10/05/1999 City Council1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 1999
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Barbara Fahey, Mayor
Thomas A. Miller, Council President
Gary Haakenson, Councilmember
Dave Earling, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember (arrived 7:08 p.m.)
Jim White, Councilmember
Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Ray Miller, Development Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
James Walker, City Engineer
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator
Kate Galloway, Planner
Sally Lider, Environmental Educ. Coordinator
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
Revisions to [Agenda HOLLEBEKE, TO ADJUST THE AGENDA BY MOVING CONSENT AGENDA ITEM G TO
.
AGENDA ITEM 7A AND CONSENT AGENDA ITEM K TO AGENDA ITEM 7B. MOTION
CARRIED. (Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.)
L
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Miller requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember
Nordquist requested Item L be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED. (Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are
as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35003 THROUGH #36416 FOR THE WEEK OF
SEPTEMBER 27, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $511,602.57
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 1
laim for I (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JULIE
Damages I MENDENHALL ($1,000.00)
oject99 (E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
o�ect
rackett's (F) REPORT ON QUOTATIONS RECEIVED MAY 7, 1999 FOR THE BRACKETT'S
Landing No. LANDING NORTH RESTROOM ROOF REPLACEMENT AND AWARD TO VAN
Roof GERPEN ROOFING COMPANY, INC. ($5,864.40, Including Sales Tax)
ignaling (I) REPORT ON QUOTES RECEIVED FOR THE PURCHASE OF A SIGNALING SYSTEM
ystem FOR STATION 17 AND AWARD TO STRATA COMMUNICATIONS ($7,986.40)
Fiber (I) REPORT ON QUOTES RECEIVED FOR THE PURCHASE OF A WASHER -
Extractor EXTRACTOR FOR STATION 17 AND AWARD TO WESTERN CASCADE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY ($6,592.29)
lay (J) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A
tructure REPLACEMENT PLAY STRUCTURE AT MARINA BEACH PARK
Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 28, 1999
Council President Miller requested the first paragraph on page 9 be revised to read, "Council President
Miller asked if GE Capital responded to the bid request. Chief Tomberg answered GE Capital submitted
a bid of $22,670."
Approve
9/28 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
Minutes as HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Corrected
MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Plunkett was not present for
the vote.)
Item L: Proposed Ordinance Amendine the Provision of the Edmonds City Code. Section 3.04.080. Credit
Cards, o Incornorate Recent Amendments to State Law, and Undatine Citv Policv
Councilmember Nordquist referred to Section 3.04.080 of the ordinance which states the Finance
Director shall establish rules and procedures regarding the use of the credit card by city employees for
costs associated with official city business and asked if the rules had been incorporated into the
ordinance. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered the policy and procedures were on pages 3 -5 of the
Council packet. He advised a motion to adopt the ordinance could refer to pages 3 -5 of the Council
packet.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM L WITH THE POLICY AND
PROCEDURES AS OUTLINED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.) The item approved is as follows:
rd. i (L) ORDINANCE NO. 3276 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY
Credit t Car ds Car
CODE, SECTION 3.04.080, CREDIT CARDS, TO INCORPORATE RECENT
AMENDMENTS TO STATE LAW, AND UPDATING CITY POLICY
Cascade 1 3. PRESENTATION BY CASCADE SYMPHONY
ympbony
Gregory Sullivan Isaacs, Conductor of the Cascade Symphony, reported the state of the symphony
was excellent. Concerts were moved to Sunday afternoons this season in response to requests from the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 2
audience, and Monday night performances are held at the Seattle Moore Theater, the original home of
the Seattle Symphony. He said they are proud to be taking Edmonds arts to Seattle. The 1999 -2000
millennium season will honor the American composer. Every piece they perform this season was written
by an American, males and females from various ethic backgrounds. He said they are the only orchestra
in the country doing this, a musical pledge of allegiance. After this season, people who previously could
not name a living American composer, will be able to name several. He encouraged the public to join
them for a celebration of American music.
Mr. Sullivan Isaacs advised their CD was just released nationwide; an unsolicited review compared it
favorably to CDs by the Philadelphia Orchestra and the St. Louis Symphony. He . thanked Pacific
Northwest Bank for underwriting the CD, which is helping to spread the word about the Cascade
Symphony. He advised they recently moved from the Frances Anderson Center to new, larger offices in
the Floral Arts Center. Their Executive Director has a strong background in non - profit organizations and
he believed her appointment to this position would be more important in the long run than the music
director because she has organized the business portion of the symphony. He summarized they are ready
to present their most exciting season, to establish themselves as a regional presence by performing in
Seattle on Monday evenings, and bring the word of arts in Edmonds to a larger crowd. He expressed
appreciation for the support they receive from the City and from donors who enable them to offer an
inexpensive ticket price, approximately the cost of a movie. He explained a season ticket for five
concerts is available for $45 or $40 for seniors. He said they strive, through their donors, to make tickets
affordable to anyone.
Mr. Sullivan Isaacs reported Governor Locke issued a proclamation declaring October as Cascade
Symphony month throughout the state. He said the proclamation shows that what the Cascade
Symphony is doing is valued. Mayor Fahey recalled the proclamation stated "under the direction of the
dynamic music Director and Conductor Gregory Sullivan Isaacs, the symphony is planning the
innovative millennium season." Mayor Fahey said anything that can be done to further projects related
to the millennium allows the state and city to get recognition as a millennium entity.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke remarked a recent article in The Edmonds Paper indicated a new
Director had been named and he thought Mr. Sullivan Isaacs had left the symphony. He was relieved
when he realized the announcement was regarding the new Executive Director because Mr. Sullivan
Isaacs is a cherished part of the community. Mr. Sullivan Isaacs assured he is committed to Edmonds, to
making his career in a community that is extremely supportive of the symphony: For those interested in
helping the symphony, he encouraged them to subscribe. Although the symphony has had good
attendance, it has not built its subscription base (season ticket holders) which is one of the most
important criteria for grants.
