12/05/1995 City Council1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
DECEMBER 5, 1995
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library
Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Laura Hall, Mayor
Tom Petruzzi, Council President
(arrived at 9:08 p.m.)
William J. Kasper, Councilmember
Michael Hall, Councilmember
Dave Earling, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Roger L. Myers, Councilmember
Barbara Fahey, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Art Housier, Administrative Services Director
Paul Mar, Community Services Director
Tom Miller, Police Chief
Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager
James Walker, City Engineer
Michael Springer, Fire Chief
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor
Noel Miller, Public Works Superintendent
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (Council President Petruzzi was not present
for the vote).
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Nordquist pulled Item C, and Councilmembers Earling and Kasper pulled Item H.
COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO
APPROVE PASSAGE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED.
MOTION WITHDRAWN.
Councilmember Myers pulled Item B.
COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO
APPROVE PASSAGE OF THE REMAINING ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED (Council President
Petruzzi was not present for the vote). The agenda items passed are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #3258S THRU #951628F FOR THE WEEK OF
NR,RA»f S NOVEMBER 27, 1995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $289,486.71
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 1
1"Its;
6
(E)
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WITH KARIN NOYES FOR PLANNING BOARD MINUTE TAKING
CONTRACT
� v`
SERVICES
Cow gt
(F)
SERVICES AGREEMENT
UNCILASS
WITHJANA SPELLMAN CO ASSISSIGN TANT
�tE
(G)
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR)
I�tionl
AGREEMENT FOR 1995-1996 WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY
(I)
REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1995 STREET OVERLAY
stogyirMl�
PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
le
I.LK, 6D
(J)
REPORT ON BIDS OPENED NOVEMBER 27, 1995, FOR PURCHASE OF SEVEN (7)
7
CRANES AND AWARD OF BID TO SOUND TRUCK
v�014 5
EQUIPMENT (TED//MAN-RATED
,6M *00 (K) RESOLUTION NO. 825 COMMENDING BARBARA MEHLERT, COUNCIL ASSISTANT
,�aC6 (L) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FIRE CLOTHING FOR ESPERANCE CONTRACT
6� y��s EMPLOYEES
ev
(M) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE DRESS AND WORK CLOTHING FOR
ESPERANCE CONTRACT EMPLOYEES.
Councilmember Myers pulled Item B as City Clerk Sandy Chase indicated there are corrections to be
included in the approval of the November 21, 1995 minutes.
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY
COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, , TO
Af fAv)V 6 APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 21, 1995 MINUTES WITH CORRECTIONS. MOTION CARRIED
f (Council President Petruzzi was not present for the vote). The agenda item passed is as follows:
A1,40
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Councilmember Nordquist pulled Item C as he wished to abstain from the vote as he was not present at
the meeting.
8 COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY, TO
APPR°)9 t APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 1995. MOTION CARRIED WITH
0/o COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST ABSTAINING (Council President Petruzzi was not present for
#111)�r the vote). The agenda item passed is as follows:
(C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 1995
Councilmember Earling pulled Item H as he wished to abstain from the vote. As he had previously
explained, one of the agents in his Real Estate firm wrote a letter stating an opinion of value; therefore,
he did not feel it was appropriate for him to vote on this matter.
Councilmember Kasper pulled Item H to request staffs recommendation be changed to state "at or below
25 feet."
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO
APPROVE WITH THE INSERTION OF "AT OR BELOW 25 FEET." MOTION CARRIED
WITH COUNCILMEMBER EARLING ABSTAINING (Council President Petruzzi was not present
0�,IoN K for the vote). The agenda item passed as follows:
1A g
s�a� Pik (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO MAINTAIN THE SR-104 MINI PARK SHORE PINE
AT OR BELOW 25-FEET IN HEIGHT
3. AUDIENCE
Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Edmonds, spoke on the dangers on the rails and referred to a
laA�� S video regarding the dangers. He asked the Council to do what they canto help. He referred to and read
ARC several comments from the November 30, 1995 Congressional Record regarding defunding of Amtrak
r'0 and facts presented regarding dangers on the rails. He noted decisions on two new buildings in Edmonds
required a foundation capable of providing stability in the event of an earthquake as well as to minimize
vibration from trains. He noted the welded rails should not cause vibration, the vibration is caused by
dangerously out -of -round wheels which cause most of the derailments. He feels the installation of the
fence is a charade; the fence will not prevent access to the tracks.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, addressed the Council on the need for maintenance
µ� on Lake Ballinger and requested the maintenance fund be restored. He reiterated his concern with
flooding on Lake Ballinger.
4. HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION UNDER FILE NO.
SM-95-87 REGARDING LOCATION OF A FENCE ON SUNSET AVENUE (Property Location:
pAl�6 9 Sunset Avenue between Edmonds and Caspers Streets. Applicant/Appellant: Burlington Northern /
P-ys'1�1 File No. AP-95-149)
Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson, displayed an overhead, identifying surrounding properties
and the proposed fencing. An appeal was submitted by Burlington Northern Railroad of the conditions
of approval by the Hearing Examiner. The proposal is for a 3- to 4-foot tubular material fence to be built
between Edmonds Street and Caspers Street, parallel to Sunset Avenue. The Hearing Examiner issued a
condition of approval on June 9 which required the fence be located at the base of the bluff rather than
the top. After receiving that decision, the applicant/appellant requested reconsideration of the decision,
specifically to address the fact that the fence is required at the top of the bluff by Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission (WUTC). The Hearing Examiner denied the Request for
Reconsideration on August 21, 1995; therefore the applicant/appellant has appealed the decision to the
City Council. Mr. Wilson displayed an overhead showing the topographic features of the slope as well
as the proposed fence. The primary function of the railing is to serve as a barrier at the top of the slope
to enhance pedestrian safety and restrict/eliminate opportunities for pedestrians to go down the bank and
become trapped along the railroad tracks. The barrier is intended to notify people that the railroad
property is private property and public access is not permitted beyond that point. He noted
representatives from the Washington Department of Transportation Rail Branch and the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission were also present to address any specific questions the Council
may have.
