02/01/2000 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL. APPROVED MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1, 2000
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Thomas A. Miller, Council President.
Dave Earling, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember (arrived 8:35 p.m.)
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Christopher Davis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT'
Maia Krause, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Robin Hickok, Police Chief
Ray Miller, Development Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
James Walker, City Engineer
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Steve Koho, Wastewater Treatment Plant Mgr
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst..
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines,. Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember White did not
participate in the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Items G, L, and M be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember White did not participate in the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
pprove (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2000
Minutes
ve (C ) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35925 THROUGH #38851 FOR THE WEEK OF
LCI=,
JANUARY 24, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $534,129.07
arrants
eneral (D) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL
and POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 1
1
(E) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED JANUARY 25, 2000,. FOR THE PROCUREMENT AND
cty
cc on INSTALLATION OF APPROXIMATELY, 660 LINEAL FEET OF SAFETY FENCE TO
an BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO, THE RAILROAD TRACK ON OCEAN AVENUE AND
AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CITY WIDE FENCE COMPANY ($14,980.28 Including
Sales Tax)
Hwy 99
oject (F) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
UD (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
en ./ WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD FOR ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
en)
WT? TREATMENT PLANT
Security (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SECURITY SERVICES AGREEMENT -
Services/ BETWEEN STEVENS HEALTHCARE, STEVENS HOSPITAL AND THE EDMONDS
Stevens
Hospital POLICE DEPARTMENT
urchase (.1) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE THREE POLICE STAFF/DETECTIVE VEHICLES
of Police FROM EITHER BUDGET CAR SALES, RULING BROTHERS, OR CLYDE REVORD
staff/Det. CAR SALES (Not -to- exceed $48,000)
ehicles
urchase (K) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ONE 2000 CHEVROLET ONE -HALF TON PICK -
f Pickup I UP FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE PURCHASING CONTRACT ($19,939.10)
ruck
Item G: Approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for a Closed Record Meeting Held on January
findings 18, 2000 — Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision to Approve a 4 -lot Short Subdivision Which Included a
act- Critical Area Variance from Steep Slopes and Setback Variances for Lots 1, 2, and 3, from 10 Feet down to
amer Zero Feet. The Subject Site is Located at 160XX 72 °d Avenue West and is Zoned "Residential Single Family
eat RS -20:' Applicant: Sequoia Ridge Partners / File Nos. S -98 -108 and V -98 -109. Appellant: Charles Warner
49-99- 1 / File No. AP -99 -224)
24
Councilmember Petso stated she pulled this item from the Consent Agenda as she was not in agreement
with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and would like an opportunity to vote no.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM G.. MOTION CARRIED, .- COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED.
(Councilmember White did not participate in the vote.) The item approved is as follows:
(G) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CLOSED
RECORD MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 18, 2000 — APPEAL OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S DECISION TO APPROVE A 4 -LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION WHICH
INCLUDED A CRITICAL AREA VARIANCE FROM STEEP SLOPES AND SETBACK
VARIANCES FOR LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, FROM'10 FEET DOWN TO ZERO FEET. THE
SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 160XX 72" AVENUE WEST AND IS ZONED
"RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS -20." (Applicant: Sequoia Ridge Partners / File
Nos. S- 98408 and V -98 -109. Appellant: Charles Warner / File No. AP -99 -224.)
FCC 6.40 Item L• Proposed Ordinance Amending Edmonds City Code Chapter 6.40 by the Repeal of Section 6 40 130
Commer- Commercial Handbill Limitations
ial
andbills Councilmember Petso advised that the proposed ordinance 'repeals the prohibition on. distribution of
handbills and, while she. wanted to assist with parking problems downtown, she did not want to repeal
the prohibition of windshield advertising without discussion and a public hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO REFER
THIS ITEM TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
Councilmember Orvis, the Council representative on. the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee,
supported the ordinance as it enabled downtown businesses more control over the level of enforcement
of parking violations. However, he did not object to referring it for a public hearing.
Mayor Haakenson suggested the Community Services/Development Services committee review the issue
first.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO REFER
ITEM L TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE FOR
STUDY. MOTION CARRIED. ( Councilmember White did not participate in the vote.) The item
referred to the Community Services/Development Services Committee is as follows:
(L) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 6.40 BY
THE REPEAL OF SECTION 6.40.130 COMMERCIAL HANDBILL LIMITATIONS
Item M: Approval of Request for Waiver of Variance Fees
Request
Waiver of Councilmember Petso stated that she, pulled this item to seek input from the City Attorney. City
Variance
Fees Attorney Scott Snyder explained the reasons given in the request for waiver would generally be
applicable to any permit. He said it was within the Council's discretion to establish a temporary fee
reduction for all applicants but fees must be uniformly applied. He said fees such as this are to be
established based on the cost to the City to provide the process. He suggested the Council could take
action to limit the fee until-the administrative review was established. Acting on a "piecemeal basis"
because one person asked and others did not may open the City to I -695 challenges, if. fees are not
uniformly applied in similar situations.
Council President Miller commented Mr. Nivens pointed out to him the small scope and scale of the
project for a single family home. When Mr. Nivens contacted the City, he learned there would be a
$1,000 fee for a variance request before the Hearing Examiner, and only a $250 fee for administrative
review. However, the City has not yet established an administrative review process. Because of the
small scope of the project, Mr. Nivens felt the fee waiver was appropriate. Mr. Snyder explained fees are
supposed to be based on the cost of providing a hearing. The only hearing that will be provided in this
instance is via the Hearing Examiner, therefore, the basis for the fee is the cost of providing that hearing.
Although this is a small.project, a side yard setback variance, it would typically include a hearing before
the Hearing Examiner and associated advertising. Waiving the fee implies the costs indicated by the fee
are not actually incurred. He stressed.the need to uniformly apply fees and said it would be within the
Council's discretion to consider an interim fee or waiver until an administrative process was established.
Mr. Snyder said when the administrative waiver process was established, it would be for very small
projects such as an increase in fence height from 4 -feet to 6 -feet. Typically a variance from setbacks in
the zoning would require a complete hearing even though it was a small project.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 3
1
Council President Miller said when the Council.adopted the fees late last year, he recalled discussion that
the $1,000 was for larger developments of 3 -5 homes but the average resident would not pay $1,000. He
commented the $1,000 fee was high and was not what he intended. He said the City failed to provide the
administrative process and was charging the higher fee. _
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED; SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
TEMPORARILY CHARGE A STANDARDIZED FEE OF $250 ON ALL VARIANCES UNTIL
STAFF RESOLVES THIS ISSUE FOR ALL APPLICANTS.
Mr. Snyder advised a draft resolution would be included on the Council's next Consent Agenda. He
pointed out revenue figures are calculated on the fee, therefore, staff may wish to establish that process
quickly.
Councilmember Earling opposed the motion, commenting this was arbitrarily selecting a number and .
would not solve the problem.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (COUNCILMEMBERS EARLING AND 'ORVIS
OPPOSED). ( Councilmember White did not participate in the vote.)
3. P LIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNIT
Dwelling Y
Accessory DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.21, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. THE PROPOSED
ing
Units AMENDMENTS WILL MODIFY THE VaSTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)
REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR A MORE STREAMLINED PERMIT PROCESS. ALLOW
FOR CONTINUATION OF THE ADU IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD. REQUIRE THAT THE
ADU NOT INCREASE THE SINGLE - FAMILY DENSITY OF THE PROPERTY. AND PROVIDE
DESIGN CRITERIA TO ASSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH SINGLE - FAMILY NEIGHBOR -
ROODS
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this issue was last considered by the Council in December 1999
following a public hearing in November. At that time, as a result of testimony provided by the public, it
was the consensus of the Council to proceed with the amendments with a few modifications. He
explained the proposal was to allow ADUs in single- family neighborhoods. The emphasis of the
amendment was Jo streamline the process, make it more equitable for those who have ADUs, and
provide one of the few opportunities in the City to encourage single - family development consistent with
the Growth Management Act (GMA). Affordable housing was of particular importance when this was
discussed at the Planning Board and it was felt an ADU was a better alternative to providing affordable
housing alternatives than meeting the goal via rezones or density increases. He said a number of
conditions were included in the ordinance for an ADU.
Mr. Chave displayed a proposed modification not previously included in the ordinance that is taken from
the enforcement section. The existing accessory dwelling unit definition is, "an attached accessory
dwelling unit is a structure attached to or constructed within a single family dwelling which has living
facilities for one individual or family separate from the primary single - family dwelling including at least
but not limited to a kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping quarters.. The proposed modification would add, "an
accessory dwelling unit shall not have its own mailbox, water meter, gas meter, and all garbage must be
kept within a screened area in common to the single family home." Mr. Chave explained enforcement
staff indicated most complaints associated with an ADU revolve around these issues.. The intent of the
ordinance was for the ADU to be integrated and a part of the single family home and to provide
accessory housing but maintain the character of single- family neighborhoods. Other than the above
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 4
modification, he said the proposed amendments were the same as discussed in November with the
exception that detached ADUs would not be permitted.