ECDC 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF
18.80.060 EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.80.060, DRIVEWAY AND
Driveway & CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS, PARAGRAPH B(5), DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA, TO
Curb Cuts PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN DETERMINING LOCATION OF ACCESS
Mayor Fahey advised this is a legislative process, not quasi-judicial. City Attorney Scott Snyder referred
to Section 18.80.060 B5(A)(ii) of the ordinance and said the intent was for the ordinance to include the
language from a recent Court of Appeals case finding that cities may be subject to inverse condemnation
if they do not provide reasonable access. If at the close of the hearing the Council wishes to move
forward, he requested he be allowed to revise this section.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 3
Observing that although this matter was legislative and not quasi judicial, Councilmember Haakenson
requested Mr. Snyder address the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Mr. Snyder explained when the
Council sits as a judicial body, performing a judicial function, the Council is required to reveal certain
information and determine if there are any challenges to their participation. When the Council sits as a
legislative body, addressing matters of general applicability, there are no disqualifications unless a
Councilmember would directly benefit financially from the passage of the ordinance, which is a direct
conflict of interest and is a crime under state law.
Mayor Fahey advised staff would provide a presentation on the proposed change to the ordinance,
followed by public comment that would be limited to three minutes for each speaker.
City Engineer Jim Walker explained this ordinance would amend a section adopted a few years ago. The
interpretation of the current code does not allow any flexibility allowing access from any alley.
Although it appeared to have been the intent of Council at the time to allow certain conditions to be
considered, due to the wording and order of options in the ordinance, the interpretation is that only alley
access can be allowed when an alley is available to take access from. The only exception would be an
existing driveway that did not require an additional curb cut on the street. The proposed ordinance
would provide flexibility for considerations such as topography that make it impractical to take access
from an alley. The Council packet includes a map of some properties that appeared to be fairly severely
affected by the ordinance due to topography and there may be other properties that would have difficulty
under the restrictive interpretation of the current ordinance.
Councilmember Haakenson asked Mr. Walker to provide a history of the ordinance adopted a few years
ago. Mr. Walker explained at one time there were provisions in the Comprehensive Plan that encouraged
the use of alleys to avoid all properties in the downtown area having driveways to create /improve the
pedestrian friendly atmosphere. When those provisions were removed, there was a suggestion to add
them as part of the engineering code and street standards to make them more stringent. In doing so, they
were made more stringent than was intended at the time of adoption.
Mr. Snyder explained the initial staff report the Engineering Department presented assumed they would
have the flexibility to make those decisions. He was not present at the Community Services Committee
meeting when this issue was discussed. The situation at that time was an application'by Marvin Smith to
develop his lot, and a question arose regarding curb cuts and the elimination of downtown parking. Mr.
Snyder was present when the matter was reviewed by Council and interpreted the Council discussion to
mean they wanted to eliminate downtown curb cuts, unaware that staff believed they would have some
flexibility. When this matter arose recently, Mr. Walker issued a staff interpretation based on his
understanding of the ordinance that he had some flexibility to approve alley access when there were
topographical issues. When the matter was discussed with regard to the particular hearing, it was
apparent the ordinance did not provide any staff discretion. Mr. Snyder explained a year ago the
Washington Court of Appeals changed the rule in the state to require commercially reasonable access.
His intent was to incorporate the test established by the Washington Court of Appeals into the ordinance.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke inquired about the appeals process to challenge the staff decision if the
Council approved staff's recommendation, to provide flexibility. Mr. Snyder answered it would depend
on the type of development approval, but generally staff decisions would be appealed to the Hearing
Examiner for a record appeal and then to the Council for an on- record appeal. He pointed out this would
be a very fact - specific determination, applying the facts of the situation to the test to determine whether
access was commercially or reasonably feasible.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 4
Mayor Fahey opened the public comment portion of the hearing.
Brian Benzel, 111 Main Street, Edmonds, stated he is one of a group of neighbors who have appealed a
proposed development. He said their questions about that project identified the fact that the City
Engineer had not followed the ordinance and issued an administrative waiver to ECDC 18.80.060. While
the Hearing Examiner was considering their case, staff was advised their action was illegal and the City
Engineer proposed this text amendment (in July) to the Council subcommittee. As a result of
Councilmember Haakenson's inquiry regarding Appearance of Fairness, Mr. Benzel said he was
uncomfortable discussing a legislative matter while the same issue is in an appeal process. He
acknowledged there would be a hearing on that matter in two weeks. He. was opposed to the text
amendment because the language of the current ordinance is clear and establishes a process for a project
to be proposed and reviewed. He was uncertain how an administrative waiver would be evaluated or
known to exist by the neighbors. He recommended the language in the code be retained to protect
parking in downtown and pedestrian access. If the Council feels an amendment is necessary, he
suggested a waiver process be established to include a variance request and notice to and review by
adjacent property owners.
Alan Young, 111 Main Street, Edmonds, objected to the amendment to the City Code because it was
the result of their appeal of the proposed development at 110 Sunset. He said the City Attorney
concluded the City Engineer did not have the authorization to grant a waiver allowing a curb cut, and the
Hearing Examiner denied the project. Now the City Engineer is requesting the code be revised to allow
flexibility and allow the granting of waivers for curb cuts. He questioned why the text amendment was
being proposed, whether the developer was pressuring the City and whose interest City Hall was looking
out for. He observed the code states no cut curb if alley access is present which there is.for this project.
