CDT THEREOF AGAIN T THE SEVERAL LOTS, TRACTS AND PARCELS OF LAND SHOWN ON SAID ROLL Council President Miller advised there had been minor verbiage changes to the ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL ORDINANCE NO. 3286 WITH THE NOTED CHANGES. MOTION CARRIED. Proposed 3. MEETING WITH PROPONENT OF THE PROPOSED " SUND IS ' ANNEXATION AND Sundquist' CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CIRCULATION F Annexation FORMAL ANNEXATI N PETITIONS. ro onent: Eric Suridguist I File N ` AX-9 -101 Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this is a proposal to initiate the process for circulation of the formal petition for annexation of the area south of 228 h Street SW, west of Hwy. 99, and east of 88s' Avenue W, the area known as Esperance. He explained this area totals 193 acres with a total valuation of $58.7 million. The proponents have collected the requisite petitions to initiate the process. The purpose of tonight's meeting is for the Councif to meet with petitioners, discuss the boundaries and reach agreement on several issues including, 1) whether to accept, reject or modify the proposed annexation boundaries, 2) whether or not to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the subject area, 3) whether or not .to require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed (staff's recommendation would be to require assumption of existing City indebtedness), and 4) whether or not to authorize staff to prepare the required "60%" petitions for circulation. He advised the recommended action is to direct staff to- prepare a resolution authorizing circulation of Formal Annexation petitions for the proposed "Sundquist" annexation and place the issue on the January 25, 2000 Council Consent Agenda, and that the resolution to authorize circulation of formal annexation petitions not be considered until after the January 18, 2000 Council public hearing. EXHIBIT 4 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 14, 1999 /3r Page 4 There was no one representing the Sundquist annexation in the audience. Councilmember Earling requested this matter be addressed later in the agenda in the event a representative arrived later. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO MOVE ITEM 3 TO ITEM 6A. MOTION CARRIED. rd #3288 4. ❑RDINANCE NO. 3288 AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATE❑ mend 1999 TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS et ud - Accounting Manager Doug Farmen advised twice a year the budget is amended as is legally required whenever money is transferred from one fund to another. He advised the budget amendment is $165,220 which brings the total 1999 City budget to $55,002,640. He commented this is basically a housekeeping requirement to meet legal audit requirements so the City does not exceed appropriations approved by the Council. He advised a 1999 Budget Summary was provided in the Council packet as Exhibit A. Mayor Fahey pointed out this is an amendment to the City's entire 1999 budget, not just the General Fund. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised some of the changes are increases in cash revenue; all other appropriations have been individually reviewed and approved by the Council throughout the year. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3288, AN. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3237 AND ORDINANCE NO. 3272 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED. Appraisal_ 5. REPORT ON PEER REVIEW OF THE APPRAISAL SUBMITTED BY THE EDMONDS Portion of SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE 216 TH STREET 2161h St. SW SOUTHWEST RIGHT-OF-WAY IMMEDIATELY EAST OF 84 AVENUE WEST Edmonds Row School District 1 File No. ST-99-24 Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained that when the Council last reviewed the appraisal, a request was made for a peer review of the appraisal submitted by Jack Dinniene on behalf of the Edmonds School District to confirm the information in Mr. Dinniene's findings. The peer review was completed by Jim Dodge, Macaulay & Associates, LTD, who found the valuation of raw land to be supported by information in the original appraisal but did not feel the valuation of the subject property was accurately determined and did not feel the method for reducing its value was sufficiently supported in the report. Rather than the right-of-way being 10% of the value of one raw lot, Mr. Dodge recommended it be 25- 50% of the value of one raw lot based on the fact that it is more than t/2 a lot size and because of its location in the middle of the property and fronting on 84 h. Staff recommends the Council use the 50% value of one raw lot to determine the value of this portion of right-of-way. The value of one raw lot as determined in the original report was $22,500, 50% is $11,250. As required by City ordinances, the school district would only pay 50% of that value or $5,625 to acquire that portion of right-of-way. In response to a question raised by Councilmember Van Hollebeke, City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the valuation of the right-of-way was determined to be $11,250 and 50% was the $5,625. He explained the full value was $11,250; half of that value was determined by the appraiser as the appropriate amount for the school district because the City is limited to receiving half the value unless the City acquired property via a condemnation or acquisition procedure. He explained the City requires most of its rights - of -way via donation or dedication in the subdivision process. 1V Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 14, 1999 Page 5 Originator. I Item #: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: MEETING WITH PROPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION AND CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CIRCULATION OF FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS. (PROPONENT: ERIC SUNDQUIST / FILE NO. AX 98-101) Agenda Time: Agenda Date: Exhibits Attached: 20 minutes January 18, 2000 1. December 14, 1999, Council Packet 2. Draft minutes from December 14, 1999, Council Meeting Clearances: Department/Initials Admin Svcs/Finance _ Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering City Clerk Parks & Rec Court Pi C-> Personnel Public Works Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council Development Svcs Mayor Reviewed by Council Fumnee Committee: Community services Public Safety Approved for ConsentAgenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: _ $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Not applicable. Previous Council Action: The proposed annexations boundaries contain City of Edmonds Fire Station No. 20, located at 23009 88d' Avenue West. On August 17, 1999, the Council authorized the Mayor, as property owner of the property located at 23009 88d' Avenue West (City of Edmonds Fire Station No. 20) to sign the proponents "Intent to Annex" petition for the proposed annexation (see Exhibit 1). This item was originally scheduled for council consideration, however, the proponent was unable to attend the meeting. Therefore, the item was tabled (see Exhibits 1 and 2). Narrative: The City has received a petition indicating interest in annexation to the City of Edmonds of approximately 193 acres generally located south of 228d' Street Southwest; west of Highway 99; east of 88* Avenue West; and, north of Maple Lane and 234d' Street Southwest (see Exhibit 1). To consider these petitions for ex-W101-eouNcn xevawoR iox ozooca&JAx-0o Pagelof3 ,s EXHIBIT 5 HLE&REFORMCOUNCIL annexation, the City Council must, by law, meet with the petitioners to discuss the request for annexation. The purpose of the meeting is to: 1. Discuss the boundaries of the proposed annexation; 2. Discuss whether or not the proposed annexation will be subject to the existing bonded indebtedness of the City; and, 3. Discuss whether to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the area. The "Intent to Annex" petitions submitted by the proponents represent approximately 12% of the assessed valuation of the subject area (see Exhibit 1). Subsequent to this meeting with the proponents the Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on January 18, 2000, to solicit public input on the proposed annexation. The scheduled public hearing will be for consideration of a Resolution to allow circulation of formal annexation petitions within the subject area, provided the Council decides favorably on the following: 1. Whether to accept, reject, or modify the proposed annexation boundaries. Staff analysis: The proposed annexation boundaries lie within the unincorporated island which is commonly referred to as "Esperance". The "Esperance" area is entirely surrounded by existing City of Edmonds boundaries and is within the City of Edmonds "Urban Growth Area." The proposed boundaries do provide for a logical and serviceable annexation area. The proposed boundaries either follow existing City limits, or established and developed streets. Therefore, should the area annex to the City, it would be easy and logical to service. Acceptance of the proposed annexation area would be appropriate considering that the area does he within the City's Urban Growth Area. 2. Whether or not to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the subject area. Staff analysis: The proposed annexation area is essentially fully developed, with only a few parcels of land which are undeveloped. Future development in the subject area would either be in -fill (e.g. short plat of an existing single-family lot to create an additional lot), or redevelopment of property fronting along Highway 99. Therefore, the City should adopt comparable Zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the proposed annexation area. The following is a brief comparison of the existing County zoning and the comparable City of Edmonds zoning designation (see Exhibit 1). 1. County Zoning: R-8,400 (single-family residential - minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet required) This designation is the predominate zoning in the area and covers everything west of what would be the extension of 80'h Avenue West, with some small areas east of the extension of 80's Avenue West, north of 2306' Street Southwest. Comparable City Zoning: RS-8 (single-family residential - minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet required) /6 2. County Zoning: MR (Multiple Residential - 1 unit for each 2,000 square feet of lot area) This designation is only placed on one lot within the annexation area. The subject lot is located north of 230"' Street Southwest, a few lots west of Highway 99. Comparable City Zoning: RM-1.5 (Multiple Residential - 1 unit for each 1,500 square feet of lot area) 3. County Zoning: GC (General Commercial) This zoning designation applies to the properties which generally front on Highway 99. Comparable City Zoning,: CG (General Commercial) _ 3. Whether or not to require the assumption of the existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed Staff analysis: The citizens of the City of Edmonds recently passed a public safety bond issue. The passage of the bond issue resulted in a maximum projected rate charged to property owners of approximately $0.29 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Because the bond issue represents an area -wide benefit, the most equitable manner to treat the question of "bonded indebtedness" would be to require the proposed annexation area to assume a proportionate share of the City's existing bonded indebtedness. The approximate Assessed Valuation of the proposed annexation area is $58,764,580. 4. Whether or not to authorize the staff to prepare the required "60%" petitions for circulation. Staff analysis: Annexation of the subject area is consistent with the City's adopted Urban Growth Area and would assist in reducing the remaining portion of the unincorporated island surrounded by the City of Edmonds. Annexation would also have the potential benefit of improving efficiencies of providing City services. Since the City already services the area surrounding the proposed annexation area, extension of City services to this area could be accommodated easily. Additionally, the City currently provides some services to the subject area (e.g. Fire) which would mean that City services would not necessarily have to expand in order to accommodate the proposed annexation. Therefore, authorization to allow preparation and circulation of formal annexation petitions would be appropriate. However, final authorization for preparation and circulation of petitions should not be given until after the January 18, 2000, public hearing on the proposed annexation. Recommended Actions: 1. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution authorizing circulation of Formal Annexations Petitions for the proposed "Sundquist" annexation and place on the February 22, 2000, Council consent agenda. 2. Resolution to authorize circulation of formal annexation petitions shall not be considered until after the February 15, 2000, Council meeting date. /% r) Ir Item #: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator. Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: MEETING WITH PROPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION AND CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CIRCULATION OF FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS. (PROPONENT: ERIC SUNDQUIST / FILE NO. AX-98-101) Agenda Time Agenda Date: Exhibits Attached: 20 minutes December 14,1999 1. Vicinity / Proposed Annexation Area Map 2. Letter from Eric Sundquist requesting to initiate annexation process (6/22/98) 3. "Intent to Annexation" Petitions (14 petitions) 4. Certificate of Sufficiency issued by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office on October 29,1999 5. Map of comparable County/City Zoning Designations 6. Council Agenda item packet from August 17, 1999, re: "Intent to Annex" petition 7. August 17, 1999, Council Minutes 8. Letter from Lora Petso + President, Board of Commissioners ■ Olympic View Water & Sewer District (8/12/99) Clearances: Department/initials Admin Svcs/Finance _ Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering City Clerk Parks & Roc Court Planning Personnel Public Works Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council Development Svcs Mayor Reviewed by Council Fbwncr Committee: comman4 services puba;., safety Approved for Consent Agenda; Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation _Required: $ 0 _ Budgeted: $ 0 _ _ Required: $ 0 AX-W10_C0MCn.MrMWOFia%oar191MM" p+� 1 of3 M9V"P0?CV. EXHIBIT 1 Previous Council Action: The proposed annexation boundaries contain City of Edmonds- Fire Station No. 20, located at 23009 88'h Avenue West. On August 17, 1999, the Council authorized the Mayor, as property owner of the property located at 23009 8e Avenue West (City of Edmonds Fire Station No. 20) to sign the proponents "Intent to Annex" petition for the proposed annexation (see Exhibits 6 and 7). Narrative: The City has received a petition indicating interest in annexation to the City of Edmonds of approximately 193 acres generally located south of 22e Street Southwest; west of Highway 99; east, of 881h Avenue West; and, north of Maple Lane and 230' Street Southwest (see Exhibits 1 through 3). To consider these Petitions for annexation, the City Council must, by law, meet with the petitioners to discuss the request for annexation. The purpose of the meeting is to: 1. Discuss the boundaries of the proposed annexation; 2. Discuss whether or not the proposed annexation will be subject to the existing bonded indebtedness of the City; and, 3. Discuss whether to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the area. The "Intent to Annex" petitions submitted by the proponents represent approximately 12% of the assessed valuation of the subject area (see Exhibits 3 and 4). Subsequent to this meeting with the proponents the Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on January 18, 2000, to solicit public input on the proposed annexation. The scheduled public hearing will be for consideration of a Resolution to allow circulation of formal annexation petitions within the subject area, provided the Council decides favorably on the following: I. Whether to accept, reject, or modify the proposed annexation boundaries. Staff analysis: The proposed annexation boundaries lie within the unincorporated island which is commonly referred to as "Esperance". The `'Esperance" area is entirely surrounded by existing City of Edmonds boundaries and is within the City of Edmonds "Urban Growth Area." The proposed boundaries do provide for a logical and serviceable annexation area. The proposed boundaries either follow existing City limits, or established and developed streets. Therefore, should the area annex to the City, it would be easy and logical to service. Acceptance of the proposed annexation area would be appropriate considering that the area does lie within the City's Urban Growth Area. 2. Whether or not to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the subject area_ 5 iss: The proposed annexation area is essentially fully developed, with only a few parcels of land which are undeveloped. Future development in the subject area would either be in -till (e.g. short plat of an existing single-family lot to create an additional lot), or re -development of property fronting along Highway 99. Therefore, the City should adopt comparable Zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designabi. for the proposed annexation area. The following is a brief comparison of the existing County zoning and the comparable City of Edmonds zoning designation (see Exhibit S). /9 I 1. CounV Zoning: R-8,400 (single-family residential - minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet required) This designation is the predominate zoning in the area and covers everything west of what would be the extension of 80'k' Avenue West, with some small areas east of the extension of ge Avenue West, north of 230`s Street Southwest. Comparable City Zoning: RS-8 (single-family residential - minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet required) 2. County Zoning: MR (Multiple Residential -1 unit for each 2,000 square feet of lot area) This designation is only planed on one lot within the annexation area. The subject lot is located north of 230th Street Southwest, a few lots west of Highway 99. Comparable City, Zoning,: RM-1.5 (Multiple Residential - 1 unit for each 1,500 square feet of lot area) 3. County Zoning: GC (General Commercial) This zoning designation applies to the properties which generally front on Highway 99. Comparable Q Zonin : CG (General Commercial) 3. Whether or not .to require the assumption of the existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. Staff analysis: The citizens of the City of Edmonds recently passed a public safety bond issue. The passage of the. bond issue resulted in a maximum projected rate charged to property owners of approximately $0.29 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Because the bond issue represents an area -wide benefit, the most equitable manner to treat the question of "bonded indebtedness" would be to require the proposed annexation area to assume a proportionate share of the City's existing bonded indebtedness. The approximate Assessed Valuation of the proposed annexation area is $58,764,580. 4. Whether or not to authorize the staff to prepare the required "60%" petitions for circulation. Staff analysis: Annexation of the subject area is consistent with the City's adopted Urban Growth Area and would assist in reducing the remaining portion of the unincorporated island surrounded by the City of Edmonds. Annexation would also have the potential benefit of improving efficiencies of providing City services. Since the City already services the area. surrounding" the proposed annexation area, extension of City services to this area could be accommodated easily. Additionally, the City currently provides some services to the subject area (e.g. Fire) which would mean that City services would not necessarily have to expand in order to accommodate the proposed annexation. Therefore, authorization to allow preparation and circulation of formal annexation petitions would be appropriate. However, final authorization for preparation and circulation of petitions should not be given until after the January 18, 2000, public hearing on the proposed annexation. Recommended Actions: 1. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution authorizing circulation of Formal Annexation Petitions for the proposed "Sundquist" annexation and place on the January 25, 2000, Council consent agenda. 2. Resolution to authorize circulation of formal annexation petitions shall not be considered until after the January 18, 2000, Council meeting date. 0 June 22, 1998 Jeff Wilson City of Edmonds Edmonds, Wa. 985020 Dear Mr. Wilson 1 would like to start an annexation procedure in the area of my residence. The proposed area would be 228 st. as the north boundary, 88 Ave. W. as the west. the city limits at app. Hiway 99 as the east and the city limits at about 234 st. as the south. If you could prepare the necessary paperwork 1 could work .on signatures. Sincerely, itl—� Eric SundgL C 7 0 - )----7 1 / 12 EXHIBIT 2 i --'r0 RECEIVED CWf Edmonds AUG 2 41999 PI Division File No. 9i3-101 EDMONDS CITI' CLERK NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCU- SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINCIMN The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of (he City of Edmonds that a is the desire general the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annuxarion proceedings, pursuant to (he Sty of 1 m SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUISTANNEXATIoN", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is rcqutstcd that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept 0e: proposed annexation (2) W(tether the City Council will require the Si Intl IInneau5 adoption of proposed xaning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council wilt require [lie assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages conlaining identical text material and is Intended by the signers of the Notice of lei tenrion to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other psges conlaining signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Interrrian. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF Iyy INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. TEdm—onds, monds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Cleric 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. nue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. WA 98020 5. Return all petitionsto address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise rtof qualified to si a or who makes herein an false statement shall be Fullty of u misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S PMT] ONER'SSIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE STREET ADDRESS/C17q/STATLZIp NUMBER / CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE - v / RUST*,r-r/ Fo(atondt Cr I" ,i3d f o Y7Yo -serf - Chuvc Lr abt;-OL(-05' E/� 7'f/vofr3o-/ d o ma' r R4.o �(nk e�c. kf, iClrssar r r Pw_or_ .ur.taaa.twreraoonaonar 25 EXHIBIT 3 0 RDA/O ti�� •tt ' -:,r• 1 RECEIVED ° Edmonds �MAU6 2 41999 , g i)tV1S1(}tl f DMONDS CITY CLERK File No. -98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCB., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of tile properly which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City Of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to covnmcnce annexation proceedings, pursuant 10 RCW 35A.14.I20: SEE EXHIBIT "A" If The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. lIl It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the sirmiltaneous ndoption of proposed zoning regulations for she proposed area to be annexed, (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption Of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed, (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text mnterial and is in leaded by tire signers or the Notice of Ia+enrian to be presented and considered as one Notice of Ittrenrion and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Invention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Alin: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5'n Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signer! in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 S. Return ail petitions to address on righ[. 6. Each petitioner musi include the dare [hey sign petition. 7. Every signahtrc counus. kctum all petitions, even if only one name is an them. WARNING- Every person who signs this petition with any other these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election he than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of when or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not ualified to si n or who makes herein an fslse statement shall be ull of a misdemeanor, PET1T]DNER'SSICNATURE PRINT NAME HERE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP TAX LUMBER R'S CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE 7 q Yq —000 d 013 _po.a6 797q —W � .tj=,Oo-01 s illy --00 — 1L 7ffi%.avo-oa 7 .