01/21/2014 City Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
January 21, 2014
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Diane Buckshnis, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Council President
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Roger Neumaier, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir.
Mike Clugston, Planner
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. ROLL CALL
Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd called the roll. All elected officials were present.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Items F and N be removed from the Consent Agenda, Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas requested Items H, I and J be removed and Councilmember Johnson requested Item A be
removed.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #206317 THROUGH #206461 DATED JANUARY 9,
2014 FOR $742,035.44 AND CLAIM CHECKS #206462 THROUGH #206630 DATED
JANUARY 16, 2014 FOR $3,275,046.74. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECK #60758
FOR $445.64 FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 16, 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,
2013. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #60759 THROUGH
#60771 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $453,505.97, BENEFIT CHECKS #60772
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 2
THROUGH #60778 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $200,862.79 FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 1, 2014 THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2014
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM DOUGLAS C.
HALBERT ($2,841.36), TOM RUSSELL ($15,339.03), TOM RUSSELL (17,377.82), AND
LARRY LA PORTE (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED)
D. 2013 NOVEMBER BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
E. ORDINANCE LIMITING CERTAIN OFFICE USES FROM LOCATING IN BUSINESS
SPACES ALONG DESIGNATED GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGES WITHIN
THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 1 (BD1 - DOWNTOWN RETAIL CORE) ZONE
G. MOTION TO DISPOSE OF SURPLUS POLICE PROPERTY VIA
PROPERTYROOM.COM AUCTION WEBSITE
K. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
L. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK
WATERSHED FORUM
M. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT #2, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, TO PROVIDE AN
EXERCISE PROGRAM
ITEM A: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2014
Councilmember Johnson requested the following change: page 16, last paragraph, 4th line, add “not”
between “will” and “confirm.”
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM A AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM F: REFUNDING 2003 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION (UTGO) BOND
REFUNDING ORDINANCE
Councilmember Petso commented the rule of thumb for bond refinancing is a savings of 5% or greater; in
this instance, the savings is only 3%. Finance Director Roger Neumaier responded the rule of thumb
within 90 days of the call date of the bonds is 5%; once the call date is reached, the State has a sliding
standard depending on when the bond matures. In this case, 2¾ years, the rule of thumb is 1-2%. This
standard was referenced by the City’s consultant, Alan Dashan. Councilmember Petso asked if the idea
was the closer to maturity the less chance of getting a better rate in the future. Mr. Neumaier answered
yes as well as diminished savings as a percentage of the total bond.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM H: AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN DOG LICENSING FEES (ECC 5.05.020)
ITEM I: CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH PETDATA, INC. FOR DOG LICENSING
ITEM J: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT
FEE INCREASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2014 ADOPTED CITY BUDGET
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 3
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she intended to pull Items H and I. She asked Assistant Police
Chief Jim Lawless to explain Items H and I.
ACOP Lawless explained the Police Department has been exploring ways to increase efficiencies; one of
those was the use of an outside vendor for issuing and tracking pet licenses. Issuing and tracking pet
licenses consumes a significant amount of the two Animal Control/Parking Enforcement Officers’ time.
The vendor identified is used by a number of jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area. During the 2013
budget process, Mayor Earling asked staff to review fees for any appropriate increases. Pet license fees
had not been changed in over 25 years and the fee was well below the average of the fee charged by 25
Puget Sound agencies who issue pet licenses. He commented determining the fee amount is a balance;
charging a fair amount but not so much that people choose not to license their pets.
The decision package in the 2013 budget was written with four options, 1) keep fees and issuing/tracking
the same; the current cost to the City is approximately $10,500 year; 2) increase fees and continue in-
house pet licensing, 3) current fees with use of vendor, and 4) increase fees with use of vendor. The
option selected was to increase fees and use a vendor to issue and track pet licenses. Use of a vendor will
allow the public to purchase licenses online. The vendor will collect all fees and remit to the City.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS H, I AND J. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM N: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING
OF AN ASSET TRANSFER AGREEMENT FOR 645 9TH AVENUE NORTH
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that this was the City’s plan to give away a sewer main
and easement because a builder built his communication and power utilities in the City’s easement and
now cannot reach the sewer pipe to maintain it. She asked whether that was correct and how this was not
an illegal gift of public funds. Public Works Director Phil Williams responded he would not summarize
this the same way Councilmember Petso did. He explained the Aloha plat was approved by the City in
1987 and built by the developer with a short stub of 8-inch sewer line for two lots, neither of which was
built on for the past 27 years. A permit is being sought for the lot furthest from the cul-de-sac now and a
permit for the other lot may follow shortly. This sewer line has never been used. In anticipation of this
construction, the dry utilities were allowed to be built inside the City’s 10-foot wide utility easement.