The problem is the proposed project does not fit if access is provided from the alley. He pointed out that
it's neither his problem nor the City's problem. The City's problem is the limited amount of parking in
downtown Edmonds and this project already eliminated nine parking spaces in downtown. If the
amendment is approved, two additional spaces will be eliminated on Sunset Avenue, where it is nearly
impossible to park now. He questioned how many more spaces would be lost throughout the downtown
business zone as a result of this amendment. He recommended the City preserve parking in the
downtown business zone by not adopting the proposed amendment.
Ron Schwitters, 520 Walnut, Edmonds, President of the 520 Walnut Homeowners' Association,
expressed concern with parking in general in Edmonds. He pointed out three new buildings have been
constructed behind 520 Walnut in the past two years, whose curb cuts have eliminated parking. He said
as more curb cuts eliminate parking, shoppers, sightseers, etc. begin to park in front of their building,
eliminating parking for visitors. He recommended the City ensure developers provide all required
parking.
Marilyn Vanden Biesen, 202 2 "d Avenue N, Edmonds, said the proposed amendment is being done to
accommodate the development of a building on Sunset Avenue. She felt it was unconscionable for the
Council to pass the amendment to accommodate this development and objected on the basis of principle.
If this is done, she questioned when it would stop. She said the developer should have considered the
alley access when the project was developed.
Scott Fleury, 18004 73'd Avenue W, Edmonds, and owner of property at 124 3" North, said they had
hoped to construct a building similar to the mixed use Soundview Plaza building on the adjacent lot
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 5
(commercial on the first floor and two levels of condominium space) but because that side of Yd North is
an uphill property, the slopes necessary from the alley to a driveway cannot be accommodated. Entering
their building from the back would require a 24 -foot driveway with no more than a 14% slope; to do this,
the entire front of the building must be eliminated. Therefore, a curb cut on 3' North is their only
alternative. He said although a curb cut would eliminate a small amount of parking, additional parking
would be provided on the site as well as on -alley parking. A project in this area would attract new
businesses and residents to the City. He stressed this is not a black and white issue, there are situations
that need to be considered on an individual basis. He recommended the Council approve the proposed
amendment to allow the Building/Planning department to consider each project individually..
Warren LaFon, 546 Paradise Lane, Edmonds, an architect and designer, said the new ordinance
should provide more guidance to designers because just allowing the waiver for a curb cut did not
provide specifics such as which lots would need a waiver. He said most properties that are served by an
alley could be developed without a curb cut. He reiterated guidelines were preferable to staff having
discretionary power, which can lead to favoritism. He clarified his suggestions were for inclusion in the
ordinance if approved but he did not feel an amendment was necessary.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said it was wrong for the Council to hear this matter
while an appeal is pending because information the Council hears may affect the decision on the appeal.
He did not believe the Council should be concerned with making it easier to building condominiums and
residential units in a business zone. By doing this, parking is lost by the driveway and the no- parking
area on either side, eliminating nearly 40 -feet of street parking. He expressed concern that the Council
reduced the requirement for business zone use from 50% business and 50% residential to only the first
30 feet in depth but no requirement for the width. He measured the lobby of a development on 3'
Avenue, approximately 16 feet, noting this eliminated area zoned for business but provides access to
upstairs. He summarized the amendment would eliminate a great deal of square footage on the main
floor, first floor commercial space that businesses need. He felt the City Engineer was the wrong person
to make this decision. He said only 5% of the space on the first floor was available for business use in
the project being appealed. He recommended the City not favor condominiums in the business district.
Albert Dykes, 110 Sunset Avenue, Edmonds, commented regarding the issue raised concerning loss of
parking. He stated that his engineer, architect, attorney, and everyone in the process have addressed the
issue of parking and agree not one parking space will be lost to the City when this project is developed.
He pointed out there has been no testimony provided to counter this fact. Mr. Snyder cautioned Mr.
Dykes not to address the specifics of that project as the appeal is pending and requested he address the
legislative matter being considered by the Council. Mr. Dykes pointed out other speakers referred to the
project.
Mayor Fahey clarified the other speakers made general statements that pointed out how the amendment
would affect property in the City. She recommended Mr: Dykes' comments be general and generic and
not directed specifically to his property as that was not the basis for the Council's decision. Mr. Snyder
clarified Mr. Dykes can refer to the impact the existing ordinance has on his property and how the
proposed amendment would impact it. He requested Mr. Dykes refrain from referring to the record from
the appeal and/or information that will be presented to the Council regarding that application.
Mr: Dykes said if the proposed ordinance was not adopted, it would make a great many properties on a
slope undevelopable. He asked if residentially zoned neighbors would prefer a commercial building to a
residential character building. He said development of a residential -type building on a slope, with the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 6
parking on the second or third floor, was not feasible. Therefore, the property would have to be
developed commercially.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said his discussion with business owners indicate
they want more events to bring visitors to the City but that also increases the need for parking. He
suggested staff talk to business owners who want more business.
Mayor Fahey read a letter from Raymond and Helen Cole, 840 Alder Street, Edmonds, (provided to
the Council tonight) that stated their opposition to the change to the code because a change of this nature
should benefit most of the residences and businesses in the community not just, one or two projects or
structures. They requested the Council carefully review the proposed change and questioned whether a
change should be made every time a problem arises just to benefit one project or developer.
Mayor Fahey read a letter submitted by Bradley Butterfield, Butterfield Design Group, 400 Dayton,
Edmonds, noting the letter also contained a drawing illustrating the interpretation of the current code
and the common sense interpretation with flexibility. The letter stated "the question of whether
vehicular access to property should only be from our alleys seems to defy common sense. In recent
months, the issue of creating more off street parking in Edmonds has been discussed at the council level
and in public venues as well as in the recently completed Hyatt Palma study. There seems to be common
agreement that we need to encourage and develop more off street parking. This code currently strongly
discourages such development. You must access a parking garage from the low point of the property.
