01/28/1992 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT
TO FEBRUARY 4 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 28,1992
The meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Laura M. Hall at the Library
Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT
Laura M. Hall, Mayor
Jeff Palmer, Council President
Dave Earling, Councilmember
Michael W. Hall, Councilmember
Bill Kasper, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember
CONSENT AGENDA
ABSENT STAFF
Steve Dwyer, Art Housler, Admin. Serv. Dir.
Councilmember Buzz Buzalsky, Fire Chief
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Peter Hahn, Comm. Serv. Dir.
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supr.
Greg Ramsland, Equip. Rental Supr.
Dick Mumma, Building Official
Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Rhonda March, City Clerk
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Barb Mehlert, Recorder
Items (B), (C), (E), (I), (L) (N) were pulled from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE
THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(D) AUTHORIZATION TO BID GENERAL BANKING SERVICES
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN DETOUR AGREEMENT WITH WSDOT TO OVERLAY
SR 104 FROM PARADISE LANE TO FERRY TERMINAL
i
i (G) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM ARNOLD JANGORD FOR DEDICATION OF
„�✓ RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 7731- 234TH ST. S.W.
�(H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE A CHEMICAL CONTAINMENT UNIT FOR
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE
J) APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 2867 TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
SEPR SECTION 20.105.010(A) (4) TO CLARIFY SEPA APPEAL PROCEDURES AND PROVIDING FOR AN
�! EFFECTIVE DATE
�(K) APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 737 COMMENDING JACK M. WILSON, RETIRING
}� COUNCILMEMBER
(M) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO SELL A MOBILE HOME FROM THE 212THi72ND AVE.
„ ;Q� PUBLIC WORKS SITE (FORMERLY THE DERN PROPERTY) AND SET MINIMUM BIDS
�WCONSULTANT
PPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 AND JANUARY 21 1992 AND WATERFRONT STUDY
INTERVIEW OF JANUARY 21 1992 (Item (B) on the Consent Agenda.)
Council President Palmer said he requested an amendment to the Council Minutes of January 14 and noted there is a
memorandum in the Council Packet which lists those amendments. Also, Council President Palmer said there
should be a correction to the January 21, 1992 Minutes to reflect that former Councilmember Jack Wilson was not
present at that meeting. Council President Palmer noted the minutes currently reflect that he was in attendance.
With those corrections noted, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 14,1992 AND
JANUARY 21, 1992, AND ALSO TO APPROVE THE WATERFRONT STUDY CONSULTANT INTERVIEW
MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 1992. MOTION CARRIED.
REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JANUARY 21, 1992 FOR SALE OF SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES AND AWARD
TO HIGH BIDDERS. (Item (C) on the Consent Agenda)
Councilmember Nordquist inquired if the subject vehicles were declared surplus by the Council, and Greg Ramsland,
Equipment Rental Supervisor replied the Council declared these as surplus in November of 1991.
f+,ytY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER, TO
YV APPROVE ITEM (C) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR WSDOT TO OVERLAY SR
104 FROM PARADISE LANE TO FERRY TERMINAL. (Item E) on Consent Agenda)
�1a�C Councilmember Nordquist asked City Engineer Bob Alberts if the holding lane was going to be overlayed as well,
and Mr. Alberts replied negatively. Councilmember Nordquist asked if the curb was going to be left in that lane, and
Mr. Alberts replied affirmatively. Councilmember Nordquist commented it would have been nice to have that paved
at the same time. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL,
TO APPROVE ITEM (E) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA
REPORT ON WRITTEN QUOTATIONS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ALVIN GRIFFIN JANITORIAL
SERVICE COMPANY FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
3 FOR PERIOD OF ONE YEAR ($6,060). (Item (I) on the Consent Agenda.)
Council President Palmer asked which fund the $14,640, listed on the Agenda Memo emanates from. City Engineer
Bob Alberts replied Treatment Plant Operation Maintenance, Fund 411. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE ITEM (I) ON THE CONSENT
AGENDA.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 738 REQUESTING BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD TO REVIEW THE
ANNEXATION PROPOSAL BY LYNNWOOD REGARDING THE NORMA BEACH/PICNIC POINT AREA.
Q ,(Item (L) on the Consent Agenda).
p Council President Palmer mentioned to the Council that there are three items that need to be considered relating to
1 this item; 1) mitigated determination of non -significance that the City has issued for the perpetual annexation of the
area, and the appeal thereof by the City of Lynnwood; 2) The invitation from the City of Lynnwood to renegotiate
the potential annexation, and; 3) What position will the Council take when it is time for the Boundary Review Board
to hold the hearing.
Mayor Hall interjected that Staff will begin verifying the property tax revenue information so the Mayor and Staff
will have concrete information. Mayor Hall said that until such a time the Council does take a stand, Staff will not be
performing all of the in-depth analyses. Mayor Hall said she is going to recommend the City withdrawal of the
environmental determination at this point as Mayor Hall feels it can be invoked at a later time if the City so desires.
Mayor Hall feels withdrawal at this time would be a good gesture on the part of the City.
Mayor Hall asked City Attorney Scott Snyder if he had any further information. Mr. Snyder replied the record
should be clear that at the present time, while the City is requesting review by the Boundary Review Board, there are
a number of decisions as outlined by the Mayor and Council President Palmer that need to be made, and Mr. Snyder
is assuming those decisions will be made when Staff is finished reviewing and verifying revenue information. Mr.
Snyder said the concern is that Lynnwood and the citizens understand what the City's position is, which is basically
no position at this time.
Council President Palmer said it would behoove the City to formulate the position so it could be provided to the
Mayor prior to negotiations with Lynnwood taking place.
Councilmember Nordquist said on January 14, Mayor Hall indicated she would be meeting with Mayor Hrdlicka, and
inquired on the outcome. Mayor Hall said in light of the City adopting a Resolution to request a public hearing to
the Boundary Review Board, that meeting did not take place. Mayor Hall said she would let the Council know why
that meeting did not take place at the upcoming Council Retreat.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 January 28,1992
Councilmember Nordquist agreed with Council President Palmer in that the City needs to formulate a position in
the near future, and asked Council President Palmer to schedule that on the earliest possible agenda.
Councilmember Kasper said he previously requested information be gathered from the City of Lynnwood with
regards to their proposal, and Councilmember Kasper noted he hasn't received any information to date.
Council President Palmer noted annexations in general will be discussed at the Council Retreat and any information
which is received on this particular potential annexation will be provided to the Council at that time.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO
APPROVE ITEM (L) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. -
AUTHORIZATION TO SELL 1963 SURPLUS FIRE ENGINE. (Item N) on the Consent A elf).
