01/22/2002 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
January 22, 2002
Executive Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m, for an Executive Session regarding a legal matter and to meet
session with the new appointments to the Sister City Commission at 6:45 p.m., the Edmonds City Council
meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue
North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Dave Orvis, Council President Pro Tem
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Dave Earling, Council President
ALSO PRESENT
Jared Carl, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Serv. Director
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Brian McIntosh, Assistant Parks & Rec Director
Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MARIN, TO:
hange to • DELETE ITEM 2F FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA (PROPOSED ORDINANCE
genda AMENDING CHAPTER 5.05 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, PROVIDING THAT ALL
OWNER -SURRENDERED OR STRAY DOMESTIC ANIMALS SHOULD BE ALTERED
PRIOR TO BEING ADOPTED BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY, DESIGNATING
VETERINARIAN(S) TO PROVIDE ALTERATION SERVICES, ESTABLISHING AN
ANIMAL BENEFIT FUND TO PAY FOR SAID ALTERATION AND TO PROVIDE
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO DOMESTIC ANIMAL OWNERS IN PAYING FOR
ALTERATION SERVICES);
• REMOVE ITEM 11 (EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER.
THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC
FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD) FROM THE AGENDA; AND
• EXTEND ITEM 12 (CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL
ESTATE MATTER) TO 60 MINUTES.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 1
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. The agenda items approved are as
follows:
Councilmember Marin commented both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bechler were well qualified to serve on the
Sister City Commission, one speaks Japanese fluently and the other served on a Sister City Commission
in another community.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson introduced Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bechler.
4. 6Ave. W 76TH AVENUE WEST ROCKERY REPAIR PROJECT
[Rockery
City Engineer Dave Gebert advised the recommended action was to authorize staff to proceed with
finalizing the design and negotiating easements for the rockery project. He explained the Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) include a project to repair the deteriorated rockery on 76"' Avenue West near
Dellwood Drive. In February 2002, the Council approved award of a contract to Reid Middleton, Inc. to
design the project to repair the rockery.
In June 2002, staff held a neighborhood meeting to review the project, the design alternatives, and the
easement process and to solicit input from residents in the vicinity of the rockery. Approximately eight
people attended the neighborhood meeting where a "soil nail" wall was presented as the preferred
alternative. A majority of the attendees agreed with the soil nail alternative but there were a number of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 2
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
1/15/02
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2002
inutes
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #52949 THROUGH #53168 FOR THE WEEK OF
pprove
laim
JANUARY 14, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $899,853.61. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
becks
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #4037 THROUGH #4120 FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 1 THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $818,169.40.
Meat
xchanger
(D) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR A HEAT EXCHANGER AT THE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
eport on
ants
(E) QUARTERLY REPORT ON GRANTS
3.
CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION OF
Sister City
DUSTIN WILSON AND BRYAN BECHLER
ommission
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF DUSTIN WILSON AND
BRYAN BECHLER TO POSITIONS #6 AND #10 RESPECTIVELY ON THE SISTER CITY
COMMISSION.
Councilmember Marin commented both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bechler were well qualified to serve on the
Sister City Commission, one speaks Japanese fluently and the other served on a Sister City Commission
in another community.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson introduced Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bechler.
4. 6Ave. W 76TH AVENUE WEST ROCKERY REPAIR PROJECT
[Rockery
City Engineer Dave Gebert advised the recommended action was to authorize staff to proceed with
finalizing the design and negotiating easements for the rockery project. He explained the Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) include a project to repair the deteriorated rockery on 76"' Avenue West near
Dellwood Drive. In February 2002, the Council approved award of a contract to Reid Middleton, Inc. to
design the project to repair the rockery.
In June 2002, staff held a neighborhood meeting to review the project, the design alternatives, and the
easement process and to solicit input from residents in the vicinity of the rockery. Approximately eight
people attended the neighborhood meeting where a "soil nail" wall was presented as the preferred
alternative. A majority of the attendees agreed with the soil nail alternative but there were a number of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 2
questions raised regarding easements. Therefore, a second neighborhood meeting was held in July
specifically to address questions/concerns regarding easements. The seven effected property owners
were provided written notice of the meeting and three attended. The City Engineer, City Attorney, and
the City's consultant Reid Middleton, also attended the meeting. Subsequent to the meeting, the City
Attorney prepared draft easement language, which attempted to incorporate the concerns that the
property owners expressed at the meeting.
