Loading...
09/04/2001 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES September 4, 2001 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 50i Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Kevin Taylor, Assistant Fire Chief Greg Wean, Acting Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Serv. Director Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA hange to Agenda COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO ADD A 10 MINUTE EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER AS AGENDA ITEM 3A AND TO ADD A LEGAL MATTER TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SCHEDULED AS AGENDA ITEM 7. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 8/28/01 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2001 Minutes pprove (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #50304 THROUGH #50428 FOR THE WEEK OF laim AUGUST 27, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $167,069.19 Checks Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page 1 IJ' Claim for V (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LORI CRESS ($136.00) (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH BRAUN NORTHWEST, INC. TO RECHASSIS AND REFURBISH ONE AID UNIT Executive 3A. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER Session At 7:02 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to Executive Session for approximately 10 minutes for discussion regarding a legal matter. The meeting was reconvened at 7:12 p.m. Edmonds3B. INFORMATIONAL UPDATE ON EDMONDS CROSSING/BRIGHTWATER TREATMENT Crossing ing / BrightWater PLANT — FOLLOW UP TO DULY 31, 2001 MEETING Treatment Plant Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained at the July 31 Council meeting, City staff and King County representatives presented information regarding the Edmonds Crossing project and the BrightWater treatment facility. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Council requested staff and King County prepare responses to numerous questions that the Council and citizens had raised during the meeting. Mr. Clifton introduced King County staff members Christie True and Michael Popiwny who would present responses with regard to compatibility, mitigation, odor control, and next steps. Following King County's presentation, City staff will present responses to questions raised regarding financial impacts to the City budget as well as the local economy and zoning and land use issues. He introduced consultants who had been assisting the City with the Edmonds Crossing project for the past 6-9 years, Doug Plater, Engineer, CH2M Hill, and Jerry Weed, CH2M Hill, Project Manager for the Edmonds Crossing project. Mr. Clifton noted Stephen Koho, Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager was also present to answer questions following the presentations. King; County's Response to Issues Raised at the July 31 Council Meeting Christie True, King County Department of Natural Resources, explained key points for addressing the issues raised at the July 31 Council meeting included that the Edmonds Crossing project and BrightWater were compatible projects, that the mitigation "package" for the selected site would be substantial, that the facility would be viewed by the community as an amenity, and that BrightWater odor control would be as good or better than any treatment plant in the nation. Regarding compatibility, Ms. True advised all elements of the Edmonds Crossing project and BrightWater could be accommodated on the Unocal site. She reviewed a preliminary site layout of the upper level of the Edmonds Crossing and BrightWater at the Unocal site, identifying SR 104, entry to the multimodal station, drop-off point, bus drop-off, trains, and parking. She advised the preliminary layout accommodated all the parking stalls for the Edmonds Crossing project as well as an additional 40 parking stalls. Ms. True continued her review of the preliminary site layout, identifying ferry holding lanes, people mover, dock, and ferry terminal, commenting the layout was very similar to the City's plans for Edmonds Crossing. She explained the parkland along the waterfront was not altered in this rendering. She identified bridges and a park located atop the treatment facility, pointing out the view from the park at this height. The preliminary layout also included a water resources education center and a BrightWater administration building. She identified areas that would be park or roofs covered with sod material so that green space would be visible in this area. She identified the solids handling facility including Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page 2 digesters. She explained Pine Street would be moved so that it was at grade. She noted there was potential for day lighting the creek although it would require moving into the wetlands setback slightly. I She noted the hatchery remained unchanged. Ms. True reviewed a preliminary site layout of lower level facilities, explaining the secondary clarifiers and filtration were located on this level and noting disinfection was below the parking on this level. She identified parking and a bus turnaround on this level. She reviewed a cross-section of the facility on the site, identifying elements on different levels. Ms. True displayed a preliminary site layout of BrightWater at the Edmonds Unocal site, noting this layout accommodated the ultimate capacity anticipated for the facility. The expansion areas were proposed to be located under the ferry terminal and did not need to be constructed by 2010. However, the next design phase would consider whether future expansion could occur under the ferry terminal. It may be easier to construct some of the expansion facilities in the initial phase. Ms. True explained if there was interest in adding Edmonds treatment plant flows to the BrightWater facility, it could likely be accommodated on the site although different layouts/configurations/technology may be considered. She summarized the Edmonds Crossing and BrightWater facilities could be well designed public amenities and good neighbors. This proposal also represented a practical and economical method of providing two regional facilities at the