09/22/2015 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
September 22, 2015
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Patrick Clark, Police Officer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Ari Girouard, Student Representative
SPECIAL MEETING
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS REAL ESTATE PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(c)
AND POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss
real estate per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) and potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the
executive session was scheduled to last approximately one hour and would be held in the Jury Meeting
Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in
executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and
Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Bloom, and Nelson. Others present were
City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, and City Clerk Scott Passey. At
7:01 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in Council Chambers that the executive session
would be extended for 10 minutes. The executive session concluded at 7:10 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:11 p.m. and led the flag salute.
WORK MEETING
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Mesaros.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 1
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15,
2015
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #216145 THROUGH #216278 DATED SEPTEMBER
17, 2015 FOR $831,048.61. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
CHECKS #61788 THROUGH #61797 FOR $468,607.19, BENEFIT CHECKS #61798
THROUGH #61802 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $525,357.78 FOR THE PAY PERIOD
SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
A. EDMONDS HISTORICAL MUSEUM PRESENTATION REGARDING EDMONDS
SCARECROW FESTIVAL
Bill Nyberg, President, Edmonds Historical Museum, commented the City celebrated its 125th
anniversary this year•, numerous community groups made that an exciting day and summer. The Historic
Society created a new gathering place, the Museum Plaza, which was dedicated on the City's 125t'
anniversary. The plaza is not yet done, bricks and tiles are still being laid and historical plaques are being
developed including one that will feature a walking tour/timeline of the City. A time capsule was placed
and benches will be installed. Over 400 bricks have been purchased by citizens in the community and are
still for sale. Bricks purchased to date will be installed in 2015, further purchases will be installed next
year due to weather. Over 120 people attended the Museum sponsored Old Settlers Picnic in the Park. On
October 26 the Cascade Symphony will honor the Museum with a special performance commemorating
the 125t' anniversary. On November 13, the Museum will hold its third annual Heritage Day fundraiser at
Holy Rosary community center. This year they will recognize Floretum Garden Club, the Citizen of Year;
Edmonds in Bloom which celebrates 20 years of service to the community; and SnoKing Chorale which
celebrates 15 years and winners of the Scarecrow Contest will be announced. This year is the third annual
Scarecrow Contest; there were 50 scarecrows the first year, 100 last year and the hope this year is 125.
Councilmember Petso entered No Noggin' Scarecrow into the contest. Damian announced the
scarecrow's name is No Noggin'. Gus said they made a mistake last year; No Noggin actually gets his
head after Halloween. Some scarecrows don't like birds but not always and No Noggin is the best,
scariest scarecrow of all.
Mr. Nyberg expressed appreciated for the Council's support of the Museum
B. PLANNING BOARD REPORT
Planning Board Chair Neil Tibbott summarized the Planning Board activities, commenting much of what
has been done since the Board's last report has been presented to the Council:
0 Comprehensive Plan
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 2
o Extensive review of Transportation Element
o Reviewed seven other Elements and four other components
o Sent to City Council end of June and approved by City Council in July
Planning Board retreat on June 25
o Held on June 24 at the Swedish Hospital boardroom at the suggestion of Council President
Fraley-Monillas
o Carl Zapora described hospital activities how Verdant relates to the City
o Reviewed the year's activities and how to better prepare for meetings
Two new Planning Board Members: Matthew Chung and Nathan Monroe
o Planning Board has diverse members with many unique talents who represent the City well
and use their skills to bring quality recommendations to the City Council.
Held six public hearings
o Proposed Tree Code
o Comprehensive Plan
o Irreconcilable Applications code
o Marina Beach Park Master Plan
o Rezone of parcel at 220th & Hwy 99
o Critical Area Ordinance
Chair Tibbott explained the Planning Board provided its recommendation to the Council on the Marina
Beach Park Master Plan without quite enough time for the City Council to have the benefit of the written
record. The Planning Board had a robust discussion and he recommended in the future hearings be
scheduled to allow enough time between meetings to provide the Council the Planning Board's written
record. He reported on current projects which include the code rewrite project and said the Planning
Board will soon begin the Hwy 99 subarea planning process.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Chair Tibbott and other Planning Board Members for their good
work. She acknowledged the Planning Board minutes are very detailed but she also enjoys watching the
meeting video. Although the Council was not provided the Planning Board's minutes regarding the
Marina Beach Park Master Plan, several Councilmembers watched the meeting.
