Loading...
01/15/2002 City CouncilEDMONDS CIT :Y COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES January 15, 2002 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5t'' Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Jared Carl, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Serv. Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer Chanda Earhart, Assistant Planner Star Campbell, Assistant Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Zach Lell, City Attorney's Office Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Joint 1. JOINT MEETING WITH THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD Meeting , the PFD Public Facilities District (PFD) Board members resent: Te YVehrs> John McGibbon, Ka Mahaffe Y, James Monroe, and Jan Conner. Community Services Director Stephen Clifton, the staff member assigned to the PFD Board, explained at November 20, 2001 City Council meeting, the Edmonds PFD Board and Property Counselors presented information related to 1) PFD Board activities since the City Council/Edmonds PFD Board joint meeting held on June 26, 2001, 2) the Regional Center Market Demand and Feasibility Study, and 3) proposed steps to begin the planning and possible implementation of a regional/special events center. An overview of the budget was also presented. Mr. Clifton explained the PFD Board has been moving quickly to conduct due diligence activities and must move even more quickly if there is any chance of developing and constructing a Regional/Special Events project (Events Center) before January 1, 2003. One priority of the Edmonds PFD Board is to access Snohomish County PFD collected sales and use taxes currently being collected countywide. In order for the local PFD to access these funds, the Snohomish County Council established a December 1, 2001 project viability deadline. This required any local PFD to submit a project viability application for review and consideration by the Snohomish Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 1 County PFD Board. The Snohomish County PFD Board would then have to determine whether a local PFD has a viable project before allocating money to the local PFD Board. Due to the short amount of time between the completion of the Edmonds Regional Center Market Demand and Feasibility Study and the December 1, 2001 project viability deadline, the Edmonds PFD Board did not have sufficient time to submit an application to the Snohomish County PFD Board by the imposed deadline. Therefore, the Edmonds PFD Board submitted a request to the Snohomish County Council to extend the project viability deadline. On December 14, 2001, the Snohomish County Council approved the County Executive's recommendation to begin the process of amending the Snohomish County PFD'S formation ordinance to: 1) extend the viability project deadline, and 2) modify the formation structure so that the Museum of Flight would be eligible to apply for PFD funds. The County Executive proposed a March 1, 2002 deadline, which was amended by the Snohomish County Council to April 30, 2002. This appeared to have given the Edmonds PFD Board more time to prepare a project viability application. However, on December 14, 2001, the Snohomish County PFD Board took preliminary action to establish project viability benchmarks for the Edmonds PFD and Museum of Flight projects. This action was taken to establish a set evaluation process and was intended to ensure that construction of potential projects can commence by January 1, 2003. The first deadline pertains to submittal of business plans; the Snohomish County PFD Board is now requesting that project business plans be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. Thursday, January 31, 2002. This requires that the Edmonds PFD Board shift their focus and begin preparing a business plan prior to preparation of a project viability application. Mr. Clifton explained the Edmonds PFD Board also met with Alan Dashen, who is working with Spokane, Kennewick and Snohomish County as a financial advisor, to determine whether he was interested in assisting with developing the business plan. On January 8, 2002, the Edmonds PFD Board entered into contracts with Property Counselors and Alan Dashen in the amount of $13,500. A status report regarding preparation of the business plan will be provided to the Edmonds PFD Board on Friday, January 18 and the business plan will be presented to the Board on Friday, January 25. Following any revisions to the proposed business plan, the Edmonds PFD Board will submit the business plan to the Snohomish County PFD Board. Following the January 8 Edmonds PFD Board meeting, the Board asked Mr. Dashen, Mr. Easton (Property Counselors), Board members Terry Vehrs and John McGibbon, Duane Bowman, Peggy Hetzler and him to meet to discuss the elements of this project. At this time, the Edmonds PFD Board is considering the Puget Sound Christian College (PSCC) as well as the Edmonds Shopping Center project. When the Request for Qualifications to solicit for professional consultant services to prepare a business plan was issued, the Edmonds PFD Board also invited the partnership that owns the Edmonds Shopping Center to submit a business plan responding to the same scope of work contained within the Request for Qualifications. At this time, the PSCC is for sale but the Board does not know at what price PSCC is willing to sell the property. The Boards feels it appropriate to discuss with the Council the possible acquisition of the PSCC property. Mr. Clifton explained in order to conduct additional due diligence activities related to the preparation of conceptual designs of an Events Center, the Edmonds PFD Board must contract for the services of an architectural and/or engineering firm soon; the Board has been and will be discussing how to finance this endeavor. The drawings will be used as part of going to the public for a vote. A positive vote by the public is necessary in order to prepare preliminary and final designs, and begin construction of a Center before January 1, 2003. Edmonds PFD Board Chair Terry Vehrs explained the purpose of tonight's meeting was to discuss the possibility of saving a performing arts venue and creating a 400-500 seat conference center, as well as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 2 potentially saving a historical building for the community. He pointed out the possibility of a combined use facility, expanding the art programs through the Parks and Recreation Department, and reducing operating expenses via a combined use facility and a joint use agreement with the Parks and Recreation Department. He noted this would be a complimentary facility to the new Lynnwood PFD as it would be a multi -use facility and not in competition due to the size and lack of overnight stay facilities. He speculated there could be a tenant relationship or partnership with one or more of the current bidders on the PSCC. Mr. Vehrs explained Edmonds had the ability to collect .033% sales and use tax, a $3 million rebate on the sales and use tax. The ability to access the Snohomish County PFD funds would provide an additional $2.7 million. He noted these figures were based on a 3% growth rate although the historical rate for the past five years has been 4-5%. He described the ability to access $9 million with a voted 0.1% increase in the sales and use tax. He explained on a $25,000 vehicle purchase, this would equate to an additional $25 in sales tax. A special election regarding this tax would be held in spring 2002. He explained the PFD Board was seeking a vote of confidence from the Council in the direction the Edmonds PFD Board was headed. Councilmember Marin asked whether the Edmonds PFD Board had communicated their interest in the property to PSCC. Mr. Clifton explained a bidding process was conducted for the PSCC and a price was not advertised. Mr. Vehrs pointed out the City had First Right of Refusal on the PSCC property. Zach Lell, City Attorney for the PFD Board, explained one of the purposes of tonight's joint meeting was to schedule a joint Executive Session between the Edmonds PFD Board and the City Council. He cautioned any questions regarding potential strategies for real estate acquisition should occur during the Executive Session. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Vehrs explained the business plan could be used regardless of whether funds were received from Snohomish County PFD Board. Mr. Clifton explained the business plan would identify the appropriate steps for developing a Special Events Center by the deadline including funding strategies, property acquisition, etc. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Edmonds PFD Board was requesting the Council endorse their financing plan. Mr. Vehrs answered the intent was for the Council to endorse the direction the Edmonds PFD Board was going. He acknowledged possibly the Council was not able to do so at this point but could do so in the near future. Council President Earling pointed out the key date for the Edmonds City Council to take supportive action (if they chose to do so) would be immediately prior to the submittal of the business plan to Snohomish County PFD Board on January 31, 2002. He noted any questions/concerns could be addressed by staff prior to that date. The Council was not being asked to take any action tonight. Councilmember Petso inquired about how the costs incurred were being paid such as the $13,000 for the consultant to prepare the business plan and the cost of the election. She inquired whether those expenses could be financed via the PFD Board revenue sources or would come from the City via appropriations. Mr. Clifton explained to date, the Edmonds PFD Board has collected over $39,000 in reimbursements from the Department of Revenue from the .033% sales and use tax. He pointed out the collection of these funds was always three months behind (monies received in December are for sales and use tax collected in September). Although the Board has collected $39,000 to date, at least another $35,000- $40,000 has been collected that the Board will receive in future months. He explained after paying for the Market Demand and Feasibility Study and minute taker, there is a surplus of $3,152 at the end of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 3 2001. Using the $10,000412,000 per month from the .033% sales and use tax, less expenditures including the remainder of the Market Demand and Feasibility Study, preparation of the business plan and the minute taker, repaying the City for legal and staff time in excess of the 1/3 match, $30,000 in Architectural and Engineering services, and $60,000 for a special election, there is a surplus of approximately $6,000 through the end of 2002. He noted the funds necessary for Architectural and Engineering services beyond a conceptual plan would be paid via funds collected following a successful public vote. Councilmember Petso summarized from a financial prospective, the Edmonds PFD was still in a "no lose" situation as the Board proceeds. Councilmember Petso recalled the Feasibility Study indicated the conference center was possibly not a good idea without a hotel. She questioned whether the proposed concept had been compared with the Feasibility Study to ensure it was a workable project. Mr. Clifton explained as part of the preparation of the business plan, Property Counselors (who prepared the Market Demand and Feasibility Study) will be running those numbers. Mr. Vehrs explained the concept was developed using the Market Demand and Feasibility Study. He noted the hotel was necessary for multi -day conferences; the proposed project would be a day use facility. Councilmember Dawson referred to the reference to partnerships with bidders on the PSCC and asked what steps had been taken toward that goal such as discussions with potential buyers regarding their interest in partnering with the PFD. PFD Board member John McGibbon answered the public did not have access to that information. As soon as that information was public, the PFD Board would engage in discussions regarding potential partnerships. Councilmember Dawson asked when that information would be available. Mr. McGibbon answered that would be discussed in Executive Session. Councilmember Dawson noted that information may be a key element to developing a business plan. Mr. Vehrs explained one bidder (Community Christian Fellowship) emailed their interest and Property Counselors has been directed to dialogue with that party. Executive 2, EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER. THE EXECUTIVE SESSION Session - WILL BE A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE EDMONDS PUBLIC Mint Meeting FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD with the FD Mayor Haakenson inquired whether his participation in the Executive Session, as property manager for the City, was permissible. Mr. Lell answered that Mayor Haakenson's presence in the Executive Session would largely be as the presiding officer for the City Council. To the extent Mayor Haakenson acts as the City's property manager for the City, for the purpose of this Executive Session, that role would be as a potential conduit for any property acquired by the PFD Board. As a result, there was no conflict of interest. At 6:29 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the City Council and PFD Board to a 40 -minute Executive Session regarding a real estate matter. The meeting was reconvened at 7:20 p.m. followed by the flag salute. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA hnge to rgenda COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO ADD "AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT (GRANT) WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD TO RELAMP HIGHWAY 99 (SR99) SIGNALS WITH LED LAMPS" AS ITEM G ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND TO ADD "EXECUTIVE SESSION ON A REAL ESTATE MATTER" AS ITEM NO. 12. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 4 COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 1/02/02 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 2, 2002 inutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #52790 THROUGH #52860 FOR THE WEEK OF Approve DECEMBER 31, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,942.02. APPROVAL OF CLAIM ]aim CHECKS #52861 THROUGH #52948 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 7, 2002, IN THE Checks AMOUNT OF $673,348.74. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #3946 THROUGH #4033 FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 16 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $667,102.91. MA Grant (D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ACCEPTING 2001-2003 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT GRANT ($36,750) uor (E) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF itrol THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL ird BOARD iympic View Drive (F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Retaining RETAINING WALL AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT Wall Snohomish (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT (GRANT) WITH Co. PUD SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD TO RELAMP HIGHWAY 99 (SR99) SIGNALS WITH LED Grant — Hwy LAMPS 99 Signals 5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT OF EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. Res #1020 15 PROPOSITIONS ON THE FEBRUARY 5, 2002 BALLOT: Supporting PROPOSITION NO. 1 — REPLACEMENT SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS LEVY Edmonds School PROPOSITION NO.2 — GENERAL OBLIGATION CONSTRUCTION BONDS District PROPOSITION NO.3 — CAPITAL LEVY FOR INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Ballot Propositions Council President Earling advised several Councilmembers were interested in adopting a resolution in support of the upcoming Edmonds School District propositions on the February 5 ballot. David Schaefer, 518 6th Avenue S, Co -Chair of the School Levy Committee, explained school levies were previously voted upon every two years but a change in 1998 allowed 4 -year school district levy cycles. He explained the 4 -year cycle provided a reliable planning cycle for school district officials but the public "falls out of the habit of voting for school levy elections." He expressed his appreciation for the Council exercising its leadership to assist in communicating the necessity of the school district levy. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 5 Alvin Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, a representative of Friends of Athletic Fields, explained they have proposed funding for athletic fields through the school district. An upcoming meeting of the Friends of Athletic Fields will include consideration of their support for the ballot issues. He supports the City and School District partnering on athletic fields Council President Earling believed in a healthy, well-educated community, acknowledging the voters had the final say in any ballot issue. He noted in previous elections, the greater community has had a 40% voter turnout but citizens of Edmonds have a 60-70% voter turnout. One of the reasons this occurred was because Edmonds cared about its community. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1020. Councilmember Petso indicated she would abstain from the vote, not because of the substance of the issue but because she preferred the public make their own decision. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the importance of the Council showing their support for the students in the community. Councilmember Orvis expressed his support for the resolution, pointing out with the current state of the economy, now was not the time to stop investing in ourselves and in our community. Councilmember Wilson expressed his support for the resolution, noting it was important for the Council to set a precedence that they cared about the quality of the community and the schools provided in the community. Mayor Haakenson read Resolution No. 1020 in support of the Edmonds School District's property tax levy measure to be placed on the February 5, 2002 ballot. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINING. 