Councilmember Kasper expressed his concern that there is no minimum bid listed. Councilmember Kasper asked
Fire Chief Buzz Buzalsky what his procedure for selling the fire engine. Chief Buzalsky said it would be advertised
under the legal section to the highest bidder. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE ITEM (N) WITH THE MINIMUM BID BEING SET AT
$3500 AS WELL AS ADVERTISING THE FIRE TRUCK IN THE ANTIQUE SECTION AS WELL AS THE
LEGAL SECTION. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hall asked Council President Palmer if he would like the Executive Session to be delayed, and Council
President Palmer replied affirmatively, as Councilmember Dwyer had not yet arrived. Councilmember Palmer
suggested placing the Executive Session after Item 5, which is the presentation by Bruce Agnew, Chief of Staff of
Congressman Miller.
Mayor Hall recognized former Councilmember Roger Hertrich in the audience.
RECOGNITION OF RETIRING COUNCILMEMBER JACK M. WILSON
Council President Palmer read Resolution 737 into the record: Whereas Jack Wilson was appointed to the Edmonds
City Council on December 20, 1983; Whereas, Councilmember Wilson served as Councilmember for the City of
Edmonds from January 1, 1984 through January 20, 1992; Whereas, his tenure as Councilmember, Jack Wilson
displayed an energetic and loyal devotion in serving his constituents; and Whereas Councilmember Wilson admirably
served as Councilmember and Council President during his tenure as highlighted by his encouragement of the fine
arts; his efforts in fostering the Sister City concept; his dedication to the Edmonds Visitors Bureau to make sure the
City of Edmonds remained the Gem of the Puget Sound, and last but not least his leadership in protecting and
enhancing the fiscal integrity of the City of Edmonds, now, therefore, the Edmonds City Council hereby resolves that
Councilmember Wilson be commended for his efforts and his many contributions to the progress of City government
in Edmonds during his terms as Councilmember, and resolves further, that the City Council expresses its gratitute to
Jack for his tireless contributions and his humorous spirit and wishes Jack the very best in his retirement.
Council President Palmer said the Resolution, along with a plaque and other items will be forwarded to Jack Wilson.
Mayor Hall commented on the fine work displayed by Jack Wilson, along with his high level of enthusiasm during his
terms as Councilmember and Council President.
PRESENTATION BY REID-MIDDLETON AND ASSOCIATES ON FERRY STUDY DRAFT REPORT.
Before the presentation began, Councilmember Nordquist inquired if a public hearing on this matter would take
place at any time in the future, and Mayor Hall replied affirmatively.
Paul Maston, Director of Transportation and Engineering for Reid -Middleton, noted he was also the project
manager for the Edmonds Ferry Terminal Feasability Analysis. Mr. Maston proceeded to give the Council an
outline on the study process and what the findings were.
Mr. Maston referenced the Draft Report which was furnished the Council in recent days. Mr. Maston said in
approximately, 1988 or 1989, discussions were held between the City of Edmonds and the Washington State
Department of Transportation Marine Division concerning the expansion/enhancement/improvement of the
facilities at the Edmonds Ferry Terminal. Mr. Maston said at that time, the City and State had some diametrically
opposed concerns about the ferry terminal. Mr. Maston said in late 1990, it was agreed that the State would fund a
study which would evaluate three primary alternatives: 1) Do nothing with the existing facility: 2) Expand and
enhance the existing facility: and 3) Examine the feasibility of relocating the ferry terminal to Point Edwards.
Mr. Maston said Reid -Middleton was selected by the City approximately November of 1990 to perform the study.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 January 28, 1992
Mr. Maston proceeded to show an enlarged aerial photograph of the downtown Edmonds area, which included the
Point Edwards area.
Mr. Maston said there were a number of major tasks that were encompassed with the scope of the work. Mr. Maston
said the first task was to collect a variety of background information about the existing conditions in the waterfront
area and also information about historic trends in terms of ferry traffic. Mr. Maston said another element of the
project was to collect background environmental data that focused largely on the marine environment, as this is a
major issue with regards to this project, as well as collecting background information on upland related
environmental issues, such as noise, air quality and traffic impacts on the community.
Mr. Maston said one of the most significant issues was to look at navigational feasibility. Mr. Maston explained that
Point Edwards has a much more exposed location in Puget Sound than does the existing Ferry Terminal. Mr.
Maston said there have been many discussions over the years as to the feasibility of placing a ferry dock at Point
Edwards and the quality of service; would the ferries be able to operate at the same level at Point Edwards as they do
at the present site. Mr. Maston said Reid -Middleton conducted a complex and rigorous navigation analysis on these
issues.
Mr. Maston proceeded to explain to the Council how the process was structured. Mr. Maston said Reid -Middleton
was the prime consultant, however, there were other firms who were involved in the process. In addition to these
firms, Mr. Maston said a Policy Committee was established which included two members of the Edmonds City
Council, and two representatives from the WSDOT. Mr. Maston mentioned the two Councilmembers who served on
the committee were Councilmember Kasper and former Councilmember Hertrich, who served as an alternate. Mr.
Maston also mentioned Peter Hahn, Community Services Director, served as the Project Manager for the City, and
was Reid-Middleton's prime contact. Mr. Maston said there was also a Technical Advisory Committee that included
both Staff from the Ferry System, City of Edmonds, as well as representatives from Community Transit.
Mr. Maston said numerous criteria was looked at, and Reid -Middleton worked with the Policy Committee and
developed a large range of alternatives. Mr. Maston said one of the items that was a big concern was separating the
ferry traffic from the railroad. Mr. Maston stated Reid -Middleton began looking at the physical limitations of going
over and under the railroad, and Mr. Maston said the geometry at the foot of Main Street would make it virtually
impossible to go under the railroad tracks because of the grades that would be required. Mr. Maston said it would be
feasible to build something over the railroad tracks, and compared it to the Alaska Way Viaduct in downtown
Seattle. Mr. Maston said the Policy Committee concluded that no matter where it was put, they were not interested
in another "Alaska Way Viaduct", so Reid -Middleton stopped looking at a potential overpass in the downtown area.