In September 2001, a letter was sent to the seven residents that included a draft of the easement language
and requesting they provide written comments and/or concurrence with the easement language. Staff has
received written response from six of the seven property owners indicating they would agree in principle
to granting an easement subject to their approval of the final language. He acknowledged there were
comments/concerns raised by residents that will be addressed via either revisions in the easement
language, minor revisions to the design, or further discussion.
The property owner at 19109 Dellwood Drive (Lot 23) did not provide a written response. Mr. Gebert
explained he spoke with this property owner in November who indicated he was not comfortable with
granting the City an easement on his property and was not prepared to grant the City an easement at that
time. The property owner indicated he would be out of town until January. As the property owner
indicated resistance to an easement on his property, staff and the consultant considered whether a
technical solution could be identified that would enable the City to make repairs to the rockery without
requiring an easement from the property owner. He noted this property is located at the south end of the
rockery where the rockery is in better condition than the remainder and is not as high. Mr. Gebert
explained their goal was to determine an alternative solution that could be used if staff was unable to
reach agreement with the property owner regarding an easement and to avoid a condemnation process to
obtain an easement.
Bryce Falkin, Reid Middleton Inc., explained the rockery is located midway between 196' and
Olympic View Drive. The rockery is approximately 670 feet long with an average height of 16 feet,
reaching a maximum height of 20 feet. The rockery has a total square footage of exposed face of 11,000
square feet.
Existing Conditions
Dennis Stettler, Landau & Associates, explained the maximum height of the rockery of 18-20 feet is
unusually high for a rockery wall; rockery walls are more commonly in the 8 -foot range. He explained
several years ago, Landau & Associates evaluated the condition and relative stability of ten rockery walls
in the City. Of the ten rockeries, this rockery was determined to be in the worst condition and potentially
the most problematic due to its length, height, and deterioration. He displayed photographs illustrating
the deterioration including rocks with cracks, pieces out of the rocks, etc. He explained as the rockery
continues to weather and age, cracks and deterioration also continues, which could lead to rocks falling
off the face or large rocks shifting.
Repair Alternatives
Mr. Falkin reviewed the repair alternatives:
■ Chain Link Fence covering the face of the rockery — inexpensive solution, which would restrict
falling hazards from landing on the sidewalk below. Minimal easements would be required for
this alternative. With this alternative, portions of wall can still fall due to weathering. The chain
link fence is not deemed to be as architecturally pleasing. Significant maintenance would be
required for a chain link fence and it may create an attractive nuisance for climbing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 3
■ Conventional Concrete Cantilever Retaining Wall — long term solution and one of the most
common type retaining walls. This alternative requires the least amount of maintenance but is
expensive, ranging from $40-$60/square foot for a total construction cost of $440,000 -
$660,000. With this alternative, the existing rockery as well as a significant amount of soil
behind the wall would have to be removed. Easements would be required and construction
would be invasive on the adjacent property owners.
■ Soldier Pile Wall with Tie Backs — long-term solution but allows the rockery to be left in place by
placing piles on the front face of the rockery. This retaining wall requires larger tie back lengths
which results in larger easements. This alternative is one of the most expensive, ranging in cost
from $100-$150/square foot for an estimated construction cost of $1.1 - $1.6 million. As there is
limited room for construction due to the rockery's proximity to the sidewalk and roadway, the tie
backs may encroach into the sidewalk and over time the steel piles may show signs of corrosion.
■ Soil Nail Wall — allows the rockery to be left in place. This alternative entails installing soil nails
in a grid pattern throughout the rockery and applying a shotcrete fascia to anchor the soil nail
heads and tie the system together. This solution is cost effective, ranging from $30-$40/square
foot for a total estimated construction cost of $330,000 - $440,000. The shotcrete fascia allows
for a hand troweled, architecturally pleasing finish. This alternative also requires easements but
not as large as the tie backs in the soldier pile wall.
Mr. Falkin explained that throughout the public meetings, a majority of property owners agreed the soil
nail wall was an acceptable alternative. He displayed examples of the shotcrete fascia wall finish
alternatives, explaining the intent was to identify a finish that was easily applied, similar to a rock face,
and that blended well with the surroundings. He displayed an example of a shotcrete finish they
anticipated using on this project.
Recommended Design Solution
Mr. Falkin summarized the recommended design solution was the soil nail wall option with a hand
troweled finish because it would provide a cost effective, permanent solution that was architecturally
pleasing.
Technical Design Alternatives for Lot 23
Mr. Falkin explained technical design alternatives were considered for Lot 23 to avoid the requirement
for an easement or minimize the easement requirement. He explained consideration was also given to
doing nothing to the rockery; however, this option was deemed a high risk as the rockery would continue
to weather and aesthetically would not match the soil nail wall to the north.