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON EDMONDS CROSSING — PINE STREET FERRY Edmonds TRAFFIC STUDY Crossing — ine Street Ferry Traffic Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith explained at the October 16, 2001 public hearing, staff presented the Study status of the Pine Street traffic study and staff recommendations. The City Council continued the public hearing and requested staff evaluate alternatives to using Walnut Street for peak period traffic rerouting. At the October 16 public hearing, staff's recommendations were to 1) improve I-5 signage (directing ferry users to the ferry terminal via I-5 and SR104 and signage improvements directing users to SR104 from other locations in the community), 2) full gate closure during peak periods at Pine Street and SR104 (Alternative 3a), 3) use Walnut Street between Yd and 9th for rerouting during peak periods, 4) long-term monitoring for community impact, 5) consider accelerating improvements at 238th Street, and 6) continue with plans to construct a traffic signal at Pine Street/SR104 in conjunction with the Edmonds Crossing project (relocation of the terry terminal). Mr. Smith displayed a map that illustrated the location of the proposed signage. Mr. Smith described criteria that staff developed for evaluating alternatives to using Walnut Street including street classification, route easily understood, controlled intersections, street grades, traffic congestion, and truck restrictions. Mr. Smith described the 90' Avenue Alternative (with no signing from 3rd Avenue), explaining the intent of this alternative was to direct traffic from 9th and Caspers to SR104. He described the scoring of this Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 6 alternative to the criteria — arterial street (+), route not easily understood (-), controlled intersections (neutral), minimal grades (+), moderate congestion (neutral), and not a designated truck route (neutral). Mr. Smith described the Walnut Street alternative, explaining this option directed traffic from 3rd to Walnut Street and down 9"' to SR104. He described the scoring of this alternative to the criteria — residential street (neutral), route easily understood (+), controlled intersections (+), steep grades (-), not congested (+), and 5 -ton truck restrictions (-). He summarized the negative aspects of this alternative were the steep grades and access issues for residents exiting their driveways. Mr. Smith described the Main Street alternative, which would reroute traffic up Main Street to 9h and to SR104. He described the scoring of this alternative to the criteria — arterial street (+), route was easily understood (neutral), controlled intersections (+), moderate grades (neutral), highly congested route (-), and not a designated truck route (-). He noted that requiring drivers to navigate the traffic circle at Main & 5'h may be problematic. Mr. Smith described the Dayton Street alternative, which would direct traffic up Dayton to 9"' and to SR104. He described the scoring of this alternative to the criteria — collector street (+), route easily understood (+), controlled intersections (+), moderate grades (neutral), moderate amounts of congestion (neutral), and not a designated truck route (neutral). Mr. Smith described the Pine Street alternative (Pine Street to 9th to SR104), describing the scoring of this alternative to the criteria — narrow residential street (-), route is not easily understood due to offset intersections (-), uncontrolled intersections (-), steep grades (-), not congested (+), and 5 -ton truck restriction (-). Mr. Smith described the Walnut/7th Avenue/Pine Street alternative, explaining the intent of this alternative was to direct drivers from 3rd to 91" without traveling unreasonable grades. He described the scoring of this alternative to the criteria - residential streets (-), route was not easily understood (-), controlled intersections (+), moderate grades (neutral), not congested (+), and not a designated truck route (neutral). He summarized the residential streets and the zigzag maneuvers that drivers would be required to do may make this alternative problematic. Mr. Smith described the alternative to widen SR104 with a U-turn, which would direct traffic from 3rd down Dayton to SR104 and encourage drivers to turn left away from the ferry terminal to reach the end of the line. He described the scoring of this alternative to the criteria — arterial street (+), route not easily understood (-), controlled intersections (+), moderate grades (neutral), highly congested (-), and designated truck route (+). He explained the U-turn would be a legal maneuver but one that drivers may be uncomfortable making. He pointed out widening SR104 to allow U-turns would be very costly as compared to other alternatives. Mr. Smith described an alternative to provide a U-turn route along SR104, which would route traffic on residential streets near the Westgate area. He described the scoring of this alternative to the criteria — residential streets (-), route is not easily understood (-), controlled intersections (+), moderate grades (neutral), highly congested (-), and not a designated truck route (neutral). Mr. Smith summarized the scoring of the alternatives: +1 9"' Avenue Alternative (no signing from 3rd Avenue) +1 Walnut Street Alternative Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 7 0 Main Street Alternative +3 Dayton Street Alternative -4 Pine Street Alternative 0 Walnut Street/7th Avenue/Pine Street Alternative +1 Widen SR 104 with U-turn Alternative -2 Provide U-turn route along SRI 04 Alternative Mr. Smith explained based on this comparison, staff recommends the Dayton Street alternative. He explained there were other partners in this endeavor including Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Washington State Ferry (WSF), and Lynnwood. He reviewed input provided by Lynnwood including that they anticipated opposition to proposed signing improvements (in Lynnwood) due to increased traffic in some areas. Lynnwood suggested signing be done in phases — sign the City of Edmonds during Phase 1 and if problems continue, work with the City of Lynnwood to possibly sign Lynnwood streets during Phase 2. Mr. Smith reviewed staff's recommendations: 1) improve I-5 signage (revised signing plan'to remove ferry route from Pine Street), 2) provide full gate closure during peak ferry periods, 3) use Dayton Street alternative to redirect traffic from 3rd to 9th to SR104 during peak ferry periods, 4) perform long-term monitoring for community impact, 5) consider accelerating improvements at 238th Street, and 6) continue with plans to construct a traffic signal at Pine Street/SR104 in conjunction with the Edmonds Crossing project. Staff recommended the Council approve the Pine Street Traffic Study recommendations and direct staff to finalize the report completing the study. Mr. Smith displayed an additional alternative that would direct traffic on 9th Avenue with Pine Street permanently closed, explaining this alternative was not reviewed previously as staff was directed to analyze alternatives to Walnut Street. He explained this placed traffic on an arterial street (+), the route was easily understood (+), controlled intersection (neutral), minimal grades (+), moderate congestion (neutral), not a designated truck route (neutral). He noted some residents of Woodway expressed concern with this alternative as it made it difficult for them to access Edmonds. Councilmember Orvis observed with this alternative, traffic would not be routed east on Dayton, Walnut or Pine. Mr. Smith agreed. Councilmember Petso inquired about the notice provided for this continued public hearing, inquiring whether residents on Dayton had been notified that Dayton was being considered as an alternative. Mr. Smith explained residents on Dayton were included in the notice. The notice was sent to every possible street considered as an alternative, a total of approximately 1700 additional residents. All alternatives were listed in the notice including the permanent closure of Pine Street. He explained the notice did not identify a recommended alternative because once an alternative is recommended, all residents on that street will attend the meeting and voice opposition and residents on other streets will not attend. Councilmember Petso asked whether residents on potential cut -through routes were notified such as 236"' and 15th. Mr. Smith advised residents on 238th were provided notices. He asked City Clerk Sandy Chase whether residents on 236th were notified. Mr. Smith acknowledged drivers often discovered creative ways to reach their destination. Because 15th required such an awkward movement, it was not considered as an alternative and notice was not mailed to residents on that street. However, the mailing radius was large enough that they may have been included. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 8 Councilmember Petso expressed concern with routing traffic on 76th due to school zones and the possibility of drivers speeding through school zones to reach the ferry. She recalled staff provided a memo regarding directing traffic through school zones, indicating drivers were directed through a school zone in the Meadowdale area. Mr. Smith described the 5 -lane 168th Street arterial near the Meadowdale High School (a school zone) which is heavily patrolled by enforcement officers. He noted most traffic traveled this route in the morning but not during peak ferry traffic periods. Councilmember Petso asked if drivers were directed to use the route through the school zone or if they used it as a method of avoiding Hwy. 99. Mr. Smith acknowledged drivers used the route on their own. He acknowledged there were three school zones on 76th; he would also be concerned about routing ferry traffic along that route during school hours and was also a concern to Lynnwood. He reiterated most peak ferry traffic periods were outside school hours. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised residents on 236th were not included in the notice. Councilmember Petso referred to the 9th Avenue Alternative and inquired about the route not being easily understood. She recalled Mr. Smith indicated drivers unfamiliar with the area could be stuck at Yd and Pine Street. She indicated drivers who were not regular ferry commuters would not wander to 3rd and Pine. Mr. Smith agreed most tourists would follow the ferry signs to reach SR104. Councilmember Wilson referred to the 9`h Avenue Alternative, noting the intersection of 9h and Caspers was uncontrolled and the alternative would require drivers to make a left turn movement. He questioned whether this was a safety concern or would result in this being a controlled intersection. Mr. Smith agreed this was a concern and likely would require a traffic signal. He explained this intersection was approaching LOS F at this time and likely would require a traffic signal regardless. Councilmember Wilson asked whether that would result in the controlled intersection aspect of this alternative being negative (rather than neutral). Mr. Smith was uncertain as there was a tremendous amount of traffic in this area traveling westerly in the morning toward employment centers and back in the evening. City Engineer Dave Gebert added that traffic count projections indicated this plan would increase the amount of vehicles on 9" by less than 1%. Mr. Smith displayed a map of traffic patterns, illustrating streets that would have a net reduction in traffic from the proposal and streets with higher traffic volumes (approximately 50 more vehicles on Hwy. 99 in the PM, ten more on 76h, ten on 9th Avenue and a small number on other streets). Councilmember Wilson noted the reduction in vehicles via the rerouting was primarily westbound. Mr. Smith agreed. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the additional vehicle trips per day with the Dayton alternative. Mr. Smith answered approximately 24 vehicle trips. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the sight distance at night at Dayton and 9th. Mr. Smith advised vegetation at the corner created sight distance problems and should be trimmed. Mr. Smith acknowledged none of the alternatives were a "magical solution" and all had negative aspects. Councilmember Plunkett requested Mr. Smith address Item 4 in staff's recommendation (perform long- term monitoring for community impact), specifically how this would be accomplished, how often, whether this monitoring was typical on a project, whether any alternative would be permanent, etc. Mr. Smith answered utilizing the gate would not make an alternative permanent. He anticipated any alternative would result in negative feedback. He recommended monitoring at least once a year during the first year, possibly quarterly to determine the effects during the spring and summer (the greatest peak Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 9 periods) as well as fall and winter. He said monitoring was not typical in a project, but shouUbe done in this situation as well as others. i Councilmember Plunkett observed the Council could accept staff's recommendation or another choice but regardless staff would monitor the alternative, report to the Council and adjustments could be made if necessary. Mr. Smith agreed. Councilmember Dawson expressed her appreciation for staff's evaluation of the Walnut Street alternative. She expressed concern that residents on Dayton were not informed of the staff recommendation, and anticipated residents on Dayton would attend a public hearing expressing opposition to the use of Dayton Street. She suggested the 9h Avenue Alternative (no signing on 3rd) include signing on 3rd directing drivers to 9"' which would make it very similar to the Direct on 9`" with Pine Street permanently closed alternative. Mr. Gebert explained the alternative that permanently closed Pine Street, would result in that route ceasing to be an option thereby reducing the number of drivers using this route. He explained signing the 9"' Avenue Alternative led to one of the other alternatives to direct traffic to 9`h. Councilmember Dawson inquired whether staff considered the alternative not to close Pine Street at all. Mr. Smith explained that alternative was analyzed during the public open house process and was an alternative at the October presentation. WSDOT approached the City regarding the closure of Pine Street due to a number of issues including road rage from drivers cutting into the ferry line at that location. Leaving Pine Street open at all times would require an enforcement officer (at a $200,000 _ $300,000 annual cost). Another option suggested by citizens was a signal at Pine Street and SR104. He agreed a signal would be appropriate in conjunction with the Edmonds Crossing project. Councilmember Dawson recalled this study came about as a result of the community's concerns with WSDOT's recommendation for full closure of Pine Street. She questioned whose decision it was to close Pine Street at SR104, WSDOT or the City? Mr. Smith answered it was both. In most situations where a state route runs through a community of a certain population size, it became more the responsibility of the city. However, this section of SR104 is limited access controlled (access to SR104 is limited to intersections). Councilmember Dawson asked who would bear the cost for enforcement and/or a traffic signal at Pine Street and SR104, WSDOT or Edmonds? Mr. Smith answered it would be negotiated. Councilmember Dawson noted her concern with installing a new traffic signal in conjunction with a new ferry terminal was that many of these problems would be alleviated by the new ferry terminal. The reason traffic backups occur was the use has outgrown the existing ferry terminal. She referred to WSDOT's study that sought short term, low cost remedies to traffic congestion on SR104. She expressed concern that adopting short term remedies would allow WSDOT to further delay funding of the Edmonds Crossing project. Mr. Smith acknowledged this as a valid point but said that WSDOT's study identified safety problems at several locations. Mr. Gebert emphasized the traffic signal was one of four alternatives staff considered. The signal solved a number of issues including pedestrian traffic crossing SR104, but it did not address the line -cutting issue. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 60 MINUTES. MOTION ;CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 10 Councilmember Orvis observed when the ferry terminal was moved, the intersection of Pine Street and Edmonds Way would change to a traffic signal. He asked whether there was any ferry access allowed via the Pine Street intersection to the new ferry terminal. Mr. Smith answered drivers on Pine Street could access SRI 04 in either direction but could not access the ferry terminal from that intersection. Mayor Haakenson indicated 32 emails/letters had been received from the following: Candy and Dick James, 741 Walnut Street, Edmonds — opposed to the Walnut Street option Mr. and Mrs. Frank Bigford, 720 Walnut Street, Edmonds — opposed to the Walnut Street option Heidi Rupp, 546 Walnut Street #202, Edmonds — opposed to the Walnut Street option Kathleen Junglov, 751 Walnut Street, Edmonds — opposed to the Walnut Street option Mr. and Mrs. Don Morgan, 714 Walnut Street, Edmonds — opposed to the Walnut Street option Lloyd and Virginia Repman, 724 Walnut Street, Edmonds — opposed to the Walnut Street option Joseph E. Dwyer, 529 Holly Drive, Edmonds — opposed to any closure of Pine Street Keith Epperson & Donna McClure, 717 Walnut Street — opposed to the Walnut Street option Steve and Leann Shelton, 715 Walnut Street, Edmonds — opposed to the Walnut Street option Mr. and Mrs. Forrester, 230 3'd Avenue S, Edmonds — suggesting closure of 3'd and Pine Street Dick Angus, corner of 9'h & Walnut Street, Edmonds — opposed to the Walnut Street option George Kumpel, 529 Walnut Street #202, Edmonds — in favor of the Dayton Street option William Moore, Homeowners Association President, 529 Walnut Condominium, Edmonds — in favor of the Dayton Street option Sid and Faye Locke, 110 Pine Street, Edmonds — requesting permanent closure of Pine Street Bryan Saario, 3'd & Walnut, Edmonds — opposed to the Walnut Street option Bill Evans, 615 Walnut Street, Edmonds — requesting more information Steve Shelton, 715 Walnut Street, Edmonds — opposed to the Walnut Street option Lloyd Martin, 721 Walnut Street, Edmonds — opposed to the Walnut Street option Sidney and Francine Cohen, 515 Walnut Street #2, Edmonds - opposed to the Walnut Street option Earl and Barbara Johnson, 515 Walnut Street #4, Edmonds - opposed to the Walnut Street option Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 11 i i Mr. and Mrs. Floyd Hofto, 515 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds — requesting permanent closure of Pine Street Dan Kessler — requesting Pine Street remain open Scott Laucks, 610 Dayton Street, Edmonds (voicemail) — opposed to the Dayton Street option William Charbonneau, 748 Walnut Street, Edmonds - opposed to the Walnut Street option j Patricia and John Lee, 402 3rd Avenue S #304, Edmonds — in favor of the permanent closure of Pine Street Jerry Dranpoen, 1118 Olympic Avenue, Edmonds — in favor of the permanent closure of Pine Street Anna Hendrickson, Park View Apartments #306, Edmonds — in favor of the permanent closure of Pine Street Jean and Robert Andre — in favor of the permanent closure of Pine Street Charlotte Larsgaard, 401 Pine Street #206, Edmonds — in favor of the permanent closure of Pine Street i Mary Beth Peters, 220 Pine Street, Richard and Barbara Albrecht, 310 Pine Street and Norma Woods, 220 Pine Street — in favor of the permanent closure of Pine Street Lillian Hanson, 210 Pine Street, Edmonds — in favor of the permanent closure of Pine Street Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the continued public hearing. Jason Cummings, 645 Walnut Street, Edmonds, expressed his opposition to the use of Walnut Street as an alternative to the traffic problems at SR104 and Pine Street. He pointed out Walnut Street between 60' and 7th lacked continuous sidewalks. He expressed concern with directing further traffic; to a street where residents walked with their families and pets, compromising the ability for pedestrians to use Edmonds Streets. He noted there were sidewalks on Dayton on the north side. Lloyd Repman, 741 Walnut Street, Edmonds, commended Councilmembers for recommending Walnut Street be evaluated further. He also commended Mr. Smith for his inclusive presentation. He recommended ferry traffic be routed around the City rather than through it. He acknowleldged there would never be a perfect solution to the problem. He explained density on Walnut Street has increased due to construction of condominiums. He pointed out the substantial grades between 7t'' and 9t'' and difficulties experienced by residents