Mr. Maston said an overpass at the Union Oil site, however, appears to be extremely feasible because of the terrain
on the hill side where the oil tanks are. Mr. Maston said the Policy Committee then directed Reid -Middleton to
study further, essentially four alternatives: 1) Do nothing; 2) Maintain at grade crossing, but to do some
improvements at the existing facility that would allow for storing of an entire boat load of vehicles on the far side of
the railroad tracks, (Mr. Maston said this was at the insistence of the Marine Division); 3) Build a depressed roadway
under the rail road tracks which would essentially be going right down through the existing Safeway site and
constructing a new site approximately offshore from the Senior Center; and 4) Construct a new facility at Point
Edwards.
Mr. Maston said in terms of findings and conclusions, Mr. Maston said findings were made in a number of areas with
respect to environmental issues and with respect to physical feasability on each option that was studied. Mr. Maston
said essentially, Reid -Middleton found there were no major differences in offshore environmental impacts between
the various sites. Mr. Maston said any new construction of any new site would require a complex permitting process.
Mr. Maston said eel grass, which is an inter -tidal plant, exists at all of the sites, however, less exists at Point Edwards.
Mr. Maston said eel grass is something that is extremely important to the salt water eco-system, so when new
construction takes place, you have to replace it or mitigate for the loss. With regards to navigation feasibility, Reid -
Middleton said it would be feasible, with some type of breakwater or wave attenuation, to successfully provide the
same level of ferry service at Point Edwards as does exist at the current site. Mr. Maston said the construction of the
breakwater would be a costly project, which would not be required at the other proposed locations.
Mr. Maston referred to the status of the Union Oil Property. Mr. Maston said UnoCal has shut down operations at
present, and is in the process of cleaning up the site due to contamination over the years from oil products. Mr.
Maston stated it would be very difficult for UnoCal to sell the site outright until the site is cleaned up. Mr. Maston
stated UnoCal had indicated to the Policy Committee that they are looking for tenants who wish to operate parts of
that facility, and further they would probably be willing to lease all or part of the facility, in particular, leasing air
rights through the facility for a transportation facility. Mr. Maston said it. appears the contamination on the site is
not such that it would completely preclude from constructing something on the site, however, the State is not about
to buy the property until the site is cleaned up, however, it may feasible to lease the property.
Mr. Maston said in. terms of construction costs for the three build alternatives, the range is from $16 million dollars
for an interim improvement to the present site which pertains to grade crossing to approximately $50 to $55 million
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 January 28, 1992
dollars in construction and project costs to perform the depressed roadway at the Senior Center site, and up to
approximately $70 million dollars to construct a new site at Point Edwards. Mr. Maston said the numbers are high,
however it is a regional facility that would have an expected 50 to 100 year useful life. Mr. Maston said property
acquisition costs could range from a little over $1 million dollars at the Senior Center site up to as much as $16
million dollars at Point Edwards. Mr. Maston said for clarification purposes, the $16 million dollars for Point
Edwards represents the purchase of the total UnoCal site, however, the City doesn't necessarily need the entire site
to build a ferry terminal. Mr. Maston also said if the City was to lease the entire portion or partial portion of the
UnoCal site, that would reduce the costs substantially.
Mr. Maston said Reid -Middleton and the Policy Committee went through the process of developing an extensive list
of evaluation criteria which are contained in the draft report. Mr. Maston said the Policy Committee asked Reid -
Middleton to go through and score the criteria, and Mr. Maston noted that 3/4 of those were subjective criteria
relating to perception, and Mr. Maston said the remaining 1/4 were more objective and related to cost and the
amount of land required, etc.
Mr. Maston stated at the conclusion of this process, if a score was to be placed on the various alternatives, Point
Edwards would be the best choice for constructing a new ferry facility. Mr. Maston said if a new ferry facility was
constructed at Point Edwards, it would have to be done in close collaboration and coordination with a significant
number of downtown planning, as this would call for a major redevelopment on the waterfront area.
Mr. Maston said Reid-Middleton's recommendation is there needs to be some short-term repairs to the existing ferry
dock which are safety related. Mr. Maston further stated it is probably going to be five or ten years to implement
building of a new ferry site, and it was Mr. Maston's opinion that if the City agrees with the Ferry System to allow
short-term improvements at the current site, the City would need to have a strong linkage and agreement that states
if improvements are made at the existing dock, WSDOT would still be willing to relocate the ferry terminal some
time in the future, as there is a very clear concern that if the City allows enough improvements to the downtown
Ferry Terminal, there would be no reason to move it.
Mr. Maston said in order to put the closure on this subject, the City needs to formulate a policy statement that can be
referenced. Mr. Maston said at this time, he has not yet seen a policy statement from the ferry system.
Mr. Maston referenced Councilmember Nordquist's statement regarding a public hearing on this matter. Mr.
Maston said summary minutes would be prepared from that hearing so that the citizen comments would be
incorporated into the final report. Mr. Maston also stated both the Technical Advisory Committee Meetings and
Policy Committee meetings have been open to the public, and also mentioned a briefing was held for the Edmonds
Chamber of Commerce in late 1991 which drew approximately 40 to 50 members of the public.
Mayor Hall thanked Mr. Maston for his presentation.
Councilmember Earling complimented Mr. Maston on his presentation and for the thoroughness of his information.
Councilmember Earling said a number of times throughout the report, Mr. Maston eluded to the central business
community and how there exists a potential for unification to move the ferry terminal to Point Edwards.
Councilmember Earling said one of his concerns is that if the site is moved, the business community should be
studied in such a way that the City can predict with some accuracy, what kind of economic impact it would have on
the business community. Councilmember Earling asked Mr. Maston if he could include an outline on options the
City would have in discovering what kind of economic impact would occur. Mr. Maston said he expects this issue
would be studied during the environmental impact analysis stage of the proposal. Mr. Maston suggested an
economic/market research specialist could be utilized for gathering this information, and Councilmember Earling
asked Mr. Maston if he could put the Council in contact with someone of this nature, and Mr. Maston replied
affirmatively.
Council President Palmer said he was glad Mr. Maston emphasized that the project is a regional facility. Council
President Palmer said regional facilities do not require the financial participation of the City, and if WSDOT wishes
to increase the size of the existing facility, they wouldn't necessarily receive financial support from the City.
However, Council President Palmer stated if the ferry should move, the City would want to financially participate in
the move, as it would be a benefit to the City of Edmonds.