�s P-P_4_ . y AX4&NN_l&UfrAadraan-n Rtl1&%1rWA"hffi u �+t of Edmonds AUG 2 41999 y2g Division ` EDMONDS CITY CLERK FHe No. ,ar. 1190 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WAgHiNGTON 1 The undersigned, who arc the owners of no( Icss than ten (10%) percent in value, according to tl)c assessed valuation for general taxation of the Property which annexation is being sought, hereby Rdvise The City Council of the City of dnrSmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area I commence annexation proceedings, pursuam to RCW 35A.i3.I20: SEE EXHIBIT "A" 11 The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred document. to is described on Exhibit "A" an the reverse side of this III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the Fling of this request for a meeting with the undusigned I determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council wili requite the simuITBncous adoption of proposed Inning mguIniions for the proposed area To be annexed. (4) Whether [hc City Council will roquirc the assumPtion of existing City mdebteditess by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical texI nulcriaI and is in(ended by the signers of the Notice of lntell lion to be presented and considered as one Atorice of lnrenrfon and cony he tidal with other pages cot,to i(ling signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a sit Sic Notice of In fenrion, RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF lyy INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Ann: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once, 121 5� Avenuc North 4. Petitions rust be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one nomc is on them. WARNING. Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more then one of these petltions, or signs a pedtiori set kirig election when he or she is not a Regal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not quidined to sin or who makes he tin any false stniern t shall be Rulity of a misdemean"r. ITIONEFt'S51GNA7URE PRfNTNAME HERE V. Ae7JW19o' .I-PirMET C.7L9 nAm s � i ' ))J p, elf,l SI'REETADDRESS/CITY/STATEMM TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER CODE I(OPTIONAL) DATE '6101 mriQw L.lu %2 SG 3 3 - 2 33 Pe -%LJ M'Spi6 . IF p,+2ry $4933-.233 P4.S.W.CAw*te FDMt?►,1DS ig0�b l— nN-V-Lle, Lt-1 LP e' q 1 «a} du 7- Fiat— 06 axwrtat_ra�tsrmotwcrrs 25 °e EnAyq RECEIVED �a f Edmonds _ AUG 2 41999 P q g Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No.i}[-98 ]01 F*r. s E90 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASH]NMON I 'Me undersigned, who arc the owners of not less than ten 00%) percent in value. Recording to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the Property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to corwnence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A•I4. t20: SEE EXHIBIT "A" li The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council wiii accept ncc pfaposcd attncxation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simullancous adoption of proposed xonipg regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of ea cxistingCity indcbtedncxs by the arm to be annexed. (4) 'Phis page is one of a group of pages containing idcnticai text material and is iwand cd by the signers of the Notice of inern (ion to be presented and considered as one Notice of/nrenrion and may be filed wish other pages containing signatures be considered as a single Notice of Intention. which cumulatively may RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF I99 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete icgnl name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner tiny only sign Petition once. 1215 '" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA gg020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of nowt u"Fln tl to or rigns or w petition eessherein election y r onewhen rrtcnt shall bE Rulalty orlavoter, or er,or algro a Petition when he or she b otherwise SS STREET ADDRESS/CITY/SPATErZIp I TAX UMBER R's �G .liti2�i ��� Ca�drQG���.9ti��'LLEY' 8G�rf MAP1B �.9NE 4.y 'G'tt/7 C��:!e •rA%y �,� AGLE% �6/y •r�trs��E �f�.vE I e Z> MaAIZ, WIf % fe021, c'E, GJ /� n / /YID F�L 1.�.; ,fLl C7QLl•Ce.�'�1192u +GG'YTC"It2F.r.�//f �iZll LrrC.II e1Jjt/ 5Ja3.t. ,'i2lOnet5 W/f 9FO26 tVrI IUN AIL; DATE Sa5`f -0&1 - /1J 1J7-o41-041 �-ram 313,7- t,4,.- �8R /y sI-tlq uo-og 4 ov •trratw_ twarmor�an-w Qy et�,y -� RECEIVED � �'EiIn0Ild5 AUG 2 41999 lei. '1 Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. .98-101 F. t s90 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINOTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less Than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of ncc propefty which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residanis of the following area to commance ennexaliOr' proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.126: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested than the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept she proposed annex a lion. (2) Whether she City Council will require the simullaneans adoptiart of proppsed Zoning Mgulalions for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumplion of existing City indehicditr= by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of n group of pages containing identical text material and is if)lmded by the signers Of ill Notice Of InFen (ion I be prrscnted and considcred as arc h'oricc of Infrnriun and may be filed with otlie r pages containing signatures whie a cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice ❑fineenrion. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 1" INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 :City ClAvenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, s, WA North 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 98020 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign pelitinn. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petidons, or signs a petition seeking election when he o�he Is not a legal voter, or unlined tosign, n sins a Petition when he or she 4 othersvhx not or who makes herein any raise smtrment shall he guilty of a misdr:n�ngnr STREET ADDRESS/CffrATF/LIP I TA ASS N MBER A'S IT OU -6c( ti y _(tA Y. 9'-1 ,,x.r�wr_awrsraaorroR.w Pw-or-. 7 o,F RECEIVED Edmonds t` AUG 2 419EDMONDS CITY CLERK 99 Pla Division File Igo.-98-101 4'+e. y 49❑ NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, acconiing to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being soughr, hereby advise the City Council of the City of rdmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residtnts of the following area to corrunence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the Simullancous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed Arta to be itnncxcd. (3) ' Whether the City Council wit I require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is ialcad ed by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be pmscr[ed and considered as arc Notice of Ineenrian and may be filed with other pages containing signa[rrres which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 ]INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn• City Clerk 3. Petitioner rosy only sign Petition dnce. 121 S" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 99020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them WARNING: Every person who signs this 1;cdtin n with any other than his ur her trot name, or who knowingly signs more than ane of these petitlons, or signs n peddat) seeking election when he or she Is not s legal voter, or sIgus a he Is petition when or ahc otherwise not uelliied to si n or who makes herein an false staremen sTMof a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S ADDRESS/CrrY/SPATE/LIP NUMBER PETITT]IONER'SSSIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERECODE (OPTIONAL) DATE l.Lj4.,�..f� �NrctP Assr.+K V'r, WA goo" Z,1rwoJ s � 1*0Z'L f y f� �ab+ti- S. L�s•� 5 �Df�t+T+l>; t t...a-�, � (8 r 1 .� 3/ V -.;t- 8 3ed W FC tv+ Li ..aD!' !! Z 3 r5o E, £3Iis--4 - w LLA IJL" to .c% y. Y 4t 2�1IZ 0-( Ave- w 1 9-626 g/ll 9 Pop —or 0.8 �x..at_uanroocrrwcTw� pp eD qyQ� RECEIVED of Edmonds ' Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK HeNe.-98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who are the awncrs of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to [he assessed valuation for general taxation of the propusy which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undcnslgtsed residents of the following area to commence annexa[ion proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.1207 SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the riling of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed snncxation. (2) Whethcr she City Council will require the simuhancous ndoption of proposed zoning regulations for the prvpused area to be annexed. (3) Whather the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) 'this page is one of a group of Pages containing identical text material and is iwend eut by the signers of the Notice of Inrrntlon to -be presented and considered as one No"et ojlnrention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulasivety may be considered as a single Novice of infrnrion. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: I. Petitioner must be property owner. City orFdmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioncr may only sign Petition once. 1215 '° Avenue North 4. Petitions must he signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Re rum sll petitions I address on right. 6. Each W)'lioncf mtrsI include the date they sign petition, 7. Every signature counts. Retum all petitions, even If only one name is on theme. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other then his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitlom, or signs a petition seeking election when he or ahe V not s legal voter, air signs a petition when he or she is otherwlae not qualified to sin or who makes herein an fulsr seaternrn[ sha11 be Ru11tY of a misdemeu — G G�Zti`•_ _ICsL U-t.I s&-Ilk) STREET ADDRESS/CI7y/STATEjLIP TAXl1MBASS�ER R'S PRINTNAMEHERE CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE c{t Blue, x3 t�" 5,i,`) �„� 3 t�obwza3 ia,c, f d-1�1-9a � �unc�q w S% iaZo4tac,oco iia-ri-,e 1)-7 O'W-V°' "'` f 7 6- �It7-oYr - 03/ -00u7 - 09 I -d0-o6 7-8�99 Pw—or_ aJ W LM_IwreeOaalaaeRrr nrlvfumiunnw [xAv A AJ. D�"'a,�a RECEIVED Edmonds AUG AUG 2 4 1999 I'I�"� Division k?l r Fite No. "c-98-101 EDMONDS CITY CLERK +t. 1540 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINOTON I The undersigned, who arc the owners of not less than lea (10%) perceal in value, according to the asstsscd valuation for general taxation of the property which annexnrion is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edroonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following arca to ccnumnce annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120 SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Cmincil will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning reguiaiinns for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Inrrnrion to be ptesentttf and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice oflnrenrion. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF Iyy INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner ust sign with complete legal nae. Ann: City Clerk 3. Petitioner mmm may only sign Petition once. 121 5"Avenuc North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 S. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner mush include the dntc they sign petition, 7. Every signarure counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who slgm this petition with any other than hls or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she Is not a legal voter, or signs a petition oo when ig or she is otherwise not qur lined to Sign,orwho herein any ralsesln[ement, shell he gulliy of a misdemean"r- ASS STREET ADDRESSMITY/STATE ZIP +TAN MBER R'S f• •,. ,r. ! • I � ,?. •• t 4 r 11- r /1•. !. 01-� 3 ?- �75 A „r- S yv G 6-7000,0 m.c�x .lt'c n sae J deg �n St ll7 a34 .S'f- s 5 6 1 - udd - - r 01 —0—Gcj at •,/ 4 r 6 UPI -Wq mA iHo)�. �u�tr23c)3Z- sl- �3 [ Pr w -ea-or !1 Aix* ij✓L /I'(�Kenwtl X3/� b• r1it coy- M, LiA p irxa►rw^rwrsrµ�oer�a•oc�w ""-�- 30 °•6� RECEIVED Edmonds r AUG 2 q 1999 Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. -98-101 • /'''r. 184Q NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON Thin undersigned, who are the owners of not less than [en (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation Of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council Of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to comrnencc aninexarion proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14,120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" lI The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION', herein referred to is. described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is rcquesled that the, City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the 1ndersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexa[ian. (2) Whether the Cily Col cii will require the simultaneous adoption Of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be art ixed. (3) Whether the City Council wilt require the assumption Of cxisIing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed, (4) '1-his page is one or s group cf pages con [0inirig idertticnI text material and is intended by the signers of [he Notice of Imenrion so be preserved and considered as one Ni Of htvendon and may be filed wish other pages containing signarures which cnmuletivcIy may be considered as a single Notice of Inrrnria+t. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: I. Pal itioner must be property owner, City of Edmonds 2. Pet iIloner must sign with cample[c legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may Only sign Petition once. 121 r Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 S. Return all petitions to addresi on right. 6. Fisch petitismer must include live dale they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name Is on [hem. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seekingelection when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a e6 . g petition when he or she is otherwise not q usllficd tn�sLlpjgl or who makes herein an false slotemenl shall hr Rufity o[ a misdrmeannr. ETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRIN'i' NAME FFERi? STREET ADDRESS/CITY/sTATEILIp CODE TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER C��7J!{�c� � �r�harc� i3 ,5'wartz tuts- �3u S� �w (OPTIONAL) DATE 5'Arem 9Bor6 0/j _ a - 06 71ION Wr4L,t.-k ,sa bil �.i S - ovo -g r ;-q' CwLm a}.(rr IJA 4, Vij;., O�--O- SAl e-S 4-40 ge>-1 'i ffo o z -v 7 Peas ar � % ers�att_ts.reruwot.ota. tea: EOo RECEIVED `Edmonds AUG 2 it 1999 IDivision .. EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. �{}(-98.101 'It. t %9 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I. The undersigned, who are the owners of not less Than Icn (I076) percent in value, according Io the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which 11MMa[ian is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area [a commence annexation prtxecdings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14. 1.20: SEE EXHIBIT "A" H The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City Indebtedness by [he area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text materiel and is intended by rho signers of the Nwier of Inrenriors ro be presented and eonsidared as one Notice ofiretention and may be filed wish orher pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be con sidcrrd as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF Iyg INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Rerum all petitions co address on right. 6. Each perilioner must include the dale They sign pe(ilian. 7. Every Signature co ants. Return all petitions, even it anly one name 15 on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly, signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise :tot qualified to sin or who makes harem an false storemen! shall be ail or. a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESSICITYWATEff" NUMBER PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE MVr'IONAL) DATE 7Yt° — Y3,, 5 f, S, ti� S7s�— om—a3 �'"` /� �k e�'t �� Ev�h•.h.ri 11 G7�. Q9o,) — OY —03 7 �.• ,�;L N6RM1_Io4fr.D00LLOLT+M �fwniria.V"NA11111 OY e°M0 RECEIVED u �� f Edmonds 4.`` ""� ; AUG 2 41999 F Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. X.48-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who arc the owners of not less titan ten (10%) pefeent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of [he properly which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the residents of the following area to eommcnce ennexatiOn proceedings, pursuant to RC 35A.14,120: desire of the undersigned SEE EXHMIT "A" I[ The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the Proposed Annexarion. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption Of existing City indebtedness by she area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a gmuP of pages containing idenricaI text rnatcrial and is Intended by the signers of the Narice of lAlenrion to be Presented and considered as one Notice oflnrenrlon and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of foreneian. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. T'Edmonds, Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. ity Clcrl[ 3. Petitioner my only sign pet ition once, Avenue North 4. Pethions must be signed in ink. WA 9g020 S. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. ivory signetnrc coupes. Return all Petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these peddons, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not rluallnrd In sERn, ar who mikes herein a,�y Iatse statement, shall he 2u11ty or a mi.td.--..- Pl=. 11ONER'SSIGNATURE PRM'NAME HERE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/3TA77tfldP ASS TA NUMBER R'S CODE (OPTIONAL) DA7E C. �.. \..w .•tiers }303J—$0%�/�'� Y4[8—as}�olO— ( ", '-^�...+�v+►� .� . •� v.! �.t,_! c �j 0'C- Q /r Liter 4[B-cc} a /� a�la-7 L2- W-c7 i 1. •'11 Pop _o_ �s+wt.r_rsararmarwrnw 3,�, nc.,.wrtw.�aen," RECEIVED Edntonds AUG 2 41999 q6 Division • EDMONDS CITY CLERK He inn.-98"1Q1 8 f. I g96 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than Ion (10%) perccnl in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the properly which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Ednwnds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the fO110wing area to c0mrncncc annexation procxedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, SEE EXHIBIT "A" If The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the teverse side of this document. ' iIl It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a dale not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the sinrultrutcous adoption of proposed 20ning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City CnunciI will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area w be annexed. (4) 71Tis page is anc of a stoup of pages containing idcniical text nmtcrial end is intended by the signers of the Notice of intenrion to be presented and considered as one Notice of it, rention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which curnutat ivety may be considered as a single Notice of Inrenrion. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF I" INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds. WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all Petitions, even if only one nsrne is on them, WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she Is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not 9uAliffed to sign, or who mskrs herein an false statement shall be xulfty of a misdemeanor. /duC[risT 4o,4m> STREET ADDRESSiCITY/S'I'ATElLIP CODE eya1 171VZZy ,52>m oNps Wrf 98o,*1 ED f9 NAS W& 'NO Zb v � - �t /1 Orr Isay 724) �lI Z -re &OF7I 1� #A/ZLa##f MA'URA 1 C_p A►oS WA i&2,41� 1 Ei>PA D 5 wt- Fro Zd 0. eR,bq+� Ffya1 OLLY �NE TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER (OPTIONAL) DATE 1t707-a'1— Oo3-00-off 91134 7rfS-t7o3,— _�p SOS t6 47dS-�>7--or7 xs,�. wt_raanrmcna ectw µ 0y 1' D,a .'���i ;;, °moo �► RECEIVED nfEdmonds it Division AUG 2 41999 N File o.-98-iUl EDMONDS CITY CLERK NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1 The undersigned, who me the Owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according tO the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of" that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" 11 The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III 11 is requested that the Cily Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the riling of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to dcicmiine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed armcxation. (2) VVlicthcr she City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposal zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whcthcr the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the errs to be annexed. (4) 11his page is one of a group of pages containing identical text tnntcrial and is intended by the signers of the Notice of intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Inrention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumuiativcn may be considered as a singto Notice ofinren(ion. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Alin: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5' Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she H not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not ua)lfled to si n or i+1ro nrnkes herein an false stsirmenl, shall be ¢ullty of a misdemrannr TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CM/STATFILIP NUMBER iVYr14[4ALJ DATE 141, Mee, EDMQAIDS "73'6ZC n •00 f�,�r/GnI7G t •tst111191> f �C �.a wC- .V 7 AJIIAUA ustrnueou.anarnr ecr w raaar�nw, RECEIVED 'Edmonds Division AUG 2 q 1999 liite No.-98-101 EDMONDS CITY CLERK NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHIN(YMN The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in vaiuc, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents Of the following area ro commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" 1I The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIbT A)VNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. lII It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to detcmtine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require thesirnultnneous adaption of proposed toning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed, (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text nsatcrial and is intended by the signers of the Notice of (nreftrian to be presented and considered as one Notice ojlnrenrion and Tray be Tied with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice ojlnrenrion. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF Iy9 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 S'" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 S. Retum all petitions to address an Tight. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signantre counts. Retum all petitions. even if only one name is an them, WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not unllfled to sl n or who makes herein nn false Statcmcnt shot] be oil of a tntsdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE2fP NUMBER PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE (OPTIONAL,) DATE Thomas A. MayorPro Temler 3 OO %— 9(,a . IV 8-.7'/.?9 ,%,,; City of Edmonds Pw_or_ 36 ,at..�r.r_rwrreoovrwtaar 14J M�AT'rW>J.'AK1<M Snohomish County Assessor's Office Gall S. Rauch County Assessor Cindy S. Portrnann Chief Deputy CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY M/S #510 3000 Rockefeller Avenue Everett; WA 98201-4046 (425) 388-3433 I, Linda Hjelle, Snohomish County Deputy Assessor, in accordance with the requirements of RCW 35A.01.040, hereby certify that the Petition for the City. of Edmonds Sundquist Annexation AX- 98-101, submitted to the Assessor on August 27th, 1 999is signed. by the owners of property comprising 12% of the total assessed value within the area described in the petition, according to the records of the Snohomish County Assessor. The determination of sufficiency was begun on August 27th, 1999. Dated this 29th day of October, 1999. By , Deputy Assessoi- ,37 EXHIBIT 4 •mvnra�an•e+7/s�u�a�z7w+•ersirr.��tYRnv.�i:e"xrocw+s.P-•7+.*.:r�cxRy�:rim:nA:+4�kxauv�m+,tr.�txsticrd�:+:�nrssXnyya�i;Mt�nsr�tx:r5°SL'F`4StX°l�'++-:'; `:�: �at�st�n¢�w:�r{�a mv.�5oa,rice..ae.•++ee*.ne�•rMn•�•ar�• . go r 1 •1-r EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Planning Division Agenda Memo For Action: X Item #: L For Information - Subject: AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS — SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION (FOR FIRE STATION PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23009 88TH AVENUE WEST), Agenda Time: Consent Agenda Date: August 17, 1999 Exhibits Attached:- 1. Proposed Annexation Boundaries (File No. AX-98-101) 2. Location of Fire Station No. 20 ' 3. Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition Clearances: DepartmenUlnitials Admin Svcs/Finance City Attorney City Clerk Court Personnel Fire Police Development Svcs Community Svcs Engineering Parks & Rec Plannin r�7 Public rks Treatment Plan City Council Mayor Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Services Public Safety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: 0 Bud eted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: Not applicable. Previous Council Action: None, Narrative: The proponent of the "Sundquist Annexation" is currently in the process of gathering signatures of property owners who own a minimum of 10% of the total assessed valuation of the property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation area (see Exhibit 1). Within the proposed annexation boundaries, the City of Edmonds owns and operates Fire Station No. 20 located at 23009 88'h Avenue West (see Exhibit 2). The proponent has requested that the City of Edmonds, as owner of the property for Fire Station 20 which is within the boundaries of the proposed annexation area, sign the Notice of intention to Comrnen Annexation Proceeding (the "petition') (see Exhibits 2 and 3). This petition is only the initial step in the 3q ,X.M11D1_n"STATION I.D=,z-AUGN pne I QfZ ?1UEXHIBIT 6 -VUP0Kr-C"CIL Olk r • "petition method" annexation process. Under the petition method of annexation, the proponent is required to obtain signatures of property owners who own a minimum of 10% of the total assessed valuation of the proposed annexation area. In this particular instance, the' proposed annexation area has a total approximate assessed valuation of $58,764,580 (based on 1999 assessed valuations). Therefore, the proponent is required to obtain signatures on the petition representing an assessed valuation of approximately $5.9 million. The assessed valuation of Fire Station 20 is approximately $777,000, therefore, signature by the City of Edmonds on the petition will not by itself be sufficient to initiate the annexation process. If the proponent is successful in gathering sufficient signatures on the petition, in order for the annexation to receive final approval, the proponent would then be required to obtain signatures on•the final annexation petition of property owners representing 60% of the assessed valuation of the final annexation boundaries. Additionally, the City is required to hold a minimum of two public hearings on the annexation proposal to provide the public the opportunity to testify either for or against the proposed annexation. Recommended Action: Council authorize either the Mayor or her representative, as property owner, to sign the petition titled Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings. for the proposed."Sundquist" Annexation, City of Edmonds File No. AX-98-101 (see Exhibit 3). - Council Action: • • qD ZHM M wy 03 w Op gfl.A, City of Edmonds Planning Division File No, AX-98-141 Z'r. 1 tea NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNC11, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASMGTON The'undemigned, who arc the owners of not leis than it (1696] n cm in raluc, ace rdin property which annexation is heirs sou o g to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the Fes idenls of the followin g gel hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned R area to commence annexation pfucccdings, pursuant go RC 35A.14.120. SEE EXHIBIT "A" II ddocument.' The Property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described an Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this It is requested that the City Council of the Ci of Ed in cmtint; with the undersigned lode[ ry moadi act a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for is meeting (1) Whether the City Council will &prep[ the pruposed annexation. (2) Whether the Ci[y Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed wnin n (3) Whether the City C & nc gm will require the atsumption of existing City indebtedon"w-u yy [guIhe ations afar She be propo ed. area to be ■nnoxed. (4} press page is c0 ne of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Norlce of lnranfion to be presented and considered &s one finleNalicof Intention and may be filed with Other pages containing signatures which eumulotiveTy rnny be considered u a single Nwiea aflneenrron RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS. DAY OF I99 rNM UC7n 0? fS TL? SI G NE RS I. Petitioner must be property owner, RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TOt 2. Petitioner must sign with compte(c Iegat name. City orEdnxnwa 3. Petitioner may only sign petition once, Attn: City Cleric �1. Petitions must be signed in Ink. 121 S" Avcnoe North S. Rerurn all petition,, to address on right, EdTr'on�• WA 98020 6. t?ach peririaotr mutt include the date they sign petltlon. 7. Evcry sjgnsrure counts. Return all petitions, even if Only one name it on thorn. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than hill or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions or liens petition seeking eleetlon when he or she is not ■legs) toter, or al su • no[ uoFliird to sl n or who mail g petition when he or she Is otherwhie es herein an raise nutrment. pop—er �ST3RoEEoTgAD—DRiS&CSTAX ASSESSORS CS NUMBE AjLC7bT Tlop'n AI.] 4H A,,-,. }3 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. a Its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly dpht-ofiway margin of 233rd PL S.W„ being s point on the exbft Cly Limits of Edmonds as described In Ordinance Number 3163; thence -easterly along said westerly projection. said norforty margin, and Its sea" projection to b Intersection with Bne easterly rW-a way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence soull" song said easterly margin to Its Intersection with the nor6lery rlphW way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said north" margin to b intersection with the westerly Ins of Lot 21. Skelon'e Lake McAjeer Five Am Tracts, as recorded In Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County. WasMo n; thence norfhary along sold westerly tins tothe northwest comer of said Lot 21; thence "stefty along ire northerly Lw of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the eastarfy projection or said northerly 9" to hs htenmc lon with the cenlerke of the rlghl�f-way or SR•99; thence northeasterly Sorg sold cenferline to Its Intersection with the easterly projection of do southerly righto" margin of 228th St. S.W.; thenca westerly abng said projection and said south" margin to its Intersection with the southerly, projection of Ire westerly Nht- way rnargln of SM Ave. W' thence north" Wong said southerly projection to Its Intersectlon with the north" right -okay margin of 228e SL M the,= westerly slung said Mrthedy rnargin end its westerly projection to Is Intersection with the westerly r3phl-at.wsy ffwgin of 680 Avs- W.; thence south" Wbrg said westerly margin to tine point of beginning. AX-99-101.doc September 10. 1998 Haim for amages all for Bids - hlotine all forBids— !am Mowcr all for B ids — now Plaw urplus Equip. arising sail case ublic Safcty :ora lex An :ansnructivn f i`euces — wasai & �-,Can undquiat ,naexstina vrnrncsa 95a cuding . [iaakca5au 3. I & Plrquc f keasoo (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JERRY LJUNGGREN ($317.11) (E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR LIQUID CHLORINE FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, YOST POOL, AND OTHER AGENCIES (F) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE A 48" ROTARY LAWN MOWER WITH GRASS CATCHER LIFT SYSTEM FOR THE CEMETERY (G) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE A SNOW PLOW WITH A V-BOX SANDER FOR THE STREET DMSION (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ACQUIRE FEDERAL SURPLUS EQUIPMENT (1) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO- SIGN A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR PARKING STALLS AT "OLD PUBLIC WORKS" SITE (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH ARTISTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX TO EXTEND COMPLETION DATE (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENT TO LEASE NO. 30092 WITH BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF FENCES ALONG SUNSET AND OCEAN AVENUES (L) AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN NOTICE OF INTENTION - TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS - SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION (FOR FIRE STATION PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23009 '- 887M AVENUE WEST) (1V1) RESOLUTION NO.958 COMMENDING COUNCIL PRESIDENT GARY HAAKENSON T l�A�AKE�_ SCAN F SE}-{1l�rF�AS_CDUN(�B�tll?j,� Mayor Pro Tem Miller explained Councilmember Haakenson served on the Council for the past four years and as Council President for the past 19 months. He relinquished his position as Council President on August 3 in accordance with an unwritten policy that no Councilmember shall be Council President while a candidate for office. Mayor Pro Tern Miller read Resolution No. 958 thanking Gary Haakenson for his service to the City Council as Council President and presented a plaque to him recognizing his service to the Council. Councilmember Haakenson thanked the Council for the Resolution and plaque and said it was his pleasure to serve as Council President. He said the Council, an overworked and underpaid body, has the best interest of the City at heart. Cultural Program Coordinator Frances Chapin explained in 1998 the Sister City Commission developed the concept of locating a piece of public art outside the new City Hall being constructed in Edmonds' Edmond% City Council Approved Minutes August 17, 1999 L15 EXHIBIT 7 pap / d-dW-7 7 OLYMPIC VIEW Vr-14ER & SEWER DISTRICT 23725 Edmonds Way Phone (425) 774-7769 Edmonds WA 98026-8981 Fax (425) 670-1856 August 12, 1999 City Council City of Edmonds 121 5' Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Honorable Council: Board of Commissioners John E Elsasser Patricia L Meeker Lora L Petso It is our understanding you are considering an annexation of that portion of Snohomish County South of 228 th St. in the Esperance area. Olympic View is a property owner within the area under consideration. We support the concept that the residents of an area should decide whether they wish to become part of the City of Edmonds. The current process where owners are asked to sign a petition requesting annexation has put us. in an awkward position. If we sign, we may, by virtue of our ownership value, be unduly influencing the results, The same is true if we do not sign. In addition, since we own land and have major integrated facilities on both sides of 2281" St„ this annexation could split our facilities into two different municipalities. While this normally does not create a problem, the integrated nature of these facilities and their operation may make this split undesirable. For these reasons, we request that our property along the south side of 228"' St. between 80"' Ave and 84t' Ave. be removed from the annexation area. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this request in further detail, please let us know or contact our General Manager, Roger C. Eberhart. Sincerely, OLYMPIC VI W WATER AN R DISTRICT Lora Petso President, Board of Commissioners LP/rce DISTRIBUT AUG 2 0 1999 TO EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED AuG 2 0 im CJIY COUNCIL V/ EXHIBIT 8- COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN TIM MATTER OF I3ERTRICH V. OLYMPIC VIEW DELI AND NOTE THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER WHITE OPPOSED AND COUNCILMEMBER EARLING ABSTAINED. ►►- .. ' 1 ! �14►I! -I i . ! 1 L 81 1 1; , . � ! -G 'L ! �l _ 1 •� 1 1 ;�i Mr 1 I► i a r «! ' :_�� :_ •' -�.- klt t ! -;` _M:-I. I - - ! _ _' ' u!- i I . T U 1►1+ i _I .I_I . i �� ! i :.' 1 L• .Yi* :.. 1►1� ! ti - � tu_I :_ L ,erg ►L 1 Council President Miller advised a motion for reconsideration had also been submitted by Mr. Mallonee. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE MATTER OF MALLONEE V. SPEE AND 'NOTE THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. MOTION CARRIED; Council President Miller advised there had been minor verbiage changes to the ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL ORDINANCE NO. 3286 WITH THE NOTED CHANGES. MOTION CARRIED. ' f'+U ! i.I_ 't! � 1 131! f .:111 �RI- _: 0.ME NEWAM11.-..-! 1 y ! -: _ .Ikr I . 1. OU Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this is a proposal to initiate the process for circulation of the formal petition for annexation of the area south of 228t' Street SW, west of Hwy. 99, and east of 88t' Avenue W, the area known as Esperance. He explained this area totals 193 acres with a total valuation of 158.7 million. The proponents have collected the requisite petitions to initiate the process. The purpose of tonight's meeting is for the Council to meet with petitioners, discuss the boundaries and reach agreement on several issues including, 1) whether to accept, reject or modify the proposed annexation boundaries, 2) whether or not to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the subject area, 3) whether or not to require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed (staffs recommendation would be to require assumption of existing City indebtedness), and 4) whether or not to authorize staff to prepare the required "64%" petitions for circulation. He advised the recommended action is to direct staff to prepare a resolution authorizing circulation of Formal City Council Draft Minutes % December 14, IM EXHIBIT 2 Page 0. r Annexation petitions for the proposed "Sundquist" annexation and place the issue on the January 25, 2000 Council Consent Agenda, and that the resolution to authorize circulation of formal annexation petitions not be considered until after the January 18, 2000 Council public hearing. There was no one representing the Sundquist annexation in the audience. Councilmember Earling requested this matter be addressed later in the agenda in the event a representative arrived. later. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEN BER EARLING, TO MOVE ITEM 3 TO ITEM 6A. MOTION CARRIED. 4. !•r ! v , Accounting Manager Doug Farmen advised twice a year the budget is amended as is legally required whenever money is transferred from one fund to another. He advised the budget amendment is $165,220 which brings the total 1999 City budget to $55,002,640. He commented this is basically a housekeeping requirement to meet legal audit requirements so the City does not exceed appropriations approved by the Council. He advised a 1999 Budget Summary was provided in the Council packet as Exhibit A. Mayor Fahey pointed out this is an amendment to the City's entire 1999 budget, not just the General Fund. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised some of the changes are increases in cash revenue; all other appropriations have been individually reviewed and approved by the Council throughout the year. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3288, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3237 AND ORDINANCE NO. 3272 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED. Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained that when the Council last reviewed the appraisal, a request was made for a peer review of the appraisal submitted by Jack Dinniene on behalf of the Edmonds School District to confirm the information in Mr. Dianiene's findings. The peer review was completed by Jim Dodge, Macaulay & Associates, LTD, who found the valuation of raw land to be supported by information in the original appraisal but did not feel the valuation of the subject property was accurately determined and did not feel the method for reducing its value was sufficiently supported in the report. Rather than the right-of-way being 10% of the value of one raw Iot, Mr. Dodge recommended it be 25- 50% of the value of one raw lot based on the fact that it is more than '/s a lot size and because of its location in the middle of the property and fronting on 84's. Staff recommends the Council use the 50% value of one raw lot to determine the value of this portion of right-of-way. The value of one raw lot as determined in the original report was $22,500, 50% is $11,250. As required by City ordinances, the school district would only pay 50% of that value or $5,625 to acquire that portion of right-of-way. In response to a question raised by Councilmember Van HoIlebeke, City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the valuation of the right-of-way was determined to be $11,250 and 50% was the $5,625. He explained City Council Draft Minutes 19 December 14,1999 Page 5 u their Municipal Court if they wished to continue that service. In an effort to better connect himself at the State level, he applied for and was appointed to the District and Municipal Judges Association's Education Committee as well as a Legislative Committee. He advised e-mail was a valuable tool for contacting Legislators. Judge Conroy reported the cost to file and process was approximately $35 per case, up from $30-31 in 1998, The cost to process a case through the Snohomish County court system would have been $57 per case. The City has the highest conviction ratio in the State on DWI filings. He said this shows the City has a good, tough Prosecutor and an excellent Police Department who prepare very good cases, the majority of which result in guilty pleas rather than trials. He said Public Safety was working efficiently and effectively for citizens. Councilmember Earling expressed his appreciation for the work Judge Conroy and his staff do. Judge Conroy said he has a dedicated, hardworking staff. The clerk -per -case ratio is the second highest ratio in the State (1:1800, the highest is 1:2300). He said the court expertly processes a lot of cases without errors that could result in the loss of cases because speedy trial rules are violated. He asked Councilmembers to express their appreciation to his staff, commenting they do not receive much positive feedback for their efforts although they are the ones who make the court work. Proposed 4. u " 'Sundquist Annexation Councilmember Petso excused herself from participation in this matter. Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained this item is a petition to request initiation of an annexation process. The proponent, Eric Sundquist, has presented petitions with signatures of property owners representing over 10% of the assessed valuation of the proposed annexation boundary. He displayed a map of the proposed boundary. Council President Miller explained Councilmember Petso excused herself from participation because she is also a Commissioner for Olympic View Water District who provides service to this area and therefore had a potential conflict of interest as a Councilmember. Mx. Wilson explained the proposed annexation area is approximately 193 acres and is bounded by the existing City limits on the southern and eastern boundaries. He identified Fire Station #20, currently in the unincorporated Esperance area, explaining the City assumed operation of the Fire Station a number of years ago via an agreement with Fire District 1 and the City currently staffs and operates the station. Via discussions with the proponent, boundaries that follow major rights -of -way have been identified on the northern and western boundaries, one of the criteria of State law for establishing annexation boundaries. He explained this is an informal opportunity for the proponent to meet with the Council to discuss the proposed annexation process. If the Council indicates they are interested in proceeding with the proposed annexation, the next step is to hold a public hearing to seek input from residents in the area and to present a resolution to the Council which, if adopted, allows the circulation of formal annexation petitions. Under the petition method of annexation, there are two processes, 1) a petition to initiate (requiring signatures of property owners representing 10% of the assessed valuation) and 2) a petition to actually finalize the annexation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes 7 Page 5 EXHIBIT 6 "'18." (requiring signatures of 60% of the assessed valuation). He stressed this was only the first step of many that must occur before any annexation, if approved, would occur. In the process of meeting with the proponent, he explained the Council was to consider, 1) whether to accept, reject, or modify the proposed annexation boundaries, 2) whether to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the subject area, 3) whether to require the assumption of the existing city bonded indebtedness by the area to be annexed, and 4) whether to authorize staff to prepare the required "60%" petitions for circulation. He explained in past annexations, the City has used a comparable zoning designation method whereby as part of the petition process, designations comparable to those existing in Snohomish County are adopted. The intent was not to reduce property owners' zoning rights. Formal adoption of zoning designations would be done via the annual Comprehensive Plan process following analysis of the annexation area. He explained the only existing bonded indebtedness was the Public Safety bond. The initial calculation indicates the cost to residents in the proposed annexation area would be approximately $0.29 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. He cautioned this amount may be modified depending on the annexation boundaries, etc. Mr. Wilson explained this proposed annexation was being handled differently than in the past by separating the public hearing and consideration of the resolution from the meeting with the proponent to allow the Council to determine whether to proceed with consideration of the resolution, He said a public hearing on the proposed annexation has been tentatively scheduled for February 15 and a resolution scheduled for consideration on February 22. Eric Sundquist, 22831 86" Place, Edmonds (unincorporated Snohomish County), thanked the Council for considering the annexation, indicating he and many others who live in the area were excited about becoming part of the City. Although he did not care whether the assumption of the existing city bonded indebtedness was required, some residents stated they were opposed to assuming bonded indebtedness they did not have an opportunity to vote on. He requested the Council consider the petition for annexation without the assumption of bonded indebtedness. He pointed out there was precedence for this action as the two previous annexations were not required -to assume bonded indebtedness. He said even if assumption of bonded indebtedness was required, he still wanted to proceed with annexation. He asked if there would be increased taxes in the City as a result of I-695. Council President Miller asked Mr. Sundquist to explain his position on the assumption of bonded indebtedness. Mr. Sundquist observed the cost was approximately $0.29 per $1,000 of assessed value. Although he did not care whether he was required to assume the bonded indebtedness because he would be receiving better police protection, have a closer, smaller, more friendly government, and lower taxes, some residents do not want to assume the bonded indebtedness and that issue could determine whether the agreement of 60% could be attained. He explained as a matter of principle, residents did not want to assume a debt they did not have an opportunity to vote on. He said this statement was made when gathering the signatures on the annexation petition, Councilmember Earling said the only bonded indebtedness was for Public Safety and one of the reasons residents of unincorporated Snohomish County want to be annexed was the quality of the City's Public Safety. He observed the cost for a home valued at $300,000 would be approximately $90, which appeared to be a reasonable request. Regarding increased taxes, he pointed out I-695 requires a public vote on any tax increases and annexed residents would have the same opportunity to vote on any proposed increase. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes �l January 18, 2000 .7cJ Page 6 Olk Councilmember White observed the annexation of this area might require the addition of one or more Police Officers, thereby placing an additional burden on Public Safety. This could be offset by assumption of the bonded indebtedness for Public Safety. Mr. Sundquist pointed out the City would receive increased property revenues to offset those costs. Councilmember White agreed it may offset those costs but would be used to offset other costs such as sewers. Councilmember Earling requested staff provide information regarding the infrastructure needs in the area, not a complete analysis just an assessment of the infrastructure needs. Council President Miller asked staff to provide information regarding additional staff that may be required as a result of the annexation, including police to population ratios and possible impacts to the Police Department. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CIRCULATION OF FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS FOR THE PROPOSED "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION AND PLACE ON THE FEBRUARY 22, 2000, COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote). Mr. Wilson advised the public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for February 15 and was one of two public hearings required by law. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 15, 2000 REGARDING THE SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION. MOTION CARRIED (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote). Mr. Wilson referred to Exhibit #8, advising Olympic View Water District requested their property be removed from boundaries of the proposed annexation. He asked if the intent was to maintain the boundaries as proposed or exclude Olympic View Water District's property. For Councilmember White, Mr. Sundquist said his understanding was Olympic View Water District did not want to split the facility located on both sides of 228' (228' being the boundary of the proposed annexation). Speaking as a Commission for Olympic View Water District, Lora Petso stated that Olympic View has requested they be drawn outside of the proposed annexation and recalled the intent was to allow citizens to decide whether to be annexed to Edmonds without Olympic View property influencing that decision. She said Olympic View was informed if they failed to act, that also represented taking a position. Further, the tank farm located on both sides of 228' was an integrated site and the engineer prefers the entire property remain under a single jurisdiction if possible. City Attorney Scott Snyder offered to prepare resolutions including and excluding the Olympic View Water District property and a decision could be made regarding that property at the time the Council authorizes circulation of the petition. Councilmember White requested staff provide input such as whether the City would derive revenue from the property if it were annexed. Councilmember Plunkett requested staff outline pros and cons of including/excluding the property from the annexation area. (Councilmember Petso returned to her seat on the Council.) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes �5/ January 18, 2000 Page 7 South Snohomish County VS City of Edmonds 2000 DETAILED COMPARISON OF PROPERTY TAX Single Family Residence South Snohomish Coun City of Edmonds Tax per $1,000 of Assessed Property Value County $1.5295' County State School 3.5166 State School Local School 4.9280 Local School Hospital #2 0.3850 Hospital #2 $1.5295 3.5166 4.9280 - 0.3850 Subtotal $10.3591 Subtotal $10.3591 Road $1.9010 City $2.2120 Library 0.5000 EMS 6 Year Levy 0.5000 Fire District #1 Regular 1.5000 Special 0.2700 Public Saftey Bldg Bond 0.2720 Bond 0.0670 Fire District #1 Bond 0.0670 Subtotal $4.2380 Subtotal $3.0510 Totals $14.5971 Totals $13.4101 Difference---$1.1870 or 8.9 % less s2 EXHIBIT 7 PAReportMAnnex 2000\ Tax Detall.xls 02/09/2000 South Snohomish County VS City of Edmonds Zoos COMPARISON OF COSTS Single Family Residence South Snohomish County Property taxes $ 3,431 ($235 K @ $14.60 / $1 K value) Surface water charge 31 Utility taxes Gas Telephone Electric Cable Street lighting charge Totals City of Edmonds Property taxes $ 3,151 ($235 K @ $13.41 $1 K value) Surface water charge 44.40 Utility taxes : - Gas @ 5.75 % - Telephone @ 5.75 % - Electric @ 6.00 % - Cable @ 5.00 % * 15 Street lighting charge $ 3,477 Totals 44 12 45 21 $ 3,318 Difference --- $ 1 59 or 4.8 % less * Applies to Approximately 68% of Homes in the City of Edmonds. 53 P:\Reports\Annex 2000\ Tax Comparison.xls 02/10/2000 CITY OF EDMONDS w k m Delay In Receipt of Property Tax Revenues (assessed value) ($58,764,580/$1,000) x $2.484 regular rate (2000 Values) ($58,764,580/$1,000) x $0.5000 cents EMS rate (2000 Values) Total Property Tax Revenues Utility Tax Revenues (335 dwellings x $770/dwelling) x 5.75% rate on gas x 60% of homes (335 dwellings x $210/dwelling) x 5.75% rate on telephone (335 dwellings x $755/dwelling) x 6.00% rate on electric (335 dwellings x $420/dwelling) x 5% rate on cable x 68% of homes (9 businesses x $160) Total Utility Tax Revenues State Shared Revenue Liquor Excise Tax (1000 population x $3.17) Liquor Profits (1000 population x $6.33) Total State Shared Revenues Sales Tax (18 businesses) Business License (18. businesses x $25.00) Court Related Revenues All Other Revenues Total General Fund Other Funds Criminal Justice Revenues, Criminal Justice Fund #007 iz> County Road Tax (assessed value/1000 x $1.901) Street Fund #111 Fuel Tax (population x $15.72) Street Fund #111 Fuel Tax (population x $7.31) Street Const/Impry Fund #112 Total Other Funds Grand Total Revenue in Months(i) 2001 2002 12 $0 $152,630 12 0 30,723 $0 $183,353 0 $9,033 $9,168 0 4,106 4,167 0 15,075 15,075 0 4,856 4,928 0 1,440 1,440 $34,509 $34.779 6 $1,585 $3,170 6 3,165 6,330 $4,750 $9,500 10 $400 $2,000 0 450 225 0 14,615 15,200 $15,465 $17,425 $54,725 $245,057 6 $240 $480 10 111,711 0 6 7,860 15,720 6 3,655 7,310 $123,466 $23,510 (i) The delays are per RCW s applicable to the various taxes. (2) The City of Edmonds would collect the county road tax for 1 year in lieu of property tax POPULATION DWELLINGS ASSESSED VALUATION $178,191 $268,567 1,000 335 $58,764,580 EXHIBIT 8 P:\Reports\ Annex 2000\ Revenues.xls ,6y 02/10/2000 CITY OF EDMONDS 2001- 2002 Projected Expenditures for'Sundquist" Annexation FOR THE YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2001-2002 Voter Registration @ $2.17 per registered voter Sno-Isle Library (assessed value/1,000 x $0.50) Snohomish County Tomorrow (population x $0.1114) Puget Sound Air Pollution (population x $0.296) SNOCOM AWC (population x $5.5217) Puget Sound Regional Council (population x $0.3522) ESCA (population x $1.0837) Insurance (population x $9.65) Total Non -departmental Planning: Update Maps Comprehensive Planning Meetings Mailing Part-time Position or Extra Temp Help Total Planning Police: Fire: 1 Additional Patrol Officer Physical & psychological exams Total Police Fire Investigations Fire Inspections and Code Enforcement Fire Code Plans Review and New Bldg Inspection Emergency Management Total Fire Court: Part-time Clerk City Clerk: Professional service contract for census contract Total General Fund Street Fund 111 Overlays Averaged Over Five Years Total Expenditures 2001 2002 $750 29,380 110 300 0 520 350 1,080 9,650 $42,140 $800 30,800 100 300 0 500 400 1,100 9,900 $43,900 $2,000 $0 1,000 0 1,000 1,100 10,000 10,600 $14,000 $11,700 $64,000 69,100 400 0 $64,400 $69,100 540 600 3,510 3,800 900 1,000 1,087 1,200 $6,037 $6,600 $3,300 $3,600 10,000 0 139,877 137,200 $18,000 $18,000 $157,876.96 $155,200.00 RkReports\ Annex 2000\ Expenditures.xls EXHIBIT 9 02/10/2000S-.5 MEMORANDU Date: February 4, 200.0 To: Scott James, Accountant From: Jim Walker, City Engineer'�E"'`�O Subject: Street Repair Costs in the Proposed Sundquist Annexation Staff completed a review of street conditions for the proposed Sundquist Annexation. Most of the streets in the annexation area are in acceptable condition at present. However, this annexation area has a significant number of streets that will need asphalt overlay in the next several years based on their current rating. The cost to overlay those streets is estimated at $90,000. Although this street restoration work is not critical at this time, it will be needed within the next five years. If the restoration work can not be completed within that time, costs will be even higher due to additional repair techniques needed to restore the streets. c: Ray Miller, Development Services Director Jeff Wilson, Planning Division City of Edmonds 66 Development Services Department Engineering Division MEMORANDUM ti Date: February 8, 2000 To: Scott James From: Jim Walker)q `e �/ Subject: Drainage Improvement Costs in the Proposed Sundquist Annexation Don Fiene completed an assessment of the drainage system in the proposed Sundquist Annexation. Don summarized his review by stating "Overall the area is characterized by below average drainage of the right-of-way system (compared to the norm in Edmonds). However no serious problems were detected, or noted in Basin studies performed in the area. Since no large rainfall events have occurred since the January 18, 2000 meeting, the impacts of a large rainfall have not been observed. Although the area may require more drainage work than the rest of Edmonds currently, the drainage improvement needs do not appear to be excessive. Cc: Ray Miller Jeff Wilson City of Edmonds Development Services Department 57 Engineering Division James, Scott From: Chase, Sandy Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 4:09 PM To: James, Scott Subject: RE: Esperance Annexation I'm estimating the cost for conducting the census in the newly annexed area at $10,000. The cost for each registered voter is $2.17. 1 will fax a copy of the annexation boundaries to Snohomish County Auditor's Office to get an estimate of the number of registered voters. Any other costs would likely be minimal in terms of business licenses and public hearing impact. Sandy ---Original Message --- From: James, Scott Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 2:25 PM To: Chase, Sandy Subject: Esperance Annexation Sandy, Yesterday when we talked about the Esperance annexation, you said that $10,000 had been budgeted for it. As I was going through the Firdale annexation folder I came across two more questions for you. 1) Do you have an estimate of the costs for the census study? 2) Can you estimate the additional voter registration costs? 3) If there other costs that I am over looking please advise me. Additional information for you: Our Planning Department estimates that approximately 1,000 people live in the area under consideration for annexation. There is approximately 335 homes, 1 multi -family complex 3 or 4 churches and a small business district along Highway 99. Thanks for your help, Scott Chase, Sandy From: Chase, Sandy Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 3:36 PM To: James, Scott Subject: Sundquist Annexation I received a call today from Scott Konopasek, Elections Manager with the Snohomish County Auditor's Office. He said if there is a population of 800 people in the proposed area, approximately 375 would be registered voters. The fee for registered voters each year will be about $2.00 per person. Therefore, an estimate of the cost impact related to voter registration is approximately $750,00 per year. 61 Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM February 8, 2000 Scott James Accountant Fire Marshal Westfall Fire Department Costs and Sundquist Annexation The following is in response to your request for anticipated Fire Department services to the Sundquist Annexation area. 1. 1.Emergency Egull2ment and Responses No additional emergency staffing or response vehicles are required. The area is contracted to, and currently served by, Edmonds Fire Department for fire, medical, and other emergency services. The contract for purchase of Esperance Fire Station (#20) has provided for contracted emergency services since 1995. The total number of Department emergency calls increased in 1999. The number includes mutual- and automatic -dispatched emergency incidents. 1999 call data is currently being calculated to show this increase. 2. Service Equipment and Responses Service calls are part of the existing contract. No change is anticipated except for increased area demands. 3. FD Contracts for Services The City receives money from Snohomish County Fire District 1 annually for emergency responses to the County Esperance area, which is annexation -diminishing ($294,340 in 1999). Advanced Life Support (ALS) and dispatch service funds for Esperance are paid to SNOCOM from that contract amount ($80,347 in 1999). The Sundquist annexation will further reduce the contract area, the numbers of contract calls, and the value of contract pay. SNOCOM payment required for Esperance area will also be reduced proportionately. SNOCOM contracted dispatch and ALS service charges for all of Edmonds will increase in 2001 due to City increases of Assessed Valuation, population and jurisdictional emergency responses, as a result of Sundquist Annexation. 4. Fire Prevention Bureau Activities The following Fire Prevention activities are not contracted for the area: Fire investigations, fire inspections, code enforcement, plans review, and public informational services. Appendix A provides information used in evaluation of services for new annexation area. Fire Investigations $ 540 Fire Inspections, and Code Enforcement $ 3510 Fire Code Plans Review and New Building Inspections Building fees (20 hours FTE) 5. Emergency Management Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management (DEM) currently services the Esperance area. The annexation will increase Edmonds population in relation to other member jurisdictions. ESCA contracted emergency management services payment in 2001 will increase due to City increase of population as a result of Sundquist Annexation ($41,842 in 2000). City of Edmonds 3b Fire Marshal APPENDIX A SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AREA The 193 acre area is estimated at 1000-1500 population and $59 million Assessed Valuation. County zoning includes single-family residential, multiple -family residential, and commercial uses. Bureau Activities The impact of the Sundquist Annexation and the accumulated jurisdictional responsibilities for all annexations since 1983 has left the largest departmental impact on Fire Prevention activities. Since 1983, the Bureau has consisted of a Fire Marshal and Inspector to perform, supervise, and manage the increasing responsibilities for Fire Prevention activities. Since then the population has grown 42% from 27,574 to 39,610, including Sundquist. The City will be 1,318 acres larger than in 1983, due to annexations. The dollar value for cost of Fire Prevention services has little relevance without dedicated staffing to provide the actual services. Without additional staff, current City services will continue to be reduced and downward adjustments made to the existing programs with a finite number of Bureau Full -Time Employees (FTE). Inspection costs are calculated at straight time including wage and benefits. Fire Investigation Some fire incidents require a dedicated investigator for fire cause due to high -dollar loss value, suspicious circumstances, or other unusual incident conditions. Average investigation time is estimated to be 6 hours FTE for each independent fire investigation. Investigation includes fieldwork, documentation, insurance requests and other administrative handling. The number of area fire investigations is estimated at 2 fire per 1000 population, however, residential dwellings is where the majority of fires occur. The fire at CountryFarm5(2290 & Hwy99)on 2/4/00 required Snohomish County Investigator response. Off -duty staff (overtime) are occasionally utilized for Fire Investigation activities when the Fire Marshal is not available. 12 hrs x $45 (pay & benefits) _ $540 annually. Fire Inspections and Code Enforcement Snohomish County currently performs Fire Code Inspections for the Unincorporated Esperance Area. The Edmonds Fire Inspection Program provides initial inspection by Fire Companies for commercial and multi -family occupancies, with follow-up by Fire Inspector. Board & care, Adult Family Homes, and other hazardous home occupancies are inspected and followed -up solely by Fire Inspector. Code enforcement issues requiring additional inspections occur through citizen concerns, Fire Company identification, the business licensing process, and from Building and other City Department identification. Fire inspections remain a key factor in capping community loss due to fires. Beginning in 2000, the Fire Department will collect fire incident data for inspected and uninspected occupancies, which will provide supporting data for this factor. From 1995-1997, the City received large Esperance annexations in the South end, such as Aurora Marketplace, which contained many commercial business and multi -family occupancies along the Highway 99, Edmonds Way, and the Firdale area. In 1999 the Fire Department reduced the existing inspection volume for Fire Companies and Inspector by increasing the visitation period for lower hazard occupancies to a bi-annual event. This adjustment affected general office and medical office business occupancies and was a result of increased volume of inspectable occupancies, increased State legal requirements for Firefighter training, and increases for other(non-inspection) activities. 0 The following is an initial inventory of the inspectable occupancies included with the Sundquist Annexation area: TY OCCUPANCY TYPE 4 LC State -licensed Board & Care Allvest House North 20+ bed 8021 2301h St. SW Angel of Faith AFH 23328 84th Ave. W. Ocean Breeze AFH 23215 82"d PI. W. TJ AFH 23103 801h PI. W 2 A Public Assembly LDS Church 7920 228th St. SW Edmonds Christian Church 23010 84th AV W 9 B Business; office & retail 230th & Hwy 99 area 1 F Factory Ywham Print Shop 22910b 230th St. SW 2 H Hazardous Spray King 7900 230th St. SW Auto Repair 23300 Hwy 99 2 S Storage Public Storage 23010 Hwy 99 Vacant warehouse 7800 228th St. SW 20 TOTAL OCCUPANCIES/INSPECTIONS Additionally, at least 2 home occupancies have been identified from home -front signage. Historically, the City finds information about the numbers of home occupations in the years following annexation approval. Through the business licensing process and citizen complaints, the number of known home occupations will increase. Annual inspections for home occupancies are dependent upon degree of hazard. Fire Company annual inspection time 48 FTE hours (staff of three) Fire Inspector annual supervision, inspection, and follow-up time 10 FTE hours Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector code enforcement field inspection and admin time 12 FTE hours Fire Inspector business licensing field inspection and admin time 8 FTE hours 78 FTE hours x $45 = $3510 Off -duty staff (overtime) are not utilized for Inspections or Code Enforcement activities. Fire Code Plans Review and New Building Inspections Fire Department Plans Review activities are provided by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Plans are reviewed for new commercial and multi -family construction, fire suppression, and fire alarm systems. New Building field inspections are provided to assure the construction/installation meets all review requirements. Costs for the review and inspection are collected from the developer through Building Permit and Inspection fees, as of January 1, 2000. The fees are deposited into a City revenue account. The level of development activities in an area such as Sundquist Annexation depends upon many factors. Land availability, construction/business trends, business prosperity, and area characteristics help determine the amount of new construction activities. The Esperance area and Highway 99 are currently experiencing advanced development. In 1999 it is estimated that 300 hours were dedicated to plans review activities. 300 additional hours were performed for new construction inspections. I would estimate approximately 20 hours annually will be added to the responsibilities for Plans Review and New Construction Inspections between the Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector. Off -duty staff (overtime) is not utilized for Fire Plans Review or New Construction activities . 42 4 MEMORANDUM inistrative Services Date: February 9, 2000 To: Peggy Hetzler, Director Administrative Services Scott James, Accountant From: Robin H. Hickok, Chief of Police ZI/''' 7z Subject Sundquist Annexation The above annexation is suppose to have a population of about one thousand (1,000). We are currently at 1.3 officers per 1,000 population. So at a minimum we should add one (1) officer. Due to I-695 I am currently down two (2) patrol positions. In essence I added four (4) officers to cover the last annexation and I have lost half of them. I am not sure I can support annexation until the impacts of 1-695 are stabilized. Additional cost would include; uniforms, recruitment, training, etc need another vehicle. City of Edmonds We should not 63 James, Scott From: Ferebee, Joan Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 12:47 PM To: James, Scott Subject: ANNEXATION SCOTT SORRY SO Late. I had to put out some fires late The impact on the court expense. Present Part-time Clerk $ 208 (Make permanent part-time/ from 16 hr/w to 20 hr/w) Benefices 1,350 Supplies 130 Furniture 110 Computer 200 Space 300 Mailing 1,000 $3,298 6y James, Scott From: Graf, Jeannine Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 12:27 PM To: James, Scott Subject: RE: "Sunquist" Annexation We quote 4 to 6 weeks for new single family construction and 2 to 3 weeks for remodels and additions. Unfortunately, I do not know the County's time but you can find out by calling 388-3311. Thanks JLG ----Original Message ---- From: James, Scott Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 12:03 PM To: Graf, Jeannine Subject: "Sunquist' Annexation Jeannine, The City is considering annexing a portion of the Esperance area. The Mayor has directed Peggy to provide costs information associated with additional staffing needs and a general assessment of the infrastructure needs. Our Planning Department estimates that approximately 1,000 people live in the area under consideration for annexation. There is approximately 335 homes, 1 multi -family complex 3 or 4 churches and a small business district along Highway 99. Jeannine, could you estimate: 1) What is your average turn around time for processing building permits? 2) Do you know what Snohomish County's average turn around time for processing building permits are? I need these estimates by the end of Tuesday tomorrow, so I can complete the a Council Agenda Memo the following day. Please let me know if you need further information. Thanks for your assistance, Scott EXT. 370 0 CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES/EXPENDTURES STATEMENT for'SUNDQUIST' ANNEXATION FOR THE YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2001-2002 2001 2002 Revenues: General Fund, #001 $54,725 $245,057 Criminal Justice Fund, #007 240 480 County Road Tax. #111 111,711 0 Fuel Tax, Fund #111 7,860 15,720 Fule TaxStreet Improvement/Construction Fund, #112 3,655 7,310 Total Revenues $178,191 $268,567 Less Fire District reduction in Esperance contract payments (70,000) (70,000) Expenditures: Voter Registration @ $2.17 per registered voter $750 $800 Sno-Isle Library (assessed value/1,000 x $0.50) 29,380 30,800 Snohomish County Tomorrow (population x $0.1114) 110 100 Puget Sound Air Pollution (population x $0.296) 300 300 SNOCOM 0 0 AWC (population x $5.5217) 520 500 Puget Sound Regional Council (population x $0.3522) 350 400 ESCA (population x $1.0837) 1,080 1,100 Insurance (population x $9.65) 9,650 9,900 Total Non -departmental $42,140 $43,900 Planning: Update Maps $2,000 $0 Comprehensive Planning Meetings 1,000 0 Mailing 1,000 1,100 Part-time Position or Extra Temp Help 10,000 10,600 Total Planning $14,000 $11,700 Police: 1 Additional Patrol Officer $64,000 $69,100 Physical & psychological exams 400 0 Total Police $64,400 $69,100 Fire: Fire Investigations $540 $600 Fire Inspections and Code Enforcement 3,510 3,800 Fire Code Plans Review and New Bldg Inspection 900 1,000 Emergency Management 1,087 1,200 Total Fire $6,037 $6,600 Court: Part-time Clerk $3,300 $3,600 City Clerk: Professional service contract for census contract 10,000 0 Total General Fund $139,877 $137,200 Street Fund 111 Overlays Averaged Over Five Years $18,000 $18,000 Total Expenditures $157,877 $155,200 Net Receipts ($49,686) $43,367 P:\Reports\ Annex 2000\ Revenues & Expenditures.As EXHIBIT 10 M. 02/10/2000 I� LTmAPIMPI Chase, Sandy From: Chase, Sandy Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 3:36 PM To: James, Scott Subject: Sundquist Annexation I received a call today from Scott Konopasek, Elections Manager with the Snohomish County Auditor's Office. He said if their is a population of 800 people in the proposed area, approximately 375 would be registered voters. The fee for registered voters each year will be about $2.00 per person. Therefore, an estimate of the cost impact related to voter registration is approximately $750.00 per year. City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. N, Eamonds, WA 98020 FAX To: Scott Konopasek Snohomish County Auditor's Office Elections Phone: (425)388-3401 Fax phone: (425) 259-2777 CC: Date: 2/4/00 Number of pages including cover sheet: :2] From: Sandy Chase City Clerk City of Edmonds Phone: (425)771-0245 Fax phone: (425) 771-0266 REMARKS: 0 Urgent ❑ For your review ❑ Reply ASAP Please comment Subject: Proposed Annexation (City of Edmonds) The Edmonds City Council is considering a proposed annexation area. We are trying to determine the costs/impacts to the city if we annex the area. I have attached a map indicating the boundaries of the annexation area which is located in unincorporated Snohomish County. The area is generally located south of 228th St. SW; west of Highway 99; east of 881h Ave. W; and north of Maple Lane and 234' St. SW. Would you be able to give me an estimate of the number of registered voters in the area? I believe the cost is $2.17 per registered voter..... Thank you for your help. If you need any further information, please call me at (425) 771-0245. :TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME: 02/04/2000 16:23 NAME: CITY CLERK FAX 4257710266 TEL 4257710245 DATE DIME FAX NO./NAME PAGES)N RESULT MODE 02/ 04 16: 22 94252592777 02:01:22 OK STANDARD ECM Chase, Sandy From: Farmen, Doug Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 7:15 AM To: Hetzler, Peggy Cc: Chase, Sandy Subject: Annexation/Census costs In October, 1999, Sandy e-mailed our dept. to request $10,000 for Genus taking costs in 2000. Somehow, we overlooked this item and didn't budget it in non-dept. To rectify this, I will make sure Scott James includes it as a cost to be considered in his annexation analysis. their Municipal Court if they wished to continue that service. In an effort to better connect himself at the State level, he applied for and was appointed to the District and Municipal Judges Association's Education Committee as well as a Legislative Committee. He advised e-mail was a valuable tool for contacting Legislators. Judge Conroy reported the cost to file and process was approximately $35 per case, up from $30-31 in 1998. The cost to process a case through the Snohomish County court system would have been $57 per case. The City has the highest conviction ratio in the State on DWI filings. He said this shows the City has a good, tough Prosecutor and an excellent Police Department who prepare very good cases, the majority of which result in guilty pleas rather than trials. He said Public Safety was working efficiently and effectively for citizens. Councilmember Earling expressed his appreciation for the work Judge Conroy and his staff do. Judge Conroy said he has a dedicated, hardworking staff. The clerk -per -case ratio is the second highest ratio in the State (1:1800, the highest is 1:2300). He said the court expertly processes a lot of cases without errors that could result in the loss of cases because speedy trial rules are violated. He asked Councilmembers to express their appreciation to his staff, commenting they do not receive much positive feedback for their efforts although they are the ones who make the court work. Proposed 4. MEETING WITH PROPONENTS OF PROPOSED "SUNDQUIST" ANNFXATIQN AND Sundquist CONSIDERATION OF .A_ PROPOSED RESOLUTION 3'0 A IIMQMZE ME CIRCULATION OF Annexation FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS (Proponent: Eric Sundquist 1 File No. AX-98-101� Councilmember Petso excused herself from participation in this matter. Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained this item is a petition to request initiation of an annexation process. The proponent, Eric Sundquist, has presented petitions with signatures of property owners representing over 10% of the assessed valuation of the proposed annexation boundary. He displayed a map of the proposed boundary. Council President Miller explained Councilmember Petso excused herself from participation because she is also a Commissioner for Olympic View Water District who provides service to this area and therefore had a potential conflict of interest as a Councilmember. Mr. Wilson explained the proposed annexation area is approximately 193 acres and is bounded by the existing City limits on the southern and eastern boundaries. He identified Fire Station #20, currently in the unincorporated Esperance area, explaining the City assumed operation of the Fire Station a number of years ago via an agreement with Fire District 1 and the City currently staffs and operates the station. Via discussions with the proponent, boundaries that follow major rights -of -way have been identified on the northern and western boundaries, one of the criteria of State law for establishing annexation boundaries. He explained this is an informal opportunity for the proponent to meet with the Council to discuss the proposed annexation process. If the Council indicates they are interested in proceeding with the proposed annexation, the next step is to hold a public hearing to seek input from residents in the area and to present a resolution to the Council which, if adopted, allows the circulation of formal annexation petitions. Under the petition method of annexation, there are two processes, 1) a petition to -initiate (requiring signatures of property owners representing 10% of the assessed valuation) and 2) a petition to actually finalize the annexation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 18, 2000 Page 5 (requiring signatures of 60% of the assessed valuation). He stressed this was only the first step of many that must occur before any annexation, if approved, would occur. In the process of meeting with the proponent, he explained the Council was to consider, 1) whether to accept, reject, or modify the proposed annexation boundaries, 2) whether to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the subject area, 3) whether to require the assumption of the existing city bonded indebtedness by the area to be annexed, and 4) whether to authorize staff to prepare the required "60%" petitions for circulation. He explained in past annexations, the City has used a comparable zoning designation method whereby as part of the petition process, designations comparable to those existing in Snohomish County are adopted. The intent was not to reduce property owners' zoning rights. Formal adoption of zoning designations would be done via the annual Comprehensive Plan process following analysis of the annexation area. He explained the only existing bonded indebtedness was the Public Safety bond. The initial calculation indicates the cost to residents in the proposed annexation area would be approximately $0.29 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. He cautioned this amount may be modified depending on the annexation boundaries, etc. Mr. Wilson explained this proposed annexation was being handled differently than in the past by separating the public hearing and consideration of the resolution from the meeting with the proponent to allow the Council to determine whether to proceed with consideration of the resolution. He said a public hearing on the proposed annexation has been tentatively scheduled for February. 15 and a resolution scheduled for consideration on February 22. Eric Sundquist, 22831 86"' Place, Edmonds (unincorporated Snohomish County), thanked the Council for considering the annexation, indicating he and many others who live in the area were excited about becoming part of the City. Although he did not care whether the assumption of the existing city bonded indebtedness was required, some residents stated they were opposed to assuming bonded indebtedness they did not have an opportunity to vote on. He requested the Council consider the petition for annexation without the assumption of bonded indebtedness. He pointed out there was precedence for this action as the two previous annexations were not required to assume bonded indebtedness. He said even if assumption of bonded indebtedness was required, he still wanted to proceed with annexation. He asked if there would be increased taxes in the City as a result of I-695. Council President Miller asked Mr. Sundquist to explain his position on the assumption of bonded indebtedness. Mr. Sundquist observed the cost was approximately $0.29 per $1,000 of assessed value. Although he did not care whether he was required to assume the bonded indebtedness because he would be receiving better police protection, have a closer, smaller, more friendly government, and lower taxes, some residents do not want to assume the bonded indebtedness and that issue could determine whether the agreement of 60% could be attained. He explained as a matter of principle, residents did not want to assume a debt they did not have an opportunity to vote on. He said this statement was made when gathering the signatures on the annexation petition. Councilmember Earling said the only bonded indebtedness was for Public Safety and one of the reasons residents of unincorporated Snohomish County want to be annexed was the quality of the City's Public Safety. He observed the cost for a home valued at $300,000 would be approximately $90, which appeared to be a reasonable request. Regarding increased taxes, he pointed out I-695 requires a public vote on any tax increases and annexed residents would have the same opportunity to vote on any proposed increase. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 18, 2000 Page 6 Councilmember White observed the annexation of this area might require the addition of one or more Police Officers, thereby placing an additional burden on Public Safety. This could be offset by assumption of the bonded indebtedness for Public Safety. Mr. Sundquist pointed out the City would receive increased property revenues to offset those costs. Councilmember White agreed it may offset those costs but would be used to offset other costs such as sewers. Councilmember Earling requested staff provide information regarding the infrastructure needs in the area, not a complete analysis just an assessment of the infrastructure needs. Council President Miller asked staff to provide information regarding additional staff that may be required as a result of the annexation, including police to population ratios and possible impacts to the Police Department. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CIRCULATION OF FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS FOR THE PROPOSED "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION AND PLACE ON THE FEBRUARY 22, 2000, COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote). Mr. Wilson advised the public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for February 15 and was one of two public hearings required by law. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 15, 2000 REGARDING THE SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION. MOTION CARRIED (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote). Mr. Wilson referred to Exhibit #8, advising Olympic View Water District requested their property be removed from boundaries of the proposed annexation. He asked if the intent was to maintain the boundaries as proposed or exclude Olympic View Water District's property. For Councilmember White, Mr. Sundquist said his understanding was Olympic View Water District did not want to split the facility located on both sides of 228' (228`' being the boundary of the proposed annexation). Speaking as a Commission for Olympic View Water District, Lora Petso stated that Olympic View has requested they be drawn outside of the proposed annexation and recalled the intent was to allow citizens to decide whether to be annexed to Edmonds without Olympic View property influencing that decision. She said Olympic View was informed if they failed to act, that also represented taking a position. Further, the tank farm located on both sides of 228`h was an integrated site and the engineer prefers the entire property remain under a single jurisdiction if possible. City Attorney Scott Snyder offered to prepare resolutions including and excluding the Olympic View Water District property and a decision could be made regarding that property at the time the Council authorizes circulation of the petition. Councilmember White requested staff provide input such as whether the City would derive revenue from the property if it were annexed. Councilmember Plunkett requested staff outline pros and cons of including/excluding the property from the annexation area. (Councilmember Petso returned to her seat on the Council.) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 18, 2000 Page 7 Closed 5, CLOSED RECORD 11EETrNG -- APPEAL OF THE HE' ARING,_..EXAMINER'S DE _'CSION TO Record Appeal - APPROVE A 4-L T SHORT 4 _-.���D,IVISION W ICA INCT�LTpES A CRITICAL AREA 160XX 72" VARIANCE_ FROM STEED' _S� UPS _��NU SETSAGK VARI NCES FOR LOTS I, 2 Al m 3, Ave. W. - C. Warner AP 99-224 FROM 10 FEET DOWN T(7.Z1+IRO ELEL IHYLSUBJECI PROPERTY IS AT 160�X 72NO AVENUE WEST AND IS ZONED -LOCATED "RESIDENTIAL UNGLE FAMILY RS-2q:' (Applicant 5s4noja Ridge Partners 1 File Nos, S-98408 and V-98-109. Appellant: CharlesWarner 1 File lVn. GAW51IM ►MAI Mayor Haakenson explained this was a quasi-judicial hearing and asked if any Councilmember wished to disclose any conflict of interest under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Councilmember Orvis advised one of the parties of record, Mark Thometz, contributed to his campaign. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised campaign contributions as well as any statement made during the course of a campaign were specifically exempted as a disqualifying issue under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine as long as the moneys were reported. Councilmember Plunkett advised he received a campaign contribution in 1997 from Mark Thometz. Councilmember Plunkett said Mr. Thometz was not a principle in this matter but only provided comment. There were no other disclosures made. Mr. Snyder advised a letter of complaint was received at the last Council meeting regarding staff conduct in this subdivision. He explained the letter was not a part of this proceeding and could not be considered, as this was a closed record appeal. He said any objection on that basis would disqualify the entire Council and a disqualifying action that destroyed a quorum was deemed unreasonable. Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any objections to Councilmember Plunkett's or Councilmember Orvis' participation. There were no objections voiced and Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers were empowered to participate in the hearing. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess to address a video camera malfunction. Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any objections to the participation of any other Councilmember. No objections were voiced. Mayor Haakenson described the timelines for staff, the applicant and the appellant's presentations and public comment by parties of record. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was a closed record appeal; the Council was limited to reviewing facts contained in the prepared record. He said those providing testimony were arguing from the record. He advised the Council should pose questions requesting the individual's position or where in the record the information could be found. He said the 60-day time period limitation for review of subdivisions (less the time for environmental review) was approaching. Councilmember Petso asked if the Council could ask staff for interpretations of law. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Planner Karissa Kawamoto displayed a map of the subject site and explained this was a subdivision of property that was approved by the Hearing Examiner in November 1999. The information presented to the Council was the same as provided to the Hearing Examiner when making his decision including staff reports, decisions, reconsideration requests, etc. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 18, 2000 Page 8 Item #: �1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: MEETING WITH PROPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION AND CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CIRCULATION OF FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS. (PROPONENT: ERIC SUNDQUIST / FILE NO. AX-98-101) Agenda Time Agenda Date Exhibits Attached: 20 minutes January 18, 2000 1. December 14, 1999;,Council Packet 2. Draft minutes from December 14, 1999, Council Meeting Clearances: Department/initials Admin Svcs/Finance City Attorney City Clerk Court Community Svcs Engineering Parks & Rec Planndilllyr,� 11_ Personnel Public Works Fire Treatment Plant Police City Counc' Development Svcs Mayor Reviewed by Council Committee: Finance Community Services Public Safety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Not applicable. Previous Council Action: The proposed annexation boundaries contain City of Edmonds Fire Station No. 20, located at 23009 88t' Avenue West. On August 17, 1999, the Council authorized the Mayor, as property owner of the property located at 23009 88'h Avenue West (City of Edmonds Fire Station No. 20) to sign the proponents "Intent to Annex" petition for the proposed annexation (see Exhibit 1). This item was originally scheduled for council consideration, however, the proponent was unable to attend the meeting. Therefore, the item was tabled (see Exhibits 1 and 2). Narrative: The City has received a petition indicating interest in annexation to the City of Edmonds of approximately 193 acres generally located south of 22e Street Southwest; west of Highway 99; east of 881h Avenue West; and, north of Maple Lane and 234`h Street Southwest (see Exhibit 1). To consider these petitions for Page 1 of 3 AX-98-101 COUNCIL REVIEW OF IW._02.DOC/6JAN-W I FILE& REPORTs/COUNCIL annexation, the City Council must, by law, meet with the petitioners to discuss the request for annexation. The purpose of the meeting is to: 1. Discuss the boundaries of the proposed annexation; 2. Discuss whether or not the proposed annexation will be subject to the existing bonded indebtedness of the City; and, 3. Discuss whether to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the area. The "Intent to Annex" petitions submitted by the proponents represent approximately 12% of the assessed valuation of the subject area (see Exhibit 1). Subsequent to this meeting with the proponents the Council is scheduled to hold a public 1:caring on January 18, 2000, to solicit public input on the proposed annexation. The scheduled public hearing will be for consideration of a Resolution to allow circulation of formal annexation petitions within the subject area, provided the Council decides favorably on the following: 1. Whether to accept, reject, or modify the proposed annexation boundaries. Staff analysis: The proposed annexation boundaries lie within the unincorporated island which is commonly referred to as "Esperance". The "Esperance" area is entirely surrounded by existing City of Edmonds boundaries and is within the City of Edmonds "Urban Growth Area." The proposed boundaries do provide for a logical and serviceable annexation area. The proposed boundaries either follow existing City limits, or established and developed streets. Therefore, should the area annex to the City, it would be easy and logical to service. Acceptance of the proposed annexation area would be appropriate considering that the area does lie within the City's Urban Growth Area. 2. Whether or not to require the simultaneous adoption' of proposed zoning regulations for the subject area. Staff analysis: The proposed annexation area is essentially fully developed, with only a few parcels of land which are undeveloped. Future development in the subject area would either be in -fill (e.g. short plat of an existing single-family lot to create an additional lot), or re -development of property fronting along Highway 99. Therefore, the City should adopt comparable Zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the proposed annexation area. The following is a brief comparison of the existing County zoning and the comparable City of Edmonds zoning designation (see Exhibit 1). 1. County Zoning: R-8,400 (single-family residential - minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet required) This designation is the predominate zoning in the area and covers everything west of what would be the extension of 80th Avenue West, with some small areas east of the extension of 80th Avenue West, north of 230'h Street Southwest. Comparable City Zoning: RS-8 (single-family residential - minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet required) z 2. County Zoning: MR (Multiple Residential - 1 unit for each 2,000 square feet of lot area) This designation is only placed on one lot within the annexation area. The subject lot is located north of 230`h Street Southwest, a few lots west of Highway 99. Comparable Cily Zonin : RM-1.5 (Multiple Residential - 1 unit for each 1,500 square feet of lot area) 3. County Zoning: GC (General Commercial) This zoning designation applies to the properties which generally front on Highway 99. Comparable City Zoning: CG (General Commercial) 3. Whether or not to require the assumption of the existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. Staff analvsis: The citizens of the City of Edmonds recently passed a public safety bond issue. The passage of the bond issue resulted in a maximum projected rate charged to property owners of approximately $0.29 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Because the bond issue represents an area -wide benefit, the most equitable manner to treat the question of "bonded indebtedness" would be to require the proposed a=exation area to assume a proportionate share of the City's existing bonded indebtedness. The approximate Assessed Valuation of the proposed annexation area is $58,764,580. 4. Whether or not to authorize the staff to prepare the required "60%" petitions for circulation. Staff_ analysis: Annexation of the subject area is consistent with the City's adopted Urban Growth Area and would assist in reducing the remaining portion of the unincorporated island surrounded by the City of Edmonds. Annexation would also have the potential benefit of improving efficiencies of providing City services. Since the City already services the area surrounding the proposed annexation area, extension of City services to this area could be accommodated easily. Additionally, the City currently provides some services to the subject area (e.g. Fire) which would mean that City services would not necessarily have to expand in order to accommodate the proposed annexation. Therefore, authorization to allow preparation and circulation of formal annexation petitions would be appropriate. However, final authorization for preparation and circulation of petitions should not be given until after the January 18, 2000, public hearing on the proposed annexation. Recommended Actions: 1. b i rcct staff to prepare a Resolution authorizing circulation of Formal Annexation Petitions for the proposed "Sundquist" annexation and place on the February 22, 2000, Council consent agenda. 2. Resolution to authorize circulation of formal annexation petitions shall not be considered until after the February 15, 2000, Council meeting date. 3 l� r Item #: ator. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Planning Division Agenda Memo For Action: X For Information: Subject: MEETING WITH PROPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION AND CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CIRCULATION OF FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS. (PROPONENT: ERIC SUNDQUIST / FILE NO. AX-98-101) Agenda Time Agenda Date: Exhibits Attached: 20 minutes December 14,1999 1. Vicinity / Proposed Annexation Area Map 2. Letter from Eric Sundquist requesting to initiate annexation process (6/22/98) 3. "Intent to Annexation" Petitions (14 petitions) 4. Certificate of Sufficiency issued by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office on October 29, 1999 S. Map of comparable County/City Zoning Designations 6. Council Agenda item packet from August 17, 1999, re: "Intent to Annex" petition 7. August 17, 1999, Council Minutes 8. Letter from Lora Petro • President, Board of Commissioners 9 Olympic View Water & Sewer District (8/12/99) Clearances: Department/Initials Admin Svcs/Finance _ Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering City Clerk Parks & Roc Court Planning ! Personnel Public Works Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council Development Svcs Mayor Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: CommuW* Services Pubfic safety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount' Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 5/ Page 1 of 3 AX-98-101 COUNCIL REVIEW OF 10%.DOG9-DEC-99 EXHIBIT 1 FILEWREPORTWCOUNCIL Previous Council Action: The proposed annexation boundaries contain City of Edmonds- Fire Station No. 20, located at 23009 88* Avenue West. On August 17, 1999, the Council authorized the Mayor, as property owner of the property located at 23009 88" Avenue West (City of Edmonds Fire Station No. 20) to sign the proponents "Intent to Annex" petition for the proposed annexation (see Exhibits 6 and 7). Narrative: The City has received a petition indicating interest in annexation to the City of Edmonds of approximately 193 acres generally located south of 228" Street Southwest; west of Highway 99; east of 88'h Avenue West; and, north of Maple Larne and 234`h Street Southwest (see Exhibits 1 through 3). To consider these petitions for annexation, the City Council must, by law, meet with the petitioners to discuss the request for annexation. The purpose of the meeting is to: 1. Discuss the boundaries of the proposed annexation; 2. Discuss whether or not the proposed annexation will be subject to the existing bonded indebtedness of the City; and, 3. Discuss whether to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the area. The "Intent to Annex" petitions submitted by the proponents represent approximately 12% of the assessed valuation of the subject area (see Exhibits 3 and 4). Subsequent to this meeting with the proponents the Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on January 18, 2000, to solicit public input on the proposed annexation. The scheduled public hearing will be for consideration of a Resolution to allow circulation of formal annexation petitions within the subject area, provided the Council decides favorably on the following: 1. Whether to accept, reject, or modify the proposed annexation boundaries. Staff analysis: The proposed annexation boundaries lie within the unincorporated island which is commonly referred to as "Esperance". The "Esperance" area is entirely surrounded by existing City of Edmonds boundaries and is within the City of Edmonds "Urban Growth Area." The proposed boundaries do provide for a logical and serviceable annexation area. The proposed boundaries either follow existing City limits, or established and developed streets. Therefore, should the area annex to the City, it would be easy and logical to service. Acceptance of the proposed annexation area would be appropriate considering that the area does lie within the City's Urban Growth Area. 2. Whether or not to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the subject area. Staff analysis: The proposed annexation area is essentially fully developed, with only a few parcels of land which are undeveloped. Future development in the subject area would either be in -fill (e.g. short plat of an existing single-family lot to create an additional lot), or re -development of property fronting along Highway 99. Therefore, the City should adopt comparable Zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the proposed annexation area. The following is a brief comparison of the existing County zoning and the comparable City of Edmonds zoning designation (see Exhibit 5). s Ob 1. County Zoning: R-8,400 (single-family residential - minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet required) This designation is the predominate zoning in the area and covers everything west of what would be the extension of 80`h Avenue West, with some small areas east of the extension of 801h Avenue West, north of 230`s Street Southwest. Comparable City Zoning: RS-8 (single-family residential - minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet required) 2. CountY Zoning: MR (Multiple Residential - 1 unit for each 2,000 square feet of lot area) This designation is only placed on one lot within the annexation area. The subject lot is located north of 230`h Street Southwest, a few lots west of Highway 99. Comparable City Zoning: RM-1.5 (Multiple Residential - 1 unit for each 1,500 square feet of lot area) 3. County Zoning: GC (General Commercial) This zoning designation applies to the properties which generally front on Highway 99. Comparable City Zoning,: CG (General Commercial) 3. Whether or not to require the assumption of the existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. Staff analysis: The citizens of the City of Edmonds recently passed a public safety bond issue. The passage of the bond issue resulted in a maximum projected rate charged to property owners of approximately $0.29 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Because the bond issue represents an area -wide benefit, the most equitable manner to treat the question of "bonded indebtedness" would be to require the proposed annexation area to assume a proportionate share of the City's existing bonded indebtedness. The approximate Assessed Valuation of the proposed annexation area is $58,764,580. 