Councilmember Nelson thanked the Planning Board for the work they do. He concurred with Chair
Tibbott's recommendation to allow time between meetings to provide the Council the Planning Board's
written record, noting it was helpful to read about items the Planning Board deliberated on.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Tom Graff, Edmonds, resident of Pt. Edwards, referred to the critical area regulations update, explaining
he volunteers at the demonstration garden at the Hatchery and for the City of Seattle Parks Department,
primarily removing invasive species. He pointed out the City's critical area regulations allow removal of
invasive species (page 19) and list species that can be removed without a permit. He noted the list
includes "Scott's broom" which is actually "Scotch broom." The list does not include alders, one of the
most hated plants/trees in the region. He suggested alders of less than 4-inch caliber be allowed to be
removed as they kill nearly everything it its way. If a native garden is desired, alder is not a tree to
include. He acknowledged a larger tree required a different effort; the State allows removal of alder under
4-inch caliber.
Fred Gouge, Edmonds, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, reported on activities at the Port in the last
three months:
• Jacobsen Marine has had a very big year
o Generated business for the fuel dock
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 3
o Provide full service facilities for existing and new customers
o Customers frequent restaurants, Harbor Inn and local merchants
o Long term customer base followed them to Edmonds
o Since arriving in Edmonds, added two full-time employees, both Snohomish County residents
• Puget Sound Express, half -day whale watching trips to San Juan Islands
0 155 trips and 4,500 passengers this summer
o Tour companies bringing people to Edmonds who may not otherwise visit
o Tours continue until mid -October and then cease until spring 2016
• Sea Jazz: Edmonds-Woodway High School students
0 35 performances on Wednesdays and Sundays.
o Anthony's and Arnie's provide food to performers
• Local Artists in Action
o Port partnered with Edmonds Arts Festival on weekends
• Waterfront Festival sponsored by Rotary
o 30,000 — 40,000 in attendance
• Coho Derby
0 970 tickets sold (the most ever)
0 287 fish weighed in
• Destination Port of Edmonds program partnering with merchants
• Daily Operations
o Guest moorage up 31%
o Boat launches up 16%
0 100% full in dry stack and water moorage
o Hired 9 seasonal employees
Council President Fraley-Monillas invited the Port to contact her to schedule a quarterly report.
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, observed the Meadowdale Playfields, Woodway Fields Phase 2 and 3 and
Civic Field on are on the Capital Facilities Plan She explained over the past month many citizens have
shared their extreme concern with crumb rubber athletic fields, bringing in experts and providing enough
studies to seriously question their safety. She hoped since the Council now has this information prior to
any decisions or partnerships, that they show extreme caution and put the health of children, citizens, and
the environment first as well as the City's financial health and reputation. The State, the CPSC and many
other groups are looking into the safety of crumb rubber infill and the synthetic carpet. Crumb rubber is
full of toxins and carcinogens and has great potential for harm to humans and environment and there are
alternatives. More research needs to be done with regard to synthetic turf; it appears it may contain
phthalates which violate the new ruling from the CPSC as well as the Washington State's Children's Safe
Products Act. She urged the Council to take this into consideration and decide what side of the issue they
want to be on. She hoped the Council would choose the side of caution and put human and environmental
health first.
7. STUDY ITEMS
A. POLICE DEPARTMENT SURPLUS PROPERTY
Chief Compaan explained the Edmonds City Code requires Council authorization to sell or dispose of
surplus property. He referred to an inventory sheet in the agenda memo, seeking authorization to send the
surplus property items to auction or disposal.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed there appeared to be a lot of electronics including a lot of
cameras, most of which are recommended for destruction. Chief Compaan answered the small, pocket
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 4
sized digital cameras used in the field; when they stop working they are not repairable and not worth
anything; therefore they are recommended for disposal.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this for approval on the next Consent Agenda.
B. 2015 NONREPRESENTED COMPENSATION STUDY
Human Resources Manager Mary Ann Hardie explained the packet contains three options for comparator
cities:
1. Snohomish, Pierce and King county comparator cities
• Staff s recommendation as the most relevant to the current market
2. Historic comparator cities plus policy comparator
3. Current policy comparator cities adopted in the Non -Represented Compensation Policy in 2012
including cities in King, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston and Kitsap counties.
Ms. Hardie explained there are not huge and significant differences between the three groups in terms of
salary ranges. However, should Council choose to adopt total cost of compensation ranges, some changes
would be required. With regard to the comparator cities in Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties, Ms.
Hardy explained the City loses and attracts employees primarily from those counties and the salary ranges
closely match the current nonrepresented salary ranges.