That opened a conversation with the owner of the proposed new home and the net result was a proposal
for the City to relinquish the easement, deed over the 8-inch sewer line as a sewer lateral, and allow this
homeowner and the second homeowner to hook up to it. It would then be a section of private sewer; the
City receives the same hook-up fees and monthly rates and the City does not have to maintain the
easement or the sewer line which reduces the City’s efforts and potential liability in the future. The two
homeowners avoid the cost of relocating the dry utilities. He summarized it was a win-win for the new
homeowners as well as the City.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday did not consider it a gift of public funds. A gift of public funds requires a
showing of donative intent. From Mr. Williams’ description, it did not appear there was any donative
intent. Relieving the City of maintenance of the sewer line is adequate consideration to support the
transaction, and therefore not a gift of public funds.
Councilmember Petso recalled when the City installs sewer pipe on private property, the City often pays
for the easement. She asked if there was any consideration given to charging the property owners for the
easement. Mr. Williams answered the City has an easement; the property is owned by those two property
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 4
owners and the City did not pay for the 200-feet of pipe. The City has no investment in the easement or
pipe and it has no value other than to these two property owners.
Councilmember Petso asked why the utilities were installed in the City’s easement adjacent to the pipe in
a manner that the City did not wish to maintain the pipe. Mr. Williams responded the property owner
likely assumed the utility easement identified on the plat was a logical place for the utilities. It should not
have been done that way but now that it has been, to avoid the cost of moving the utilities, the City can
cede ownership of the utility and relinquish the easement.
Councilmember Petso asked whether this would establish a precedent. Mr. Williams answered it would
not.
For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Williams explained it is an approximately 200-foot long, 8-inch gravity
sewermain located in a 10-foot wide utility easement. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the second
property owner will be part of the agreement. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Bloom asked
what type of maintenance would be required on a sewermain. Mr. Williams anticipated very little
maintenance would be required; the 4-inch lateral sewer from a house connects to the 8-inch pipe which
connects to the public sewer system. Any maintenance or repairs would be the responsibility of the
property owner similar to a private sewer.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether both property owners were agreeable to providing maintenance
and/or repair. Mr. Williams answered yes; they are faced with either relocating all the private utilities and
the associated costs versus the low likelihood and low cost of maintaining the sewer line in the future.
The City did not invest anything in the sewermain and would not be giving anything up as the City does
not own any property and the City saves whatever cost and liability for maintaining the sewer line in the
future.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the dry utilities for the second lot are in this easement. Mr.
Williams said they are.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM N. MOTION CARRIED (4-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING NO.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, questioned how the City’s sign code ever happened. She explained there are
four categories of commercial districts that permit ten types of signs; downtown is the only district where
sandwich board signs are allowed. Downtown is also the only district where a significant amount has
been spent on beautification and landscaping. She referred to the definition of premises in the sign code,
which cedes the public right-of-way in the BC and BD zones to the adjacent property owner. Next, she
referred to the definition of temporary sign in the sign code, commenting the time limit, not to exceed 60
calendar days in any calendar year, defined intermittent not temporary. Other cities’ sign codes do not
allow sandwich board signs except a fixed number of days for an openings or special events. She asked
whether changes will be made to the sign code in the proposed code revision, what procedure will be used
to make revisions and what the Council’s role is in drafting revisions to the sign code.