Any properties which slope up from the street have to be accessed from the street (reference the
drawing). Secondly, after I spent 5% years on the Architectural Design Board and have either designed
and/or developed many projects in Edmonds, most citizens who have access to their properties from
alleys are concerned that requiring all new development to only access on the 16 -foot wide alleys is
absurd. Our alleys were never designed to accommodate all the traffic of downtown Edmonds. We need
to have flexibility in our codes and look at the topography of each individual project and access those
properties at the street level or the alleys as common sense dictates."
Mayor Fahey read a letter submitted by Eleanor Knapp, Ester Rutherford, Hilton T. Henry, and
Halton Molvik, residents of Bell Vista Condominium, 135 2 °d Avenue N, Edmonds, that stated "the
City code which disallows curb cuts from the street side when there is access from the alleyway is
mandatory to maintain current critical parking. We would request the City Review Board not give in to
high dollar developers and spoil this present attractive and accessible city. Currently guest parking
around our condominium is virtually impossible."
Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS MATTER FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Snyder recalled some speakers expressed concern with how the ordinance amendment came about.
He explained staff's responsibility is to apply and enforce ordinances as written. When this issue arose
during the referenced appeal, the actions taken in the appeal were based on the ordinance as it existed.
The proposed amendment was initiated (approximately four months ago) to address the authority Mr.
Walker believed he had and in the course of reviewing recent case law, it became clear property owners
have the right to commercially reasonable access. Downtown property owners are entitled to
commercially reasonable access regardless of topography; if a property owner is deprived of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 7
-- -- --
commercially reasonable access, the additional development costs, property value, etc. could be the
City's responsibility. It was not the intent to have the proposed amendment reviewed this close to the
appeal. He stressed the appeal is heard under the laws as they existed.
Councilmember Plunkett observed several speakers have referred to staff's ability to waive the need to
use the alley and utilize a curb cut. He assumed this decision would be similar to other processes and
hearings. Mr. Snyder explained the ordinance has four criteria under which a waiver could be granted, 1)
no alleyway exists, 2) access from the existing alleyway would substantially impair reasonable access
because of circumstances related to site size, topography or orientation, 3) access can be provided from
an existing or relocated driveway or curb cut in a manner which preserves or enhances street parking, or
4) providing access from a point other than the alley would promote traffic safety or otherwise better
promote the purposes of the Edmonds Community Development Code. He explained staff's decision is
appealable to the Hearing Examiner for establishing a record and to the Council for a closed record
appeal. He pointed out a similar provision in the subdivision process requiring that a waiver or variance
be noted in the notice could be incorporated into this process. When staff's decision is made, it would be
attached to the underlying permit application and subject to appeal, typically through the ADB process.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if this amendment would apply to the matter on appeal. Mr. Snyder
explained it would apply to any application filed after the date of its passage. An applicant could
withdraw a current application and refile to take advantage of the amended ordinance if desired, although
this would begin the review process again.
Councilmember Earling observed the intent of the public hearing was to hold a legislative hearing.
However, his opinion was a particular project had been eluded to enough that he needed to step down
from further consideration as at least three people who addressed the Council have contributed to his
campaign although they have differing views of the matter. Councilmember Earling stepped down from
the diaz and did not participate in further discussion of this matter.
Councilmember Haakenson said he raised. the issue of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine for the same
reason Councilmember Earling mentioned. Like Councilmember Earling, he has received campaign
contributions from at least three speakers, with differing viewpoints. Although Mr. Snyder allayed his
fears at the start of the hearing, Councilmember Haakenson recused himself from the decision and
stepped down from the diaz. .
Council President Miller agreed enough information had been discussed regarding the appeal that he was
concerned it may prejudice the Hearing Examiner or Council's ability to make a legislative decision on
the matter.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED TO TABLE THE MATTER UNTIL AFTER THE
APPEAL IS RESOLED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
Councilmember White said his understanding was this process had been initiated months before the other
issue arose and there was no conspiracy on staff's part to create an ordinance for a specific development.
He questioned the legal status in Washington regarding this matter but felt the Section 18.80.060
135(a)(ii) was substantially vague and may create more problems than it resolves. He requested a legal
opinion regarding what properties in Edmonds may be subject to restrictions which the Court of Appeals
indicated a city can no longer restrict. He said paragraph 135(a)(ii) should be more definite with
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 8
examples and specific guidelines for the basis. of a decision. He recommended any ordinance that
establishes'land use regulations should include provisions for notice of waiver.
Councilmember Nordquist said this matter was presented to the Community Services/Development
Services Committee on August 10 and September 13. Several audience members also attended the
committee meetings. He said the committee was interested in the ordinance as it currently exists and
recommended it be presented to the Council for a public hearing and input regarding the public's
experience.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke echoed the concerns expressed by Councilmembers regarding the need
for further review of this matter. Although the Community Services/Development Services committee
has discussed this twice, he felt the ordinance could be drafted in a more appropriate manner.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
WHITE, TO TABLE THIS MATTER. UPON WITHDRAWAL OF THE SECOND, THE MOTION
DIED.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the notice of waiver could be added to the ordinance. Mr. Snyder said
if the Council wishes to table the matter, the ordinance would be returned to the Council with the criteria
used by the Court of Appeals and notice structure similar to the waiver /variance procedure used for the
subdivision process. He summarized the changes were complex and he. did not feel comfortable making
them tonight.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if "substantially" and "reasonable" were broad terms, noting they were
fairly standard words used in legislative law. Mr. Snyder said he would refer to the Court of Appeals
case that adopted this standard and incorporate the criterion/examples into the ordinance to provide
guidance to the Hearing Examiner and Council regarding the definition of substantial and reasonable:
Councilmember White said his intent was to avoid staff determining what is substantial and reasonable
and recommended specific criteria be included in the ordinance regarding when a waiver would be
allowed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO TABLE THIS ITEM. MOTION CARRIED. ( Councilmembers Earling and
Haakenson did not participate in the vote.)