Mayor Hall described for the audience the procedure and time limits involved in the hearing and opened
the public hearing.
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 3
Marvin Nelson, Senior Manager of Engineering, Project Manager for the High Speed Corridor,
Burlington Northern Railroad, explained when they were mandated to install the fence to allow the
speed increases, they hoped a fence could be installed that would meet the directives of the order by the
WUTC as well as address the view concerns of the neighborhood. He displayed an overhead of a similar
fence in White Rock B.C., noting when the border color is changed, the fence fades into the background.
He circulated a drawing of the fence at the bottom of the bluff, 20 feet from the track and explained that
location would require a six-foot fence and would not allow maintenance of the drainage ditch and thus
not allow BNRR to maintain the railroad. He noted the current location of the fence, 14 feet from the
track, does not allow their equipment to maintain the drainage ditch. If the ditch were installed on the
slope, it could be easily climbed from the top side with a drop of 8- to 10-feet on the other side. He also
noted the location at the bottom, close to the track, could cause entrapment if a person were on the track
when a train went by. The fence was selected to make people aware of imminent dangers --that this is
private property, railroad operated tracks, and there is no trespassing. He recognized there would be
some individuals that would still cross the fence but the majority would not. He requested the Council
reconsider the Hearing Examiner's decision and allow the fence at the top of the bluff as originally
proposed.
Councilmember Nordquist recalled at a previous hearing, the fence was described as 18" tall. Mr.
Nelson replied the fence at White Rock is approximately 40- to 42-inches tall at the top. The proposal
for this fence has always been 3- to 4-feet in height.
Councilmember Nordquist asked who will maintain the fence at the top of the slope. Mr. Nelson said
Burlington Northern will construct the fence on railroad property and the City will be given an easement
to maintain it.
Councilmember Kasper suggested the fence be installed at a 45' angle. Mr. Nelson responded the slope
is almost vertical in some places and could be easily crossed by walking across it.
Councilmember Hall questioned where the BNRR property ends and the City's property begins. Mr.
Nelson advised the right-of-way line varies, generally the railroad right-of-way line is at the curve line of
the existing street. Mayor Hall noted the boundaries have been in dispute for many years and asked if a
survey of the property was planned. Mr. Nelson advised a survey was not planned but he would check
on it.
Teresa Verhey, 19115 Ocean Avenue, Edmonds, recalled Mayor Hall recused herself from the
discussion of the Ocean Avenue Environment Impact Statement Appeal and asked why she had not
recused herself from this hearing. Mayor Hall replied this was a different issue, and in the previous
matter, she visited the home of the person making the complaint to make an inspection.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the Mayor should ask if any member of the public objected to her
participation or any other Councilmember's participation.
Steve Verhey, 19115 Ocean Avenue, Edmonds, felt if the Mayor had recused herself from the previous
hearing, it would seem, for fairness and consistency, that would also be appropriate for this evening.
Mayor Hall explained she based her previous decision to recuse herself on the fact that she did a site
inspection when she was a Councilperson and then became the Mayor. Mr. Verhey stated "it looks odd,
procedurally funny."
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 4
Councilmember Hall questioned the location of Ocean Avenue. Ms. Verhey noted Ocean Avenue is also
slated for its own hearing later this month regarding installation of the fence. Mr. Hall observed there
could not be an appearance of fairness objection on an issue not even before the Council. Ms. Verhey
felt this decision may set a precedence for Ocean Avenue.
Mr. Snyder clarified the reason Mayor Hall recused .herself previously was because she received
information outside the record. This could have been cleared by providing the information to the record;
Mayor Hall chose to step down. That information is not relevant to this appeal, it is a different location
and the Mayor does not lose her right to vote permanently under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
due to outside the record information. He asked Mr. and Mrs. Verhey if they were making a challenge
and noted the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires a challenge to be made at the earliest
opportunity.
As no formal challenge was made, Mr. Snyder advised the Council to proceed.
Ms. Verhey said she has many concerns with the proposed fencing on the bluff on Sunset, (1) why were
Sunset and Ocean Avenues selected, there are many other access routes along the beach along the
Burlington Northern route that were not selected and fencing should be installed in areas where trains
accelerate, (2) the fence is proposed as a safety feature to prevent citizens from crossing the tracks to
access the beach or walk along the tracks --she does not object to an appropriate deterrent, but a 3- to 4-
foot tubular fence would allow people to cross through, provide a place for people and birds to hang,
obstruct views, decrease property values, create potential environmental hazards from the paint and
metal tubing, and an opportunity for vandals. She questioned whether the Council represents the citizens
living along Sunset and surrounding areas or does the Council have an alternative agenda with
Burlington Northern, and felt this decision affects Ocean Avenue and other opportunities for this issue to
be brought up again. She urged the Council to send this issue back to the Hearing Examiner for further
clarification on the chosen streets and the location of the fencing.