Marilyn Lindberg, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, pointed out placing a 10-foot wide sidewalk, a 2-
foot buffer, and a 7-foot parking space leaves a very small travel lane for cars, trucks, and emergency
vehicles. She urged the Council to consider this when reviewing the grant proposal. She summarized it
was far easier to mess things up than to make them better.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 5
Dave Page, Edmonds, commented while driving in Shoreline recently he noticed how beautiful many of
their streets are due to overlays. He suggested consideration be given to chip sealing which is
approximately half the cost. He commented on accusations that three Finance Directors have been “run
out of town.” He acknowledged there is a problem that needs to be fixed and suggested the orientation for
new Councilmembers address acceptable behavior.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, provided a document from Ronald Wastewater District that illustrates it is
possible to cut costs and reduce rates. He echoed Mr. Page’s comments about Shoreline’s roads. He
referred to the $1,555,694 payment to Fire District 1, questioned whether additional payments are made
throughout the year and suggested the Council analyze the services the City receives for that amount. He
commended the Finance Director Neumaier on his performance and was sorry to see him leave but found
his comments in My Edmonds News out of character. He expressed concern that by not mentioning
names, Mr. Neumaier laid a cloud on the entire Council. He assumed Mr. Neumaier was following a
script written by Mayor Earling. Mayor Earling assured Mr. Neumaier wrote his letter of resignation
himself, without his guidance.
Jim Wassall, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, referred to his email to the Council regarding his
opposition to the Sunset Walkway project. He expressed concern with the safety of residents and visitors
on the west side of the railroad tracks due to the lack of emergency access in the event the train blocked
Main and Dayton Streets. He envisioned a track blocking Main and Dayton Street and emergency
personnel being unable to reach someone at the senior center having a medical emergency. He urged the
Council to do something about providing emergency access to the west side of the railroad tracks.
5. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) CHAPTER 2.10
RELATED TO CONFIRMATION AND DUTIES OF CITY OFFICERS
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained there are two versions of the ordinance in the packet. Attachment A,
version 1, is the version the Council asked him to prepare. Attachment A, version 2, is a version Mayor
Earling asked him to prepare that includes additional language that allows a second exception to the
requirement that the City Council interview the top three candidates for a vacant director position. Mr.
Taraday read the additional language in Attachment A, version 2 in Section 2.10.010.D:
AND FURTHER PROVIDED that, when an appointive office becomes vacant, or is about to
become vacant, again within nine months of the city council’s confirmation of the last mayoral
appointment to that office, the city council may waive an additional around of interviews, by
motion adopted by a majority plus one of the full council, and proceed immediately to confirming
the appointment of a candidate interviewed by the city council during the most recent recruitment
for that appointive office.
Mr. Taraday read additional language in 2.10.010.F:
PROVIDED THAT such recruitment shall not be necessary where the city council opts to make
an immediate confirmation pursuant to a prior round of interviews as set forth in subsection D,
above.
Mr. Taraday explained the language above would give the Council additional flexibility by allowing the
Council to confirm the appointment of someone that was recently interviewed and allow the position to be
filled much more quickly.
Council President Buckshnis commented Councilmember Yamamoto and she participated on an
interview team; there was also an interview team comprised of directors and another comprised of staff.
The three highest candidates were Mr. Neumaier, a person from Mukilteo and a person that lived in
Kentucky. Mr. Neumaier and the person from Mukilteo were the strongest of the three and were
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 6
interviewed by the interview teams. She expressed support for the additional language and expressed her
appreciation for the process that allows the Council to participate in interview teams.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why the time period nine months was selected. Mr. Taraday
answered the number had no legal significance and the Council could change it to a time period it deemed
appropriate. His intent was a time period that would not be a loophole in the confirmation process and not
such a short a time period that it would never be utilized. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether
he reviewed other cities’ policies. Mr. Taraday answered he did not; the confirmation process is a matter
of local discretion and he anticipated it varied greatly between cities.
Councilmember Bloom commented the revisions to Chapter 2.10.010 were made over 1½ - 2 years and
there was a great deal of opportunity for public involvement. She asked whether the additional language
could be subject to a public review process at the Public Safety & Personnel (PSP) Committee with
Council approval within the next two months. She was uncomfortable with adding language at the last
minute, recalling there was a great deal of effort getting the language just right with citizen and staff
input. She suggested the Council approve the ordinance, conditional on further review of the additional
language. Mr. Taraday asked whether Councilmember Bloom wanted the ordinance to be adopted as an
interim ordinance. Councilmember Bloom clarified her proposal was to adopt the two new passages as
interim. Mr. Taraday responded a sunset clause could be drafted with regard to the two added provisos.
Councilmember Bloom suggested the additional language be reviewed more carefully before the sunset
date. She asked if the ordinance would automatically return to the Council after the sunset date. Mr.