Unocal site. Regarding mitigation, Ms. True acknowledged this was a complex issue due to legal requirements regarding mitigation. She explained the legal definition of mitigation required avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing or eliminating impacts and compensating for impacts. She said King County was bound to abide by the limitations on mitigation due to the way sewer revenues could be expended. She referred to the King County Regional Wastewater Services Plan Environmental Mitigation Policies, highlighting a key policy, "King County shall mitigate the long -tern and short-term impacts for wastewater facilities in communities in which they are located. The county's goal will be to construct regional wastewater facilities that enhance the quality of life in the region and in the local community, and are not detrimental to the quality of life in their vicinity." Ms. True explained King County would address all possible construction and operational impacts of a wastewater facility and mitigation was an integral part of all projects. There has been a misunderstanding that mitigation was in addition to the project when, in fact, it was an integral part of the project. She explained mitigation could be odor control systems, traffic improvements, design of buildings, compensation, public parkland, trails and wetland boardwalks, sports fields, stream and wetland enhancements, etc. She emphasized mitigation would be developed to address all potential impacts and fulfill King County's mitigation policies. In response to the question regarding who determines the mitigation required for BrightWater facilities, she answered the process would include affected jurisdictions, permitting agencies, and local communities. The goals of mitigation were to make BrightWater a good neighbor to the community, to eliminate all possible odors, to blend BrightWater into the surrounding landscape and community, and to make BrightWater an asset to the community. She commented the lid of the BrightWater facility could include the design and construction of a major portion of the Edmonds Crossing project. In response to the question regarding odor complaints at other facilities, Ms. True displayed an aerial photograph of the Vancouver, Washington treatment plant that illustrated the surrounding density, advising the Vancouver facility had no odor complaints since 1996. She advised the San Francisco facility has had four odor complaints in 2000 and the San Diego treatment plant has not had any odor Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page 3 complaints since 1997. She emphasized King County would use the best technology available such as enclosing facilities, using chemicals to minimize odor generation,°and capturing odors and cleaning the air with both single stage and multiple stage scrubbers. Odor controls would be designed and covered as required to ensure the correct design for the Edmonds site and King County would bring in outside experts to advise the host community. King County could guarantee the odor control at BrightWater would be as good as the City currently experiences or even better. Ms. True reviewed next steps including the announcement of a narrowed list of sites by Executives Sims and Drewel during the week of September 10, community meetings during the first and second weeks of October, confirmation by the end of December by the King County Council of the sites to be included in the EIS, Scoping Hearings for the EIS in early 2002, a series of community design workshops in early 2002, coordination with local, state, tribal and federal agencies throughout 2002 to develop a project that will need their approval, and selection of the final site, conveyance to and from the facility and marine outfall by early 2003. Ms. True concluded the Edmonds Crossing project and BrightWater were compatible projects, that the mitigation package for the selected site would be substantial and the facility would be viewed by the community as an amenity, and that BrightWater odor control would be as good or better than any treatment plant in the nation. She assured King County's Department of Natural Resources was experienced and could deliver on large capital projects. She noted their annual capital project budget ranged from $150 - 250 million per year and had a high accomplishment rate. She urged the Council to consider the information presented and to continue working with King County. Councilmember Petso recalled from the tours of the other treatment plants that the primary clarifier, digester and solids handling were some of the more odorous processes. Ms. True agreed processes that included handling of solids were the most odorous. Councilmember Petso pointed out the two most odorous processes, solids handling and primary clarifier, were located at the extreme edge of the property, adjacent to Woodway. She inquired about the size of the buffer between those processes and the Woodway boundary. Ms. True pointed out there was a substantial wall in that location; further, the facilities were below the grade and largely enclosed in a building that would have odor control equipment. Jim Goetz, Vice President, Senior Project Manager, CH2M Hill, advised the buffer between the processes and the Woodway boundary was approximately 50-75 feet. Councilmember Petso questioned how the water reuse function would be accommodated on the Unocal site. Ms. True identified the water reuse area. Councilmember Petso inquired about the capacity of the facility. Ms. True answered the filtration area had the capacity to treat 54 million gallons per day. Councilmember Petso inquired about the location of the pumps and storage facilities for water use. Ms. True answered any pumping equipment could be accommodated on the site; storage was not located on the site but would likely be pumped closer to the users. Councilmember Petso referred to the wall between the plant and Woodway and asked whether regrading or terracing of the site would be required. Ms. True identified the area where soil removal would occur to accommodate the facilities. She noted the park would be constructed on top of the primary clarifiers. Councilmember Petso pointed out there would