Loading...
02/29/2000 City CouncilClaim for amages -1p aim Claim arrants General and EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES FEBRUARY 29, 2000 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Thomas A. Miller, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember (arrived 7:02 p.m.) Jim White, Councilmember (arrived 7:18 p.m.) Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director James Walker, City Engineer Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Cindi Cruz, Comm. Serv. Executive Assistant Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmembers Plunkett and White were not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Davis requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmembers Plunkett and White were not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (C) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JOHNNY PARKS ($65.16) (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35934 THROUGH #39343 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 22, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $229,804.50 (E) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2000 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 1 ommute (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH Trip SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FOR COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (1999 — duction 2001) Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 22, 2000 Councilmember Davis pointed out that the minutes need to be corrected on page 4. He advised the question regarding the cost of an audit (fourth paragraph under Item 5 on page 4) was asked by Councilmember Orvis. Approve Xin COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR in as Amended APPROVAL OF ITEM B AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT OPPOSED. ( Councilmember White was not present for the vote). The item approved is as follows: (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2000 dmonds Crossing 3. PRESENTATION ON EDMONDS CROSSING PROJECT Project Mayor Haakenson explained he and staff felt it was appropriate to provide an update on the Edmonds Crossing project for new Councilmembers, new boardmembers on the Chamber of Commerce, Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development, Planning and Architectural Design Boards, and Port Commissioners. Parks and Recreation .Director Arvilla Ohlde explained she had been working with a team comprised of City Engineer Jim Walker, Community Services Department Executive Assistant Cindi Cruz and the Mayor to ensure a continuation and progression on the Edmonds Crossing project. She explained tonight's presentation would include the historical background of the project, provide an update on the project's progress and describe future steps that would be followed. She explained the Edmonds Crossing project was the relocation of the existing State ferry terminal from Main Street in downtown Edmonds to the south end of.Edmonds waterfront at Pt. Edwards. She said the Edmonds Crossing project had been referred to as the multimodal center, an integration of various modes of travel including the ferry, railroad, public transit with vehicle and pedestrian services provided in a single complex. She pointed out various displays were located throughout,the room. Ms. Ohlde introduced Greg Glass, Brackett's Landing Foundation, and Frances Murphy, President of the Brackett's Landing Foundation. Ms. Ohlde explained the Unocal site was under the Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) for cleanup; within that process, there was citizen involvement on behalf of citizens in the community. The Brackett's Landing Foundation undertook this endeavor and formed the Edmonds Citizens Awareness Committee for Clean -up of the Unocal Site (ECAC), who met with the, regulator. agency, Department of Ecology, the property owner, Unocal, acting as the citizen advisory group. She displayed a brochure developed by ECAC with DOE and Unocal that outlined the process for cleaning up a major site. Ms. Ohlde introduce Jerry Weed, the City's consultant on the Edmonds Crossing project, who would outline the major details of the project. She introduced Barry Henley, Project Manager for Sound Transit, who would make a presentation on the north corridor passenger commuter rail project specific to the Pt. Edwards site. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 2 Ms. Ohlde displayed a map of the area, explaining the City over the past 25 -30 years and in its currently adopted Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Waterfront Plan, recommended the reclaiming of the waterfront with goals that stressed the importance of utilizing, improving and integrating the waterfront for the greater public use.. These included strengthening the downtown waterfront core for economic benefit while expanding Edmonds future land use, visual identity, traffic congestion, moving intrusion of ferry traffic, improving economic development opportunities by reclaiming the waterfront, and the flow of business from the business core westward to the waterfront. She explained these were translated into redevelopment strategies in the urban design concepts for downtown, some of which the City has already made progress on such as the purchase of the Anderson Marine site (Brackett's Landing South), the tidelands, the Senior Center, public waterfront and Olympic Beach, construction of the fishing pier in partnership with the Port of Edmonds and Department of Fish and Wildlife, construction of the public boardwalk by the Port of Edmonds, and a lease of Marina Beach. She identified the Unocal property on the east side of the tracks and ,the Edmonds Marsh to the north (donated to the City by Unocal). She referred to the map of the preferred alternative which illustrated the Edmonds Crossing project overlaid on the Unocal property. City Engineer Jim Walker stated there were several projects that related to the Edmonds Crossing project that this presentation would not cover such as the interim improvements to the ferry terminal which have been essentially completed and the Sound Transit interim improvements at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe station. He said the preferred alternative was Alternative 2 at the Pt. Edwards site, which was the recommended alternative from the Phase 2 study., Mr. Walker referred to the Downtown Waterfront Plan that had been included in the Council packet, explaining it was part of the City's Comprehensive Plan and considered issues such as increasing ferry usage and expansion of the ferry terminal and opportunities to improve connections between downtown and the waterfront to reduce the impact the ferry has on separating the waterfront from downtown. He said the Council packet also included the Phase 2 report that established the preferred alternative. He pointed out one change made in the preferred alternative was a modification of bus routes. The original plan had bus service from SR 104; bus service through Railroad Avenue and Admiral Way was added to provide a local connection into downtown. The Council packet also included a newsletter and Council retreat minutes from 1997, 1998 and 1999. The brochure referred to by Ms. Ohlde prepared by ECAC and a Sound Transit brochure outlining the status of their project were also included in the Council packet. Mr. Walker explained some of the documents may contain information that was not current or may not be correct, for example, estimates generated by Department of Transportation (DOT) for rebuilding Main Street were no longer accurate. He pointed out it may no longer even be possible to rebuild Main Street due to the large amount of eel grass in the area, the current status of salmon, and the use of eel grass as a salmon habitat. Mr. Walker reviewed the "four no's" established by the Council at the time DOT was considering expansion at the Main Street site, 1) no second slip, 2) no dock expansion, 3) no overhead loading, and 4) no commercial facilities. The City did not want a second slip as they wanted the waterfront put to the best possible use and did not agree with expansion of the ferry terminal at that site. Further, it was believed multiple slips would "lock" the ferry into that location more permanently. The City did not want overhead loading of vehicles due to the enormous impact to downtown. Many of the operational problems at the existing site are due to conflicts between the railroad and the ferry and would be addressed in the preferred alternative. The Council did not want commercial facilities constructed on the waterfront side. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Walker explained the City later entered into a Memo of Understanding with the DOT that established several agreements that still exist to facilitate working cooperatively on long -term solutions and allowing some intrusions to occur. The Memo of Understanding begins, "the Washington 'State Department of Transportation, Community Transit, and City of Edmonds recognize that in downtown Edmonds a conflict exists between ferry traffic, rail traffic, regional auto and pedestrian traffic, all occurring in a defined area and at the same grade. This. conflict interrupts the efficient movement of people and goods, prevents access to a variety of transportation modes, creates an unsafe situation for users of the highway system as well as the general public and pedestrian movement and stymies the economic development of the City's downtown." Mr. Walker explained the Memo of Understanding included retraction of some former positions, creation of an advisory committee with representatives from the agencies involved and other affected agencies, continuation of near term improvements and upgrades (i.e. pedestrian loading and functional restoration of the dock without expansion), a work program was formulated, a comprehensive approach to consider all alternatives and reach the best conclusion for the City and the region, and coordinate funding efforts for the project. Councilmember Earling asked if the presentation would address the ramp that would be needed to provide overhead loading (that would need to start at 2 °d Avenue), the cost to rebuild the dock for long term use at the current location, and how much of the recently completed improvements were portable and could be moved if necessary. Greg Glass, Technical Consultant to the Citizen's Advisory Group, displayed a photograph of the site and explained his presentation would cover the type of site, the clean -up process under the State's MTCA, the status of the process and future clean -up schedule. He explained the site was a bulk fuel plant that handled a variety of fuels and fuel additives with both rail and waterside delivery, and truck, rail and barging of material from the site. The site was developed beginning in the 1920s including a fill of a portion of the pre- existing marsh. The plant was added to over time and operated through 1991. In addition to the fuel components at a bulk fuel plant, an asphalt plant was operated on the site in the 1950s and 1960s. The total site is 44 acres, an upper yard — the hillside where the tanks exist and the lower yard, the marsh, which is approximately 29 acres of the 44 -acre total. He said the tanks are now empty except for the possibility of one tank with a minor amount of material. Although the plant had been shut down, demolition or active clean -up had not occurred. Mr. Glass explained for contaminated sites, there were two issues, 1) the potentials for exposure on the site from whatever contamination exists, and 2) the possibility for contamination to move off -site and if so, what adjacent receptors (land uses, people, ecological resources, etc.) could be affected by contaminants moving off the site.. He said the clean -up process would address those questions and determine what to do with the site. He said contaminants were primarily petroleum hydrocarbons although there was a. minor degree of metals contamination at the site from tank sand blasting and painting activities which could be addressed fairly easily. The media that are contaminated include soils and ground water as well as "free product" (oil in the ground as oil that floats on the ground water table). As long as the product exists in the ground and there is highly contaminated soils, there was a continuing potential source for contamination of ground water. W. Glass