Council President Palmer stated one of the findings in the draft pertained to a potentially long clean up period of the
Unocal site. Council President Palmer suggested that the UnoCal site could be leased to the City and other
temporary type of arrangements where title to the land never transfers from UnoCal. Mr. Maston agreed with
Council President Palmer in that the potential costs of project implementation would be less if some portions were
leased. Mr. Maston said cleanup costs are the responsibility of the property owner, however, once it is cleaned up
and offered for sale, the property owner sometimes wants to recover the cost of the cleanup, which in many cases can
exceed the value of the land. Council President Palmer stated it might be possible to coincide the short-term needs of
the present facility with the planning of the Unocal site, such that when the short-term needs are done, so is the
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 January 28, 1992
clean up. Mr. Maston said this is possible, as it is his understanding the clean up of the area consists of petroleum
products and is not considered highly dangerous material. Council President Palmer stated Reid -Middleton did a
good job of balancing competing interests.
Councilmember Kasper stated the draft report made mention of various numbers of trains then went through
Edmonds, and Councilmember Kasper clarified it would be 40 trains going through the downtown Edmonds area.
Pertaining to Point Edwards, Councilmember Kasper inquired if that area required a breakwater even if the ferry
slips were turned to the north, and Mr. Maston replied affirmatively.
Councilmember Kasper stated he would like copies of the changes that have been made to date within the report, so
he can see what the actual changes were, and Mr. Maston said he would provide this to Councilmember Kasper.
Councilmember Kasper noted the Council Minutes of December 9 indicate a public presentation would be held with
regards to this matter with a public hearing optional.
Mayor Hall voiced her concern that the leaking oil at Point Edwards has been prevalent for a long time, now that the
City wants to purchase or lease the property, DOE has put on many conditions. Mayor Hall asked Mr. Maston if he
sees any let up on this subject in the eyes of DOE. Mr. Maston said Peter Hahn might have the answer to that since
he is in more frequent contact with the DOE. Peter Hahn, Community Services Director stated Initiative 97, relating
to toxics, was passed in Washington State approximately 2 or 3 years ago. Mr. Hahn said that is the law that UnoCal
has to operate under which requires the level of clean up they are now proceeding with.
Mayor Hall asked Mr. Hahn what procedure would be if UnoCal decided not to sell the property to anyone. Mayor
Hall said there would still be leakage and contaminates on the property and inquired if DOE would still make them
clean up the site, or not. Mr. Hahn said he did not know what would happen in that case.
Mr. Maston recognized Shannon Consello in the audience, who Mr. Maston noted is the Project Engineer for Reid -
Middleton.
Mr. Maston thanked the Council for the opportunity to perform the study, and said he sincerely believed, through
the work of the Policy Committee, that the City and the State both understand each other's concerns and positions
much better than when the process began.
Council President Palmer noted there was a statement in one of the staff reports recommending Council review of
the draft position paper at the conclusion of the presentation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM LATER IN THE AGENDA,
DESIGNATING IT 8A ON THE AGENDA IN ORDER FOR MR. AGNEW TO MAKE HIS PRESENTATION
WITH REGARDS TO FEDERAL FUNDING. MOTION CARRIED with Councilmember Kasper voting no.
PRESENTATION BY BRUCE AGNEW CHIEF OF STAFF FOR CONGRESSMAN MILLER ON FEDERAL
FUNDING FOR FERRY DOCK.
The City Clerk distributed materials to the Mayor and Council on behalf of Mr. Agnew. Mr. Agnew said
Congressman Miller asked him to talk to the Mayor and_ Council about the possibilities for federal funding for the
h ferry system and the adjacent highway and areas. Mr. Agnew said it is not the position of Congressman Miller to
7 advocate any particular proposal. Mr. Agnew said he is here simply to explain the new federal law and hopefully
provide some assistance as a position is arrived at between the State and the City of Edmonds.
Mr. Agnew said he is here to recognize this as a major regional facility as well as an intermodal facility. Mr. Agnew
cautioned the Council that the information he distributed to the Council states the legislative intent of the Bill only,
and does not make all the conditions that will come from regulations that the federal government will ask for as a
result of this act. Mr. Agnew said, therefore, everything he is saying tonight is what Congress and the President
intended. Mr. Agnew said how the federal agencies make up the exact regulations and the exact eligibility criteria
still has to be determined.
Mr. Agnew said there is a lot of good news in the Inter -modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. Mr. Agnew
stated it starts with the increase in funding by extending the 2.5% federal gas tax increase to the year 1999, and by
spending down the $16 billion trust fund surplus which has been accumulating for the last 15 years; a 70% increase
resulted in federal funding over a six year period. Mr. Agnew said that means a $2.35 billion authorized allocation,
but noted this did not account for the transit discretionary program that this region may be successful in competing
for nationwide. Mr. Agnew proceeded to give to examples of this, one being Community Transit and the expansion
of the commuter service. Mr. Agnew stated this was not part of CT's normal allocation, but a project they sucessfully
competed for nationwide. Mr. Agnew said, therefore, the $2.35 billion is a floor, not a ceiling.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 January 28, 1992
Mr. Agnew said the State would receive approximately $1.18 back for every gas tax dollar that it sends back to
Washington D.C. Mr. Agnew said one point of interest, especially important to the County, City Councils, and DOT,
is that the Administration and Congress agree that the federal matching rates would continue at 90% for HOV type
projects and interstate type projects, and 8% for the remainder. Mr. Agnew said there was some talk in the
Administration and in some of the bills, of increasing the State and local match to about 50%, which Mr. Agnew feels
is a major victory for State and local governments.
Mr. Agnew explained the structure of the Bill. Mr. Agnew said there were 36 narrow categorical and federally
directed programs that emphasized highway and interstate construction. Mr. Agnew stated this is all being replaced
with a flexible program that emphasized congestion relief, which will allow State and local government to mix and
match highway and transit programs to meet for primary objectives. Mr. Agnew also stated the Bill gives an
incredibly important role to the Regional Planning Council, giving them the primary program authority over most of
the monies coming from the Federal Government. Mr. Agnew said this is a critical issue for the City of Edmonds
because it means that if the City is going to apply in concert with the WSDOT for federal funds, the City would
compete on a regional level instead of the State calling most of the shots for federal funds. Mr. Agnew said WSDOT
retains primary program authority over the national highway system program, however, the Regional Council has a
far more enhanced role in determining the priorities for funding.
Mr. Agnew cautioned the Council that in the language of the Bill, the word "Ferry" and "Terminal Construction" are
only spelled out in very few places, however, Mr. Agnew said that does not mean ferries are not eligible for other
funding sources. Mr. Agnew stated federal funds have been used for ferries for terminal construction for several
years. Mr. Agnew said Congressman Miller and Congressman Dicks worked on a "set aside" of $100 million dollars
that is set aside for ferry construction and ferry terminals in the Bill. Mr. Agnew said the State Marine System would
have to compete nationwide for this money, however, Mr. Agnew stated Washington State has the largest ferry
system in the Country and has carried more passengers than Amtrack on a national basis, and is the fastest growing
system in the Country. Mr. Agnew said two primary competitors for federal funding is the State of Alaska and the
State of New York. In terms of public ferry systems, Mr. Agnew stated Washington State holds the major ferry
system in the Country, so it would be expected that the City would get the lion's share of that fund if the City works
diligently.