Mr. Chave said the Planning Board recommends the ordinance be reviewed in one year to determine its
effects, the City's experience, and revisit the concept of detached ADUs. He explained establishment of
an ADU would be an administrative process but notice would be provided to property owners within 300
feet and there would be an opportunity to appeal if problems arose. He pointed out the ADU could
continue with a new owner of the property (rather than waiting two years as the ordinance previously
required). He said the ordinance also includes design criteria that was intended to ensure the ADU was
unobtrusive from the street.
Councilmember Plunkett observed anyone with a detached ADU would be out of compliance with the
City's ordinance and anyone living in a detached ADU would be required to vacate it if they wished to
follow the ordinance. Mr. Chave answered that would be true unless it was a legal non- conforming use;
for example, if the property was annexed into the City and had received Snohomish County approval for
the ADU., A detached ADU may also be allowed to continue if it was established before the City's
zoning rules prohibited it. If a permit was not obtained when the ADU was established, it would not be a
legal detached ADU at the time it was created and would be in violation of the ordinance.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the majority of detached ADUs would be out of compliance.
Mr. Chave answered it would depend on where they were located. Councilmember Plunkett asked if
most detached ADUs were located in areas not recently annexed. Mr. Chave said staff did not have good
records of where detached ADUs were located because they have not obtained permits. He said if the
ordinance was passed, an attempt would.be made to inform residents and encourage them to apply to
become a legal use although he commented detached ADUs would not have that option. He said owners
with detached ADUs may wish to provide input to the City so that the Planning Board would be aware of
how many exist.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if detached ADUs could be grandfathered. City Attorney Scott Snyder
said the City of Seattle .provided a defined amnesty period where existing ADUs could be registered.
The ADUs were required to be inspected to ensure they complied with housing and building codes and
were provided a "grandfather statement."
Councilmember Petso questioned how the establishment of an ADU could be appealed in the future. Mr.
Snyder said the City had a provision that.allowed all Conditional Use Permits and ADU permits to be
reviewed by the Council if they created a public nuisance to impose additional conditions or pull the
permit. This could be initiated by three neighbors within 300 feet of the dwelling or by the Community
Services Director on the department's initiative.
Councilmember 'Petso asked who could live in an ADU, whether it was restricted to family members.
Mr. Chave answered occupancy of the ADU and the primary dwelling unit were limited to the City's
definition of family, five unrelated people. There was an exception for a caregiver (five people plus
one). The ordinance did not dictate which portion of the dwelling unit the home owner must live in. Mr.
Snyder answered in most cases, the number of occupants would be five. If everyone was related,
occupancy would be limited by the square footage of the property under the Uniform Housing Code or if
both structures are subject to an adult family home license issued by the State if they fall within the
category of people the City is required to accommodate.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 5
Councilmember Petso asked if the City had any control over numerous vehicles parking in front of the
dwelling unit. Mr. Chave answered the City would have no more control than they would have for a
single- family situation. He pointed out a home with an ADU could not have less than three parking
spaces. Mr. Chave said the normal standard for a single- family home is one parking space, thus a family
with teens could easily have numerous vehicles.
Councilmember Davis observed the ADU could be 40% of the primary dwelling and asked if 40%
included the garage, etc. Mr. Chave answered it was 40% of the livable space and would not include a
garage. Councilmember Davis asked if the 40% was calculated on the footprint of the building or the
square footage. Mr. Chave answered the livable square footage inside the dwelling. Mr. Snyder said
Section 20.21.030(c) should :read, "In no case shall the living area devoted to an ADU be larger than 40%
of the floor- area devoted to the living area of the principle dwelling." He commented "living area" has a
specialized meaning under the Uniform Housing Code . that would determine the maximum allowable
number of occupants. Mr. Chave agreed the amendment suggested by Mr. Snyder would clarify that
issue.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised he received
an e -mail from Kara Lea Heck (8206 — 1846' Street SW), in support of the proposed ordinance and a
letter from Shelley and Les Hart (8605 Bowdoin Way) who supported retaining the existing regulations..
Sonny Hancock, 1028 Cascade Lane,. Edmonds, said there is a house in their neighborhood with six
people living in it and they currently have seven vehicles parked in front. According to the City's
records, they do not have a permit for anything other than a single - family residence. He expressed
concern with grandfathering ADUs because the City would have to get residents to request permits
before the ADUs could be grandfathered. He pointed out there was no enforcement provisions and no
penalties in the ordinance. He described the events at the house in their neighborhood including car
fires, fireworks, and debris strewn about.
Dick Van Hollebeke, 580 Hemlock Way, Edmonds, urged the Council and residents to think of this
issue as a continuum — young families who want to live in Edmonds but cannot afford to purchase. a
house, older residents could remain in their homes and supplement their income or provide living space
for a caregiver or a young family who purchases a home and uses•the ADU to supplement their ability to
pay the mortgage by sharing their home. He urged the Council to carefully consider this, pointing out it
was a housing density issue as well as an affordable housing issue. He shared Mr. Hancock's concern
about the house in his neighborhood but made the distinction that that situation was a rented house not an
ADU.
Steve Waite, 111 Elm Street, Edmonds, proposed that detached ADUs be allowed on larger parcels of
land such as parcels twice the size the zoning allows. He said this was the only alternative for larger
parcels other than subdividing which requires additional roads, tree removal, etc. He said generally a
detached unit would have only'one parking space and would result in less density in a neighborhood. He
urged the Council to consider his proposal.
Jodi Sheridan, 7905 207 "' Place SW, Edmonds, said she has a permitted ADU in her home and
requested the Council address the covenants placed on her home at the time the ADU was established.
She supported allowing. the ADU use to continue if a home was sold although their covenant currently
prohibits that. She said on their cul -.de -sac of six homes, there was one other ADU and another (what is
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 6
believed to be) illegal use. However, the only parking and garbage problem is created by one family.
She said no one likely would even know her ADU existed.
Bill Kasper, 657 9th Avenue N, Edmonds, said this has great merit but the proposed ordinance was
stripping down the intent. He stressed the importance of enforcement, commenting the City was not
even enforcing homes with five cars parked on the lawn on Casper Street. He said this would increase
vehicular density and questioned whether garages were considered parking stalls as tandem parking was
not allowed. He said when the ADU regulations were originally developed, the Council was concerned it
would "run away with itself." He said most complaints to the City likely would be with regard to
parking. When apprising houses, he said the price of houses are increased b�, the additional unit and was
concerned that would cause housing prices to rise throughout the system.:Ie reiterated the ordinance
would require enforcement.
Phil Morley, 19248 93`d Place W, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance as a permit
versus a public hearing process to allow ADUs. He said this was a good tool for achieving urban density
as required under GMA and to promote housing affordability. He cautioned against tightening the
regulations too much so that an ADU remained a useful tool. He recognized ADUs would also provide
the ability for residents to have housemates.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember White did not participate in the vote.)
Lars Olsen, c/o 561 Pine Street, Edmonds, said he reserved the right to do whatever he wanted to do on
his private property. He said the City did not have the right to regulate his private property.
Charles Warner, 2002188 1h Avenue West, Edmonds, applauded the Council's efforts at amending the
ordinance and allowing increased use of ADUs. He questioned the differentiation between owner
occupied and non -owner occupied, pointing out residents face different challenges and changes
throughout their life that may change the way they live. As the creation of an ADU was a large
expenditure, preserving the survivability of the ADU was important. He said the City tried too hard to
construct a set of circumstances that are largely unenforceable and created, an atmosphere where City
officials would be required to examine the lifestyles of citizens to determine if they could retain the
improvements they made to their property and adjust their lifestyles as their situation changes. He
objected to requiring the property owner live on site. He pointed out if the City wanted residents to
register ADUs to ensure they were safe, they must ensure survivability of the units.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said ADUs would result in increased vehicles but
Also increased revenue to the City. He expressed concern with the first WHEREAS on page 2 of the
ordinance (in order to assure compliance of the Americans With Disabilities Act, an additional purpose
would be to accommodate and otherwise provide for the care of disabled persons within their own homes
and/or family units) and recommended the City have a definition of "disabled" and "family units."
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said the ADU regulations were originally created to
assist people with special needs, special care, special family needs, etc. and was not designed to create 2-
family dwellings. He said the time limit was established so that a person had to reside in the home a
period of time before they could apply for an ADU. The proposed ordinance would allow a person to
purchase a home and immediately establish an ADU. He stressed the .importance of requiring owner
occupancy to ensure the property was maintained. He said the proposed ordinance would result in a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 7
proliferation of ADUs. This issue was originally brought to the Planning Board in an effort to get
residents to register ADUs. The proposed ordinance eliminates any of the impediments to a person
establishing an ADU strictly for economic means. He commented residents move into an area with the
knowledge of how many people will live in the area based on the zoning but the proposed ordinance will
increase that density. He urged the Council to be more conservative by returning to the original reason
the ADU regulations were established. He said ADUs should also be on file with the County auditor so
the ADU was reflected in the property taxes.