She relayed recommendations for two positions that are significantly lower than the marketplace that staff
recommends adjusting:
• Assistant Police Chief — based on external comparators, the position is about 2.5% below in
deferred compensation for this position. She clarified that includes salary and other cash benefits
as part of total compensation. It is common for the Assistant Chief and the Police Chief positions
in other cities to receive additional pay such as incentive, longevity, etc. which provides an
incentive for promotion opportunity when they leave a union position as well as avoids
compression with commissioned positions.
• HR Assistant — position is approximately 4% lower than current median pay. There has been a
slight adjustment in the marketplace since the part-time position was established three years ago.
She relayed a recommendation to adjust the minimum salary range, explaining the minimums and
medians are about 4% below across the board with all comparator cities. From a recruitment perspective,
although the Mayor has the option of starting a position at Step 2 or 3 as needed, it makes recruitment
more difficult. This is especially important because the nonrepresented group is paraprofessional and
some of the most educated in terms of tenure and experience. She requested Council input regarding the
policy cities and the recommendation on the two other issues.
Councilmember Petso thanked Ms. Hardie for meeting with her this afternoon to address several
questions. Between now and the next time the Council looks at this, she requested the recommendation
for the HR Analyst position be reevaluated. She understood the recommendation for the Assistant Chief,
while the salary was similar, there was a significant difference in total compensation due to extra benefits.
However, the HR Analyst position does not illustrate the same significant difference to justify the
recommendation.
Councilmember Petso clarified if the policy were changed to compare only to Snohomish, King and
Pierce counties, Lacey and Bremerton would no longer be used as comparable. Ms. Hardie agreed.
Councilmember Petso observed there is often not a comparable position in another city and asked if that
would be even more difficult if Lacey and Bremerton were not included. Ms. Hardie answered there are
other cities in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties that could be used as comparators that were not
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 5
included in the study. She clarified the recommendation for the salary adjustment was for the HR
Assistant, not the Analyst. The HR Assistant is a part-time, hourly position that works 20 hours a week.
When comparing to Admin Assistant type positions, it was very low, making it a fairness and equity
issue. Councilmember Petso said she would reconsider her suggestion.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled an extensive study was done three years ago and a great deal of time
was spent in executive session. She observed the market had not changed that much since then, for
example there has been a stagnant interest rate and cost of living has not increased much. With regard to
the recommended position adjustments, she did not see much change for the HR Assistant and Assistant
Police Chief. Ms. Hardie agreed looking at comparison of salary range across the board there were not
significant differences. The averages Snohomish, King and Pierce County reflect 2-3% to the City's
current positions.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Bremerton and Lacey were removed as comparator cities. Ms.
Hardie said the Snohomish, King and Pierce County comparators do not include Kitsap County
(Bremerton) or Thurston County (Lacey). The City's current policy includes Snohomish, King, Pierce,
Kitsap and Thurston counties. She recalled staff pointed out at a previous meeting the City's labor market
is where employees are lost to and attracted from. In response to a question by Councilmember Johnson at
a previous meeting regarding specific employees that have left Edmonds, her research found 5-6
individuals that were lost to Snohomish, King and Pierce counties. Aside from one employee the City
attracted from Bremerton, Phil Williams, the City had not hired anyone else from Bremerton in the last 10
years. In leveling the labor market, geographical cost of living differentials are very complicated.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the consultant included Kitsap and Thurston counties due to interest
in their population, not the county. Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite explained the
consultant, Matt Weatherly, recommended using King, Snohomish County and Pierce counties. The
Council had a lengthy discussion with the consultant and discussion at least four Council meetings to
define the parameter cities and ended up defining it as the greater Puget Sound region; Kitsap and
Thurston counties were added at the Council's request. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested staff
provide the Council the minutes of those discussions. She expressed concern with paying a consultant for
that information and suddenly changing it three years later.
For Council President Fraley-Monillas, Ms. Hardie said the population of Bremerton is 38,000-39,000
and Lacey is approximately 46,000. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented Lacey is full of State
employees so that is where their salaries come from.
Councilmember Johnson expressed concern with changing the number of steps because when the Council
reviewed this three years ago, a specific effort was made to put all employees on a seven -step schedule.
Reducing the steps to six eroded that previous work. She suggested another approach to address that
problem.