Mr. Agnew stated it would have to be a priority of the Transportation Commission to address the Edmonds terminal
project, however, Mr. Agnew said the Edmonds -Kingston run is one of the fastest growing runs in the system and
suffers the most severe congestions, therefore, Mr. Agnew feels this would make it a high priority.
Mr. Agnew proceeded to review the Bill and quoted various information contained in the Bill. Mr. Agnew reviewed
project eligibility and stated that State Route 104 is probably eligible for funding. Mr. Agnew stated, however, the
Secretary of Transportation has to come up with 155,000 mile system called the National Highway System over the
next two years which will be eligible for federal funds under this program, and it is very likely that SR 104 would be
included on that system. Mr. Agnew also stated the HOV projects in this region, which are approximately 38%
complete will probably take priority for this funding source. Mr. Agnew said the City and DOT may want to take a
look at a second program called the Surface Transportation Program, which Mr. Agnew discussed with the Council,
and noted information on this item was included in the information distributed to the Council and Mayor.
Mr. Agnew read the description of the Surface Transportation Program which essentially combined the old Federal -
aid primary, secondary and urban system programs into a flexible, intermodal program. Mr. Agnew said the key word
in this description is intermodal, because the whole basis of the program is to encourage efficient highway transit
connections. Mr. Agnew also referenced the fact that off the States' apportionment, 10% has been set aside for
safety construction projects. Mr. Agnew said anything that would involve making the railroad crossing in downtown
Edmonds safer has an automatic setaside.
Mr. Agnew stated the Region now allocates approximately $8 million dollars for federal aid urban programs. Mr.
Agnew said the service transportation program for the Region is going to go from $37 million in 1992 to $182 million
in 1997, so the commitment for the urban area is going to increase dramatically.
Mr. Agnew said there is also a new program called the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program, and referenced this portion in the Bill before the Council. Mr. Agnew also stated there is $7 million dollars
allocated to the Puget Sound Regional Counch in 1992 for this program.
Mr. Agnew said as the Council reviews all of the various programs listed within the Bill, there are some key points to
consider and study where a ferry project could be eligible for federal funds.
Mr. Agnew said the Bill is 289 pages, and stated if the City of Edmonds and WSDOT can come up with a plan,
possibly including the private sector, it would fall under the eligibility criteria of most of these federal programs and
Mr. Agnew feels it may compete well in the region because the jest of the federal programs is to discourage new
highway construction and to encourage transit and HOV type of construction.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 January 28, 1992
Councilmember Earling stated to Mr. Agnew there was some discussion at a meeting he attended that Congressman
Miller held in December of 1991 regarding trying to help formulate some sort of a workshop to get a clear
understanding of this information, and Councilmember Earling asked if that had been followed through at all. Mr.
Agnew said he has talked to the new director of the Regional Council and the DOT regarding holding a workshop on
what this Federal Bill means, and Mr. Agnew said his office is contemplating putting something together in possibly
the March recess. Mr. Agnew said there continues to be a governance issue revolving around what the Metropolitan
Planning Organization will be, and Mr. Agnew said his office would like to see what direction that takes before a
meeting is held. Mr. Agnew said there will come a time when his office can help local officials set their priorities
within their communities first, and then compete on a regional level.
Councilmember Earling stated also at the meeting held by Congressman Miller, there was discussion on time lines,
and asked Mr. Agnew to speak to this item. Mr. Agnew said this is a 6 year authorization Bill effective November,
1991. Mr. Agnew said it has to be authorized by the Committee first, then it has to be appropriated, and noted the
mark up for the Transportation & Appropriation Bill begins in Spring and culminates sometime in October or
November. Mr. Agnew said, however, there is money currently available under the new rules as of January 1992. Mr.
Agnew said Puget Sound Regional Council received a large infusion of federal money for planning.
Mayor Hall thanked Mr. Agnew for his presentation.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The City Council recessed at 8:45 for an Executive Session to discuss a legal matter and reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON PROPOSED CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE WITH CONSULTANT
SHELDON & ASSOCIATES.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager, stated he included in Council packets, a Draft Ordinance currently being worked on
by the Planning Board. Mr. Chave thought it was advantageous for the Council to at least look at the draft so they
could become familiar with some of the ideas and concepts.
41) Mr. Chave said the State requires the City to have interim designation classification protection in critical areas of
resource lands. Mr. Chave said the original deadline by the State was in September, 1991, and noted virtually
everyone has obtained a six-month extension to March 1. Mr. Chave said the City needs to adopt interim regulations
for critical areas for the City by March 1. Mr. Chave said the City doesn't have any resource lands which are classified
as agriculture or forestry, so the focus in the City is on critical areas, particularly slopes and wetlands.
Mr. Chave said the key point is "interim", as these are interim regulations and not the final regulations governing
critical areas for the City. Mr. Chave said the interim regulation requirement is actually before the Comprehensive
Plan is required to be done, and Mr. Chave noted the Comprehensive Plan isn't required to be done until mid 1993.
Mr. Chave said the interim regulations is supposed to give the City some regulations on the books in order to protect
and regulate sensitive areas. Mr. Chave stated there is language in the Act that says jurisdictions need to have some
consistency, however, that is impossible on an interim basis as the City does not know what final regulations all those
other jurisdictions are going to come up with.
Mr. Chave stated once the interim regulations are in place, what his approach has been is to get experience with them
so the City can understand what the implications are and what it means on a daily basis to have these kinds of
regulations in place. Mr. Chave said then the City would use the Comprehensive Planning process, which is going to
receive public input as to all the affected community, which includes public development community and
environmental community, and realizing for the interim regulations, it would not be feasible to do an extensive work
program given the time constraints.
Mr. Chave said the Critical Areas Ordinance will provide one place where all information can be found with regards
to regulating critical areas. Mr. Chave noted at the time being, the information is scattered through City Code. Mr.
Chave said the Consultants are present tonight to give the City Council a brief walk through of the interim
regulations and highlight some of the issues. Mr. Chave said staff is recommending that Council give feedback on the
regulations as do they want the regulations more restrictive or less restrictive. Mr. Chave said it may be easier to
start out with more restrictive regulations and ease up on them if necessary, rather than start out less restrictive, with
the possibility of having to increase their restrictiveness.