Del MacKenzie, 320 Sunset Avenue, Edmonds, noted he was present at the first hearing where the
Hearing Examiner concluded the fence was necessary but could be out of view at the bottom. In
response to Mr. Nelson's concerns with clearance for maintenance, he explained the Hearing Examiner
measured the area and felt there was plenty of room. He noted, Mr. Nelson had responded construction
of the fence at the bottom was more costly. Mr. MacKenzie commented the 4-foot fence would obstruct
views from cars which frequently visit this "miniature park" and would likely result in increased loitering
which in turn would result in increased police activity. He observed the installation of the fence was to
eliminate BNRR's liability and not stop people from passing through -"the fence below would still
provide this deterrent.
Janet Abbott, 18728 - 80th Avenue West, Edmonds, explained she is not a waterfront resident but is a
20 year resident of Edmonds and detours by this location each day to enjoy the view. While she
understands the liability issue for the railroad, she felt this deterrent was similar to a crosswalk, common
sense was also required. She felt the tubular fencing was ugly and would detract from the view of the
water. She agreed the fence may make the area more dangerous by providing opportunity for youth to
hang from the fence, etc. In order to achieve a win -win situation, the fence does not need to be installed
at the top as preferred by BNRR; other solutions, such as wooden posts with ropes, should be considered
in place of the tubular fencing.
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 5
John Pauls, 310 Sunset Avenue North, Edmonds, observed there have been changes and contradictions
stated --originally the fence was to be 8.5-feet from the center of the tracks according to Mr. Nelson.
When the Hearing Examiner walked it, it became 20-feet. A 42-inch fence is required at the top but a 6-
foot fence is required at the bottom. This fence will cut off views particularly from a vehicle. Another
contradiction seems to be with the fence ending at Edmonds Street and blackberry bushes providing a
deterrent beyond that point. He noted there are currently a small number of trails down the bank which
could be easily blocked. He pointed out there will also be "No Trespassing" signs on the fence and
referred to the signs placed on Sunset by BNRR and the City. He commented there are aesthetic
considerations in this application, views will be obstructed, the fence does not address safety but only
liability, and the City will be required to maintain the fence. He urged the Council not to overturn the
Hearing Examiner's decision but to honor his judgment.
Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Edmonds, felt this fence was a charade, the real problem is the
BNRR. He explained the trains often carry nuclear waste which poses a safety hazard to residents.
Residents should be on the offense against BNRR and any other railroad going through the community
and not obeying the law of the Federal Railroad Administration. He cautioned the Council that a serious
derailment would one day happen in Edmonds and urged everyone to look at the railroad as an
unfriendly entity going through the neighborhood, they do not obey the law and don't care about the
community.
Marilyn Lindberg, 606 Sunset, Edmonds, advised she distributed a picture to each Councilmember,
taken from her living room of 4-foot posts with two stringers. She indicated the fence would be
approximately at her shoulder height and, from her living room, both bars totally obscure her view. She
felt the fence would do nothing to beautify downtown Edmonds.
City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified the location of the fence was dictated by the Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission as a result of an order increasing train speeds and asked the Council to
take official notice of the decision by the WUTC.
Mayor Hall closed the public portion of the hearing and asked Mr. Nelson if he wished to make a
rebuttal.
Mr. Nelson explained the temporary fence was allowed to be installed with the understanding it would
not be there for a long period of time --that fence is located 14-feet from the centerline of the track. No
maintenance has been done in this area due to the fence. At least 20-feet from the center of the track is
necessary to provide room for equipment to maintain the railroad. The cost of the fence is not an issue, it
is the ability to maintain the railroad, to keep a safe railroad, and to prevent problems. The "No
Trespassing" sign will be smaller and less visible but more frequent along the fence to warn people. He
acknowledged there have been two derailments of cars carrying hazardous materials but pointed out
there were no spills. He said railroad cars are one of the most heavily regulated and controlled
industries. If products cannot be moved by railroad, which they feel is the best and safest way, the
products will be on the highways. .
Councilmember Hall asked the height of the fence. Mr. Wilson explained it is estimated to be 3- to 4-
feet but will vary based on the topography. The design of the fence is approximately 18-inches from the
ground to the first rail and another 18-inches to the top rail. Based on the design, it appears it will be
closer to 3-feet in height.
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 6
Councilmember Fahey observed the ruling of the WUTC places the fence at the top of the bluff, but
questioned why a higher fence was required if it was not installed at the top (she referred to the drawing
distributed by Mr. Nelson of the fence at the bottom of the bluff). Mr. Snyder recommended Mr. Nelson
answer the question as the drawing was an exhibit presented by him.
Mr. Nelson explained a higher fence would be required at the bottom as there is a lot of brush and a 3-
foot fence would not be visible.
Councilmember Fahey noted the purpose of the fence is not a true barrier but to address the liability issue
that people crossing it have been warned. Despite Mr. Nelson's rationale, she felt a fence along the
embankment, far enough from the track to allow maintenance and high enough to be visibly noticeable
and not obscure views, would accomplish the same purpose if the WLJTC would allow it. Mr. Nelson
noted the top of the fence would still be visible above the embankment in some areas.
Councilmember Kasper suggested notching the top of the bluff 3- to 4-feet and placing the fence on the
edge of the bluff. Mr. Nelson said this would require retaining walls and could affect stability on the
upper slopes.
Mr. Wilson explained the initial environmental analysis was based on the location of the fence on the top
of the slope; if the fence were to be placed on the slope, additional analysis would be required. A benefit
to placing the fence on the top of the slope is the ability to restrict or discourage trails on the slope and
reduce erosion caused by paths. Placing the fence on the slope would require clearing and equipment
and would have some effect on erosion and stability.
Councilmember Myers asked the official position of the WUTC regarding the position of the fence. Mr.