4. Whether or not to authorize the staff to prepare the required "60%" petitions for circulation. Staff analysis: Annexation of the subject area is consistent with the City's adopted Urban Growth Area and would assist in reducing the remaining portion of the unincorporated island surrounded by the City of Edmonds. Annexation would also have the potential benefit of improving efficiencies of providing City services. Since the City already services the area surrounding the proposed annexation area, extension of City services to this area could be accommodated easily. Additionally, the City currently provides some services to the subject area (e.g. Fire) which would mean that City services would not necessarily have to expand in order to accommodate the proposed annexation. Therefore, authorization to allow preparation and circulation of formal annexation petitions would be appropriate. However, final authorization for preparation and circulation of petitions should not be given until after the January 18, 2000, public hearing on the proposed annexation. Recommended Actions: , 1. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution authorizing circulation of Formal Annexation Petitions for the proposed "Sundquist" annexation and place on the January 25, 2000, Council consent agenda. 2. Resolution to authorize circulation of formal annexation petitions shall not be considered until after the January 18, 2000, Council meeting date. 40 40P �-ztz 1,998 'h71•fF��' •4: June 22, 1998 Jeff 'Wilson City Uf tdnlondS Edmonds, 'Wa. 98020 Dear Mr. 'Wilson l would like to start an annexation procedure in the area of nay residence. i he proposed area would be 22b st. as the north boundary, b$ Ave. W. as the west. the city limits at app. €-iiway yy as the east and the city limits at about 2-234 st. as the south. if you could prepare the necessary paperwork i could work on signatures. Sincerely, Eric Sundgt C'7 0 - )--7 � / R1 EXHIBIT 2 i RECEIVED (Jof i dxnonds AUG 2 41999 i' n$ Division File No. .X-98-101 EDMONDS CITY CLERK +r, 189a NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS r O: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not Iess than fen (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise lha City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A,14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document - III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simullanaous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumplion of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages tontaiaing identical text matcrial and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of inrention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. City of Edmonds Attn: City Clerk 121 5" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. 5. Return all petitions to address on right. Edmonds, WA 98020 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. RNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of tnese petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwlse not Qualified to sin or who makes herein any false statement shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP NUMBER PETTTIONERIS SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE C ne (OPTIONAL) DAT. riQXr-E-�s� �o(Yhun/o�jC��r[sfi4� CIO" �� Lt?Y0(-001— Ckimp-r k, eaS -C,t O� or.; THo J 0 min/ O• C w� , . /C1-6 r �OIVE L.t~ Wr i()fS6rr r E Pose _ or AR.Y4rN�_��rar.a0r/�eaLT-y� EXHIBIT 3 f4l8LMASIWAMNe%AIM np eD RECEIVED of Edmonds ° AUG 2 41999 ng Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. AX-98-101 r, 189p NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owner of not less than ten 009b) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise The City Council Of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following ayes to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 15A.14,120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simullaneous adoption or proposed coning regulwiaas for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed- (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of lntenfion to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cuntulativcly may be considered as a single Noticeoflnrenrion, RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name, Attn: City CICFk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5" A venue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each peritioner roust include the date they sigh petition. 7. Every signature counts. Reium all petitions, even if only one name is on them, WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not qualified to sin or who makes herein rrt false stalement shall be ull of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATEtZIP NUMBER PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE 79 yy -000 - .-� 013 -00 -05 J I. - t - - y :. - i /fir ' Ys s - r r ' (�� f•\ h1A J l i✓ �_.��� �l>b 4 l yr Oo i 7YY y -000 -o a VY 7- Page _ of _ /O Ax-Y61N1_ laiLM�ININYImHa 0i16IX-T�ri Nf11M RECEIVED of Edmonds AUG 2111999 9ng Mvision EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. AX-98-I01 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) pereent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the fallowing area to commence annexation proceedings. pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120. SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to detemtine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing idsnlicat text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Jntanrion to be presented and considered as one Notice of intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice ofinrention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS 1. Petitioner must be property owner. 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petitinn. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one 199 RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: City of Edmonds Attn: City Clerk 121 5" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 .RNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not qualified to sin or who makes herein any false statement shall be R witor a misdemeanor. PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER (OPTIONAL) DATE M"L..s Uj -/ c4 — A q $ ) �Eovggp.�%.f3FlN�S 5�33•x33PL yt}%nr.9lrFlANFI5-S-9 IINO �.nZ 1I e3 n `�• J�NET C. _�1NNK5 86373 3-3P4.S.W.CM-Afte LAoc FDMvj,►D-_%, 9Soab /a�9y C ab I k - n N-0. Cr t-N 5 0 57 -W - !_ rJ 1 YI / f.�r•�S w^/t RS. %L. La.�y`; i `Ldr4+•�u.c9 r:3,a- 4;r'Z„ 00-40 sa5y_eel .ee Kip YQV✓ -I L'V/YIJw�J _ I0t)L� o o -OX /L Paae _ of nz... rui_ iaaprrooviwcr•sr r,..-.0 ew..AMNr%MY op P.DA, �A4t,n+ � RECEIVED of F-,dfnonds U AUG 2 41999 Pf ng Division File No. AX-98-101 EDMONDS CITY CLERK NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence anncxalion proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document, III It is requvslad that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the Filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine.: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption ofproposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be pte=nted and considered as one Notice oflntenrion and may be filed wilh other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of lnrenrion. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN -SIGNED-- T-- I. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete icgal name. Attn: City Ctcrk 3. Petitioner mayonly sign Petition once. 121 5" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petitinn. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them, WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise net �ualiflcd to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be eulltv of a misdemclonr- PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRiIVTNAMEHERB STREET ADDR� SD/CPPY/STATFILIp -w G ZaZ- ,12� -1Y 8c(y iY/A�lc 4A/✓E fa��+ �c/r .L�����. •i�i�y �^'..� /�LGt f �6�y i����� �.4NE /7.)'q/'/..7: e4lV,, cr ir�21 Icr.��f -r6 144e �J1 ITO26 `�• r1�i�Yi-'.�i(.� '_j3�OlG '7\•1!�. 1'�vt_ lam �• -"�S h I\4 s 1kv 1���>=����11--��.ya, r • �,c I 1 )'via-� +Ll 1 Page _ of A%-Yl.Inl_IIKIHT.a001MX7-Y! If1iLWSTnnIANNl1{AM TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER )0" -0of - 00 a5- ZI 207 -06-p4i OO-u5 31 �,7-04 _W�ur 11.2 G/ 5� ly -c= -w7 ,y YIf y- 00u- 00,1. UO - 0, 0l (` 51161 -000- 0&1 00 - a y *1/1?y /Z O� s:btf RECEIVED of Edmonds AUG 2 4 1999 1 ling Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. A7G98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCO_., SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to conunence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.l IM! SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The prorx:rty commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (I) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text rnaterial and is intended by the signers of the Novice of /ntenfinrl to be presented and considered as one Notice ojlntention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of lnfenfion. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF ' 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. P 8 Attn: City �:lcrk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petit ion once. 12151"AvcnllcNorth 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petitinn. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he o4she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not qualified toss n or who makes herein an faisest2(emeti shsLllbegulitYefaFaisdemmnar. TAX ASSESSOR'S PET117ONERISSIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE STREETADDRESS/CITYISTATFJZIP NUMBER COgE (OPTIONAL) DA71 y —or f, c - on oq —mot - J ro U U- U 3 uv � t3y —ctcl- o/; rT� ! _U0.00 �� ' 'Trr�� .k � d%/E !✓ Sri_ A/_ r' AIf+VilUl_I ULIHrD°d IL°Cr-YY aIiLMArr�NNiN!%RlM GAfy ED :> oyd RECEIVED of Edmonds AUG 2 4� 1999 ng Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK Fife No. AX-98-I,D] �'�r. 199❑ NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten 00%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hcrcby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following afea to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The pfoperty commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice oflntention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice ofintention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is an Ihem. WARNING: Every person who signs this peddon with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not ualifiad to s{ n ar who makes herdn art false statement, shall he eullty of a mbdemrtannr. PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE STREET ADDRESSICITYISTATMIP CODE TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER (OPTIONAL) DATE G'—� v I�Ntt.tA Assime- d 9J0-2-8390/4vr I•,/ i✓01,o,J4s, PVA goo" �I , C`� w- I •� t� �'ct�n e z3t, zo g.3;1 '23'sD Y 23 vn;c �p 3ati g 3'd C.L'aL- a �tD 1 I Ij `ir�iD' C — - i rd r� ./ L,.,A k r� 2.?l22 9�'1( L r1r I/ -Eli Al[.Y41n1_ IIYi rrT.DIX'J I I,.OLT-W FL6aYAS 1ID1/Aaa�IIgIM aY Fi) {t RECEIVED ° of Edmonds tJ •! N AUG 2 41999 P1 ag Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. AX-98401 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be Filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF , 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in' ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. Each petitioner mast include the date they sign petition. Every signature counts. Return all petitions; even if only one name is ofi 11kcm. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she 1s not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not quollfied to sin or who makes herein any false statement shell 1; ullty of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATEarP PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE NUMBER (OPTIONAL) DATE a7t F-, —tn—'e 31)-7o`IJaP� �,G4 ✓Lsv�/�'N l� (�jo9 pj� fiIDS �J �7(' 96 /L/rr11G 031 -Qo"? _24-917 -�r,�t12 Cf r f'f'ur � �� � t � • � iS per � �6�7 oa� oE' ,i� Suvi�4 v. S% AR•Y41"1_IY{rlr.DW164)C rM n1ELMASR11l�NH!%NtM ' OT E°4,0� RECEIVED of Edmonds �• AUG 2 4 1999 Pi ;ng Division EDMONDS CITYCLERK File No. AX-98.101 4.,- NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who arc the owners of not less than ten (io%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxnlipn of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of [he City of Edmonds that it is the desire of tl5c undersihmed residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RC 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" I] The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION', herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this docurricnt. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simuhnaeous adopiian of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed, (4) This page is one of a greuP of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of lnfenrion to be presented and considered as one Notice ojlneenfion and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Inrenrtan. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF Igy INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5'" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Retum all petitions to address on right, 6. Each petitioner must include the dale they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all peeilions. even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not Q URIIfied to sl rt a who makes herein an raise Sea tern ent, shall be eulIty or a mlxdemvvnnr. PRINT NAME HERE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATEIZIP TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE 570-000-01y 7-, 74 3'� &/ 26 .i@anirc- Jcy� cal 8117 -72.q S-t— 5 67- wo, 0-3 - of -0y '19111 -0c I -Olt ,'i.)A� [1> rt%i{J IVi 4N . 2—_Zl , r ! n f I.L �U . _pV � p� 4 q9 4 91 g uoi -ct�g iNo1�ASS, of Cc z3n3Z.—F3[ sT Q/, .oa-0r l/Au(?9p S r sw d�rll�i A ' U = a oo- 10710 �,i� M��ec�wrl F(3l�s sw noy-ou`oil 9-�r�7 l Maw�,y WA �513 Poge_a/_ /V A1r.N.le1_IlM1r ....HeX 1Le(.T+Ie wa�w�stwMraw �y enAf RECEIVED of Edmonds U N AUG 2 41999 P•- -.ling Division EDMONDS CITYCLERK File No. AX-98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the praper[y which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.170. SEE EXHIBIT "A" If The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this docurncnt. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to deterrejne: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the propose! annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by [he area to be annexed, (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of lwenrion to be presented and considered as one Norice oflnrenrion and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of lmenfion, RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS 1. Petitioner must be property owner. 2. • Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. 5. Return all petitions to address on right. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. 199 RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: City of Edmonds Attn: City Clerk 121 5"' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not 1junlifled to sin or who makes herein any false statement shall be guilty of a misdemeaaor. STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATFJZIP PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE RlcharGx' jtuartz �qY6- a30 Sf, i`V unc% I—✓rY�l �n� 96ar6 5ct7azreZ 'IC._C.�t.•vk�� �I Fti :'.1< W I LL�° '✓1 .7 ?� � •�-.$ 1. ^.la iiv.y ;� c; r' l E..['lyt aT.rGt, ly n f i l�11:L: �Lrfj�ra �. �oi1 eS ICe✓ovo,�--i-r TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER (OPTIONAL) 767-pci7_ atf s f%UD - � 0 Ui• 7 DATE 7110/W g—�� q r AX•4L IIII_ IIY✓I.P6T.DapI60LT•Vr IRBV MAlIIIUANNI%RIY ❑e ED,yb RECEIVED �a .•.;:., ;r - d of Edmonds AUG 2 41999 1' P g Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. AX-98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners ornot I= than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hercby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requesied that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to deterroine; (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation, (2) Whether the City Council will requ ire the simullancous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical tract material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice oflntendon and may be. filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF .199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5' Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions_, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than Itis or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not qualified to sl n or who makes herein any false statement shall be guilty,of a misdemeanor. STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP PETJTIONERT SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE i1y`` /d E r:.cc'l jam' TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER (OPTIONAL) r767- 00-wj oy-3 DATE Pw _ or_ /O A7r-114IIII_ IUMrar.000'160LT-Yt MIELMKraNANNa1tRlM RECEIVED A� .: • nia r of Edmonds t, v AUG 2 41999 P. ing Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. AX-98-101 �•+r, 11s9� NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the fallowing area to commence annexaiion proceedings, pursuant to RCW 3SA. 14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a dare not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council wiII accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area ra be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of larendon and may be Tied with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Inrention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 u`'" tell%. A rvNJ sv JItiNERN RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. -Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. Every signature counts. Returnall petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she Is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein anv f9tNe statement, shall be Ruiity of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATEIZIP CODE NUMBER ti�..rr�L—c+r (OPTIONAL) — DAIS - 3303n ,•_:T-__ ..��*"� .._ e,<r.._<; ,>30le- t) pl. Llii kf8--.x. 00- ctw -ds cam, II ' .�o_--••-� t %�crv� i , ,�3IG' - �Cr �� �'li, Y y!,q -co/ -v3o ap-c7 ,� _� •`TI yoga _ Of Ax.Y41p1-Io rn�O1.T•W / fpaLMASraWAN""/ANNBMAM Op end RECEIVED of Edmonds w AUG 2 4 1999 if ,lg Division EDMONDS CITYCLERK File No. AX-98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than len (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.ICt20: SEE EXHIBIT "A" it The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this documctu. ' III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a dare not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simuitaaeous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by She area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical lext material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Irlrenrron to be presented and considered as one Nofice of /nrenflon and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5" A vcnue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds. WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not qualified to sin or who makes herein an faisr Statement. shall be uilt of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATFIZIP NUMBER P ON SIGNATU PRINTNAMEHERE CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE 14 S T 4L>,4ms ea1 art EDA►t w�❑s Wf 9PA(_ EDA, o"'05; &)A- ??026 lt 7(5" V 47Es-06).-ol-1 72a /%// �-, a 7 �o -v4 9114-lP% - S-7r3 ��CN476j-OG1-vl6 E—DIMoNDS WA J&24-07 cv ol.t o AJL.9 P 6HN �) 9orLLY Nt �f//iolriS Page _ of W W/MASIW.W NUIRIM l Or {'nt' ti ° RECEIVED of Edmonds ing Division AUG 2 q 1999 File No. AX-98-101 EDMONDS CITY CLERK Alt. t g)4 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in valur, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the properly which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the Fallowing area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" H The pr0prr1y commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. HI It is requesled that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for it meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations For the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Insentlon to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intension and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of in(en rron. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Cluck 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5"' Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. x Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she Is otherwise not qualified to sign or who makes herein any false statement, shall be uuilty of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/C1TY/STATMIP NUMBER 00-01 �' f '� ��y �Q�47ds-oul -va- Al" � I.. J . 1. I yl 01,1v e- y Bs05- 1d-rt 4- K 4- ate, 76s - ,o I / ED MdA,DS '7Sd C 2 -oo AdrlGNl1GfnaNRY1*�Ls.s DATE 46 Ax-AMIUISPage _ of _ / / nl�farA00'le a•LT-YI R� R18LNASTIWANMY%RM �� Op Y, r3 Ary l• RECEIVED of Edmonds ng Division AUG 2 41999 File No. AX-98-101 EDMONDS CITY CLERK NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than let) (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuoat to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" if The property commonly known as "SUNDQUMANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council wiII accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whet herihe Cily Council will require the simuitancous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice ojfnienrion to be presented and considered as one Notice opntenrion and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of lnrention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. P 8 Attn: City C[crk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5"' Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not quallflied to A n or who makes herein an ralse slalemen shall he uilt of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATEJZIP NUMBER PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE Thomas A. Miller �3�0— 9 9 At-9- IV Mayor Pro Tem •'�`% 99 Al City of Edmonds PoS._ af_ 122 AXA 111l1MN4r.parn6llLT-ell RUUWMAST8WAMMXMM CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY Snohomish County Assessor's Office Gail S. Rauch County Assessor Cindy S. Portrnann Chief Deputy M/S #510 3000 Rockefeller Avenue Everett, WA 98201-4046 (425) 388-3433 I, Linda Hjelle, Snohomish County Deputy Assessor, in accordance with the requirements of RCW 35A.01.040, hereby certify that the Petition for the City of Edmonds Sundquist Annexation AX- 98-101, submitted to the Assessor on August 27th, 1 999is signed by the owners of property comprising 121/6 of the total assessed value within the area described in the petition, according to the records of the Snohomish County Assessor. The determination of sufficiency was begun on August 27th, 1999. Dated this 29th day of October, 1999. By, Deputy Assessor EXHIBIT 4 13 .. ,.-.. _.:: ,,.. :., �....:...... nJa .. ,. r l... ..-.. ..:R:. 94,.:,.n,.,_-..>_•?..�-. .............� ,.:....: ,,,:::.,.�a:t.a�s :..IAI..+,.., ..ten, ... Y4w"q}=l°. ,.... .:. - sgt+4lb=�E:'uu' '^nur�,•r... , ..fit. .: . •':::':....