Mayor Hall inquired on the term "sensitive" versus "critical", and Mr. Chave replied both terms mean the same thing.
Mr. Chave said in the past, the City has used the term "sensitive", however, the State has adopted the term "critical".
James Hartley, and Dianne Sheldon, from Sheldon & Associates, Consultants, introduced themselves and proceeded
to review information with the Mayor and Council.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 January 28, 1992
Mr. Hartley stated he went through the Edmonds City Code and noted for the Council that Edmonds doesn't have to
take any action on forest lands and natural resource lands as Edmonds essentially doesn't have those categories of
resources as defined in the Growth Management Act. Mr. Hartley said that holds true for volcanic hazard areas and
mine hazard areas, which are categories of geological hazard areas under the Growth Management Act. Mr. Hartley
said in addition, the City Code covers quite well, the frequently flooded sensitive area category in the Growth
Management Act, so there will not be real need to amend that portion of the Code. Mr. Hartley said the existing
Code also covers fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, which are one of the categories of sensitive areas in the
Growth Management Act. Mr. Hartley said there is also some covered in the Code of wetlands, along with some
coverage of geological hazards areas. Mr. Hartley said these are covered to some extent but probably not consistent
with the intent of the Growth Management Act.
Mr. Hartley noted the draft of the Critical Areas Ordinance is organized a little different from how it is
recommended from the State; however, Mr. Hartley noted it is consistent within the State guidelines. Mr. Hartley
introduced Dianne Sheldon from Sheldon & Associates.
Ms. Sheldon referenced the Draft Ordinance and information included in the Council Packet and proceeded to
review that information with the Council.
Ms. Sheldon said the Draft Ordinance is basically a compilation of formatting, after reviewing at King County's
Sensitive Areas Ordinance and Snohomish County Aquatic Resource Protection and Policies. In order to alleviate
confusions, Ms. Sheldon said the Snohomish County Aquatic Resource language at present time is in a policy stage,
not an adopted Ordinance. Ms. Sheldon said they did have language in place at one time, however, it was repealed
and is currently going through a public review process of trying to come up with a mutually agreed policy statement.
Ms. Sheldon said she also reviewed the City of North Bend's Draft Ordinance, City of Snoqualmie Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, which is an adopted Ordinance, and the City of Winslow Draft Environmental Sensitive Areas
Ordinance. Ms. Sheldon said she looked at all of these because other jurisdictions have addressed the same
questions, and in addition, there is a technical end to it that is provided.
Ms. Sheldon said another reason she reviewed all of these is that there is a lawsuit currently proceeding against the
Department of Community Development and the Department of Ecology, and the belief of the Plaintiffs in this case
is the Department of Ecology and the Department of Community Development is forcing local jurisdictions to use
the Ecology's Model Ordinance, and by reviewing and combing input from other Draft Ordinances from various
jurisdictions, Ms. Sheldon said the City of Edmonds will preclude those allegations of having any basis whatsoever.
Ms. Sheldon continued to review the Draft Ordinance with the Council. Ms. Sheldon noted the Ordinance will only
be activated when someone is performing an activity in the City that requires an additional development permit. Ms.
Sheldon said the Draft Ordinance differs somewhat from the Growth Management general guidelines, as additional
definitions have been added to the Draft for clarity. Ms. Sheldon said the Growth Management Act generally tells
the City that it is obligated to designate and classify the critical areas only, and is not required to come up with
detailed regulatory language, therefor in many cases, Ms. Sheldon said the City of Edmonds is several steps in front
of the Growth Management Act.
Ms. Sheldon said the Draft Ordinance is set up as a self-contained unit. Ms. Sheldon said it requires applicants to sit
down with Staff for the purpose of reviewing the implications of the Ordinance, so an applicant is clear what the
requirements are before they start a project:
With regards to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, Ms. Sheldon said these are still the most ambiguous
areas the Growth Management Act asks cities to identify, classify and regulate. Ms. Sheldon said the problem with
wildlife habitat areas is to find where they start and where they stop. Ms. Sheldon said it is not in her opinion to
identify the entire City as a wildlife area, yet for the intention of the Growth Management Act to protect and regulate
those that have the most significant habitat use. Ms. Sheldon feels this can be accomplished by basically bowing to
the other critical areas and saying as long as you maintain those areas and regulating those for the least amount of
adverse impact, you are deficit maintaining wildlife habitat.
Ms. Sheldon said one item that is proposed in the Draft Ordinance that is quite controversial is the issue of density.
Ms. Sheldon said there is a formula set up in the Ordinance that if there is a certain portion of a lot incumbent by
critical area, the property owner would receive a certain portion or percentage of credit. Ms. Sheldon said this is a
sensitive issue and will be looking for guidance from the Planning Board and the City Council.
Ms. Sheldon referred to Position Paper 3 and noted it was written after Staff comments but before the first public
hearing that went before the Planning Board. Ms. Sheldon said the issues that came up from the Staff review
included buffers. Ms. Sheldon said Staff recommended the buffers be increased from 100 feet, 50 feet and 25 feet for
categories 1, 2 and to 3, respectively, to 150 feet, 100 feet and 50 feet. Ms. Sheldon said those are currently under
discussion and noted the larger buffers are included in the Draft Ordinance. Ms. Sheldon said the Draft Ordinance
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9 January 28, 1992
proposed a three tier rating system for wetlands, which is the same that Snohomish County has proposed. Ms.
Sheldon said Edmonds City Staff has recommended a four tier rating system which would be consistent with the
Department of Ecology's Model Ordinance. The difference between the three tier and four tier system in Ms.
Sheldon's opinion, is that the four tier system takes the category 1 of the three tier system and splits it into two
portions.
Ms. Sheldon said the Draft Aquatic Resources language, which was discussed several years prior with the Planning
Board, but not with the City Council proposed 25 foot buffers around stream.
Ms. Sheldon referenced the Draft Ordinance and noted the language gives the City authority to review a
development proposal which is adjacent to a critical area. Ms. Sheldon said this does not mean the City has to
condition the permit, but it gives the City the authority to review the permit and maybe condition it with a staging of
the clearing of the site, so it is not cleared during the rainy season,for example. Ms. Sheldon said this allows the City
to review the project in cases where building activity may cause adverse impacts to a wetland adjacent to the site. Ms.