Taraday answered a sunset clause typically does not automatically return to the Council; the language
would expire upon the date identified in the sunset clause. If a sunset date was adopted and upon further
review the additional language was acceptable, additional Council action would be required to retain the
language.
Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite commented it is a common Human Resources practice
to return to a previous recruitment cycle if it occurred within a year. If the City returns to the marketplace
for a Finance Director, it is likely the same people will apply. That is the City’s current practice for non-
director positions.
Councilmember Petso commented a less complex option would be to approve the ordinance with the
additional language and refer it to the PSP Committee for review at their February meeting. The PSP
Committee could return it to the Council for further review if necessary.
Councilmember Bloom said she would not suggest a sunset clause as it did not appear that was the wish
of the Council but she would not support the additional language due to her discomfort with the process.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3959, INCLUDING THE LANGUAGE IN
VERSION 2.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the PSP Committee review the language.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO.
6. PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AT&T/BUSCH LAW FIRM PROPOSAL TO
AMEND THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADDRESS THE LEGAL
STATUS OF EXISTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES THAT WERE BUILT
PRIOR TO OR JUST AFTER ADOPTION OF EDMONDS' ORIGINAL WIRELESS
ORDINANCE (AMD20130005)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 7
Planner Mike Clugston explained AT&T has applied to amend the ECDC to address the legal status of an
existing wireless communication facilities on the Commodore Condominium building that was installed
in mid/late 1996. Since the existing site was built without permits, AT&T has tried to bring the site into
compliance with Edmonds regulations for several years as well as expand the facilities. When the code
was updated in 2011, AT&T applied for a permit to bring the site into compliance. The permit was
approved; the land owner and the FCC subsequently determined one of the antennas sites was not
satisfactory. The City encouraged AT&T to identify a different site; AT&T indicated that was not
possible as the site was integral to their network.
The current wireless code in Chapter 20.50 does not provide a variance process as it was thought all
possible existing sites had been addressed. Exhibit 1 is the proposed code language forwarded by the
Planning Board which is similar to AT&T’s proposed language with some clarification by the City
Attorney to be consistent with existing code. Exhibit 2 in the packet is AT&T’s proposed language and a
cover letter describing the situation. He advised Kirsten Larson, Busch Law Firm, is present to answer
questions.
Councilmember Petso asked whether any other sites in the City would be affected by this. Mr. Clugston
answered not that he knew of; this is the only site this would apply to. The City has permits for all other
sites.
Councilmember Petso asked whether residents near the site were notified. Mr. Clugston answered the
homeowners association was notified and the usual notice requirements for a public hearing were
followed. Councilmember Petso observed unless someone read the legal notices in the Everett Herald
they may not know the Council was considering this. Mr. Clugston agreed notice was not mailed to
individual residences.
Councilmember Petso asked whether approval could be delayed to next week’s Consent Agenda,
assuming the local newspapers would report on this item. Mr. Clugston explained the Planning Board
began its discussions in August, continued their discussion in November, held a public hearing in
December and forwarded recommended language to the Council. He summarized the typical code
amendment process was followed. He said it was not critical that the Council take action tonight. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the recommended action is for Council to direct the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance; the Council’s action tonight is not final action which may provide the additional
time Councilmember Petso wants.
Councilmember Petso asked if this was only for the existing providers to update and do maintenance or
would it allow other providers to locate on the roof. Mr. Clugston answered this was specific to the one
provider with an existing antenna. If another provider wanted to locate on that building, they would need
to meet the requirements of the existing code.
Council President Buckshnis asked whether the City had any liability since the condominium’s
homeowners association was notified. Mr. Taraday answered this is a legislative code amendment. He did
not see any liability to the City.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether individual condominium owners were notified of the
Planning Board public hearing. Mr. Clugston answered no. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked where
notice of the public hearing was advertised. Mr. Clugston answered in the newspaper, online and posted
at the library and the Public Safety building.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 8
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of
the audience present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public participation
portion of the public hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON CLARIFICATIONS TO WIRELESS
REGULATIONS IN ECDC 20.50 AND 17.40.020 (AMD20130016)
Planner Mike Clugston explained the current wireless code in Chapter 20.50 ECDC was adopted in 2011.