Next, consideration was given to a soldier pile wall without tiebacks. This was viewed as a low risk
alternative that would address the property owner's concerns due to the minimal easement requirement as
tiebacks would not be required due to the lower wall height. This alternative is more expensive, ranging
from $60 - $80/square foot, a total of $18,000 - $24,000 more than the soil nail wall option along the Lot
23 footage. The soldier pile wall would aesthetically appear different than the soil nail wall to the north.
The third alternative was condemnation. This would allow for the recommended design solution and
allow this portion to match the retaining wall to the north. However, as this is an expensive and painful
process, an effort is made to avoid this alternative.
The last alternative considered was a shotcrete fascia over the existing rockery. This alternative was
considered because from a geotechnical standpoint, this section of rockery was considered low risk. Mr.
Stettler explained this section of wall along Lot 23 tapers from 12 feet at one end to 1 foot at the other
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 4
end and the rock is more stable than in other sections. A shotcrete fascia was viewed as a potential
compromise that would improve the existing condition, retard weathering, and help keep rocks in place.
The disadvantage was that this alternative was not as much an engineering solution as the other
alternatives and carried somewhat more risk but was seen as a reasonable compromise. Mr. Falkin
estimated the cost of the shotcrete fascia at $10-$20/square foot. He noted the shotcrete fascia would
match the soil nail treatment to the north. Mr. Falkin summarized their recommendation for the rockery
frontage on Lot 23 was a shotcrete fascia without a soil nail wall.
Council President Pro Tem Orvis inquired why the wall was the City's responsibility. Mr. Gebert
answered the wall was constructed with public funds in the 1970's when the road was constructed.
Although the rockery is located on private property, the City is responsible for it.
Council President Pro Tem Orvis asked whether this would entail extending the existing easements. Mr.
Gebert answered staff has been unable to locate any formal documented easements. City Attorney Scott
Snyder explained the City acquired the right to maintain the wall in its current position by adverse
possession and with that right came the obligation to maintain lateral and subjacent support.
Mr. Gebert clarified the easements would be subsurface easements and would not restrict the use of the
surface of the property. Therefore, the shotcrete fascia alternative for Lot 23 would not require any
additional easement other than the wall location. Mr. Snyder explained the subsurface area is primarily
in the setback area where building is limited by the City's zoning code. He said the goal would be to
tailor the easements so that they did not interfere with development rights. Mr. Gebert advised the
setback on 76"' Avenue West were 25 feet and the easement would be 25-30 feet.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the cost to obtain the easements. Mr. Gebert answered the cost
of the easements has not yet been determined. He explained there was some rationale for there not to be
a cost as the repair would benefit both parties, but the easements would be negotiated. Councilmember
Dawson clarified the proposed cost was only for construction/repair of the wall. Mr. Gebert agreed. Mr.
Snyder suggested that the estimated cost of the easements be discussed in Executive Session.
Councilmember Wilson inquired whether the shotcrete option for Lot 23 would require any easement
onto the property. Mr. Gebert answered it would depend on the design, possibly only an easement of 1-2
feet would be required behind the wall for a drainage swale on the top. He explained typically on a soil
nail wall there is a drainage swale and fence at the top. Councilmember Wilson asked whether a
construction easement would be required along Lot 23. Mr. Gebert answered he did not anticipate the
need for a construction easement as the shotcrete was applied from the outside.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of this item.
Paul Rootvik, 19109 Dellwood Drive, Edmonds, explained he has been discussing this wall with the
City for the past eight years, noting it has been a problem since it was constructed due to the material
used, cracks in the rocks, and rocks falling out of the face. He explained this summer staff requested a 35
foot easement and did not provide any good options other than the soil nail. He suggested consideration
be given to a license (rather than an easement) but staff chose not to pursue that option.
Mr. Rootvik indicated he did not receive the letter with the draft of the easement, only a letter asking
whether he agreed with the proposed easement language. He noted in previous meetings, earthquakes
and Acts of God were used as justification for replacing the wall. However, the easement he was
provided excluded Acts of God. He objected to the request for a 35 -foot easement with no
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 5
compensation. He pointed out the City owned the land that was being discussed but could not find the
paperwork. He displayed a map of the property illustrating this.
Mr. Rootvik agreed the wall needed to be replaced but did not agree with the verbiage in the easement.