explained ground water flows and the hydrology of the site has been studied extensively as part of the remedial investigation of the site, indicating flows off the hillside were nearly radial toward the Jower yard in a fan - shaped fashion. Stormwater is handled via a multi -acre detention basis which is unlined. The sediments in the basin are likely extensively contaminated as indicated by history from the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 4 site that includes documented spills and off -site product that was deposited in the detention basin. The detention basin is a holding basin for processing stormwater and has an oil /water separator. Pumping water from the detention basin through this treatment process creates a low point and partially acts to redirect flows from what they would be otherwise. Nearby resources of most concern to citizens include Marina Beach, the Edmonds Marsh, and hatchery in Willow Creek. He said the existence of an intact marsh was a rare occurrence and was highly valued by citizens. The, first step (remedial investigation/site characterization) was to describe the nature and. extent of contamination. The ECAC is operating under a 1992 agreed order between Unocal and DOE that covers studies of the site but not clean -up of the site which would be agreed to later. Although the MTCA rules address high priority sites (which this is) being studied and carried through the process and cleaned up in 18 months or with an extension of no longer than 30 months, this is now year 8 or 9 and is in the relatively early stage of the final decision process. The prolonged process was due in part to the nature of the site but primarily because determining a set of clean -up actions depended on the nature of the problems and determining how clean the site needed to be. Mr. Glass explained the dominant issue on this site appears to be movement of contaminants off the site via ground water that eventually reach surface water and the ecological consequences. Current activities on the site include a minor_ degree of continuing investigation such as ground water wells that continue to be monitored by Unocal and the oil/water separator and detention basin system, but little active or partial clean -up has occurred. The only clean -up activity taking place was opportunistic (non - aggressive) recovery of some of the oil floating on the ground water. The amount recovered has dropped from approximately 700 gallons per year to approximately 100 gallons. Mr. Glass reviewed the MTCA process, commenting the longer than 18 -month clean -up period was not unusual, 6 -10 years was more likely the norm. The steps in the clean-up process include the remedial investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site, a feasibility study of the alternatives for cleaning up the site, and a clean -up action plan adopted by DOE. The project is currently . in the remedial investigation phase; a draft report was submitted to DOE in August 1996 but not acted upon. In December 1999 Unocal and DOE went to dispute resolution over issues that prevented that report from being completed and issued for public comment but then decided to participate in a negotiation process that has now been completed. Unocal is now completing the report for remedial investigation and it will be submitted to DOE within a few weeks. DOE will review the report and publish for public comment. The feasibility study phase of the process would likely begin in approximately a year followed in 6 -12 months by the draft clean-up action plan. He commented all steps had public participation/comment periods. The actual clean -up of the site was at least 2 -3 years away at the earliest but more likely 3 -5 years. He commented this site was not unique, there were sites similar to this in the region and rernediation steps were available that would be beneficial. However, it was unlikely the site would ever be pristine or would need to be. Mr. Glass said when DOE looked at the site, the plant. was completing its operating history in 1991 and no particular future land use was known. At that time, DOE made two assumptions regarding the two portions of the site, the upper yard where the tanks exist would be residential and applicable standards for residential use would apply and the lower yard was assumed to be industrial or non - residential. CAC recognizes integration issues with projects being discussed for the site and have promoted the concept that DOE, Unocal and others should consider integrating the clean -up process and land use process. However, DOE has not progressed to assuming any specific land use but clearly site clean -up and site development would have some interaction. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 5 Gerald Weed, Project Manager for the team that has been studying the Edmonds Crossing project for approximately seven years, explained the Edmonds Crossing project has been under way for approximately ten years. He said his presentation would cover the history of the Edmonds Crossing project, attempt to forecast some of the future steps that will be necessary, the feasibility study done that indicated Pt. Edwards was a feasible site for the ferry, the site selection process, the alternatives evaluated, design principles of the preferred site, environmental studies that have been conducted and their findings, and the status of the NEPA process. He pointed out he was part of C112M Hill selected to do the scientific studies, and has been working as an independent consultant for the City since leaving C112M Hill last year. Mr. Weed explained site selection was guided by committees including a consultant team, a technical advisory committee composed of staff members of various agencies, an oversight policy committee composed of a broad mix of representatives, and a community advisory committee comprised of key people in the community who could provide interaction with other citizen groups. One of the key issues in 1990 when the City first considered moving the ferry terminal to Pt. Edwards was Washington State Ferry captains who indicated a ferry could not be docked there due to the weather at that point of land. The original study, conducted to determine whether