Bill Borger, 751 Laurel Street, Edmonds, recommended the Council pass .the ADU ordinance. He said
the proposed regulations were good for the community, particularly for senior citizens.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled comments that indicated the ordinance was not. strong enough and
would _result in the City examining lifestyles. He asked Mr. Chave how the City could ensure
compliance. Mr. Chave referred to the permit review and nuisance procedures Mr. Snyder reviewed and
said the City also had a civil violation process (a citizen who feels there is a code violation complains to
the City, staff follows up with a series of letters and fines if not brought into compliance.). He stressed
the City's code violation process was carried out on a complaint basis. Councilmember Plunkett asked
whether there were fines for not responding to the City's letters. Mr. Chave answered the fine was $100
per day.
Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to explain the reasoning for requiring owner occupancy. Mr. Chave
answered establishment of an ADU was viewed as a privilege and therefore it was reasonable to impose
conditions. The experience of other communities has been-if the owner lived there, they would ensure
conditions were complied with and would care about the property more than an occupant who did not
own it.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember.
White did not participate in the vote.)
Mr. Snyder commented any activity that takes place wholly within an individual's home is the most
difficult for the City to enforce. He explained if an individual did not provide access to their home, the
City would be required to obtain a search permit in order to inspect it. The City enforces this and all
other ordinances on a complaint basis; City staff would not go door -to -door to check homes. He said the
City's Enforcement Officer attempts to gain compliance by request and it was rare for the City to request
a search warrant (once in the past 15 • years) as it was a difficult and time - consuming process. He said
citizens' voluntary compliance and neighborhood moral values were the primary way such ordinances
were enforced.
Councilmember Earling referred to the first speaker (Sonny Hancock) and pointed out the difference
between a rental property and an ADU. Councilmember Earling. recalled the last time this issue was
reviewed, the Council discussed parking. He referred to Mr. Kasper's question whether parking would
include the spaces in the garage. Mr. Chave answered staff would include the garage as spaces..
Councilmember Earling asked whether the driveway would also count as spaces since tandem parking is
not permitted. Mr. Chave said the issue of tandem parking did not arise in single - family development,
only in commercial situations.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 8
Councilmember Orvis asked if the ordinance. would increase the total number of vehicles that were
allowed on a property. Mr. Chave answered no.
Councilmember Petso described a situation where an ADU was occupied by a large number of drivers
each with one vehicle that is parked on the road or other undesirable location interfering with the
neighbors and asked if that situation would be a nuisance and'therefore enforceable. Mr. Snyder pointed
out one of the issues was resource allocation ; there are a number of enforcement tools but the City must
determine how far they want to go. Mr. Chave said the proposed ordinance requires three times the
parking required for a single - family lot and the residency still must meet the definition of family. He
said the issues would be the same for a home with an ADU and four adults with vehicles as for a single
family home.
Mr. Snyder referred to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding density, explaining -in theory this did not
increase the City's density due to the limitation imposed by the definition of family although in practice
it may increase number of residents in a home. Mr. Chave said affordability was the genesis of this
approach to ADUs.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
Council President Miller said after listening to the testimony provided tonight, a number of issues arose
such as parking and the number of unrelated residents. He said allowing five unrelated individuals to
reside in the residence but only requiring one parking space would likely result in parking problems.
Another issue was enforcement and he was concerned the City did not currently have the manpower or
process to respond adequately to complaints as evident by frustration described during tonight's
testimony. He recommended the number of non - family residents be reduced thereby eliminating the
possibility of parking problems, and reducing the number of complaints to the City.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out currently five unrelated people may live in a home regardless of
whether there was an ADU. Council : President Miller said either the parking spaces needed to be
increased or the number of residents needed to be reduced. Councilmember Plunkett questioned whether
the Council could make such a distinction. Mr. Snyder explained the. ordinance as proposed was
designed to have enough flexibility so that the property ,owner could live either in the ADU or the
primary dwelling. The City could limit the number of persons who inhabit the ADU but that would also
limit flexibility.
Councilmember Earling asked what difference the number of residents made, pointing out the current
limitation of five unrelated individuals could not be enforced, and questioning how would three be
enforced. Council President Miller said more individuals would likely result in more vehicles, thus more
code enforcement violations. , If residency was limited to three, it was less likely there would be
problems that would attract the attention of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Petso agreed with Council President Miller's suggestion. She envisioned a change in
the single - family character of a neighborhood if an ADU was occupied by five people versus one person.
Councilmember Plunkett disagreed and failed to see the distinction between five unrelated individuals in
a home with an ADU and five individuals in a single - family home without an ADU. Councilmember
Petso said the distinction was, not whether it was an ADU or not, it was who may occupy the dwelling
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 9
and requiring it to be a caregiver or a smaller number of individuals would reduce, the impact on the
neighborhood.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember
White did not participate in the vote.)
Councilmember Earling recalled the intent was to put the ordinance in place and review it in one year.
He said although there were many details that needed to be worked out,'the intent was to address an
increasing problem in the community to comply with GMA and allow infill density to occur in the City,
to establish a method by which elderly citizens could remain in their homes for a longer period of time,
and allow young families to purchase homes in the frighteningly high housing market in this area.
Further, the City was obligated to create lower income housing. He supported reviewing this in one year
and revising Section 20.21.030(3) to include "livable floor area." -
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3294 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THIS IS A ONE -
YEAR OBLIGATION TO BE REVIEWED AT THE END OF ONE YEAR AND TO INCLUDE
THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY STAFF.
Council President Miller supported ADUs and the spirit of the ordinance,' however, he did not support
the motion based on his previous comments. He would support something more conservative, such as
reducing the number of occupants.
Councilmember Plunkett said he would support the motion and although he understood the concerns that
had been raised, he felt they represented too much "slicing and dicing." He doubted the proposed
ordinance would result in a proliferation of ADUs. In his experience, there are few homes with ADUs.
He said few residents would rush to establish an ADU and this ordinance likely would not result in
increased property values.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO GRANDFATHER
EXISTING DETACHED ADU'S. COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Councilmember Plunkett described a situation where a home owner wanted to sell his home with an
ADU; if the unit was not grandfathered, this resident's home would be reduced from 3,500 square feet to
2,800 square feet. The homeowner may have difficulty selling the home due to the detached ADU and
anyone purchasing the home would be out of compliance. He was concerned if existing detached ADUs
were not grandfathered; value would be eliminated from some residents' homes, particularly for what
was generally a useful function, a detached ADU, and would be unable to be used for future use.
Mr. Snyder advised if the Council wished to grandfather existing detached ADUs, he would draft a
separate ordinance that. set a date for notice, provided for a period of time for detached ADUs to be
registered, and grandfathering only those units that are in compliance with the State Housing Code.
Councilmember Earling observed the intent of the amendment was to grandfather detached ADUs that
had been legally constructed. Mr. Snyder said the proposed ordinance as written would allow legal non-
conforming uses (a use established in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction such as ADUs
recognized by Snohomish County and annexed into the City or constructed prior to the adoption of
Edmonds Zoning code in approximately 1972), to continue. He said the amendment would be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 10
unnecessary if the intent was to proceed as Councilmember Earling suggested. The wording of
Councilmember Plunkett's amendment would require an amnesty period such as Seattle established. He
suggested Councilmember Plunkett withdraw his motion as the proposed ordinance already grandfathers
existing non - conforming uses. If desired, the Council could instruct him by separate action to develop an
ordinance creating an amnesty period and registration to grandfather existing detached ADUs.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING MR. SNYDER WOULD PREPARE
SOMETHING FOR THE COUNCIL'S REVIEW.
Councilmember Petso suggested referring,the ordinance back for consideration of who may occupy the
ADU. She said that would address the concerns expressed and could include specific situations such as
elderly parents, caregivers, young families unable to afford a house and would prevent the downside to
the .neighborhood. She did not agree allowing ADUs would not change single - family neighborhoods
because the City's definition of family (five unrelated_ individuals) did not correspond with the common
usage of the term family.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out this ordinance has been before the Planning Board at least three times and
before the Council at least three times.
Councilmember Orvis indicated he would support the motion and would support discussing the number
of people that constitute a family and the number of vehicles in front of a property as separate issues.
Councilmember Davis pointed out the regulations would be reviewed in one year. As Mr. Van
Hollebeke pointed out, this was an opportunity to look at things differently and expand opportunities
young families and older citizens have in the City.
MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO
OPPOSED. (Councilmember White did not participate in the vote.) The ordinance approved is as
follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3294 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER
20.21 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO CLARIFY, EXPAND AND WHERE APPROPRIATE
LIMIT PROVISION OF THE EXISTING CHAPTER TO BETTER COMPORT WITH THE
UTILIZATION AND PURPOSE OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OF THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY CODE, AMENDING THE PROVISION OF CHAPTER 21.05 OF THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REPEAL SECTION 21.05.015 ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT AND ENACT TWO NEW DEFINITIONS, 21.05.015 ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT, ATTACHED PROVIDING FOR A ONE -YEAR REVIEW. AND REPORT OF
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NEW ORDINANCE AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR
MODIFICATION FROM THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN
THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE, INCLUDING THE AMENDED DEFINITION OF
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND ADDING 40% OF THE LIVABLE FLOOR AREA TO
SECTION 20.21.030(3).
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. (Councilmember White arrived at 8:35 p.m.)