Snyder referred to page 5 of the agenda packet, the second numbered paragraph, which includes a quote
from the WUTC order of April 12, 1995. Mr. Wilson referred to page 66, Exhibit 10, which is a letter
from WUTC stating, "The Commission ordered the fencing placed on top of the bluff to provide a barrier
and a warning to pedestrians not to trespass down the bluff and across the railroad tracks to the
shoreline."
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY, TO
EXTEND THE HEARING. MOTION CARRIED.
Alan Scott, Operations Manager for the Utilities and Transportation Commission, referred to the
Commission's letter dated August 15, 1995 and page 6 of the Commission order and explained the
Commission ruled that, for safety purposes and to act as a deterrent, the fence should be placed on the
top of the bluff. The Commission was careful to rule that the City and the railroad be allowed to work
out the type and height of fencing that they want for this area. Commission staff investigation revealed
these are the two areas with public access across the tracks (various trespasser pathways going down the
bluff along Sunset Avenue).
Councilmember Myers asked, if the fence were placed elsewhere, would the WUTC rescind the order
allowing the train speeds to increase, thus preventing Burlington Northern from stopping in Edmonds.
Mr. Scott stated that would be the Commission's decision to make whether placing the fence further
down the bluff would comply with the order or if there would need to be modification of the order.
Councilmember Hall asked for clarification of what the Council's jurisdictional authority is in this case.
The WUTC has rendered a decision directing BNRR, and the City is directing them to do something else.
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 7
He expressed concern the Council's decision would be moot if the Council has no jurisdiction of
authority.
Ann Rundolf, Assistant Attorney General representing the Commission and Commission staff,
stated her understanding is the Commission has jurisdiction over the railroad but not over the City and
the City's determination; therefore the determination the City makes is not under the Commission's
jurisdiction. The Commission must decide whether the Council's decision is consistent with their order.
Councilmember Kasper asked if the top of the hill were notched 3-feet to allow the fence rails to be
visible from the curb, would that be considered the top of the bluff? Mr. Wilson said that would need to
be proposed back to the WUTC to determine if it is acceptable. He noted evaluation of another location
would require additional environmental review and geotechnical analysis.
Councilmember Hall expressed concern with the issue of trespassing; the fence at the top of the bluff
will not prevent trespassing. He felt the option for a fence at the base of the bluff as stated in UTC's
August 15, 1995 letter should be utilized. The fence at the top of the bluff does not address the UTC's
major priority --preventing trespassing.
Councilmember Earling noted the main concern from citizens is the affect on views, but the greater issue
for him is safety. He felt the fence at the bottom may result in fences on both side of the tracks and could
cause entrapment for someone on the tracks, thus the safety issue is unresolved if the track is located at
the bottom of the slope. He acknowledged the tubular fence would not prohibit trespassing but would
instruct individuals of the hazards below and seemed to be a more constructive way to advise people of
safety issues. He noted it has appeared BNRR, as the applicant for the fence, is the villain, but it is
actually the WUTC who is driving this decision. He felt the fence at the top would provide better safety
for citizens.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY, TO
UPHOLD THE APPEAL FILED BY BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD AND ALLOW
THE PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN SAFETY FENCE TO BE LOCATED ON
THE TOP OF THE BLUFF, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
Councilmember Hall observed, if indeed Councilmember Earling is interested in safety, this fence will
not keep anyone from going across the tracks. He reiterated the clarification letter from the WUTC says
they are very interested in safety and are interested in saving some money as it would be easier to install
the fence at the top of the bluff. Councilmember Hall stated his major concern is safety for citizens,
therefore, keeping people off the tracks is the most important consideration. A substantial fence on the
hill would accomplish all goals --maintenance of the aesthetic views of the City and protection for
citizens.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL TO
AMEND THE MOTION, TO NOTCH THE TOP OF THE BLUFF, NOT TALLER THAN 4-FEET
WIDE AND 3-FOOT DOWN TO ALLOW THE RAIL TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE CURB.
Mr. Snyder advised this amendment would be handled as an amendment or ruled out -of -order and
suggest it be made if the current motion fails.
MAYOR HALL RULED THE MOTION OUT OF ORDER.
City Council Approved Minutes.
December 5, 1995
Page 8
Councilmember Fahey observed this is a very difficult decision as she has an affinity for views and
would not want to do anything to impact views. However, the most compelling reason, in addition to
safety, is the environmental issue of impacts to the hillside if the fence were placed anywhere other than
at the top of the bluff.
MOTION FAILED, COUNCILMEMBERS KASPER, NORDQUIST, HALL AND MAYOR HALL
OPPOSED, COUNCILMEMBERS EARLING, MYERS AND FAHEY IN FAVOR (Council
President Petruzzi was not present for the vote).
Mayor Hall stated she is somewhat offended by the approach of the fence which does not address safety.
She noted the greater issue is the train which cuts through the City and keeps citizens from the beach and
the fact that people will walk across the tracks. She remarked a fence lower on the bluff would have to
be 12-feet high or more to prevent people climbing it.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER TO
UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION.
Councilmember Fahey expressed concern that upholding the Hearing Examiner's decision for placement
of the fence at the bottom of the bluff may not meet the requirements of the railroad to maintain the
track. She noted the only option now seemed to be to remand the matter back to the Hearing Examiner
for a better determination of an appropriate location to allow track maintenance as this may not have
been considered.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL WITHDREW HIS MOTION, WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER.
COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO
REMAND THE SUBJECT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER FOR A NEW HEARING, WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER FOR A NEW HEARING, WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER FOR RESOLUTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE CONCERNS
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ISSUE OF SAFETY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE
TRACK BY BURLINGTON NORTHERN.