a ferry could be docked at Pt. Edwards, found that under certain criteria such as a breakwater and pier orientation, a ferry could be docked at Pt. Edwards. Following that determination, the interlocal agreement was further refined, the City sought and acquired a series of federal grants and consultant selection process selected C112M Hill to begin the study effort. That study considered sites as far south as Pt. Wells (Chevron property) and as far north as Picnic Point (between Edmonds and Mukilteo), using two criteria, 1) how to connect to the regional transportation network and 2) the ferry crossing time. As a result of the initial feasibility study, the core downtown waterfront area was identified. Core sites in downtown were considered including the existing Main Street site, a mid - waterfront site and the Pt. Edwards site which was later determined to be the preferred site. . Mr. Weed said studies considered how to make the existing Main Street site work. He explained Main Street was a very difficult site due to its proximity to downtown, grade issues and major structures to overcome grade issues, the underwater park, the presence of eel grass, and environmental issues. Main Street was found to be a non - feasible site for these reasons and was eliminated from consideration for further improvements to the site. He clarified Main Street was included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) but only in the context of a no -build alternative. A mid - waterfront site was considered north of the breakwater that surrounds the Edmonds marina and adjacent to the fishing pier. The same access was used when studying that alternative as was used for the Pt. Edwards site (Pine Street, across the railroad tracks and access through the Port). At the time a mid - waterfront site was being considered, the same access was suggested for use of the Main Street dock. The Main Street alternative was then reconsidered and again eliminated when it was discovered an entire block of buildings would need to be removed to accommodate that access. The Pt. Edwards site was identified in the EIS process as the preferred alternative, other alternatives were the mid - waterfront site and the no -build Main Street site. Design concepts for the Pt Edwards site include access at Pine Street utilizing a modification of the intersection including a signal, a relatively flat grade to the toll booths, transit and parking access, HOV access, over 600 spaces for paid vehicles, over 200 vehicle stacking before the toll booths, providing storage for a four boat wait for jumbo class Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 6 ferries, and an additional 200 vehicle storage area, three ferry slips including one that is oriented for use during major weather events, a floating breakwater, a walk -on waiting area served by a walkway or a people mover, overhead passenger loading, some facilities could be relocated from the Main Street dock, a multimodal terminal to serve Amtrak, conunuter rail, and buses, parking for 460 paid long term vehicles, a 2 -story parking facility (160 spaces); 120 short term parking spaces, a drop- off -area, space for ten buses, a terminal building with a 1,200 foot long platform, and a people mover connecting the center of the terminal to the waiting area. He commented the existing vehicle storage area for the Main_ Street terminal accommodated approximately 300 vehicles. An addition to the project has been a provision for buses to provide a local circulator to connection to downtown. Mr. Weed explained there had been an intensive effort to study environmental issues such as the major saltwater marsh adjacent to the site and preservation issues associated with Puget Sound. He said environmental study of the site included a video survey of Puget Sound at the mid - waterfront and Pt. Edwards and based on the videos, divers 1 -meter sections were inventoried. He explained. all impacts related to the project were considered from socioeconomic issues to environmental impacts and were documented in a draft EIS (DEIS) that was issued and subjected to citizen comment including a public hearing. The City is now in the process of amending the DEIS and preparing a final EIS (FEIS). He said throughout all studies, the assumption was made that this project would be sited on .a clean site as a result of clean -up assumed to be conducted by Unocal. During the EIS process, it was determined the mid- waterfront site had several complex environmental issues. Although it was studied as an alternative site, the potential impacts of siting a ferry terminal there, due to the eel grass beds, the adjacent fishing pier, and other surrounding uses,.it was not identified as a preferred site environmentally. The conclusion of three years of studies including the environmental process was that the Pt. Edwards site was the best location. Mr. Weed summarized the DEIS had been completed and the FEIS was nearly complete. The study team recently began a process to consider Marina Beach park area again due to the original assumption that Pt. Edwards would be a clean site. However, because none of the cleanup that was hoped would occur has taken place, some additional sampling was being done at Marina Beach to ensure no contamination had taken place. This information would be included in the FEIS. The FEIS would be completed this fall; once accepted by the federal ggencies, it would be forwarded for a Record of Decision. The current schedule anticipated the FEIS completed and accepted locally in October and a Record of Decision in February/March 2001. Councilmember Earling reiterated his question regarding the cost of reconstruction of the Main Street terminal at the time that was being considered, acknowledging those costs were only conceptual. Mr. Weed recalled in 1994, the cost was approximately $70 -75 million for Main Street and it was believed at that time that Pt. Edwards was a $60 million project. The estimate for Pt. Edwards is now closer to $135 million. Councilmember Earling asked if information was ' available regarding the projected ferry growth including total ridership, total vehicles and how the larger ferries would impact the ferry holding area and potential increase