Since that time, staff identified several sections that need to be revised. The Busch Law Firm also brought
to staff's attention changes to federal law regarding wireless facilities that needed to be addressed. Section
6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 provided the wireless industry with
additional flexibility regarding modification of existing wireless telecommunication facilities. The intent
of the update was to have providers site on existing buildings rather than monopoles and to eliminate
unsightly antennas in the downtown area. He displayed photographs of the Harbor Building in the
Downtown Waterfront Activity Center on 2nd and Main that has wireless antennas on the edge of the roof.
The 2011 rewrite envisioned these rooftop antennas would disappear over time. He also displayed
photographs of the Commodore Condominium on Alder between 5th and 6th. Outside the Downtown
Waterfront Activity Center, the code provides flexibility for existing sites; allowing up to 9 additional
feet.
Mr. Clugston explained Sprint, one of several providers with antennas on the Harbor Building, recently
asked to replace antennas. Staff said no, the code requires they need to be removed from the roof.
However, there are multiple carriers on the rooftop sleds and it was not possible to move them to the side
of the building. Mr. Clugston provided the language in Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act of 2012:
Specifically, the City may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a
modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the
physical dimensions of the tower or base station. An eligible facilities request includes any
request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves: co-location of
new transmission equipment; removal of transmission equipment; or replacement of transmission
equipment.
He clarified this change applies not only to conforming sites but also to nonconforming sites like the
Commodore Condominiums. He displayed a sketch of AT&T’s proposed rooftop facility (top hat) on the
west side of the Commodore. This is another situation where the 6409 concept would apply. These are the
only two sites in the downtown area with noticeable rooftop facilities. He referred to Section 20.50.010.F
where the 6409 language has been incorporated. Language is also proposed to be added to 20.50.010.C,
“For existing sites only, to the extent feasible, additional antennas and equipment shall maintain the
appearance intended by the original facility, including, but not limited to, color, screening, landscaping,
camouflage, concealment techniques, mounting configuration or architectural treatment.”
Because 6409 also applies to nonconforming sites, a change is proposed to the nonconforming chapter
17.40.020.4.J, “The antenna and related equipment of a nonconforming Wireless Communication Facility
may be completely replaced with a new antenna and related equipment, provided that, upon replacement,
the applicant shall use the best available materials to enhance the appearance of the antenna and related
equipment and/or screen it from view in a manner that improves the visual impact or the conspicuity of
the nonconformity.”
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 9
Mr. Clugston summarized the impact of 6409 is the wireless facilities on top of the Commodore and
Harbor Building are not necessarily going away. He noted 6409 only applies to existing sites; new sites
are required to meet the code requirements which include design standards related to screening, location
on the center of the roof, etc.
Council President Buckshnis clarified basically the existing antennas are being grandfathered. Mr.
Clugston answered yes. Staff will encourage them to relocate antennas to the center of the roof, etc.
Council President Buckshnis recalled previous discussions about making monopoles look like trees,
noting all the monopoles in San Diego look like palm trees. Mr. Clugston recalled the Council determined
that was not appropriate for Edmonds. He noted there are only a few monopole sites in the City;
monopoles are the fourth choice for siting wireless facilities and they are the most expensive.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of
the audience present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public participation
portion of the public hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. PRESENTATION ON THE 2014 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Public Works Director Phil Williams thanked the Council for approving the recommended $1.2 million
for the Pavement Preservation Program in the 2014 budget. He noted there are many techniques for
preserving pavement including pavement grind/overlay and chip seal. He displayed and described
projects on the 2014 Pavement Preservation Program map funded by the $1.2 million:
• Chip seal on 72nd Ave W from Olympic View Drive to 176th St SW
• Chip Seal on 73rd Ave W from Olympic View Drive to 179th St SW
• Chip Seal on 2nd Ave N from Bell St to Caspers St
• 2” overlay on 220th Street SW from 8rth Ave W to Hwy 99
o Staff plans to apply for federal grant, use City funds as local match
• 2” overlay on 100th Ave Ave W from SR104 to 238th St SW
Mr. Williams identified other paving projects on the map that are funded by the Water Utility Fund. He
explained the intent this year was to do projects throughout the City using paving and chip sealing. He
noted the chip seal was somewhat of a pilot program subject to citizens’ reaction to that technique. He
acknowledged it is far less expensive than an overlay but it does not last as long, the surface is different
than an overlay and it sheds gravel over time. He acknowledged chip seal technology has improved
greatly.