who must back out into Walnut Street where sight distances are prohibitive due to the grades. He noted Walnut Street was often closed due to icy conditions. Mr. Repman summarized the Walnut Street option would be a poor choice. Robert Junglov, 751 Walnut Street, Edmonds, explained a group of Walnut Street residents met to discuss the issue of directing ferry traffic up Walnut Street as an alternative. Safety was the main concern of the group and the reason they did not support it as an option. He submitted a petition with 106 signatures from residents on Walnut Street who opposed the use of Walnut Street as an option. He explained backing onto Walnut Street from a driveway was already difficult. He explained residents on the south side of Walnut, many who are seniors, must cross the street to get their mail which creates Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 12 safety concerns. He summarized the signage on Hwy. 99, on I-5 and on Edmonds Way approaching the ferry was poor. He preferred improving signage to direct drivers to SR104 and not provide signage west of 9`h with the hope that the experience would be bad enough that the next time ferry users would stay on SR104 (rather than using neighborhood streets). Barbara Lagozzino, 857 Walnut Street, Edmonds (northwest corner of 9th & Walnut), explained when she moved to this home 29 years ago, 9`h Avenue was not an arterial. She described the near impossibility exiting her driveway on Walnut. She was also concerned with children crossing Walnut Street safely. She noted the petition against using Walnut Street to route ferry traffic addressed several other areas of concern. She pointed out Walnut Street had a 5 -ton truck restriction. She noted 9th Avenue already seemed to have a high traffic volume particularly during peak periods and it was not uncommon to have holding traffic for 2 blocks at the 4 -way stop at 9th and Walnut. She noted traffic, including transit and school buses, stopping at the 4 -way stop created considerable congestion, pollution and noise. She urged the Council not to activate 9th Avenue and/or Walnut Street for ferry traffic ingress or egress. DeEtta Charron, 1130 5`h Avenue S, Edmonds, said neither Walnut Street nor Dayton Street were good ideas and 9th Avenue was already busy. She recommended installing a traffic signal at Pine Street and have those in the ferry line on SR104 and on Pine Street take turns entering the ferry line. Lucien Schmit, 545 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, explained after examining the various alternatives, he supported the closure of Pine Street at SR104. He said ferry access routes that were closed when drivers wanted to use them most (during peak periods) was confusing. He said incremental increases in traffic volumes on 9th Avenue to reach SR104 were inevitable because most of the alternatives to close Pine Street during peak periods lead traffic to 9`h Avenue anyway. He displayed a map illustrating the alternatives that directed traffic to 9th Avenue and to SR104. He recalled staff indicated there would be less than I% increase in traffic on 9th. He proposed staff try closing Pine Street as a low cost experiment using concrete barriers on Pine Street at SR104 and covering the seven signs that direct traffic to Pine Street from 9th and erecting temporary signs on 9`h Avenue between Puget Drive and Caspers Street directing traffic south on 9`h Avenue to SR104. Scott Campbell, 710 Walnut Street, Edmonds, cited numerous spinning/screeching tires on Walnut, cars hitting the curb, and semi -trucks sideways on the street. He explained Walnut Street was not a safe alternative due to the substantial grade, a problem that is exacerbated when there are wet conditions. He described difficulties backing out of their driveway, noting this would increase if there was additional traffic. He reiterated Walnut Street between 6`h and 7`h did not have sidewalks. He expressed concern with routing additional traffic through a residential area. He urged the Council to study this seriously, and make a choice that benefited residents of the City and not just ferry users. Mark Ganter, 845 Walnut Street, Edmonds, explained he has seen his neighborhood degrade due to increased traffic volumes in the 15 years he has lived there including increased congestion on 9th Avenue. He requested the Council consider permanently closing Pine Street and allow ferry access from SR104 only. He pointed out a single route was the least confusing and periodic access from Pine Street did not help the problem. He pointed out there were popular City parks on 3rd Avenue, on Walnut Street, on Pine Street, and on Dayton Street. He encouraged the City to continue studying this problem and to keep southbound ferry traffic out of the city. Madeleine Rath, 543 3 d Avenue S, Edmonds, was opposed to routing ferry traffic into downtown Edmonds and suggested all ferry traffic be routed to SR104 where drivers could access arterials to travel Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 13 north or south. She said this route would make even more sense when the Edmonds Crossing became a reality. Tom Mohoric, 425 7`h Avenue S, Edmonds, described cars sliding up and down Walnut Street during inclement weather — not ice or snow, just rain. He reiterated the lack of sidewalks between 60' and 7"' and the problems experienced by residents backing out of driveways made this alternative far too dangerous for consideration. Richard Carlsen, 744 Walnut Street, Edmonds, was opposed to the increase in traffic on Walnut Street. He noted the 5 -ton truck limit on Walnut Street was regularly ignored. He suggested the City focus on reducing the amount of traffic using Walnut rather than increasing it. He summarized it was a dangerous street and more should be done to control the existing traffic rather than leaving it as it is now. Chris Sheldon, 837 Dayton Street, Edmonds, said the notice did not imply that Dayton would be the recommended alternative; it was only one in a series of alternatives. He was opposed to routing traffic to Dayton Street or Walnut Street, noting it was not appropriate to direct traffic to a residential larea. He supported routing traffic to roadways that were geared toward increased traffic such as SR104. Alvin Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, preferred the use of SR104 for ferry traffic. He suggested the Washington State Patrol be invited to attend another public hearing to; describe enforcement, accidents, etc. Brad Hanson, 210 Pine Street, Edmonds, voiced his support for a fulltime closure of Pine Street at SR104. He said allowing continued use of Pine Street or other residential streets for peak ferry traffic was inappropriate and the proposed solutions were inadequate to correct the problem. The assumption that additional signage would reduce ferry traffic was flawed and a temporary gate would only exacerbate the current problem on Pine Street and long-term it was fiscally irresponsible due to the high cost. As the intersection at Pine Street and SR104 will continue to be unsafe, the proposal isnot in the best interest of residents. He distributed flyers about tonight's meeting to residents on Pine Street, 3rd Avenue, Walnut Street, and Dayton Street and many older residents indicated they were unable to attend tonight's meeting. The consistent message they expressed was the downtown streets already had too much traffic and many had horror stories to describe this. Pine Street, 3rd Avenue, Walnut Street, and Dayton Street are designated as residential streets and are not designed to carry large volumes of ferry traffic. He summarized all ferry traffic should be routed on the nearest arterial in downtown Edmonds — SR104 onto 9`" Avenue or 76"' to Hwy. 99 and/or 238d`. Although he understood concerns of residents and Councilmembers about burdening these routes with more traffic, these were arterials, where additional traffic could be accommodated. He cited the determination of ferry travelers to identify the quickest and shortest route regardless of the number of routing signs. Warren Peterson, 755 Walnut Street, Edmonds, concurred with Robert Junglov's statements regarding sight distances when backing out his driveway, noting he has nearly been hit several times. Ron Wambolt, 1107 Bella Coola Road, Woodway, said the problem was primarily caused by opportunists who were trying to improve their position in the ferry line by making a right turn from Pine Street to SR104. Rather than totally close Pine Street, he suggested right turns from Pine Street, to SR104 be prohibited, noting there was nothing to access between Pine and Dayton Streets. He said Dayton Street was not a better alternative than Walnut Street. Edmonds City PP Council Approved ved Minutes January 15, 2002 1 Page 14 Roger Oliver, 1031 2"d S, Edmonds, voiced his objection to closing Pine Street permanently for a use that occurred less than 5% of the time, pointing out this route was used by many to access the waterfront, City Park and other areas off Pine Street. He supported the use of Dayton as an alternative, noting once permanent signage was installed on I-5, Hwy. 99, 9`" and other streets, there would only be the occasional lost tourist to direct to Dayton. Becky Freimark, 126 Pine Street, Edmonds, thanked the City and Council for addressing the traffic situation on Pine Street. She preferred ferry traffic not be rerouted to Walnut or other residential streets due to the problems they encounter on Pine Street. She said a gate closure during peak hours would not fully address problems at Pine Street and SR104 but would only lead to more confused and lost ferry riders who turn around in their neighborhood and have to try to find the end of the ferry line. The gate closure would also not address the