Declaring 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE DECLARING PUBLIC USE AND
Public Use NECESSITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN OF
Necessity CERTAIN PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR PUBLIC - POSSESSION AND USE:
Eminent AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE EMINENT DOMAIN
Domain PROCEEDINGS AND TO STIPULATE IN MITIGATION OF DAMAGES, PROVIDING FOR
THE PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR SUCH PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS: AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised at staff's request, the public hearing regarding this item was
cancelled. Instead, Council will be briefed on a practical solution as an alternative to condemnation. Mr.
Snyder said he spoke with the attorney for the condemnee as well as his neighbor, Mr. Pearson, and
assured them there would not be a public hearing and therefore they were not present tonight.
City Engineer Jim Walker explained the proposed routing was undesirable for several reasons in addition
to the legal issue with the neighbors. It presented a longer line that required more maintenance in a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 9
difficult location. A contractor will be mobilized in a few weeks to do construction in the general
vicinity of the upper end of this system and a reasonable solution would be to provide a connection from
the end of the system already constructed into the 164'h right -of -way and continue along the 164't` right -
of -way line. The engineer who designed the original system is working on the modifications, which
should be complete in approximately one week. It is expected by the end of the month, at a reasonable
cost, the other system can be replaced with a simpler, easier to maintain system that will benefit all
property owners in the general vicinity. He requested the appropriation of $25,000 into the 164'/158'
Street right -of -way project. He advised the funding source would be the ending cash balance of Fund
412 -200, the drainage capital project fund.
164` Street COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT
Projectge TO ALLOCATE AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE
164TH STREET DRAINAGE PROJECT, UTILIZING THE ENDING CASH BALANCE OF FUND
412 -200 AS THE FUNDING SOURCE. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Snyder explained in a condemnation ordinance, the City Engineer would be required to show that the
proposed route was the most reasonable from an engineering point -of -view. Since a better solution was
developed, it was pointless to hold a public hearing.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, pointed out other cities are acquiring gas masks and
Protective
Gear other equipment to address problems that may be forthcoming. He submitted a suggestion for
Suggestion acquisition of similar equipment two years ago. He recommended the City consider the acquisition of
protective gear during the budget review.
Councilmember White, Chair of the Public Safety Committee, said both the Police and Fire Departments
are implementing Y2K plans and are aware of potential issues that may arise. Their plans have been
reviewed by the Public Safety Committee and he indicated they are prepared for any contingencies.
rackett's 7A. REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 FOR THE BRACKETT'S NORTH
North CONCRETE BULKHEAD REPAIR AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO E M CASTILLO
Concrete CONSTRUCTION, INC. ($357,460.16, Including Sales Tax)
Bulkhead
Repair
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the Council was provided a letter from the contractor attempting to
withdraw their bid due to an error of approximately $40,000. Mr. Snyder explained the City has a bid
bond of 5% of the project or approximately $20,000. The City may hold a contractor to a bid that is clear
and unambiguous; but a bid that is faulty on its face (i.e. with a calculation error) cannot be. The
Council can accept the bid and forfeit the bond, but then the City would deal with the bonding company.
As this was a lump sum bid, there was no clear error in calculation although the bid was over $100,000
or 20% less than the other bidders, an issue the bonding company will likely raise. Staff recommends,
due to the time of year, to utilize the second bidder to get the work done as soon as possible. He said
although the City would forfeit the bid bond of $20,000, it likely would be a break -even situation
following a dispute with the bonding company.
City Engineer Jim Walker explained awarding the contract to the next highest bidder will result in
additional costs. The original estimate was $425,000 for the project, and the next low bid is by C.A.
Carey for $436,897. This is a reasonable bid and the contractor's record is good. This is a project that
staff is anxious to have installed prior to winter storms that may cause problems for the temporary
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 10
I
solution that has been in place for several years. Although additional funds will be required to be
budgeted for the remaining seawall repair projects, this section is most critically in need of repairs. An
appropriation of $175,000 from another budgeted project will be required to fund the approximately
$500,000 cost (including 5% contingency) of this project. Mr. Walker recommended the appropriation
from the other project be made and the project completed as soon as possible.
Mr. Snyder said the City has a $20,000 bid bond and a $40,000 error (possibly as much as $100,000). If
the Council accepts the bid, a dispute with the contractor will result rather than his completing the
project.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked for clarification of where the remaining funds would be obtained.
Mr. Walker answered there is another bulkhead project that funds were budgeted for but the project is
not prepared to go to bid on during this fiscal year. Mr. Walker said $500,000 was included in the
budget for the bulkhead in front of Olympic Beach and the Senior Center but that project is in the
preliminary design phase.
Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde explained their budget includes a bulkhead for Brackett's
Landing North, and $500,000 for the mid - waterfront. She said a portion of those funds would be used
for the Brackett's Landing North project and more funds will be appropriated in the next CIP for the
mid - waterfront bulkhead. She commented the cost of the mid - waterfront bulkhead has risen over the last
five years as funds were accumulated for that project.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke observed the engineer's estimate was $425,000 and staff's
recommendation was to accept the second bid for $436,800 or $12,000 above the engineer's estimate.
He pointed out the remaining bids were in close proximity, $461,000 and $470,000, and the additional
funds were available via funds previously allocated for another bulkhead project.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
MILLER, TO APPROVE THE SECOND BIDDER, C. A. CAREY, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$436,897.80, AND ALLOCATE THE MONEYS_ NECESSARY TO COVER THAT BID AND THE
15% CONTINGENCY FROM THE MONEYS PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED FOR THE MID-
WATERFRONT BULKHEAD. MOTION CARRIED.
7B. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THE CLOSED.