He indicated his wife received a letter regarding the shotcrete alternative on Thursday, January 17, he
returned to town on Friday, January 18, and Mr. Gebert left a message on January 18 regarding the
shotcrete option for the wall along his property. Mr. Rootvik indicated he was not necessarily opposed to
the alternative but before he agreed to it, he wanted assurance his property was adequately protected. He
did not believe a 35 -foot easement was necessary.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of this item.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the Council was provided a copy of the easement. Mr. Gebert
answered no. Councilmember Petso asked if staff had discussed Mr. Rootvik's concerns with him. Mr.
Gebert explained Mr. Rootvik attended the second meeting that addressed the easements as well as
alternatives. The approved approach among all attendees of that meeting was that staff would proceed
with preparation of an easement for the residents' review. The draft easement was then forwarded to the
residents.
Councilmember Petso observed it appeared the issue may only be communication and it may be resolved
via further review of the easement document. Mayor Haakenson explained the recommended action
included negotiating necessary easements with property owners whose property abuts the rockery. Mr.
Gebert advised staff was more than willing to negotiate easement language with Mr. Rootvik. He
explained a copy of the draft easement was sent to property owners in September and another letter was
sent to the abutting property owners in October with another copy of the easement. Mr. Gebert indicated
Mr. Rootvik contacted him in November, indicated he would be out of town and did not have sufficient
time to review the easement. Anticipating the City would not be able to reach agreement with Mr.
Rootvik regarding the easement, staff developed an alternative in the event the City was unable to reach
agreement with Mr. Rootvik.
Referring to Mr. Rootvik's comment that he wanted assurance his property was adequately protected and
did not believe a 35 foot easement was necessary, Councilmember Petso asked what amount of easement
would be necessary. Mr. Gebert explained staff evaluated the four alternatives prepared by Reid
Middleton and all except the chain link fence provided an adequate solution. The soil nail alternative
was selected because it provides a good level of protection at a reasonable price. All options require
significant easement. The soil nail and the soldier pile with tie backs requires approximately a 30 foot
easement. The retaining wall would require an 8-10 foot easement and a significant construction
easement. He acknowledged the soil nails could be shorter in the area of Mr. Rootvik's property. Mr.
Gebert explained each easement would include a drawing identifying the depth of the easement. He
noted the easements would average 30 feet.
Councilmember Petso asked whether this would be a permanent easement or only the right to put a nail
in the ground. Mr. Gebert explained the City was requesting a subsurface easement — a strip along the
frontage where the rockery is and at a depth of approximately 30 feet. He noted in areas where the
rockery is shorter and soil nails do not need to be 28 feet deep, a smaller easement may be required.
Councilmember Petso recalled Mr. Rootvik's reference to a map of the lots and showing some type of
City ownership. Mr. Gebert said he was not aware of the map to which Mr. Rootvik referred. At the
time of the first meeting, staff was unable to locate easement documents on property records. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 6
explained Mr. Rootvik had a copy of an easement with a handwritten note indicating there was some
easement on his property. Staff has obtained a copy of the easement with the handwritten note but has
been unable to find records indicating easements were obtained. He offered to review the map Mr.
Rootvik referred to.
Councilmember Petso assumed if the Council approved the recommended action and later it was
determined the City already had the necessary easements, staff would return to the Council with any
change. Mr. Gebert assured if the City already had the easements, they would certainly not execute new
easements.
Councilmegiber Marin advised he has noticed the deteriorating condition of this wall when walking. He
was agreeable to the proposed alternative if the City was unable to reach agreement regarding an
easement with the property owner of Lot 23. He was also agreeable to taking more time to conduct the
necessary negotiations with Mr. Rootvik.
For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Snyder explained the easement was drafted following the meeting with
the residents with the goal of resolving issues as well as identifying an engineering solution where there
was not a legal solution. He referred to Mr. Rootvik's comments regarding earthquake and licensing,
noting a promise that the City would indemnify and hold harmless the property owners from damages
that arose from construction activities but excluding any damage caused by large scale earth movement
or Act of God. Regarding a license, Mr. Snyder explained a license was revocable and was not typically
recorded. He did not recommend spending public funds on improvements that a property owner could
ask to have removed, particularly if the design of the wall was predicated on the tie backs or soil nails.
Councilmember Dawson inquired whether the City would be liable if the wall collapsed due to the City's
negligence. Mr. Snyder agreed if there were negligence design issues.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether an existing easement would be deep enough to cover the proposed
work or only the existing rockery. Mr. Gebert answered he has not seen the map Mr. Rootvik referred to.
The only map/drawings he has seen did not show an easement, City property or right-of-way in the area
of the rockery.
Councilmember Wilson asked what specific activities the subsurface easement would preclude. Mr.