current safety problems and accidents that occur at Pine Street and SR104. She preferred closing Pine Street permanently as it would address safety issues that exist regardless of whether ferry traffic is present. She summarized the only permanent, sensible, cost effective, long-term solution was a full closure of Pine Street. Zach Freimark, 126 Pine Street, Edmonds, supported complete closure of Pine Street due to difficulties crossing the street to reach City Park. Alden Hopkins, 652 Dayton, Edmonds, reiterated residents on Dayton Street were not notified that Dayton was the recommended alternative route but Dayton was listed only as a possible alternative. He agreed with keeping ferry traffic out of the downtown and routing it along 9"' Street. He also supported closing Pine Street. Rob Morrison, 215 Beach Place, Edmonds, a member of a traffic committee who conducted a study in the early 1990's that concluded the best way to correct problems with ferry traffic was to keep ferry users out of the bowl area. One of the ways this could be accomplished would be to direct traffic exiting the ferry to SR104 only. The study acknowledged there would need to be coordination with WSDOT as there was no access from SR104 onto Hwy. 99 north or from south Hwy. 99 to SR104 other than 238d'. Gene Summy, 606 91" Avenue S, Edmonds, observed everyone who spoke did not want the ferry traffic on their streets; neither did he want the traffic directed to 9"' Avenue. He summarized the residents of Edmonds did not want ferry traffic on residential streets and preferred it be routed on SR104 and possibly experiment with closing Pine Street and erecting more signs on Hwy. 99 and 1-5. Carol Hahn, 1031 2"d S, Edmonds, did not want Pine Street closed. She explained this continued public hearing was the result of concerns expressed at the previous public hearing regarding the use of Walnut Street as an alternative. She said Dayton was the best alternative, noting ferry users who strayed into downtown must be directed to the ferry. She noted ferry traffic using the alternate route would taper off within a year as drivers learned the best way was to use the signed, arterial routes. She recommended the signage be installed immediately. Gwen Dasenwood, 900 5"' Avenue S, Edmonds, said she used Pine Street to access SR104 to reach the waterfront, the Senior Center, and ferry. She noted Pine Street was usually not very busy and only during rush hour was there any traffic. Then the gates were in place and Pine Street could not be used. She favored a partial closure of Pine Street, similar to what occurs now. She anticipated more accidents with cars using Walnut or Dayton than using Pine Street. She urged the City to consider keeping Pine Street at least partially open. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 15 Virginia Dever, 612 9h Avenue N, Edmonds, asked whether any consideration had been given to traffic backups that could be created by a signal at Caspers and 9`h Avenue. She noted the intersection had holding space for only three cars which would create backups that would impact Olympic View, 1961h , etc. She concluded remedying that situation could be very costly. Richard Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, explained the WSDOT representative indicated there was only a sign at Exit 177 north and southbound stating Edmonds -Kingston ferry route. He; suggested signage begin in the Lynnwood area at the 196"' exit routing ferry traffic to Exit 177 and at Hwy. 99 and 196d' directing ferry traffic south on Hwy. 99 to SR104. He expressed concern with creating an arterial from a residential street. He summarized additional signage further from the off ramp would assist in mitigating the traffic problem. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Smith was not opposed to the full closure of Pine Street but indicated the gated temporary closure was viewed as a compromise that better met the needs of a variety of stakeholders. He explained full closure of Pine Street was one of WSDOT's recommendations and was an alternative the City could make work if it became a viable option. Regarding truck traffic on residential streets, he explained SR104 was the only designated truck route into the bowl area. He suggested residents call the police or him to report trucks using neighborhood streets. Councilmember Petso suggested using the gate to close the Pine Street route completely for a period of time to educate the public that was no longer a viable route and then have a "stealth" reopening for the benefit of Edmonds residents without announcing the reopening and without changing the signs. Mr. Smith said the City did this a few years ago to eliminate cut -through traffic near Lake Ballinger and then installed chicanes, which reduce the roadway to one lane and gave the appearance that the roadway was still closed. Councilmember Petso asked how long it would take to temporarily re-educate ferry users that Pine Street was permanently closed and how would ferry users be convinced it was still closed once it was reopened. Mr. Smith answered the closure would have to extend through the summer months and into the fall, possibly a six month period. Councilmember Marin expressed his appreciation for staff's research of the alternatives, noting a significant part of staff's recommendation was signage directing ferry users away from the bowl area, particularly traffic that did not originate in Edmonds. He was supportive of staff's proposal but did not want Pine Street closed during the period there was no traffic. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DRAFT FINAL REPORT AND DIRECT STAFF TO FINALIZE THE REPORT COMPLETING THE STUDY. Council President Earling pointed out what everyone was struggling with was growth occurring in the region. He observed no one wanted the ferry traffic routed to their street but the problem must be addressed. He pointed out whatever alternative was selected, staff would monitor the situation to determine whether it was a workable solution. He referred to citizens' concerns that all the ferry traffic would use Walnut, Dayton or 9`h Avenue when in reality staff's predicts only 10 more cars on 9`h, 50 more cars on Hwy. 99, 10 more cars on 76`h, and 24 more cars on Dayton. He was discouraged that the discussion appeared to favor keeping the ferry riders out of the City when in fact many of those riders shopped in Edmonds. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 16 Councilmember Orvis indicated he was opposed to the proposed motion and favored a full closure of Pine Street. His impression was that residents wanted ferry traffic to go around downtown Edmonds. He pointed out the number of residents from Walnut who attended tonight's meeting, envisioning a similar response if more notices were provided to Dayton, Pine, Main, etc. He said the best way to keep traffic off all these streets was to close Pine Street as it would push southbound ferry traffic away from downtown and around the City. He acknowledged this would result in a 1% increase in traffic on 9th and would block access to the ferry for downtown residents. He noted this would be an issue in the future when the ferry was moved to the Edmonds Crossing. He agreed that having Pine Street open at some times and closed at other times confused drivers and eastbound ferry traffic would continue unless Pine Street were permanently closed. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out closing Pine Street would not necessarily result in ferry traffic using SR104 as cars would continue to filter through downtown. He said this would occur until ferry users learned the City was serious about keeping ferry users out of neighborhoods and on the arterials where they belonged. He indicated he would not support the motion and suggested the use of jersey barriers in the beginning and chicanes in the near future that would allow local access but create enough burden for ferry users traveling east to west. He pointed out the importance of monitoring to determine the success/failure of this alternative. Councilmember Petso indicated she would not support the motion to avoid repeating the "Walnut mistake" by creating the "Dayton mistake" — not advising residents on Dayton that was the designated ferry route. She was uncertain whether it was necessary to reroute the occasional lost tourist to the ferry route at the expense of residents on Dayton or Walnut. She was not comfortable proceeding with the Dayton alternative without informing those residents that Dayton was the preferred option. Councilmember Petso preferred a temporary closure of Pine Street and reopening it on a stealth basis in the future accompanied by the proposed sign changes, and monitoring. Councilmember Dawson did not support the proposed motion, explaining the reason ferry traffic used Pine Street was to cut into the ferry line and she was uncertain whether closure of Pine Street would push ferry traffic to using another street. She said the answer may be additional enforcement to prevent cutting in the ferry line, a cost that should be borne by WSDOT. She suggested the City pursue that option before proceeding with other options. She expressed concern that residents on Dayton were not notified that Dayton was the preferred alternative. She was also concerned that ferry traffic on Dayton would pass the Frances Anderson Center where a great deal of activity occurs. Councilmember Wilson indicated his support for the motion, acknowledging the Dayton alternative was not perfect. He commended staff for developing the numerous solutions, pointing out there was no perfect solution to address traffic not generated by residents of the City. He explained the recommended action would direct traffic to SR104 but ferry users would always try to cut