Loading...
08/27/1996 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 27, 1996 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Tom Petruzzi, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember (arrived 7:03 p.m.) Gary Haakenson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Alex Moore, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Michael Springer, Fire Chief Paul Mar, Community Services Director Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1 Addition to Council President Earling requested a recess prior to Item 4 to give the Council an opportunity to review Agenda the new information provided by staff. Further, he requested "Council Review of Settlement Agreement" be added to the agenda as Item 5a. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI, FOR PASSAGE OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Van Hollebeke was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, FOR PASSAGE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Van Hollebeke was not present for the vote.) The items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 20,1996 Appro(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #9191 THRU #12002 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim AUGUST 19, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,235.73; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL warrants WARRANTS #11987 THRU #12266 FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 1 THRU AUGUST 15, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $469,013.58 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 1 HomagesCla. m for Embankment Stabilization Project Sewer Replacement Project Public works 08tM Center (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM RON AND LANAY GARD ($40.00) (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE 8500 BLOCK EMBANKMENT STABILIZATION PROJECT (F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1995 SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (G) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CENTER PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT 100th 3. PROCLAMATION HONORING MRS. EFFIE SCHERRER ON HER 100TH BIRTHDAY Birthday of Mrs. Scherrer Mayor Fahey read a proclamation in recognition of Mrs. Effie Scherrer's 100th birthday, declaring August 27, 1996 as Effie Scherrer Day in Edmonds. As Mrs. Scherrer was unable to attend, Mayor Fahey advised the Proclamation, corsage and copy of the video would be delivered to her. At this time, Mayor Fahey declared a 15 minute recess to allow Council, public and participants to review the materials distributed at the meeting. earing `l HEARING: RECONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL DECISION OF Li NE 18, 1996, -96.70 RELATING TO THE HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER R DECISION REGARDING A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW OVERHEAD LOADING WALKWAY AND A NEW PEDESTRIAN TERMINAL BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PIER, MINOR EXPANSION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PIER AND OTHER RELATED MINOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PIER AT THEEXISTING FERRY TERMINAL SITE LOCATED AT 71 WET MAIN STREET, -ALL WITHIN THE WASHINGTON STATE FERRY RIGHT-OF-WAY. TESTIMONY WILL BE LIMITED TO THE ISSUES OF IMPACT OF INCREASED PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, INCREASED T AIN AND TRAFFIC THROUGH THE WATERFRONT, AND MITIGATION MEASURES WHICH COULD BE —EMPLOYED. IN ADDITION THE PARTIES AND PUBLIC MAY PROVIDE LIMITED COMMENT REGARDING ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION OF ANY MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, (Appellant Natalie Shippen / Applicant: WSDOT - Ferries Division / File Nos. SM-96-24: AP-96-70) Mayor Fahey stressed the public must limit their testimony to the items specified and adhere to the three minute time limit. She explained this hearing was a continued hearing of the application for a Shoreline Development Permit; the Council voted to reconsider their original decision and set the public hearing to take limited testimony regarding the issues of impact of increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic, increased trains and traffic through the waterfront, and mitigation measures which can be employed. The Council will re-enter deliberations following the testimony. She requested Councilmembers reveal any ex parte communication. Council President Earling advised he was contacted by the appellant, Natalie Shippen, prior to the first hearing and also received a call from her requesting reconsideration of the time allotted on the agenda for the hearing. Prior to the vote for reconsideration of the Council action of June 18, 1996, he asked Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 2 Councilmember Haakenson if he was interested in any additional information and Councilmember Haakenson indicated he was. Council President Earling provided him a map. Prior to the vote to reconsider, he contacted Community Services Director Paul Mar to ask if the follow up from the state, as requested by the Council, had been received as he felt it was his duty as Council President to seek that information. He asked Mr. Mar again today if further information would be coming from the state as he felt the packet did not provide a great deal of new information. He also has had casual conversations with citizens and individuals throughout the region who primarily inquired about the status of the project. City Attorney Scott Snyder asked if Mr. Mar planned to enter the map and any other information into the record as part of the Staff Report. Council President Earling answered he asked Mr. Mar to bring the information so the public could review it. Mr. Snyder identified Mr. Mar and invited the public to speak with him if they wished. Councilmember Nordquist advised he had a brief discussion with residents of Kingston regarding the extension of the loading platform and how far it would reach out over the railroad tracks and the possibility of another set of tracks if the RTA vote is successful. Further, he and his wife have a summer home at Point No Point but have not been contacted regarding this matter. Councilmember White advised he was contacted by the appellant, Natalie Shippen, following the last hearing, and asked he not participate in reconsideration. He did not indicate his decision to her. Councilmember Haakenson advised he has had no conversations regarding this matter other than those with Council President Earling and the information contained in the packet. Councilmember Petruzzi advised Rob Morrison addressed him after the first hearing. The Edmonds Newspaper interviewed him twice but understood he could not discuss any evidence. Former Councilmember Kasper spoke to him and asked him to listen to all the evidence. Councilmember Van Hollebeke advised the only communication he had was the letter all Councilmembers received from Natalie Shippen which is contained in the packet and a citizen who came into his office and expressed his interest. Councilmember Van Hollebeke urged the citizen to write to the Council and express his concerns. Councilmember White advised former Councilmember Kasper addressed him on this issue following the initial hearing. Mr. Snyder asked Councilmember Myers, Petruzzi and White if any information was provided in the statements made by citizens that was not included in the record. Councilmember Myers, Petruzzi and White advised no new information was provided. Mayor Fahey said all written communications were placed on the table for public inspection. Mr. Snyder advised three letters were received this evening; one from Community Transit dated August 26, 1996, one from Washington State Ferry Riders Coalition dated August 27, 1996, and a letter from the Washington Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities dated August 27, 1996. Council President Earling advised a letter was also received from the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce dated August 23, 1996. Mr. Snyder said a letter was also received from Mr. Williams who is also signed up to give testimony. If Mr. Williams did not summarize the letter, it would be provided to the public as well. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 3 Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the public or any participant objected to the participation of any Councilmember. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., Edmonds, pointed out no declaration had been made by Mayor Fahey, who could vote in the event . of a tie. Mr. Hertrich asked if the Mayor has had any conversation/discussion in an attempt to change a Councilmember's future vote on the issue. Mayor Fahey answered she has not had any conversations to try to change a Councilmembers' vote. She provided information to Councilmembers in the retreat packet, information regarding the history/background on the issue, information that is available to any member of the public. Mr. Snyder clarified the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine addresses information received outside the record and is not a limitation on the deliberative process. Mayor Fahey reported she had no ex parte communication with anyone. She had similar contacts with people stating their opinions but was provided no new information. All information available has been provided in the packet. Councilmember White advised he contacted Mayor Fahey after the last hearing and asked for additional information. He met with the Mayor in her conference room and she provided additional factual information regarding the history of the project. Mr. Snyder acknowledged Councilmember White's request for past history may appear to be ex parte communication. However, as Councilmembers are assumed to have knowledge of all actions of their predecessor, additional background information may be necessary. Mayor Fahey again asked if anyone challenged the participation any Councilmember or the Mayor. Melinda Beck, 5050 Holly Drive, Edmonds, questioned whether Council President Earling's position as a member of the RTA Board was an Appearance of Fairness issue. Mr. Snyder asked Council President Earling if he represented the City Council on the RTA Board.. Council President Earling answered he represented the citizens of Snohomish County on the RTA. Mr. Snyder asked if his position was separate from his duties as a Councilmember. Council President Earling answered yes. Mr. Snyder asked if he received any information that is not available in the hearing process, information that is new or different. Council President Earling answered no, a representative from the RTA would summarize information (during public comment) that is already contained in the packet of information provided at the last RTA presentation he made to the Council. Mr. Snyder asked if Council President Earling had voted, in his position on the RTA Board, to support or oppose the project. Council President Earling answered no. Mayor Fahey asked if there were any other challenges to the participation of any Councilmember or the Mayor. There were no further challenges. Mr. Snyder explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is a subjective standard, there are no particular criteria. Courts look to see whether the participation of a Councilmember would appear unfair to a member of the audience based upon a relationship, action or activity. The ex parte contacts are not an absolute bar, once revealed a Councilmember may participate. The issue would be whether Council Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 4 President Earling's membership on the RTA appeared unfair to a member of the public. The individual Councilmember makes the decision on whether or not to recuse himself, the Council has no ability to require a Councilmember to recuse himself. He noted any decision made by the Council is appealable to the Shoreline Management Board and thus is not a final decision. Council President Earling explained that he requested the Resolution regarding the RTA include the City of Edmonds' on -going concern with safety issues on the waterfront. The desire for safety measures has been addressed and supported by the Council. Mr. Snyder said if the challenge was to Council President Earling's position on the RTA regarding safety, that same position has been taken by the City Council; therefore the challenge would be the same for the entire Council. Mr. Snyder asked Council President Earling if the RTA has made a policy statement regarding this application. Council President Earling answered no. Mr. Snyder said in his opinion there was no judicial bar to Council President Earling's participation and did not recommend he step down. Mayor Fahey explained the time limits for each participant and urged members of the public to keep their comments as brief as possible and limit their testimony to the specific topics. Staff Presentation: Community Services Director Paul Mar explained when the 3MT Task Force brought the issue of the pedestrian underpass to the City Council earlier this year, it was assigned to the Community Services Committee. On May 11, the Council's Community Services Committee, directed staff to take the lead in preparing a plan for this mitigation measure. The elements of this plan have been, 1) an agreed upon design solution, 2) a realistic information schedule and 3) a planning strategy. Staff has worked cooperatively with representatives from the Ferry, Rail and Highway divisions of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF), Community Transit (CT), and the 3MT Task Force members. He advised the packet contained answers to several questions. In answer to the question of how this project could be implemented, BNSF is embarking on an effort to possibly double -track in downtown Edmonds. The most cost effective solution and minimizing destruction of an already congested downtown streets, staff plans to look at this as a joint effort —to do the joint tracking at the same time as the underpass. Both projects will require Shoreline Substantial Development Permits and is envisioned to be a two- to four-year process to complete. For Councilmember Petruzzi, Mr. Mar explained the planning/permitting process would take one to two years and construction of the project would take an additional one to two years. Mr. Mar continued stating this project requires a great deal of cooperation and planning, funding up front, and funding to implement. Included in the packet is a letter from Mr. Uznanski, Rail Division of WSDOT, explaining the Rail Division is undertaking two parallel efforts to look at grade crossing issues, 1) a Pacific NW Rail Corridor EIS —the City of Edmonds is a cooperating agency on this effort (Mayor Fahey is on the policy setting committee and Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson is on the Technical Committee), and 2) various divisions within WSDOT have requested funding as part of their 1997-1999 biennium to look at design analysis of high priority grade crossings. In discussion with the State, the Edmonds site is a candidate site. Mr. Uznanski's letter discusses a variety of funding sources including federal, state, and regional. Several members of WSDOT were invited to testify but were unable to attend. In summary, progress is being made on solving the pedestrian safety issues in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 5 vicinity of the ferry dock and the issues are being addressed in a cooperative and coordinated manner. Participants include the City of Edmonds, WSDOT—Ferry, Highway, and Rail Divisions, BNSF, CT, RTA, and Edmonds Chamber of Commerce 3MT Task Force. Mr. Mar stated the ability to succeed in the acquisition of capital funds requires a well -thought out design solution, combined with. strong partnerships —a process that is well in place. Mr. Snyder asked Mr. Mar if the questions and instructions provided by the Council through the Community Services Committee were given to him prior to the initiation of a Shoreline Development Permit. Mr. Mar answered they began in January 1996 when the 3MT Task Force made their presentation to the Council and referred the issue to the Community Services Committee. On May 11, 1996, the Committee issued instructions that staff take the lead position in establishing a plan for the pedestrian underpass. He noted these dates are documented in a memo he provided to the City Council. Mr. Snyder asked if Mr. Mar received any instructions from the Mayor or Council on these issues since the pendancy of this hearing before the Council. Mr. Mar answered no. Applicant Presentation: Brian Holling, 811 1st Avenue, Seattle, Acting Project Engineer on the Terminal Design Office of Washington State Ferries, explained the 3MT Task Force has developed a proposal to design and build an underpass beneath the railroad tracks adjacent to the intersection of Railroad Avenue and Main Street and the City of Edmonds has assumed the role of lead agency in the development of this project. WSDOT is committed to providing safe and reliable facilities. The current operation of the existing terminal mixes pedestrians and vehicles in the same lanes and, although there have been no recorded accidents at the terminal, this can only be attributed to the way the terminal is currently operated. This is an intensely managed and inefficient operation that requires a diligent and time-consuming method of handling vehicles and pedestrians. In addition. to bringing the facility into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the objective of the proposal is to increase loading efficiency and improve pedestrian safety. WSDOT has designed their project to coordinate with the under -crossing concept. In addition, WSDOT was the first agency to pledge money to fund a portion of the design. While the funds are not enough to ensure the success of the project, they are viewed as a positive initial investment. In addition to funding, WSDOT is committed to supporting the City's drive to secure grants for the remaining funds. WSDOT is currently identifying and developing a program to fund rail crossings; once a list of priorities has been determined, further analysis will occur to develop solutions and cost sharing strategies. Councilmember Myers asked how many other ferry loading facilities throughout the state have configurations similar to Edmonds. Mr. Holling answered Mukilteo, Lopez, Friday Harbor, Orcas and Sidney currently do not have overhead loading facilities; most are similar to Edmonds. Jerry Weed, CH2M Hill, P O Box 91500, Bellevue, Project Manager for the design team preparing the plans for improving facilities at the Edmonds Ferry Terminal for WSDOT, explained Washington State Ferries (WSF) has proposed improvements to address pedestrian safety, ADA, and operational concerns at this busy facility. A substantial record was created for the Edmonds Hearing Examiner. Due to time constraints at the Council's public hearing on the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on June 18, WSDOT's testimony was limited and focused on a general overview of the project. WSDOT was unable to detail ways the project improved pedestrian safety. He advised his testimony at this hearing would focus on safety issues from the ferry terminal entrance, east across the BNSF railroad tracks. The Council will find that the project addresses the key pedestrian safety issues as well as provides an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 6 excellent connection for the pedestrian underpass proposed by the 3MT Task Force. He displayed a drawing of the Edmonds ferry terminal, including the BNSF railroad tracks, the proposed parallel set of railroad tracks, Main Street, the entrance to the ferry terminal, the existing toll booth, the holding area, parking for ferry passengers, and Community Transit's bus stop. He described the route for walk-on passengers along the north side, noting there is no parking on the north side. Ferry passengers almost exclusively access the dock from the south and predominately exit the ferry along the south side, a few walk on the north. He'described the loading and unloading process, which requires pedestrians to enter and exit the ferry via the auto ramp before/after vehicles are loaded/unloaded. One of the key reasons for the project is that the ramp cannot meet ADA access requirements. Once pedestrians are on the ferry, they must walk up the stairs or, if physically unable to walk up the stairs, they must seek assistance or stay on the deck. Due to the constraints a walk-on passenger encounters gaining access to the ferry, a passenger must arrive at the terminal no less than 20 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time in order to board without crossing traffic. Further, only approximately 20 minutes exists between ferries at the dock, during which time the lanes on the dock are being filled with vehicles. Frequent ferry passengers are aware of the "system" and risk running across traffic to reach the ferry. Infrequent users often arrive to see the ferry at the dock and traffic passing. Drivers are watching the ferry attendant and may not be watching for pedestrians approaching the dock, creating a situation (depicted in a photo he displayed) where pedestrians are waiting and then dashing across traffic. The rush to access the ferry by both pedestrians and vehicles creates a hazardous situation. Mr. Weed described the project, which will reconstruct the passenger facilities on the south side, eliminating the conflict of walk-on passengers crossing moving traffic. Re-channelization (striping) is included in the project, to increase traffic flow into the site. As a result of concern expressed at the public hearings regarding illumination, a study of the illumination has been done and various lights will be replaced to provide better lighting concentration on the south side of the terminal. Additional pedestrian signage has been included to guide passengers from all directions into the south side. The proposal for an underpass beneath the BNSF Railroad, developed by the 3MT Task Force, was included on the drawing to illustrate how it would coordinate with the other improvements. WSF continues to work with the 3MT Task Force, has pledged financial support, and believes the underpass will become an important connection to the Edmonds waterfront. However, the time required to plan, review environmental issues, design and fund this pedestrian tunnel would take two to four additional years. The underpass is a complicated issue, most appropriately constructed when the double track is constructed. Mr. Weed requested the Council approve the Shoreline Master Permit with the passenger terminal improvements at the Edmonds Ferry Terminal which would allow WSF to move forward with constructing these important safety and access improvements next year. Approval will allow critical pedestrian safety improvements to be constructed before the pedestrian and vehicle conflicts worsen and will not jeopardize the potential for building the underpass when it can be appropriately funded, permitted and built with double tracking. Councilmember Petruzzi referred to the underpass shown on the display, and asked if the underpass was included in the project before the Council. Mr. Weed advised it was not. Councilmember Petruzzi explained the reason for reconsideration was to discuss safety features away from the ferry dock and noted Mr. Weed had illustrated the considerable amount of pedestrian conflict from the road and railroad tracks. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 7 Councilmember White asked where pedestrians would purchase tickets. Mr. Weed answered they would be purchased inside the passenger terminal. Councilmember White questioned the "Ramp" indicated on the diagram. Mr. Weed said part of the 3MT Task Force proposal is to provide an ADA accessible ramp, south toward the Amtrak station and a stairwell. Councilmember White asked if there would be parking west of the ADA access ramp. Mr. Weed said the parking perpendicular to the railroad track and on the east side of the tracks would be eliminated when double -tracking occurs. Councilmember White asked if the ramp was intended to be constructed in the initial phase. Mr. Weed answered there are alternative concepts; at this time there has not been enough design details to determine if this is feasible. The ramp was only "sketched" based on the proposal from the 3MT Task Force and is not part of the proposal by WSDOT. Improvements proposed by WSDOT begin at the west side of Railroad Avenue, except for improvements to the lighting, striping and channelization and pedestrian signage. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked the vehicular capacity of the ferries normally used at the Edmonds dock and the capacity of the dock. Mr. Weed answered the capacity of the ferries is 160 vehicles and the dock has the capacity for approximately 60 vehicles. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked if there were any alternatives to meeting the ADA access requirements. Mr. Weed explained the Hearing Examiner record includes a design report which outlines alternatives. Several alternatives were considered including access ramps and vans to meet ADA standards. Councilmember Myers asked what specific safety issues WSDOT addressed that were not presented at the previous hearing. Mr. Weed advised his discussion focused on pedestrian access issues regarding access from the west side of Railroad Avenue and changes proposed to guide pedestrians into the facility more safely. Councilmember Myers observed the only changes to'the previous presentation were channelization, illumination (which Mr. Weed indicated was included in their proposal but not covered in the previous testimony); and signage. Councilmember Nordquist asked Mr. Weed to identify the location of the railroad signals on the west and east side of the railroad tracks. Councilmember Nordquist asked where the ramp leveled out. Mr. Weed advised the ramp ends at the west end of the passenger terminal building -and the building is at street level. Councilmember Nordquist expressed concern with an individual in a wheelchair coming down the ramp and losing momentum. Councilmember Petruzzi asked what safety features were provided for a person in a motorized wheelchair to cross the railroad tracks and .the street. Mr. Weed advised there is a pedestrian crosswalk and curb cutout and the railroad tracks currently have a rubberized crossing. Student Representative Moore asked if parking on the east of the existing tracks would be eliminated. Mr. Weed answered the parking would be eliminated in the future if the underpass is constructed with the use of the ramps. Student Representative Moore asked if parking would be replaced. Mr. Weed advised that would be considered as part of the study. Student Representative Moore recalled the passenger terminal would be a temporary structure. Mr. Weed explained the underpass will become part of the City's future park facility when the ferry dock is moved. The passenger terminal building will also remain. Mr. Snyder cautioned that the underpass was not part of WSDOT's proposal and not proposed by them as mitigation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 8 Council President Earling asked which facilities have the potential for portability to a new site. Mr. Weed answered the auto ramp, the pedestrian facility and the ramp to the edge of the building. Appellant Presentation Roger Hertrich said he worked closely on the review of this matter with Natalie Shippen. She was not present this evening as she felt there was nothing she could add and did not feel any new information had been provided. Mr. Snyder commented, under Edmonds' procedures, the applicant bears the burden of proof; therefore it is not necessary that the appellant, Ms. Shippen, be present at the hearing. City Clerk Sandy Chase confirmed a letter containing the date, time and place of the hearing along with an informational packet had been mailed to Ms. Shippen on Friday, August 23, 1996. Audience Participation Harold Friedman, 26276 Montera Loop NE, Kingston, advised he often uses services in Edmonds and is a ferry commuter. Edmonds is the only city with the super -class ferries with a 160 vehicle capacity (Seattle has a 200 vehicle ferry) and also the only city without loading ramps or elevators. Edmonds will be getting a 200 vehicle ferry which will increase the volume of traffic by 20 percent as well as increase the loading and unloading time. The ramp is important to expedite loading and unloading and would protect passengers from the weather. It is dangerous for pedestrians to cross during loading and unloading, particularly for passengers in wheelchairs or with strollers. Larry Hendahl, 26240 Montera Loop NE, Kingston, said he is not a resident of Edmonds but has worked in the community as secretary at the Chamber of Commerce and is currently an active Board member on the South Snohomish County Senior Center. The citizens of Edmonds, visitors who pay sales tax as well as businesses who provide services to the community need to have a voice. He indicated the higher quality dock in Kingston must be an embarrassment to the Edmonds community and urged the Council to uphold WSDOT's application. Mr. Snyder pointed out the ADA information is contained in the record and urged the public to limit their comments to the topics specified. Councilmember Petruzzi explained he made the motion for reconsideration to examine new evidence on the safety issues away from the ferry dock —what could be done to protect citizens away from the dock and crossing the railroad tracks and street. Mr. Snyder pointed out citizens may also address any ex parte issues. Paul Williams, 143 5th N, Edmonds, advised he is an attorney in the City as well as a ferry rider for five years. Contrary to WSDOT testimony, he walks on the north side. He indicated his letter to the Council outlined his concerns. He was concerned that the issue of the tunnel could delay construction of the facility and could precipitate an ADA lawsuit. He clarified he was not saying he would bring a lawsuit but was concerned that if the City did not move forward, the law would begin to manipulate the problem. Council President Earling advised the next speaker was on the RTA staff. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 9 Sheila Dezorn, 821 2nd Ave, Seattle, Senior Policy Analyst with the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (RTA), explained the RTA Board adopted a ten year regional transit plan on May 31, 1996, which the citizens living in the three county area RTA district will vote on November 5, 1996. She was present at the request of Mr. Mar to clarify the RTA's proposal for the City of Edmonds. The policy in the ten year RTA plan allows and encourages the RTA to participate in the type of pedestrian connection the City is considering. The plan proposes $362 million in transportation services and facilities for Snohomish County and includes commuter rail service between Everett, Mukilteo and Edmonds and south as well as funds for four commuter rail stations in the county. Further, the plan includes $20 million in unallocated funds for Snohomish County that can be used to address a variety of issues such as pedestrian connections. In addition to funding direct stationcosts, the $6.2 million allocated for a commuter rail station in Edmonds, can be used for mitigation and community enhancements, including pedestrian connections. The plan stresses maximizing access to the commuter rail system, implementing the plan so that it serves local needs as well as emphasizing partnerships. Ms. Dezorn's testimony was concluded due to expiration of the three minute time limit. Councilmember Petruzzi complimented Ms. Dezorn and the RTA for developing an excellent plan. He asked if there would be a possibility of some funding for a project like the tunnel if the RTA passes. Ms. Dezom answered yes. William Mathias, 540 Holly Dr., Edmonds, objected to the size of the proposed passenger handling facility and the continued exportation of the benefit of living in Edmonds. Mayor Fahey asked Mr. Mathias to limit his comments to safety issues. Mr. Mathias advised he misinterpreted Mayor Fahey's earlier statement to mean he could express an opinion regarding the entire facility. Connie Passey, 7901 196th St. SW #13, Edmonds, indicated most of her comments supported the upgrade to ADA access. She shared the concerns expressed by Mr. Williams regarding the possibility of a lawsuit unless improvements proceeded in a timely manner. She supported reasonable accommodations for the elderly, disabled and those with multiple health issues. Barbara Allan, 521 2nd Ave W, Seattle, Director of Access Programs, Easter Seals Society of Washington, a program which promotes accessible designs for people with disabilities, spoke in support of the proposed improvements which are needed to solve the immediate safety, pedestrian and ADA access concerns and should not be delayed. The proposed project provided a dignified, safe and out -of - the weather method of boarding the passenger level of the ferries. She was personally aware of the discomforts of boarding the ferry in a wheelchair and the lack of amenities on the car desk. Mayor Fahey urged Ms. Allen to limit her comments to safety issues. Ms. Allen continued that the proposed improvements would add the long needed and desired accessibility features. The proposed improvements were important to safety and access and warranted moving ahead as soon as possible. Chris Williams, 10234 NE Barry, Kingston, a local attorney, related two accidents on the dock. After the first car -pedestrian accident, he wrote to WSF regarding the dangerous conditions, and traffic was blocked in that area. Another accident, which resulted in a lawsuit, occurred when a pedestrian tripped on the north corridor. He agreed with the statement that the City of Edmonds may be named in a lawsuit if it were determined that money was available for ADA improvements and the City took an active role Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 10 in not allowing the use of funds for that purpose. He supported the ramp but suggested it be redesigned to allow passengers to exit on both sides of the ramp. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO EXTEND THE HEARING FOR 50 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Brent Masters, 24585 Madura Dr., Kingston, indicated safety is a major concern to him as he has a small child who rides in a stroller and has witnessed children running into traffic on the dock. He agreed with the comments made by several residents of Kingston regarding safety measures and urged the Council to reconsider the project to correct the safety hazards presented by vehicular and railroad traffic. Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Pl., #202, Edmonds, described traffic congestion in the City caused by the ferry over the weekend. Over the past two weeks, meetings were held with the Ferry, Rail and Highway divisions, Community Transit and Edmonds Community Services and Engineering departments regarding the pedestrian underpass and a safe passage to the waterfront park and beach and for ferry passengers. All agreed the underpass was a workable solution for safety and the Highway Director indicated they would assist in the .cost of design and engineering. Mr. Morrison urged the Council to approve the ramp and proceed with the development of safety devices to protect people and speed the move of the dock from "the City's front yard". Joe Emmons, 225504 96th Ave W, Edmonds, advised he recently annexed into the City.. As a daily commuter to Kitsap County, he is embarrassed by his fellow commuters and employers in Kitsap County with what appears to be Edmonds' reluctance to approve a facility that would enhance transportation and safety. He advised the dock is unsafe and the City of Edmonds is unsafe. It is stressful to find parking and use the ferry on a daily basis which elderly as well as young people struggle with. He supported moving aggressively toward solving this problem and Edmonds must help with the solution. No one has caused the Ferry, Rail and Highway to come here but the City must live with it and the Council should find the solution, a solution that has been needed for 20 years. Whether or not other facilities have overhead ramps is immaterial, Edmonds needs to be positive and handle the problems with the ferry, rail and highway. He urged the Council to consider all issues. Carol Hahn, 1031 2nd Ave S, Edmonds, said the proposed passenger terminal will not decrease pedestrian/traffic safety. She was not concerned with pedestrians continuing to cross the railroad tracks but was concerned with a dangerous intersection where free right turns are allowed where "pedestrians have no rights" as well as the intersection at Bracketts Landing where vehicles do not obey the stop sign. An underpass should begin at the west side of Railroad Avenue and cross the vehicle loading lanes, not just the railroad tracks. She acknowledged the proposed loading ramp is a temporary solution but one that is available. WSF wanted more than the project they are proposing; Edmonds needs to understand it may not get everything it wants. She urged the Council not to reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner. Don Carr, 9832 225th Pl. SW, Edmonds, stated he is representing the Edmonds Bike Advocacy Group formed to promote safety. He described conflicts in Edmonds that dreate safety problems, noting the Group feels this project separates pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles, thus improving safety in Edmonds. The Group supports the Council's efforts for a total solution but feels a more efficient loading dock will improve operations on the dock and on the streets that serve the dock by moving vehicles more efficiently and reducing congestion on SR 104, Main Street and other streets. He urged the Council to approve this plan and continue to move forward with a total solution when it was feasible to accomplish. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page I 1 Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., Edmonds, stated he was a member of the City Council when the Unocal site was discussed. He pointed out that the EIS study is not completed and there has been no environmental study on this proposal. It is a permanent structure that is not mitigated. Mayor Fahey cautioned Mr. Hertrich to restrict his comments to the issue of safety. Mr. Hertrich continued stating the safety provided by the proposal is more than the minimum required for ADA. To cross the railroad tracks is a nice idea but it is only that —an idea, not a definite solution and is not part of this project. He felt this meeting asked the public to perform an oral EIS and develop mitigation measures to address the issue of crossing the railroad tracks. WSF is aggravating the traffic problem by adding larger ferries, and only WSF should evaluate the permanent terminal issue and provide mitigation answers. He pointed out the decision contained in the Findings of Fact was correct as no substantial information has been provided to cause any reasonable person to change his vote. Further, a 24-foot wall installed the length of the ferry dock, will permanently change the landscape and the Edmonds waterfront to the detriment of the City and its citizens. Arnie Knudson, 23632 Hwy 99, #F332, Edmonds, explained as a citizen he had the .right to expect elected officials to consider what is important to the citizens at large, not a few citizens concerned about City views or their personal views. He said the safety of the present facility is terrible and described difficulties he encounters (as a healthy adult) walking down the ramp when it is covered with snow and ice. He urged the City to consider the serious legal issues for the City. Council President Earling disclosed the next speaker is one of his agents. Larry Naughten, 729 Laurel, Edmonds, complimented the Council for revisiting this issue as the topics being discussed could assist in addressing the safety issues on the waterfront. He indicated the pedestrian underpass would solve many of the safety problems on the waterfront and would compliment 'the ferry terminal as well as the City's promotion of access to the waterfront's public beaches. He suggested the City take the leadership. role and establish a fund, seek regional partnerships, and find a way to build the underpass. John K1asell;.8408 191st SW, Edmonds, supported the ferry project and felt WSDOT showed they will try to address the movement of pedestrians and vehicles that occurs at the railroad crossing and Railroad Avenue. The number of vehicles and pedestrians have increased over the last 3.0 years, and an accident will happen if controls are not in place. Ted Tower, 9711 Cherry St., Edmonds, observed pedestrians currently must walk across the loading line to access the ferry. When the new facility is in place, a pedestrian accessing the ferry from Main Street still must cross the loading line. He said the solution would be for the police officer to stop traffic when five pedestrians are waiting to cross. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Holling addressed the question raised by Councilmember Myers regarding other facilities without overhead loading facilities. He explained terminals with similar passenger counts all currently have overhead loading facilities; terminals with lower passenger counts, Clinton and Mukilteo, are under consideration in various stages such as environmental review or planning for those facilities. WSDOT is providing support and some funding to develop the design and answer some of the concerns regarding the feasibility of the pedestrian underpass. In this design, it is important to understand that the need to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes. August 27, 1996 Page 12 cross the ferry dock to reach the north side of the terminal has been eliminated for the majority of I passengers. Council President Earling noted other loading facilities have facilities similar to the Edmonds dock. There is a long-term improvement plan in place for many of the ferry docks throughout the system, and in an effort to assist with some of the improvements, some funds were diverted from other projects to fund the overhead loading facility. Mr. Holling advised budgets for some other projects were shifted as the estimates increased for this project. Councilmember Nordquist pointed out WSDOT's letter of August 24, should indicate $100,000 (rather than $100). Councilmember White asked Mr. Holling for clarification of his statement regarding other terminals in various stages of review. Mr. Holling advised there is a draft EIS underway for the Mukilteo terminal and would include features such as overhead loading. The City of Mukilteo is the lead agency. Mr. Snyder advised Mr. Masters submitted a three -page letter written by Suzanne Faiferlick. He indicated the Council had the option of circulating the letter or having the City Clerk read it into the record. In the past, the Council has not accepted lengthy documents received late. Mayor Fahey advised the public comment portion of the hearing had been closed; therefore, it was not appropriate to read the letter into the record. Appellant Rebuttal Mayor Fahey asked if Natalie Shippen was present; she was not. Mr. Snyder responded to a statement made by Carol Hahn that "pedestrians have no rights" stating under state law pedestrians have the right-of-way at all times. If the Council wished to direct a review of pedestrian traffic impacts on adjacent ,City streets, that would be within the Council's legislative authority. Regarding the comments made concerning an ADA lawsuit, he was unaware that the record indicated the City was opposed to ADA compliance; the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance outlined a number of alternative measures to achieve ADA compliance. He emphasized that while testimony at the hearing was limited to safety issues, upon reconsideration the Council is not limited in its discussion to the evidence presented at this hearing. For Council President Earling, Mr. Snyder explained the Council had four options, 1) reject the permit as submitted, 2) deny the permit, 3) remand the application to the Hearing Examiner to allow the applicant, public and staff to review the conditions, or 4) impose conditions as part of a conditioned approval. All decisions, other than the remand, are appealable to the Shoreline Management Board. Mayor Fahey closed the public participation of the hearing and remanded the matter to the Council for deliberation. Council Deliberation (*Note: Councilmember Petruzzi requested that the following portion of the minutes on Council deliberation be detailed, and therefore have not been summarized.) Councilmember Petruzzi thanked everyone for coming' again. He explained his motion for reconsideration was to allow the Council to hear possible ways to mitigate the safety problems away Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 13 from the ferry dock. His concern and the concern of a number of Councilmembers who voted in the 5-2 vote, centers on what happens to people trying to get to and from the ferry dock. He felt the Ferry System had done a very good job with the safety on the ferry dock itself; however, the job is incomplete with regard to the safety away from the ferry dock. He felt it was important for the City to ensure safety measures have been provided. A lot of testimony was provided regarding increased traffic and pedestrian traffic. By the year 2000, over 750,000 people will be crossing the track a year, a very problematic situation. The expressed intent of the proposed improvement is increased traffic, which is not bad. However, in order for these issues to be specifically addressed, the applicant must participate as a partner with the City to create a pedestrian railroad underpass. In an attempt to address the issue in a positive way, he planned to make suggestions to add conditions to the Hearing Examiner's decision; not to remand the decision but make the decision final this evening. Conditions would take into consideration that the tunnel be in place in a certain time period and, if it was not in place in that time period, the permit would be terminated. Councilmember Myers commented one of the reasons Edmonds is such a great place to live is because citizens have very strong feelings about their community. Kingston also has strong feelings about Edmonds which he welcomed. The issue to him was not whether the overhead loading facility was unsightly or the view was bad, he was still concerned about the safety of the public before they reached the ferry dock. He noted much has been described about how problems will be eased with the proposed passenger terminal; however, the same problems could be eased by moving the ticket booth to the other side. He compared the ferry dock to an attractive nuisance such as a swimming pool. The owner is required to provide safety to people in the surrounding area. The ferry dock will increase traffic and he felt WSF should participate in providing safety for the people in the surrounding area. Council President Earling wished Ms. Shippen were present so he could tell her there was something he agreed with in her opening statement. In her memo to the Council, the first paragraph points out that the safety issue as it pertains to the pedestrian underpass is a separate issue from the interim improvements proposed by the WSDOT. He recalled WSDOT has been dealing with improvements to the Edmonds facility for a long time, but this plan was pulled together the past year. Rob Morrison, and the 3MT came forward in January to raise the issue of whether to include an extra safety precaution related to this project. While the underpass is a noble idea which he wholly supports, it did not make its way into the WSDOT process early enough to be included in their proposal. He agreed with Ms. Shippen that there are two separate issues; however, from the testimony gathered in both hearings, it is incumbent upon the Council to lay out a plan that includes the separate underpass, happening simultaneous or at least closely tied to the improvements at the ferry dock. He noted Mr. Uznanski's. memo describes five, ten, fifteen potential funding partners the City of Edmonds can seek to accumulate the funds to make the pedestrian underpass a reality as well as a sincere commitment by WSDOT to be a partner and participant in establishing, designing and hopefully building the pedestrian underpass as they are also concerned about safety. The RTA, with a successful ballot issue in November, has $6.2 million for a multi -modal station, some of which can be designated for safety improvements. In addition, there is $20 million the City can request for a safety related project. Although Burlington Northern has not spoken, based on previous conversations, they have indicated an on -going concern for taking care of safety issues in the City of Edmonds. There are a multitude of funding potentials, and discussions over the past six to eight months indicate the pedestrian underpass is an important issue to the community. As Councilmember Haakenson pointed out, the underpass should be in place, regardless of whether the ferry dock is there, to provide access to the waterfront from the trains that dissect the City. He supported the underpass but hesitated to place a series of conditions on an approval for WSDOT's temporary improvements because they would likely appeal the decision to the Shoreline Management Board. To those who think the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 14 underpass is too much money or that the ferry dock cannot be moved to the Pt. Edward's site because it costs too much money; when he first presented the Pt. Edward's project to several Congressmen in Washington DC two years ago, no one thought the City could gather the approximately $3 million to explore partnerships to establish the project. Council President Earling stressed the money was available and the Council needed to take the lead and be the lead agency to apply for money to put together the $2- 3 million required for the project. However, he felt WSDOT should be allowed to proceed with their project, and looked forward to an on -going commitment from them, similar to their on -going commitment to moving the multi -modal site to Pt. Edwards. Councilmember White advised when this issue was first brought to the Council, there were volumes of information provided to the Council. He assumed there was a degree of predetermination on the issue based on the history he had reviewed; therefore he did not review the history in as much detail as perhaps he should have. He had reservations after the last vote was taken because he felt he was not totally informed about the issues. He contacted the Mayor the next day and asked her to put together a comprehensive history of the issue, which she did with the assistance of Mr. Mar. He also contacted some other Councilmembers and the City Attorney to discuss the avenue of reconsideration. He reviewed volumes of information as the issue goes back approximately 10 years, over many administrations. One of the issues that concerned him at the last hearing was the failure of any party to do anenvironmental review of the project. The City is not the lead agency and does not have the authority to initiate such a review. Consequently, no EIS was performed so that information is not available. With regard to the comments that traffic to the dock will increase, he noted it appears traffic will increase regardless of whether the improvements occur. If the improvements don't occur, traffic will increase along with the problems that currently exists. He struggled with both sides of this issue as it appears to be a win -win, lose -lose situation. Testimony has included citizens who like the dock, which he felt was an aspect of the City which he enjoyed. At the same time, the dock is "a pain to deal with", particularly the congestion it creates. The City wins and loses by having the dock on its waterfront. In Ms. Hahn's statement regarding the safety issue, she noted the train tracks have bells, whistles and barriers. The safety issue to him was primarily from vehicular traffic to the north/south pedestrian traffic, from the location of the proposed passenger terminal to the existing ticket booth as he has observed pedestrians on several occasions who are stopped by traffic when trying to cross north and south. In addition there are other dangerous areas for pedestrians on the dock. While the east/west pedestrian traffic across the railroad track is a concern, it is not his primary concern. He was strongly inclined to deny the appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision but was also interested in hearing Councilmember Petruzzi's suggestions for a conditioned proposal. He agreed with Council President Earling about a conditional permit due to the ramifications of taking the decision to the next step, away from the Council's decision -making to another decision -making body. He reiterated he is inclined to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision as written. Councilmember Nordquist said he was involved with the first ferry holding lanes in the 1970's and the changes that have taken place. Since the last vote, he went to Kingston and walked on the ferry and visualized how that property would be on the Edmonds' waterfront. The most interesting part of the Kingston ramp is the gathering place at the bottom of the ramp, an interesting focal point. He visualized that on the Edmonds side and stated a problem now exists with egress from the ferry terminal. Currently, passengers can walk on both sides of the roadway, the proposed loading ramp places everyone on the south side. He suggested a piece of the park recently acquired be used to create a holding platform until the underpass is built as people exiting the ferry often stop to contemplate their next move. He did not object to the terminal, but had difficulty with the intersection. He referred to the street (identified by WSDOT as Edmonds Way) which runs south, and suggested the northbound street be closed and made Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 15 into the ferry holding lanes (now a street) and the present ferry holding lanes made into parking for ferry passengers. This would create a dead-end street, traffic would travel down Third Avenue, and the left turn lane into the ferry would be closer so turns into the intersection are shifted to the west. For the present, something should be done, such as the City renting or leasing a small portion of the park until the underpass is built. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO EXTEND THE HEARING. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST OPPOSED. Councilmember Van Hollebeke noted this has been an arduous process for everyone. He, personally, hoped to hear a magical solution not presented before and some very large and deep pockets were ready to pour forth money to solve the problem. But the fact is that it is the City's problem. The ferry landing presents new and exciting challenges and, as one speaker said, the underpass is just an idea. However, an idea is the beginning, the germ of an anything worthwhile requires the idea before the reality can happen. The idea has been put forth, others have said Edmonds City Council should take the lead, a concept he totally supported. He felt the Edmonds City Council needed to take the lead in making this a reality and determining the safest possible configuration for pedestrians using this passenger loading terminal. A lot of ideas have been put forth, none are precluded from the final decision, it is a matter of further study. It is incumbent upon the Council to. address the safety issue. WSDOT Ferry Division has done everything possible to address safety on the dock; it is the City's responsibility as the lead agency to go beyond that. He was not satisfied, particularly after hearing Ms. Hahn's testimony, that all the safety needs beyond the dock have been addressed. However, those solutions can be discussed further at future meetings. The question is whether the Council should deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Examiner or not. He supported Council President Earling's proposal to move forward, with the belief the funding will be available from a number of sources, beginning with the $15,000 pledged by WSDOT and the Council making an effort in that direction. He supported the denial of the appeal and upholding the Hearing Examiner's decision. Councilmember Haakenson reiterated the Council's concern has never been with the safety on the ferry dock. WSDOT has done a great job of presenting safety on the dock and the need to meet ADA requirements. He noted 18 citizens spoke at this hearing, 15 were in favor of the WSDOT proposal. At the first hearing the speakers from the audience were overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal. He expressed concern that only one or two people spoke about safety off the ferry dock; possibly the ferry travelers present are less concerned about their safety off the dock than the Council is. He felt it was clear there was support from citizens, WSDOT, RTA, and others to move ahead with the underpass proposal as well as several funding alternatives. It was also clear to him that WSDOT does not want to, will not, and probably should not, take the lead on this issue. They have committed some money for a study and have committed their support, all that the City may get from WSDOT. The burden to build this proposed underpass falls on the Edmonds City Council and the Council must get as many partners as possible involved but the burden ultimately falls on the Council. He felt the two- to four-year time line, as described by Mr. Mar, should be the Council's burden and not WSD.OTs burden. Councilmember Petruzzi noted everyone (WSDOT, CT, etc.) have expressed an interest in cooperating. The problem is they have been unable to commit specifically to the funding. He recalled their letters stated they are very supportive but cannot offer much at this time. His approach would be to keep everyone's feet to the fire to ensure it is done. It is unknown if WSDOT can provide any money beyond the $15,000; it will obviously take a collaborative effort to get this done. Everyone seems to have good, proper intentions. However, people, politicians, and bureaucracies change and the concern at this Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 16 hearing may not be the main concern of people in the future because there will be no motivation to complete the underpass. There will be other projects and other priorities and the completion of the tunnel may not be possible. For the City to reach $2.5 million by itself is an impossibility. His proposed conditions would basically ensure that within a certain time period, the underpass will be built and, if not, clearly there are serious problems and the loading ramp would have to be dismantled. As Mr. Mar indicated, the estimated time to complete the project is four years. His motion would be to require the underpass to be substantially completed in four years (substantially complete does not mean the underpass must be built). The following motion was made to resolve the issues for safety away from the ferry dock. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO APPROVE THE TEMPORARY PERMIT AND UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS; HOWEVER WITH MODIFICATIONS AND SOME ADDITIONS TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF MAY 13, 1996. SUCH MODIFICATIONS AND CONDITIONS WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: AN ADDED CONDITION THAT NO LATER THAN FOUR. YEARS AFTER THE PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED THE APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT A PEDESTRIAN RAILROAD UNDERPASS HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED AS HEREIN DEFINED IN ORDER FOR THE PERMIT NOT TO TERMINATE. SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED IS DEFINED SO THAT IN THE MINIMUM ALL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SAID PEDESTRIAN RAILROAD UNDERPASS SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED; ALL PERMITS FROM ANY AND ALL SOURCES MUST HAVE BEEN ISSUED ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNDERPASS; ALL NECESSARY FUNDS HAVE BEEN SECURED AND APPROPRIATED; AND ALL CONTRACTS SHALL HAVE BEEN LET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNDERPASS. IF ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MET, THE TEMPORARY PERMIT WILL EXPIRE AND THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2C OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF MAY 13, 1996. ANOTHER MODIFICATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF MAY 13, 1996 SHALL BE THE FIRST SENTENCE IN 211 OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION SHALL BE STRICKEN IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE FOLLOWING:. "THE APPLICANT SHALL BE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR A PERMANENT PERMIT PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERMIT IF AND ONLY IF A PEDESTRIAN RAILROAD UNDERPASS HAS BEEN COMPLETELY CONSTRUCTED, IS IN GOOD REPAIR, AND IS ACTIVELY IN USE BY THE PUBLIC." THE REMAINING PORTION OF 2B OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION SHALL REMAIN AND ALL OTHER SECTIONS OF THE DECISION SHALL REMAIN. Councilmember White observed the conditions proposed are equivalent to upholding the appeal but transfer the burden for establishing the tunnel to the Ferry System. Based on the proposed conditions, the City, or any other entity, would not be obligated to participate in the project. Although the City may intend to participate, the actions of the Council's successor cannot be ensured. He referred to previous comment that this is Edmond's problem and said it is the City's responsibility to address its problem. As has been pointed out, whether or not expansion occurs, one beach with a lot of activity currently exists and a park will be developed with as much or more activity; therefore, the need for grade separation currently exists. He did not agree with transferring that burden in its entirety to the Ferry System. Councilmember Petruzzi said it was not his intention to transfer the financial responsibility to the Ferry System, only that it must be built. He would accept a friendly amendment that would require the City of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 17 Edmonds to be the lead agency. He assumed, in making this motion, that all of the people who indicated they will cooperate, will do so. He disagreed with the statement that this is Edmonds' problem or that Edmonds must come up with $2.5 million. It is certainly an Edmonds concern, but also a concern for the railroad and WSF. His motion was not designed to transfer financial responsibility to WSDOT, but to keep people focused on doing the underpass within a time period. 'While it was indicated that two- to four -years would be required to complete a tunnel, he was suggesting four years to reach the stage where contracts are let. He felt this was a reasonable suggestion. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Earling commented on Councilmember Petruzzi's statement that there was no commitment by other agencies as possible funding sources. The reason is the idea (for an underpass) came forward in January, after their budgets were in place. If each federal, state and local agency which the City can apply to for grants were pursued, this project would score very high. The City's multi -modal site, while considered to be a very expensive project, still ranked number one in statewide competition for multi -modal centers. This is a good project with a well designed, thought-out, long term plan. Placing conditions as proposed by Councilmember Petruzzi would leave WSDOT with little option but to proceed on to the next level. He questioned the practicality of the loading ramp being removed if the City of Edmonds is not successful in putting together a project to have the underpass built. He agreed it was not just Edmonds' problem, it is a regional issue that needs to be resolved. Citizens of other communities utilize the waterfront and whether the ferry dock is there or not, safety improvements are necessary. The resolution to the problem is for the City of Edmonds to take the lead in establishing funding partners to assemble a project. With the City's record and reputation for writing quality proposals, he believed such a proposal would be successful. Councilmember Petruzzi said he struggled with the logic —the City is told there are funding sources and the project can be done, and that there are dollars available the City can surely get. If that were the case, logically his motion should be supported. If the funding is available, he suggests it be guaranteed by keeping people's feet to the fire. It has been indicated it will take two- to four -years to have the underpass completed. His suggestion was four years to bring it to a point where construction can begin. If there was a concern with time, he would suggest five years, so funding would be available and everyone would be involved. He questioned the logic of Councilmembers' not supporting his suggestion of allowing five years before construction is even begun. Councilmember Haakenson reiterated the burden to build the tunnel falls on the City and City Council; the City needs to be the lead agency. If he were WSDOT and had these conditions imposed