Sheldon said the question comes into play on how near or far would City Staff have authority which would allow
them to condition permits with implications to critical areas. Ms. Sheldon said if Staff recommendations are
adopted, it would mean "adjacent" means anything within 150 feet of a critical area. Ms. Sheldon noted it has also
been discussed that no minimum buffer be formulated, therefore leaving it up to Staff discretion to condition any
activities at any time.
Ms. Sheldon said she included for the Council, information pertaining to buffer standards across the Country, along
with buffer standards adopted throughout Washington State.
Mayor Hall thanked Ms. Sheldon and Mr. Hartley for their presentation.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager, asked the Mayor and Council to let Planning staff know if they have any reactions,
concerns, or questions regarding this Draft Ordinance so those issues can be addressed to the satisfaction of the
Mayor and Council.
Council President Palmer noted he has numerous questions he would like to ask and proceeded to do so. Council
President Palmer asked if there is any information in the Draft Ordinance that relates to the transportation of
hazardous materials through a critical area or production of a hazardous material within one of those areas, and
referenced the trains that go through that carry a variety of materials. Ms. Sheldon replied the trains technically are
not in the wetlands, as they are on tracks. Council President Palmer referenced a statement in the Draft Ordinance
which states the City shall conduct an inventory of critical areas, and inquired if that inventory has been started, and
Mr. Chave said that would be the next step after the definitions set forth are finalized. Council President Palmer
referenced a statement in the Draft Ordinance relating to exemptions for remodeling and reconstruction on
structures that do not meet the requirements of the title, but are in existence at the date of the title. Council
President said the City should consider adding wording to the effect so the City doesn't create a grandfathering in of
structures that perhaps never came in for a permit. Council President Palmer then referenced a standard in the Draft
Ordinance for public agency utility exemption. Council President Palmer said he would like to see examples of how
this standard might work, as it is Council President Palmer's opinion that this could not be met because of the
wording. Council President Palmer referenced a statement in the Draft Ordinance which would allow the Planning
Board to make final decisions, and Council President Palmer noted the Planning Board makes recommendations to
the City Council and does not have any final decision authority. Council President Palmer noted the Draft
Ordinance lays out a sequence of actions, however, Council President said there is no time line identified for the
sequence. Council President Palmer referenced information included under Ordinance format where there lists a
requirement that City Staff meet with the applicant prior to an activity beginning, and Council President Palmer
expressed his concern that this may shift the burden off of the applicant and shifts it to the staff, in such a way that if
the presentation isn't identical every time, the City may assume a risk of liability down the road.
City Attorney Scott Snyder referenced the information Council President Palmer brought forth regarding the
Planning Board's recommending powers versus final decision. Snyder stated the difficulty is that in most
communities, that provision would be sent to a Board of Adjustment, and for historical reasons, the City of Edmonds
has no Board of Adjustment. Mr. Snyder said perhaps the choice shouldn't be between final decision and advisory
powers, but between the Planning Board and Hearing Examiner.
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH
WENATCHEE YOUTH CIRCUS ($3800)
\' Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Manager, referenced the Agenda Memo. Ms. Ohlde stated she feels this event
would be a big success in Edmonds, and a benefit to the community. Ms. Ohlde feels all of the costs will be recovered
(' as well as exceeding those costs by approximately $2,000 by the time the event is finished.
cy p
Lvt
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 10 January 28, 1992
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the $3800, which is listed as the expenditure required on the Agenda Memo,
included the major responsibilities of the Parks and Recreation Division listed as items A through D on the Agenda
Memo, and Ms. Ohlde replied the amount budgeted, which is $5850 includes items A through D.
Council President Palmer noted he talked with Staff regarding this event, and stated he received all the information
he needed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL TO AUTHORIZE
MAYOR TO SIGN THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH WENATCHEE YOUTH CIRCUS.
MOTION CARRIED.
1J� REVIEW OF FEES ORDINANCE AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2868 FOR 1992 PERMIT FEE
�N ADJUSTMENTS AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2869 FOR 100% RECOVERY OF MEADOWDALE
PERMIT REVIEW FEES (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 21, 1992).
Councilmember Kasper stated the reason this was pulled was because he thought the City was operating under the
premise that they were collecting fees based on actual costs, not projected costs.
' r Rob Chave, Planning Manger, explained the formula used for the fees is fee rates times the projected activity and
that should equal the costs. Councilmember Kasper said that has never been the way the City has operated. Mr.
Chave said that is his understanding of past practice. Councilmember Kasper said you can't project something if you
don't even know what the costs are. Mr. Chave stated there are several ways to set fees. Mr. Chave said one of those
is to use the budget approach, which is what is currently being used. Mr. Chave said the budget approach which is in
the Agenda Item is the City has a fixed cost, which is the 1992 Budget for Building, and that additional review, which
is some fraction of Engineering, some fraction of Planning, and so forth. Mr. Chave said the major part of that cost is
the Building budget for 1992, as it is a known and fixed quantity no matter what the volume of permits are.
Peter Hahn, Community Services Director, distributed an Ordinance which states how this procedure is to be
followed. Councilmember Kasper said Staff has never been authorized to move out ahead of costs. Mr. Hahn said
the Council is welcome to change the policy as it now stands. Councilmember Kasper stated he doesn't agree with
the interpretation of that Ordinance that is being brought forward.
Mr. Chave proceeded to explain the procedure that was used. Mr. Chave said on one hand, the costs which are fixed
according to the budget in this approach, and noted the big variable on the other side, which is what the revenues are,
balancing against those costs and what is the total valuation of permits going to be in 1992. Mr. Chave said this is
the big unknown, as if the economy is depressed, valuation is down, therefor permit rates are going to have to be
higher applied to that valuation to recapture enough revenue to balance against the cost. Mr. Chave said if a more
generous economy exists, the valuation of the permit grows and therefor, the permit rate can drop accordingly. Mr.
Chave said the reason why the percentage recapture fell off in 1991 is strictly because the total valuation of the
permits fell significantly. Mr. Chave noted the number of permits for 1991 far exceed the number in previous years,
however, people were constructing smaller projects with the permits.
Mayor Hall noted in previous years, this subject came before the Community Services Committee twice, and builders
and developers also testified at that meeting, as well as discussion at Council Meetings regarding this subject.
Councilmember Kasper requested another public hearing be held on this subject as he doesn't feel the public
understands the procedure. Councilmember Kasper voiced his concerns over the interpretation over police powers
and administration costs.
As a procedural matter, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HALL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO PLACE THIS SUBJECT IN THE FORM OF A PUBLIC
HEARING. Motion failed for lack of second.
Councilmember Kasper left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager, stated there are other methods of calculating fees besides the budget approach and
proceeded to give examples.