Snyder answered development on the surface would be limited by the zoning classification and setback;
the property owner would have full and unencumbered use of the surface of the property.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the wall design would have to meet engineering design standards.
Mr. Gebert answered the wall would be designed to meet the appropriate standards.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT
THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH, 1) FINALIZING THE DESIGN FOR
THE REPAIRS TO THE 76TH AVENUE WEST ROCKERY USING A SOIL NAIL DESIGN, 2)
NEGOTIATE NECESSARY EASEMENTS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE PROPERTY
ABUTS THE ROCKERY, AND 3) IF NEGOTIATIONS FAIL TO PROCEED WITH THE
PROPERTY OWNER AT 19109 DELLWOOD DRIVE, STAFF IS AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED
WITH THE SHOTCRETE FINISH WITHOUT SOIL NAILS.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 7
Councilmember Petso emphasized "necessary easements" and encouraged staff to review the map Mr.
Rootvik indicated he had as well as to work with Mr. Rootvik to negotiate an easement.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Edmonds Carol Hahn, 10312 d Avenue S, Edmonds, referred to continued public hearings that addressed either
Crossing — different or the same aspects of an issue. She recommended the new Councilmembers read the minutes
Pine Street and/or watch the videos of previous Council meetings to avoid having to answer questions that have been
Ferry Traffic
Study previously addressed. Regarding last week's continued public hearing (Edmonds Crossing — Pine Street
Ferry Traffic Study), she explained the notice listed the recommendations presented on October 16 and
suggested alternatives to Item #3. She noted the inference was that was all that would be discussed, only
alternatives to Item #3 and that Items #1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 had been resolved. However, at the conclusion of
the January 15 public hearing, the Council again discussed closing Pine Street. She emphasized the
notice of the public hearing did not refer to the option to close Pine Street and if that was to be
considered, those who spoke at previous public hearings should be notified.
Boards and
Commission
Member Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger, Edmonds, objected to how Board and Commission members were
Selection selected and recommended the Council select Board and Commission members.
Process
6. OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Olympic Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith introduced Dale Lyden, City of Lynnwood, Project Manager for
siew DriveOlympic View Drive Project, and Bill Frans City of Lynnwood, Engineering Manager. Mr. Lyden
afety
Improve- displayed a map of Olympic View Drive, noting this was an important project both for the residents of
ents Lynnwood as well as the residents of Edmonds.
Mr. Lyden described existing conditions on Olympic View Drive, which was an early route from
Edmonds to the Meadowdale area that followed the natural contours of the area. Sight distances are poor
in some places and drainage problems have degraded the pavement in many areas. The existing roadway
has 10 -foot lanes with a widened shoulder walkway on the Edmonds side from Perrinville to 72"d. From
there, the walkway is on the Lynnwood side and there is no walkway on the Edmonds side the remainder
of the way to Meadowdale. He explained the asphalt walkway was approximately 4 -feet wide and was
separated by curbs in some areas but there was no separation from the travel lanes in many areas. There
are seven bus stops in each direction and approximately 10,000 vehicles per day travel the roadway (by
comparison, 30,000 vehicles travel Hwy. 99). Other features of the project area include 39 resident
driveways that access Olympic View Drive between Perrinville and Meadowdale, several sections that
have homes and intersecting streets on both sides, and treed slopes between 176`h and 170th (upward slope
on the west and downward slope on the east).
Mr. Lyden explained the proposed improvements would include 14 -foot lanes in each direction, which
would accommodate vehicle traffic and provide some room for bicycles, 5 -foot wide sidewalks with a 6 -
inch curb on both sides, and short retaining walls in some areas. Mr. Lyden concluded Lynnwood is
committed to this project but needs Edmonds' assistance.
Mr. Smith explained this portion of Olympic View and the proposed improvements were solely within
the Lynnwood's right-of-way. However, the City receives frequent comments from Meadowdale and
Perrinville residents expressing concern with automobile and pedestrian safety on Olympic View Drive.
A survey conducted in 2000 confirmed that pedestrian facilities were a desired facility in this area. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 8
explained this project would provide pedestrian improvements that would benefit both Edmonds and
Lynnwood residents. The project would also make Olympic View Drive a viable bicycle route. The
added capacity would benefit Edmonds citizens. He noted turning pockets at key intersections would
assist with passing and increasing the roadway width added to driver comfort thereby increasing
capacity.
Mr. Smith summarized this was a regionally significant project that would have a positive impact on the
community. Lynnwood has informally requested Edmonds participate by providing $730,000 based on a
sidewalk estimate they prepared. This estimate includes the sidewalks that would be constructed
adjacent to Edmonds (on the west side) and prorated construction items such as stormwater treatment
facilities and traffic control. The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) hoped Edmonds could
participate at a level of $400,000. Mr. Smith noted TIB is also a funding partner for this project.