Councilmember Bloom asked how these roads were selected. Mr. Williams responded it starts with the
Pavement Condition Index. A certified consultant rates the pavement by the number of cracks, size of
cracks, extent cracks are interconnected, amount of deflection in pavement, etc. and provides a numeric
score. Chip seal is not done on very poor streets.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether all the roads in the City were scored. Mr. Williams answered yes.
Operational staff were asked to identify streets that would be good candidates for chip seal. The
opportunity for federal funding and the condition of the pavement were among the reasons the 220th
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 10
project was selected. The 100th Avenue project was identified because it is a well-used street that was not
in great condition. He noted the packet contains photographs of the locations proposed to be paved.
Councilmember Bloom commented she has driven on roads in the City that are really bad, to the point of
causing misalignment of a vehicle. She was uncertain the roads selected were as bad as the potholes those
streets. Mr. Williams answered staff does ongoing repairs of potholes. In areas where the street is as bad
as Councilmember Bloom described, it may need to be rebuilt and these funds would not go very far in
rebuilding streets. Chip seals need to be done on streets that are not in a failing condition; the goal of chip
seal is to preserve pavement so that it does not fail. Traffic volumes and spreading projects throughout the
City were also considerations in selecting projects.
Councilmember Petso recalled reading that a nearby jurisdiction had sworn off chip seal after using it
extensively. She asked whether Mr. Williams had taken their experience into account. Mr. Williams said
he was not familiar with that report but would check into it. Councilmember Petso commented it was
likely Mountlake Terrace but she was not certain. Mr. Williams commented Mountlake Terrace had been
chip sealing arterial streets and residential streets; less than 12 months ago they were satisfied with their
program.
Councilmember Petso asked whether streets were selected giving consideration to upcoming utility work.
Mr. Williams answered yes.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether chip seal creates more pollution in the stormwater system due to
the loose gravel and whether that could be monitored. Mr. Williams answered that was why it was a pilot
program. The intent will be to seek a partner such as Snohomish County or Shoreline who does a great
deal of chip sealing. After the tack is applied followed by the chips and rolling, the next step is to sweep
away as much of the extra aggregate as possible. The road is sweep several times over a period of time;
whatever is missed will end up in the catch basin and will be an issue for drainage maintenance crews.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about a failing patch installed following a stormwater utility project on
92nd Place West that serves 7 homes. Mr. Williams answered there was a condition index for that street
and it did not make the list for 2014. He noted there are a lot of streets that need attention because the
City has not done any paving with its own money for 8 years.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed chip sealing would not be done on main roads. Mr. Williams
answered the plan was to start with residential streets. Some neighboring cities do chip seal arterial
streets. He cited the importance of using someone experienced in chip sealing to ensure its success and
avoid premature failure.
City Engineer Rob English reviewed the roadway lengths:
• Chip Seal
o 2nd Ave N (Bell St – Caspers St); 2,250 feet
o 72nd Ave W (OVD-176th St); 3,000 feet
o 73rd Ave W (OVD – 179th St); 2,500 feet
• Pavement Overlay
o 100th Ave W (SR104 – 238th St); 2,800 feet
o 220th St (84th Ave – 76th Ave); 2,700 feet (local match for federal grant)
• 421 Water Utility Fund
o Olympic View Drive (w/o 76th Ave); 200 feet
o Hillcrest Place (s/o Main Street); 350 feet
o 211th Pl (e/o 80th Ave); 200 feet – may be funded by the Sewer Utility
o 224th St (76th Ave – SR 99); 200 feet
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 11
o 76th Ave (173rd St – 174th St); 350 feet
Mr. English reviewed the budget:
Street 112 Fund Cost
Chip Seal $ 135,000
Grant Local Match (220th St) $ 525,000
Design $ 75,000
Construction Admin $ 75,000
Contingency $ 130,000
Total $1,200,000
Water 421 Fund
Pavement Overlay $ 200,000
Mayor Earling was delighted the Council approved $1.2 million in the 2014 budget for pavement
preservation, acknowledging there are a lot of years to make up for.
Councilmember Petso asked whether Snohomish County would be interested in partnering on 220th as the
south side is in unincorporated Snohomish County. Mr. English answered Snohomish County’s
jurisdiction is from the property line south.