into line. He disagreed that providing no signage was a benefit to the community because it would result in lost vehicles driving residential streets to find the ferry line. He preferred signing an alternative for those drivers who are in downtown on a route that was as convenient as possible and had the least impact. He summarized Dayton was the only street that provided a reasonable alternative. MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN AND WILSON IN FAVOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, PETSO, ORVIS AND DAWSON OPPOSED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 17 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO ADOPT THE 9T" AVENUE ALTERNATIVE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO SEND THIS ISSUE TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Historical 7. REPORT FROM THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Preservation Advisory Committee Historical Advisory Committee members present: Darrell Marmion, Steve Waite, Roger Hertrich, Chuck Report LaWarne and Councilmember Plunkett. Councilmember Plunkett explained a year ago the Council adopted an ordinance which established the Historical Preservation Advisory Committee. The purpose of this agenda item was to allow the Committee to present its final report. He expressed his appreciation for the assistance provided by Planning Manager Rob Chave, Assistant Planner Star Campbell, and Assistant Planner Chanda Earhart and for the efforts of City Attorney Scott Snyder. Councilmember Plunkett introduced the members of he Historical Advisory Committee and Megan Kelly, State Historic Preservation Office, who was present to answer any questions. Councilmember Plunkett explained the Committee was charged with four items, 1) inventory existing historic structures; 2) review and comment on current City policies in relation to historic preservation; 3) review and comment on what policies, programs, regulations, codes and incentives could be employed to encourage historic preservation; and 4) evaluate the need for a permanent Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. Darrell Marmion reviewed the preliminary survey of historic structures, explaining this was a survey rather than an inventory. He explained the survey used the criteria for defining a historic structure — 50 years or older. He explained the data used was from the Snohomish County Assessor's Office and may not be 100% accurate; an inventory would be a much more thorough method. He displayed a chart that indicated over 1,000 structures remained that were built in 1950 or prior, the oldest built in 1878. He displayed a chart illustrating that few pre -1900 structures remained, but large numbers of structures built from 1900-1930 remained. Mr. Marmion displayed several photographs of historic buildings in Edmonds. He displayed a chart showing the number of historic buildings lost in recent years and displayed pictures of structures at risk. He displayed photographs of historic buildings that have been converted to business use while preserving the original structure. He concluded there was a sense of urgency; the longer the City waited to adopt incentives, the more properties would be lost. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the amendments to Title 10, establishing an Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. Steve Waite explained the purpose of establishing an Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission, as outlined in Title 10, was to safeguard the heritage of the City, foster civic identity, stabilize or improve historic assets, assist and provide incentives to property owners, facilitate conflict resolution between preservation and alternative land uses, and conservation through adaptive reuse. Mr. Waite explained an interview process was established to select members from the community. Of the seven members, two shall be professionals with experience in assessing and protecting historical Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 18 resources, three shall be Edmonds citizens with a demonstrated interest in historic preservation, and one member shall be filled as recommended by the Snohomish County Historical Society. An additional position shall be filled by an Edmonds City Councilmember who will be a ex -officio member. Mr. Waite briefly described the duties and responsibilities of the Commission which include conducting and maintaining an inventory of historic resources, review new nominations to the Historic Register, review proposals for changes to historic properties, promote awareness of historic resources, advise the Mayor and City Council on historical matters, and promote community awareness of available benefits. Councilmember Plunkett advised the Council would be asked to adopt the amendments to Title 10, creating a permanent Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. Council President Earling preferred to hold a publichearing prior to taking Council action. Councilmember Plunkett explained the primary change was in Title 20, which would require review by the Planning Board and associated public hearing. Title 20 would then be forwarded to the Council for a public hearing along with the Planning Board recommendations. He said Title 10 would establish the Historic Preservation Commission. Council President Earling preferred to schedule a public hearing regarding Title 10 prior to the Council taking action. Councilmember Petso pointed out the ordinance amending Title 10 referred to a public hearing. Planning Manager Rob Chave pointed out the ordinance could refer to a Council meeting or a meeting of the Historical Preservation Advisory Committee. Megan Kelly, State Historic Preservation Office, noted there was a lot of interest in Edmonds in beginning the process of protecting local resources. She supported the amendment to Title 10, establishing the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. Councilmember Wilson asked how Title 10 was drafted. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered it was part of a model provided by the State and was a fairly standard structure that was tailored by the Committee to fit the local community. He explained most of the focus was on the membership of the Commission, taking into account the Edmonds Historical Society, and broadening the categories of expertise that were acceptable. The duties and powers section followed the State program. Councilmember Plunkett explained Title 20 required review by the Planning Board. He explained Title 20 created a partnership with the State that will result in Edmonds being recognized as a Certified Local Government (CLG) status by the State which enables the City to seek grants, obtain training and assistance, access special tax incentives, and officially register participating properties. He summarized the net result of enactment of Title 20 amendments would encourage property owners who wished to participate on a historical register to refurbish and/or maintain the historical character of their property which will result to a benefit to property owners as well as the character and charm of Edmonds. Chuck LaWarne described the growth of Edmonds that had occurred since George Brackett began to log the timber. He explained much of the flavor of Edmonds' past remained and there were structures that tied together the various facets of the City's growth although much has been lost. He referred to historic buildings that have been preserved in the City. He explained the efforts of the Snohomish County Historic Society and the few regulations scattered among numerous codes and ordinances could not alone fulfill the potential of recognizing the historic potential of Edmonds. The Historic Preservation Advisory Committee asks that this be rectified by adopting the two ordinances which will provide a logical and consistent manner of addressing historic buildings and sites and create a permanent Historic Preservation Commission. He emphasized there was nothing extreme in the proposed ordinances; 26 cities and counties in Washington have CLG and 10-15 more have interlocal agreements with these groups. More Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 19 than 55 Washington communities currently have Historic Preservation ordinances. He urged the Council to adopt the proposed ordinances. Roger Hertrich commented it had been his pleasure to participate on the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee over the past year. He commended the Committee for their work in developing the amendments to Title 10 and Title 20. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO REFER AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3392, AMENDING TITLE 10. Council President Earling reiterated his preference to hold a public hearing prior to establishing the Historic Preservation Commission to inform the community about the formation of a new Commission. Councilmember Marin supported the formation of the Commission but agreed with the process of holding a public hearing prior to forming the Commission. Councilmember Dawson agreed, particularly since the ordinance referred to a public hearing COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR 30 DAYS AND ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE SOONEST AVAILABLE DATE. Councilmember Wilson requested the public hearing include the cost impact on the City's budget of establishing a new commission. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Planning John Dewhirst, 22311 98th Avenue W, Edmonds, (Chair of the Planning Board), explained' interviews Board were held last week for vacancies on the Planning Board during Executive Session. The Board learned Vacancies/ the next da that was not permitted and that interviews must be conducted in public. He apologized that Interviews Y this had occurred, indicating the Planning Board planned to re -advertise the positions with a deadline of February 1, 2002. Current applicants will be notified and will not be required to submit new applications. Interviews will be held at the first meeting in February and he planned to excuse himself from the interviews. Campaign Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, referred to a 1987 Seattle Times article regarding Spending the Council campaign that he requested be distributed to the Council. He requested the City review the Limit City Council campaign process Including possibly instituting a campaign spending limit. PlanniRay Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to an email he sent to the City regarding the Board ng actions of the Planning Board. He commented this was not just an oversight but was an, egregious Vacancies/ situation, and noted serious irregularities occurred that would not be corrected only by repeating the Interviews process. Seven people should have been interviewed for the positions but only four were interviewed. He suggested a subcommittee of the City Council make the initial selection from all applicants Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 20 ransport Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, referred to the article regarding the City possibly looking /A�s at transportation fees for BLS/ALS transport and the City's challenge for residents to identify revenue rice sources. Mr. Demeroutis suggested adding a $1 surcharge to the Taste of Edmonds admission and establishing a B&O tax. He indicated his plans to draft an initiative regarding transport fees. Planning Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, explained he asked to observe the Planning Board Board interviews and was refused. He later informed the Planning Board they violated the Open Public Vacancies/ Interviews Meetings Act. He suggested the applicant interviews not be conducted by the same body, noting the Planning Board had already made their selection from the applicants interviewed. He noted there were only three Planning Board members remaining (excluding the Chair), and that this was a small number to interview applicants. He recalled in the past, the Council interviewed applicants and suggested the interviews again be conducted by the City Council, at least this one time. Councilmember Petso agreed with the comments made by citizens that the interview process to fill the Planning Board vacancies should begin again because the Planning Board had already made its decision. She questioned whether three Planning Board members were sufficient to make a decision regarding the selection of new members. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO TAKE THE APPLICATION PROCESS OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND INTO THE HANDS OF THE COUNCIL OR A SUBCOMMITTEE. At Councilmember Wilson's request, City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was a mayoral appointment with Council confirmation. The Planning Board's input was for the Mayor's benefit and the interviews were an information process not required by ordinance. Rob Chave, Planning Manager, clarified that there are currently six members on the Planning Board. Without Mr. Dewhirst's participation, there would be five Planning Board members available to participate in the interviews. Councilmember Marin expressed his appreciation to Mr. Dewhirst for his apology to the Council. Mayor Haakenson recalled this situation had not arisen for several years. He noted the process established 5-6 years ago was for the Planning Board to interview potential candidates and forward a recommendation to the Mayor. The Mayor then interviewed the candidates and made his recommendations to the Council. The Council met with the applicants before a meeting and confirmed their appointment. Councilmember Plunkett suggested a subcommittee of two Councilmembers or a recommendation from the Mayor regarding an interim process for these appointments. He suggested Mr. Martin bring any suggestions for long-term revisions regarding appointments to the Community Services Committee. Councilmember Dawson expressed concern with what occurred, noting that although Mr. Dewhirst apologized, the Planning Board violated State law due to the manner in which the interviews were conducted. She said it would not appear fair to the public if the Planning Board returned with another recommendation. She pointed out how important the Planning Board was to the community and the amount of input they had into important matters. She preferred the Council take a more active role in the process in this instance. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 21 Council President Earling suggested Mayor Haakenson conduct the interviews of all candidates and make a recommendation to Council. Mayor Haakenson clarified although he was willing to: interview candidates in this instance, the Council would need to develop a policy for conducting future interviews. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION. Councilmember Dawson inquired whether Mayor Haakenson preferred to have some assistance from Council. Mayor Haakenson indicated he did not have a preference, whatever the Council chose to do was acceptable to him. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON DID NOT WITHDRAW HER SECOND (MAKING THE MOTION HER OWN). COUNCILMEMBER PETSO SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND DAWSON IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, WILSON, AND MARIN OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, ITO HAVE THE MAYOR INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR THE PLANNING BOARD. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, WILSON, AND MARIN IN FAVOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND DAWSON OPPOSED. 9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JANUARY 8, 2002 Due to the late hour, this item was rescheduled for the January 22 Council meeting. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Say No to Mayor Haakenson reported staff and the citizens' committee "Say No to Brightwater" have worked hard rightWater to create a bill that was presented to the House and Senate to change the Revised Code of Washington, House and specifically in the area of imminent domain, and to prevent what happened to Edmonds with regard to Senate Bill Brightwater from happening to other communities. The bill would also ensure a community had the ability in the future to vote for any elected officials who had the decision-making ability on land uses unlike Edmonds citizens currently have with King County. He said the bill number would be communicated to residents who would be encouraged to contact their legislators. Say No to Mayor Haakenson advised the "Say No to Brightwater" committee was holding a Town Meeting on rightwater 3' Y g g g Town Thursday, January 24 at 7:00 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room. The committee urged citizens to attend to Meeting learn what they could do to stop King County from bringing their treatment plant to Edmonds. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS There were no Council reports. Executive 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION Session At 11:15 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to an Executive Session regarding a areal estate matter for approximately 20 minutes. No action would be taken and the Council would adjourn immediately following the Executive Session. At�� ,ARY�KAKENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK i Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 22 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North 6:00 - 10:00 p.m. JANUARY 15, 2002 Special Joint Meeting with Edmonds Public_ Facilities District Board 6:00 P.M. - Call to Order 1. (20 nein.) Joint Meeting with the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board 2. (40 nein.) Executive Session regarding a real estate matter. The Executive Session will be a joint meeting of the City Council and the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board. Regular City Council Meeting 7:00 P.M. - Call to Order Flag Salute 3. Approval of Agenda 4. X' Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 2, 2002 (C) Approval of claim checks #52790 through #52860 for the week of December 31, 2001, in the amount of $31,942.02. Approval of claim checks #52861 through #52948 for the week of January 7, 2002, in the amount of $673,348.74. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #3946 through #4033 for the period December 16 through December 31, 2001, in the amount of $667,102.91. (D) Authorization for Mayor to sign Intergovernmental Agreement accepting 2001- 2003 Growth Management Act Grant ($36,750) (E) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA January 15, 2002 Page 2 of 2 (F) Report on final construction costs for the Olympic View Drive retaining wall and Council acceptance of project 5. (10 Min.) Consideration of Resolution of Support of Edmonds School District No. 15 Propositions on the February 5, 2002 Ballot*: • Proposition No. 1 - Replacement School Programs and Operations Levy • Proposition No. 2 - General Obligation Construction Bonds • Proposition No. 3 - Capital Levy for Instructional Technology *Public comment will be received. 6. (60 Min.) Continued Public Hearing on Edmonds Crossing - Pine Street Ferry Traffic Study 7. (30 Min.) Report from the Historical Preservation Advisory Committee 8. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 9. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of January 8, 2002 10. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 11. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT&T Cable, Channel 21.