Mr. Smith advised Edmonds conducted a sidewalk estimate that totaled $250,000. The primary
difference between Edmonds' estimate and Lynnwood's is it focused on the sidewalk improvements and
directly related issues such as fill material, etc. and Lynnwood's estimate included traffic control,
stormwater improvements, etc. He summarized $250,000 was warranted as the other improvements
would need to be constructed regardless of whether a sidewalk was constructed on the Edmonds side.
Mr. Smith noted a CIP budget for each funding alternative was included in the Council packet.
Engineering recommends Edmonds commit a total of $250,000 over a two-year construction period, an
amount Engineering believes the City can afford. He explained the CIP worksheet included a $250,000
budget item for Olympic View Drive that is the same as presented with the 220th Street improvement. He
noted the CIP worksheet illustrated Edmonds ability to support the Olympic View Drive project without
endangering other projects in the City.
Councilmember Petso questioned how this project would improve bicycle access on Olympic View
Drive, as no bike lane would be constructed nor would a shoulder be available to bicyclists. Mr. Smith
explained there were several bicycle facility classifications, Class I is a totally separated trail system,
Class H is a dedicated, striped bicycle lane, and Class III is a widened roadway lane.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the Bicycle Path identified any improvements to the Lynnwood
portion of Olympic View Drive. Mr. Smith answered the plan referred to generic pedestrian and bicycle
improvements. Councilmember Petso inquired whether the improvements identified in Edmonds Bicycle
Plan would match the improvements proposed by Lynnwood. Mr. Smith answered the improvements
were not well enough defined in the Bicycle Plan.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the intersection in Perrinville had the potential for a European -style
roundabout and, if so, why would the City install a sidewalk there and remove portions of it when a
roundabout was constructed. Mr. Smith answered this intersection (and Five Corners) were identified in
the Transportation Plan Update as possible locations for roundabouts. He encouraged Lynnwood to stop
the sidewalk 100-200 feet short of the intersection. Councilmember Petso clarified Mr. Smith's proposal
was not to bring the sidewalk to the stop sign and complete pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the
time a roundabout is constructed.
Mayor Haakenson disagreed with Mr. Smith's suggestion, emphasizing the need for sidewalks to extend
to the stop sign at 76th due to the number of youth using this area to reach the skate park. He
recommended the sidewalk be extended to the stop sign. Mr. Smith explained the last 100 feet of
sidewalk could be asphalt, which was less expensive and easier to reconstruct in the future. Mayor
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 9
Haakenson commented if residents in that area were polled, the most important aspect of this project was
sidewalks.
Councilmember Plunkett encouraged staff to provide the minutes from the Council Committee meeting
where this issue was discussed.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Gebert explained approximately $1.2 million was budgeted for
overlays which includes the $750,000 in bonds and a small amount for waterline overlay and $400,000
for 760h Avenue West restoration. Mr. Gebert explained with the $250,000 contribution to the Olympic
View Drive project, there would be $575,000 for citywide overlay plus $180,000 in waterline overlay. In
2004, there would be $250,000 in the citywide overlay and $190,000 in the waterline overlay.
Mr. Gebert explained the CIP shown is the scenario for funding the City's portion for the 2200' Street
with a Public Works Trust Fund Loan or Bond. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the City was
"stretching just about to the limit" to get this done. Mr. Gebert agreed. Mr. Smith noted there may be
federal funds available. He agreed the 220th project was dependent on the City receiving grant funding.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
Councilmember Marin (a member of the Community Services/Development Services Committee) said
when Lynnwood presented this proposal to the Committee, he was excited about the opportunity for
Edmonds to partner with Lynnwood.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
ORVIS, FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO GIVE SUPPORT TO THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD
AND THE TIB FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THIS REGIONALLY IMPORTANT OLYMPIC VIEW
DRIVE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY OF
EDMONDS COMMIT $250,000 OVER A TWO-YEAR CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
Council President Pro Tem Orvis commented Edmonds residents use this roadway on a frequent basis.
The project is necessary for the safety of Edmonds residents as well as Lynnwood residents.