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Safety
ence on Teresa Verhey, 19115 Ocean Avenue, Edmonds, commented this is the third Mayor she has been
ocean
ve. before with this issue and observed the Council was now a mixture of individuals who have been on the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 11
Council since the beginning of this issue and new Councilmembers. She referred to Item E on the
Consent Agenda (Report on Bids Received January 25, 2000, for the Procurement and Installation of
Approximately 660 Lineal Feet of Safety Fence to be Installed Adjacent to the Railroad Track on Ocean
Avenue and Award of Contract to City Wide Fence Company - $14,980.28 Including Sales Tax)
commenting it was very "quickly" passed.
Ms. Verhey explained Ocean Avenue is a quiet dead -end residential street. The street has houses on one
side, ocean on the other with a street, bluff and railroad tracks between. She explained the Council
approved the bid for a fence but neighboring homeowners were not aware of the fence's .appearance. Via
litigation, it was determined the fence would_ be approximately 3 -4 feet high, of tubular steel and painted
blue. She questioned if that was what had been authorized to be installed. She said if the fence to be
installed was the material and height indicated during litigati on, it did not fit with the aesthetics Edmonds
has determined should be maintained in view corridors. She said post and beam fencing or planting
bushes or brier was never considered. Installation of the fence. will also change the parking structure, an
issue that had never been addressed.
Ms. Verhey said there appeared to be some collusiveness between the City and Burlington Northern as
Burlington. Northern required the fence yet the City was supervising installation of the fencing. She
questioned how taxpayers would be assured the City had been reimbursed by Burlington Northern. And
who would follow -up on that. She reiterated this is a quiet, residential neighborhood with no safety
problems, yet this issue was passed without awareness of the majority of the public or their awareness
that a similar fence will be installed on Sunset.
kun6,95 and Les Blume, 19026 Olympic View Dr, Edmonds, urged the senior Councilmembers,to guide and assist
ding the new Councilmembers but let them think for themselves. He submitted statistics from the last election
eds that indicate 15,212 people voted and normal voter turnout was approximately 8,000. He said not only
did I -695 bring the voters out, but people are becoming more involved in government. He said the State
Auditor wants reliable government and to make people accountable for expenditures so taxpayers know
how their taxes are being spent. As taxpayers experienced a reduction in the vehicle license fees via I-
695, he suggested the City submit a bond issue to fund "something the City really needs" such as the
sewer problems facing the City. He said such an issue would motivate residents.
Sister City Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, reported the Sister City Commission would be
making a presentation to the City regarding establishing another Sister City. He pointed out the
$330,000 library bond was paid off last year and suggested those moneys be used to fund the library.
Second Don Porter, 200 Beach Place. #202, Edmonds, reported Sound Transit would be putting in a second
Railroad track which would take up half of .Railroad Avenue and eliminate all on- street parking. This may also
Track on include a station in the middle of Railroad Avenue, - making it a one -way street and blocking it
Ave. completely during loading times. He asked if the City was addressing this and ensuring Sound Transit
complied'.with the City's ordinances. Mayor Haakenson responded the City addressed this issue on a
daily basis.
Publishing Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented the Council agenda was no longer printed in
ncil the newspaper. He recommended the Council identify funds to cover publishing the agenda in the
tew' ndain
s_ newspaper to keep the public informed. He suggested funds for the flower program or the Edmonds .
er Alliance for Economic Development be used for this purpose. He said the presentation of the schematic
design for the mid - waterfront bulkhead (Agenda Item #5) should be a public hearing as the public would
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 12
Metro- like to participate. He referred to Item #6 (Granting a Non - Exclusive Franchise to Metromedia Fiber
media Network Services, Inc.) and said granting a franchise in, on, over, upon, along and across the public
Franchise rights -of -way seemed to indicate they would'have the right to go anywhere in the City without control.
Agree-
et He hoped a Hold Harmless Agreement had been included and that protection of the rights of property
owners they cross had been ensured. He asked what controls were in place, who monitored construction,
whether the City collected any fees, and who in the City would coordinate construction/destruction. He
recalled a policy to install. utilities if the street was torn up and hoped that was accommodated in this
instance. He said it appeared the City was giving Metromedia Fiber Network carte blanche.
ccessory Charles Warner, 20021 88th Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed his disappointment at the Council
elling moving ahead with the ADU ordinance, particularly given the number of new Councilmembers and the
Units amount of time they have had to review the subject and the diverse views that were presented. He
pointed out the importance of Councilmembers reviewing issues and when adopting an ordinance,
ensuring it serves all citizens. He said adopting the ordinance as proposed was a strike against equitable
application of the City's laws. He hoped the concerns raised by citizens could be addressed sooner than
one year. Regarding Council President. Miller's earlier comments about variances and his supposition
the $1,000 fee would only be applied to developers of large scale projects and not citizens, he explained
ariance variances are typically only applied for by individuals. Under its development code, the City grants
Fees modifications as part of any development project. For example, a person requesting a subdivision would
ask for modifications and not pay an extra fee to the City. He objected'to the notion that it was okay to
pass fees on to developers because they did not affect citizens, pointing out all fees impact citizens and
the cost of housing in the City. He welcomed the establishment of an administrative process but said it
was appropriate to charge the fee if the matter was reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. He supported
streamlining the variance process so that it was an administrative process. He suggested ensuring the
guidelines provided to staff remove the subjectivity from the process and ensure that criteria were
addressed equitably and consistently.
Lars Olsen, c/o 561 Pine, Edmonds, explained citizens outside the Everett city limits could pay $140 to
ibrary obtain a library card. He objected to being annexed to the SnoIsle Library and requested whatever was
necessary to keep him out of the process be done and preferred to pay for a library card if necessary. He
expressed concern with the Council regulating citizens' property. He recommended the Council not
"attempt to run roughshod over people and regulate their lives ".
5. PRESENTATION OF THE PLANNING/PARK BOARD RECOMMENDATION OF THE
id- SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE MID- WATERFRONT BULKHEAD AND AUTHORIZATION .
Water - TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE
front
ulkhead ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE MID- WATERFRONT BULKHEAD REPAIR PROJECT
Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde explained the intent of this item was to present the preferred
alternative for the mid - waterfront bulkhead design and request authorization to advertise for consultant
selection for the completion of an administrative environmental review for the mid - waterfront bulkhead
repair project that would provide information on the preferred alternative, as well as alternatives (1) do
nothing and return the area to its natural state, or (2) replace the existing bulkhead.
Ms. Ohlde explained in November 1996 a northerly wind and a high tide wiped out the older timber -
walled bulkheads along the mid - waterfront. At this point, the bulkheads are being maintained until a
plan for the bulkhead repair and an option for a continual walkway along the waterfront (in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan) can be adopted.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 13
Ms. Ohlde said although the 1996 storm accelerated the bulkhead project, the City was aware this project
was upcoming. She described her efforts to appeal to FEMA for funding. She commented the December
1996 snowstorm in which the Port's roof fell met FEMA's criteria, but the November storm did not
because it was isolated to one area. She described her efforts to seek a matching grant through the
Department of Natural Resources under the Aquatic Land Enhancement; however, due to a change in the
criteria to salmon enhancement, the project did not qualify for funding. She also applied for a grant with
the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation; the project ranked fifth in the State of Washington
but due to limited State funding appropriated through the Legislature, only the first project in
Washington was funded. The.project qualified for a grant with the Puget Sound Economic Development
Council but did not score high enough because the main criteria was based on the unemployment rate in
the City and required that the project provide increased jobs... It was then determined local funding would
be required to fund this project. The project began with schematic design of a plan that was reviewed
and forwarded to the Council by the Planning Board.
Ms. Ohlde displayed a chronological list of public input during 1999 including waterfront property
owners, the Senior Center, the owners of the Pantley Building, owners of the Ebb Tide, and numerous
other residents along the waterfront. Because the project was so important to the public and due to its
location on the waterfront, it was important to have as many public workshops /meetings as possible to
seek public input.
Ms. Ohlde explained funding for the project would come from the Fund 125 Park Capital Fund Account,
which comes from the second %4 of the real estate excise tax. Those funds could be used for development
only, not acquisition. She indicated $1 million had been set aside,in 2000 for the repair /replacement of.
the waterfront bulkhead.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the repair. and replacement included the walkway. Ms. Ohlde
answered yes, the walkway and bulkhead at a total cost of $1 million. She explained in an effort to
provide visual representation of this project to the public,,a 1:20 inch model was created and displayed.
A computer - generated model of the bulkhead superimposed on the existing site was also prepared.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the cost of the bulkhead and the cost of the walkway. Ms. Ohlde
answered it was all one project, she did not separate the two items.
Nichole Faghin, Senior Planner, Reid Middleton, said their presentation would include what exists on
the waterfront and what could be accomplished. She advised the draft report provided in the Council
packet was originally prepared for the Planning Board last summer. She explained how the project
reached this point and why the proposed alternatives were developed. She explained there were two
critical issues, the need to repair the failing bulkhead, and also to comply with the Walkway Plan
specified in the Comprehensive Plan. She reviewed items considered during planning including issues in
the Comprehensive Plan such as public access, accessibility and the Downtown Waterfront Plan (adopted
in 1994 and incorporated by reference into the Comprehensive Plan.) She explained the Downtown
Waterfront Plan described the proposed continuous walkway along the mid - waterfront as follows: "the
focus of new public amenities will occur along and adjacent to the shoreline with the creation of a
"necklace" of waterfront parks lined by a continuous esplanade/beach walk." The City's Shoreline
Master Program includes a great deal of language regarding public access.