Councilmember Hall remarked the specific direction requested would be a way to prohibit people from
accessing the tracks and also preserving the view.
MOTION CARRIED (Council President Petruzzi was not present for the vote).
Mayor Hail declared a five minute recess, reconvening the meeting at 9:11 p.m. Council President
Petruzzi arrived at this point.
5. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A REZONE OF
&.40 , APPROXIMATELY 10.5 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF 220TH STREET SW; NORTH OF
S 1�3 224TH STREET SW; EAST OF 76TH AVENUE WEST; AND WEST OF THE EXISTING CG
ZONE; FROM "RM-2.4" TO "CG". THE REZONE IS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING
DIVISION IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE NEWLY ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(File No. R-95-143)
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 9
Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained the proposal is a rezone of approximately 10.5 acres.
Based on the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, certain areas of the City were identified where
changes could be made. to fully implement the Plan and the intent of the GMA. This is an area where
there have been individual requests for rezones to BC, denied in part to allow a full study under the
Comprehensive Plan process to consider the configuration of the area and constraints presented by
streets. Following a public hearing on September 27, the Planning Board adopted a recommendation to
approve a rezone from the current designation, "RM-2.4", to a "CG" (General Commercial) designation.
The "CG" designation would apply to the whole area, would be consistent with the intent of the City's
newly adopted Comprehensive Plan which allows for mixed -use development in the area, and would
address the concerns of the property owners who have requested rezone in the last past year.
The public portion of the hearing was opened. There was no one wishing to address the Council on the
matter; therefore, the public portion was closed and the matter remanded to Council.
Councilmember Kasper asked if a two-way left turn would be provided on 76th Avenue. Senior
Engineer Jim Walker advised he believed that section was not identified to be two lanes in each
direction south of 220th; a center -turn lane with two lanes might be possible if parking were removed.
Mr. Wilson noted this is the first step in addressing this area; staff will be working on Urban Design
Guidelines for the Comprehensive Plan -and this is an area that will need particular attention due to the
single family residential to the west and the commercial to the east. The possibility of requiring
orientation for ingress/egress to the east, toward Hwy 99, may be considered. He noted this would allow
for consolidation of properties, particularly at the southern end where there are several small properties.
Council President Petruzzi referred to page 6 (Planning Board minutes), and asked if the consolidation of
properties and the orientation toward Hwy 99 could be built into the Urban Design Guidelines. Mr.
Wilson answered that could be done. He noted the ingress/egress toward Hwy 99 could be highly
encouraged but the specific circumstances of a proposal would have to be addressed. The access design
would attempt to minimize the impacts to the residential area to the west of 76th Avenue.
City Attorney Scott Snyder recalled the Hwy 99 portion of the Comprehensive Plan contained very
specific findings by the Council discouraging intrusion of the commercial area into that adjacent
neighborhood. Planning Manager Rob Chave stated the language discouraging commercial infiltration
into the neighborhood has been included in the updated Comprehensive Plan.
COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO
ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE REZONE.
MOTION CARRIED.
6. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A REZONE OF
APPROXIMATELY 1.83 ACRES LOCATED AT 22701 76TH AVENUE WEST, FROM "BC" TO
"RM-1.5". THE REZONE IS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION IN ORDER TO
R-9S IMPLEMENT THE NEWLY ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (File No. R-95-142)
Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson stated this proposal is a rezone from the current "BC"
designation to "RM-1.5" The property is approximately 1.83 acres and is currently undeveloped. He
noted during a previous hearing on a proposal for a rezone from "BC" to "RM-2.4", the property owners
indicated they have not been able to develop the property consistent with the current "BC" designation.
This was evaluated at the Planning Board and their recommendation as well as staffs, was the site did
not appear to be a viable location for commercial development due to its lack of proximity to Hwy 99.
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 10
At the public hearing requesting the "RM-2.4" designation, there was no public testimony other than by
the property owner's representative who asked the Board to consider a "RM-1.5" designation. In order to
do that, a new hearing was required. Following the public hearing on October 11, the Planning Board
adopted a recommendation to rezone the property to "RM-1.5".
Councilmember Nordquist recalled the property had been considered for a rezone years ago and the
concern at that time as well as his concern now was the traffic pattern in front of this property. Mr.
Wilson advised this will .be a site design consideration when a proposal is submitted. He noted these
traffic patterns have restricted the property's development as commercial and may be easier to resolve
with a multifamily development.
The public portion of the hearing was opened.
Nichole Fagen, 18226 - 91st Avenue West, representing the property owners, described the history of
the property. She commented the proposal is consistent with the standards of review for rezones --it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed change relates to the existing land uses and the
zoning in surrounding and nearby areas. There has been sufficient changes in the character of the
surrounding area to justify such a rezone. The property is economical and physically suitable, and there
is a relative gain to public safety, health and welfare. She requested the Council approve the rezone.
Mayor Hall closed the public portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY, TO
APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED.
IqL 7. APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENT AND FUNDING FOR EDMONDS FINANCIAL
1t�e CENTER BUILDING SPACE PLANNING
A'reA
.G Community Services Director Paul Mar explained the Consultant Agreement included the scope of work
pbAsr) as well as the fee. The recommended action is to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement and to
� appropriate the funding of $81,000 from Fund 126, the fund set up for the necessary work on the
Financial Center Building.
Councilmember Kasper questioned whether the Fire Chiefs administrative office would be in the
Financial Center Building. Mayor Hall clarified the latest recommendation is not to have the Fire
Administration in the financial building.
