Loading...
06/18/1996 City CounciltAdd enda Item EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES JUNE 189 1996 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Tom Petruzzi, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember (arrived 7:15) Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Gary Haakenson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Alex Moore, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA . STAFFPRESENT Michael Springer, Fire Chief Tom Miller, Police Chief Paul Mar, Community Services Director Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor James Walker, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER. EARLING MOVED TO ADD "UPDATED STATUS REPORT ON THE EDMONDS PINANCIAL CENTER BUILDING" AS AGENDA ITEM 7A. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.) COUNCELMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.) The agenda items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 4,1996 Minutes Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #10389S THRU #10524F FOR THE W EEK OF Warrants JUNE 3,1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $102,132.22; APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #9164S THRU #10681F FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 10, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $293,572.57; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #10312 THRU #10650 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 16 THRU MAY 31,1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $563,576.32. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 Page I (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM NANCY E. BODDY ($146.71), AND FROM NUKE BORDEN ($687.33) Fm_oto,___1 (E) DECLARING MOTORCYCLES SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SELL Icycles I Inter- (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE SNOHOMISH HOUSING AND 7oca I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT URBAN COUNTY CONSORTIUM INTERLOCAL Agreement COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR TRIENNIAL GRANT CYCLE OF JULY 1997, THROUGH JUNE 2000 Ftt7e--] (G) APPROVAL OF LIMITED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WITH CARL iwnt AND POLLY PEARSON Agreementi INPDEs I (H) AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH COSMOPOLITAN Pennit ENGINEERING GROUP FOR NPDES PERMITTING ASSISTANCE General (1) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED I Fund MAY 31,1996 CERT (J) APPROVAL FOR TEACHING THE COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM Program (CERT) PROGRAM IN EDMONDS 3. AUDIENCE Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, stated Council President Earling informed him that Adult he planned to describe to the Council at an upcoming meeting, the changes made to the RTA plan that Enter- will benefi Edmonds. Regarding adult entertainment facilities, Mr. Rutledge pointed out the adult tainment entertainment problem must be addressed by the citizens of the City because business owners, who may not be residents, can easily move out of the City. Parking Lois Passey, 825 Bell Street, Edmonds, described parking problems and vehicular and pedestrian c,n,,,,l hazards caused by the number of vehicles in the downtown area during a festival weekend. She Festiva7s suggested a travel service, perhaps provided by the Chamber of Commerce, which would transport people from a parking area to designated drop-off points in the City. Ms. Passey also submitted'written comments to City Clerk Sandy Chase. Truck on Jane Moldskred, 19906 83rd Place West, Edmonds, expressed concern with a Washington Natural Resi- Gas truck which is driven by a resident of a cul-de-sac across from her home. She explained the truck dentia7 occupies half of the street, is leaking gas, devalues her property and is an eyesore. Edmonds' Street . Enforcement Office has informed her that the City has no regulations prohibiting the truck from parking in the neighborhood. Mayor Fahey advised Ms. Moldskred staff would be contacting her. Petition Carol George and Richard Batley, 8512 242nd Street SW, Edmonds, said they submitted a petition for for a traffic signal at 240th/242nd and SR 104. Mayor Fahey indicated her initial concern was whether Traffic the property was within the City of Edmonds and noted the State must be involved in the process as the Si a7 signal would be on a State Highway. Mr. Batley described the need for the traffic signal and pointed out the location was recently annexed into the City of Edmonds. Mayor Fahey advised Ms. George and Mr. Batley that staff would be contacting them. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 2 4. REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JUNE 11, 1996 nance Finance Committee Comittee Committee Chair Nordquist reported the Committee made a recommendation that funding be made available for replacement of all fire breathing apparatus in 1997. In addition, Teen Hope, a program for youth unable to live at home, made a presentation. The Committee recommended funding be included in the 1997 budget. The Committee continued their discussion on cellular tower taxation including possible utility taxes. Material received from the Tacoma!s Director of Tax and Licensing was distributed and the Committee agreed to continue the discussion at the July meeting. Petty cash expenditures were approved. Comwn i ty ommuni - Services Committee Services Committee Chair Petruzzi advised Planning Division Manager Rob Chave provided an overview of the 1 Comwittee amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. It was suggested staff show comparisons of currently documented versus updated capital facilities/costs as well as the materials provided in the 1996 Council Retreat packet to facilitate the Council's understanding of the Capital Facilities update. Following a discussion of a process and rationale for right-of-way vacations, staff was directed to prepare a memo to the Council with a recommendation for improving the appraisal process. Public Safetv Committee 1p"51 11 1 Committee Chair Myers said the disabled parking enforcement proposal on their agenda was referred to sa fe ty the . Police Department for a revised proposal for the committee's review. A request for a Downtown Parking Ordinance to limit parking within the same block was referred to the Parking Advisory Committee; Councillnember White offered to assist with new language. A proposal to allow compact parking stalls in the City was referred to Community Services for input and approval and Planning Board review. Fire Chief Springer made a proposal for increasing citizen involvement in identifying the needs and funding for replacement of fire apparatus. A proposal by ESCA on the Community Emergency Response Team was referred to the full Council for approval as a consent agenda item. The informational meetings regarding a Fire Department merger between Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace were also discussed. Six Year 5. HEARING ON SIX YEAR T-RANSPORTAT16N IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND PROPOSED Trans. RE OLUTION Improve. Program City Engineer Jim Walker advised State Law requires the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program to be reviewed by the Council each year. He described the projects being added. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the bearing. As no members of the public wished to speak, the public portion was closed and the matter remanded to Council. Councilmember Petruzzi advised the Community Services Committee reviewed this program and recommended approval. COUNCILMEMBER. PETRUZZI MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE ADOPTION OF yla� RESOLUTION NO. 846, ADOPTING A SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AND RECORDING OF THE DOCUMENTS BY THE CITY CLERK. COUNCILMEMBER. MYERS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 . Page 3 Ferry - 6. HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION (FILE NO. SM-2 "-24 Overhead REGARDING A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A Loading NEW OVERHEAD LOADING WALKWAY AND NEW PEDESTRIAN TERMINAL BUILDING Wkway ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PIER, MINOR EXPANSION ON !HE NORTH SIDE OF THE AP-96-70 PIER, AND OTHER RELATED MINOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PIER AT -THE EXISTING FERRY TERMINAL SITE LOCATED AT 71 WEST MAIN STREET, ALL WITHIN THE WASHINGTON-STATE FERRY RIGHT-OF-WAY (Appellant: - Natalie Shippen / Applicant: WSDOT - Ferries Division / File No. AP-26-70J Mayor Fahey described the quasi-judicial procedure and time limits for each participant. She requested the agenda time be extended to 75 minutes. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED TO EXPAND THE HEARING TO 75 MINUTES. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmembers had any Appearance of Fairness declarations to make. Council President Earling said Ms. Shippen, the Appellant, called him Friday evening to request additional agenda time for this item. Councilmember Myers advised he received a telephone call from a member of the Chamber of Commerce who favored the overhead loading walkway. Councilmember White advised he received a number of letters over the last two months from Ms. Shippen advocating her position. Mayor Fahey noted all Councilmembers received the letters from Ms. Shippen. Councilmember Nordquist advised Larry Naughton called him to describe the Chamber of Commerce's position and asked the Council to be considerate of the Chamber's position. As there were no objections to the participation of any Councilmember from any member of the audience, Mayor Fahey announced all Councilmembers would participate. Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson circulated photographs submitted by Roger Hertrich to the Hearing Examiner (Exhibit K). He explained Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and C112M Hill have filed an application to make modifications to the ferry terminal. Improvements include development of a pedestrian terminal building which will serve as the entry to the movable overhead loading dock, minor expansion on the north side of the existing ferry terminal site and other minor improvements to the dock such as bike lockers, replacement of an employee building to meet ADA requirements for restrooms, and installation of an emergency generator. He explained the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the Shoreline Substantial Development (SDP) application for the above improvements. On May 13, the Hearing Examiner issued his decision approving the requested SDP. Mr. Wilson explained the first issue raised in Ms. Shippen's Appeal was "An overhead loading shed at the Main Street terminal is unnecessary and adversely impacts a scenic public waterfront." Staff feels Ms. Shippen (the appellant) did not provide any evidence to support these claims. In response to the second issue Ms. Shippen raised in her appeal, "The Hearing Examiner failed to require correct EIS procedures", Mr. Wilson pointed out WSDOT has the ability to act as the lead agency for purposes of issuing an environmental determination on the proposal (per Washington Administrative Code) and did so in this instance. A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by WSDOT; the City commented oif the DNS but did not appeal the decision. As WSDOT acted as lead agency for processing the environmental determinations, the City did not have jurisdiction to require additional environmental information or the preparation of an EIS. Edmonds City Council Appr6ed Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 4 Councilmember Petruzzi referred to page 22, Item #2, of the packet before the Council and read, "Environmental review for the development anticipated a temporary use. Long term impacts to the City's environment and particularly to adjacent parks and other public areas were not considered." Mr. Wilson confirmed the accuracy of this statement. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out that although it was true that the adequacy and the conclusions of the EIS are fixed, the City Council may consider, as part of its decision -making process, whether the mitigation measures in the EIS adequately meet the criteria of the permit (per a Meydenbauer Bay case involving the Bellevue City Council's ability to apply EIS results in a substantive proceeding). Applicant Presentatio Jerry Weed, CH2M Hill, P 0 Box 91500, Bellevue, introduced Ted Bell, Manager of Terminal Engineering for Washington State Ferries. Mr. Weed displayed an aerial photo, noting the main purpose of the facility is to address the conflicts that currently exist in the pedestrian access and egress from the terminal and comply with the ADA requirements. He described increases in users —in 1990 there were 4,500 vehicles per day and 1,450 pedestrians; 7,000 vehicles and 2,000 pedestrians per day are forecast for the year 2000 . Most people attending their public meetings, including disabled individuals, young families, and the Chamber of Commerce, supported improved vessel accessibility. He acknowledged the ultimate facility will be at Pt. Edwards but that is several years away and has significant funding hurdles. Regarding the issue of the adequacy of the environmental process, he displayed a low tide aerial photo and described the footprint of the facility and amenities which will not impact the seabed habitat. Therefore, the WSDOT determined the environmental impacts of this project were not significant and issued a DNS on January 24, 1996. WSDOT responded to comments from the City of Edmonds, Roger Hertrich, and William Kasper. With regard to the visual analysis, he displayed a model of the'facility and views of the facility ftom various locations, including a view of the facility after everything is moved to Pt. Edwards (only the building will remain as a facility for the park). Councilmember Petruzzi asked about the height of the structure above the deck. Mr. Weed advised the view with the highest elevation shows it at approximately 49 feet; the height limit is 49.75 feet. This was not necessarily at high tide, the movable facility can extend as high as 51.5 feet at high tide. He displayed a view of the Pt. Edward's facility showing the relocation of various elements from the Main Street dock to the Pt. Edward's facility. He summarized the WSF concurs with the May 13 Hearing Examiner's decision. Referring to page 363 (Hearing Examiner's Decision) of the Council packet, Councilmembe'r Petruzzi read a portion of the response from applicant Jerry Weed, CH2M Hill and Ted Bell of WSF, "...the site has significant long term problems which won't be addressed by this proposal. The terminal needs to be relocated so 'the loading area is not bisected by the railroad tracks. Now the tracks must be clear to accommodate the loading and unloading of the ferries" and asked if this was due to a safety problem. Mr. Weed responded there is a disruption of loading which causes vessel delays and there is a potential for a problem in the future. Councilmember Petruzzi referred to the increase in ridership, and asked if that created the possibility of a safety factor. Mr. Weed said increased ridership would increase congestion and the increase in train traffic increases potential conflicts. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 5 For Councilmember Nordquist, Mr. Weed identified the WSF property line. For Councilmember Petruzzi, Mr. Weed confirmed the accuracy of the statement on page 363, "The most promising alternative is Pt. Edwards which is being studied." Councilmember White asked what the significant long term problems were that are not addressed by this proposal. Mr. Weed answered the problems are primarily those caused by the railroad crossing —the congestion it creates in downtown Edmonds and the lack of the ability to expand the present site for multiple slips. Councilmember White asked what CH2M Hill's task was in this project. Mr. Weed answered their task was to assist WSF in permitting the facilities and design. Councilmember White questioned if the task specified this was to be a temporary facility. Mr. Weed responded their work is based on the Memorandum of Understanding between the partners on the Edmonds Crossing Project that these improvements were an interim solution. When considering the impacts of this structure, the visual and environmental impacts were considered, not necessarily on a short or long term basis. It is desired to relocate this facility as soon as possible due to the significant long term problems outlined on page 363. Referencing page 364 (Response from the City by Scott Snyder and Jeff Wilson), Councilmember Petruzzi requested Mr. Snyder confirm the accuracy of the statement "Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) is inadequate if this proposal was a permanent facility. There was only one reference to the environmental checklist relating to the temporary nature of the facility." Mr. Snyder confirmed this was a correct summary of his remarks. Councilmember Petruzzi directed attention to the statement, "The review of this project cannot be tied to the relocation of the ferry terminal. Rather this review is to determine whether or not the proposal meets the requirements of the SMP." Mr. Snyder confirmed this statement, stating a quasi judicial body is required to consider each application on its own merits and not attempt to tie more than one project together in the decision making process. For Councilmember Nordquist, Mr. Weed said the lands outside the inter -harbor line belong to the State of Washington and are administered by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). In, this case, they are leased by WSDOT from the DNR for the ferry terminal. Appellant Presentation N Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid Ave, Edmonds, asked the Council defer approval of the Shoreline Permit to allow a passenger loading shed at the Main Street terminal. Although she requested the loading shed and the Pt. Edwards facility not be linked, it appears they have been. Regarding the purposes given for the passenger loading shed, she pointed out in June 1995 the City asked for but did not receive dates regarding accidents on the dock. The second reason given was ADA compliance. She suggested the new jumbo ferry, with the elevator, intended to be added in 1997 to the Bainbridge run, be placed on the Edmonds run until the old jumbo is retrofitted to comply with ADA. The third reason given was turnaround time; she agreed the time saved by the shed and adding the larger and faster jumbo ferries would result in a 79% increase in the number of vehicles processed in an hour. Therefore, she felt the main purpose of the loading shed was economic rather than pedestrian safety or convenience. Ms. Shippen said the shed moves WSF closer to its 20-30 long term facilities planning goal of processing 10,000 vehicles a day through Edmonds at the existing terminal using a fleet of three jumbos. WSFhas calculated it has adequate holding space to accommodate a three jumbo fleet and the overhead loading shed would make the jumbos economically efficient. She questioned how the shed, that economically benefits WSF, affects the Edmonds scenic waterfront. She quoted from staff s letter to WSF, "The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18,1996 Page 6 proposed mitigation measures provided in the checklist do not address the significant, irreparable hann which would occur if the structure were to remain on a permanent basis." When she addressed the Hearing Examiner, she did not feel it was necessary to justify her statement that this would have an adverse affect on the scenic waterfront as staff had already done so. As a result of this irreparable harm, staff s approval was conditional, based on the assumption of relocation. The Hearing Examiner's approval was also conditional and based on the assumption of relocation. WSF accepted the assumption that the shed would be relocated; therefore, it is assumed the shed will be relocated to a specific site, Pt. Edwards. She pointed out the assumption of relocation to Pt. Edwards presents a significant problem because the Edmonds Crossing Study has not been completed. Until that study is completed, there is no designated alternative site. Until the Pt. Edward's EIS process is completed, the possibility of a fatal flaw will continuously cast a burdensome shadow on moving forward with implementation, attracting public/private partnerships and securing major funding. Depending on the problems revealed by the EIS coupled with problems they are currently aware of, the Oversight Committee may or may not designate Pt. Edward's as a site for an alternative terminal. Therefore, the Council, is being asked to make a decision based on an uncertainty. Ms. Shippen requested the Council avoid the risk of affixing a shed at the existing site and defer the approval of the permit until the Edmonds Crossing Study is finished and until the Oversight Committee designates Pt. Edwards as a future alternative site. She questioned why there had been a rush to get the shed approved. She quoted from the Edmonds Crossing Implementation Plan, "The ferTy system has stated that when the study process is completed and a preferred alternative has been selected, then the state will pay for the- ferry portion of the project