Closed RECORD MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 — APPEAL OF THE HEARING
Record
Appeal EXAMINER'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A
23303100's DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WITHIN A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ve. W. (RS -8) ZONE. (Property Location: 23303 100 " Ave. W. / Appellant: Anne Waite — File No. AP -99-
P -99 -169 169 / Applicants:. Lambrecht/Moerk — File No. CU- 99 -91)
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained once the Council approves Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, they lose jurisdiction over the matter. The City received a motion for reconsideration today filed
on behalf of Ms. Waite that was delivered to the Council tonight. The Council may approve the Findings
of Fact or make a motion for reconsideration. If the motion for reconsideration passes, the matter would
be set for a future Council agenda with an opportunity for the applicant and Ms. Waite to be heard.
Mayor Fahey clarified reconsideration would be on the closed record. Mr. Snyder agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page i 1
Councilmember Van Hollebeke observed the motion for reconsideration was provided tonight and
Councilmembers had not had an opportunity to review the information. He requested Mr. Snyder
summarize the issues raised in the request for reconsideration. Mr. Snyder recommended the Council
table the motion to reconsider and Findings of Fact to the October 19 Council meeting to allow the
Council adequate time to review the request.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
MILLER, TO TABLE THIS MATTER. MOTION CARRIED.
Endangered 7. REPORT ON ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT / SALMON LISTING
Species Act/
Salmon
Listing Mayor Fahey explained the intent of this item was to provide an overview of the City's response to the
listing of the Chinook salmon as an endangered species. She explained the listing of the Chinook salmon
as an endangered species is the first time a listing has been made that impacts a large, well - developed
metropolitan area. The listing was made by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the
ESA primarily because so much of the habitat that supports Chinook salmon has been eroded by
development that NMFS felt it necessary to list Chinook as an endangered species to protect it and
encourage the preservation and repair of habitat where Chinook spawn. She said this listing has major
implications because much of that habitat must be repaired and improved. She pointed out the Chinook
has been listed as endangered, Coho as threatened and several other species are being evaluated for
listing.•Once a species has been designated endangered under the ESA, there are sections in the ESA that
identify the required responses. The 4(d) Rule addresses determining what constitutes takings and the
7(d) Rule identifies consultation requirements of federal government before a project can be permitted:
Mayor Fahey explained takings is the destruction of spawning areas and/or the passageways through
which fish migrate including destruction of spawning banks, shadowing of streams, erosion of creek
beds, pollution of waters that support habitat by allowing unclean or contaminated runoff to flow into
creeks, streams, lakes or Puget Sound. In an effort to guard against takings, the state developed a booklet
entitled, "Extinction is Not an Option, which states the species will not only be preserved but will be
kept at harvestable levels. The State's response looks at issues of harvest, hatcheries, hydraulics, and
habitat. As only habitat applies to Edmonds, the state has indicated the City's goal must be to restore
salmon, steelhead and trout populations to healthy, harvestable levels and improve habitat on which they
rely. To address this at the city level requires efforts from all departments in the City.
Governor Locke's response to recovery states the City must consider agricultural strategies to improve
fish habitat, forest and fish by linking land use decisions and salmon recovery, managing urban
stormwater to protect streams, ensure adequate water in streams for fish, provide clean water for fish,
eliminate barriers to fish passage and provide access to habitat. She explained this is done in two ways,
through land use decisions and through clean water management.
The City's goal as a permitting agency is to protect fish habitat by avoiding and mitigating negative
impacts of continuing growth and development. This is done by ordinances, oversight, and enforcement.
In. the future when the City acts as a developer such as when designing transportation projects and
providing input on capital projects, the City must consider their affect on habitat, on subsurface flows,
and new runoffs related to impervious surface, frequently providing mitigation to make up for previous
decisions regarding impervious surface. The goals in this area are to prevent negative impacts on habitat
and water quality, mitigate impacts that cannot be prevented, and restore where negative impacts have
already occurred. Improvement and response is a combined effort between Planning, Engineering and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 12
Parks and Recreation that requires restoration of habitat that has already been impaired or destroyed and
repairing riparian corridors (streams and adjacent areas).
The City's involvement in Clean Water Management applies to fish habitat, areas where no fish are
currently present as well as active spawning areas. This effort involves Public Works, supported by
Engineering to manage stormwater by ensuring adequate and appropriate infrastructure, ensuring streams
with fish habitat are not eroded, repairing riparian corridors on non - habitat streams for the possibility of
salmon returning, considering impacts of hydraulics for road and stream improvements, and watershed
analysis and protection. The final area the City is involved in is education regarding environmental
issues,, the benefits of recycling, and issues of preservation. This is addressed by Public Works and Parks
and Recreation departments.
City Engineer Jim Walker said one of the aspects of the ESA that impacts the City is the 7(d) Rule — a
requirement in the ESA that a project involving federal funds does not jeopardize a species on the ESA
and avoids taking. The Department of Transportation has taken a lead role in reviewing projects to
ensure that does not occur such as the biological assessment done on the Hwy. 99 project. If a take
occurs, every effort must be taken to minimize it and projects must be modified wherever possible. He
said the new standard for drainage on projects is to provide 140% of the standard or 40% more storage
than required and control releases to ensure an improvement has occurred rather than match existing
conditions. He pointed out there are also stream enhancement projects such as the enhancements done
nearly 10 years ago on Shell Creek including establishment of stream bed structures, bank protection to
improve habitat and a bypass to carry heavy storm volumes away from the stream. It is hoped stream
enhancements can be done to Perrinville Creek although there have been difficulties obtaining easements
from property owners. One of the proposed projects would open the culvert on the roadway, which
would open a large area for habitat for Coho salmon as well as provide in -stream structures and bank
stabilization.
Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained since the 4(d) rule is yet unknown, the City is not certain how
its actions will be affected. The 4(d) rule usually contains a reinstatement of the prohibitions on takings,
which are contained in Section 9 and defined in Section 3 of the ESA and which are regularly applied to
endangered species, the specifications of actions with approved guidelines which essentially reduce
takings, of the species to an incidental level; these actions could be undertaken without the threat of legal
sanctions resulting in the take of the species, and specification of actions which would result in taking
and are therefore prohibited. One example is the listing of Coho salmon in Southern Oregon whose 4(d)
specified exceptions for four activities that would result in the incidental take of the species but could
continue if undertaken according to guidance provided by the "Oregon Plan." These activities included
harvest, research, monitoring and habitat restoration. The rule further noted a list of eight activities that
were likely to result in violation of take prohibitions ranging from land use activities to the introduction
of non - native predator species.
Mr. Wilson outlined the issues Planning is addressing:
• 1) Current Planning Division Efforts - instituting a process to notify project applicants of the
potential effects and liabilities of the Salmon ESA listing through the use of a Salmon ESA Notice
which is either placed as a SEPA condition or as a development permit condition,
• 2) Future Planning Division efforts related to Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations -
updating the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan in particular the stormwater management
polices; updating the Land Use Element including land capacity analysis, developable land analysis,
population capacity analysis, employment capacity analysis, open space analysis, water resources
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 13
and drainage management, vegetation and wildlife; and updating the Shoreline Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. This effort will also include addressing regulatory compliance initiatives in
the ECDC including revising general land use regulations, revising Critical Areas regulations and
buffer requirements including an update to the Critical Areas Map, revising local SEPA regulations
and procedures including an update to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map, revising the City's
Shoreline Master Program, revising clearing and grading regulations, enhancing and strengthening
code enforcement capabilities and responsibilities, revising subdivision regulations, revising and
strengthening Planned Residential Development (PRD) regulations,
3) Future Planning Division Public Outreach and Education Efforts — conduct public education
seminars and meetings directed to (but not limited to) homeowners associations, Chamber of
Commerce, downtown businesses, apartment owners, and public schools,
4) Financial Impact to the City for Compliance with Federal and State SESA Regulations — increase
in staff resources through new staff or consultations with technical expertise to address ESA related
issues, use of consultants to review existing regulations and policies for consistency with Federal and
State regulations, and consultants to update Environmentally Sensitive Areas map and Critical Areas
map, and
5) Potential Effect of New Initiatives to Property Owners, Businesses and Developers — preparation
of more fully detailed Environmental Impact Statements, increased cost to applicant (EIS preparation
and implementation of mitigation measures), increased time to process permit applications, and
potential for increased restriction on land use and development potential.
Public Works Director Noel Miller displayed the City of Edmonds' watershed map and explained Public
Works' mission is to reduce the amount of pollution going into the streams, primarily coming off
roadways in the form of silt and petroleum products. He displayed a photograph of the City's street
sweeper, explaining the intent is to pick up as much debris as possible to prevent it entering streams via
the drainage systems. The City has approximately 135 miles of road or 1 square mile of asphalt; arterials
are swept weekly to pick up the majority of the debris. He explained staff was recently increased to
allow the vactor to be operated as continually as possible to clean out the City's 6,500 catch basins. He
explained these efforts result in a great deal of debris, approximately 200 yards of debris 4 -5 times per
year. Proper disposal of the debris costs the City $50,000 or 8% of the storm drainage operating budget
each year. He explained another area that has increased labor intensity in recent years is stormwater
detention systems. He displayed a photograph of the storm detention system at the Public Works facility
explaining it controls the amount of runoff from paved areas on the site to approximately the amount of
water drained from the site before development. The system also catches silt before entering tributaries
to Lake Ballinger and ultimately to Lake Washington. He said costs to maintain systems such as this are
increasing as stormwater requirements increase. Mr. Miller also displayed photographs of improvements
to Shell Creek, noting there is further work to be done on local streams such as in the Perrinville area by
replacing culverts with fish- friendly passages under the roadway.
Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher advised the watershed map that was developed for the Watershed
Fair included information regarding what a watershed is and how the public can keep it clean and
healthy. He reviewed aspects of the program that address materials that contribute to pollution of surface
waters such as the household hazardous waste program, natural lawn care, use of compost to improve
soil, educating groups holding charity car washes and property owners who allow such events, and
providing options.
Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde explained the City's 18 year old environmental program
was established to protect the City's beaches and uplands via education programs and affects nearly 400
students each year as well as numerous students in the upland and forest area programs. The value to the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 14
community from these programs over the past 18 years has been immeasurable and stressed the need to
continue this effort. She remarked the Brackett's Landing Foundation has been instrumental as a citizen -
based group as a voice for protection; preservation and education of the City's natural assets. .
Environmental Education Coordinator Sally Lider explained the Beach Ranger Program was created to
deal directly with impacts to the shoreline and intertidal life based on the thought that people won't
protect something they do not understand. In the 1990's it became clear not only the beach needed to be
protected but also the entire watershed including interconnected habitats, wildlife corridors, and
waterways. She described the Edmonds Discovery Programs, which fulfills the Mission statement and
ESA Early Action Program. Programs include outreach to schools, special events such as the Watershed
Fun Fair that tie in with regional programs like Washington WaterWeeks, and ranger /naturalists on -site
at beaches and parks to interpret natural features and promote protection of sensitive habitat areas.
Stewardship opportunities include cooperative projects with schools and community groups that
encourage protection and restoration of native habitats, wetlands, and streams, community services
opportunities for teens that involve them in caring for the environment and helping to teach others, and
citizen monitoring programs like Citizen Shoreline Inventory and Nature Mapping that can provide
important data for future planning and decision - making.