Councilmember Hall remarked this has been discussed for a long time. The question posed to Fire Chief
Springer at the Council Retreat was "could you survive in the financial center" and the Chief said he
probably could. Why penalize him because he was willing to step forward at that point.
In response to Mayor Hall, Mr. Mar advised the direction for the consultant was to proceed with Option
C which included the drive -through fire station which includes the courts, fire station 47, the police
station, and fire administration.
Councilmember Myers favored the Fire Administration be included in the administration building as he
felt it was the best place for that office.
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 11
Councilmember Fahey remarked there are a lot of factors to be considered such as dollar costs and
functions. She recalled, at the space needs meeting, that all options would be considered --a fire station
that meets the needs of the fire department and includes administration as well as an option to include
fire administration with the other administrative functions. She would not vote for this unless approval
was given to the consultant to factor into the study consideration to place fire administration in the new
building.
Mr. Mar stated the fire administration office is not part of the scope of work given to the consultant, and
referred to Ordinance No. 3034.
In response to Council President Petruzzi's suggestion that this come back to the Council to allow the
Council a better understanding, Mr. Mar explained the necessary process and stated it appeared the
Council needed to move ahead as fast as possible.
Fire Chief Michael Springer stated a determination was made at the last meeting with the design firm,
that the drive -through bays are important and they are working on that configuration. As part of the
design of that fire station, they were looking at fire administration being included in the fire station. Two
designs were to be considered --a single building with police, fire station, fire administration and court
and separate buildings for the fire station/fire administration and for police/court.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBE.R
NORDQUIST, TO TABLE THIS UNTIL JANUARY. MOTION CARRIED.
8. BUDGET WORK SESSION - Proposed Budget Adjustments
' Mayor Hall read the following statement into the record:
W�
&55�� "COUNCIL'S REQUESTED 1996 BUDGET REVISIONS: In preparing the 1996 Preliminary
Budget, I had to take into consideration the slowdown in economic growth, transitional impact of
annexed areas, and less reliance on state/federal funding. As I prepared this budget, it became
apparent that everything could not be funded. My highest priority was and is to maintain the high
quality level of service for our citizens. Thus, out of necessity, the "matter-of-fact budget" was
conceived. Staff worked diligently to comply with the theme --many revisions and cuts were made.
On October 30, 1995, I submitted to you a balanced 1996 "matter-of-fact" Preliminary Budget.
When Art Housler reviewed and revised revenues in November, I did the responsible thing. I met
with staff and together we reduced expenditures in order to offset the revisions to revenues. Details
of our efforts were submitted to you on November 20.
In light of our previous efforts mentioned above, I believe we have either failed to communicate our
budget efforts or the City Council has failed to understand the limitations our revenue has placed
upon us. To fund the request of the City Council for reserves, it will be necessary to reduce the high
level of service I have so adamantly supported through the budget process.
Nevertheless, in the citizens best interest and in the spirit of cooperation with Council, Staff and I
offer the following considerations:
1. Highway 99 Projects $100,000
The 1996 Preliminary Budget has $600,000 of this funded, with an
additional $163,470 in ending cash balance which could be used.
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 12
1
Nevertheless, it is recommended that the funding from the walkway project
which the citizens denied ($80,100) and street overlay ($30,000) be used.
With interest earning being assigned to this project, the total project cost of
$930,000 will be funded.
2. Building Maintenance
An amount of $48,000 can be funded from the Park Acquisition
Improvement Fund #125 via a transfer of the Library planter rehabilitation
cost from Fund # 116.
3. Boys and Girls Club Project
Use part of the additional $48,000 from Fund #116. This is consistent with
the approved 1995 funding of a similar project.
4. Fire Volunteers Salary
In order to fund this request, the overtime budget has been reappropriated.
This includes a reappropriation in the Fire Department ($10,000),
Community Services Administration ($2,000) and Court ($3,000). The
remaining amount was taken from various line items. The staff is available
to individually justify their remaining overtime budgets.
5. Fire Engine Reserve
LEOFF Medical Reserve
Council Contingency
Miss Edmonds Beauty Pageant
TOTAL
These City Council requests could be funded by:
a. Increasing utility tax rates to 6% ($45,000), and
b. Increasing the property tax revenues to 106%.
Any consideration of these sources would satisfy these remaining amounts.
$50,000
$16,000
$17,500
$50,000
$41,600
$26,730
$1,000
$119,330
I would encourage City Council to seriously consider these options in meeting their funding requests.
Staff is available and willing to discuss their departmental budgets."
1. Highway 99 Project - $100,000: Council President Petruzzi requested clarification of the $600,000.
Mr. Mar explained the $500,000 came from $280,000 from 1994 and $220,000 from 1995. In addition
there is $100,000 in 1996, previously identified as Hwy 99 right-of-way acquisition --it now appears
Edmonds will not fund the right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Mar distributed a handout describing the SR 99
TIA Improvement Project including funding participants, and expenditure and funding analysis and
described the beginning fund balance for each year, reserves, interest earnings on reserves at 6% each
year, and funds from year end project surplus. He stated this will result, if the project is $21 million and
Edmonds' share is $927,952, in a surplus of $72,505. He summarized Edmonds' obligations will be
funded with what is budgeted, based on current knowledge of the project costs and the timing of
expenditures.
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 13
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
Council President Petruzzi remarked the interest income is not usually specifically allocated, although he
felt it was a good idea. Mr. Housler stated this is appropriate. Council President Petruzzi asked if this
would decrease the ending cash balance for 1996. Mr. Housler advised it would not.
Council President Petruzzi observed it appeared the recommendations made by Mr. Mar will provide the
additional funds the Council requested.