Councilmember Petso commented the problem is not as large as it appears; staff has the ability to hire
employees above the first step. For example, if the first step is not competitive, staff can hire someone at
step two without Council making any changes to the steps. It was her understanding staff could also hire
someone at step three or above with approval of Mayor. Ms. Hardie agreed. Councilmember Petso
concluded if the salary ranges were not changed, staff could vary the step someone was hired on if a
particularly applicant/circumstances warrants. Ms. Hardie answered yes, if Mayor agrees.
Mayor Earling commented the City currently has 44 nonrepresented employees; about half are
supervisors, managers or directors. He was hopeful the Council would consider the total cost of
compensation, observing the Council appeared to be favorable to doing that for the Assistant Police Chief
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 6
position. There are others positions in the management group that need a similar adjustment. With regard
to hiring employees above first step, he recalled in at least two cases the top candidate was ready to accept
a position but hiring them requiring doing so above the first step in order to be competitive, illustrating
there is not always consistency in the transferability of higher positions. He also urged the Council to
consider using King, Snohomish, and Pierce County as comparators because they provide better
comparatives. For example, although Bremerton has a similar population, the cost of living is lower.
Comparator Cities
Councilmember Petso recommended leaving the comparator cities as it was in the existing policy with
five cities. She acknowledged it was possible Bremerton and Lacey do not accurately reflect the cost of
living difference but they may make it up in the ability of the cities to pay which is also a factor for her.
She found it valuable to have more cities with relevant data.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the cost of living is actually higher in Seattle and Pierce County
than in Snohomish County. If cost of living is compared in individual areas, comparators in King and
Pierce that were higher than Snohomish County would give a false reading. She was supportive of not
including Kitsap County but felt Thurston County was a very thriving county in same corridor and its cost
of living was more similar to Snohomish County, maybe not to Edmonds, than Seattle or Pierce County.
She considered the cities more than the counties.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with including Thurston County. Her review of the data found Lacey
lines up with a lot of Edmonds's minimum, maximum and mid -point. She agreed there were a lot of State
employees in Lacey and it was a "treasure-trove" of good information.
Mayor Earling commented while Snohomish County may be lower overall, he encouraged the Council to
think of Edmonds in competition with south Snohomish County which includes Shoreline and Seattle.
Ms. Hardie clarified cities in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties that would be used are Burien,
Sammamish and Issaquah; Burier and Issaquah are already comparator cities. Further, the survey does not
use the State as a comparator; the State has a different compensation system based on points. She noted
the City of Seattle uses Edmonds as one of its comps.
Councilmember Nelson found eliminating Kitsap County acceptable.
Councilmember Bloom asked what cities in Kitsap County were used as comparators. Ms. Hardie
answered Bremerton whose population is 38,000-39,000. Councilmember Bloom preferred to retain an
additional city in the pool for better averaging.
Councilmember Johnson said her concern with the three options was in Option 1, staff s recommendation
to include Snohomish, King and Pierce counties, Lynnwood is only other city in Snohomish County. In
Option 2 there is Lynnwood, Marysville and Shoreline and Kirkland. She asked why staff recommended
abandoning the current policy compactor cities for a smaller group of cities. Ms. Hardie answered Option
2 includes current policy comparator cities and historic city comparators. Option 1, comparator cities in
Snohomish County, King and Pierce counties includes Lynnwood; Marysville is no longer comparable as
its population is 63,000. She summarized adopting a three county policy would still include Lynnwood.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Lakewood was no longer included, recalling it tracked well with
Edmonds. Ms. Hardie said Lakewood's population estimate is 58,000. She noted there may be other
factors the Council may want to consider in the future such as assessed valuation, etc.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 7
Ms. Hardie summarized Council direction: current policy compactors and removing Kitsap. Council
agreed.
Adjustment to Minimum Salary Ranges
Councilmember Petso expressed support for both recommendations.
Mayor Earling summarized as there was no further Council comment, he assumed other Councilmembers
were in agreement.
C. ESCO IV FUNDING USE
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this is the fourth Energy Services Company (ESCO) that
the City has engaged in. The Council originally approved a small contract between Edmonds and
Ameresco to develop this ESCO IV project. There was an assumption that the City would quality for a
Department of Commerce grant as has occurred in the past; two-thirds of the applications submitted
during the application period were not funded including Edmonds'. The budget included $210,000 in
local funds, anticipating $65,000 in grant funds. The bulk of the scope of work was replacing the HVAC
units on top of the Library Plaza Room, an energy savings project but they are worn out and need to be
replaced. The scope also included monitoring and designing improvements to the steam trap in the
Frances Anderson Center boiler system and upgrading to LED six decorative Sternberg lights in the
waterfront area, lighting on the Fishing Pier and streetlights the City owns.