Ms. Faghin displayed a photograph of the bulkhead during the November 1996 storm, which illustrates
the dynamic environment caused by factors such as tidal changes of approximately 15 feet. This resulted
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 14
in the bulkhead encountering extreme tides and a combination of wind velocity, fetch (the distance the
waves come onto the beach) and wave height. She said another issue was the bulkhead height that was
required. She explained 5 -foot waves result . in. overtopping that undercuts /erodes the area behind the
bulkhead. She said another factor was the change in beach elevation throughout the year.
The Coastal Environment was another consideration in their planning, regardless of the type of bulkhead
replacement or repair. She explained after basic concepts were developed, they walked the beach with
resource agencies (Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology) and spoke with the Corp.
of Engineers. She reiterated Ms. Ohlde's comments that there had been a fair amount of public
involvement, including meetings at the Senior Center where drawings were displayed and participants
were encouraged to indicate their interests and concerns. Those comments were incorporated into the
drawings and the draft report wherever possible. After presenting the concept to the Planning Board in
May, it was recommended another public workshop be held. She said the report included a list of issues
raised during the public meetings.
Dave Swanson, Civil/Structural Engineer, Reid Middleton, referred to page 22 of the draft, report
(Figure 7) a layout prepared by the Landscape Architect, that provides an overview of the preferred
design. He explained the mid- waterfront was broken into five pieces. He reviewed the existing
conditions for each of the five segments:
The bulkhead at North Brackett's Landing Park (north of the ferry terminal) was also damaged in the
1996 storm. The design for that project was completed and the project is currently under construction.
He displayed photographs of the bulkhead being constructed at North Brackett's Landing, a series of
curved steps that were interrupted by vertical walls along the shoreline. He explained the significant
wave energy being dissipated along the waterfront by the bulkhead caused a tremendous amount of
overtopping of the walls. When the walls are overtopped, the seawater wants to drain back which pulls
fine material from behind the walls and begins to undermine the walls. This design provides a curved
surface that enhances beach access via the steps which are also used to dissipate the wave energy (rather
than waves being reflected by a vertical surface causing an even larger wave, the waves are dissipated by
the steps). Concrete was selected as the material due to its durability in this harsh environment.
Mr. Swanson explained another element of the project that had already been addressed was South
Brackett's Landing Park (south of the ferry terminal). He explained a pocket beach was formed that
allows . a natural beach elevation. That project was completed approximately two years ago and was
outside the scope of this project. However, that project was designed to allow a pathway access from the
ferry terminal to the next portion of the project, the Waterfront Park Associates building. He explained
this bulkhead was an existing, steel sheet pile bulkhead that was severely corroded and deteriorated and
had been recently replaced by the private property owner who is responsible for repair and maintenance .
of that bulkhead. The City has a 10 -foot access easement on top of the wall and also owns the tidelands
in front of the wall.
The next segment of the project was the "parking barge," an existing timber. bulkhead with creosote
timber lagging and timber piling that was replaced in the early 1990s. The existing bulkhead is in fairly
good condition and no undermining was observed along the toe of the bulkhead. The remaining design
life of this bulkhead was estimated to be 10 -25 years. Due to budgetary constraints, the remainder of the
alternative was designed with the retention of that structure.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 15
The next element that needs repair is the failing timber in front of the Senior Center. He explained the
bulkhead was failing because it was far beyond its initial design life. Another segment of the project was
the existing vertical surface concrete wall in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. He said this property
was outside the scope of the project as it was private property but the City did maintain an access
easement in front of the bulkhead so various options were explored to provide a continuous path across
that segment.
The final segment, Olympic Beach Park, presents the greatest opportunity to be creative with the curved
and vertical bulkhead surface along the waterfront. He explained the bulkhead at Olympic Beach is a
timber bulkhead, not unlike. the bulkhead in front of the Senior Center and North Brackett's Landing.
This bulkhead is severely deteriorated, was damaged during the 1996 storm and needs to be repaired to
protect.that property.
Mr. Swanson described considerations during development of a conceptual plan including 1) consistency
with local plans and policies, 2) environmental considerations, 3.) various bulkhead concepts, .4)
materials, and 5) private property ownership.
Mr. Swanson explained Brackett's Landing North was outside the scope of this project and would be
completed soon but was included to illustrate the design theme that was attempted to be maintained to
provide some continuity on the waterfront. He said Brackett's Landing South was completed and the
proposed design would link the southern part of the mid - waterfront with that completed project. The
property that connects the two was the Waterfront Associates property which had a recently completed
vertical bulkhead that the private property owner was required to maintain. This project proposes to
provide a pathway along the top of the existing bulkhead to link Brackett's Landing South with the
remaining portion of the bulkhead and the Senior Center. He explained the parking barge portion of the
bulkhead was deemed to be structurally stable and did not warrant replacement or repair at this time but
is proposed to be integrated into the design solution.
Due to the value of the lawn space in front of the segment of the Senior Center bulkhead, the most
feasible alternative was to replace the vertical bulkhead with an additional, vertical bulkhead. A design
feature would be a curved front face to help redirect the wave energy back off shore and mitigate
overtopping that will occur at high tide during a storm event. Options considered included ADA
accessible ramps in that area. The preferred plan includes reinforced concrete access stairs at each
corner of the parking barge to replace timber stairs that no longer function in a safe manner.
The bulkhead at the Ebb Tide Condominium was an existing concrete wall that does get overtopped
during high wind and wave events and causes flooding in, that building. However, it is private property,
therefore the adequacy of the bulkhead was not considered in .this study. Two alternatives were
considered to provide a continuous link across that area via the City's, access easement. The first
alternative was to construct an elevated pedestrian footbridge above the beach sand to allow people to
walk from the yard space to the south to the Senior Center. Much of that design decision was directed by
the regulatory agencies because they were more amenable to an elevated structure which would not
impact the environmental habitat as significantly as a bulkhead structure. This option was later rejected
because the elevation of the footbridge would need to be significantly higher than the easement would
have allowed. Another option considered after meeting with the Planning Board, was an additional
bulkhead in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium to mitigate flooding that occurred at the condominium
and provide the elevated pathway to provide continuous access in accordance with the Comprehensive
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 16
Plan. This is a simple solution from a technical /design standpoint but was rejected due to Fish and
Wildlife's determination that this would impact existing marine habitat.
Mr. Swanson explained at Olympic Beach Park there was an opportunity to replace the jagged bulkheads
that are stepped back with a stepped bulkhead similar to Brackett's Landing North that would enhance
beach access from the grass area to the beach. There is currently very limited beach access via
deteriorating timber stairs. This would also mitigate the wave energy that is dissipated by the vertical
surface via the step design. He said regulatory agencies object to taking more of the existing beach;
therefore, the curved design attempts to balance having steps further offshore than the existing bulkhead
line with giving up some of the beach behind the existing bulkhead to provide a net balance to the area.
The intent was to provide more buffer between the structures and the wave environment in certain areas
and allow the beach to be more natural in areas where there were no structures adjacent to the bulkhead.
Ms. Faghin explained the goal of the public meetings and discussion with regulatory agencies was to
develop the best alternative that addressed the issues and concerns and develop a recommendation that
was acceptable to everyone. Due to the difficulty of visualizing their proposal, they developed a
rendering using a photograph of the waterfront. She displayed the rendering, identifying the walkway on
the Waterfront Associates property, the parking barge, the steps on either side of the parking barge, the
Senior Center, replacement of the existing bulkhead at Olympic Beach with curved linear steps, the
existing lawn area, and the proposed continuous walkway through these areas.
Councilmember Earling asked if the drawings were to scale. Ms. Faghin answered yes, they were done
in CAD. Ms. Ohlde commented the computer generated rendering was developed from surveys.
Councilmember Orvis asked the minimum distance between buildings and the walkway. Ms. Faghin
answered the minimum distance was 30 feet. Ms. Ohlde pointed out distances were identified on Figure
7.
Ms. Faghin said their recommendation includes two phases, the first phase ,is repair /replacement of the
parking barge, the Senior Center and Olympic Beach and steps. Phase 2 would be to evaluate what could
be done in front of the Ebb Tide. She said nothing is shown for the Ebb Tide because there were
concerns and issues raised with all the alternatives, discussed.
