01/05/2010 City CouncilJanuary 5, 2010
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley - Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
f�\Il►I1101kiYa,%Ymi"KilWIXT1I so Ell 1[$11101 Lei aIC17►1*110AW 11111[x111111ZIl01WCSIraM
Councilmember Plunkett advised this was the beginning of his fourth term, his twelfth year on the
Council. He introduced his fiancee Patty Corbin and his daughter, Megan Elder. His daughter
administered the oath of office to Michael Plunkett.
Maria Montalvo, Councilmember Peterson's wife, administered the oath of office to Strom Peterson.
Judge Stephen Dwyer administered the oath of office to Adrienne Fraley Monillas. Councilmember
Fraley - Monillas recognized several guests in the audience including her sister, mother, aunts, cousins,
brothers, son and his father, Snohomish County Council Member Mike Cooper, Representative Marilyn
Chase and several friends.
2. RECEPTION IN HONOR OF NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS
At 7:10 p.m. Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a reception in honor of the newly elected
officials.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Mayor Haakenson requested the addition of two items to the agenda: "Resolution Opposing Commercial
Air Passenger and Other Incompatible Air Service at Paine Field Located Within Snohomish County" as
Agenda Item 18B, and "Interim Ordinance Amending Title 20 ECDC Review Criteria and Procedures to
Expand Opportunities for Closed Record Administrative Appeals" as Agenda Item 18C. It was the
consensus of the Council to add the "Resolution Opposing Commercial Air Passenger and Other
Incompatible Air Service at Paine Field" to the Consent Agenda as Item 4J.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 1
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
With regard to the Council minutes, Agenda Item 413, City Attorney Scott Snyder explained he sent the
Council a memo regarding the Reaffirmation of the 2008 Park Plan, that noted the dates he cited when the
City closed on the 5.5 acre park and the date the Council did not vote to affirm the revocation of the
Interlocal Agreement were incorrect. He also confirmed the Council vote was via a 3 -4 vote, not a 3 -3
vote. The minutes correctly reflect what was stated.
Mayor Haakenson referred to Consent Agenda Item 4J, Resolution Opposing Commercial Air Passenger
and Other Incompatible Air Service at Paine Field Located Within Snohomish County, explaining the
Council has reaffirmed this resolution every year for the past 3 -4 years. At a public hearing last night at
Meadowdale High School on the environmental impact findings related to commercial air service at Paine
Field, an Edmonds citizen stated the City Council was railroaded into passing the resolution several years
ago and it did not reflect the current Council's position. Therefore, the resolution was placed on tonight's
agenda to reaffirm the Council's position.
Mayor Haakenson advised the FAA /Snohomish County has scheduled three public hearings on the EIS,
last night's meeting at Meadowdale High School, tonight in Everett and the third public hearing,
originally scheduled at the Lynnwood Convention Center on January 21, has been relocated to Kamiak
High School in Mukilteo.
Councilmember Plunkett requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIlVI, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 2009.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #115937 THROUGH #116129 DATED DECEMBER
17, 2009 FOR $855,651.44, #116130 THROUGH #116169 DATED DECEMBER 22, 2009
FOR $141,316.01, AND #116170 THROUGH #116196 DATED DECEMBER 30, 2009 FOR
$327,839.29. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #48955
THROUGH #48988 FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 15,
2009 FOR $820,485.52.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SECURITY
CONTRACTOR SERVICES ($1,775.28), FIDALGO PAVING & CONSTRUCTION
($60,215.94), BOB AND WENDY CHAFFEE ($144.66), PENNY J. EVERS ($165.56), AND
BRANDON M. JOHNSON ($158.67).
F. APPROVAL OF EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION 2010 CULTURAL. TOURISM
PROMOTION AWARDS CONTRACTS TO PROMOTE CULTURAL EVENTS THAT
BRING VISITORS TO EDMONDS.
G. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 WITH
PERTEET, INC. FOR THE 2009 ASPHALT OVERLAY PROJECT.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 2
H. ORDINANCE NO. 3774 — AMEND CITY CODE CHAPTER 6.65 EDMONDS FIRE
DEPARTMENT - PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES.
I. RESOLUTION NO. 1216 — THANKING COUNCILMEMBER DJ WILSON FOR HIS
SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
J. RESOLUTION NO. 1219 — OPPOSING COMMERCIAL AIR PASSENGER AND OTHER
INCOMPATIBLE AIR SERVICE AT PAINE FIELD LOCATED WITHIN SNOHOMISH
COUNTY.
ITEM E. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND
MIKE DOUBLEDAY, AND SALTER JOYCE ZYKER.
Councilmember Plunkett explained the City employed a lobbyist at a cost of $35,000 /year. During the
legislative session, he received approximately $4,000 /month and $2,500 /month while the legislature was
not in session. He acknowledged Mr. Doubleday was an excellent lobbyist and he provided a great deal
of information. Following the legislative session, he planned to review the termination clause in Mr.
Doubleday's contract due to his concern that the information the City received from the lobbyist during
the months the legislature was not in session was available elsewhere. He pointed out Edmonds had six
legislative representatives, Snohomish County Council Member Mike Cooper, an experienced mayor, and
AWC. He planned to research what the City was paying for that resulted in information that was not
otherwise available.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item
approved is as follows:
E. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND
MIKE DOUBLEDAY, AND SALTER JOYCE ZYKER.
5. INTRODUCTION OF NEW STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE.
Councilmember Wilson introduced Graham Marmion, a senior at Edmonds- Woodway High School and
described his background.
Student Representative Marmion thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve as the Student
Representative.
6. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2010
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON NOMINATED STEVE BERNHEIM FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2010. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS SECONDED THE
NOMINATION.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
CLOSE NOMINATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE VOTE ON THE NOMINATION FOR STEVE BERNHEIM FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2010 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2010
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT NOMINATED STROM PETERSON FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2010. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS SECONDED THE
NOMINATION.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 3
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PRO TEM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE VOTE ON THE NOMINATION FOR STROM PETERSON FOR THE POSITION OF
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES
Council President Bernheim read the following Committee appointments:
9.
10.
Committee
Representative
Community Serv. /Dev. Serv. Committee
Councilmembers Orvis & Peterson
Finance Committee
Councilmembers Plunkett & Position #4
Public Safety Committee
Councilmembers Wilson & Frale - Monillas
Community Outreach
Councilmembers Plunkett & Frale - Monillas
Community Technology Advisory Committee
Councilmembers Plunkett & Wilson
Community Transit
Council President Bernheim
Disability Board
Councilmembers Councilmember Peterson &
Frale - Monillas
Downtown Edmonds Parking
Councilmembers Plunkett & Frale - Monillas
Economic Development Committee
Councilmembers Wilson & Peterson
Highway 99 Task Force
Councilmember Peterson & Frale - Monillas
Historic Preservation Advisory Commission
Councilmember Plunkett
Long Range Task Force
Councilmembers Councilmember Peterson &
Wilson
Lake Ballinger Work Group
Councilmember Wilson
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
Councilmember Wilson
Municipal Court Review Committee
Councilmember Frale - Monillas
PFD Oversight Committee
Councilmember Peterson
Port of Edmonds
Vacant
SeaShore Transportation Forum
Vacant
SnoCom
Mayor Haakenson, Police Chief Compaan &
Councilmember Wilson (alt)
Snohomish County Health District
Councilmember Orvis
Snohomish County Tomorrow
Position #4 & Councilmember Fraley -
Monillas alt
South Snohomish Cities
Councilmembers Wilson and Frale - Monillas
Salmon Recovery - WIRA -8
Vacant
RESOLUTION APPOINTING A COUNCILMEMBER TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY
HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1217 APPOINTING DAVE ORVIS TO THE SNOHOMISH
COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING A COUNCILMEMBER AS REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1218 APPOINTING STEVE BERNHEIM AS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 4
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
AREA CORPORATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
IL CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF LOIS JEAN BROADWAY AND TODD
CLOUTIER TO THE PLANNING BOARD
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF TODD CLOUTIER TO THE PLANNING
BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF LOIS JEAN BROADWAY TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
Councilmember Wilson commented Ms. Broadway was a well qualified candidate and would do an
outstanding job on the Planning Board; however, if not appointed, there was another candidate available
who would also do an admirable job on the Planning Board.
MOTION FAILED (1 -5), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING YES.
Mayor Haakenson advised he would present another candidate to the Council.
12. PRESENTATION BY WSDOT FERRIES DIVISION ASSISTANT SECRETARY DAVID
MOSLEY - UPDATE ON VEHICLE RESERVATIONS PRE - DESIGN STUDY.
