Loading...
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