Councilmember Earling asked the amount of time between phase 1 and phase 2. Ms. Ohlde referred to
the recommendation in the October 27 Planning Board minutes which indicates the project would be
completed in a 2- phased approach recognizing the immediacy of the first phase (repair /replacement of
existing bulkhead) leaving consideration of a 196- foot long, barrier -free access across the Ebb Tide as
phase 2. She stressed the bulkhead at Ebb Tide was not failing; future consideration would be how to
connect the two in some manner. She said the City currently has a link through that area via a 10 -foot
walking access in that area but it was not a barrier -free link through that area. She said there were no
funds or immediacy of need, the Council should just retain that as an option for the future.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how wide the walkway was. Ms. Faghin said the walkway on the
drawing was 8 -feet wide. Councilmember Plunkett asked how high the step was on the North Brackett's
Landing Park. Mr. Swanson answered as currently designed each step is 18 inches (seating steps) and
the top of the walkway is flush with the top of the last step. He referred to other projects with similar
size steps such as Marina Beach in Kirkland and Commencement Bay in Tacoma.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 17
Councilmember Plunkett recalled the bulkhead and walkway were referred to as critical. He asked if the
bulkhead repair was critical from an engineeririg:Starldpoint and why. Ms. Faghin answered the bulkhead
was failing and needed repair. If repairs were not done, the timbers would continue to fail and the land
behind the bulkhead would erode. Therefore, . some decision must be made. Councilmember Plunkett
asked if the walkway was critical from an engineering standpoint. Ms. Nicole answered from a policy
and planning perspective, the walkway was included in a plan.the City has adopted.
Mr. Swanson said the walkway was not critical from an engineering standpoint although the walkway
would enhance the wall design. He explained,the top elevation of the existing wall was approximately
+15 feet. If a +12 -13 foot tide was present with a northerly storm event that can cause 3 -6 foot high
waves, there would be 2 -feet of wave overtopping the wall. The water backfilling . into Puget Sound
would tend to cause the land behind the wall to. erode. The .walkway would mitigate erosion behind the
wall because it would provide an impervious surface. He stressed the bulkhead replacements were
essential as northerly storm events would result:iri the loss of property behind the walls.
For Council President Miller, Mr. Swanson said standard playground equipment is designed with a
standard 18 -inch high step. Council President Miller questioned the proposal for the parking barge. Ms.
Faghin answered a new bulkhead was not proposed only new stairs on the sides and 'a continuation of the
walkway via pavers that are present at South Brackett's Landing would continue in front of the
Waterfront Associates building and along the parking barge. She agreed parking in that area would be
reconfigured.
Council President Miller asked if this design had been considered'in conjunction with the plans for a new
Senior Center facility. Ms. Faghin answered yes. Ms. Ohlde said she met with ,the Senior Center's
architect to review the proposed design. She also met with the Senior Center Executive Director and
Board of Directors who are in support of the proposed design.
Councilmember Davis asked for a rough estimate of the percentage of the project represented by the
bulkhead versus the walkway. Ms. Ohlde answered this is a combined project to meet the walkway
described in the Comprehensive Plan and provide enhanced recreational opportunities. Mr. Swanson
said excluding the element in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, the 'project was approximately
$650,000. 'The walkway element was approximately $5 per square foot ($40 per lineal foot). He
estimated the walkway was approximately 1045% of the `project cost. He said the primary cost was
excavation and construction of the bulkheads.
Councilmember Orvis asked the cost differential between the bulkhead specified for Olympic Beach and
the existing bulkhead in front of the Senior Center. Mr. Swanson said their preference was to use steps
throughout the entire area but there were constraints due to the proximity of structures adjacent to the
vertical bulkhead. He said it was prudent to consider the step design because it enhanced access and
mitigated the wave action. He agreed costs could be reduced via a vertical bulkhead along the entire area
and costs reduced further with a vertical bulkhead that matched the existing.bulkhead. The intent was to
use this as an opportunity to enhance access and be more creative.
Councilmember Orvis asked if a straight bulkhead would be harder to permit. Mr. Swanson answered he
did not think so. Ms. Faghin commented they are encountering serious ESA problems with permits from
resource agencies. She was uncertain whether the permit process for either bulkhead type would be
faster. There may be advantages to a bulkhead that did not encroach on habitat or areas where new
habitat was created.
Edmonds City. Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 18
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the bulkhead could be installed now and the walkway done later. Mr.
Swanson answered yes. Councilmember Plunkett asked how much more the project would cost if the
two were separated. Mr. Swanson said there would be some economies with having the same contractor
do both at once. He said the walkway portion was relatively simple and straight- forward and if that and
the landscaping elements were referred to a subsequent contract, he estimated the premium would likely
be 5 -20 %, or $10,000 - $25,000 if the walkway and landscaping portion was $150,000. He indicated they
had a more detailed cost estimate that could be provided. Ms. Faghin said there may be problems
obtaining additional permits as some agencies prefer to permit a complete project. She said problems
may arise with permitting the walkway at a later date as it would require the addition of more impervious
surface.
For Councilmember White, Ms. Faghin said if the bulkhead were allowed to deteriorate the natural tide
action would cause significant erosion of the beach. Mr. Swanson said one, of the reasons for curving the
bulkhead back was resource agencies would not allow any net loss. The construction of stairs was
considered a net loss even though there were stairs in that location at one time. The intent was to offset
that with additional beach.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM13ER WHITE, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Ohlde explained since the destruction of these bulkhead in 1996, she has continued to allocate funds
for this project as she could not present a project to the Council without adequate funding. At this time,
the 125 Fund contains $1 million for this project. As the Parks and Recreation Director, she presents this
project as one that compliments the City's Parks.and Recreation and waterfront and as an opportunity for
the Council to act on the walkway plan outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. She said the preferred
alternative meets the criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Waterfront Plan, enhances the
opportunity to walk along the waterfront and compliments the recreational use. In addition to the lawn
or upper area, a bulkhead and beach, the step. design bulkhead softens the bulkhead edge and merges the
upper area with the beach area. She said this opportunity will not likely present itself again; if a decision
is made to install a concrete wall or not do a walkway enhancement, she said it was unlikely the project
would come before the Council during the next 50 -100 years.
Council President Miller asked for clarification of whether the second t/4 real estate excise tax could be
used to fund the library. Ms. Ohlde answered no, those funds are dedicated via RCW.
Councilmember White observed this had been refereed to as the preferred plan and asked how it was
determined this was the preferred.plan. Ms. Ohlde answered the Planning Board serves as the Park
Board in all capital projects. The Planning Board makes a recommendation that is forwarded to the
Council as a preferred alternative. Councilmember White asked if the public hearings occurred at the
Planning Board. Ms. Ohlde answered yes.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Swanson said from an engineering standpoint, the walkway was not
required for the bulkhead to be replaced. It was an opportunity to put in the walkway because it is an
incidental part of the overall construction of the project. It was preferable to do both the walkway and
bulkhead at the same time due to cost savings and integration of design but it was not required.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if consideration had been given to the fact that this project would create
an opportunity for more people to utilize the beach when public safety vehicles' access to the area may
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 19
be impeded by commuter rail, trains, etc. Ms. Ohlde answered no, commenting she was not yet aware
what public use would be. She said this was a citywide question.
Councilmember Orvis asked if funds. in Fund 125 could be used for any capital facility. Ms. Ohlde
answered although the policy in the City. has been to dedicate those funds: to parks, the RCW would
allow the funds to be used for any capital project.
Councilmember Earling asked how'notice was.provided for the public hearings. Ms. Ohlde said the City
Clerk had a mailing list of over 300 who were sent notices for all public meetings relating to this issue.
Ms: Ohlde also informed the 300 people of any public presentations (like tonight's meeting). She said
she assumed all interested parties were informed of the public meetings.
In response to Councilmember Plunkett's comment regarding commuter rail, Councilmember Earling
explained when the service begins in 2001, there will be six trains in the morning, and six in the evening,
each approximately 2 -4 cars in length. Councilmember White asked if the commuter trains would
operate five or seven days a week. Councilmember Earling answered five days a week although special
event trains may be added depending on the budget and use of commuter rail. The primary. focus will be
the work week.
Councilmember Petso asked if the Council proceeded with this tonight, how much room would there be
in the future to vary the design based on future public comment such as to add ramps, make the steps
smaller, etc. She said her experience has been once one design is labeled a preferred alternative, there is
a tendency not to consider the. other options. She preferred all options be explored and public comment
be provided on all the options. Ms. Ohlde explained once a preferred design was identified, the Council
would have a public hearing to seek input and make a determination (as the City CEO) whether the
schematic design would proceed to permit. Once the plan was moved forward to permit, the Council
becomes the regulatory agency and Council discussion of the project is difficult as conversations cannot
occur because the Council could be required to rule on an appeal in the future.
Ms. Ohlde said what is being presented tonight is an opportunity for, an additional step in the process —
an administrative environmental review. She explained in that process the Council continues to serve as
the CEO and has an opportunity to discuss the project with the public and have an administrative public
hearing not governed by Regulatory Reform. The administrative environmental review could consider
three alternatives, 1) the preferred, enhanced plan ; 2) just the bulkhead, and 3) no bulkhead and returning
the area to a natural beach with dune grass and a walkway on the eastern edge of the ,property.. She said
the administrative environmental review could consider all elements of the environmental checklist and
issues raised by the public. Once the administrative environmental review was completed, adequate .
answers would be available on all three alternatives and the Council can make.a better decision before
the design proceeds to regulatory. She said if the Council. directed the schematic design to proceed to
permits, the project could be appealed at the Hearing Examiner requiring an environmental impact
statement be done on the project. She preferred to have those questions thoroughly investigated via an
administrative environmental review.