2. Building Maintenance - $50,000: Council President Petruzzi expressed concern with the transfer of
funds from the library planter fund and questioned the $55,000 budgeted in the #125 Fund for a
Skateboard Park, noting this is a lot of money when there are other items to be considered. He suggested
it be pushed forward into 1997 and the other funding sources be developed to assist the City.
Councilmember Kasper agreed, noting budgeting may be premature as special legislation is required to
eliminate liability.
Council President Petruzzi asked what efforts have been made to raise funds for the Skateboard Park.
Parks and Recreation Manager Arvilla Ohlde explained the request came from students at
Edmonds/Woodway High School. She chose to put this in the budget rather than require the students to
come before the Council to describe the merit of the project. She noted a presentation on the projects
merit and value would come before the Council prior to its construction. Washington Cities Insurance,
with whom the City of Edmonds is insured, approves skateboard parks. Other cities, not under that
insurance plan, are looking at state legislation for immunity. She commented a joint project with
Lynnwood is still being considered. In addition, the $55,000 is only an estimate, the City of Kirkland
construction bid came in at $42,000.
Council President Petruzzi noted the building maintenance project is a very important item and
recommended $50,000 of the $55,000 be used to set up the deferred building maintenance fund and
include $5,000 in the budget for the Skateboard Park. Then in 1996, have presentations to provide better
understanding of the park as well as possible other funding sources. Mr. Mar noted the #125 Fund could
not be used for building related items, therefore staff recommends since the planters are a non -building
item and are already being funded out of #125 funds, the remainder be funded out of the #125 fund thus
freeing up $48,000 for the building maintenance fund.
Councilmember Hall remarked the Skateboard Park would allow the City to be more friendly to youth.
Mr. Mar explained Fund #116 has $48,000 for part of the cost for planter rehab; it is proposed to take
that funding out of # 116 and fund it from Fund # 125. He explained the $48,000 would come from
ending cash balance. Council President Petruzzi asked if any future projects would be harmed by taking
these funds from the ending cash balance. Ms. Ohlde advised it would not.
3. Boys and Girls Club Project - $16,000: Mr. Mar explained the proposal is to use $16,000 of the
$48,000 in Fund # 116 to support the Boys and Girls Club request.
4. Fire Volunteers Salary - $17,500: Council President Petruzzi observed the proposal was acceptable.
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 14
5. Fire Engine Reserve - $50,000, LEOFF Medical Reserve - $41,600, Council Contingency -
$26,730, and Miss Edmonds Beauty Pageant - $1,000—TOTAL $119,330: Council President Petruzzi
stated increasing property tax revenues to 106% would generate $126,000 which could fund the
$119,330 with $7,000 to fund the building maintenance fund.
Councilmember Earling recalled the Council requested, if the property tax revenues were increased to
106%, the additional 3% be allocated to specific items. Council President Petruzzi advised the items
would be as described above.
Councilmember Hall clarified the correct name of the Miss Edmonds Beauty Pageant is a Scholarship
Pageant.
Councilmember Myers expressed concern with work-out equipment that remains in the budget. Mr. Mar
explained $2,500 was budgeted in the general fund, the remainder is in the Street and Utility Funds. He
stated the original proposal was $20,000 with $5,000 from the General Fund, $5,000 from the Street
Fund and the remainder from the Combined Utility Fund. Mr. Housler clarified funds from the Utility
Fund cannot be transferred to the General Fund. Mr. Mar stated they are working on a reduced cost
proposal that hopefully will be acceptable to the Council.
(Mayor Hall left the meeting at approximately 10:30 p.m.)
Councilmember Fahey recommended, if the property tax revenue was increased to 106%, the City should
be able to demonstrate that the additional 3% will be used for specific projects such as the Fire Engine
Reserve, the LEOFF Reserve Fund, etc. Mr. Housler suggested the $26,730 (Council Contingency) be
used for the # 116 Fund and move a like amount out of the # 116 Fund into the building maintenance fund
for the library roof.
Council President Petruzzi summarized there was Council consensus to fund the Hwy 99 project, the
Building Maintenance fund, the Boys and Girls Club Project, and Fire Volunteers Salary as described in
Mayor Hall's memo. lncreasing property tax revenues to 106% to raise $126,000, be allocated as
follows: $50,000 to Fire Engine Reserve, $41,600 to LEOFF Medical Reserve, $26,730 for Council
Contingency and $1,600 for Miss Edmonds Scholarship Pageant; the additional 3% to be swapped with
the #116 Fund. The net will be $39,000 in the deferred maintenance fund, $32,000 to be used for the
library roof. He noted the recommendation for increasing the utility tax to 6% will not be accepted.
There was consensus of the Council to place the increase in property tax revenues to 106% on the next
agenda.
Skateboard Park
Councilmember Fahey said she did not object to funding the skateboard park, a lot of money in Fund
9125 is used for the development of parks and playgrounds. She felt the City should develop areas for
all ages and would support a recommendation to pursue providing this type of activity for older youth in
the City. She also suggested Ms. Ohlde pursue the possibility of a joint project with Lynnwood.
Community Services Director Paul Mar noted staff would not develop a project until it is brought
before the Council for review, approval and authorization to proceed. He explained Ms. Ohlde will
consider options such as joint venturing with other cities and soliciting more information from users to
bring forward a cost effective and beneficial project.
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 15
Councilmember Earling noted one of the criticisms of the City has been not enough is provided for youth
to do. He recommended the funding remain in the 1996 budget as it would allow the Council the
opportunity to further explore the project.
Councilmember Myers commented there are a great number of youth participating in this activity and
would be in favor of funding it.