if �ftmding is available." She pointed out if the ferry system is waiting for the EIS, Edmonds should also wait. Mayor Fahey opened the public participating portion of the hearing. Robert Turcott, 8928 Main Street, Edmonds, said if one looked north from the Senior Center, the new terminal would obliterate the view of Mt. Baker and the Cascades. From the north side of the ferry terminal, looking south, the view of the Olympics from the parking lot would be eliminated. He pointed out this facility is against the 4-No's identified when another holding lane was proposed. He referenced numerous goals listed in the Shoreline Master Program Goals and Policies, including development of the shoreline with the minimum discrepancy of the Edmonds shoreline; urban multiple use activities should be developed to enhance the waterfront environment and create opportunities for public recreation and leisure activities; control and encourage the pattern and distribution' of land and water use in order to enhance the shoreline natural systems and protect against damage and provide for the public use and enjoyment; prohibit the use which alters or degrades the shoreline's natural systems; consideration of scenic vistas; and commercial buildings should be located and designated in a manner in which to minimize the obstruction of view of the water of the public waterfront areas. Don Carr,-9832 225th Place SW, Edmonds, spoke on behalf of the Edmonds Bike Advocacy Group, who have been working with the City of Edmonds and the State and other agencies to improve and make Edmonds a bike -friendly community. He commended the, City and State for listening to their concerns and developing a design they support as a way to improve accessibility for non -motorized vehicles to the ferry. The Advocacy Group urges the Council to approve the necessary permits. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, displayed a map showing the existing dock and the dock with improvements. He agreed this structure would obliterate views from Railroad Avenue across the dock. The extension continues 10 feet beyond the edge of the present dock; therefore, encroaches closer Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 - Page 7 to the public beach as well as eliminates views from the beach. He circulated photographs of views that would be eliminated. if the Council upheld the Hearing Examiner's decision. He commented the proposed structure is not the minimum to comply with ADA and pointed out a temporary structure is defined in the City's Code as something not permanently attached. He questioned whether this ferry - designed building was what the City wanted for future uses in the park. He urged the Council to consider the issues he raised at the Hearing Examiner's public hearing. Bill Toskey, 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, (Executive Director of the Port of Edmonds), said he was speaking as an individual with a great deal of expertise and background in this type of project. Although the Port of Edmonds has not taken an official position, they generally support improvements in transportation projects. He pointed out that projects with broad significance take into account that the economy is integrated and therefore benefits the entire economy. Edmonds' contribution to an integrated economy is the ferry system, which should be considered in the decision -making process. He supported the factors presented by CH2M Hill to improve safety but stressed the benefit -cost analysis. This improvement will generate revenue in excess of $1 million per year, and the project will also benefit Kitsap County. He urged the Council to support the project and commended the WSF for proposing this project due to its overall economic benefit and as well as improving loading time. Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Place, #102, Edmonds, Chair of the 3MT Task Force of the Chamber of Commerce, advised his main concern is safety. He explained the safety for passengers and waterfront passengers will increase in future years. There will be 6 Amtrak trains, 18+ Commuter Rail trains, and up to 30 freight trains crossing Main Street. The 3MT Task Force and the Chamber of Commerce have been studying ways to improve safety for ferry passengers and waterfront pedestrians. He described the four underpass designs submitted for consideration by the City, WSF, BNRR, and CT. The 3MT Task Force supports the passenger terminal and temporary, portable loading ramp. Char Garrett, 170 W Dayton, Ste 203, Edmonds, spoke as President of the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, and indicated the Chamber supports proceeding with the proposed improvement to the existing ferry terminal. Recognizing this is an interim solution until the multi -modal terminal is built, they agree with the need to solve some immediate needs such as improving disabled access, reducing ,loading time by loading passengers and vehicles simultaneously thus improving traffic congestion, and the project is an important collaborative effort with the ferry system designing the passenger waiting area to share the restrooms with park users and give the City the building for waterfront use when the terminal moves. The Chamber believes the project will contribute positively to the economic vitality of the community and encourages the Council to affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision. Carol Hahn, 1031 Second Avenue S, Edmonds, stated her understanding was this hearing was to appeal the decision of the Hearing Examiner. She indicated there had been no testimony stating the project did not meet the Shoreline Management Act. She agreed with the Hearing Examiner's decision and felt the appeal was unnecessary and -wrong. She stressed the overhead loading facility was totally necessary if one approached the ferry in any way other than in a vehicle. John Grasso, 122 Sunset Avenue, Edmonds, advised his home looks out onto the ferry; he and his neighbors support the loading ramp. He pointed out any money,saved by WSF was money saved by the taxpayers and urged the Council to approve the permit. He supported the ferry remaining at its present location as well as enlargement of the ferry dock which would alleviate, traffic problems at the signal. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996' Page 8 Roger Oliver, 1031 Second Avenue S, Edmonds, said since his wife became disabled, they have become aware of the ' access difficulties on Washington State Ferries. He explained elevators on ferries often are not functional and are often blocked by vehicles. He stressed un-mechanical access to the ferries is essential. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, felt the improvement would improve tourism in the City and produce revenue to keep businesses in Edmonds. He urged the Chamber and community groups to support the improvements to the ferry terminal. Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Appellant E—ebuttal Natalie Shippen referenced page 29, the conclusion drawn by staff whether the structure would meet the Shoreline's Management Act, "Recognizing the identification of the project as an interim project, one which is designed to meet the ferry systems' and public's needs until the terminal is relocated to Pt. Edwards. The proposed relocatable overhead pedestrian walkway provides this facility which has been designed to minimize the potential impacts to the shoreline." She pointed out this illustrated the approval is tied to Pt. Edward's. She did not feel on -dock safoty should be considered as a major purpose for the shed as passengers are free to wander about while parked on the dock and vehicles and pedestrians do not mingle on the'dock during loading. She pointed out the existing ramp and elevator comply with ADA requirements, although some passengers may prefer other methods. Regarding the necessity of moving the terminal due to the railroad, she noted 75% of the ridership on the Edmonds - Kingston line is recreational or occasional and likely are not greatly inconvenienced by trains. She felt the residents' inconvenience caused by ferry traffic should be weighted against regional issues. . She summarized the Council must make a decision based on the assumption of relocation to Pt. Edwards. If that site does not materialize, the loading shed, the three jumbo fleet and the resulting 10,000 daily vehicles will be at the present site. She stressed the $3 million Edmonds Crossing Study will not be completed for another 18 months. Staff Rebuttal/Clarification Mr. Wilson advised the maximum height of 49-75 feet is above the mean lower water; the high water mark is established at 14.75 feet, a difference above the ordinary high water mark which is still below the height of the deck of the ferTy terminal by approximately 10 feet. The major issue is not whether this a temporary or permanent structure but whether the project is consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program and with the State's Shoreline Management Act (SMA). One of the main emphasizes of the State's SMA is to ensure the shoreline is available for water dependent uses, which the ferry is. With regard to his comment letter on WSDOT's environmental determination, he acknowledged there are serious concerns on the impact to the community if this is a permanent structure. Therefore, in his recommendation to the Hearing Examiner and the Hearing Examiner's decision, the structure was considered as temporary, not as defined by the Edmonds Community Development Code but in duration as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan which identifies the Pt. Edward's site as the preferable site for relocation of the ferry terminal. Councilmember White asked if the Council would be violating their obligation under the SMA. if this improvement were not allowed. Mr. Wilson answered, in the hierarchy of the SMA, the primary function is water dependent uses. If the City were to deny the permit, it may curtail the ability for that use to function properly. Mr. Snyder explained two primary issues in the SMA are water related uses and preservation of shoreline access. Staff s viewpoint is based on a balance of appropriate water related Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 I Page 9 uses and the ferries' role in access to the water, with the impact of overhead loading on a variety of public uses. -He explained the staffs original recommendation was a five year approval with a one-time five year extension and full environmental review for that extension. The Hearing Examiner provides an initial five year term with two extensions and, if an application is made for a permanent permit, a full environmental review is required. He advised there are no residential views impacted within 300 feet of the facility. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED TO EXTENDTHE BEARING FOR 30 MINUTES MAXIMUM. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON. SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Myers asked if the piling for the temporary facility would remain after it was relocated. Mr. Wilson answered it would depend on a number of factors, including whether the pilings function as a habitat. Mr. Snyder referred to the Hearing Examiner's decision (page 373, paragraph 2C) which states the approval is also approval for removal of all structures put into place by the permit and, in order for anything to remain or be reused, a new Shoreline Substantial Development Permit would be required. Applicant Rebuttal Referring to the graphic showing the elements that would be removed and reused, Mr. Weed explained the intent is to remove all -facilities and leave only the causeway and the building containing the restrooms. They have been working closely, with the Parks Department and the architect for the South Bracketts Landing Park to integrate the building into the future park usage. In response to Councilmember White, Mr. Weed advised the new building will partially use one exit lane; the lanes will be shifted slightly on the.existing dock and constructed abutting the park property line. Mr. Snyder clarified the City maintains the Underwater Park on a DNR lease. Mr. Weed deferred the.remainder of his rebuttal time to Mr. Bell. Ted Bell, Washington State Ferries, 811 First Avenue, Seattle, requested the Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision. They believe the project is necessary to serve the public and to comply with ADA requirements. He noted the issues he wished to rebut were addressed by public comments. Student Representative Moore asked if the significant long term problems described on page 363 would create a deadline for a relocation to the Pt. Edwards site. Mr. Bell responded many of the long term problems exist today; the need for the improvements increases each year and problems with the present site will become more prevalent each year. WSF feels something must be done within 10-15 years which will only occur through cooperation of the local agencies, the State, and possibly some Federal assistance. Councilmember Haakenson asked if WSF would donate the pier and the building to the City. Mr. Bell said the assumption is that some of the mitigation for the new site would be part of what's left by the ferry terminal. He noted there is not a great deal of property owned by WSF. Mr. Snyder said the ferry dock is on the Main Street extension which is deeded to the Port by the City and from the Port to the State. The City would be in line should reversion occur. Mayor Fahey closed the participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council. Councilmember Petruzzi pointed out the issue is not whether the overhead loading dock is needed or whether it is tied to a move, but whether the City allows a permit under a temporary basis. He reiterated Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 10 staffs comment (page 22) that the development anticipated a temporary use and did not consider long term impacts to the City's environment and adjacent parks and other uses, as well as Mr. Snyder's comments on page 364 that the Determination of ' Nonsignificance is inadequate if the proposal is a permanent facility. Councilmember Petruzzi read excerpts from the June 7, 1994, Edmonds City Council minutes, "Paul