in congestion at the current site. Mr. Weed answered the new Mark H ferries accommodate 218 vehicles; the older ferries were 160 vehicle ferries. He said a 210 car ferry and a 218 car ferry currently serve the Edmonds dock. He said growth was anticipated to be approximately 10% per year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 7 Councilmember Earling recalled at the time those numbers were originally provided, Edmonds was the second fastest growing ferry route in the state. Mr. Weed responded Edmonds was still second, Mukilteo was the fastest growing route in the State ferry system. Councilmember Earling asked cif a summary of the grants received including total funding, could be provided. He also requested funds other agencies have earmarked be identified. Councilmember Orvis asked if mitigations to address the increase in traffic on Edmonds Way had been considered. Mr. Weed answered the impacts to all local streets including Edmonds Way have been considered. Their analysis found that although ferry traffic contributes to traffic on Edmonds way, it was a minor portion of the traffic. He explained a 218 vehicle ferry on a 40 minute cycle results in 1 -1/3 ferries per hour or approximately 290 vehicles. Edmonds Way carries approximately 1,500 — 2,000 vehicles per hour. Councilmember Petso asked if the numbers cited above were for one slip operating per hour or two. Mr. Weed answered the numbers provided were for the way the existing ferries operate. Councilmember Petso asked if the numbers provided considered other multimodal features such as the train station. Mr. Weed said the numbers cited did not but the EIS did. Councilmember Petso asked how far cast on Edmonds Way the traffic analysis went. Mr. Week answered it extended to I -5. Council President Miller asked whether the four no's applied to the alternatives or only the existing site. Mr. Weed answered the four no ',s applied to the Main Street ferry dock only. Barry Henley, Project Manager for the Sound Transit Everett to Seattle Commuter Rail Line, advised the commuter rail line would extend from Lakewood to Everett (82 miles), the northern portion, Seattle to Everett, was 35 miles. He explained the north line tracks run along the Puget Sound for most of their length, an environmental challenge for Sound Transit particularly in an ESA impacted environment. He said an FEIS was published on December 17, 1999 and a Record of Decision was issued by the Federal Transit Administration on February 2, 2000. Mr. Henley explained commuter trains on this line would have six cars with .840 seats (accommodating more patrons standing). He commented this represented quite an improvement over buses, much less expensive to operate, and providing a more comfortable and scenic ride. Commuter trains would be operated every %2 hour from 6:00 — 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 — 7:00 p.m. He said the north line was historically a double tracked line and their intent was to return it to double tracks. Mr. Henley said the amount of inner -tidal fill that would be required has been reduced from 35.5 acres to 2.72 acres with much of it rock placed on existing rock. There were also 150 feet of culvert impacts along the corridor. He explained they are required to do concurrent mitigation (mitigation much occur concurrent with construction . of improvements or be operational /installed prior to construction of corridor improvements). He said excavation of the southern portion of Pt. Wells which was filled in 1912, and restoring it to inner -tidal beach was being considered as was daylighting of Willow Creek. Mr. Henley explained Sound Transit had been in. constant negotiation with environmental permitting agencies who administer the Endangered Species Act, Shoreline Management Act, etc., who have concerns with the current condition of Pt. Edwards, including daylighting a creek bed in an area of contamination and providing a stream buffer. " He pointed out the difficulty of doing concurrent mitigation if the Pt. Edwards site could not be cleaned up within the timeframe they anticipate having the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 8 service operational (late in the second quarter or early in the third quarter of 2001). He explained they have been in close contact with the Brackett's Landing Foundation and made commitments they wish to honor such as the stream daylighting although the environmental permitting agencies are not enthusiastic about, the that project. He said they also plan to do culvert improvements above the marsh and hope to convince the environmental permitting agencies to allow those culvert improvements to be linked with the improvements through the marsh, the daylighting of Willow Creek and an improved culvert under the railroad tracks. Mr. Henley said they plan to do a great deal of track construction on the south end of Edmonds which provides a unique opportunity to install a box culvert compatible with a successful steam daylighting project. Once the culvert was in place, excavating would not necessarily be done but soils would continue to be monitored to ensure no product was moving into the inner -tidal area. Mr. Henley explained during the first and third quarters of 2000, Sound Transit would pursue .permits, engage in station design, engineering corridor improvements and acquiring the necessary right -.of -way. Sound Transit would like to be pursuing corridor improvements beginning the fourth quarter of 2000 and into the second quarter of 2001. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out vehicles using commuter rail would come through Edmonds, estimating that could be as many as 200 vehicles per day in the beginning. He asked if the City had discussed with Sound Transit the mitigation necessary to address an increase in traffic. Mr. Henley answered mitigating traffic impacts would be addressed during the design phase. The public would also be encouraged to use transit to reach the train station. Councilmember Petso asked if Edmonds was the only portion of the project that needed double tracking. Mr. Henley answered no, there are four areas including the interbay yard in Seattle between Magnolia and Queen Anne, Mukilteo and Ballard. He commented the entire line was double tracked from approximately 1905; single track sections exist today due to landslide activity, etc. Councilmember Petso asked if any provisions had been made for parking for commuter train users in downtown. Mr. Henley answered Sound Transit would likely purchase the existing Amtrak station from Burlington Northern Santa Fe and seek ways to maximize the parking on the existing Amtrak site. If that parking was determined to be inadequate, other provisions would be considered. He said when considering this site with the Washington High Speed Rail Program, they determined there should be adequate parking based on their projections. Mr. Walker advised there were approximately $5 million available in T -21 moneys that had not yet been used, $2 million in congestion mitigation had not yet been used, a total of V million. The City had spent approximately $2 million in federal funds to this point. He pointed out federal funds require matches; Sound Transit funds could be used for matches as well as small amounts the City received from DOT and Community Transit early in the project. Funds from the Transportation Improvement Agency grant would be used to complete the sediment study. Here was also $400,000 in FDA funds available to match federal grants. He summarized a considerable sum was gathered for the project and he expected that would continue as this projectvas ranked high regionally due to regional connections it provides. Mayor Haakenson said Council President Miller requested the public be given an opportunity to ask questions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 9 Doug Dewar, 110 James, Edmonds, asked what the $7 million could be used for, whether it could be used for soft as well as hard costs. Mr. Walker responded $2 million of the $7 was for design and right - of -way. Mr. Weed explained the $5.4 million T -21 grant were unrestricted funds to be used for anything defined within the federal highway program as project related. Councilmember Earling asked if the funds were time sensitive. Mr. Weed explained the way the funds were granted was time restrictive, in fiscal year 1998, 11% of the $5.4 million was made available and a certain percentage would be made available in each successive year. Those funds must be obligated within three years of the end of that fiscal year. Once obligated, the funds remain available until spent. Councilmember Plunkett asked if "project- related" would include a parking garage located fairly close to the commuter terminal. Mr. Weed answered yes, as long as it was contained in the environmental documentation. Councilmember Plunkett asked if a parking garage was included in the EIS. Mr. Weed answered yes, a 2 -story parking structure was included on the Pt. Edwards site. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about constructing a garage close to the interim station. Mr. Weed answered that would need to be researched further. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented he was on the Council when the four no's were developed. He pointed out traffic and parking was a problem. Although the Sound Transit representative indicated provisions would be made for vehicles utilizing the rail station, he questions where parking would occur. He observed the Sound Transit EIS for the rail had already been approved and questioned if the City commented on it and whether the City had any recourse or way to enforce mitigation. He said the only problem with double tracking was the disruption to Railroad Avenue. He said only a small building was needed to sell tickets and if the building was in the way for double tracking to the east, it should be eliminated or doors placed on the ends or sides. He said Railroad Avenue was an essential part of Edmonds and provided access along the waterfront. Mayor Haakenson clarified staff did respond to the Sound Transit EIS. Mr. Hertrich asked if mitigations would be required prior to construction such as parking. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained EIS studies provided information used by the decision maker when granting the permit to levy mitigation. Terry Vehrs, 11023 Totem Pole Lane, Woodway, asked about the demographics of people using the bus and trains. He asked if noise mitigation along SR 104 had been considered. Ed MacMarrow, 1024 4"' Avenue South, Edmonds, recalled an earlier meeting at the Senior Center regarding moving the ferry dock and said nothing was said at that time about a multi -slip ferry dock. He said the overriding question was what Edmonds gained by the construction of a multi -slip ferry dock, commenting the City gained nothing. He said a multi -slip ferry dock would facilitate urbanization of the northern Kitsap peninsula, specifically the property at Port Gamble. He said such a development would require a "highway" east of the Sound, resulting in a huge growth in ferry traffic. He said the amount of traffic being considered was short term and did not consider future development that may occur on the Kitsap peninsula. He referred to the comments regarding traffic on Edmonds Way which did not consider traffic when the ferries unload. More boats will increase that traffic volume. He did not object to the train or bus station. Doug Dewar commented it would be at least five years before the process of cleaning up the Unocal site would be completed. He questioned whether there was a way to speed up that process. Regarding Mr. MacMarrow's comments, he questioned whether the City had a choice of accommodating a ferry Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 10 terminal. He said the Pt. Edwards site would take ferry traffic off the streets, commenting he preferred ferry traffic on the Unocal site rather than Edmonds streets. Mr. Glass advised there was no firm, fixed schedule for the MTCA clean -up process. Once the process exceeds the 18 -30 month period, it was obvious it would not be accomplished within a timeframe addressed in the MTCA clean -up regulations. He said ultimately it was DOE's process and they would make the decision regarding clean -up. Unocal could propose action and citizens could comment on what they would like to have done but the decision would be made by DOE. He suggested the best way to speed up the process was for interested citizens to contact the Site Manager or her supervisor at DOE's northwest regional office, Sunny Lin. Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Weed to respond to the question regarding whether the City had a choice regarding the ferry dock moving from Main Street to Pt. Edwards. Mr. Weed answered yes, the City had a choice as it was the permitting agency and had the ultimate authority regarding what would occur regarding the ferry dock. Mr. Snyder explained the ferry dock was a regional transportation facility that would qualify under Snohomish County land use regulations; if the City denied it, there would be an appeal to Snohomish County. He said beginning in the 1970's the City took a series of steps including the development of the underwater park and purchase of the Anderson Marine property. While these were important additions to the City's parklands, the City also took advantage of a provision in federal law that prohibits the use of federal highway moneys to purchase or condemn a park. The intent was to narrowly restrict the width of the current facility and provide the City better leverage in the future development of the current. facility. Councilmember Earling asked Mr. Glass if he was aware of other projects in the United States with a similar, complex nature where a portion of the project was identified for cleanup first such as the lower yard which would be conducive to this project. Mr. Glass answered that was possible and had been recognized within MTCA and DOE. He said a site could be divided into operable units such as cleaning up the lower yard first and the upper yard later. He said an example of this was the area near the Tacoma Smelter that was divided into a number of operable units. He said it was also possible to do interim actions such as removing as much oil as possible to speed up the process. He said sites like this that have potential large amounts at stake and future land uses tend to get complicated and may require a "push" to get the process moved forward at a faster rate unless a mediated solution could be reached. Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Place, Edmonds, observed one of the discussion topics had been how parking would be handled at the interim site and pointed out it was curious Community Transit was not represented tonight to describe their plans. Mr. Henley answered they have had discussions with Community Transit regarding how they would provide service to Sound Transit's facilities and modifications that may be necessary. Community Transit also reviewed the FEIS. He explained one of the other aspects to Sound Transit pursuing mitigation at Pt. Edward would be a conservation easement for the section of beach between the culvert under the rail line and the area at the extreme low water level so allow the stream channel to be established in the future. Councilmember Earling said Community Transit has always been interested in participating in a multimodal use at Pt. Edwards and providing a connection between neighborhoods and the commuter rail station and ferry. While Community Transit was not represented tonight, he stressed that should be considered as a mitigation factor in reducing numbers of vehicles. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page I 1 Councilmember Plunkett pointed out Sound Transit would be using the existing Amtrak station in the interim until the Pt. Edwards site was developed and there could be 200 more vehicles per day coming into downtown. He questioned whether mitigation would be provided for the Main Street station. Mr. Henley answered his earlier answer applied to the interim site, noting their impacts would have to be addressed via street improvements, grade crossing improvements, pedestrian circulation, etc. regardless of whether it was an interim site or not. He reiterated the impacts would be addressed in the design process via mitigation. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the $5 — $7 million in grant funds were specific to Pt. Edwards. Mr. Walker answered yes, they were federal funds allocated for the multimodal facility and could not be used for interim improvements at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe station. Councilmember Plunkett asked if there were funds /grant opportunities for the interim location. Mr. Walker answered it was possible. Councilmember Plunkett asked if there were resources available to construct parking garages. Mr. Henley answered no. Councilmember Plunkett observed the interim period could be 10 -15 years and asked if there was any policy or legal reason Sound Transit could not build a parking garage downtown. Councilmember Earling responded Sound Transit has been seen as the prime potential partner to fix many of the ills in the Puget Sound basin, particularly since the passage of I -695, because they have funds. He said there were examples of other cities (i.e. Kent) who have partnered with Sound Transit to generate more funds for parking; there were no examples of Sound Transit paying for garages. Mr. Henley clarified the cost differential between at -grade and a parking structure was made up by the City of Kent. Councilmember Orvis asked if the necessary permits could not be obtained for the project, could those funds be used for road mitigation in anticipation of the project. Mr. Weed answered there was quite a bit of flexibility in what the funds could be used for, but must be directly related to the Edmonds Crossing project/multimodal terminal. Therefore, a mitigation measure identified in the process could be funded once the FEIS was approved and a Record of Decision issued as well as the local match (20 %) provided. Mr. Snyder reemphasized the EIS provided a series of alternatives and mitigation measures related to the alternatives. However, until the final decision was issued stating when, where, and the specific characteristics of the approved facility, the City would not want to spend moneys on improvements prematurely in the event changes occurred or a different facility was constructed. Mr. Weed agreed, pointing out one of the requirements of the federal act was if a project was not constructed, funds must be paid back. Councilmember Davis pointed out $140 million would be necessary for the Edmonds Crossing project over the next 20 years and asked how long -term funding of this project was being addressed. He expressed concern that a great deal of money was being spent with the potential that the project would never be built. Mr. Weed answered the more the project was able to be moved forward, the more certainty could be put in place via completion of the FEIS, acquiring permits and properties, etc. As each of those components was completed, the project receives a high priority. The history of major infrastructure projects in the area indicates grant opportunities increase as the project advances. He said they have attempted to scale the project down to a $60 million initial implementation to move.the ferry terminal from Main Street and, over time, build the remainder of the project. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 12 Councilmember Earling observed there was $7.5 million in grant funds for the project as well as another $6 million in 1995 dollars in Sound Transit's budget. Further, DOT has been responsive and cooperative in this project and the Memo of Understanding was a key element in reaching the decision that the best site was Pt. Edwards. He said the estimate for improvements at the existing site were also funds that were available, and $15 million could be added to funds for improvements at Main Street (transposed to the Pt. Edwards site). He recommended developing a strategy for the state and federal governments to become full funding partners. He stressed this project was viewed at the state level as a highway problem and while it was an enormous project, it was doable. Roger Hertrich asked if double tracking would eliminate train blockage that currently occurs, creating a safety problem for fire protection for the waterfront. If so, that would be a favorable aspect of double tracking. He questioned how tracking could be expanded through the Pt. Edwards property that needed to be cleaned up yet. He questioned who would fund cleanup for the Unocal site and whether Unocal planned to sell the property. He questioned whether adequate funding could be acquired for construction of the ferry dock at Pt. Edwards, pointing out the State may indicate they already have an operational facility at Main Street. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THIS PRESENTATION FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. -. Doug Dewar advised the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development was very interested in this presentation and 8 -9 boardmembers were present. He asked if the Unocal property was for sale. Mr. Henley advised the City could not enter into any negotiations with Unocal regarding acquisition of the site until a Record of Decision was issued. Mr. Snyder said staff was not aware the property had been offered for sale to any private parties. He commented many of the funding sources available from governmental entities required a clean site. Mr. Dewar referred to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding double tracking and asked if there was a choice in that matter. Mr. Snyder answered yes and said a legal opinion would be forwarded to the Council and then the Council would make a decision. Ed MacMarrow recalled the northern -most slip at Pt. Edwards would be usable in any weather. He pointed out that dock would work if that was the only slip. Mr. Weed agreed. Mayor Haakenson thanked everyone who made a presentation and those who participated in the process. He declared a brief recess. Recognition 4• MAYOR'S REPORT of Sgt. Blackburn, Mayor Haakenson advised earlier this evening he attended a reception for Sgt. Blackburn, Edmonds Youth Police Department, who was honored for his man ears of service to the youth of the community as an Services p Y Y y tj' Division officer in the D.A.R.E. program in the Youth Services Division. Mayor Haakenson advised Sgt. Blackburn had personally raised over $225,000 for youth in Edmonds in recent years. Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation for Sgt. Blackburn's commitment to the youth of the community. , rch 6 uncil Mayor Haakenson advised next week's Council meeting would be held on Monday, March 6 rather than eting Tuesday, March 7 due to caucuses being held on March 7. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 13 5. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember White advised he would be absent from the next two Council meetings due to vacation. Councilmember Earling thanked staff and the consultants for their presentations regarding the Edmonds Crossing project. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER Executive Session At 9:15 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to Executive Session regarding a real estate matter for approximately 45 minutes. He advised no action was anticipated and the Council would adjourn immediately following the Executive Session: C WA Im U 74 SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK 1 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 29, 2000 Page 14 1 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL. Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. FEBRUARY 29, 2000 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2000 (C) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JOHNNY PARK ($65.16) (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35934 THROUGH #39343 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 22, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $229,804.50. (E) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2000 (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FOR COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (1999 - 2001) 1 3. (2 Hours) PRESENTATION ON EDMONDS CROSSING PROJECT 4. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 5. (15 Min.) COUNCIL.REPORTS 6. (45 Min.) EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER °arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance iotice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46 Delayed telecast of this meeting appear, he following Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46.