Council President Pretruzzi concluded the consensus of the Council was to retain the $55,000 in the
budget for the Skateboard Park.
9. MAYOR
5 Council President Petruzzi advised there are ten candidates applying for the Sister City Commission and
�p�S1p11S the Arts Commission positions and it is desired to have the appointments made by January 1, 1996. In
CcM0i fw4 view of the Council's schedule and that an interview by the Council is not required, Council consensus is
Aff to have the Council confirm the appointments only.
2 Council President Petruzzi announced incoming Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke requested former
A0110 S Councilmember Judge Dwyer administer his oath. Judge Dwyer has also agreed to administer the oath to
pA- other Councilmembers.
Council President Petruzzi read a Resolution commending the retiring Councilmember Kasper for his 17
years of service to the City.
W VjAIA
COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO
960R PASS RESOLUTION 826 COMMENDING WILLIAM J. KASPER. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Earling advised Council President Petruzzi is willing to listen to the tape on Agenda
Item 4, and therefore suggested reconsidering Item #4.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO
RECONSIDER COUNCIL'S ACTION ON AGENDA ITEM #4 AND SCHEDULE A NEW
HEARING REGARDING THIS ISSUE ON DECEMBER 19.
Community Services Director Paul Mar noted today's date was chosen for the hearing at the request of
the appellant/applicant who must come from Fort Worth, Texas. His understanding was December 19
was a difficult time for them to travel to Seattle for a hearing.
Mr. Snyder advised the appellant/applicant did not have to be present if no testimony was being taken,
they could request a copy of the tapes or a copy of the minutes. He further noted there was sufficient
time to publish notice.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING RESTATED HIS MOTION: TO RECONSIDER THE
COUNCIL'S ACTION ON AGENDA ITEM #4 AND CONTINUE COUNCIL DELIBERATION TO
THE MEETING ON DECEMBER 19.
Councilmember Hall objected and felt this action was out of order due to the number of people who
attended the hearing. The action approved was a compromise to move this issue forward. Although he
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 16
1
did not feel reconsideration was appropriate, he preferred it be done at another hearing. If the option to
speak again was given to the citizens, it must also be given to Burlington Northern.
Councilmember Myers noted the public would be notified and this would allow the full Council to hear
this issue. Councilmember Kasper remarked the full Council may not be present on December 19.
Councilmember Earling commented he only wanted to give Council President Petruzzi an opportunity to
review the comments made and to participate in the decision.
MOTION FAILED, COUNCILMEMBERS KASPER, NORDQUIST AND HALL OPPOSED,
COUNCILMEMBERS EARLING, MYERS AND FAHEY IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PETRUZZI ABSTAINING (Mayor Halt was not present for the vote).
10. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
Due to the lateness of the hour, there were no Councilmember reports.
With no further business or public comment, the meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m.
r
Z4 4, e.,
SANDRA S. CHAS , CITY CLERK
City Council Approved Minutes
December 5, 1995
Page 17
AGENDA
v EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 p.m.
DECEMBER 5,1995
SPECIAL MEETING
6 33 P.M EXECUTIVE SESSION ON 4 LEGAL MATTER
CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 1995
(C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 1995
(D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #3258S THRU #951628F FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 27, 1995 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $289,486.71
(E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH KARIN NOYE
FOR PLANNING BOARD MINUTE TAKING SERVICES
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JANA
SPELLMAN, COUNCIL ASSISTANT
(G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR) AGREEMENT FOR 1995-
1996 WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY
(H) AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO MAINTAIN THE SR-104 MINI PARK SHORE PINE AT 25-FOOT IN
HEIGHT
(1) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1995 STREET OVERLAY PROJECT AND COUNCIL
ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
(J) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED NOVEMBER 27, 1995, FOR PURCHASE OF SEVEN (7) TRUCK-
MOUNTED/MAN-RATED CRANES AND AWARD OF BID TO SOUND TRUCK EQUIPMENT ($26,872.32)
(K) PROPOSED RESOLUTION COMMENDING BARBARA MEHLERT, COUNCIL ASSISTANT
(L) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FIRE CLOTHING FOR ESPERANCE CONTRACT EMPLOYEES
(M) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE DRESS AND WORK CLOTHING FOR ESPERANCE CONTRACT
EMPLOYEES
3. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person)
4. (45 Min.) HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION UNDER FILE NO. SM-95-8
REGARDING LOCATION OF A FENCE ON SUNSET AVENUE (Property Location: Sunset Avenu
between Edmonds and Caspers Streets. Applicant/Appellant: Burlington Northern / File No. AP-95-149)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
DECEMBER 5, 1995
PAGE 2
5. (30 Min.) HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY
10.5 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF 220TH STREET SW; NORTH OF 224TH STREET SW; EAST OF 76TH
AVENUE WEST; AND WEST OF THE EXISTING CG ZONE; FROM "RM-2.4" TO "CG". THE REZONE IS
PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE NEWLY ADOPTED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (File No. R-95-143)
6. (10 Min.) HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY
1.83 ACRES LOCATED AT 22701 76TH AVENUE WEST, FROM "BC" TO "RM-1.5". THE REZONE IS
PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE NEWLY ADOPTED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (File No. R-95-142)
7. (5 Min.) APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENT AND FUNDING FOR EDMONDS FINANCIAL CENTER
BUILDING SPACE PLANNING
8. (70 Min.) BUDGET WORK SESSION
a. Proposed Budget Adjustments
9. (5 Min.) MAYOR
10. (15 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for
special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this Meeting appears
Wednesday evening at 7:00 p.m. on Channel 36, and the following Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.