Green, Assistant Secretary of WSDOT Marine Transportation Division, said he views the process of a long term solution expressly a multi -modal facility to take a great deal of time to evolve. Mr. Green says he does not expect this completed during his lifetime." Also from the June 7, 1994 Council minutes —Bill Isley, Lead Urban Design Planner for the Consultant Team —"Bill Isley noted that the overhead loading concept is not part of the recommended proposed interim improvements. Mr. Isley said the sketch of the overhead concept was included in the drawings to show the visual impact. Councilmember Petruzzi confirmed his understanding that the overhead loading concept is not considered a short term solution. Mr. Isley agreed and said the interim. solutions are basically replacement items only." Councilmember Petruzzi stressed he was unable to find any evidence in the record that the terminal is a temporary site. He pointed out there are significant hurdles, primarily funding, to relocation of the ferry terminal; therefore, the likelihood of moving the terminal is poor. Further, he questioned the description of "temporary" as he did not feel 15 years was temporary. He expressed concern that the significant safety problems are not being addressed and referred to WSF's response to Mr. Kasper's letter (page 377) regarding the inability to relocate the Main Street/Railroad Avenue Grade Separation and that it was too costly for a short-term improvement. He summarized it appeared this was an attempt to. circumvent the regulations the Council is sworn to uphold. He stressed the record developed is clearly based on an assumption of pen-nanency which does not address the environmental impact, grade separation, safety problems, and the increase in trains and speeds. " COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND OVERTURN THE HEARING EXAMINERI-S DECISION. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS SECONDED THE MOTION. COUNCELMEMBER MYERS MOVED TO EXTEND THE BEARING UNTIL THE DISCUSSION WAS COMPLETED. COUNCELMEMBER HAAKENSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist said his concern was with WSF's definition of temporary. He said the Council minutes of March 31, 1970 included testimony from citizens who asked to have the ferry dock removed. On April 7, 1970, the Hwy Department, members of the Port Commission and others in the community said they would not do anything as there was only a 14 year lease and no funding. They did provide five storage lanes to hold 150-170 vehicles on a temporary basis. Councilmember Nordquist pointed out the five lanes were still in use. He did not object to an improved facility to meet ADA requirements but the term "temporary" concerned him. If a date certain c6uld be provided for removal of this improvement, he could support some type of improvement, particularly to enhance ADA accessibility. He pointed out the growing parking problem in the City also needed to be addressed. Council President Earling spoke against the motion, noting 7,000 vehicles would be using the ferry each day by the year 2000 as well as 2,000 pedestrians. There would. be increased traffic congestion and an increase in the number of trains. He pointed out many ferry users are Edmonds citizens and, while it is a regional facility, it is also an amenity to the community. Serving on the CT Board has increased his understanding of the challenges that physically disabled individuals face everyday. He pointed out 5-15 years qualifies as a short period of time, compared with the 100 years the ferry,has been in Edmonds; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 11 resolution to the problem will take time. WSDOT has negotiated the mitigation's of the temporary use of the ferry dock by moving the elevator to the land side, designed a floating arm in an attempt to keep the profile as low as possible, have designed one docking area as opposed to the two they would prefer, have designed a portable unit which can be relocated, and have agreed to a series of 5-year reviews. He felt the Hearing Examiner's decision put more "teeth" into the resolution of this problem in 10- 15 years than staff had recommended. He pointed out the ferry system will continue to grow and the citizens of Edmonds must learn to deal with it. He intends to see the terminal moved to the Pt. Edwards site as without that vision it will not happen. He summarized the Council should proceed with the -improvement with the understanding it is a temporary facility. Councilmember Haakenson expressed disappointment an EIS was not prepared for this application. He pointed out if a permanent permit were requested, the DOT could acts as its own lead agency and again determine there was no significant adverse impact on the environment and not require an EIS. He expressed concern with the frequent use of the term "temporary" which the DOT defines as 7-15 years. He noted the City has no guarantee that the DOT is financially committed. to the Edmonds Crossing Project. Councilmember White observed WSF's oral testimony indicates this is a temporary facility although their written statements seem to contradict this. He said the simple resolution would be to ask the DOT/WSF to return with a statement or reapplication that this is a temporary proposal, establish specific guidelines and time frames as he did not feel it was the Council's responsibility to design the proposal for the ferry system. Further, he did not believe the proposal the Hearing Examiner accepted adequately addresses the mitigation of the negative factors. He agreed with Council President Earling that there are strong factors that advocate this structure but was disturbed by the concept that ADA compliance was the primary motivation of the DOT or WSF. Processing more vehicles and the economic factors are obviously the primary factors. He reiterated the statement that the site has significant long term problems not addressed by this proposal. Councilmember Van Hollebeke spoke against the motion and urged the Council to focus on what is intended. WSDOT's job is to move vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the most efficient way possible. Although the Pt. Edwards site is preferential, there is no assurance that property will be available at an affordable price in the near future and is largely dependent on governmental funding that is not currently available. He pointed out the structure must be a "permanent -type" structure due to the number of people being moved; the modular structure has been designed to be moved at a future date. He is acutely aware of the nuisances and humiliation suffered by disabled individuals due to the current method of accessing the ferry as his son is a partial paraplegic. He expressed the hope the facility would be temporary but if not, the traffic still needs to be moved. He urged the Council to vote against the motion. Mayor Fahey commented there are on -going problems in the community due to traffic and felt anything WSF can do to mitigate this problem is positive. Various factors will determine how long temporary is, primarily funding. In the meantime it makes no sense to put up barriers that cause longer delays in moving traffic that is significantly impacting the City. If the ultimate result is faster boarding, that is a positive short term solution until the permanent solution of moving the terminal to a better location occurs. She pointed out the trains would ultimately force WSF into a move as the number of trains will restrict access to the dock. She also pointed out ADA improvements would benefit. not only the obviously disabled but also children and those weakened by age, illness, etc. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 12 VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING AND COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey declared a five minute recess. 7. OND HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY Wire7ess DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CREATE A NEW CHAPTER (CHAPTER 20.50) RELATING TO Cowunica- tion THE REGULATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND AMENDMENTS Facilities TO TITLE 21 "DEFINITIONS". THESE AMENDMENTS EXEMPT ANY RECEIVING 0 TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS REGULATED BY THE FCC WHICH THE CITY IS PRE EMPTED FROM REGULATING. (Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division / File No. CDC-95-67) Community Services Director Paul Mar explained this hearing was a culmination of two years of Council, staff, and the ad hoc commission's efforts to craft an ordinance for wireless communication sites in the City. He commented the proposed ordinance reflects the input provided at the first hearing on May 7, the Council's comments provided to staff following the first reading, as well as the discu ssion at the June 4 Council meeting. He indicated staff wished to include John Storch, from the wireless communication industry, in making the staff presentation. Mr. Mar explained the ordinance governs the type of antenna/mounting structure combinations that can be located in certain zoning districts in the city. He displayed a list of the three types of wireless facilities and the existing and new mounting/supporting structures. Mr. Mar introduced John Storch, Director of Engineering of Technical Operations for the Pacific NW Office of Nextell Communications, who indicated his presentation would be generic to the wireless industry. He explained each carrier has an allocation of spectrums/frequencies from the FCC in the form of licenses which give them the ability to operate in a geographic area on their specific spectrum. He illustrated the fact that wireless services operate on different parts of the spectrum; therefore are incompatible with each other and exclusive of each other. Within the spectrum are channels. Each wireless carrier uses a communication facility which consists ot transmitters/receivers and antennas. The key issue for wireless carriers to use its spectrum and design their system is providing a mobility function, a seamless level of service. This is accomplished by the siting of the locations and the ability for each site to have a "line of sight" moment; each site has a geographic coverage area as well as a hand-off area. Mr. Storch displayed several photographs of micro, mini and macro facilities mounted on a variety of structures including buildings, a water tank, and power poles as well as Monopole 1, 11 and Lattice towers. Councilmember White asked if the antennas had capacity limits. Mr. Storch answered there were certain capacity limits; the capacity is measured by the amount of power. Therefore, directionalization. of antennas may be seen. Mr. Mar described the type of facilities allowed in each of the City's zoning districts and structures and zones that require a Conditional Use Permit. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 13 Councilmember Myers pointed out the ordinance referred to the Edmonds High School and the Woodway High School and requested this be revised to "the existing Edmonds Woodway High School and the new Edmonds Woodway High School". I Councilinember Nordquist advised the Ci!y of Tacoma indicated topography was a concern. Mr. Mar advised the topography would be considered in the CUP. Mr. Mar pointed out a correction to the proposed ordinance in Development Standards for Monopole I (page 016) and Development Standards for Monopole U (page 018), paragraph A should read, " ... are permitted in the General Commercial (CG) zones except the Harbor Square area." Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED TO EXTEND THE HEARING AN ADDITIONAL 30 MINUTES. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTIONCARRIED. Raymond. A. Cruikshank, 546 Alder St #302, Edmonds, explained the President and Secretary of the Commodore Condominiums signed a lease with One Comm for a communications installation. The lease was improperly executed and is therefore invalid. As the installation would reduce the quality of life for the residents and neighbors of the Commodore Condominium, he requested the City Council direct the Building Department to refuse any building permit for the Commodore and One Comm or any other wireless provider until the State law and the Commodore declarations are complied with and a valid lease with 100% of the owner's signatures accompany the building permit request. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, urged the Council to consider revenue generated by the wireless communication facilities. Shelly Hart, 8605 Bowdoin Way, Edmonds, explained her residence is the first house on Summit Lane and the water tank is. in front of her home. She requested that the wireless communication facilities mounted on the water tank have a minimal visual impact. Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council. Councilmember Petruzzi recalled his request that a CG overlay be created on Hwy 99. Mr. Mar displayed a map which identified the CG zone on Hwy 99 that is within 300 feet of single family residences and a map of the City indicating that Harbor Square would also be excluded from the overlay zone. Councilmember Petruzzi preferred the ordinance contain wording referring to the CG zone overlay. Mr. Mar suggested an overlay map be included as an exhibit in the ordinance. Councilmembers and Mr. Snyder agreed. Council President Earling referred to page 017 where Monopole I had been excluded from Multiple Residential (RM) zones and requested a CUP be required if a Monopole II or Lattice . Towers were located within 300' of an RM zone. Mr. Mar pointed out this would eliminate the potential for a Monopole H or Lattice Towers in a large area near Hwy 99. Council consensus was to include the revision suggested by Council President Earling. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 14 Mr. Mar described an addition to page 0 17 (paragraph C), 0 18 (paragraph B) and 0 18 (paragraph B), ".are not permitted in the Public (P) zone .... and Five Comers Water Tank/Fire Station 6 site, where a Conditional Use Permit is required." Councilmember Petruzzi made a correction to page 019 (paragraph I), "Monopole 11 shall be separated from each other by a distance equal or greater than 44,N 1,320 feet. Mr. Mar advised page 020 was a duplicate of page 0 19. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out the City was using 480 square inches (3.3 square feet) as a standard area for a micro facility and SEPA has a threshold of 580 square inches (4 square feet); one of the carriers suggested the City's standard be equivalent to the SEPA threshold (page 024 - Micro Facility). Noting the requirement for a CUP has been added in many areas, he suggested a provision be added to the ordinance clarifying that the City is prohibited from considering the environmental effects of radiation. Councilmember White referred to page 021 (paragraph E) and questioned who would determine the adequacy of camouflage. Mr. Wilson suggested a review by the Architectural Design Board be added to paragraph F. Mr. Snyder recommended paragraphs F and G be combined. Councilmember White noted the same revision should be made to page 0 18 and 021 (paragraphs E and F). Councilmember Myers referred to page 22 (paragraph 3) and requested it be revised to read, "Accessory equipment I facilities used to house wireless communications equipment should be located within buildings or underground when possible." COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BRING FORWARD ON THE SOONEST POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA AN ORDINANCE ENCAPSULATING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED TONIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. 7a. UPDATE STATUS REPORT ON EDMONDS FINANCIAL CENTER BUILDING Financial Center Building Community Services Director Paul Mar explained the current tenant of the Financial Center Building now states they will be unable to vacate the building by July 31, 1996 and estimated their move to their new building will be delayed until late September or mid October, 1996. The City has determined, with the opinion of its bond counsel, that the tax-exempt status of the Councilmatic bonds will not be in jeopardy. He pointed out the letter to the tenant, drafted with the assistance -of City Attorney Scott Snyder, outlining the conditions of extending their tenancy in the building. Councilmember Myers asked if any of the City's renovating of the building could be done prior to the tenants vacating the building. Mr. Mar advised the existing tenants occupy the first and third floors and it was felt it would not be practical to renovate with tenants above and below. Councilmember Myers urged staff to review the possibility with the consultant. Council President Earling advised he looked at the tenanfs new building today and was pessimistic it would be ready by October 15, 1996. He questioned whether the Council intended to make additional extensions. Further, he asked if there was any way the City could lose money with this extension. Mr. Mar replied no. Councilmember Petruzzi pointed out the tenant must vacate the building by October 15, 1996. Mr. Mar pointed out Items 4 and 5 addressed what happens if they do not vacate by the moveout date. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 15 The Council concurred with the conditions as presented. 8. MAYO Mayor Fahey pointed out the Councilmembers serving on the committee to do the short listing for selection of the architect and engineering design services for Public Safety were Councilmembers Myers, Nordquist and Van Hollebeke, and asked that they confirm their availability on the dates selected on the memorandum in their packet tonight. Mayor Fahey reminded everyone of the Adult Entertainment Information Forum on June 19 at 7:00 p.m. at the Senior Center. Mayor Fahey also announced the City is accepting applications for an opening on the Planning Board until June 28. Sister COUNCELMEMBER MYERS MOVED TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. RICHARD Cities TARBUCK TO THE SISTER CITIES COMMISSION. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON COW. I Appoint- I SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST mnt I ABSTAINED. 9. COUNCIL Due to the late hour, no Council comments were made. With no further business, Mayor Fahey adjourned the meeting at 11:32 p.m. BARBARA FAHEY, P9LYCIR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 16 (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 4,1996 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #10389S THRU #10524F FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 3, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $102,132.22; APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #9164S THRU #10681 F FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 10, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $293,572.57; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #10312 THRU #10650 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 16 THRU MAY 31,1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $563,576.32. (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM NANCY E. BODDY ($146.71), AND FROM MIKE BORDEN ($687.3�) (E) DECLARING MOTORCYCLES SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SELL (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT URBAN COUNTY CONSORTIUM INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR TRIENNIAL GRANT CYCLE OF JULY 1997 THROUGH JUNE 2000 (G) APPROVAL OF LIMITED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WITH CARL AND POLLY PEARSON 11 (H) AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH COSMOPOLITAN ENGINEERING GROUP FOR NPDES PERMITTING ASSISTANCE (1) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31,1996 W) APPROVAL FOR TEACHING THE COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CERT) PROGRAM IN EDMONDS 3. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person) 4. (15Min.) REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JUNE 11, 1996 5. (150n.) HEARING ON SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION 6. (60 Min.) HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION (FILE NO. SM-96-24) REGARDING A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW OVERHEAD LOADING WALKWAY AND NEW PEDESTRIAN TERMINAL BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PIER, MINOR EXPANSION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PIER, AND OTHER RELATED MINOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PIER AT THE EXISTING FERRY TERMINAL SITE LOCATED AT 71 WEST MAIN STREET, ALL WITHIN THE WASHINGTON STATE FERRY RIGHT-OF-WAY (Appellant: Natalie Shippen / Applicant: WSDOT - Ferries Division / File No. AP-96-70) CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JUNE 18,1996 PAGE 2 7. (45 Min) SECOND HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CREATE A NEW CHAPTER (CHAPTER 20.50) RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 21 "DEFINITIONS". THESE AMENDMENTS EXEMPT ANY RECEIVING OR TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS REGULATED BY THE FCC WHICH THE CITY IS PRE-EMPTED FROM REGULATING. (Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division I File No. CDC-95-67) 8. (5 Min.) MAYOR 9. (15 Min.) COUNCIL I Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notica� for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.