Councilmember Orvis recalled reading if the project was presented without the walkway it would not be
permitted because it would be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He asked .where it was
stated the bulkhead only could not be replaced. Ms. Ohlde explained the Downtown Waterfront Plan, an
element of the Comprehensive Plan, indicates the City has stated it wants a esplanade of a continual
waterfront walkway. If a design.without a walkway was presented for permit, it would not meet the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 20
Comprehensive Plan criteria. She said there was the possibility of obtaining a permit with a mitigated
approval. Councilmember Orvis asked if the project required a walkway. 'Ms. Ohlde answered yes to
meet the continual walkway outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT SECONDED THE
MOTION, TO EXTEND THE MEETING AND PRESENTATION FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the recommended action was to acknowledge the Planning/Park
Board recommendation of the schematic design and asked if Ms. Ohlde was seeking approval of this
design. Ms. Ohlde answered no. Councilmember Plunkett asked why, the Planning/Park Board design
needed to be acknowledged. Ms. Ohlde said she needed authorization to advertise for consultant
selection to complete an administrative environmental review on the design with alternatives of do
nothing, replace existing, and/or consider the preferred design.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the preferred alternative was really just,one of three options and the
action requested was to complete an administrative environmental review of all the options. Ms. Ohlde
agreed.
Mr. Snyder advised it was the Council's discretion to designate whatever it felt was the preferred
alternative, recognizing that all options would be. studied in the course of environmental review.
Councilmember Petso asked if there would be an opportunity for public input tonight. Council President
Miller answered tonight's presentation was not planned to be a public hearing; public hearings would
take place at a later date.
Council President Miller observed this was obviously a matter of high public interest. Therefore, he
requested Councilmember White, the chairperson of the Community Services/Development Services
Committee meet with members of the • community who represented a different point of view.
Councilmember White explained at the first presentation made to the Community Services/Development
Services Committee when he was a member, it was apparent there were broad perspectives on this issue.
He met with Ms. Ohlde, Planning Board Chair Bruce Witenberg, and two citizen representatives to
determine what the issues were. It became clear there were two or more perspectives on this project. As
a result it was agreed by the Community Services/Development Services Committee to have John
McGibbon and Rob Morrison present their perspective on the plans. Following their presentation, the
next step would be an environmental review. He explained having a representative of the group
participate in choosing the consultant team was discussed as well as allowing them to be involved with
the consultant during the entire review to ensure there was expertise on the committee that everyone felt
was appropriate and all issues are addressed. He stressed the City did not want to get through this
process and have another perspective raised.
John McGibbon, 842 Main Street; Edmonds, said after the mid - waterfront bulkhead replacement and
walkway was announced, over 1,000 signatures were gathered opposing the plan. Many of the signatures
were gathered on site from users of the waterfront an el people who were familiar with the environment.
These individuals did not prefer the preferred plan. lie outlined three goals their group shares with City
planners, 1) bulkhead replacement, 2) access to the beach, and 3) ability of citizens to walk the
waterfront from the fishing pier to the, ferry dock. A fourth goal that the City planners have failed to
address is preservation of the grassy park areas along the mid - waterfront with particular emphasis on the
grassy park area adjacent to Olympic Beach. He feared City planners have overlooked or ignored the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 21
impact of their plan on this popular amenity. He explained the grassy area is a multi -use area, used for
picnicking, playing, sunning, as an observation platform for monitoring the activities of children on the
beach, watching boats, the water, the Olympic mountains, sunsets and as a walking area. He said the
threats to the grassy area include. an 8 -foot wide concrete sidewalk that runs the length of the grassy area
and eliminates approximately 17% of the grassy park area.
Mr. McGibbon pointed out generally a transaction,that took something away was countered by providing
something in return. He questioned what was provided in return for the sidewalk. He pointed out that
neither improved access, an attractive feature, nor an enlarged waterfront walkway (as there will not be a
walkway other than sand in front of the Ebb Tide) would be. provided. The end result was an
unnecessary concrete strip imposed on a pleasant park.
Mr. McGibbon said there is no value added in the City's .proposal; only value lost. He said people are
comfortable walking the beach and. the grassy park areas and urged the Council to employ common sense
and stay the course with natural elements.
Rob Morrison 250 Beach Place, Edmonds, Chairman of Save our Beach Committee, said the virtual
reality computer picture gives the impression of a large expanse of grass, what a park is all about and
their goal. The schematic design 3 -step seawall/bulkhead in the picture does not appear to seriously
invade the lawn area; however, the 3 -step design requires additional steps and a base to meet structural
requirements to prevent scouring under the wall in severe storms. When added to the designed seawall,
the 20 -foot penetration into the sand is an invasion on Sand Lance and Surf Smelt, and spawning habitat
of feeding salmon, a violation of Fish and Wildlife regulations. Therefore, the answer to the design is to
move the seawall landward, resulting in shrinkage to '18 feet of the grassy area. He displayed Exhibit 1,
the 6 -step bulkhead in the draft Edmonds Mid- waterfront Feasibility Study.
Mr. Morrison said the drawing 24 -98 -0 "Waterfront Bulkhead" was presented at a meeting with Ms.
Ohlde and Ms. Kinsella, Engineer for Reid Middleton, in September (Exhibit 2). On study, the question
of the ability to withstand scouring under a 3 -step (plus cap) seawall was raised. The history of the
northerly storms action at Olympic Beach has caused a lowering of up to 4+ feet of sand. This could
imperil the 7 foot'.6 inch (3 step) seawall extension beyond the existing bulkhead. That intrusion into the
sand may not violate Fish and Wildlife regulations and the 3 -step seawall, 2 feet maximum behind the
existing bulkhead. The dotted lines of the added steps indicate the 10 foot intrusion into the sand if'they
were applied to the 3 -step structure to assure a secure base for the seawall and to meet regulations. This
would require the seawall to be moved behind the existing bulkhead. That would result in a further 10
foot intrusion in the grass, resulting in an average loss of 30 feet of grass to the property line.
Mr. Morrison explained a special request was made of Reid Middleton in October for a sketch of the
proposed seawall who on the telephone, suggested a 16 inch extension of the cap to 34 inches should be
considered to ward off wave - topping at high tide. Exhibit 3, drawing A/1 /1 was received on October 18
and now described an additional two steps plus base for a total of eight steps plus 34 inch cap. However,
this drawing displays 14 feet of steps intruding into the sand. (A telephone call to Fish and Wildlife
advised this was not acceptable and the project would not be permitted).
Mr. Morrison displayed an exhibit showing the 18 inch step (risers), the 24 inch treads and the new wave
topping 34 inch cap. He pointed out this was too high to permit access to /from the beach/park and
confirms the only access to the beach is at Dayton Place and north to the stairway to the Senior Center
parking lot. He displayed Exhibit 4, the A/1 /1 section moved landward allowing a 7 -foot penetration of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 22
sand at the south end of the seawall, resulting in a loss of 34 feet of grass, leaving 14 feet to the property
line and an average of 16 feet of grass for 200+ feet of park.
Mr. Morrison summarized over 1,100 Save Our Beach petitioners, 50% local and 50% visitors, request
the Council instruct the Coastal Engineer Consultant to preserve the grassy areas of the park, access to
the beach from the park, and replacing the existing bulkhead with a vertical, concave face bulkhead with
several conventional stairways for access to the beach.
Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Morrison if the preferred alternative was flawed from an engineering
standpoint. Mr. Morrison answered it was flawed if the 3 -steps are' only three of a total of eight steps and
if the other 5 -6 steps are buried in the sand as indicated by the computer photo. By the drawings
provided by Reid Middleton, his assumption was the seawall steps have 18 inch riser, 24 inch tread and a
34 inch cap. He said Ms. Kinsella at Reid Middleton indicated the water would break over the top step
as shown in the drawings, pour across the sidewalk and the lawn, therefore the addition of the cap was
necessary. He said he has had two floods of saltwater and one sewer flood during the 20 years he has
lived there. He said the design as shown and as publicized would fail.
Councilmember White recalled Mr. Morrison's desire to have a Coastal Engineer involved to determine
the number of steps that will be necessary. Mr. McGibbon requested the Council make a declaration that
preservation of the grassy area was a priority.
Councilmember Earling asked Mr. Swanson to respond to the comments made by Mr. McGibbon and
Mr. Morrison. Mr. Swanson said the reference to a 32 inch step at the top of the bulkhead may have
been taken out of.context from Ms. Kinsella who is a registered civil engineer with an advanced degree
in coastal engineering. He said their firm has a long history in the coastal engineering arena and factored
that issue into the design decisions for the conceptual design that was prepared. He said a design would
not be prepared with a 32 -inch high top step. He said the depth of the steps that are needed due to beach
migration that occurs during winter months was a design detail that has yet to be determined. He said the
design has been conceptually laid out in a manner that suggests the 4 -foot elevation change can be
captured and still have a firm foundation for the wall.
Mr. Swanson explained the detailed layout of the curves was also a design decision. The design before
the Council is a. conceptual alternative that suggests burying the face to enhance the sandy beach area at
the loss of grassy areas. He said from an engineering standpoint, a straight wall could be installed in
exactly the same location as the existing wall. The intent was to develop something more creative in
conjunction with the City's "plan for a continuous walkway. He said if there was enough public
opposition to this and Council would rather have a replacement bulkhead designed, that could be done.