Councilmember Wilson expressed his support for the project. He noted this was a major connector to the
north end of the City and it was important to provide the necessary improvements. He supported the
construction of a hard surface walkway all the way to the intersection at 760'.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her support, noting the $250,000 was approximately equivalent to the
cost of the sidewalks on the west side which would primarily be used by Edmonds residents.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Community 7. _COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
Services
Department
Quarterly CommunityServices Director Stephen Clifton provided a quarterly report on major projec& currently
Report being worked on by the Community Services Department staff.
monds Edmonds Crossing
tossing Mr. Clifton explained Edmonds Crossing was a regional project intended to provide a long-term solution
to the current operational and safety conflicts between rail, buses, cars, pedestrians, and ferries. The
project includes the relocation of the existing ferry terminal to another location on the waterfront. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 10
referred to significant activities that have occurred since September 2001 such as staff and the
consultants' continued work on responses to comments from the Signatory Agency Committee. Mr.
Clifton explained in October 2001 he attended meetings with the Washington State Office of Financial
Management staff and Washington State Senate and House representatives to discuss future financing of
the Edmonds Crossing project.
Mr. Clifton explained he learned recently that Governor Locke included $2.2 million in the budget he is
proposing to the Legislature to provide matching funds for the approximately $8.1 million in federal
funds. In November, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Washington State
Ferries (WSF), CH2M Hill consultants and City staff met to discuss the processing of the Edmonds
Crossing EIS and to discuss the prioritization of Edmonds Crossing project with WSF, specifically to
request they take over the Edmonds Crossing project and champion it throughout the region rather than
the City being the lead on the project.
In January 2002, City consultants, WSDOT, Federal Highway Administration and City staff met to
discuss outstanding issues related to this project including tribal issues. Efforts to resolve this issue
continue and WSDOT is scheduling formal meetings with the tribes.
soundSound Transit
ransit Mr. Clifton explained the proposed Sound Transit station would be located between Dayton and Main
Street in downtown Edmonds, including the double tracking of the BNSF railroad tracks. Unfortunately,
Sound Transit recently informed the City of a delay in the overall construction timeline in addition to the
operation of the Sounder Train. Sound Transit originally planned to begin construction of the Edmonds
station in spring 2002, with operation of Sounder to begin in 2003. Due to negotiation issues with BNSF,
construction of the second railroad track may not begin until 2005. Sound Transit is negotiating with
BNSF regarding the operation of the north Sounder line and Sound Transit is attempting to provide
Sounder service on one track to Everett. It now appears that under the best case scenario, Sound Transit
will not begin operating the north line until fall 2003.
,re station Fire Station #16
16 Mr. Clifton explained this was a new fire station (approximately 9,700 square feet) to be constructed on
196�near 84h. TCA Architecture has completed task 1 (conceptual drawings and program development)
within budget. He noted five Fire Department staff members have participated in bi-weekly meetings
with TCA Architecture. The next phase will include development of schematic drawings, floor
elevations, sections, and a site plan as well as taking conceptual plans to the City Council and to the
neighborhood for citizen input. Construction is anticipated to begin August 2002.
nocal site I Unocal Site Cleanup
leanup I Mr. Clifton explained the Department of Ecology (DOE), UNOCAL, City staff, Port of Edmonds, and
Edmonds Citizen Awareness Committee have met regularly since February 2001 to develop interim
actions. Under the supervision of DOE, UNOCAL has continued cleaning the upper and lower areas of
the site. Specific interim clean-up actions include excavation, removal, and offsite disposal of 11,000
tons of contaminated material within the lower yard and removal of 3,000 gallons of oil from the
subsurface. The removal of the fuel storage tanks was completed in September 2001. Clean up of soils
will take place in 2002.
Subsequent activities related to the lower yard include remedial investigation, preparation of the final
action clean-up plan, and implementing final cleanup in 2004.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 1 I
Public Edmonds Public Facility District
Facilities Mr. Clifton explained the Council packet described the efforts of the Edmonds Public Facilities District
District (PFD) Board, noting this had been addressed during the January 15 joint meeting with the PFD and the
Council.
Councilmember Marin inquired about the progress of WSDOT and WSF taking over the Edmonds
Crossing project. Mr. Clifton answered WSF and WSDOT have scheduled meetings internally and with
City staff including meetings to address tribal concerns. WSDOT assigned a new project manager to the
project and Mayor Haakenson, the City's consultant and he plan to meet with the WSF's new Director of
Ferries.
