Loading...
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.