Council President Buckshnis commended staff for describing the program at the Parks, Planning & Public
Works Committee.
9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JANUARY 14, 2014
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
Councilmember Peterson reported the committee discussed the resolution adopting policy regarding
Councilmember participation by speakerphone or other technology. This item was forwarded to full
Council for discussion and approval. The committee also discussed hiring consultant for conflict
resolution training.
Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee
Council President Buckshnis reported on items the committee discussed and the action taken:
• Docket of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and proposed rezone for Unocal lower
yard – moved to February PPP Committee meeting
• Authorization for Mayor to sign a grant agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board
for the 228th St SW Corridor Improvement Project – Consent Agenda
• Authorization for Mayor to sign Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement with KPG for the
236th St. SW Walkway project Professional Service Agreements for the 15th St. SW Walkway
and 238th St. SW Walkway projects – Consent Agenda
• Discussion and potential action regarding modifying or terminating Sunset Walkway Project –
Continue discussion at the February PPP Committee meeting
• Authorization for Mayor to sign the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with the Lake
Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum – Consent Agenda
• Quarterly Public Works Project Report – Full Council
• Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of an Asset Transfer Agreement
for 645 9th Avenue North – Consent Agenda
• Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of a Deed of Dedication for 321
2nd Ave N – Consent Agenda
• Discussion on the 2014 Pavement Preservation Program – Full Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 12
• Public comment from Sally Wassall, Jim Wassall, Thalia Moutsanides, Steve Bernheim and
Roger Hertrich about the Sunset Walkway project.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Petso reported on items discussed by the committee and action taken:
• Police Surplus Property – Consent Agenda
• Amendment of Certain Dog Licensing Fees (ECC 5.05.020) – Consent Agenda
• Contract for Services with PETDATA, Inc. for Dog Licensing – Consent Agenda
• 2013 November Budgetary Financial Report – Consent Agenda
• 2013 General Fund Revenue Analysis through 11/30 – Information only
• Ordinance Implementing Residential Parking Permit Fee Increase in Accordance with the 2014
Adopted City Budget – Consent Agenda
• Interlocal Agreement with Public Hospital District No.2, Snohomish County to Provide an
Exercise Program – Consent Agenda
• Public comment from Ron Wambolt about Revenue Analysis report, from Dave Page regarding
forecasting grants and from Bruce Witenberg about announcing settlements, informing the public
about attorney expenditures, and showing attorney fees in one place in the budget.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported panels are in place for the Development Service Director interviews on January
27. He thanked Councilmembers Bloom and Peterson who agreed to serve on one of the panels.
Mayor Earling reported he had the privilege of attend Sunday’s Seahawks game; it was very fun and loud.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Buckshnis reported the retreat has been tentatively scheduled for March 14 and 15. She
encouraged Councilmembers to identify their future goals.
Council President Buckshnis reported interviews for the Council vacancy will be conducted next week.
There are 15 applicants, a total of 5 hours of interviews; 2½ hours January 28 and another 2½ hours on
January 29. The Council will make its decision on February 4.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed concern with doing interviews on two consecutive days
because interviewees could tell others about the questions. She suggested not televising the first day of
interviews. Council President Buckshnis recalled the interviews have been conducted over two days in the
past and in 2009 applicants were allowed to sit in the audience during the interviews. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas preferred to conduct all the interviews on one day. Executive Council Assistant Jana
Spellman suggested conducting all the interviews on a Saturday, noting it was unfair to the candidates
interviewed late in the evening. Council President Buckshnis invited Councilmembers to inform her of
their preference.
Councilmember Johnson relayed the City’s Economic Development Department and the Edmonds Arts
Commission’s invitation to the dedication of the Internal District Lighting Project on Highway 99 at 3:00
p.m. on January 30 in the 99 Ranch Market parking lot.
Councilmember Petso reported another option would be reduce the Council interviews to 15 minutes
each. She reported on the Port of Edmonds retreat where she learned marinas are not profitable; a lot of
private marinas are going out of business and public marinas are looking for taxpayer subsidies. It also
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 21, 2014
Page 13
appears the Port plans to leave the Harbor Square Master Plan in their planning documents with no
changes.
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not necessary.
13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not necessary.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m.