be regrading, retaining walls, and a park elevated above. She asked if there had been any soil analysis regarding whether the property could withstand this amount Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page 4 of grading. She recalled a map that indicated this area was an earthquake hazardous zone. Ms. True answered detailed borings would occur in the next phase; based on existing information, it appeared to be feasible. Mr. Goetz agreed the next phase would include soil borings. He explained geotechnical engineers who have walked the site and developed preliminary concepts for retaining walls believe it is feasible. Councilmember Petso referred to the siting criteria, recalling one of the sites had essentially been eliminated due to a criteria that addressed the existing law enforcement facilities on the site. She noted at least three of the criteria might, apply to the Unocal site including "seek sites that do not require extensive alteration due to steep slopes, adequate buffers", and "providing water reuse and storage facilities on the site." She inquired whether the Unocal site could be eliminated due to the conflicts between the drawings and the selection criteria. Ms. True referred to the criteria to provide adequate buffer, noting there were a number of ways to provide buffer including distance, wall, trees, etc. She summarized the criteria provided flexibility for providing an adequate buffer. Regarding the water reuse storage facilities, she said the potential opportunity for markets around all sites would need to be considered. The water reclamation and storage facilities did not have to be located on the site. Regarding altering steep slopes, she said the sites with steep slopes that could not be addressed structurally had been removed from consideration. Councilmember Petso asked the distance between the existing treatment plant and the nearest residential dwelling at other treatment plants. Ms. True answered the distance at the WestPoint treatment plant was '/z mile. Some residential multifamily construction has occurred near the Renton treatment plant that may be closer than %2 mile. Council President Earling noted the issues of concern to him were co -locating the multimodal facility and BrightWater. He was not convinced that co -location issues had been adequately addressed and was anxious to have the City's consultants review the preliminary drawings and offer their opinion. Another issue of concern to Council President Earling was mitigation, particularly that mitigation funds would be used to address odor control. He inquired about the level of odor control that could be expected as part of construction costs and how that would be increased. He expressed concern that the mitigation funds would be diluted if a substantial amount had to be spent on odor control. Ms. True assured odor control and many other features were considered part of the construction cost of the facility and the overall cost of the project. She explained the baseline for the BrightWater facility on all sites was some covering and first stage odor control scrubbers with the recognition that the next phase would include more detailed analysis of which sites would require multi -stage scrubbers to increase odor control. Although most sites would have extensive odor control, the way it was accomplished may differ depending on the site. The Edmonds site would differ substantially from other sites as another use would be placed on top. She assured additional mitigation funds would be available for what was needed; the mitigation amount for this site would be whatever was necessary and would be resolved via negotiations with the host community. Council President Earling explained the City had been working diligently to assemble the Edmonds Crossing project since 1993 and had been successful in garnering approximately $3.5 million in state and federal funds. He expressed concern with the possibility of not being able to co -locate the Edmonds Crossing if the Unocal site was selected for the BrightWater treatment plant. He noted this would result in no resolution to the existing issues with ferry traffic as well as possibly jeopardize the federal funds. He asked how mitigation funds would be used to address that issue. Ms. True answered the potential development that would be part of this project would contribute substantially to the Edmonds Crossing project and would substantially offset the resources necessary for the Edmonds Crossing project. She Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page 5 commented even if the remainder of the Edmonds Crossing project was constructed at a future date, it could be designed so that that could occur. - She said the potential for combining the projects may engender motivation at the state and federal level to provide financing for the project. Councilmember Marin said his concern with odor control remained. He referred to King County's response, "during the design of the treatment plant, they would look at the various processes to see if it was necessary to eliminate all the possible odor." He said this sentence contained "weasel words" that would not be acceptable to him if this plant were located in Edmonds. If this treatment plant were located in Edmonds, a guarantee would need to be provided that odor control would be the best in the nation to the point there would not be any odor. Councilmember Marin noted that while walking near the City's treatment plant today, he could detect some chlorine odor. Although this was the same odor that occurred at a public swimming pool, the perception was different. He said to satisfy him, the BrightWater facility would have to be close to 100% odor free and without "weasel words" such as were contained in the response, "since the Unocal site will be so close to people, it may require that more of the processes, perhaps all of them, will have to be covered." Councilmember Marin preferred the entire facility to be enclosed, noting the preliminary plan included structures where the best views were located. Although the proposed park was similar to the park at WestPoint, Councilmember Marin's vision was for a much more substantial park. He preferred