Mr. Williams explained all three projects could have been funded with $275,000; without the grant, he
requested authorization to proceed with the funds budgeted and reduce the scope by removing the Fishing
Pier lights which will be part of the Fishing Pier rehab and the streetlights which staff will determine a
method of replacing in the future and upgrade the six Sternberg lights as they fail. He noted the energy
savings from lighting upgrades versus the capital cost of the LED lights are not sufficient unless there are
grant funds to offset the cost. Replacing the six Sternberg lights as they fail will reduce the cost by
$12,400.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the funding source for the match. Mr. Williams answered it was the
General Fund. He pointed out the energy savings of upgrading lighting is the Department of Commerce's
only consideration when granting funds. From the City's perspective, the savings would be larger because
over a 15-year period, high pressure sodium bulbs would need to be replaced 6-7 times which requires a
truck, bulbs and employees, versus LED bulbs which would only need to be replaced once in a 15 year
period. He summarized the savings of lighting upgrades are much greater as they relate to maintenance
than in energy usage.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on a future Consent Agenda.
D. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2016-2021 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
(CFP)/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
Mr. English provided a diagram showing components found only in the CIP and only in the CFP and
components found in both the CIP and CFP. The CIP contains 6-year maintenance projects with funding
sources, the CFP contains long range (20-year) capital project needs, and both contain 6-year capital
projects with funding sources. The 2016-2021 CFP contains three project sections:
• General
o Parks, buildings and regional projects
• Transportation
o Safety/capacity and pedestrian/bicycle
• Stormwater
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 8
Mr. English provided a summary of CIP fund numbers and the department managing each fund:
Fund
Description
Department
112
Transportation
Public Works
113
Multimodal Transportation
Community Services
116
Buildings Maintenance
Public Works
125
Capital Projects Fund
Parks & Recreation/Public Works
126
Special Capital/Parks Acquisition
Parks & Recreation/Public Works
129
Special Projects
Parks & Recreation
132
Parks- Construction (Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
421
Water Projects
Public Works
422
Storm Projects
Public Works
423
Sewer Projects
Public Works
423
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Public Works
He displayed a photograph of the 228th corridor project that will connect Highway 99 and 76th and install
signals at Highway 99 & 228th as well as 76th & 228th. Grinding and paving will be done in October;
project will continue into 2016. He displayed a photograph of the stormwater detention vault for the 228th
project, a vault that will collect and detain stormwater which helps minimize peak discharge, especially
important in the Lake Ballinger Watershed.
Mr. English displayed a photograph of a pavement grinder on 220th, grinding pavement in advance of
paving that will follow later this week assuming good weather. He highlighted projects in the 112 Street
Fund:
• Pavement Preservation Program
0 9.6 Paved Lane Miles (Construction)
o $1.03M Proposed Budget for 2016
• 228th Corridor Improvements (Construction)
• SR99 Lighting Phase 3 (Construction)
• 238th St. Walkway (Construction)
• 2015 Transportation Comp Plan (Completed)
• SR104 Corridor Study (Final Draft)
He highlighted 2016 projects in the 112 Street Fund:
• 76th/212th Intersection Improvements (2016)
• Citywide Bicycle Improvements (2016)
• 236th St. Walkway (2016)
Transportation projects funded with 126/125 REET funds include:
• 2016 Pavement Preservation Program (126/125)
• Trackside Warning System Main/Dayton (126)
• Signal Cabinet Upgrades (126)
• Curb Ramp Upgrades Program (126)
• ADA Transition Plan Update(126)
• 2016 Traffic Calming Program (126)
• SR99 Access Management Study (126)
• Minor Sidewalk Program (126)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 9
He displayed a photograph of components of a watermain replacement and identified other projects
funded by the Water Utility Fund (421):
• 8,200 ft Watermain Replacement (Construction)
• Replacement of 2 PRV's (Construction)
• Overlay 1,700 feet of street affected by waterline replacements (Construction)
• 8,000 ft of Watermain Replacement (2016)
• Replacement of 1 PRV's (2016)
Mr. English displayed a photograph of a stormwater project and identified other projects funded by the
Stormwater Utility Fund (422):
• 238th St. Drainage Improvements(Construction)
• Willow Creek Daylight Feasibility Study (2015)
• SW Edmonds 105th/106th Improvements (2016)
• Dayton St Pump Station; Design(2016)
• Seaview Infiltration Project; Design (2016)
• Willow Cr/Edmonds Marsh; Design (2016)
• Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update (2016-17)
Mr. English displayed a photograph of a sewer main replacement project and identified other projects