8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JANUARY 8, 2002
Community Community Services/Development Services Committee
Services/
ev. Sm. Councilmember Marin reported the Committee discussed the Vh Avenue West retaining wall project and
Committee requested it be forwarded to the full Council. The Committee also discussed proposed water utility rates,
which have not been increased since 1994. Next, the Committee discussed a sidewalk construction
policy. The Committee also discussed the Transportation Element Update and the proposed public
involvement process.
mance I Finance Committee
ommittee Councilmember Dawson explained the Committee discussed 2002 financial issues including
identification of new revenue sources, analysis of water rates, analysis of stormwater rates,
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 34 implementation, provision of information
technology services to Mountlake Terrace, web site policy, and financial policies. A presentation
regarding the analysis of water rates and analysis of stormwater rates will be made to the Council in the
near future. In addition to identifying new revenue sources, she requested the Committee also address
budget reductions.
ubtic Public Safety Committee
-Va&qy Councilmember Petso reported the Committee was provided an update on the progress of Medic 7
ommittee integration. The Committee was informed the Medic 7 paramedics would be integrated into the Fire
Departments by early March. At the time integration is complete, there is a potential for a change in
service delivery methods but no change in the level of service. Fire Chief Tomberg will advise the
Committee of any further changes in the Medic 7 program. Next, the Committee discussed potential Fire
Department revenue provided via a Medic 7 transport fee. Committee members indicated they did not
want staff to devote further time to researching implementation of a Medic 7 transport fee and the item
was tabled.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
rightwater Mayor Haakenson reminded the public of the Washington Tea Party (formerly Citizens Opposed to
Brightwater) Town Meeting that would discuss what citizens could do to help stop the spread of projects
like Brightwater dcross Washington State, and particularly the City of Edmonds.
10. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD
MEETINGS
Alliancefor
Economic Councilmember Plunkett reported the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development (EAED) is seeking
Develop- new board members, particularly someone from the banking community. The EAED has one new board
ent
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 12
member, Chris Guitton, the new Chamber of Commerce Executive Director. Councilmember Plunkett
advised at the Council retreat he planned to present the Council with a better way for the Council to track
the work of the EAED. This would enable the Council to better understand the projects, the priority of
projects, and the progress the EAED has made on projects.
Councilmember Wilson reported on the Port of Edmonds meeting that included election of new officers
and adoption of a meeting schedule for the remainder of the year. The meeting also addressed the
Edmonds Stakeholders' proposal (funding for organized community marketing). The Stakeholders
sought $25,000 from the Port; the Port authorized up to $25,000 but required a 20% proportionality to
funds provided by others entities.
Councilmember Marin reported the Health Board hired a Director for the new Bioterrorism Unit. At his
ealth
request, he witnessed the Snohomish County Health Board's participation in a meth lab bust. He
District q tY p p
commented on the unpleasant affect such an operation can have on people's lives.
Public 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER. THE EXECUTIVE SESSION
Facilities WILL BE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD.
District
This item was removed from the agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 1.
12. CITYCOUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER.
Executive
Session
At 8:54 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a 60 -minute Executive Session regarding a real
estate matter. No action would be taken and the Council would adjourn immediately following the
Executive Session.
4nno Liter/
�HkKENSON,
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 22, 2002
Page 13
v AGENDA
- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 51" Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
JANUARY 22, 2002
6:30 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding a Legal Matter
6:45 p.m. - Meet with New Appointments to the Sister City Commission
(Meeting Location: Police Training Room, Public Safety Complex)
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 15, 2002
(C) Approval of claim checks #52949 through #53168 for the week of January 14,
2002, in the amount of $899,853.61. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #4037 through #4120 for the period January 1 through January 15,
2002, in the amount of $818,169.40.
(D) Authorization to Call for Bids for a Heat Exchanger at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant
(E) Quarterly Report on Grants
(F) Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.05 of the Edmonds City Code,
providing that all owner -surrendered or stray domestic animals should be
altered prior to being adopted back into the community, designating
veterinarian(s) to provide alteration services, establishing an Animal Benefit
Fund to pay for said alteration and to provide financial assistance to domestic
animal owners in paying for alteration services
3. ( 5 Min.) Confirmation of Mayor's Appointments to the Sister City Commission of Dustin
Wilson and Bryan Bechler
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
January 22, 2002
Page 2 of 2
4. (30 Min.) 76th Avenue West Rockery Repair Project*
*Public comment will be received.
S. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
6. (30 Min.) Olympic View Drive Safety Improvements
7. (15 Min.) Community Services Department Quarterly Report
8. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of January 8, 2002
9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Min.) Individual Council Reports/Updates on Outside Committee/Board meetings
11. (30 Min.) Executive Session Regarding a Real Estate Matter. The Executive Session will
be a Joint Meeting with the Public Facilities District Board.
12. (30 Min.) City Council Executive Session Regarding a Real Estate Matter
ADJOURN
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 as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT&T Cable, Channel 21.