He said the design team's role was not to eradicate public opposition, they tried to factor public input
into the design. He stressed there were numerous design decisions that would be made during the design
phase and what has been presented was very conceptual and the widths and heights could be varied as the
City desired as long as it was consistent with good engineering practice.
Councilmember Earling observed the tendency was to look at the diagrams as the way the design will
look. He said the eventual design could actually look more like a'staircase if that was the direction the
Council gave. Mr. Swanson said it was premature to discuss that level of detail. Councilmember Earling
said the intent was a barrier that provides relief from sea action. He said the City's long term goal as.
stated in the Comprehensive Plan was for a continuous walkway along the waterfront. This would
invigorate the waterfront and be an amenity, to the City and visitors would generate economic
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 23
regeneration. He agreed the grassy area was highly used and suggested finding a way to incorporate the
design concepts and preserving as much of the grassy park area as possible.
Councilmember White read the language in the ,code that defines the Planning Board's task, "the board
shall do research and investigation on specific projects assigned to it by the Mayor and City Council.
The board will analyze data, collect and arrange for public participation and organize the findings. The
board will then present its findings to the Mayor and City Council using a summary of pertinent data
available and may recommend an appropriate course of action." He said the Planning Board made its
recommendation to the Council and suggested the Council acknowledge the Planning Board's
recommendation as one parameter and the other parameter could be to reconstruct the bulkhead in its
present configuration. He recommended the City contract with a consultant for an administrative
environmental review that will address among other things, what is a continuous waterfront walkway.
He said to some, it is already there — the sand, and to others it still needs to be constructed.
COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER, TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDED SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND
AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR THE COMPLETION
OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE MID- WATERFRONT BULKHEAD. REPAIR
PROJECT AND WITHIN THAT PROPOSAL ALLOW PARTICIPATION OF CITIZENS, JOHN
MCGIBBONS AND ROB MORRISON, AS REPRESENTATIVES TO OFFER THEIR INPUT
INTO THE CREATION OF A CONSULTING TEAM THE PARAMETERS OF THE TASK ARE
THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE EXISTING BULKHEAD AND
ANALYSIS OF EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN WITH CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
Councilmember Orvis suggested the consultant be asked to pay special attention to the need to maintain
the grassy area. Councilmember White said he did not want to suggest that as there' were an infinite
number of options.
Councilmember Earling inquired what type of timeline was envisioned, how much would this cost and
how would it be financed. Ms. Ohlde answered it would likely take six months to consider all elements
and to allow public input. The cost to address every variable would be in the range of $30,000 and
would be funded from the funds set aside in the 125 Fund for this project. Councilmember White
pointed out public process had been added to Ms. Ohlde's proposed process.
MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT
TO EXTEND THE MEETING 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
6. SECOND READING — ORDINANCE NO 3295 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS WASHINGTON,
Ord #3295 GRANTING TO METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK SERVICES INC A NON-EXCLUSIVE
Metro-
media TO INSTALL OPERATE AND MA TAIN A T PLE CONDUIT FIBER
cdia
Franchise O + a � OPTIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM N ON OVER UPON ALONG AND A ROSS
TTIE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTONT,
PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS DUTIES TERMS AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT
THERETO AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
In response to issues raised during Audience Comments, City Engineer Jim Walker referred to Section 8
on page 6 of the agreement that indicates all facilities shall be underground, consistent with the. City's
ordinance. Section 10 addresses work in public rights -of -ways and includes fairly stringent restoration
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 24
requirements. The contractor holds the City harmless and a $1,000 fee is paid to the City for granting the
franchise. He explained this agreement was similar to the agreement negotiated with U. S. Crossing
approximately six months ago. He said the only plans Metromedia Fiber Network has at this time is to
utilize one of the U.S. Crossing conduits to install fiber optics through the City and are not providing any
service within the City.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the franchise agreement is so extensive because the City must offer
franchises on non - discriminatory terms to all communication systems. The intent was to have a uniform
agreement to prevent development of individually tailored franchise agreements and to have a document
that was relevant as technology changes. He said the agreement contains 2'/z pages of indemnification .
provisions, four hold harmless clauses, and site restoration requirements.
Councilmember White asked if the City had the right not to grant the franchise. Mr. Snyder answered
no.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED. The ordinance approved is as
follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3295 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, GRANTING TO
METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK SERVICES, INC., A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO
INSTALL, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN A MULTIPLE CONDUIT FIBER OPTIC
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM IN, ON, OVER, UPON, ALONG AND ACROSS THE
PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PRESCRIBING
CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
7. MAYOR'S REPORT
ire con- Mayor Haakenson advised a fire consolidation meeting was held with Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace
olidation
eeting last week and another meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 8. He advised the Phase 1 Fire
Consolidation Study had been distributed to Council and invited Councilmembers to contact
Councilmembers White or Plunkett or him with any concerns to be raised at the next meeting.
snolsle Mayor Haakenson reported the Director of SnoIsle, Art Weeks, said SnoIsle would ignore the two letters
Library
ontract Edmonds submitted and the City's contract with SnoIsle Library would remain in place.
8. COUNCIL REPORTS
laska On behalf of the Council, Councilmember Miller acknowledged the Alaska Airline tragedy, commenting
irline on its affects on the City and the larger community. He said the Council's thoughts and prayers would
ragedy be with the family members and the employees of Alaska Airlines.
Councilmember Orvis thanked Public Works Director Noel Miller for the tour he provided to Chris
Davis and him.
ng Councilmember Earling advised the Long Range Task Force is meeting Wednesday, February 2
ge regarding library issues. He observed the Council's extended agenda did not include consideration of
ask
orce advertising meetings in the newspaper. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised it was scheduled for February
22.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 25
les re: Councilmember -Earling suggested the retreat include a discussion of the rules the Council follows for
otions making motions and amendments. 'Council President Miller advised Mr. Snyder would address that issue
Amend -
nts at the Council retreat.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
GARY H KENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY u ERK
1
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 1, 2000
Page 26
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
FEBRUARY 1, 2000
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2000
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35925 THROUGH #38851 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 24,
2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $534,129.07
(D) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
(E) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED JANUARY 25, 2000, FOR THE PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION
OF APPROXIMATELY 660 LINEAL FEET OF SAFETY FENCE TO BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO THE
RAILROAD TRACK ON OCEAN AVENUE, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CITY WIDE FENCE
COMPANY ($14,980.28, Including Sales Tax)
(F) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
(G) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CLOSED RECORD
MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 18, 2000 — APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO
APPROVE A 4 -LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION WHICH INCLUDED A CRITICAL AREA VARIANCE FROM
STEEP SLOPES AND SETBACK VARIANCES FOR LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, FROM 10 FEET DOWN TO ZERO
FEET. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 160XX 72ND AVENUE WEST AND IS ZONED
"RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS -20." (Applicant: Sequoia Ridge Partners / File Nos. S -98 -108
and V -98 -109. Appellant: Charles Warner/ File No. AP -99- 224.)
(H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH
COUNTY PUD FOR ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE TREATMENT PLANT
(1) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SECURITY SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN STEVENS
HEALTHCARE, STEVENS HOSPITAL AND THE EDMONDS POLICE DEPARTMENT
(J) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE THREE POLICE STAFF /DETECTIVE VEHICLES FROM EITHER
BUDGET CAR SALES, HULING BROTHERS, OR CLYDE REVORD CAR SALES (Not -to- Exceed
$48,000)
(K) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ONE 2000 CHEVROLET ONE -HALF TON PICK -UP FROM THE
WASHINGTON STATE PURCHASING CONTRACT ($19,939.10)
(L) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 6.40 BY THE REPEAL OF
SECTION 6.40.130 COMMERCIAL HANDBILL LIMITATIONS
(M) APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF VARIANCE FEES
Page 1 of 2
1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 1, 2000:
Page 2 of 2
3. (30 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED 4MENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.21, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS WILL MODIFY THE EXISTING ACCtSSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) REGULATIONS
TO PROVIDE FOR A MORE STREAMLINED PERMIT PROCESS, ALLOW FOR CONTINUATION OF
THE ADU IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD, REQUIRErTHAT THE ADU NOT INCREASE THE SINGLE-
FAMILY DENSITY 'OF THE PROPERTY, AND - PROVIDE DESIGN CRITERIA TO ASSURE
COMPATIBILITY WITH SINGLE- FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
4. , AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
5. (75 Min.) PRESENTATION OF THE PLANNING /PARK BOARD RECOMMENDATION OF THE SCHEMATIC
DESIGN FOR THE MID - WATERFRONT BULKHEAD. AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR
CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE
MID - WATERFRONT BULKHEAD REPAIR PROJECT
6. (5 Min.) SECOND READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
GRANTING TO METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK SERVICES, INC. A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO
INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A MULTIPLE CONDUIT FIBER OPTIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEM IN, ON, OVER, UPON, ALONG AND ACROSS THE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF THE CITY
OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON; PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS
WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
7. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
8. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS
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 46 Delayed telecast of this meeting
appears the following Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46