Mr. Mosley explained the Vehicle Reservation Pre - Design Study was released on December 15, 2009.
During the 2007 legislative session, the legislature directed Washington State Ferries (WSF) to conduct a
Long Range Plan and identified a number of areas that would be addressed in the Plan. That process took
two years; WSF reported to the legislature during the 2009 session. ESHB 2358 directed WSF to change
the planning modes and first consider opportunities to better manage assets before considering options
that expanded the system via increasing the number of vessels or constructing larger terminals. That
direction led to the 2009 Plan, released in June 2009 that focused on managing demand via existing assets
and managing expected growth by minimizing the need for capital investments. A Vehicle Reservation
System was proposed as a key demand management strategy because it would provide the opportunity for
the ferry system to offer higher quality services with the smallest practical terminal holding areas while
accommodating traffic that accumulates in host communities. By minimizing holding needs, the Plan
identified approximately $280 million in terminal expansion dollars that could be deferred or eliminated if
reservations were implemented throughout the system.
The Vehicle Reservation System has three goals:
1. Must work for customers
Provide customers more certainty with regard to sailings
Provide real time information on preferred sailing
• Reduce customer waiting time
2. Must work for host communities
Reduce queuing outside terminals and improve traffic flow around terminals and host
communities
• Be easy to use, flexible
• Meet the needs of a variety of customer types
Must work for WSF
• Spread demand from peak sailing times to times when more space is available
• Maximize use of existing assets (vessels and terminals)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 5
• Serve more customers over time while minimizing capital costs without significantly
increasing operating costs
• Integrate the existing fare collection system
• Increase opportunities to grow ridership by offering better and more predictable service
To achieve those goals, WSF adopted a three -tier approach:
1. Learn from others' experience including the vehicle reservation system currently available on
WSF's Port Townsend- Keystone route, Anacortes- Sydney route and commercial customers
within San Juan Island as well as systems around the world. Most large ferry systems around
the world, particularly recreational routes utilize a vehicle reservation system.
2. Conduct a Request for Information from technology vendors worldwide that support
reservation systems. There was also an effort to gather input from each area of expertise
within WSF.
3. Engage customers and community members in the development of business rules (how the
system will work), terminal operations and vehicle process. A community partnership group
was formed to look at the Edmonds - Kingston route as a prototype. The Edmonds - Kingston
route was selected as a prototype because it has all the types of uses throughout the system —
commuter base, largest vehicle use in the system, recreational base, largest commercial user
base in the system, Kingston tenninal large enough for a vehicle reservation system without
improvements, and a smaller, more constrained tenninal n Edmonds. He identified the
Edmonds residents who participated in the community partnership group.
Mr. Mosley explained through research and the participation of the community partnership group, lessons
learned included:
• Customers plan trips in different ways and must have flexibility particularly on return trips
• On time performance and real time communications are necessary /essential and a precondition of
a vehicle reservation system
• Reservation system can and should be different for every route depending on the ridership
characteristics of each route
• Most large ferry systems have vehicle reservation systems particularly recreational routes
He reiterated a precondition for a vehicle reservation system was an intelligent transportation system
(ITS) communications system. This would be essential not only for the vehicle reservation system but
would also serve as a demand management tool by allowing users to make advance decisions regarding
routes and times. The information must be accurate, real time and shared in a broad -based manner. This
requires upgrading the WSF's systems including highway ferry advisory radio, broadcast variable
message system, local signs around terminals, email, text message, website improvements, etc.
He reviewed elements of the Vehicle Reservation System:
1. Business rules — how the system works. The Pre - Design Study establishes a priority access
program for frequent users to address the fear that recreational users would fill up the reservation
system in advance and local residents and commuters would be pushed out of high peak times.
2. Vehicle processing in terminals — the study determined 17 of the 20 WSF terminals could
accommodate a vehicle reservation system, some requiring modification. The terminals at
Fauntleroy, Vashon, Tehlequah, and Mukilteo were not able to accommodate a vehicle
reservation system
3. Technology — the reservation system must share information with existing ticketing systems, it
must work well with toll booths and operators, work with the existing multi -ride products, and
accommodate full fare prepayment for vehicle and passengers
The Study considered several alternatives:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 6
1. Upgrade the reservation system, implement new business rules, implement new technology on
routes with existing vehicle reservation systems
2. Expand the reservation system to all San Juan customers and commercial customers throughout
the system
3. Add real time regional ITS communication system.
4. Expand the reservation system to customers in the north and central Puget Sound routes
(Edmonds - Kingston, Seattle- Bainbridge, Seattle- Bremerton)
5. Extend the reservation system to all customers on all routes
The WSF's preferred alternative is #4 which would be implemented in a phased manner. This would
provide vehicle reservation on all routes except Fauntleroy - Vashon, Tehlequah -Pt. Defiance, and
Mukilteo- Clinton, provide overall benefit to customers by saving time and managing demand, offer
benefits to a majority of customers while keeping costs per rider low.
WSF proposed implementing alternative 4 in three phases:
Phase 1: Acquire and test an industry standard reservation technology system, procure a system
via an RFP, employ reservations on routes with existing reservation systems, learn from
that experience with new business rules and new technology, and built ITS
enhancements.
Phase 2: Fully implement the reservation system with all San Juan Islands customers and
commercial customers throughout the system and build a regional ITS communication
system.
Phase 3: Expand the reservation system to customers in the north and central Puget Sound routes.
Operate a pilot program for 3 -6 months.
He explained the benefit of the implementation schedule was it allows WSF to build the system gradually
and learn from each phase before proceeding to the next phase. The cost of the improved communication
system and vehicle reservation system is estimated to be $26 million over a five biennial (ten years)
period. Each phase would be operational before funds were requested for the next phase. The cost of the
communication is approximately $12 million. The Long Range Plan estimated the cost of reservation
system at $18 million; the actual cost is anticipated to be less. Operation costs are minimal,
approximately $1 million per biennium increasing to $2.5 million at full implementation.
The Joint Transportation Committees were briefed today; both Senate and House Transportation
Committees will be briefed during the session. If the legislature makes a decision to proceed with Phase
1, design and implementation will begin. The Ferry Advisory Committee's Executive Council was
briefed in December and they unanimously endorsed the recommendations. The recommendations have
also been endorsed by the Kingston Ferry Advisory Committee.
Mayor Haakenson recognized Mr. Mosley for his reception and sensitivity to Edmonds' concerns over the
past 12 -18 months.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled 7 -9 years ago there was interest in a reservation system for economic
development reasons; to get ferry riders to leave the ferry line and shop /eat downtown. At that time
WSDOT was not interested in a reservation system. He asked whether there had been any research into
whether people would leave the ferry line and shop /eat downtown. Mr. Mosley answered when the
vehicle reservation system was implemented in Port Townsend - Keystone two years ago, as people
became more familiar with the reservation system, they parked at the terminal and went downtown. He
noted the Chamber of Commerce initially had concerns with the reservation system; after it was
implemented and they realized the benefits to downtown, they became very supportive of the system.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 7
Councilmember Plunkett asked why the Chamber had concerns with the vehicle reservation system. Mr.
Mosley assumed it was the change and uncertainty regarding implementation. He noted the vehicle
reservation system was beneficial to economic development as well as environmentally as vehicles no
longer idled for long periods of time, inching their way down the hill toward the terminal.
Mayor Haakenson recognized Scout Troop 312 in the audience.
13. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR EDMONDS COMMUTER RAIL STATION BETWEEN
THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND SOUND TRANSIT AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SOUND TRANSIT AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS.
Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained in November 1996
voters approved local funding for Sound Move, a regional transit system plan. Sound Move includes
three new types of regional transportation — light rail, commuter rail and a regional express bus /HOV
system. One of the Sound Move projects in the 82 -mile corridor between Everett and Tacoma was the
existing Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station in downtown Edmonds. For the past several years Sound
Transit has been working on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) as well as worked extensively with a Citizen Advisory Committee in Edmonds in the
early 2000s. Sound Transit also presented a plan to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) and the City
Council in 2002. For the past several years Sound Transit has been working with Edmonds staff and
other agencies on the design and building permits.
Mr. Clifton referred to the Development Agreement, explaining the City and Sound Transit propose to
enter into the agreement for the project as authorized by RCW 36.70B.170 -2.10 to establish development
standards, mitigate and vest the project. Pursuant to RCW 36.70.200, tonight's City Council meeting
offers the public an opportunity to comment on the agreement. He highlighted items the City requested
be incorporated into the project including artistic elements within certain segments of mesh fencing along
station platforms, hanging baskets on lamp post brackets, relocation of the "Standing Wave" sculpture
from east of the holding lanes to the originally proposed Edmonds Station near Main and Railroad, dark
sky - compliant Sternberg light fixtures similar to lighting downtown. Sound Transit has agreed to the
City's request to incorporate LED elements in the Sternberg light fixtures /lamp posts to conserve energy.