Mayor Fahey explained her intent was to explain the City's comprehensive approach to this issue and the
different items that must be considered. She said this is another example of an unfunded mandate of
which the City has many. Noting many of these items have associated costs, she highlighted a few areas
where the City will incur additional costs such as the additional time for permitting, legal expenses
regarding takings and third party lawsuits, hydraulics, engineering, restoration, education, and
development of an ecology manual. Areas where additional private costs will be incurred include
additional time /cost for permitting, the location of housing, and transportation improvements. She
stressed although the Environmental Education Coordinator and/or Recycling Coordinator positions have
been an option in the past, they are now a necessity as the City must have these educational programs in
place to accomplish the requirements of the ESA.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke, a resident of the downtown area, said he has a stream in his front yard
and after 22 years he is still learning how to preserve it. He suggested 1) the materials presented during
the report on Endangered Species Act/Salmon listing be placed on the City's website, 2) local scout
troops be encouraged to disseminate this information in the neighborhoods, and 3) realtors provide
materials to homeowners regarding how to be good stewards.
Councilmember Earling thanked Mayor Fahey for preparing this presentation and said this is an issue
that will affect everyone for a long time. He requested additional details be provided regarding the
process of identifying potential costs, noting estimates from some other cities are staggering. He
suggested this information be provided to the Finance Committee. Mayor Fahey said many of the issues
are already built into the budget and now cannot be eliminated because they are required to comply with
the ESA. She said staff would analyze additional funding that will be needed for bigger projects. She
indicated there would not be very many additional costs for 2000 other than continuing to maintain the
existing programs. However, as further direction is provided, future years' budgets will be affected, as
additional funding will be necessary.
8. MAYOR'S REPORT
ar 2000 . Mayor Fahey reported work has begun on the budget and, as usual, it is a difficult process to develop not
dget
only a maintenance budget but also address the potential of the passage of I -695. She referred to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 15
additional information the Council received regarding issues that will be taken under consideration if I-
695 passes. She said if I -695 passes, it is estimated the City will lose $1.5 million in revenue and there
are no areas where $1.5 million can be recovered. Therefore, reductions in outside contracts or staff
would be required and services diminished or eliminated.
9. COUNCIL REPORTS
ear 2000 Council President Miller advised Councilmember Plunkett had agreed to be the Council's representative
Budget to assist staff in budget preparation. He expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Plunkett for his
Review
Willingness to participate.
Driveway Councilmember Haakenson recalled when he asked City Attorney Scott Snyder to address the
and Curb Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, he indicated it did not apply to the legislative matter the Council would
Cut Issue be discussing. However, during the public hearing on curb cuts, Mr. Snyder informed the Council and
audience they could not consider a possible appeal of a project on Sunset Avenue while discussing the
ordinance regarding curb cuts. As he listened to testimony from the audience, it became impossible for
him to separate the two issues and resulted in his recusing himself from the decision. He stressed he
would rather step down before a decision than be placed in a questionable position, particularly after
accepting campaign contributions from people on both sides of the appeal.
Driveway Councilmember Earling said when the public hearing on curb cuts began, he assumed it would remain at
and Curb the legislative level. However, after hearing a few audience members speak, it was apparent that there
Cut Issue was one project of considerable concern and some of the comments clouded the issue of legislative
intent. Therefore, the only acceptable action for him to take was to step down. He advised he would step
down again if this issue is presented to the Council again.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
A� _.el ea,� ::,a (��.A.-g .-' -
BARBARA S. F HEY, AYOR -SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 5, 1999
Page 16
[1
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 p.m.
OCTOBER 5, 1999
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28,1999
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35003 THROUGH #36416 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 27,
1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $511,602.57.
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JULIE MENDENHALL ($1,000.00)
(E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
(F) REPORT ON QUOTATIONS RECEIVED MAY 7, 1999 FOR' THE BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH
RESTROOM ROOF REPLACEMENT AND AWARD TO VAN GERPEN ROOFING COMPANY, INC.
($5,864.40, Including Sales Tax)
(G) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED SEPTEMBER 21, 1999, FOR THE BRACKETT'S NORTH CONCRETE
BULKHEAD REPAIR AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO E. M. CASTILLO CONSTRUCTION, INC.
($357,460.16, Including Sales Tax)
(H) REPORT ON QUOTES RECEIVED FOR THE PURCHASE OF A SIGNALING SYSTEM FOR STATION 17
AND AWARD TO STRATA COMMUNICATIONS ($7,986.40)
(1) REPORT ON QUOTES RECEIVED FOR THE PURCHASE OF A WASHER - EXTRACTOR FOR STATION
17 AND AWARD TO WESTERN CASCADE EQUIPMENT COMPANY ($6,592.29)
(J) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT PLAY
STRUCTURE AT MARINA BEACH PARK
(K) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THE CLOSED RECORD
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 — APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO
APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
WITHIN A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -8) ZONE. (Property Location: 23303 100t" Ave. W. /
Appellant: Anne Waite — File No. AP -99 -169 / Applicants: Lambrecht/Moerk — File No. CU- 99 -91)
(L) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTION
3.04.080, CREDIT CARDS, TO INCORPORATE RECENT AMENDMENTS TO STATE LAW, AND
UPDATING CITY POLICY
3. (15 Min.) PRESENTATION BY CASCADE SYMPHONY
4. (30 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.80.060, DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT
REQUIREMENTS, PARAGRAPH B(5), DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA, TO PROVIDE GREATER
FLEXIBILITY IN DETERMINING LOCATION OF ACCESS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
OCTOBER 5,1999
Page 2
5. (5 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE DECLARING PUBLIC USE AND NECESSITY AND
PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN OF CERTAIN PRIVATE
PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR PUBLIC POSSESSION AND USE; AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PROSECUTE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS AND TO STIPULATE IN MITIGATION OF DAMAGES;
PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR SUCH PRIVATE PROPERTY
RIGHTS; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
7. (30 Min.) REPORT ON ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT / SALMON LISTING
8 (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
9. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS
I.
:.I
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32 or 46.
Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32 or 46.