filling in around the structures and building more parkland on top of it. Ms. True answered the tallest structures were placed toward the back so that they blended with the facility with regard to how it would be viewed from different angles. She said moving facilities on the site may not create the desired type of view from different angles but she assured that could be considered. Councilmember Marin asked whether the structures on top could be undergrounded with parkland and ballfields on top. Mr. Goetz referred to the round tanks (digesters) which generate methane gas, explaining these were typically located in the open although they could be totally enclosed and access provided around them. Other facilities located on the higher portions of the site were located there to allow for gravity flow through the treatment plant. Those facilities were totally enclosed and access could be provided on top of the facilities. He was unsure if a ballfield could be accommodated on the top of the primary clarifiers. Ms. True apologized for any impression that the proposal included any "weasel words" and offered their guarantee and commitment that this facility would be odor free. BrightWater Financing Impact Comparison Assistant Administrative Services Director Jim Larson recalled when BrightWater was discussed at the July 31 meeting, the Council expressed interest in considering the broader impact on the City and the community. He indicated there would be three types of impact, the impact on the City's budget, impact on the local economy, and impact on ratepayers. Regarding the impact to the City's budget, Mr. Larson explained the most significant was providing City services. BrightWater would provide additional revenues from sales taxes related to treatment of water and utility taxes (approximately $190,000 annually) that could be used to enhance services, etc. Regarding the impact to the local economy, Mr. Larson explained a great deal would be spent on the construction of BrightWater as well as ongoing monitoring, however, it was uncertain how much would be expended in the local area. Further, BrightWater would create a limited number of jobs. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page 6 Regarding the impact on ratepayers, Mr. Larson explained Edmonds sewer rates were substantially lower than charged by King County. If Edmonds continued to operate its own treatment plant, there would be no impact on ratepayers. If the Edmonds treatment plant was discontinued and the flow treated by King County, there would be a substantial increase in residents' sewer rates, an approximately 66% increase through 2010. Mr. Larson said another issue to consider is how the development of BrightWater on the Unocal site compared with other uses of the site. He explained residential development on the Unocal site would generate less money to the City for additional services. Commercial development, however, would have the largest impact on the City's budget, approximately $450,000 per year. He noted although BrightWater was proposing a treatment plant and there had been interest expressed in residential development, there had not been a proposal for a commercial use. Regarding the impact on the local economy, residential development would result in approximately $1 million in additional spending with local businesses and create 33-48 more jobs than BrightWater. Commercial development could result in $8.5 million in additional spending with local businesses and creating 1,000 more jobs than BrightWater. Mayor Haakenson asked who currently owned the property. Mr. Larson answered Unocal owned the property. Mayor Haakenson noted Unocal, as the property owner, could develop the property as they chose as long as it was within the City's zoning code. Development Services Director Duane Bowman reviewed responses to Question #13 regarding Comprehensive Plan designation update/zoning/future uses of the Unocal site. In response to the question, "will there be a hearing on the future use of the Unocal site, or a comprehensive plan update", Mr. Bowman explained the property was currently designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a "master plan development" that must be consistent with the City's Downtown/Waterfront Plan. Because the City's current Comprehensive Plan does not include the BrightWater project in either its land use or capital facilities elements, a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required if the site were to be used for a regional sewer treatment facility. That process includes a number of public hearings before both the Planning Board and City Council. In addition, a specific development proposal for BrightWater would be required to undergo a rezone and Architectural Design Board (ADB) review. Both these processes require one or more public hearings. In response to the question "can the property be developed into a convention/hotel and performing arts center, hotel, or other retail and residential development," Mr. Bowman, explained these uses were identified as options for development in the current Downtown/Waterfront Plan, specifically land uses of a hotel or residential mixed use and commuter services in the upper yard. The lower yard is designated in the Downtown Plan for multimodal transportation center. However, a rezone of the property would be required in order for most of these uses to actually be permitted to be developed on the site. In response to the question "what is the Unocal site zoned and is it private property," Mr. Bowman explained the property was currently zoned "CW — Commercial Waterfront" which had very limited uses and a regional wastewater facility was not a permitted use or Conditional Use. He said the property was currently privately owned by Unocal. In response to "does King County need a Conditional Use Permit to locate the BrightWater Treatment Plant on the Unocal site," Mr. Bowman explained the Edmonds Community Development Code defined a sewer treatment plant, such as the BrightWater project, as a "regional public facility." Regional public Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page 7 facilities are neither a permitted use nor a conditional use under the site's current CW zoning. Therefore, the zoning would need to be changed before the use could be permitted, either outright or through a conditional use process. For example; the City's "P — Public Use" zones does permit "regional public facilities" and would therefore permit the BrightWater project. Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation to King County staff and City staff for the information they provided. Council President Earling commented the Council had spent the last several weeks educating themselves regarding wastewater treatment facilities including touring existing facilities. He noted there were still issues that were unresolved, both to him and to the community. He indicated a resolution had been prepared by staff over the past several days and completed late this afternoon. Res# 1009 COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, Opposing FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1009, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Locating THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, OPPOSING THE CONTINUED INVESTIGATION Brightwater OF THE EDMONDS UNOCAL PROPERTY BY KING COUNTY AS A CANDIDATE SITE FOR Treatment Facility at THE BRIGHTWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Unocal Property Council President Earling reiterated his concerns regarding co -location, noting it was still unclear whether both the treatment facility and the multimodal facility could be co -located on the Unocal site. Further, the City had already dedicated an enormous amount of time and money to the Edmonds Crossing since 1993. He explained his second concern was the use of mitigation funds, how the funds would be spent, how much would be needed for technical improvements such as odor control, etc. He summarized he was not comfortable there would be sufficient mitigation funds to address all issues. Council President Earling read the proposed resolution: WHEREAS King County intends to develop a new wastewater treatment plant to be known as the `Brightwater Wastewater Treatment Plant" and has designated said plant as an Essential Public Facility; and, WHEREAS, King County has identified the Edmonds Unocal property, located within the municipal boundaries of the City of Edmonds, as one of the six candidate sites for the BrightWater facility; and WHEREAS, King County is currently conducting a feasibility analysis of the six candidate sites to determine which, if any, should proceed through the Environmental Impact Statement process in preparation for development of the BrightWater facility; and WHEREAS, the King County Executive is scheduled to recommend designation of two to five "final candidate" sites to the King County Council during the week of September 10, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council has received testimony from residents, neighbors, City staff, and other groups and individuals regarding the potential siting of the BrightWater facility on the Edmonds Unocal property; and WHEREAS, multiple large scale Essential Public Facilities already exist within or immediately adjacent to the City of Edmonds, including two wastewater facilities, high volume ferry terminal facilities and an adjacent railroad depot; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 200 2nd Ave. S. within the City of Edmonds is a regional secondary wastewater treatment facility currently treating approximately 11.8 million gallons of wastewater per day, including wastewater flows from Edmonds, King County, Mountlake Terrace, Woodway, Lynnwood, and Olympic View Water & Sewer District; and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page 8 WHEREAS, the City of Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant located immediately adjacent to the Meadowdale neighborhood within the City of Edmonds is a regional secondary wastewater treatment facility currently treating approximately 7.4 million gallons of wastewater per day, including wastewater flows from Lynnwood and Edmonds; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has since 1993 worked with the Washington State Department of Transportation to plan for the eventual relocation of the Edmonds Ferry Terminal to the Unocal property site, and has planned for the relocated ferry terminal to be developed as part of a new regional, multimodal transportation facility designed as "Edmonds Crossing;" and WHEREAS, siting the BrightWater facility on the Edmonds Unocal property could severely jeopardize the successful development of the Edmonds Crossing project; and WHEREAS, due to the location, size and topography of the Edmonds Unocal property, development of the proposed BrightWater treatment facility thereon could leave an insufficient buffer area between the treatment plant and neighboring residential areas and impair the ability to mitigate environmental impacts from the Edmonds Crossing Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has very limited developable land within its City limits; and WHEREAS, the addition of the BrightWater sewer facility could impact existing public development of the site for the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Facility as well as impair the long term, ongoing efforts of the City to correct an existing transportation snarl of bus, train, car and ferry traffic that limits public access to the natural features and public facilities previously described; and WHEREAS, the Unocal site is unique to its beautiful setting, its proximity to commercial areas and to a range of recreational facilities and natural habitat areas, including but not limited to Deer Creek Hatchery, Union Oil Marsh, the Port of Edmonds, numerous public beaches, tidelands and an underwater dive park; and WHEREAS, King County has been unable to demonstrate that the Edmonds Crossing Project and the BrightWater Treatment Facility could effectively co -exist on the Unocal property; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds routinely receives complaints from citizens residing near the Lynnwood Treatment Plant regarding odors emanating therefrom; and WHEREAS, while the language contained in King County Resolution 13680 regarding potential mitigation measures to the City Council proposes to mitigate environmental impacts to a limit of ten percent (10%) of plant costs or Ten Million Dollars, whichever is greater; and WHEREAS, the City has expended approximately $3.5 million in federal and state grant monies planning for the Multimodal Facility; and WHEREAS, if the City prematurely terminates the Multimodal Project, the City could be obligated to repay said grants, creating a severe economic impact on the City; and WHEREAS, repayment of such grant monies is a socio-economic impact that King County does not appear willing to assume due to the limited scope of its mitigation resolution; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Council finds that the Edmonds Unocal property is an inappropriate site for King County's proposed BrightWater treatment facility because: A. It would impair the City's ability to maximize the potential of the site for the benefit of the citizens of Edmonds; B. Would impose upon the City an unfair share of the region's sewage treatment facilities; and C. Would impair the City's ongoing efforts to coordinate a variety of public transportation and recreational uses as well as a preservation of natural features, open space and service views, on or near the Unocal site. Section 2. The Edmonds City Council finds that the continued investigation of the Edmonds Unocal property as a candidate site for the potential location of the proposed BrightWater treatment Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page 9 facility would represent a waste of public resources and would create a costly and unnecessary intergovernmental conflict. Section 3. The Edmonds City Council urges the King County Executive to exclude the Edmonds Unocal property from the list of Final Candidates that will be submitted to the King County Council in September 2001 Section 4. It shall be the policy of the City of Edmonds to oppose the continued investigation and potential selection of the Edmonds Unocal property as a candidate site for the King County BrightWater treatment facility. Section 5. The Mayor is requested to convey this resolution to the King County Executive. Mr. Snyder explained this was a difficult situation as the Council was being asked to respond as a legislative body when the Council was also potentially the permitting agency. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine allows that when the Council acts legislative, if the action would destroy the Council's quorum, the Doctrine of Necessity would allow the Council to remain in place. Therefore, the Resolution tends to stress policies, which the Council has adopted in the past, such as the 8-year history of Council support of the Edmonds Crossing Project. He cautioned Councilmembers in their discussion not to prejudge an application that the Council has neither seen nor heard but rather to respond in a broad, general legislative format. Mayor Haakenson read a memo submitted by Councilmember Miller, "Following the July 31, 2001 presentation to the City Council on BrightWater, I have publicly expressed my own reservations and opposition to this project being sited in Edmonds. There are a number of concerns that I have with BrightWater, most of which have been mentioned by many people. The greatest concern, however, is the location and compatibility of this being sited on a premier piece of view property that I have always felt would be ideal for residential and/or commercial development. Although I am unable to attend this evening's presentation on BrightWater to answer the many questions that were raised by the community at our July 31" meeting, after reading the material provided by BrightWater in this evening's packet, my mind remains unchanged and I am still opposed to the proposal which would place this wastewater treatment plant at the Unocal site. I believe, therefore, it is appropriate for our Council to formally declare a collective position on BrightWater and communicate that to King County Executive Ron Sims and the King County Council. I have read the resolution being presented this evening and would encourage my fellow Councilmembers to vote for its approval." Councilmember Orvis commented Edmonds treats its own sewage as well as the sewage from other communities. The Unocal site is a very beautiful and unique site and there clearly were better uses for the site. Based on the information provided in the Resolution, he expressed his support for the Resolution. Councilmember Plunkett noted the Council had conducted due diligence with regard to considering King County's proposal to site BrightWater at the Unocal site. He explained the ultimate decision for siting regional facilities was the responsibility of the King County Executive and King County Council. Councilmember Plunkett expressed his support of the Resolution and urged citizens to express themselves to the King County Council and King County Executive. Councilmember Petso recalled she expressed concern at the July 31 meeting regarding the proximity of the BrightWater treatment facility to the residential area and the ability to fit both projects on the same property. She said the engineer shared her concern, paraphrasing the engineer's comments, "he didn't want to put the two smelliest parts of the plant adjacent to the residential area but the site constraints pretty much required that that be done or it may not look good from other angles." Councilmember Petso summarized under the circumstances the site was too small to accommodate a treatment plant with the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page 10 necessary buffer. She referred to criteria used to evaluate sites such as including an appropriate buffer, selecting sites that do not require extensive alteration, water reuse storage facilities on site, selecting sites that minimize exposure to geographic hazards, and selecting sites that could be appropriately and effectively mitigated. She encouraged citizens to contact King County Council and any other agencies with decision -making authority. She invited citizens to contact her to obtain the siting criteria. She expressed her thanks to Ms. True and Mr. Popiwny for their efforts to educate the Council. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Proposed Gary Gales, 9622 2391h Street SW, Edmonds, explained the purpose of his petition was to transmit his Sidewalks & Parking Lot concerns and objections to the elected officials the City Edmondse way Y of over the the City has and is Improve- proceeding with plans to install sidewalks in his neighborhood and construct a parking lot on Woodway ments near Elementary School property. He described their contact with City staff on June 19 and 21 to express Woodway Elementary their concerns, orally and in writing, noting they had not yet received a response from staff. His first school concern was the City, Edmonds School District, and a special interest group have been working on a design for over 3'/2 years to construct a parking lot on Woodway Elementary School property and install sidewalks on 238`h, 2391h, 240`h Streets SW, 240t1i Place SW, and 96`h and 97th Place West. He noted the City solicited bids in June 2001 without consulting property owners and property owners have yet to be informed. He said staff indicated it was not necessary to inform abutting property owners as an assessment was not sought against their properties. Mr. Gales second concern was that a major component of the project was construction of a parking lot and questioned why the City was contracting for capital improvement projects on property that was not owned by the City. He commented the City's only involvement in this project should be to ensure the project meets current zoning requirements and issues the appropriate building permit. He requested the Council, 1) hold a public hearing to collect input and to address the concerns of abutting property owners, and 2) veto any measure that contains a component to establish capital improvement projects on non -City property. Mayor Haakenson indicated he had e-mailed Mr. Gales today and offered to have Mr. Bowman address Mr. Gales' concerns at the conclusion of public comments. Proposed Sidewalks & Patricia Gales, 9622 2391h Street SW, Edmonds, said staff acknowledged they had "messed up" on the Parking Lot Improve- sidewalk project by not notifying abutting property owners and urged the Gales to trust him, indicating ments near the City would do the right thing for the neighbors. When she requested a traffic survey be conducted on Woodway 239th to get a true representation of local neighborhood traffic, she was told the equipment was broken Elementary school and would not be repaired until September. She was also told the traffic survey conducted during the planning stage had been lost or destroyed. Ms. Gales cited the limited amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic she observed while conducted her own traffic survey today between 8:00 — 9:00 a.m., 2:30 — 3:30 p.m., and 5:00 — 6:00 p.m. She concluded there was little reason for a sidewalk on 2361h SW or 96th Place W. BrightWater Michael Lowell 316 7th Avenue N Edmonds expressed his appreciation for the Council passing the Treatment > > > p Pp p g Plant resolution regarding BrightWater. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page I htwater Joe Camden, 1021 A Avenue S, Edmonds, thanked the Council for passing the resolution regarding t- ent BrightWater. He noted image was very important and questioned what image a sewage treatment plant t provided. He questioned the comments by King County that a treatment plant could be viewed as an amenity and could improve the quality of life in Edmonds. He commented regarding odor he encountered near the Edmonds Treatment Plant, noting he had never complained to the City. Alvin Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, expressed concern that the Council had "cut a BrightWater Treatment deal„ and agreed they were opposed to the BrightWater treatment facility prior to tonight's meeting. He Plant suggested the Council apologize to King County for allowing them to make a presentation when the Council had already taken a position. Council President Earling responded the Council had not "cut a deal;" staff had been asked to begin drafting a resolution for presentation this evening. The resolution was provided to Councilmembers prior to the meeting tonight and they were asked to review it prior to voting. He objected to Mr. Rutledge's implication that a deal had been cut. BrightWater Susie Schaefer, 1055 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, explained she was interested in determining whether reatment the BrightWater facility could benefit Edmonds, particularly by providing an environmental education rant center for the Parks and Recreation Department via mitigation for the treatment facility. She questioned whether the Union Oil Marsh disappeared if the projects were constructed. Mayor Haakenson provided a map of the proposal to Ms. Schaefer, identifying the Union Oil Marsh and indicating it would be retained. ned Terry Hanna, 6920 172"d Street SW, Edmonds, suggested when the draft Planned Residential idential Development (PRD) ordinance was ready for final approval, it be presented to the public in referendum elop- form. He commented that although the PRD ordinance had been reviewed at 22 meetings over three is years, he was not aware it was being discussed. He observed several Councilmembers were also surprised it would allow duplexes, reduced setbacks, accessory dwelling units, etc. He recalled discussing a PRD with staff who assured him two public hearing would be held but was not told there was an effort underway to revise that process. He supported eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy, but pointed out the need to balance the financial investment of the developer with the financial investment of existing property owners. If the Council was not willing to place the proposed amendment on the ballot in referendum form, he suggested the Council hold a public hearing regarding the proposed changes. Mr. Hanna also suggested a clause be included that indicated the regulations would be adopted on a trial, one- year basis and allowing the flexibility to override the guidelines. He invited other concerned residents to contact him at (425) 741-3050. BrightWater Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, agreed with the Council's action regarding BrightWater. Treatment He noted residents did not want to be included in BrightWater because it was too expensive for Plant ratepayers. The proposal did not include access to the waterfront or Port or any method of reaching the train depot. He referred to an article in the August 30 Edmonds Beacon regarding an individual who otem Pole acquired a piece of a totem pole and was now being sued by the City. He suggested this was being done Piece for political purposes as the individual was running for City Council. He questioned whether City employees who acquired pieces of the totem pole were also being sued or only the individual running for City Council. htWater Syd Locke, 110 Pine Street, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation to the Council for their vote against tment the BrightWater facility. He commented he intended to vote against BrightWater, rezoning, height t g h' g g g� g increases, etc. that would be required to build the treatment facility in Edmonds. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 . Page 12 rightWater Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, commented the BrightWater siting process was flawed as reatment the Woodinville site had been disqualified due to permits for subsidized housing, the gun range had been last eliminated as the site was used by governmental public safety agencies, there were concerns being raised regarding the gravel pit due to a possible lack of soil, the Thrasher's Corner site would require the removal of 64 homes, and the Edmonds site had very little buffer. He requested the King County Council reopen the siting process and reconsider the original seven sites. otem Pole City Attorney Scott Snyder explained when the City brought action to obtain the return a piece of the Piece former City art (totem pole), the action was brought against Mr. Locke, because the City knew he had the pole in his yard, as well as John and Jane Doe, individuals who might have sections of the pole that were missing. By working with Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde, several pieces of the pole that had been removed from the dumpster by City employees had been recovered. The City has currently accounted for all pieces of the pole except those in Mr. Locke's possession. Councilmember Petso apologized to the Gales that she had not had an opportunity to address their concerns with staff. She assured they would receive a reply from staff or her in the next few days. She requested staff copy her on any response to the Gales. Councilmember Petso also apologized to Terry Hanna for not responding to his email and telephone call requesting she speak to him prior to the Council meeting, and offered to call him tomorrow. Proposed At Mayor Haakenson's request, Development Services Director Duane Bowman responded to the Gales Sidewalks & concerns. He concurred there was an issue with regard to the sidewalk project in this area. The normal Parking Lot process would be to have a community meeting; as this did not occur, a decision was made to pull this Improve- project and begin the public process again. A community meeting has been scheduled in the Woodway ents near Woodway Elementary School Gym at 7:00 p.m. on September 19. Elementary School City Engineer Dave Gebert explained he was one of the staff members who met with and spoke with the Gales. He said the Community Services/Development Services Committee was briefed regarding the intent to cancel that walkway project this year due to the inadequate public involvement process. He explained general neighborhood concerns as well as individual property owner's concerns would be addressed and the results presented to the Council for a decision regarding whether sidewalks should be installed in this area. Mayor Haakenson asked why this was a joint project with the school district. Mr. Gebert explained the project eliminated some on -street parking in the areas where the walkway was located, on -street parking that historically was used by visitors to the school. Additional parking would be installed as mitigation for the loss of parking. As the City would be doing construction in the area, the school district requested the City serve as the school district's contract administrator to make repairs to their parking lot (funded by the School District via an Interlocal Agreement). 5. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Marin explained several months ago when staff presented the street overlay program to the Community Services/Development Services Committee, committee members expressed interest in taking advantage of opportunities for economy of scale. He reported staff was supportive of seeking Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page 13 opportunities to "get as much bang for the buck as was`"available" and have been able to identify opportunities for economy of scale as well as overlaying more streets. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS At 9:24 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to an Executive Session regarding labor negotiations and a legal matter. He did not anticipate any action would be taken and indicated the Council would adjourn immediately following the conclusion of the Executive Session. G RY FVkENSON, MAYOR 1 SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2001 Page 14 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t' Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 7:00 P.M. - Call to Order Flan Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2001 (C) Approval of claim checks #50304 through #50428 for the week of August 27, 2001, in the amount of $167,069.19. (D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Lori Cress ($136.00) (E) Authorization for Mayor to sign contract with Braun Northwest, Inc. to rechassis and refurbish one aid unit 3 (60 Min.) Informational update on Edmonds Crossing/BrightWater Treatment Plant - Follow up to July 31, 2001 meeting 4. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 5. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 6. (15 Min.) Council Comments 7. (30 Min.) Executive Session regarding labor negotiations 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.