Sections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 of the Development Agreement highlight the relationship of Sound Transit
Edmonds Station to the Edmonds Crossing multimodal project and recognize the financial hurdle facing
Edmonds Crossing. The agreement states Sound Transit and the City will meet annually to discuss the
need for additional improvements at the Sound Transit Edmonds Station project regardless of the
Edmonds Crossing project. Section 5 of the agreement states the project is allowed as a permitted use
within the BC zone as provided by the ECDC 16.50.01 O.A.1.1. The agreement also acknowledges City
permits and approvals are required including but not limited to right -of -way, drainage, signage,
demolition, electrical permits, etc. Once the Development Agreement is executed, the City can issue
permits and approval necessary to complete the project consistent with the Agreement and any other
applicable laws and regulations.
Mr. Clifton pointed out both parties recognize construction of the second track platform and the final
configuration of the station platforms depicted on the plans referenced in Section G of the agreement
depend on BNSF constructing the second track east of the existing track. Once BNSF constructs the
second rail line, Sound Transit will build the west platform and associated amenities. BNSF indicates
grading south of Dayton will begin in early 2010 with the eventual installation of the second rail line in
2011 or 2012.
If approved by the City Council, Section 3.1 of the Interlocal Agreement provides that the City grant to
Sound Transit non - exclusive use of portions of Railroad Avenue in the City as described in consideration
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 8
of Sound Transit's promises regarding ownership, operation and maintenance of the project within the
right -of -way. Section 3.2 of the Interlocal Agreement states Sound Transit shall own, operate and
maintain all facilities associated with the project including without limitation improvements constructed
at the cost and expense of Sound Transit. The parties acknowledge Sound Transit will own, operate and
maintain certain elements of the project described in Section 3.2 and subsequent amendments to the
agreement may be necessary. Section 3.5 of the Interlocal Agreement states Sound Transit at its sole cost
and expense shall furnish all materials, parts, components, equipment, and structures necessary to
construct and operate the project. Section 4 relates to permitting and includes subsections that require
Sound Transit at its sole cost and expense to secure and maintain all federal, state and local permits and
licenses required for construction, operation and maintenance of the Commuter Rail Transit System. This
section also requires Sound Transit to operate, maintain and repair the project in compliance with all
federal, state and local laws, ordinances, environmental rules and regulations.
The Interlocal Agreement has an indefinite term and shall remain in full force and effect unless Sound
Transit ceases use of the right -of -way granted pursuant to Section 3. If the City Council approves the
Development Agreement and Interlocal Agreement, four steps will be necessary before Sound Transit can
commence construction, 1) execution of the Interlocal Agreement, 2) issuance of building permit, 3)
Sound Transit issues bids and 4) Sound Transit awards contracts. He expected this would occur in 2010.
Mr. Clifton introduced Jodi Mitchell, Project Manager, Sound Transit, and Eric Beckman, Rail Program
Manager, Sound Transit. He recognized Ms. Mitchell for her efforts to move the Development
Agreement and Interlocal Agreement and design to this point. He summarized if constructed in 2010, the
project will bring sales tax dollars as well as much - needed jobs into the community.
Council President Bernheim asked how passengers would cross the tracks to access trains traveling in the
opposite direction. Mr. Clifton answered they would be required to go to either Main or Dayton to cross.
There would be large vehicle crossing gates as well as pedestrian gates for safety.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the difference between the Development Agreement and the Interlocal.
Agreement. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Development Agreement provided for vesting and
locking in design and amenities. The purpose of the Interlocal Agreement was to provide for the use of
the Railroad Avenue right -of -way. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the two could be combined.
Mr. Snyder answered that would not be appropriate as development agreements are a specific tool that is
limited by State statute.
Councilmember Wilson observed the project plans were approved by ADB in 2002 and asked whether
there had been any substantive changes with regard to design during the ensuing seven years. Jodi
Mitchell, Project Manager, Sound Transit, explained at one time the station was to be a temporary
project; during the past year a decision was made for this to be the permanent location for the station.
Councilmember Wilson observed none of the components were designed with the intent of moving. Ms.
Mitchell agreed. Councilmember Wilson commented the City's policy was for any new public buildings
to have at least silver LEED certification. He asked whether any of those environmental standards could
be incorporated into this project such as rain collection. Ms. Mitchell responded the design included a
great deal of storm drainage. Councilmember Wilson suggested there may be opportunities such as rain
gardens with minor design changes.
Councilmember Orvis asked the impact of this project on James Street. Mr. Clifton answered James
Street would be accessible by both the public and buses; Community Transit will use James Street to
access Railroad Street. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the agreement would prohibit closing James
Street. Mr. Clifton answered that would require discussion with Sound Transit and Community Transit
because Jaines Street would be used for bus access. Mr. Snyder responded that was the Council's
legislative prerogative and the agreement would not prohibit it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 9
With regard to Councilmember Wilson's question regarding LEED certification, Mr. Clifton explained
lighting is the primary energy consumer in the project which LED lighting will reduce. Most of the other
project components are impervious and a storm collection system has been integrated into the site. The
shelters will shed water onto the platforms and parking lots and into the drainage facility. There are no
large structures associated with the project.
Mayor Haakenson invited the public to provide comment.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, commented it was clear the ferry terminal and railroad station were in their
permanent locations and that area should be regarded as a new gateway to Edmonds and more attention
should be paid to aesthetics. She requested the agreements include the following requirements, 1)
removal of nine large utility poles on the boundary between the BNSF property and the Safeway /Skipper
properties between Dayton and Main, and 2) removal of large utility poles along the west side of Railroad
Avenue between Main and Dayton.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, observed two -way traffic would be maintained on Railroad Avenue. He
recommended the Council request as mitigation a pedestrian underpass to cross the tracks. He questioned
whether the agreements were for development of a ferry terminal at Main Street or at the Unocal site and
whether major changes would be required if the terminal were moved to the Unocal site. Because the
design approved by the ADB was a temporary station, he recommended ADB review the project again
now that it was a permanent station. He also questioned whether the EIS addressed future traffic impacts
and parking requirements.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public comment period.
Councilmember Wilson asked if it would be appropriate for the ADB to review the project again due to
the amount of time that had passed since the original approval. Mr. Clifton explained due to WSF's
financial constraints for Edmonds ferry terminal improvements, he presented the 2002 plan to the Council
in February 2009 to request the Council's support for implementing the 2002 plan. He was uncertain
what the ADB would review because the plans were nearly identical nor what the benefit of additional
ADB review would be. The ADB's approval in 2002 included a request for City staff to review any fence
requirements and bring the proposal back to the ADB if appropriate. He advised Cultural Services
Manager Frances Chapin and he have met with Sound Transit staff and requested the inclusion of artistic
elements within certain sections of mesh fencing to enhance the 2002 proposal.
Councilmember Wilson asked the purpose of the ADB. Mr. Snyder responded their function was to
review designs of certain classes of buildings other than single family homes. Councilmember Wilson
asked whether there was a time limitation on ADB's review. Mr. Snyder answered the Council had the
discretion to send the project back to the ADB or deny the Development Agreement. ADB approval is
good for 18 months and can be extended for a year upon application. The Development Agreement was
initially presented approximately five years ago.
Councilmember Wilson asked the benefit of sending the project back to the ADB for additional review.
If the Council wanted to send the project back to the ADB, Mr. Clifton recommended the Council
approve the Development Agreement and Interlocal Agreement subject to ADB approval. He did not
anticipate the ADB would deny the project due to artistic elements included in the project, shelter design,
etc. Mr. Snyder pointed out the SEPA and NEPA process were complete and there had not been any
change in the City's design requirements or review criteria for this area other than the passage of eight
years. Mr. Clifton advised the ADB met the first and/or third Wednesday of each month. If the Council
wished to send the project back to the ADB, he suggested staff prepare a packet for the third Wednesday
in January. Staff is still working on the building permit; review by the ADB would not slow that process.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 10
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Council considered the approved design when the project was
presented in February 2009. Mr. Clifton responded he provided the 2002 two- dimensional plan as
presented to the Council and ADB. Councilmember Plunkett did not recall any concerns had been
expressed with the design at that time. Mr. Clifton explained at the time of the February 2009
presentation, he requested Council's concurrence in implementing the 2002 plan because WSF's Long
Range Plan did not include funding for Edmonds Crossing. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the design
of the station was discussed at the February 2009 presentation. Mr. Clifton responded a color rendering
was provided.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding a traffic study, Mr. Clifton advised the NEPA and
SEPA processes have been completed. He recalled when the 2002 plan was originally presented to the
Council, there was an extensive discussion regarding the amount of parking proposed for the project. The
current plan contains nearly the same number proposed in 2002 which the Council accepted.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the parking was the same as currently existed. Mr. Clifton answered
the northern portion between James and Main would be turned into a Community Transit bus station as
presented in 2002. Councilmember Plunkett asked why a traffic study would not be required if there was
an appreciably different parking configuration. Mr. Clifton stated there was no difference between what
the Council reviewed in 2002 and the environmental processes have been completed. He offered to verify
that a traffic study had been completed in the past.