The Council proceeded to discuss the issue further and decided to continue the entire item to discuss it further.
Councilmember Earling said there was a discussion also where the City was splitting some fees 50-50 with the
developer, and Mr. Hahn replied affirmatively. Councilmember Nordquist inquired on the status of that
arrangement. Mr. Chave said at the current time, the City is picking up half the fee, however, under the second
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 11 January 28, 1992
Proposed Ordinance in the Council packet, it provides that the applicant would absorb the entire cost.
Councilmember Nordquist feels this is a major change in the City's posture without a public hearing.
Councilmember Nordquist feels this item should be set forth to another meeting in the near future.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO PLACE THIS
ENTIRE ITEM ON THE FEBRUARY 4 AGENDA FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION CARRIED.
DISCUSSION AND FORMULATION OF POSITION PAPER REGARDING FERRY TERMINAL
COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER, TO
rd RESCHEDULE THIS ITEM TO FEBRUARY 4T11 MOTION CARRIED.
MAYOR
Pr Mayor Hall referenced the Planning Board interviews prior to the Council Meeting. COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER, FOR THE APPROVAL OF
APPOINTMENT OF JERRY CAPRETTA TO THE PLANNING BOARD. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR THE
APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF KEN MATTSON TO THE PLANNING BOARD. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hall recognized Mr. Mattson and Mr. Capretta in the audience and welcomed them both to the Planning
Board.
Mayor Hall referenced a letter from City Attorney Scott Snyder, stating he would be taking a sabbatical beginning
May 2, 1992 through July 12, 1992.
COUNCIL
Council President Palmer referenced a memo that was distributed to the Council concerning an applicant for City
Councilmember. Council President Palmer stated the applicant will be out of town during the regular interviews,
and requested to be interviewed at the conclusion of the February 4 Council Meeting. Council President Palmer
asked the Council what their position is on this matter. Councilmember Nordquist said this has been done before,
and feels the applicant shouldn't be penalized for out of town travel and feels if the same parameters are used for the
remaining Councilmembers, there should be no problem. It was the consensus to interview the applicant at the
conclusion of the February 4 Council Meeting. It was also the consensus to allow the applicant an interview time of
15 minutes at 9:45 p.m. on February 4,1992.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO INTERVIEW
THE CANDIDATE AT 9:45 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 4, 1992. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO REQUIRE THE
APPLICANT TO COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE BY FEBRUARY 4, 1992.
Under discussion, Councilmember Nordquist asked if the completed survey would be in the Council Packet of
January 31. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER WITHDREW HIS MOTION, AND COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST AGREED TO REMOVE HIS SECOND.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO REQUIRE THE
APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE CITY CLERK BY NOON ON
FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, SO IT COULD BE INCLUDED IN COUNCIL PACKETS OF THAT SAME DATE.
MOTION CARRIED.
Council President Palmer referenced the Preliminary Agenda for the upcoming Council Retreat.
Councilmember Earling noted that Community Transit is holding a retirement ceremony for three of the board
C •f members who are leaving. Councilmember Earling noted it is being held the following day and encouraged any and
all to attend the ceremony.
With no further business, Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO FEBRUARY 4, 1992 APPROVAL
THE OFFICIAL SIGNED COPY OF THESE MINUTES ARE IN_THE CITY C RK'S OFFICE.
HONDA J. MA CH, CITY CLERK L A U RAM HA I L,
MAYOR EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 12 January 28, 1992
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
PLAZA MEETING ROOM —LIBRARY BUILDING
7:00 - 10:00 P.M.
JANUARY 28, :1992
WORK MEETING - NO AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
6:30 P.M. - INTERVIEW PLANNING BOARD CANDIDATES
CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. CONSENT AGENDA
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 14 and JANUARY 21, 1992 AND
WATERFRONT STUDY CONSULTANT INTERVIEW OF JANUARY 21, 1992
(C) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JANUARY 21. 1992 FOR SALE OF SURPLUS CITY
VEHICLES.AND AWARD TO HIGH BIDDERS
(D) AUTHORIZATION TO BID GENERAL BANKING SERVICES
(E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR WSDOT TO
OVERLAY SR 104 FROM PARADISE LANE TO FERRY TERMINAL
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN DETOUR AGREEMENT WITH WSDOT FOR
OVERLAY OF SR 104 FROM PARADISE LANE TO FERRY TERMINAL
(G) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM ARNOLD JANGORD FOR
DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY.AT 7731 - 234TH ST. S.W.
(H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE A CHEMICAL CONTAINMENT
UNIT FOR GROUNDS MAINTENANCE
(I) REPORT ON WRITTEN QUOTATIONS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ALVIN
GRIFFIN JANITORIAL SERVICE COMPANY FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES FOR
THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR PERIOD OF ONE YEAR ($6,060)
(J) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2867 TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE SECTION 20.105.010(A) (4) TO CLARIFY SEPA APPEAL PROCEDURES
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
(K) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 737 COMMENDING JACK M. WILSON, RETIRING
COUNCILMEMBER
(L) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 738 REQUESTING BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD TO
REVIEW THE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL BY LYNNWOOD REGARDING THE NORMA
BEACH/PICNIC POINT AREA
(M) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO SELL A MOBILE HOME FROM THE
212TH/72ND AVE. PUBLIC WORKS SITE (FORMERLY THE DERN
PROPERTY) AND SET MINIMUM BIDS
(N) AUTHORIZATION TO SELL 1963 SURPLUS FIRE ENGINE
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON LEGAL MATTERS
3. RECOGNITION OF RETIRING COUNCILMEMBER JACK M. WILSON
4. PRESENTATION BY REID-MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES ON FERRY STUDY DRAFT REPORT
5. PRESENTATION BY BRUCE AGNEW, CHIEF OF STAFF FOR CONGRESSMAN MILLER, ON
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR FERRY DOCK
6. COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON PROPOSED CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE WITH CONSULTANT
SHELDON & ASSOC.
7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH
WENATCHEE YOUTH CIRCUS ($3800)
8. REVIEW OF FEES ORDINANCE AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2868 FOR 1992 PERMIT
FEE ADJUSTMENTS AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2869 FOR 100% RECOVERY OF
MEADOWDALE PERMIT REVIEW FEES (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 21, 1992)
8. MAYOR
9. COUNCIL
(10 MINUTES)
(45 MINUTES)
(10 MINUTES)
(45 MINUTES)
(10 MINUTES)
(15 MINUTES)
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND
PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE