Loading...
09/03/1996 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL. APPROVED MINUTES . SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Following a 6:30 p.m. Executive Session regarding labor negotiations, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Fahey at 7:05 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was opened with 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 Gary Haakenson, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Alex Moore, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Paul Mar, Community Services Director Tom Miller, Police Chief Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Michael Springer, Fire Chief Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Jim Walker, City Engineer Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor Scott Snyder, City Attorney Lynne Hann, Deputy City Clerk Stephanie Goings, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Earling requested that Item D be removed; Councilmember Petruzzi requested that Item E be removed; and Councilmember Myers requested that Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, FOR PASSAGE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Waa�„ to (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #9193 THRU #12188 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 26, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $263,516.92 Treatment (� Plant AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT avAc i HVAC IMPROVEMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1996 (Formerly Agenda Item B) Councilmember Myers referred to page 17 of the minutes and stated that he had conferred with Councilmember White and that he believed he seconded the motion and requested that the minutes be corrected. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 1 0 rove teg COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI, FOR PASSAGE OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 27,1996 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO 3109 REGARDING NO RE -PARKING IN THE SAME ONE HUNDRED BLOCK Ord. #3109 perking (Formerly Agenda Item D) Council President Earling stated that he removed Item D so he could vote against it. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, FOR PASSAGE OF ITEM D., MOTION CARRIED, with Council President Earling voting no. ora 110 ORDINANCE NO 3110 AMENDING AND CLARIFYIN ORDINANCE NOS 2622, 2741. 2884. 2961 AND couneii 3004 REGARDING THE MEETINGS QUALIFYING FOR COMPENSATION, AND INCREASING THE co.npe,>se lion VI��I .XIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE FOR FUTURE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL (Formerly Agenda Item E) Councilmember Petruzzi stated that he removed Item E so he could vote against it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM. E. MOTION CARRIED, with Councilmember Petruzzi voting no. Dock Natalie Shippen,1022 Euclid, Edmonds, stated that it seemed to her that the Council had a question to n8 answer and that is whether they believe that the passenger ramp will be a permanent structure, and r therefore a full E.I.S. should be required before a permit is granted; or whether the passenger ramp will be a temporary structure, and therefore a full E.T.S. will not be required until sometime in the next 15 years when the ramp may be declared permanent. Scott Snyder, City Attorney, stated that he felt that the statement Ms. Shippen made was a restatement of her appeal and as such, was already part of the record. Adult - Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Edmonds, spoke regarding the Planning Board meeting he had n 'an attended concerning adult entertainment, and urged Councilmembers to think about the greater good of the community before the issue comes before the Council. 4. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE COUNCIL Ferry Dock DECISION OF JUNE 18 1996, RELATING TO THE HEARING, ON AN APPEAL OF THE ' Improvements HEARING EXAMINER'S 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 WASHINTON STATE FERRY RIGHT-OF-WAY (Appellant: Natalie Shippen; Applicant: WSDOT - Ferries Division/File Nos SM-96-24 and AP-96- Mayor Fahey stated that this is strictly a continuation of Council deliberations. The hearing part of this process was officially closed at the August 27, 1996 meeting, and the deliberations were simply carried forward for final conclusion this evening. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 . Page 2 Councilmember Petruzzi requested detailed minutes of this agenda item, and then made the following comments: For the audience, we appear to have reached a middle ground amending the Hearing Examiner's decision. While this middle ground does not guarantee pedestrian mitigation away from the ferry dock, through our deliberations we have clearly documented the need for a grade -separated pedestrian walkway. We have also clearly documented a strong commitment from many agencies and individuals to work together to ensure that one is built in the future, and as soon as possible. We have well documented many letters of support regarding a possible pedestrian walkway/underpass. Some of these letters, are for the record: An August 22, 1996 letter to Paul Mar from Ken Uznanski, Manager of the WSDOT Rail Office; an August 24, 1996 letter to Paul Mar from Brian Holling of the Washington State Ferry System; an August 27, 1996 letter to Paul Mar from John Sindzinski of Community Transit; an August 17, 1996 letter to Paul Mar from Bill Dues, WSDOT Northwest Regional Office. In his letter, Mr. Dues confirms an offer of $15,000 from WSDOT as a firm start toward the $60,000 needed for the pre -design work on the grade -separated pedestrian walkway; an August 23, 1996 letter from Char Garrett, President of the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce. We have also documented a good deal of testimony regarding the availability of funds for projects such as the much -needed pedestrian walkway. Examples are Sheila Dezorn of the RTA, and our own Council President, Dave Earling, who represents Snohomish County citizens on the RTA Board. Their testimony regarding a multitude of funding potentials came during our deliberations of August 27, 1996, on the pedestrian walkway issue. The challenge, now, will be to keep a grade -separated pedestrian walkway on the front burner. Its importance cannot be overstated. We do not want this safety issue to linger, such as King County did by failing to provide weapons screening devices at the King County Courthouse. That failure helped cause the deaths of three women and an unborn child in March, 1995. On August 28, 1996, the Seattle Times reported that King County is going to pay $1.6 million to the women's relatives. Although this example is not the same type of safetyhazard, we certainly do not want to be negligent when we know that we have a very pressing issue regarding pedestrian safety, when they are on their way to, or just leaving the ferry dock. I am not going to go into any more testimony on the need for that walkway. I think it is well documented and look forward to bringing this to a conclusion this evening. Council President Earling made the following remarks: Mr. Snyder, I know that you have seen some amended language and I wonder if you would give us some idea, in your opinion, on where this leaves us and how much further we might be able to take this issue regarding the ferry improvements. City Attorney Scott Snyder made the following comments: What I was trying to communicate to. the Council during your last deliberation was my concern that you not attempt to require mitigation measures that were not a part of the environmental review process, nor to design a solution that would link this permit irrevocably to processes over which this applicant had no control, for example, acquiring a crossing permit from Burlington Northern Railroad. For that reason, in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 3 your motion that I drafted, I tried to take the Hearing Examiner's decision and incorporate the concerns stated by Mr. Petruzzi and other Councilmembers regarding vehicular safety. To specify that the offsite safety was an issue, (I'm now referring to. language added to paragraph 2B to the proposed changes to the Hearing Examiner's decision), which would include both consideration, in any future process to amend or extend the permit, of the offsite traffic safety issues, and to request or require annual progress reports, before September 1st of each year, regarding mitigation measures to address pedestrian safety. The new paragraph E adds to the Hearing Examiner's language, that in the event of a future application to extend this permit, or to have the permit made permanent, if a grade - separated pedestrian walkway had been constructed,. regardless of who constructed it or how it was paid for, that the issues of mitigation of the offsite pedestrian impacts would be mitigated for that future process. If they had not, then those issues would remain open and the Washington State Ferry System would, of course, as they can now, be free to apply for permits without the substantially completed mitigation project being in any way a pre -condition to that application. In.my opinion, this wording that was forwarded in your Council packet is the limit to which the Council can go, at this stage in this proceeding, in stating your concern regarding safety and trying to address potential mitigation measures. As a number of Councilmembers noted during your deliberations, many of these problems exist at this time and they relate to regional transportation issues. You have mentioned the regional nature of the funding. For that reason, we have incorporated references into your findings, and I believe that Councilmembers Petruzzi and Earling are cognizant that the City has other tools at your disposal as a legislative body, which you can use to address these issues. Council President Earling then made the following remarks: I very much appreciate the amount of time and energy that the Council has put into this issue. For the first time that the current Council has been seated, there have been some challenges, as far as getting along with each other, while deliberating this issue. It has been a difficult issue for the Council, and I know part of it is because we have several new Councilmembers who have not had benefit of historical knowledge. I very much appreciate them taking the time to step back and evaluate and research a difficult issue. I also want to thank the Washington State Department of Transportation. The original project that was brought to us a couple of years ago looks a great deal different than the project we have before us this evening. The WSDOT has compromised much of their initial design. Changes include going from a 2- slip proposal to a 1-slip proposal and moving the building from the dock side down to the land side so that it would impede the view far less. They compromised, rather enormously, on the parking they would like to see on that site. They designed a floating facility to minimize the view impacts on the City and they have put together a temporarily -designed facility so that if we are successful in moving the ferry dock to the Unocal site, as the Council has indicated they would like to previously, much of this facility can be moved What would be left we can incorporate into a parks facility for our community. Another point I want to make is that part of the discussion has been lost, at least in the public debate. The public should know that if the Council were to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision, the State probably would appeal the decision to the Shoreline. Management Hearings Board. That, along with the potential from the Growth Management Act, (which we are all living under right now), can declare the Edmonds Ferry Dock as a regional facility. If we did, in fact, overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision, it creates the potential that we could greatly reduce our power in controlling, facilitating and working with the DOT in putting together a facility there that.we can all agree to. Knowing that we could lose Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 4 that control, or certainly put ourselves in the potential for losing that control, has been an overriding factor that has not gotten to public discussion, but I believe it is important to many of the Councilmembers. Again, I very much appreciate the Councilmembers and the work they have gone through on this and I would like to yield the floor to Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke. Councilmember Van Hollebeke made the following comments before reading the motion: I am about to propose a motion. I want the audience to understand that this is a lengthy motion. It is approximately two and one-half typed pages and it has been requested that I read it verbatim into the record, so please bear with me. THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING: I MOVE TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, THE REQUEST FOR A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. 1. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE ORDINANCES. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED A TEMPORARY USE. LONG TERM IMPACTS TO THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENT WERE NOT CONSIDERED. EXAMPLES INCLUDE VISUAL AND OTHER IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PARKS AND PUBLIC AREAS, AND PEDESTRIAN AND OTHER SAFETY ISSUES ADJACENT TO THE FERRY TERMINAL, INCLUDING CONFLICTS WITH VEHICULAR AND TRAIN TRAFFIC. ACCORDINGLY, THE USE OF THE SUBJECT SITE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVED UNDER THIS PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE THE APPLICATION IS FINALLY APPROVED BY THE CITY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE SPECIFIC PORTION OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO, BUT ONLY TO, THE PUBLIC RESTROOMS (OVERHEAD PASSENGER TERMINAL LOADING BUILDING - FIGURE 7 OF ATTACHMENT 16, EXHIBIT A - ALTERNATIVE 1 DETAILS) IDENTIFIED BY THE APPLICANT TO REMAIN AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW FERRY TERMINAL AT POINT EDWARDS MAY REMAIN (SEE EXHIBIT A, ATTACHMENTS 4,12 AND 16). IN THE EVENT OF AN APPEAL OF THIS DECISION, THE EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE STAYED UNTIL FINAL DECISION IS ISSUED ON ANY AND ALL APPEALS OF THIS PERMIT. A. UPON EXPIRATION OF THE PERMIT, NO FURTHER USE OF ANY FACILITY APPROVED PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED ABOVE FOR THE RESTROOMS (OVERHEAD PASSENGER TERMINAL LOADING BUILDING - SEE FIGURE 7, ATTACHMENT 16 OF EXHIBIT A - ALTERNATIVE 1 DETAILS), SHALL CONTINUE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PERMIT MAY CONTINUE IN USE IF THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A FULLY COMPLETED APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF THE PERMIT OR Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 5 FOR A PERMANENT APPROVAL AT LEAST ONE (1) CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE EXPIRATION OF SAID SHORELINE'S PERMIT. . B. THE APPLICANT MAY REQUEST A MAXIMUM OF TWO EXTENSIONS, EACH OF WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 YEARS IN DURATION. EACH REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION MUST BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST ONE (1) CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF EXPIRATION. EACH EXTENSION SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO PUBLIC REVIEW THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 20.100.010. TO RECEIVE AN EXTENSION, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH CONTINUED COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM, AS THE SAME EXISTS OR IS HEREAFTER AMENDED INCLUDING THE UNMITIGATED IMPACTS, IF ANY, ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT REFERENCED ABOVE IN THIS PARAGRAPH. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST OF EACH YEAR REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES TO THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPACTS ADJACENT TO THE FERRY TERMINAL DUE TO THE INCREASED FLOW OF FERRY TRAFFIC. THIS SHALL BE A PRECONDITION TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION. C. ANY AND ALL IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF EXPIRATION OF THE PERMIT AS ABOVE PROVIDED. SUCH REMOVAL SHALL BE AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE AND THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT SHALL ALSO CONSTITUTE SHORELINE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR THE REMOVAL OF SAID STRUCTURES UPON EXPIRATION OF THE PERMIT. PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURES MAY BE REUSED OR REMAIN ONLY UPON ISSUANCE OF A NEW SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. D. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE FREE TO APPLY FOR PERMANENT APPROVAL AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERMIT. BECAUSE OF THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF THE FACILITY, MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED HAVE BEEN LIMITED IN SCOPE. ANY APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT APPROVAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT AND THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, AS IF IT WERE A NEW PERMIT APPLICATION. THE TOTAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF THE REQUESTED PERMANENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COMBINED WITH THE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED LIMITED PERMIT GRANTED UNDER THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN IMPOSING MITIGATION MEASURES. E. AT THE DATE OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION (213. ABOVE) OR FOR PERMANENT APPROVAL (21). ABOVE), THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPACTS ADJACENT TO THE FERRY TERMINAL DUE TO THE INCREASED FLOW OF FERRY TRAFFIC SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY MITIGATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS APPLICATION REQUEST IF AN APPROPRIATE GRADE -SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE MITIGATION PROJECT) HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED. A Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 6 "SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED" MITIGATION PROJECT IS DEFINED TO REQUIRE, AT A MINIMUM, ALL FUNDS HAVE BEEN SECURED AND APPROPRIATED, ALL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND APPROVED, ALL PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED, AND ALL CONTRACTS NECESSARY TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN AWARDED. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE INTERPRETED TO PROHIBIT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION (211. ABOVE) OR FOR PERMANENT APPROVAL (2D. ABOVE) IN THE ABSENCE OF A "SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED" MITIGATION PROJECT. IN THE EVENT THAT THE APPLICANT PROCEEDS WITH A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION (2B. ABOVE) OR FOR PERMANENT APPROVAL (21). ABOVE) IN THE ABSENCE OF A "SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED" MITIGATION PROJECT, ISSUES RELATING TO PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND RELATED TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPACTS FROM WSF'S OVERHEAD LOADING/PEDESTRIAN TERMINAL BUILDING PROJECT CONSTRUCTED UNDER THIS PERMIT, AND ANY EXTENSIONS THERETO, SHALL BE FULLY CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS. 3. PRIOR TO APPLICATION TO THE CITY'S ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE EDMONDS PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION MANAGER REGARDING COMMON TREATMENTS FOR LIGHTING IN THE EASTERN TERMINAL ENTRANCE AND DESIGN OF THE CONCRETE SIDEWALK AT THE TERMINAL ENTRANCE TO ENSURE COORDINATION WITH THE PROPOSED PARK (BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH) CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO THE SOUTH (SEE EXHIBIT A, ATTACHMENT 26) 4. PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR THE BEGINNING OF SITE DEVELOPMENT WORK, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM THE. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR ALL SITE DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS. 5. THE MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY SHALL NOT EXCEED 49.75 FEET ABOVE MLLW. 6. CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION SHALL NOT BE GIVEN BY THE CITY UNTIL A MINIMUM OF 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL CITY APPROVAL. 7. IF THE PEDESTRIAN TRANSFER SPAN NEEDS TO BE HIGHER THAN 49.75 FEET ABOVE MLLW TO PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WHEN A FERRY IS IN PORT DURING PERIODS OF HIGH TIDES, THEN IT MUST BE LOWERED TO NO MORE THAN 49.75 FEET ABOVE MLLW AFTER.THE FERRY LEAVES. Councilmember Roger Myers then made the following remarks: I have spent a great deal of time over the past several weeks reviewing and analyzing the matter of the overhead loading at the ferry terminal, and it has been a very good experience for me. I have read, re- read, pondered, analyzed and studied the issues from as many perspectives as I could think of. When an issue impacts our community I am heartened by the number of people who feel strongly about our City and its future. Regardless of the position they take, or what side of the issue they are on, our community is stronger because there are so many people that truly care about our City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 7 Over the past several months, I have come to believe several things. One, the likelihood of the ferry terminal moving to the Point Edwards site in the next 15-20 years is very remote. I am in favor of such a move, but I am afraid the funding is not there to make the move in the foreseeable future. Safety for citizens that walk, bicycle and drive in our City, as well as for ferry passengers, must be the number one concern. This has been my issue all along. The increasing number of trains that pass through Edmonds every day adds to our concerns for safety. Nothing in the proposed overhead loading project addresses the issue of safety for vehicles, passengers or disabled individuals on the way to and from the ferry dock. I do not want to paint the Ferry System as the evil parry in this situation. They are not opposed to a multimodal site at Point Edwards, but their main responsibility is to provide the best level of service that they can for their passengers. They feel they can load more passengers and vehicles in a shorter span of time with overhead loading than they can without overhead loading. They want to do so as soon as possible. Finally, I believe the overhead loading ramp will be built. David doesn't slay Goliath very often, Angola doesn't beat the Dream Team and a single entity like our City doesn't stand very much of a chance against the Ferry System. But I feel the issue of safety must be addressed now, so while this motion is what I call a watered-down *attempt, I am still not very happy with the fact that we have not addressed the safety of people in their ride to and from the ferry dock. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY PREPARE A DRAFT RESOLUTION CHARGING THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE A LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY IN FORMING A PARTNERSHIP TO RESOLVE THE DANGEROUS AT -GRADE ISSUES RELATED TO THE FERRY, RAILROAD, BUS, AUTO, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AT THE INTERSECTION OF RAILROAD AVENUE AND MAIN STREET. POTENTIAL PARTNERS FOR THE PARTNERSHIP SHALL INCLUDE, BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD, REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, AMTRAK, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES RELATED TO HIGHWAYS, FERRIES AND RAILROADS. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO INSTRUCT THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR TO IMMEDIATELY BEGIN WORKING ON OBTAINING A WRITTEN AGREEMENT AMONG THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER IN ORDER THAT A GRADE -SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY BECOMES A REALITY. THE DIRECTOR IS REQUIRED TO MAKE UPDATE REPORTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE AGREEMENT AND RESULTING PLANS AND WORKS ON THE WALKWAY AT A MINIMUM OF EVERY 60 DAYS. MOTION CARRIED. A five minute break was taken. 5. HEARING ON A REQUEST TO AMEND THE CITY'S OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO REMOVE Headng - Requen to THAT PORTION OF A PROPOSED 60-FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGNATION Amend sreetmap BETWEEN OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND 80TH AVENUE WEST STARTING JUST NORTH 0 Y_._ STREET SOUTHWEST, ADDITIONALLY,1 1 REMOVE THE DESIGNATION __1, 1_ THE EXISTING 20-FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 184TH STREET SW STARTING • _ III'_ . DRIVE 1 PROCEEDING WEST ; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 8 REMOVE THE DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF THE UNUSED RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING WEST OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND NORTH OF THE 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST RIGHT-OF-WAY, TO ALLOW A VACATION OF THE SUBJECT RIGHTS -OF -WAY PURSUANT TO AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION FILE NO. ST-96-78. ALL OF THE PROPOSED REQUESTS DISCUSSED ABOVE ARE LOCATED EITHER ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY ADDRESSES: 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DR., 18325 80TH AVE, W., AND 18408 79TH PL. W. (Applicant Charles Maki/ File no. ST- 96-77) Scott Snyder, City Attorney, at staffs request, informed the Mayor and Council that Item 6 on the agenda was a related matter and much of the material is the same. He stated that it would be possible to combine both hearings, as long as separate specific motions were made for each hearing issue. Council President Earling stated that a combined hearing would be agreeable as long as when staff refers to the second hearing, they make note of the fact that it is Item 6. 6. HEARING ON A REQUEST TO VACATE THE UNOPENED PORTION OF THE 20-FOOT WIDE R w� to PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING BETWEEN OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND Vacate Certain C APPROXIMATELY 76TH AVENUE WEST: AND A d � REQUEST TO VACATE AN R-O-W APPROXIMATELY 10 - 20-FOOT WIDE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ST-96-78 LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE RUNNING NORTH OF APPROXIMATELY 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST APPROXIMATELY 270 FEET, THE PROPOSED RIGHTS -OF -WAY VACATIONS ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AT 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE. (Applicant: Charles Maki/File No. ST-96-78) Mayor Fahey asked if any of the Councilmembers had anything to declare. Councilmember Haakenson stated that he did not know the applicant, nor many of the details of this request, but his business is located kitty-corner on Olympic View Drive and that. some of the questions he might ask would be due to his location. Mayor Fahey announced that Mr. Maki, is a friend of her family and that she is aware of the project, but has no vested interest in it. Councilmember Van Hollebeke stated that he knew Mr. Maki but had no previous conversations regarding this project. Scott Snyder, City Attorney, asked Councilmember Haakenson if he owned or leased his business property. Councilmember Haakenson stated that he does lease the property. Mr. Snyder stated that a proximity to a zoning request was enough to raise the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, if a person had an ownership interest and could thereby benefit. Mayor Fahey set the parameters for the combined hearings and discussed the timelines given to all participants. Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, stated that there are two files: ST-96-77, which is a request to amend the City's official street map; and ST-96-78, which is a request to vacate a portion of public right- of-way. Mr. Wilson presented an overhead to Council to help explain the requests to the Council. The first request is amending the official street map and that is the action which must be considered first, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 9 before the Council can vacate a portion of right-of-way. Mr. Wilson reviewed with Council the area surrounding the proposed changes, and exactly what the applicant was requesting, as well as what streets or areas would be effected. Mr. Wilson stated that at the hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, a great deal of the testimony had to do with residents' concern over having linkage between 80th and Olympic View Drive. Mr. Wilson referred to the street vacation (ST-96-78) that was also being requested and stated that in the packet there was an appraisal of the existing right-of-way with a value set at $15,000. Mr. Wilson reviewed with the Council those areas that would be considered acceptable to vacate and areas where the City would continue to retain right-of-way. Mr. Wilson clarified that as part of Item 5, the City would be able to provide the same insurance for the slope stability along Olympic View Drive through the use of native vegetation, which was not discussed at the Hearing Examiner's hearing. What the Planning Department is suggesting is that under (ST-96- 77) the condition #4 of the Hearing Examiner's decision be eliminated and require that the applicant provide a 20-foot wide easement running parallel to Olympic View Drive from the North to the Southeast property that would provide slope stability through native growth vegetation. Mr. Wilson outlined how, with future development, there could be linkage with 80th to Olympic View Drive and that due to the topography, finding the right alignment for this connection has always been an issue in trying to develop the property. Scott Snyder, City Attorney, informed the Council of a recent case by the Washington Court of Appeals, which is binding, and states the Council does not have the authority to require a developer to either dedicate or develop a road .within the development solely for the purpose of providing access for adjacent property owners. Councilmember Myers inquired as to whether there would be sufficient right-of-way along Olympic View Drive for future needs. Mr. Wilson stated that there is sufficient right-of-way to handle future needs and the portion of the dedicated right-of-way that the City would be giving up, is for protection of the slope and not widening of the street. Mr. Wilson reviewed the request summarized in Item 6 with Council regarding the vacating of the unused 20-foot right-of-way and areas that would be retained. Mr. Wilson recommended that the Council acknowledge the intent to vacate the areas and then direct staff to go back and prepare the appropriate resolution approving the intent to vacate, including the appropriate legal descriptions. , Mr. Wilson then reviewed the actions necessary by the applicant and that they will need to provide in their legal description of the property, the 20-foot wide easement for slope stability, adjacent to Olympic View Drive, to offset the dedication of right-of-way. They will also need to provide the City with a new legal description showing the areas to be vacated which can be incorporated in the appropriate resolution. Staff would then bring the resolution back on a consent agenda for adoption. The additional conditions would call for the applicant to pay the funds indicated in the appraisal, which was $15,000. He explained that since the City would not be taking the total area, after receiving the legal descriptions, some of the cost would be reduced proportionately, and that estimate would also be brought back for Council approval. Charles Maki, 8235 Talbot Road, Edmonds, Mr. Maki informed the Council that he was representing Dr. and Mrs. Han Park and does not have any ownership in the project. Mr. Maki stated that it is their intention to subdivide the property on a planned residential basis and would be following all the necessary steps. Mr. Maki reviewed the steps that had been taken as well as the original request for vacation and the design concepts used in developing a plan for this property. Mr. Maki referred to the petition signed by 39 neighbors and stated that he had spoken with all the neighbors at the Hearing Examiner's hearing, and that they had changed the plan of the subdivision to incorporate a road through Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 10 to Olympic View Drive. Mr. Maki agreed that the current proposal before the Council would be agreeable to them, and stated that the advantage to the City would be to get a finished street. Councilmember Van Hollebeke inquired if Mr. Maki had any conversations with the owner of Lot 11. Mr. Maki informed the Council that Mr. and Mrs. Earl Smith, owners of Lot 11, have a buy -sell agreement with Dr. Park, would like to sell to Dr. Park, and are aware of what is happening. Scott Snyder, City Attorney, asked Mr. Maki if during his presentation he had stated that the applicant agrees that the amendment of the Street Map with a vacation ordinance would be contingent on developing the dedication of the yet unnamed street and the dedication of a native growth area. Mr. Maki stated this was correct. Mayor Fahey opened the audience comment portion of the hearing. Edward B. Swanson, 8111 182nd St. S.W., Edmonds, stated that he would like to see a road through to Olympic View Drive. Jim Thompson, 18305 80th Ave. W., Edmonds, stated that he owns lot 13, adjacent to the City's property, and the his main concern is getting a way through to Olympic View Drive. He explained that he is concerned about vacating the right-of-way without some assurances that there would be passage from 80th Ave. to Perrinville. Mr. Thompson stated that Mr. Maki's suggestion of a street through on 184th would be ideal. Sally Baringer, Heatherglen Lot 12, stated she is very much effected by this and that during the past 10 or 12 years she has received numerous notifications of different proposed actions. Ms. Baringer referred to the topography of Mr. Smith's property and stated she felt if a road was put in, that this would cause problems with her 30 foot bank. She explained that if the City does develop the road she would request that the bank be rocked. Mayor Fahey inquired if anyone else cared to make comments; hearing none, the Mayor closed the audience portion of the hearing. Councilmember Petruzzi stated that what the staff was proposing made sense to him and that the easement would give the City the control it needed, and in turn, give the Parks what they needed to be able to develop their property. Councilmember Petruzzi questioned staff about the various areas involved. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, ON ITEM NO. 5, FOR THE RECOMMENDED ACTION TO ADOPT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR A STREET MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED, AS PART OF ANY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, TO PROVIDE A 40-FOOT WIDE CONNECTION BETWEEN OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND HIS PORTION OF 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST (File No. ST- 96-78). MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, THAT THE COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGE THE CITY'S INTENT TO VACATE THE UNUSED RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND THE UNOPENED PORTION OF 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST FROM OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EAST 253-FEET (File No. ST-96- 77, Hearing Examiner's Decision), SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 11 1) REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A 20-FOOT WIDE NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT ALONG THE APPLICANT'S ENTIRE FRONTAGE ON OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE. 2) THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO THE CITY WITHIN 21 CALENDAR DAYS. 3) AFTER RECEIVING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL PLACE, ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE CONSENT AGENDA, THE RESOLUTION ADOPTING THIS VACATION. 4) THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY TO THE CITY A SUM AGREED UPON BY THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT FOR THE VACATED PROPERTY. Scott Snyder, City Attorney, referring to condition #4, brought to Council's attention that state law limits the amount of payback to one half when a person has previously dedicated property to the City. MOTION CARRIED. Design 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT WITH serviw- MERRIT + PARDINI AND APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR DESIGN SERVICES ON PUBLIC Public SAFETY COMPLEX FACILITY Facility Paul Mar, Community Services Director, reviewed Council's previous actions in advertising, selecting and negotiating a contract with Merrit & Pardini. Mr. Mar reviewed the packet contents and asked for questions from Council. Councilmember Nordquist asked about Exhibit D. Mr. Mar explained that this is Merritt + Pardini's overhead statement for audit purposes and has nothing to do with the City's contract. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO APPROVE ITEM 7 AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT WITH MERRITT & PARDINI FOR DESIGN SERVICES ON PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX FACILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $830,830. MOTION CARRIED. 8. DISCUSSION OF FUNDING SOURCE FOR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Council President Earling stated that there was a question of the funding source to pay a settlement that had been allocated to Mr. Pearson. City Attorney Snyder reviewed the actions that had brought this legal matter before Council and indicated that a settlement had been entered into, with the Council's approval, and now the money needs to be moved from the Council Contingency Fund so it can be paid. settlemen` COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN > t HOLLEBEKE, TO AUTHORIZE THE STAFF TO SPEND $5,000 FROM THE COUNCIL Funding CONTINGENCY FUND TO SATISFY THE OBLIGATION PUT FORTH IN ITEM 8. MOTION CARRIED. 9. MAYOR Mayor Fahey informed the Council that she would be flying to Washington D.C. to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee regarding proposed amendments to the Fair Housing Act. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 12 Mayor Fahey stated that the issues surrounding the location of the Five Corners Fire Station will be placed on the September 24, 1996 work meeting. 10. COUNCIL Council President Earling reminded the Council that the September loth Committee meetings will be at 5:30 p.m. due to the Gubernatorial Candidates' Meeting taking place later that evening. Councilmember Van Hollebeke thanked the Mayor for representing the City before Congress with such short notice. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. ARBARA S. FAHEY, MAYOR, SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK 1 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 3, 1996 Page 13' AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 SPECIAL MEETING I�xcu->•€v sss�ot>«adl c Aad� No>•€AT€�Is... 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 27, 1996 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #9193 THRU #12188 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 26, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $263,516.92 (D) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING NO RE -PARKING IN THE SAME ONE HUNDRED BLOCK (E) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CLARIFYING ORDINANCE NOS. 2622, 2741, 2884, 2961 AND 3004 REGARDING THE MEETINGS QUALIFYING FOR COMPENSATION, AND INCREASING THE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE FOR FUTURE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL (F) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT HVAC IMPROVEMENTS 3. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person) 4. (20 Min.) CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE 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 (Appellant: Natalie Shippen; Applicant: WSDOT - Ferries Division / File Nos. SM-96-24 and AP-96-70) 5. (40 Min.) HEARING ON A REQUEST TO AMEND THE CITY'S OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO REMOVE THAT PORTION OF A PROPOSED 60-FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGNATION BETWEEWOLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND BOTH AVENUE WEST STARTING JUST NORTH OF 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO REMOVE THE DESIGNATION OF THE EXISTING 20- FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 184TH STREET SW STARTING AT OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND PROCEEDING WEST APPROXIMATELY 253 FEET; AND REMOVE THE DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF THE UNUSED RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING WEST OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND NORTH OF THE 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST RIGHT-OF-WAY, TO ALLOW A VACATION OF THE SUBJECT RIGHTS -OF -WAY PURSUANT TO AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION FILE NO. ST-96-78. ' ALL OF THE PROPOSED REQUESTS DISCUSSED ABOVE ARE LOCATED EITHER ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY ADDRESSES: 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DR., 18325 80TH AVE. W, AND 18408 79TH PL. W. (Applicant: Charles Maki / File No. ST-96-77) CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 PAGE 2 6. (30 Min.) HEARING ON A REQUEST TO VACATE THE UNOPENED PORTION OF ,THE 20-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING BETWEEN OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND APPROXIMATELY 76TH AVENUE WEST; AND, A REQUEST TO VACATE AN APPROXIMATELY 10 - 20-FOOT WIDE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE RUNNING NORTH OF APPROXIMATELY 184TH STREET SOUTHWEST APPROXIMATELY 270 FEET. THE PROPOSED RIGHTS -OF -WAY VACATIONS ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AT 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE. (Applicant: Charles Maki / File No. ST-96-78) 7. (15 Min.) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT WITH MERRITT + PARDINI AND APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR DESIGN SERVICES ON PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX FACILITIES 8. (5 Min.) DISCUSSION OF FUNDING SOURCE FOR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 9. (5 Min.) MAYOR 10. (15 Min.) COUNCIL r k 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.