Council President Bernheim asked whether the ADB reviewed the two - dimensional plans rather than
elevations of the stations. Mr. Clifton answered the ADB reviewed all elements of the plan including
two - dimensional and vertical.
Council President Bernheim posed several questions:
• Can utility poles be removed?
• Does approving the agreements preclude the possibility of a track crossing in the future? He did
not recall any other locations where commuters parked on one side of the track, walked to the end
of the street, crossed the track and walked to the station.
• Are 175 parking spaces enough for a train station and a bus hub?
• Timeline for the project?
With regard to the project timeline, Mr. Clifton responded the parties were interested in completing the
project, noting he had worked on it since 2002 and it was originally planned for completion in 2001
according to the 1996 Plan. He felt there was some urgency to complete the project because South
Snohomish County commuters deserved a facility that provided weather protection, lighting, adequate
water collection, traffic management, safety. He concluded the proposed project was a much improved
facility compared to the existing facility.
With regard to an overcrossing, Mr. Clifton explained the 2008 Sound Transit ballot included $23 - $26
million for future permanent Edmonds station improvements. That plan extends through 2023, providing
funds in the future that could potentially be used for an overcrossing, parking structure, etc. The
agreement required Sound Transit and the City to meet annually to discuss the needs of the station. He
welcomed input from the Council and the public, particularly station users, regarding potential
improvements.
With regard to the utility poles, Sound Transit has been meeting with utility providers to ensure the
utilities in the area meet current standards. He offered to research whether there were plans to move any
poles, noting one pole near Main would be relocated. Council President Bernheim asked whether the
project included any features that reflected the Council's interest in sustainability. He agreed the utility
poles should be removed if possible. Mr. Snyder pointed out because NEPA and SEPA had been done,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 11
there had been no substantial change in the regulatory structure or ADB requirements and the design was
the same, if the Council chose to send the project back to the ADB for review, it was very likely the result
would be the same. Absent a new environmental impact, there was no reason to require offsite
improvements. He pointed out most if not all of the utility poles were not located on the site.
Councilmember Peterson asked when SEPA review was conducted. Mr. Snyder answered 1999. There
has been no change in the City's regulatory structure or SEPA ordinance since that time that would
impact this project, leaving no leverage to require something more. Councilmember Peterson referred to
future Phase II stormwater requirements. Mr. Snyder answered that was the risk Sound Transit took by
not bringing this agreement to the Council years ago, having to comply with newly enacted ordinances.
However, in this instance, there have not been any changes that would affect this project.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether any consideration had been given to including new stormwater
retention systems such as rain gardens or pervious surfaces in this project. He anticipated there was
funding available for that type of innovative technology. Mr. Clifton responded staff would inquire with
Planning Manager Rob Chave and Sound Transit although they were not required to provide that.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out a discussion regarding design at this time was appropriate as only
two members of the Council were on the Council in 2002. It was his understanding that there had been
significant design changes because the project was previously a temporary station with the pieces
designed so that they could be moved to a future facility. Because the station was now a permanent
facility, he anticipated the design of the features would be different. Mr. Clifton responded the interim
station would allow the amenities included in the project to be relocated to Edmonds Crossing. Mr.
Snyder recalled because of the limited space, views, the need to provide parking and the nature of the
project, the normal ADB landscaping requirements were not appropriate. Instead of landscaping, public
art projects were provided which represented many of the portable elements of the project. One of the
major topics of discussion and review by the ADB was appropriate architectural and art amenities in lieu
of landscaping. The structures met the City's design guidelines in 2002, the same design guidelines that
are in place today for this type of project.
Councilmember Wilson recalled when the Council discussed development of the Antique Mall and
Skippers properties approximately 18 months ago, Mr. Snyder recommended consideration be given to
how development could be impacted by changes in water tables due to global climate change, noting
there were water issues on the south end of the site. Mr. Snyder responded SEPA and NEPA review had
been completed on this project; consideration of development of the Antique Mall and Skippers property
was underway at the present time. Councilmember Wilson pointed out even though NEPA and SEPA
had been complete, the Council could ask for consideration of that issue in the Development Agreement.
Mr. Snyder agreed the City could ask. If the City was requiring a private developer of the Antique Mall
property to conduct such a study, Councilmember Wilson asked why the City was not requiring Sound
Transit to do the same. Mr. Snyder reiterated the NEPA and SEPA process was complete.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out there had been changes since 2002 in the understanding of
development patterns and environmental impacts, specifically water level changes. Mr. Snyder answered
a development agreement was a negotiated document and the Council could establish negotiation
parameters. This project has been delayed due to the agency's funding limitations. He suggested the
Council provide a list of negotiating points for discussion with Sound Transit. Although the design may
be the culmination of an extensive process, Councilmember Wilson observed the Council has not
discussed the design since 2002.
Councilmember Peterson commented one of the reasons a project like this may not be required to meet
strict standards with regard to rising sea levels was there was no living space. Mr. Clifton agreed, noting
development contemplated for the Antique Mall and Skippers properties would include commercial,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 12
office and residential multi -story buildings versus this project that was nearly all horizontal other than the
shelters, trash cans, lighting fixtures which could be easily removed if sea levels rose.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the February 2009 presentation included an artist's rendering or
elevations. Mr. Clifton responded it only included the two - dimensional rendering. He suggested
scheduling the project for ADB review on the third Wednesday of the month and returning it to the
Council the following week. He recommended the Council approve the Development Agreement and
Interlocal Agreement subject to ADB review. He offered to provide renderings of the vertical elements.
Council President Bernheim stated he did not want to mindlessly refer the project to the ADB and have
them rubberstamp it. He asked what sustainability elements had been included in the project. He noted
concern with a big, blank parking lot in the middle of the Edmonds bowl and preferred an attractive
project that did not sacrifice landscaping for art. He suggested including big trees and greenery to
enhance the downtown commercial center instead of simply a Sound Transit parking lot. Eric Beckman,
Rail Program Manager, Sound Transit, explained the approved 2002 plan was nearly the same as the
proposed project. In the ensuing years the project was viewed as a temporary investment with the
improvements moved to Edmonds Crossing in the future. In addition to making the art work portable, the
platforms were originally proposed to be asphalt, a minimal financial investment. With this as the
permanent location, the platforms will be concrete and shelter materials are more robust, improvements
that were not obvious. He summarized the project looks the same but will be more durable.
Mr. Beckman noted that much of the sustainability efforts are realized during construction such as
requiring recycling of demolished materials, use of low emission /low sulfur diesel equipment, not
allowing equipment to idle for extended periods, strict compliance with noise standards, etc. to minimize
impacts on commuters and the community. Sound Transit willingly accepted the request for LED
fixtures. Sound Transit has considered LEED practices in several areas including a few demonstration
projects. He noted one of the problems with a rain garden at this location was the inability of infiltration
due to the high water table. The result is ponding in the parking lot due to poor drainage which makes
several spaces unusable during winter months. He concluded the nature of the soils, the high water table
and the shelter design (not enclosed) made LEED practices impractical on this site. The intent was to
balance competing needs; provide adequate parking to avoid spillover onto surrounding businesses and
streets with the desire for aesthetically- pleasing landscaping. He pointed out including large trees would
eliminate parking spaces.
Council President Bernheim asked if it was common to require riders to walk to the end of the tracks to
cross the tracks and walk back to reach the other station. Mr. Beckman agreed it was not common; in
most areas with double tracks, there was a two -sided platforin and overhead crossing. The location of the
BNSF tracks would require the touchdown for an overhead crossing with a stairway and an elevator tower
in order to be ADA compliant that would significantly encroach on Railroad Avenue. The result would
be one -way traffic on Railroad Avenue or encroaching into Brackett Landing Park to accommodate the
substantial touchdown structure. Loading and unloading of Sound Transit trains are staged closer to
Dayton to make the walking route the shortest possible. When double tracking occurs, there will be a 4-
foot fence between the tracks to deter shortcuts.
Councilmember Wilson recalled when development of the adjacent parcels was discussed, there was
discussion of a crossing structure, not on Railroad Avenue but attached to a Senior Center building. He
asked whether consideration had been given to an overcrossing to the west side of Railroad Avenue. Mr.
Beckman answered no, but Sound Transit would not be adverse to exploring that possibility.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented it did not appear that major changes had been made to the
project originally reviewed by the ADB. She agreed there were slight aesthetic issues that needed to be
considered such as removing utility poles, rain gardens, etc. She expressed concern with delaying the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 13
project when it would bring jobs, tourism dollars and economic development to the City. She preferred to
move forward and work out the slight aesthetic issues later.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the process could proceed while continuing to consider issues
that have been raised including an overcrossing, one -way traffic on Railroad Avenue. Mr. Clifton agreed
it could, noting an overcrossing had been discussed in the past but the established budget for the station
did not include funds for an overcrossing. The Sound Transit 2 initiative that includes funding for a
permanent station may be an opportunity to fund an overcrossing. He recalled during discussions with
the Council in early years, the Council was opposed to making Railroad Avenue one way.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether one -way traffic on Railroad Avenue was discussed to
accommodate an overcrossing. Mr. Clifton answered it was discussed in relation to traffic circulation.
Mr. Snyder pointed out once the Council approved the Development Agreement, any leverage to
negotiate was lost. The Council had the ability to start the project over; the approval was no longer vested
and the project had been delayed for five years in good faith based on assumptions. Approving the
Development Agreement and referring it to the ADB would be inconsistent; the purpose of the
Development Agreement was to vest the design. If the project was referred back to the ADB, it would
require notice of a public hearing, review and a decision by the ADB which could take months. The
Council could also provide staff a series of priorities to negotiate with Sound Transit. His understanding
was the primary issue was money; the budget was fully committed. He suggested Council ask the Sound
Transit representatives the impact of a 2 -3 month delay to conduct a full process.
Mr. Clifton suggested another alternative to a public hearing before the ADB was to have the ADB accept
public comment as a continuation of the 2002 review.
Mayor Haakenson expressed concern with the potential of Sound Transit dedicating the funds to another
project. He pointed out an overcrossing would require purchasing air rights from BNSF. Mr. Beckman
responded the overcrossing could be a future project funded via funds included in the Sound Transit 2
ballot measure for a permanent station at Edmonds Crossing. The Edmonds station has a fixed budget
and is funded via the 1996 Sound Move plan. If the Council did not approve the Development
Agreement, he would confer with Sound Transit's counsel, Chief Executive Officer, and others regarding
next steps. Sound Transit has committed a significant amount to the design work for the Edmonds station
and ongoing collaboration and they are ready to advertise the project late January /early February in order
to take advantage of the excellent bidding climate.
Councilmember Plunkett observed any major improvements would be a separate project. Mr. Beckman
agreed.
Mr. Clifton reported former Councilmember Deanna Dawson, the Council's representative on the Sound
Transit Board, and he worked extensively with Sound Transit to include funds within the Sound Transit 2
budget to address an overcrossing, additional parking, etc. to address future demands on this station.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR EDMONDS COMMUTER RAIL
STATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SOUND TRANSIT,
AND THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOUND TRANSIT AND THE CITY OF
EDMONDS.
Councilmember Wilson advised he would not support the motion as waiting 2 -3 months would not
remove Sound Transit from a beneficial bidding climate and likely would not derail this project. He
supported building this project but not taking at face value that conditions were the same now as they
were in 2010. He preferred not to vest the project tonight and to take more time to review the project.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 14
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas advised she would support the motion, pointing out the project had been
presented to the Council numerous times over the past ten years and little had changed over that time.
She supported moving forward due to the positive impact the project would have on jobs and tourism.
MOTION CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM OPPOSED.
14. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 7.30.036
SEWER SPECIAL CONNECTION DISTRICTS, TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION ECC 7.30.036(C)
ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL CONNECTION FEE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON OR NEAR
OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
City Engineer Rob English provided the following definitions and a drawing illustrating the sewer lateral
and private side sewer:
• "Sewer Lateral" — sewer line owned by the City serving individual properties and located
between the City sewer main and the edge of City right of way or easement.
• Private "Side Sewer" — portion of sewer line from the house to the sewer lateral and is installed
and owned by the private property owner.
• "Sewer Collector" — branch sewer line off a City sewer main owned by the City and serving
multiple private properties
• "Sewer Collector Stub Out" — short section of sewer pipe connected to the City's sewer main and
capped for future connection of a sewer collector.
He explained in 2003 the City of Lynnwood began planning the Olympic View Drive (OVD) Street
Improvement Project. The project limits are 76th Avenue W to 168th Street SW. Twelve properties, in
Edmonds, some of which are undeveloped and some that have septic systems, are within the project limits
but not connected to the public sewer system. The City determined that it would be in the best interest for
all involved to install sewer laterals and stub out to all properties within the OVD project to facilitate
future connection to the public sewer system and establish a special connection fee to reimburse the sewer
utility fund for these costs.
Benefits of the project include preventing future pavement cuts in new OVD pavement and anticipated
lower construction costs since boring and or replacement costs of new pavement, sidewalk and possibly
retaining walls not required. Staff's estimated the connection fee in 2003 to be $3,000 - $6,000
depending on the property.
Mr. English reviewed Council action related to the project:
• October 14, 2003 — staff presented proposed special connection fee to Community
Services /Development Services committee.
• November 10, 2003 — Staff provided an update to the CS /DS Committee.
• May 4, 2004 — Council provided direction to develop and implement the special sewer connection
fee.
• November 10, 2009 — Staff updated the CS /DS Committee on the proposed ordinance.
The City held public meetings for property owners on November 20, 2003 and December 4, 2003 and the
City Council took public comment on the matter at the May 4, 2004 Council meeting. The minutes of
that meeting reflect the Council had concerns with the 60 day timeframe, but because the project would
not be completed until 2005, property owners had until then to prepare for the expenditure. The project
was delayed due to funding shortfalls and is under construction and will be completed soon.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 15
Lynnwood separated the project into two phases:
• Phase 1 (178th PI SW to 168th St SW) —Category A
• Phase 2 (76th Ave S to 178th PL SW) — Category B
The Phase 2 OVD project installed new sewer laterals for 6 properties, Category A properties. These
properties are required to connect to the sewer system within 60 days of completion of the OVD project
per ECDC 18.10.01.0. Property owners will also need to construct a private side sewer from the house to
the sewer lateral. One undeveloped property can defer payment until connection is made. He displayed a
map of the 6 Category A properties within the Phase 2 project limits.
The Phase 1 OVD project installed 2 manholes and stub out to facilitate construction of a future sewer
collector to serve 7 properties, Category B properties. One property currently connected to public sewer
(17626 OVD) will be retained in the assessment area in the event there is a need for it to connect to the
sewer collector in the future. Their current connection crosses OVD, across a private property on the east
side of OVD to the Lynnwood sewer main. He displayed a map identifying the location of the manholes
and stub out and future collector. In 2003 the City Engineer estimated 1200 feet of pipe would need to be
installed and costs ranged from $300,000 - $325,000. Due to the significant cost of constructing the sewer
collector, Category B properties are not required to connect within 60 days of OVD project completion.
Payment will be deferred until the future sewer collector is installed and connection is made. Payment
will be increased for inflation at time of connection.
Special Sewer Connection Fee:
• Category A — the fee represents actual design and construction costs of the lineal footage of sewer
laterals installed to each property.
• Category B — the fee represents actual design and construction costs of manholes and sewer
collector stub out. The proposed assessment is to have the seven property owners pay an equal
share.
Other City fees and cost include the following:
• $730 System Connection Fee.
• $95 Side Sewer permit and inspection fee.
• Administrative costs for legal, staff and construction administration not included in proposed
sewer connection fee.
Mr. English reviewed a spreadsheet of the design, construction, and total special connection fee, sewer
connection charge, side sewer permit and total City fees for Category A and B properties. The design
costs of $5700 were divided equally among Category A properties and the construction costs which total
$15,352 were divided among properties based on the length of the sewer lateral installation. Both the
design costs and construction costs were divided equally among all Category B properties. He noted
Category A properties must also install the side sewer from the house to the right -of -way.
Notification letters were sent in December 2009 to all 13 property owners with the following information:
• Estimated Special Sewer Connection Fee
• Inflation adjustment for deferred connections
• System Connection Charge
• Side Sewer Permit Fee
• Timeline for connection
• Current monthly sewer utility charge
• Public Hearing notice
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 16
OVD Phase 2 is anticipated to be completed in February 2010. If Council approves the ordinance, when
the project is complete, Category A property owners will be notified they have 60 days to connect.
Councilmember Orvis clarified Category B customers would not be required to pay any fees until they are
connected. Mr. English agreed.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether property owners could defer hook -up indefinitely. Mr.
English advised the Council's direction in 2004 was that Category A properties would be required per the
City Code to hook up within 60 days. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained State law requires if the City
provides a sewer within 200 feet, the property owner is obligated to connect. Mr. English clarified that
requirement was deferred for the Category B properties until the sewer collector was constructed.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Matthew Wood, Edmonds, a Category A property owner, noted during the four years the project was
postponed, the value of his property had declined and refinancing was no longer an option. He requested
Category A properties be allowed to pay the Special Connection Fee in installments rather than at one
time as well as possibly reducing the permit fees. In addition to the approximately $4,000 Special
Connection Fee, each property will also be required to install a side sewer which he estimated at $4,000 -
$4,500. He pointed out his neighbor's home was recently foreclosed and questioned who would be
responsible for the connection fee. He suggested an installment plan that would allow property owners to
pay half now and the other half in a year. He commented on the impact the economy had on his and other
families' finances, noting he did not need to connect to the sewer because his septic system was fully
functional.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Diana Bottin, Edmonds, a Category B property owner, advised their property includes an unaddressed
parcel and they are in the process of combining the two parcels into one. She asked how that would affect
the division of the costs.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
In response to Ms. Boffin's question, Mr. Snyder explained the issue was vesting a connection to the
City's sewer system. If the Council provided a charge per property that included the ability to subdivide,
the Council was promising a connection and vesting in a cost. The Council could re- divide the costs
among the remaining property owners, pointing out Ms. Bottin's neighbors would pay the additional cost.
Or the Council could leave the cost division as proposed and Ms. Bottin would vest two connections and
has the ability to subdivide the property in the future if she chose. With regard to Mr. Wood's request to
be allowed to pay the fee in installments, there were problems with lending public credit. He suggested
consideration could be given to establishing a Local Improvement District (LID) whereby bonds were
sold and another entity held the debt and paid the City. The City could not accept a note from a property
owner. Other alternatives include providing more time for Category A properties to connect or require
installments be complete before a property could connect.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the septic systems of the other Category A properties were functional.
Mr. English did not know. For a foreclosed property, Mayor Haakenson asked whether the debt ran with
the property. Mr. Snyder answered the debt was the obligation of whomever held the title.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 17
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the properties proposed to be combined into one had sufficient
property to subdivide the parcels in the future. Mr. English identified the parcels as 17810 OVD and the
unaddressed property. Mayor Haakenson asked the impact of allowing one hookup for those two
properties and in the future the Bottin's want to subdivide the property. Mr. Snyder responded
subdivision required a certificate of water and sewer availability.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the impact of returning this to the Council in 30 days. Mr. English
explained the OVD Phase 2 project was nearing completion which triggered the 60 day notice. The
Council has the authority to establish a different timeline for hookup.
Councilmember Orvis suggested staff return the ordinance to the Council with an extended period for
hookup. He empathized with Mr. Wood, commenting four years ago many property owners had
sufficient equity to finance the sewer connection but that may not be the situation today. He favored
giving the property owners more time to hook up and effectively make installments via saving up for the
connection fee. Mr. Snyder requested the Council provide direction regarding the time period because a
change would also require revision to the City's sewer connection ordinance 18.10.010. Councilmember
Orvis suggested a six month period to pay the connection fee.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, FOR STAFF TO BRING THE ORDINANCE BACK WITH A SIX MONTH
TIMEFRAME TO PAY THE CONNECTION FEE.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with providing more time and suggested a friendly amendment that the 60
day time period be retained and property owners be allowed to apply for an extension up to 6 months for a
total of 8 months. He noted as long as the property did not connect, they could provide installments to the
City. Mr. Snyder explained the ordinance would need to be drafted in a manner that made it clear the
City was not lending public credit. Councilmember Wilson clarified his intent was to require installments
to be made during the six month extension so that the fee was paid in full at the end of the six month
period and connection would be required.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed with allowing an additional amount of time but did not see any
advantage to requiring installment payments.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas clarified Councilmember Wilson's suggestion was for homeowners to
make good -faith payments during the six month period. Councilmember Wilson agreed, noting the City
was interested in moving residents from septic systems to sewer.
It was the consensus of the Council to add the following to Councilmember Orvis' amendment:
At the end of the 60 days, property owners could apply for a 4 month extension via payment of 1/3 of the
connection fee.
The motion was revised to read:
FOR STAFF TO BRING THE ORDINANCE BACK WITH A 60 DAY TIME FRAME AND AT
THE END OF 60 DAYS, PROPERTY OWNERS COULD APPLY FOR A 4 MONTH EXTENSION
VIA PAYMENT OF 1/3 OF THE CONNECTION FEE.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
15. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson summarized a letter from the Olsen family stating their opposition to the new
broadband installation, Clearwire tower, near 96th & 228Th
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 18
Mark Cooper, Edmonds, explained since he last spoke to the Council, Clearwire held an informational
meeting with the neighbors. He relayed several shortfalls in the City's code with regard to wireless
communications in residential zones: modification to an improved facility, public property preference,
use of existing structures, nonconforming uses such as the proposed microwave antenna not addressed in
City Code 20.50, height of new towers replacing an existing pole, notice to properties within 300 feet was
inadequate, applicant's burden to prove the tower is needed, the fall zone of the structure, and tower
lighting due to the possibility the FAA may require flashing lights.
Joe VanMieghem, Edmonds, a resident within one block of the proposed tower that will include several
large antennas and a microwave. He was concerned with the lack of research/proof regarding radiation
levels emitted by such towers and the impact of radiation exposure on the health of young children. He
urged the Council to protect residents from the invasion of radiation - emitting antennas in residential
areas. He noted in many areas such devices cannot be installed near schools due to these concerns. He
suggested the City consider locations for the Clearwire utility pole antenna and microwave other than a
single family residential area. At the informational meeting, residents were upset over the proposed
installation and uninterested in signing up for Clearwire service. Other concerns included diminishing
aesthetics of the neighborhood and future additions to the utility pole.
Tom Meyers, Edmonds, echoed Mr. VanMieghem's concerns. Due to health concerns, he was
concerned with his children walking under and over the equipment on their way to Westgate Elementary.
He pointed out Edmonds residents were very sensitive to and valued community aesthetics; the proposed
88 -foot tower will not have a positive impact on the aesthetics of their neighborhood. He requested the
Council consider their desire to preserve their neighborhood's image over Clearwire's commercial desires
to expand and consider alternative commercial sites for the 88 -foot tower. He urged the Council to deny
Clearwire's permit.
Gerd Boning, Edmonds, commented the proposed Clearwire tower was ugly and unneeded and their
neighborhood was covered by other companies. If a tower was necessary, he suggested Clearwire share
another company's tower as has been done in other areas.
Ed Wallace, Edmonds, echoed the concerns expressed by his neighbors including health concerns
particularly long term, and possible negative affects on real estate values. He urged the Council to protect
their neighborhood and homes as they would their own and reject Clearwire's permit.
Lloyd Nelson, Edmonds, supported the comments of his neighbors who are opposed to the project. He
asked members of the audience who were present to oppose the project to stand.
Betty Romero, Edmonds, agreed with the previous comments.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, suggested the City obtain an appraisal of the Safeway and Skipper's
properties. She recalled the Council ignored the citizen's request last year to get an appraisal, stating they
were seeking a willing partner in a public /private venture which has not materialized. The Council also
anticipated a levy lid lift on the ballot and did not want competition from a ballot measure to fund
purchase of the Safeway /Skipper's properties. Subsequently, neither measure appeared on the ballot. In
late 2009 the Council appointed 60 residents to advise them on financial policy and a 1.7 member group to
advise the Council on economic policy. The Council had been previously directed when numerous
residents voiced their interest in acquiring the Safeway /Skipper properties. Since Council initiatives have
led nowhere, she suggested the self - starters be allowed to advise the Council. Once an appraisal was
obtained, the Council could test voters' support at the next election for funding to acquire the parcels.
She displayed materials submitted regarding properties in the waterfront area the WSF's Long Range
Plan, a WSF report regarding development of the Safeway /Skipper's properties, the Port Commission's
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 19
study, HB 1490 which would have required six story buildings on the Safeway /Skipper property, the
Dykes rezone, and the Development Agreement for the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. She concluded
the City's acquisition of 44 acres of reusable waterfront property was important to the future of Edmonds.
Nicholas Beyer, Edmonds, did not support installation of the Clearwire tower in a residential
neighborhood, noting there were many commercial properties where a tower could be located. He
concurred with the previous comments.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, concurred with the comments regarding the Clearwire tower and urged the
Council to help the residents of that neighborhood. Next, he expressed concern with the increased utility
rates enacted last year, commenting the City failed to prove the need for the increase. He suggested a rate
study should have been conducted before the increases were enacted; pointing out an increase from 5% to
10% exceeded the rate of inflation. He pointed out the hardship that increased utility rates had on
residents living on set incomes.
Mayor Haakenson explained Clearwire applied for a permit but had not received the permit. The
microwave unit they proposed on top of the pole was not approved in the City Code and staff has
requested modification. He asked City Attorney Scott Snyder to explain what the Council could and
could not do. Mr. Snyder responded the Council had the ability prospectively refer the City's regulatory
scheme for monopoles to the Planning Board for review of a possible amendment. He pointed out a FCC
regulation effective December 31, 2009 did not allow the City to regulate radiation and did not allow the
existence of competitors to be considered other than requiring co- location. He agreed it may be
appropriate to refer the City's regulatory structure to the Planning Board for review due to the new FCC
regulations and public concern.
Mayor Haakenson advised this proposal was identical to the PUD's proposal 1 -2 years ago to replace a
pole with a metal pole; at that time the Council amended the code to require a wood pole. Mr. Snyder
advised this pole would be vested in the rules that were in place at the time the application was approved.
He assumed it was a monopole 2 which was not subject to ADB review or a Conditional Use Permit
process and was a non - discretionary staff approval that had limited appeal rights.
In response to comments regarding regulations in other areas, Mayor Haakenson explained cell phone
companies have been very active in Washington and have gotten favorable regulations imposed by the
FCC limiting local regulation. If the Council referred the matter to the Planning Board, they could also
consider issues such as expanding notice to the surrounding community, etc.
Councilmember Wilson expressed frustration that there was little the Council could do as a result of
federal regulations. He suggested consideration be given to creative methods to prevent tower
installations in residential areas such as limiting the height to 20 feet or prohibiting a tower within 5 miles
of a school. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council refer the City's regulatory structure to the Planning Board
for review. He cautioned against imposing regulations that would exclude residential neighborhoods
because of the City's topography and because the City was primarily single family residential. If a
company could prove the need for coverage, the City could not exclude them from residential
neighborhoods.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
SEND TO THE PLANNING BOARD HOW THE CITY CAN REGULATE POLES WITH THE
DIRECTION THAT THE COUNCIL WANTED TO BE AS RESTRICTIVE AS POSSIBLE WITH
REGARD TO NEW POLES WITHOUT LIMITING COVERAGE. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 20
In response to Mr. Hertrich's comments, Mr. Snyder explained utility fees were restricted for use by the
Utility Fund. The utility funds can be charged certain General Fund expenses such as permit fees.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the City could pursue a levy that included funds for purchase as
well as maintenance and operation. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh answered they must be
separate ballot measures but could be on the same ballot.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
1.6. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON A PROPOSED CITY OF EDMONDS 2010
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton advised the proposed legislative
agenda would serve as the scope of work for Mike Doubleday, the City's government relations contractor.
The Council approved Mr. Doubleday's consultant contract on tonight's Consent Agenda.
Mr. Doubleday reviewed the top priority issues on the 2010 . State Legislative Agenda:
1. Transportation
• Edmonds Crossing and /or Ferry Terminal —this is a placeholder because there was unlikely to
be any funding available in this session.
• Transportation Benefit District (TBD) — clarify the TBD statute
2. Shell Valley Community Emergency Access Road Funding — request is for $250,000 from the
State with the City funding a large portion of the remaining project costs. Representative Marko
Liias has offered to assist with this. Requests for funding from the capital budget have not been
successful in the past; this request is from the Transportation Budget.
3. Phase II Stormwater Funding — last year's HB 1614 which was not adopted would have added a
fee of $1.50 /barrel of oil. The bill will be proposed again this session and is anticipated to raise
$100 million /year; much of it would be allocated to local governments.
4. Lake Ballinger — this issue may be withdrawn
5. Airport Siting — Senator Keiser plans to propose a bill to include criteria for siting a regional
airport.
Council President Bernheim referred to material he distributed written by the President of the Washington
State Bar Association in support of SB 5615 and HB 1177 that would replace misdemeanor convictions
for marijuana possession with infractions. This would save millions of dollars in marijuana enforcement
for which there is little return for the investment and divert those funds to more important criminal justice
issues. He planned to provide an agenda memo at the January 19 meeting to request that issue be added
to the list of priorities.
Council President Bernheim expressed his preference to remove Taping of Executive Sessions from the
list of topics because the City had no vested interest in that issue.
Councilmember Wilson reported the Lake Ballinger Forum had developed an operational request but
there was little likelihood that any funds would be available during this session. The Forum was unable
to develop a capital request from the legislature. He suggested retaining Lake Ballinger on the list of top
priorities.
Observing that the Edmonds station was now a permanent station and there is no expectation of moving
the ferry terminal in the near term, Councilmember Wilson suggested removing any financial request for
Edmonds Crossing and adding a request for other transportation infrastructure improvements such as
design costs for an overcrossing in 2011. Mr. Clifton advised the language in that item states seek state
assistance to address Edmonds ferry terminal issues. Councilmember Wilson suggested the wording be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 21
more explicit and refer to funding for a crossing over the railroad tracks. Mr. Doubleday commented
consideration was being given to a transportation revenue package next year and it would be appropriate
to identify projects now.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CITY OF EDMONDS 2010 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO AMEND THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA TO REMOVE TAPING OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE SESSIONS FROM THE LIST.
Councilmember Orvis favored keeping that item on the list as he wanted to be kept informed regarding
that issue. He anticipated legislators assumed Councils did not favor taping of Executive Sessions;
Edmonds' Council was the exception and was in favor of taping Executive Sessions. He supported
changing the law to at least make taping optional. Mr. Doubleday explained he was often asked
Edmonds' position on an issue. If the Council supported it, he would relay the reasons for the City's
support; if an item was being monitored, he would inform the legislator that the City had not taken a
position and wanted to be kept informed.
Council President Bernheim supported removing it from the list of topics Mr. Doubleday was monitoring
because AWC was tracking this issue.
Councilmember Wilson supported Mr. Doubleday continuing to monitor this issue.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TIED. (3 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT AND PETERSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, ORVIS, AND FRALEY - MONILLAS WERE OPPOSED. TO
BREAK THE TIE, MAYOR HAAKENSON VOTED NO. THE AMENDMENT FAILED.
For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Doubleday explained the way the item was currently written, "Monitor
legislation requiring local governments to tape Executive Sessions, if asked he would state the Council
had not taken a position and he was reporting any activity to the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED TO OPPOSE THE BILL REQUIRING TAPING OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE ITEM TO "SUPPORT LEGISLATION
REQUIRING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO TAPE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS." UPON ROLL
CALL, THE AMENDMENT FAILED (2 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND FRALEY-
MONILLAS IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PETERSON, WILSON AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
INCLUDE STRONGER LANGUAGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION BULLET POINT
REGARDING A RAILROAD OVERPASS STRUCTURE AND GENERAL SUPPORT FOR
RAILROAD- RELATED PROJECTS AND ALLOW STAFF TO DEVELOP THE SPECIFIC
LANGUAGE.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas preferred a more general statement rather than specifically referencing
an overpass, recognizing there may be other improvements the Council wanted to fund. She was
concerned with restricting the funds to one improvement. Councilmember Wilson commented it was
unlikely any funding would be provided in this session; if the Council did not support those
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 22
improvements next year, they could be removed from the legislative agenda. If the Council still
supported those improvements, they would have been included in the Council's request for two years
which increased the likelihood of funding.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed with not restricting the way funds could be used.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas suggested wording such as "look at additional projects to include an
overpass." Mayor Haakenson observed that appeared to be Councilmember Wilson's intent; the specific
language would be developed by staff.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
In response to Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Doubleday assumed the Council supported the $1.50 /barrel .
fee to provide Phase II Storm Water Funding. He acknowledged there were issues associated with
distribution of the funds.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
REMOVE THE FOLLOWING FROM ITEM 8 REVENUE FLEXIBILITY, `PERMIT CITIES TO
UTILIZE REET FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL NEEDS RELATED TO
PRESERVING CAPITAL ASSETS."
Council President Bemheim supported not diverting funds derived from REST for acquisition to M &O.
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained the proposal did not divert any funds; it gave
Councils more discretion and flexibility in the use of REST. The bill would not bind the Council to use
REST 2 for M &O. If approved, the bill would expand the use of REST 2 for some items funded by
REST 1. For example, the City could not currently use REET 2 for park acquisition, libraries or building
fire or law enforcement facilities; REET I could be used for those purposes. The bill would also allow
cities to use a portion of REST 2 for M &O. Many cities have been building parks with REET funds but
were reaching a point where they had more facilities than they could maintain. He summarized it
increased the flexibility in the use of the funds but did not mandate that they be used for M &O.
Council President Bemheim commented if the bill passed, it would allow funds currently restricted to
acquisition to be used for M &O. Mr. McIntosh answered it would be the Council's decision to make.
Council President Bernheim feared if funds were available for M &O they would be used in that manner.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Plunkett wanted to restrict the use of REST 2 to park acquisition and did not want to
open the use of those funds to M &O. He wanted to continue to have the opportunity to purchase parks.
Mr. McIntosh explained REET 2 could not currently be used for park acquisition; REET 1 was used for
park acquisition. The bill would provide the ability to use REET 2, park capital improvement fund, for
M &O.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM
AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FRALEY- MONILLAS, AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR AND
COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PETERSON OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
MOVE "LEOFF i MEDICAL LIABILITY" FROM NUMBER 8 ON THE LIST OF SUPPORT
ISSUES TO NUMBER 6 ON THE TOP PRIORITY LIST.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 23
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked whether the legislature was required to fund the LEOFF 1 medical
liability, recognizing they had neglected to fund it adequately in the past 3 -4 years. Mr. Doubleday
agreed it was their obligation but they had not addressed it in recent years and likely would not during this
legislative session. He agreed it would become an issue eventually because there was a huge liability.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented it was her understanding Senator Keiser planned to propose
a bill this session because PERS 1 was also underfunded.
1 I •.111V111 V D[II]►s 111 J/31/ i Biel 17►11Biel 9W31 t7 7101111I►1A1104 DI1i.`111•�
Council President Bernheim pointed out the State Legislative Agenda could be amended at any time.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
17. CITY OF EDMONDS WEBSITE — CITY COUNCIL AND COUNCIL MEMBER WEB PAGES
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO TABLE ITEM 17. UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION TIED (3-
3), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PETERSON AND FRALEY- MONILLAS IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND WILSON
OPPOSED. TO BREAK THE TIE, MAYOR HAAKENSON VOTE IN OPPOSITION. MOTION
FAILED.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
POSTPONE AGENDA ITEM 17 SUBJECT TO SCHEDULING BY THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Bernheim advised this item would be rescheduled within a short period of time.
18. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION THANKING COUNCILMEMBER DJ WILSON FOR HIS
SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
Council President Bernheim read Resolution 1216 thanking Councilmember Wilson for his service as
Council President from January through December, 2009. He also presented him with a plaque that
expressed appreciation for his service.
18B. INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 20 ECDC REVIEW CRITERIA AND
PROCEDURES TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CLOSED RECORD ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEALS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
Councilmember Orvis explained the amendments to Title 20 approved by the Council removed Council
appeals for certain types of land use decisions including Conditional Use Permits, general variances and
preliminary plats. There was a close vote on this issue at the time and he anticipated the balance of the
Council had changed on that issue. The interim ordinance would restore Council appeals for those
decisions. The interim ordinance requires a public hearing within a short period of time.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3775 AMENDING TITLE 20 ECDC REVIEW
CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CLOSED RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.
Councilmember Peterson expressed concern that this item was not included on the agenda. He
anticipated a public outcry if an interim ordinance were added to the agenda to reduce the public's input;
that same outcry would be legitimate in this instance. He preferred not to schedule an interim ordinance
as the last item at the end of a lengthy agenda. He did not support the motion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 24
Councilmember Wilson echoed Councilmember Peterson's concern with regard to process, noting the
public had not had an opportunity to review the interim ordinance. There were a number of items in the
interim ordinance he did not support and Planning Manager Rob Chave had identified a number of
discrepancies in the proposed ordinance. He preferred to postpone adoption of the interim ordinance.
Councilmember Orvis explained he requested on December 16 that this item be added to the agenda and
was uncertain why it had not been included. If there was a delay implementing the ordinance,
applications could vest under the old rules. He supported the public's right to appeal bad Hearing
Examiner decisions, noting the cost of an appeal to court was too high.
Councilmember Wilson recalled his preference as Council President in December was to schedule this on
the January 19 agenda to allow both new Councilmembers to vote. He asked whether appeals on an
application submitted today would be to the Hearing Examiner or the City Council. City Attorney Scott
Snyder answered any pending application would be heard under existing rules. If the Council passed the
interim ordinance, any completed application would be subject to the new appeal rules; if the new
ordinance were not passed, the application would be subject to the existing requirements.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether someone submitting an application vested to the appeal process in
place at that time. Mr. Snyder answered an application vested to the ordinances as they exist on the date
the application is deemed complete and the fees paid. Mayor Haakenson remarked people were not
beating down the door to submit permit applications.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO JANUARY 19. MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS
WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE ALL APPEALS TO COME TO COUNCIL IN
WRITING RATHER THAN ORALLY.
Mr. Snyder explained a public hearing would be required within 60 days. Council President Bernheim
has raised a number of technical issues and Mr. Chave has also raised a number of issues. He suggested
addressing those issues and any others at the public hearing.
Councilmember Peterson asked the impact of an applicant vesting under an ordinance with
inconsistencies and possibly incorrect language. Mr. Snyder agreed there was potential for confusion on
those applications. Councilmember Peterson recognized the fear was if the Council did not pass the
interim ordinance tonight, applicants would attempt to vest under the old Title 20. If the Council passed a
bad document, there was an equal chance that applicants would vest under bad language. He did not
support the interim ordinance because it was not well written and could cause as many problems as
waiting for two weeks.
Councilmember Orvis expressed concern that the amendment would restrict public comment during an
appeal, emphasizing the importance of oral argument during an appeal. Requiring all appeals to be in
writing would also be impractical as he would make a motion every time to allow public comments.
Councilmember Wilson appreciated Councilmember Orvis' passion, commenting no court of appeal or
appeal process allowed new evidence to be heard. The issue was not shutting out the public, noting the
public did not have a role in the appeal process. The appellant and the applicant must only address
material previously presented to the court of first jurisdiction. Allowing the parties to provide oral
argument presented opportunity to accidentally add new information that could color the appeal process.
The parties would have the opportunity to provide information in writing which limited the liability
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 25
caused by presentation of new information and restricted information to facts presented in the court of
first jurisdiction.
Councilmember Orvis commented Councilmember Wilson's amendment would shut out people that
might create a liability and would stop everyone from providing oral testimony. He commented there had
never been liability created by the public during oral testimony as speakers obeyed the rules. He
disagreed there was an issue of liability.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the history of the Council suggested those who spoke at closed
record hearings spoke to the record and if they did not, the City had a good track record of preventing
their comments. He learned as much or more from the oral argument and needed to hear the public's
inflection and passion. He summarized it was good public policy to include the public in the process.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (2 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND
PETERSON VOTING YES..
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND
PETERSON VOTING NO.
1.9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson provided a reminder that on January 21 at Kamiak High School in Mukilteo, the FAA,
the consultants hired by the FAA, Snohomish County Council, and County Executive will accept public
comment on the EIS on proposed commercial air service at Paine Field.
20. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Bernheim thanked the Council for electing him Council President.
Councilmember Wilson reported Mayor Haakenson and he attended a ceremony at Fire District 1
headquarters welcoming Edmonds. He distributed Fire District 1 sweatshirts to Councilmembers.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented she was very nervous tonight and thanked the audience and
Councilmembers for helping her to do her job.
Councilmember Peterson wished everyone a Happy New Year and congratulated Councilmember Fraley -
Monillas.
Councilmember Plunkett welcomed Councilmember Fraley - Monillas and congratulated Council
President Bernheim and Student Representative Marmion, remarking Mr. Marmion was a third generation
Edmonds resident.
Student Representative Marmion remarked the Council meeting was not as boring as everyone said it
would be.
21. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 5, 2010
Page 26