upon him and was not the lead agency for the proposal, he would be at the mercy of the City of Edmonds who could say they did not want to do the tunnel and then WSDOT would be required to remove their improvements. If the Council votes to place the conditions on the project and WSDOT has an alternative to appeal without the condition, the Council does not leave them with much choice. Councilmember Myers said although Edmonds has some responsibility for the problem, it is not entirely Edmonds' problem. The packet included a letter from WSDOT that states if funding is not available in the railroad passenger program in the current biennium, WSF continues to review the railroad grade separation project; they feel the pursuit of rail money is the best strategy for accomplishing this project. Community Transit indicates it is not charged with funding or building facilities for general pedestrian purposes, and WSDOT Rail Division suggests double tracking as a solution to the safety problem. A budget report from the Daily Journal dated August 16, 1996 in the packet indicates spending for 1997 - Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 18 1999 is at a 12-year low. The Puget Sound Business Journal, Volume 17, Number 15, indicates due to worries about the looming threat of rail congestion in the Seattle -Tacoma corridor, transportation and government groups are springing to assemble proposed solutions before the State Legislature convenes in January. This group's proposal for an over $300 million project to build as many as 40 overpasses over the existing north -south rail lines between Seattle and Tacoma but makes no mention of any overpasses outside the Seattle -Tacoma area. Unless there is some leverage, Councilmember Myers did not feel anyone would step forth to assist with funding this project. Councilmember White said he intended, when stating this is Edmonds' problem, that Edmonds needs to take the lead in this project; however, it is also a regional problem. With proposed conditions, the Council creates only one "fall -guy" and one penalty. If the tunnel is not developed, if funding is not available, WSDOT takes the fall and must remove their multi -million dollar construction without another place to put it. If they are, left with that as an option, it would be unreasonable for them not to appeal. If they do not appeal, they accept responsibility for ensuring the tunnel is completed and funding achieved per the motion, otherwise they remove their project. Councilmember White said he would be surprised if WSDOT did not appeal the decision if the proposed conditions were included. Mr. Snyder observed at the earlier hearing, he outlined what he felt was the issue in the draft Findings which would be much easier to define if the Council were dealing with a project from a private developer. One of the issues the Council has repeatedly referred to is the lack of money to correct an . impact from this development. The purpose of an EIS is to access the impacts of the proposal on the environment and to determine what percent of those impacts are created by the proposal and require them to be mitigated. If the Council were dealing with a private development, such as a sub -division that created 500 vehicle trips per day to an intersection where a train traffic yroblem existed and Snohomish County had an arterial route that emptied into the area, the Council could determine the proposal was contributing 10 percent of the traffic; therefore should contribute 10 percent of the costs. The Council is struggling with trying to translate that information to a situation where there. are a variety of public, players. He noted staffs position has been that part of the problem is that there was no environmental process to assess the traffic issue of primary importance to the Council. If this were a private development, Mr. Snyder indicated he would advise the Council they can deny a proposal that does not mitigate environmental impacts, but cannot require a proposal to pick up all the costs of a problem created by a variety of sources. The Council can only assess someone their percentage of costs that arise from mitigation. Mr. Snyder said his concern with Councilmember Petruzzi's motion was, if the proposal is contingent upon a mitigation measure that requires WSDOT to carry the burden of proceeding with the underpass, the State could argue on appeal that this required them to cure all the problems of a mixed regional issue. Further, he objected to the Council being forced into a position of being engineers or architects to design solutions for a problem. He suggested, if the Council is concerned and wishes to impose conditions and have a time table for review, that the time table for review contain a new environmental review process that tries to assess alternatives and the percentage of mitigation costs. He observed the Council seemed to be struggling with the motion because, as proposed, it appeared to place all the burden on WSDOT to solve a regional problem and also requires the Council to design a solution to what is obviously a dangerous intersection that may, at some future date, have other alternatives. Mr. Snyder summarized the Council had two issues to deal with in its motion, 1) all of the mitigation costs cannot be assessed on WSF for a regional transportation issue and 2) the Council should not to try to design a solution that is not contained in WSF's proposal. He recommended the Council uphold the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 19 Hearing Examiner's ruling and approve the project, if the Council finds this is an existing regional transportation issue that pre-existed WSF's proposal, and their proposal as it exists provides some increased degree of safety. If the Council finds the proposal makes the situation worse and the- impacts are not mitigated, the Council can rely on the Maydenbauer Bay case he sited in the Findings and state the proposal does not mitigate the off -site impacts and are not properly assessed by the environmental review process and cannot be approved at this time. Mayor Fahey announced the Discussion of Fire Station 46 Location would be postponed until the next Council meeting (September 3, 1996) due to the lateness of the hour. Mayor Fahey asked if Item 5a (Council Review of a Settlement Agreement) could be postponed: Mr. Snyder advised Item 5a could be postponed until next week's Council meeting. Councilmember Petruzzi asked Mr. Snyder for clarification as it appeared the Council either needed to uphold the appeal or deny the appeal. Mr. Snyder advised a third option would be, if the project is to be conditioned and comes back for further review in a phased permitting process, for it to be done with the new environmental assessment that tries to determine the impact created by the ferry terminal, separate and apart from the impacts created by City beaches, Snohomish County Transit's buses, or the rail transportation so that WSF is only assessed that portion of the mitigation costs that relate to their project. Councilmember Petruzzi explained what he was trying to say is that the Council must address the issues that are not being addressed by this project. Breaking down the mitigation does not get any protection for the people crossing the railroad tracks or streets. He reiterated the logic of his motion and offered four, five, ten or fifteen years, and questions if that still meant the burden was placed on WSDOT. If so, it would also mean that the letters "of good intent" could be thrown away. If the Council does not have the belief that it can provide safety for citizens to cross the railroad tracks in ten, five, or eight years, he would be unable to vote to uphold. He stressed he was struggling with this issue, probably more than any other issue he has been faced with. If he had known that no constructive evidence would be presented to show how the City will handle the safety of its citizens when a million people a year or more will cross the street, railroad tracks and traffic, he would never have made the motion for reconsideration. He understood that everything must be done properly but could not understand how his fellow Councilmembers could say they do not want to put the burden on WSDOT. He stressed he is not attempting to put the burden there, he is only attempting to put everyone's feet to the fire. If.the Council could not support a motion, amended to state all the entities would have funding in place and have everything done in eight or ten years, he questioned how the Council could say the tunnel would ever be built for the public. Councilmember Van Hollebeke appreciated Councilmember Petruzzi's strong feelings and the sincerity of his motion but was opposed to the motion because it placed the burden on one agency. The motion, in effect, asks them to dismantle their entire project in the event that the tunnel that the City has proposed, is not built in a specific, timely fashion. He felt that was not a logical burden to place on WSDOT; it is the City's burden to take the lead if the Council believes this is a worthwhile project and in view of the potential for resources, not for the City to take it on as an independent,project, not to spend $2.5 million but to find the partners and cooperation. The letters indicate those agencies are willing to help and cooperate. It is unreasonable to expect WSDOT to pay the entire price should the City fail in its effort. Councilmember Van Hollebeke called for the question. He withdrew his call for the question to allow Councilmember Petruzzi further comment. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 20 Councilmember Petruzzi read from the conditions of the Hearing Examiner, "any and all improvements associated with this substantial development shall be removed within six months from the date of expiration of the permit as above provided." Ms. Chase reread the motion as previously stated by Councilmember Petruzzi. VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION UPON ROLL CALL VOTE, THE MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS PETRUZZI, MYERS AND NORDQUIST IN FAVOR, COUNCILMEMBERS VAN HOLLEBEKE, EARLING, HAAKENSON, AND WHITE OPPOSED. Mr. Snyder reiterated his concern with the motion as proposed was, 1) it made WSDOT totally responsible for mitigating a problem that the evidence and record suggests is contributed to by a variety of sources and under Washington State law they can only be assessed their contributing portion of the mitigation, and 2) it puts them at the mercy of funding sources which are total under the discretion of a variety of legislative entities and at the discretion of permitting process which typically are beyond their control. Staffs position has been that this has been contributed to by the environmental review process that WSDOT created. The Council should approve the project if the Council found this to be a pre- existing regional problem that the proposal improves. If the Council finds this is a problem created or worsened by the permit application, the Council may deny it under the Maydenbauer Bay rationale or can condition it on a future process to assess their mitigation contribution, which is what the Hearing Examiner was attempting to do —if the problem is not resolved by the installation of an underpass, require them to go through a new process to assess it and address the off site transportation issues. He reiterated his concern was the motion linked the project to the installation of a specific improvement that the Council designed as a solution and required them to fund the entire process. Councilmember Petruzzi said he wanted to find some common ground to assure safety in crossing the tracks was provided. He asked if any other Councilmembers had any suggestions. Councilmember Haakenson asked Mr. Snyder to repeat the last alternative provided. Mr. Snyder explained the Hearing Examiner basically said if the facility is not moved within a certain period of time, the City could come back and require a reassessment of the situation to determine the impacts from the unassessed mitigation problem and require that they be mitigated. That was combined with some view blockage which the Council has not. been discussing or seemed interested in. Using Councilmember Petruzzi's rationale, he said the increased traffic will exacerbate an already dangerous situation but questioned the degree of funding WSDOT would provide. He recommended some finality and putting the matter back into the appropriate environmental review process designed to look at alternatives and assessment of appropriate mitigation costs. Councilmember Petruzzi referred to page 16 of the Hearing Examiner's decision, Item B, "the applicant may request a maximum of two extensions, each of which will run three to five years in duration. Each request for extension must be submitted at least one calendar year prior to expiration. These extensions shall be subject to a public review, a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner." Councilmember Petruzzi asked if this could be amended to state it shall be subject to a complete EIS. Mr. Snyder suggested Paragraph D be amended; a time limit for this permit at which time the facility can either be moved or the conflict resolved. An underpass could be built which would resolve the conflict or the permit would expire and the permanent approval section would apply. He felt Section D was staffs original recommendation to review all the mitigation measures. He suggested he could try to craft the condition if the Council could reach some general direction regarding what was desired as a condition. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 21 Councilmember Petruzzi said Paragraph D addresses when a permit is applied for, he did not wish to tie the environmental review to a permit as the Hearing Examiner already included that requirement. Mr. Snyder clarified Councilmember Petruzzi was suggesting the deletion of Paragraph B and setting a condition that the facility be moved, an underpass built, or a future environmental process determine another alternative to mitigate the issues the Council is concerned with and assess the appropriate mitigation costs. Councilmember Petruzzi questioned when that could be put into place. Mr. Snyder advised the time limit for a desired review could be provided. Councilmember Petruzzi suggested three years. Mr. Snyder said a Finding could be made stating, if the underpass is installed as proposed, regardless of the funding, that the permit would become permanent. If the facility is moved, nothing would need to be done. Councilmember Haakenson asked if . Mr. Snyder's recommendation would be to eliminate the requirement for removal of the overhead loading ramp as a penalty for not getting the tunnel built in a four year time line and replacing it with the requirement that a full EIS be done to address the problems caused by the increased traffic. Mr. Snyder explained the Council, as a quasi-judicial body approving a permit, is in a position to negotiate terms of the project and approve or deny. The issue now is unmitigated environmental impacts —traffic impacts the Council is concerned with. The Council can deny the project because the impacts have not been mitigated or can determine there are regional problems that pre-existed and approve the project. The third alternative would be to determine some way, in a phased permit process, to assess those at a certain point in the future. He suggested the Council consider a motion to'determine which of the three alternatives they wish to follow. If the majority of the Council wished to follow a phased approval process, he could return to the Council at the next meeting or the following meeting with a couple of alternatives and the Council could continue its deliberations and look at the alternatives on phased permitting. Mr. Snyder observed the Council was not having a great deal of success discussing the matter; it would be helpful to determine which alternative the. Council prefers. Councilmember Petruzzi clarified in phased permitting, WSDOT would be required to do a environmental study. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Councilmember Petruzzi asked at what stage it would be suggested the environmental study be done. Mr. Snyder advised the Council would need to determine the amount of time this problem can continue before it is resolved. The Council would be providing a permit commensurate with the temporary nature of this improvement as proposed and revisiting it with an environmental study when that time limit expires. Councilmember Myers observed the Hearing Examiner's decision states this facility can be made permanent within the time frame stated. With a phased in permit, they would also have that right. Mr. Snyder explained the temporary language resulted from the environmental review and the initial proposals referenced to the improvements as temporary that could be moved to Pt. Edwards if that site were developed; therefore that some of the impacts were not assessed in detail. The Council has focused on the safety issues. Mr. Snyder indicated he was unable to find a traffic study that attempted to assess the off -site impacts of this development upon adjacent intersections and the railroad crossing which normally would be done if this were a subdivision and the Council were discussing the nearest traffic light. The issue remains, when would the Council wish to revisit this? He noted several things could happen —the underpass could be built, the facility could be moved, or WSDOT could be given an opportunity to seek an extension of the permit or have the permit made permanent and have an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 22 environmental review process that gave the Council the details they are lacking now. Mr. Snyder clarified that the Council seems to have an underlying understanding, based on the record, that if there were an underpass in place within five years, the safety problems enhanced or created by this project would have been eliminated. Councilmember Petruzzi suggested Mr. Snyder return with the third proposal. Mr. Snyder clarified that would be a re -crafting of the Hearing Examiner's Findings to limit the scope and to have a review process. Councilmember Petruzzi asked Council President Earling if it was possible to place this on the Council's next agenda. Council President Earling said it could be placed on the agenda if that was the decision of the Council. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING AND PLACE THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK WITH CLARIFICATION BEING PROVIDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY SO THAT THE . MATTER CAN BE SETTLED NEXT WEEK. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBERS VAN HOLLEBEKE AND EARLING OPPOSED. Mayor Fahey advised Items 6 (Mayor) and 7 (Individual Council Reports on Respective Board Meetings) would be eliminated from the agenda. Mayor Fahey requested Councilmembers review the information provided in the packet regarding the Human Resources Consultant in preparation for the retreat on Thursday. She announced a special Thursday, August 29 meeting would be held, a mini retreat to review the Comprehensive Human Resource Plan. Fire Station 5. DISCUSSION OF FIRE STATION NO. 6 LOCATION No. 6 Due to the lateness of the hour, this item was postponed until the September 3 Council agenda. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ltil�a.�iL.� X/• xfJ . BARBARA S. FAHEY, MAYOR ANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 1996 Page 23 -�- AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00-10.00pm AUGUST 27, 1996 SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER - 7.00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2• CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 1996 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #9191 THRU #12002 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 19, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,235.73; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #11987 THRU #12266 FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 1 THRU AUGUST 15, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $469,013.58 (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM RON AND LANAY GARD ($40.00) (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE 8500 BLOCK EMBANKMENT STABILIZATION IMPROVEMENT (F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1995 SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (G) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CENTER PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT 3. (10 Min.) PROCLAMATION HONORING MRS. EFFIE SCHERRER ON HER 100TH BIRTHDAY 4. (100 Min.) HEARING: RECONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL DECISION OF JUNE 18, 1996, RELATING TO THE HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW OVERHEAD LOADING WALKWAY AND NEW PEDESTRIAN TERMINAL BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PIER, MINOR EXPANSION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PIER, AND OTHER RELATED MINOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PIER AT THE EXISTING FERRY TERMINAL SITE LOCATED AT 71 WEST MAIN STREET, ALL WITHIN THE WASHINGTON STATE FERRY RIGHT OF WAY. TESTIMONY WILL BE LIMITED TO THE ISSUES OF IMPACTS OF INCREASED PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, INCREASED TRAINS AND TRAFFIC THROUGH THE WATERFRONT, AND MITIGATION MEASURES WHICH COULD BE EMPLOYED. IN ADDITION, THE PARTIES AND PUBLIC MAY PROVIDE LIMITED COMMENT REGARDING ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION OF ANY MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL. (Appellant: Natalie Shippen / Applicant: WSDOT - Ferries Division / File Nos. SM-96-24; AP-96-70) S. - (30 Min.) DISCUSSION OF FIRE STATION NO.6 LOCATION 6. (5 Min.) MAYOR 7. (15 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.