`.n Jn:.: <...:;i.:;.;..:':� ::..::... i...:..;:'ilr r A A .1-,r EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Item #: L Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS — SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION (FOR FIRE STATION PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23009 881" AVENUE WEST), Agenda Time: Consent Agenda Date: August 17, 1999 Exhibits Attached: 1. Proposed Annexation Boundaries (File No. AX-98-101) 2. Location of Fire Station No. 20 3. Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition Expenditure Amount Required: $ 0 Budgeted: Funding Source: Not applicable. Previous Council Action: None. Narrative: Clearances: Department/initials Admin Svcs/Finance _ City Attorney City Clerk Court Personnel Fire Community Svcs Engineering Parks & Rec Plannin r� Public W&ks Treatment Plant Police City Council Development Svcs Mayor Reviewed_ by Council Finance Committee: Community Services Public Safety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Appropriation $ 0 Required: $ 0 The proponent of the "Sundquist Annexation' is currently in the process of gathering signatures of property owners who own a minimum of 10% of the total assessed valuation of the property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation area (see Exhibit 1). Within the proposed annexation boundaries, the City of Edmonds owns and operates Fire Station No. 20 located at 23009 88ei Avenue West (see Exhibit 2). The proponent has requested that the City of Edmonds, as owner of the property for Fire Station 20 which is within the boundaries of the proposed annexation area, sign the Notice f Intenti n to Comm nce Annexation Proceedings (the "petition") (see Exhibits 2 and 3). This petition is only the initial step in the Page Iof2 EXHIBIT 6 AX-98.101 FIRESi'AT70N 00OCJI2-AUG-99 FILMUPORMCOUNCIL 04 Ok "petition method" annexation process. Under the petition method of annexation, the proponent is required to obtain signatures of property owners who own a minimum of 10% of the total assessed valuation of the proposed annexation area. In this particular instance, the proposed annexation area has a total approximate assessed valuation of $58,764,580 (based on 1999 assessed valuations). Therefore, the proponent is required to obtain signatures on the petition representing an assessed valuation of approximately $5.9 million. The assessed valuation of Fire Station 20 is approximately $777,000, therefore, signature by the City of Edmonds on the petition will not by itself be sufficient to initiate the annexation process. If the proponent is successful in gathering sufficient signatures on the petition, in order for the annexation to receive final approval, the proponent would then be required to obtain signatures on the final annexation petition of property owners representing 60% of the assessed valuation of the final annexation boundaries. Additionally, the City is required to hold a minimum of two public hearings on the annexation proposal to provide the public the opportunity to testify either for or against the proposed annexation. Recommended Action: Council authorize either the Mayor or her representative, as property owner, to sign the petition titled Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings for the proposed "Sundquist" Annexation, City of Edmonds File No. AX-98-101 (see Exhibit 3). Council Action: to 19 m 11 X 2 ca w vV EL) G Yt'�o City of Edmonds Planning Division File No. iA,X-98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CfI'Y COUNCQ SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less thnn tea (70%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the Properly which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the C4 of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersied residents of the foilowing area to corrunence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A, Id.120: gn SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION'. herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. m It is requested the[ the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the riling of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine; (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed ennexeiion. (2) Whcrher the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the propo-d area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Councii will require the assumption of existing City indebledness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one cf a group of pages come ining identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be parented and considered as one Notice of Intention and me be filed wish other pages containing signatures which curnuiariveiy may be considered as a single Notice of I,ten lion. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF ]99 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETMONS TO: I. must be property owner.City of Ednronds must sign with complete legal name. may only sign Petition once.Atrn: City Clerk must be ai 121 5" Avenue North gned in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 petitions to address an right. 6. Each Petitioner must Include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on Them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with •ny other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one or these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she Is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she IS otherwise not ua IMM to st n or who makes hertin sn2 false stateme:i[ shad be 1,U111111 v of a misdemeanor. ASS STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATILMIP TAXNUMBER R'S PET)TIDNER'S 51GNATURE PRINT NAME. HERE Cpt]St: [QP'I'1pNAi.)>3ATE ,}-3 0 o _ 0 B At, a. axaM[.reHermv[aat7ar Ra ef- EXHIBIT "Alt LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at Its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-o way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described In Ordinance Number 3163; thence -easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and Its easterly projection to its Intersection with the easterly rightof way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to Its Intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234Ih SL S.W.; thence easterly along sakf northerly margin to its Inlensec$on with the westerly tine of Lot 21. Skshon's Lake McAlear Five aide Tracts, as recprded In Volume 8 of Plats, Page 21, recants of Snohomish County, Wastdrrgton; thence northerly along said westerly Ins to the northwest comer of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly Ines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly Ins to its Intersection with the centerline of the right-cf-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its Intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to Its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its Intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 22e• St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and Its westerly projection to Its Intersection with the westerly right-of•way margin ctile Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. Alt-98-101.doc September 10, 1998 W Q 96 4 L�lllim- f -211 for Bids - Mlorine all for Bids — Lawn Mower all for Bids — now Plow Federal 'Surplus Equip. (Parking Stall 1Leaae Public Safety complex Art "To 'w ipn f Fcaces — sunset & ;�ceaa {�W1dgLi5l Reno 958 �Commeoding 3. Haakeosoo 3. eso & PEaque ary •�akepson (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JERRY LJUNGGREN ($317.11) (E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR LIQUID CHLORINE FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, YOST POOL, AND OTHER AGENCIES (F) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE A 48" ROTARY LAWN MOWER WITH GRASS CATCHER LIFT SYSTEM FOR THE CEMETERY (G) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE A SNOW PLOW WITH A V-BOX SANDER FOR THE STREET DMSION (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ACQUIRE FEDERAL SURPLUS EQUIPMENT (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO' SIGN A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR PARKING STALLS AT "OLD PUBLIC WORKS" SITE (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH ARTISTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX TO EXTEND COMPLETION DATE (K) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENT TO LEASE NO. 30092 WITH BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF FENCES ALONG SUNSET AND OCEAN AVENUES (L) AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN NOTICE OF INTENTION - TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS - SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION (FOR FIRE STATION PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23009 - 88TH AVENUE WEST) (M) RESOLUTION NO.958 COMMENDING COUNCIL PRESIDENT GARY HAAKENSON Mayor Pro Tenn Miller explained Councilmember Haakenson served on the Council for the past four years and as Council President for the past 19 months. He relinquished his position as Council President on August 3 in accordance with an unwritten policy that no Councilmember shall be Council President while a candidate for office. Mayor Pro Tern Millen read Resolution No. 958 thanking Gary Haakenson for his service to the City Council as Council President and presented a plaque to him recognizing his service to the Council. Councilmember Haakenson thanked the Council for the Resolution and plaque and said it was his pleasure to serve as Council President. He said the Council, an overworked and underpaid body, has the best interest of the City at heart. 11ic An for 4, LULIQ ittan, an L AEU PROJECT Cultural Program Coordinator Frances Chapin explained in 1998 the Sister City Commission developed the concept of locating a piece of public art outside the new City Hall being constructed in Edmonds' Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 17, 1999 EXHIBIT 7 Page 31 d- W—y 7 OLYMPIC VIEW %.. i ER & SEWER DISTRICT 23725 Edmonds Way Phone (425) 774-7769 Edmonds WA 98026-8981 Fax (425) 670-1856 August 12, 1999 City Council City of Edmonds 121 5' Ave, N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Honorable Council: Board of Commissioners John E Elsasser Patricia L Meeker Lora L Petso It is our understanding you are considering an annexation of that portion of Snohomish County South of 22eM St. in the Esperance area. Olympic View is a property owner within the area under consideration. We support the concept that the residents of an area should decide whether they wish to become part of the City of Edmonds. The current process where owners are asked to sign a petition requesting annexation has put us in an awkward position. If we sign, we may, by virtue of our ownership value, be unduly influencing the results. The same is true if we do not sign. In addition, since we own land and have major integrated facilities on both sides of 228t' St., this annexation could split our facilities into two different municipalities. While this normally does not create a problem, the integrated nature of these facilities and their operation may make this split undesirable. For these reasons, we request that our property along the south side of 228"' St. between 80"' Ave and 841' Ave. be removed from the annexation area. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this request in further detail, please let us know or contact our General Manager, Roger C. Eberhart. Sincerely, OLYMPIC VI W WATER AN WIrR DISTRICT � 0- p Lora Petso President, Board of Commissioners LP/rce DISTRIBU'VED AUG 2 0 1999 TO EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RECtIVED AuG 2 0 1999 CJV COUNCIL EXHIBIT 8. 32 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE MATTER OF HERTRICH V. OLYMPIC VIEW DELI AND NOTE THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER WHITE OPPOSED AND COUNCILMEMBER EARLING ABSTAINED. . , . ! / IU i / - ; i _ ! i _. / ' i Ill. �!.►0mgIras.L 1 ! ► !� EIts1ILI f Council President Miller advised a motion for reconsideration had also been submitted by Mr. Mallonee. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE MATTER OF MALLONEE V. SPEE AND NOTE THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. MOTION CARRIED: Council President Miller advised there had been minor verbiage changes to the ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL ORDINANCE NO. 3286 WITH THE NOTED CHANGES. MOTION CARRIED. �- - - i 'ILL ! - M.rl- ' ' ! ' 1 1 / � -- ►.�- � :... ! :_►1 � ZI ar-111 LFJQ%WP WffrW=L 4 =IffA W R1 DIW.KW Kpk I I I No Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this is a proposal to initiate the process for circulation of the formal petition for annexation of the area south of 2280' Street SW, west of Hwy. 99, and east of 88`s Avenue W, the area known as Esperailce. He explained this area totals 193 acres with a total valuation of $58.7 million. The proponents have collected the requisite petitions, to initiate the process. The purpose of tonight's meeting is for the Council to meet with petitioners, discuss the boundaries and reach agreement on several issues including, 1) whether to accept, reject or modify the proposed annexation boundaries, 2) whether or not to require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the subject area, 3) whether or not to require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed (staff's recommendation would be to require assumption of existing City indebtedness), and 4) whether or not to authorize staff to prepare the required " 60%" petitions for circulation. He advised the isrecommended action is to direct staff to prepare a resolution authorizing circulation of Formal City Council Draft Minutes December 14, 1999 EXHIBIT 2 Page 33 Annexation petitions for the proposed "Sundquist" annexation and place the issue on the January 25, . 2000 Council Consent Agenda, and that the resolution to authorize circulation of formal annexation petitions not be considered until after the January 18, 2000 Council public hearing. There was no one representing the Sundquist annexation in the audience. Councilmember Earling requested this matter be addressed later in the agenda in the event a representative arrived later. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO MOVE ITEM 3 TO ITEM 6A. MOTION CARRIED. Accounting Manager Doug Farmen advised twice a year the budget is amended as is legally required whenever money is transferred from one fund to another. He advised the budget amendment is $165,220 which brings the total 1999 City budget to $55,002,640. He commented this is basically a housekeeping requirement to meet legal audit requirements so the City does not exceed appropriations approved by the Council. He advised a 1999 Budget Summary was provided in the Council packet as Exhibit A. Mayor Fahey pointed out this is an amendment to the City's entire 1999 budget, not just the General Fund. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised some of the changes are increases in cash revenue; all other appropriations have been individually reviewed and approved by the Council throughout the year. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3288, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF isEDMONDS, WASHINGTON AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3237 AND ORDINANCE NO. 3272 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED. Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained that when the Council last reviewed the appraisal, a request was made for a peer review of the appraisal submitted by Jack Dinniene on behalf of the Edmonds School District to confirm the information in Mr. Dinniene's findings. The peer review was completed by Jim Dodge, Macaulay & Associates, LTD, who found the valuation of raw land to be supported by information in the original appraisal but did not feel the valuation of the subject property was accurately determined and did not feel the method for reducing its value was sufficiently supported in the report. Rather than the right-of-way being 10% of the value of one raw lot, Mr. Dodge recommended it be 25- 50% of the value of one raw lot based on the fact that it is more than %z a lot size and because of its location in the middle of the property and fronting on 841h. Staff recommends the Council use the 50% value of one raw lot to determine the value of this portion of right-of-way. The value of one raw lot as determined in the original report was $22,500, 50% is $11,250. As required by City ordinances, the school district would only pay 50% of that value or $5,625 to acquire that portion of right-of-way. • In response to a question raised by Councilmember Van Hollebeke, City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the valuation of the right-of-way was determined to be $11,250 and 50% was the $5,625. He explained City Council Draft Minutes December 14, I999 Pagc 5 3V CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY Snohomish Cou Assessor's Office Gail S. Rauch County Assessor Cindy S. Portmann Chief Deputy M/S #510 3000 Rockefeller Avenue Everett, WA 98201-4046 (425) 388-3433 I, Linda Hjelle, Snohomish County Deputy Assessor, in accordance with the requirements of RCW 35A.01.040, hereby certify that the Petition for the City of Edmonds Sundquist Annexation AX- 98-101, submitted to the Assessor on August 27th, 1999 is signed by the owners of property comprising 12% of the total assessed value within the area described in the petition, according to the records of the Snohomish County Assessor. The determination of sufficiency was begun on August 27th, 1999. Dated this 29th day of October, 1999. By, c Deputy Assessor CITY OF EDMONDS _ BARBARAFAHEY MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 775-2525 CITY CLERK lnc.1B913 October 25, 1999 Gail S. Rauch, County Assessor 3rd Floor, Administration Building 3000 Rockefeller Everett, WA 98201 Subject: Petitions - Certificate of Sufficiency Sundquist Annexation Dear Ms. Rauch: On August 24, 1999, my office received Petitions — Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings (14 pages) for the Sundquist Annexation Area. The petitions were signed by property owners, and pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.21 copies of the petitions were forwarded to you on August 26 in order to determine the sufficiency of the petitions. As of today, I have not received a certificate of sufficiency, nor a response. This letter is a follow up to see if you need any further information from the City of Edmonds. I will be on vacation the week of October 25, and would appreciate it if you would call Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor, to let him know the status of these petitions. His telephone number is (425) 771-0220. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Sandra S. Chase Edmonds City Clerk Enclosure cc: Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan CITYCITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FA MAYOR II lvl 1 V LJ MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 775-2525 CITY CLERK 'nc.189\3 August 26, 1999 Gail S. Rauch, County Assessor 3rd Floor, Administration Building 3000 Rockefeller Everett, WA 98201 Subject: Petition - Certificate of Sufficiency Sundquist Annexation Dear Ms. Rauch: On August 24, 1999, my office received a Petition — Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings (14 pages). The petition is signed by property owners. Pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.21 the Petition is to be given to the County Assessor to determine the sufficiency of the petition. The petitioners are to constitute at least ten percent (10%) of the assessed valuation of the described area. I have enclosed copies of the Petition along with the legal description of the property. Please note that the first Petition is for property owned by the City of Edmonds (a fire station located at 23009 881h Avenue West). I have attached a certified copy of the August 17, 1999 City Council Minutes giving authorization for the Petition to be signed. Please let me know if you need any other documentation. We ask that you provide a certificate of sufficiency at your earliest convenience. Please call my office at (425) 771-0245 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sandra S. Chase Edmonds City Clerk Enclosure cc: Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Claim for IDamages Call for Bids - Chlorine all for Bids — Lawu Mower all for Bids — Snow Plow Federal Surplus Equip. Parking Stall Lease Public Safety Complex Art Sundquist Annexation Peso 958 Commending 3. Haakenson 3. Peso & Piaquc sry Haakenson (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JERRY LJUNGGREN ($317.11) (E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR LIQUID CHLORINE FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, YOST POOL, AND OTHER AGENCIES (F) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE A 48" ROTARY LAWN MOWER WITH GRASS CATCHER LIFT SYSTEM FOR THE CEMETERY (G) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE A SNOW PLOW WITH A V-BOX SANDER FOR THE STREET DIVISION (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ACQUIRE FEDERAL SURPLUS EQUIPMENT (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR PARKING STALLS AT "OLD PUBLIC WORKS" SITE (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH ARTISTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX TO EXTEND COMPLETION DATE (K) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENT TO LEASE NO. 30092 WITH BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF FENCES ALONG SUNSET AND OCEAN AVENUES (L) AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS - SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION (FOR FIRE STATION PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23009 - 88TH AVENUE WEST) (M) RESOLUTION NO. 958 COMMENDING COUNCIL PRESIDENT GARY HAAKENSON PIRESENTAILON F RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE ILl1�iEMBER GARY HNAKENSON FOR SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT Mayor Pro Tem Miller explained Councilmember Haakenson served on the Council for the past four years and as Council President for the past 19 months. He relinquished his position as Council President on August 3 in accordance with an unwritten policy that no Councilmember shall be Council President while a candidate for office. Mayor Pro Tem Miller read Resolution No. 958 thanking Gary Haakenson for his service to the City Council as Council President and presented a plaque to him recognizing his service to the Council. Councilmember Haakenson thanked the Council for the Resolution and plaque and said it was his pleasure to serve as Council President. He said the Council, an overworked and underpaid body, has the best interest of the City at heart. 9 J:Pubfic Art for 4. P LIC UEARMG AND AUTHORIZA'IJON F-0R--MAYOR To SIGN !CONIRACT Fi ART PROJECT Cultural Program Coordinator Frances Chapin explained in 1998 the Sister City Commission developed the concept of locating a piece of public art outside the new City Hall being constructed in Edmonds' Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 17, 1999 Page 2 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1999 Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a real estate matter, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:20 p.m, by Mayor Pro Tern Miller in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Thomas A. Miller, Mayor Pro Tern Dick Van Hollebeke, Council President Pro Tem Gary Haakenson, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember ABSENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor STAFF PRESENT Robin Hickok, Police Chief John Westfall, Fire Marshal Ray Miller, Development Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Stephen Koho, Wastewater Treatment Plant Mgr Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Frances Chapin, Cultural Program Coordinator Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Pro Tern Miller apologized for the delayed start of the Council meeting due to the Executive Session. He advised Mayor Fahey was out of town at a National League of Cities meeting followed by a vacation. t _ e COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. 2 •fQNUNIAGENDA-1—TEM COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL ,Approve (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 1999 Minutes Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #34172 THROUGH #35173 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim AUGUST 2, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $867,189.32. APPROVAL OF CLAIM Warrants WARRANTS #34984 THROUGH 935319 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 9, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $418,827.09. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #25553 THROUGH #25742 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 16 THROUGH JULY 31, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $396,109.13 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 17, 1999 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Planning Division For Action: X Item #: L For Information: Subject: AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS — SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION (FOR FIRE STATION PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23009 88TH AVENUE WEST). Agenda Time: Agenda Date: Exhibits Attached: Consent August 17, 1999 1. Proposed Annexation Boundaries (File No. AX-98-101) 2. Location of Fire Station No. 20 3. Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings petition Expenditure Amount Re uired: $ 0 Budqeted: Funding Source: Not applicable. Previous Council Action: None. Narrative: Clearances: Department/Initials Admin Svcs/Finance _ City Attorney City Clerk Court Personnel Fire Police Development Svcs Reviewed by Council Committee: Community Svcs Engineering Parks & Rec Plannin Public W rks Treatment Plant City Council Mayor Finance Community Services Public Safely Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Appropriation $ 0 Required: $ 0 The proponent of the "Sundquist Annexation' is currently in the process of gathering signatures of property owners who own a minimum of 10% of the total assessed valuation of the property located within the boundaries of the proposed annexation area (see Exhibit 1). Within the proposed annexation boundaries, the City of Edmonds owns and operates Fire Station No. 20 located at 23009 88 h Avenue West (see Exhibit 2). The proponent has requested that the City of Edmonds, as owner of the property for Fire Station 20 which is within the boundaries of the proposed annexation area, sign the Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings (the "petition') (see Exhibits 2 and 3). This petition is only the initial step in the AX-98-I0I FIRE STATION 01 DOG12-AUG-99 Pagel of 2 FILES/REPORTS/COUN CI L "petition method" annexation process. Under the petition method of annexation, the proponent is required to obtain signatures of property owners who own a minimum of 10% of the total assessed valuation of the proposed annexation area. In this particular instance, the proposed annexation area has a total approximate assessed valuation of $58,764,580 (based on 1998 assessed valuations). Therefore, the proponent is required to obtain signatures on the petition representing an assessed valuation of approximately $5.9 million. The assessed valuation of Fire Station 20 is approximately $777,000, therefore, signature by the City of Edmonds on the petition will not by itself be sufficient to initiate the annexation process. If the proponent is successful in gathering sufficient signatures on the petition, in order for the annexation to receive final approval, the proponent would then be required to obtain signatures on the final annexation petition of property owners representing 60% of the assessed valuation of the final annexation boundaries. Additionally, the City is required to hold a minimum of two public hearings on the annexation proposal to provide the public the opportunity to testify either for or against the proposed annexation. Recommended Action: Council authorize either the Mayor or her representative, as property owner, to sign the petition titled Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation Proceedings for the proposed "Sundquist" Annexation, City of Edmonds File No. AX-98-101 (see Exhibit 3). Council Action: m City of Edmonds Planning Division File No. AX-98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCU,, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than fen (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.220: SEE EXHIBIT "A" H The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmond's set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council wi11 require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Inrention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice oflntention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF 199 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: I. Petitioner must. be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not uslined toss n or who makes herein a ny false statement shall be Suilt of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP NUMBERCODE (OPTIONAL) DATE Puce _ of AX-M an_ urr,esr.00a iAacrxr NUL%ftAVMWMNEX RM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88:h Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin cf 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th SL S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAteer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snthomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest comer of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly Ilrre to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-cf-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 22801 St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly righl-of-way margin of 88°i Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101.doc September 10, 1998 `D� RECEIVED AUG 2 41999 EDMONDS CITY CLERK City of Edmon%. Planning Divisioi File No. AX-98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%v) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS -?4/ DAY OF Lc5 Z�' , 199 1 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5`h Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to si n, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER (OPTIONAL) DATE Thomas A. Miller Mayor Pro Tem City of Edmonds a 0 0 1- 9 9 ALQ 1 Ltv I Page, ---of AX-98-101 11Yi6PEr.DOGI (.00I'--95 FILES/MASTER/ANNEXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 228"1 St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881' Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101.doc September 10, 1998 ,V EDA f0 RECEIVED AUG 2 41999 EDMONDS CITY CLERK 1 City of Edmonds Planning Division File No. AX-98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF dgeltst , 199 9 v INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 51h Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP NUMBER PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE C DE (OPTIONAL) DATE v � fie' 3 � � c� kk u,,q cs f iu ,, kl (4;—CG 6) c1 C 0 PFhA L � � ' Zf ? y 0 - 00 t — oukS -041- U R ' r/2 /j V- - -Q 10 , 1) f Y'5 �1 Page _ of AX-98-10I _ I (MR. PET. DOG 16-OCr-98 FILES/MASTE R/AN N EXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 228' St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its ;,Vesterly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881h Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101. doc September 10, 1998 �V EDAo RECEIVED tp AUG 2 41999 EDMONDS CITY CLERK M City of Edmonds Planning Division File No. AX-98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120- SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS Z `�DAY OF ' 199.9 0 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5'h Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition_ 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP NUMBER PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE (OPTIONAL) , DATE o13 oa -o 8 a - v 7g9q -.0`0 -01'4 �A . gytf ,�—oi7— sic �A� o� �N Page of AX-98-101 IIMPE MOC1I64)Cr-98 FILFS/MASTER/ANNEXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a paint on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 2281' St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881 Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101. doc September 10, 1998 0 NI 11 En 40 RECEIVED d AUG 2 41999 EDMONDS CITY CLERK St. 1 City of Edmonds Planning Division File No. AX-98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.I4.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of'Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF ,19917_. INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5`h Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not 0alil:e[1 to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be.guilty of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP NUMBER PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE old �-� 1 =ri I-Akoyxck, U %A i kZ& J241 L7 9633 -233 PC sW(1Ro-1E1A10F) -SaS9-oe�-oi3— oeo3 ��}} 8633-�33 Pl,.S.k)ZA+vtr CRuE /a �RNKS FD�►���5, 9gaa� 9 �9 l^0 p `�v �sU sy� " 00 -o)- i — 7- Of - c,7 7 Page of AX-98-101_ IMPET.D00I6-OCf-93 F[LFS/MASTER/AN NEXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its Intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 228t' St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-cf-way margin of 881' Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101. doc September 10, 1998 1 OV ED40 RECEIVED City of Edmonds � d AUG 2 41999 Planning Division File No. AX-98-101 EDMONDS CITY CLERK NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS a`I' DAY OF It,199 9 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: I. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 51h Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilq of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE NUMBER (OPTIONAL) DATE 'lr l��.C` 411� SGsy po - es Aw A 4L,0�1 I I �fl "C 241 C � �^�.r6 -e-, (caS— Z d" b,, �f "W ofdol G 5% �lzf aZ /0 e .1 d ,� 9,FG 2-6 �e 9 y - 000 -a1Y7 — 0tj _0b F� (Aa.5)-[��1- a ',iota Drd �A � y'-88 i- oou— oo�- IQ bah — 60 - A � 11/1 7�J S �j ��2a D-�04-k- c�- t� �V g 1-oao--Oct, ��- Page ` of AX-98-1111_1(nJ PE-r.DOCJ16-OCrA8 FILES/MASTER/ANNEXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 228t' St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881h Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101. doc September 10, 1998 oV ED40 RECEIVED City of Edmonds AUG 2 41999 EDMONDS CITY CLERK Planning Division File No. AX-98-101 Lis t. ,g q, NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF &wzd;Z�- _ ,199. INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. 5. Return all petitions to address on right. City of Edmonds Attn: City Clerk 121 51h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who Knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE NUMBER (OPTIONAL) DATE OU - Cc2 �7 - �n 58$ —wo - v (o spa � ti0 Page of AX-9A-101 10%P Er. DOG 16-0Cr-99 F(LES/M ASTER/AN NEXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 22811 St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881h Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101.doc September 10, 1998 DV E0� RECEIVED City of Edmonds AUG 2 41999 Planning Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. AX-98-101 t, NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASH NGTON I The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120. SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF`~ , 199 IINSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: I. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5`h Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. I. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not jualified to -sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP NUMBER PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE 12P I e i p f� sSi N a� a.2 0-2 4 8 3 S'- A v;-:- 11/ ,q J So f �a (6 Yz� &.,4 12v Z3 �3 �/ iu> r 22122- C< 0 Page _ of AX-98-101_ 10%,PEf .DOG160Cr-98 FILESIMASTER/ANNEXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right -cif -way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a paint on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-ef-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 2281 St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881h Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101. doc September 10, 1998 O-V ED o� RECEIVED City of Edmonds �~16 AUG 2 41999 Planning Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. AX-98401 Fsr Ingo NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1 The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" H The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. , RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS a 7 * DAY OF e"Ok4-'t ,1991. INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. Attn: City Clerk 121 5`h Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualifled to sign, or who makes herein any false statement shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE NUMBER (OPTIONAL) DATE �' U"�� `f' ' 1� f c� S� r/r �1 li+� `S 3 0 i 0'- -41,1 cvUs 7 � — qC1 iv if C a;( -oo°? 7-6"--99 Svv1�U�P �t S� Page of AX-99-10I _ 101, PEI'. DOG I LOCI'-9 S FRESIMASI'ERIAN N EXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 2281' St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881h Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101.doc September 10, 1998 ,y EDAfQ RECEIVED d City of Edmonds W AU6 Z 41999 Planning Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. AX-98-101 sr. 189p NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who are the owners of not Iess than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council wiII accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS A 7' DAY OF ,199—_. INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5" Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one f name is on them. i WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to si Yn, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. FE IT1UNER'S SIGNATT �,C PRINT J2cn�`xe- J -1-14o M AS , , oll ,1�7r I-vj 14C-K�eo we-k STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE �ZJ2"J—S-Zl"�A v� -7777i1 / '7?"?d, a t I / / 7 a34t--- s--f- s Z3032---8 C S' f21. (-L) 82!if 1,2RR s 7- 73/0 -H- �f s TAX ASSESSOR'S NUMBER (OPTIONAL) DATE GIO �-7e-7 _ 000-0,P4 — t 6j — 0 Cal �7 / 20 5 70- ode- I ®-3 - 01 --0 � fq/b'_o°I-01( 6.60 Cl_ 0 00- 00q- 0/,-=-oe // A M «- g -77 Page- -_ of AX-98-1UI_10%,PEr.DOC/I6-OCT-98 RLES/MASTER/AN NEXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-ef-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 228t' St. S.W.; thence westerly along said nor' herly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881' Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101. doc September 10, 1998 o F �our o RECEIVES City of Edmonds AUG 2 41999 Planning Division F EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. AX-98-101 psi_ 1890 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON I The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the Property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.I4.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" H The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF "Idr ,1999_. INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 51h Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to si , or who makes herein an false statement, shall be tilt of a misdemeanor, TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP NUMBER PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE J,.t �1'ahaa-Ge ju�artz gat - �3o SJ�, S'�w 767-0,00- f r -4-110, ov-/s 'I ev;l 0/ - 06 7110/W 1-1117 S Page - of AX-98-1()1-10%A PEP.DOC/I60Cr--98 F1LES/MASTER/ANNEXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd Pl. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 228t' St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881' Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101.doc September 10, 1998 RECEIVED AUG 2 41999 EDMONDS CITY CLERK City of Edmonds Planning Division File No. AX-98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS a "�DAY OF /�uestsd ii- ,199-2_. INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 51h Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. i. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to si , or who makes herein an false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP NUMBER PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE 7 J f ..,,: S'767— coo— c(3 A A" 71il, Page — of AX-91F101_10%,PEr.DOCl16-OCr-98 FILESIMASTER/ANNEXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave, W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 2281h St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881' Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101. doc September 10, 1998 F ED4 °mod RECEIVED City of Edmonds Planning Division AUG 2 41999 File No. AX-98-101 EDMONDS CITY CLERK NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not Iess than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS -2AI"4 DAY OF `�,199_. INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete Iegal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 51h Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to si =n, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be uil of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP NUMBER PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE C �JKa�� (1-0(( 9k����' ��% 475aOUI -ora 4 q G°11 L G �J 95D-one,5- 4ik Page of AX-98-101 _ 10%PEr. DOCJ 16oCP-98 FILESIM ASI'ER/AN N EX FRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in ordinance dumber 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 2281h St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881 Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101.doc September 10, 1998 RECEIVED AUG 2 41999 City of Edmonds Planning Division EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. AX-98-101 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the Property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be fled with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF _ /u.+ ,199. INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 51h Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be ilt of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME HERE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/zIP NUMBER CODE (OQPTIONALs) • - .••-`� E �� �+ r�Y11'ti� �{yy Y- �; �7 , J(. DATE+^y .J� �V1 l Ca '� S ! 1� ti .� i (,' i � C � � v ` �� r]'1 —0 01 j W a �310-- &I jA/, Ali, ctgle—C.r 0,XC, cv—o7 ���•_�� Page — of AX-98- I Q I_ 10%PE'r. DOCf f 6-OCT-98 FIL.FS/MA51ER/ANN EXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 2281' St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881' Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101. doc September 10, 1998 E }o6 RECEIVED City of Edmonds AUG 2 41999 Planning Division F EDMONDS CITY CLERK File No. AX-98-101 gF 1%g0 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten (10%) percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property which annexation is being sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Edmonds that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120: SEE EXHIBIT "A" II The property commonly known as "SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION", herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A" on the reverse side of this document. III It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set a date not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation. (2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the proposed area to be annexed. (3) Whether the City Council will requite the assumption Of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed. (4) This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of the Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention: and may be filed with other pages containing signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS THIS DAY OF , 199 ,7 INSTRUCTIONS TO SIGNERS RETURN SIGNED PETITIONS TO: 1. Petitioner must be property owner. City of Edmonds 2. Petitioner must sign with complete legal name. Attn: City Clerk 3. Petitioner may only sign Petition once. 121 5th Avenue North 4. Petitions must be signed in ink. Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Return all petitions to address on right. 6. Each petitioner must include the date they sign petition. 7. Every signature counts. Return all petitions, even if only one name is on them. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not ualified to A , or who makes herein any false statement, shall be uil of a misdemeanor. TAX ASSESSOR'S STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP NUMBER PE ONER' SIGNA PRINT NAME HERE CODE (OPTIONAL) DATE T 4 ll IIoal�v 4 Z 6f —001— _ �D�1 ❑s �� 9�0� ��6 YES �oTo�� �/��/oLG A/C- �6 I - 47(s-60)- �72dc� Gv-o`{ �. tC-DOo�oNaS WA i&w C() au o c 15 Gtl L�_,k�� 4/tLrui_,t_e� 13qA ) oLLY LAND Page _ of AX-98-1U I_ I IIS,PET.DO0ICOLT-98 F& ES/M AST ER/AN NEXFRM EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described In Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 228t' St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881' Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101. doc September 10, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 977 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS APPROVING THE CIRCULATION OF A PETITION TO ANNEX AN AREA DESCRIBED IN THE NOTICES OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FILED WITH THE CITY, BY OWNERS OF NOT LESS THAN TEN PERCENT IN ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH ANNEXATION IS SOUGHT, ADOPTING THE BOUNDARIES THEREOF, REQUIRING ASSUMPTION OF ALL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS, PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF COMPARABLE ZONING AND REQUIRING SAID PETITION TO REFERENCE SAID FACTS AND REQUIREMENTS. WHEREAS, there have been filed with the City of Edmonds, certain notices of intention to commence annexation proceedings pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, as to the areas described in said notices. Said areas taken together are contiguous with the existing Edmonds city limits, and lie within that portion of unincorporated Snohomish County, bounded on the north by 228` Street Southwest, on the west by 881h Avenue West, on the south by Maple Lane and 234`h Street Southwest, and on the east by Highway 99, all as more specifically hereinafter described in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, said notices have been certified by Snohomish County, as required by law, to contain the signatures of owners representing not less than ten percent in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is sought; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120 and not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of such notices, the Edmonds City Council on December 14, 1999, January 18, 2000, and February 15, 2000, did in open meeting, meet with said initiators and other interested persons then in attendance; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edmonds as follows: The City Council of the City of Edmonds approves circulation of petitions to annex in accordance with the requirements of RCW 35A.14.120. Said area in which petitions for annexation may be circulated, being that area of unincorporated Snohomish county, contiguous to the existing boundary line of the City of Edmonds is described in Exhibit "A" to this resolution which Exhibit "A" by this reference is incorporated herein as though fully set forth. Sect'SectiQU 2. The area described in Exhibit "A", if annexed, shall be required to assume the general indebtedness of the City existing at the time of the effective date of such annexation. Sgs�tion 3. The area described in Exhibit "A", if annexed, shall be zoned under the zoning and land use regulations of the City of Edmonds, including the Comprehensive Plan with a classification the same as or as nearly comparable as possible with the land use classification or zone, that the property was zoned immediately prior to its annexation to the City of Edmonds. ecti n 4 A certified copy of this resolution, together with copies of the written notices of intention to commence annexation proceedings, shall be filed with the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board in accordance with its procedures. Section Petitions for annexation to be circulated as authorized by this resolution shall set forth clearly, the decisions of the Edmonds City Council in Sections 2 and 3 hereof, together with the minute entry of such requirement(s) regarding the assumption of existing indebtedness and the zoning of the properties upon annexation. Page 1 of 2 YR4REMATE. RES-O RD\RES Section 6. Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, there shall be no appeal from this decision of the City Council. PASSED by majority vote of the Edmonds City Council in regular, open meeting on the 22nd day of February, 2000. SIGNED in authentication thereof on the 28th day of February, 2000. G4 Ha0mon, Mayor Attest: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk Page 2 of 2 YR-#RE/DATE. RES-O RD\RES EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUNDQUIST ANNEXATION AX-98-101 Beginning at a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 88th Ave. W. at its intersection with the westerly projection of the northerly right-of-way margin of 233rd PI. S.W., being a point on the existing City Limits of Edmonds as described in Ordinance Number 3163; thence easterly along said westerly projection, said northerly margin, and its easterly projection to its . intersection with the easterly right-of-way margin of 84th Ave. W.; thence southerly along said easterly margin to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way of 234th St. S.W.; thence easterly along said northerly margin to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 21, Skelton's Lake McAleer Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 21, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence northerly along said westerly line to the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence easterly along the northerly lines of said Lot 21 and Lot 20 of said plat, and the easterly projection of said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of the right-of-way of SR-99; thence northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly projection of the southerly right-of-way margin of 228th St. S.W.; thence westerly along said projection and said southerly margin to its intersection with the southerly projection of the westerly right-of-way margin of 80th Ave. W.; thence northerly along said southerly projection to its intersection with the northerly right-of-way margin of 2281h St. S.W.; thence westerly along said northerly margin and its westerly projection to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 881h Ave. W.; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the point of beginning. AX-98-101.doc September 10, 1998