funded by the Sewer Utility Fund (423):
• 2,700 ft sewermain replacement (Construction)
• Pavement overlay on 500 ft of street affected by sewermain replacements (Construction)
• 3,000 ft sewermain replacement (2016)
• 5,800 ft CIPP sewermain rehabilitation (2016)
• WWTP Improvements
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite displayed photographs and described highlights of the Park CIP
2015:
• City Park spray area
• Dayton Street Plaza
• 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
• Historical plaques and lighting project
• Marina Beach Master Plan
• Repairs needed at Yost: $120,000 for spa rebuild (REET 125)
• Anderson Center stage replacement (BEET 125)
• Veteran's Plaza (REET 125)
• Fishing Pier Rehab (Fund 132)
o $1.3 million grants for a $1.5 million project
o Planning Board Member Val Stewart is coordinating work with students
o Council President Fraley-Monillas connected staff with fishermen/women to do upgrades to
amenities
o Construction March/April
• Edmonds Marsh, daylighting of Willow Creek (125/132)
She highlighted Parks CFP 2015 projects:
• Civic Center acquisition
• Woodway HS Athletic Complex
0 655,000 set aside
o $2.5 million Verdant
o $500,000 Edmonds School District
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 10
o $750,000 State appropriation
Ms. Hite was hopeful there could be a ribbon cutting of the Spray Park in late September but it may be
completed and then winterized and a ribbon cutting held in May. With regard to the Woodway HS
Athletic Complex, she recalled the Council gave the City Attorney direction to work with Edmonds
School District (ESD) on an ILA; staff has not yet heard from the District. She advised the fields are
nearly completed and will be open for school use next Monday and open for community use in two
weeks. She identified projects in the Parks CIP 2016:
• Parklet development
• Outdoor Fitness Zones
• City Gateway Replacement
Projects in the Parks CFP 2016 include:
• Meadowdale Playfields
o Partnership between Edmonds, ESD, Lynnwood and Snohomish County
■ Interlocal Agreement effective until 2025.
■ Interlocal Agreement gives each party a role in decision -making
■ Lynnwood taking lead with regarding to financing which includes a financial
contribution from Edmonds
• Locate, construct and maintain a downtown restroom
• Senior/Community Center Walkway Design
• Civic Center Master Plan
She recommended consideration of the following changes to the Park CFP 2016:
• Delete Edmonds SnoIsle Library
• Delete Boys and Girls Club Building
• Change Arts Center/Art Museum to Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study
Mr. English reviewed the CFP/CIP schedule:
• July
o City Staff begins development of capital budgets
• August/September
o Submit proposed capital budget to Finance
o Prepare Draft CFP and CIP
o City Council presentation
• October
o Planning Board public hearing (October 16th)
o City Council public hearing (October 20th)
• November/December
o City Council approval
o Adopt CFP w/ budget into the Comprehensive Plan
o Exhibit C comparison matrix that shows changes.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussion about existing venues during the Council's consideration
of the Edmonds Conference Center acquisition and the Community Cultural Plan. She preferred not to
include either an Arts Center/Art Museum or a Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study in the CFP. Ms. Hite
explained the recommendation was to change Arts Center/Art Museum to Cultural Arts Facility Needs
Study to determine if private and/or non-profit partners are meeting the need in the community and if not,
to reconsider an Arts Center/Art Museum and if so, possibly partnering/collaborating, not necessarily
creating another facility. The Community Cultural Plan did not include a needs study; the community was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 11
very interested in determining whether a new museum was needed. Ms. Hite estimated the cost of a study
to be $50,000.
With regard to citywide signage, Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussion a few years ago about
modernizing the logo, etc. She recognized such an effort would be extremely expensive. She asked
whether the plan was to continue using the same wooden structures and Welcome to Edmonds. Ms. Hite
responded that is the plan; she was open to Council discussion such as spending a year planning,
considering the logo, branding, etc. although that would cost money and time. Staff could consider
different sign designs using the same logo which would not cost as much or take as long. Councilmember
Buckshnis understood the old signs because Edmonds was formerly a mill town but many may not
identify with that anymore. Ms. Hite explained a master sign plan was adopted; as park signs are replaced,
the new font, color, design and look are used. That plan did not identify the large gateway signs but that
plan can be used to guide in the replacement of the gateway signs. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed
consistent signage will be importance, particularly when the Westgate gateway is designed.
Councilmember Johnson questioned whether the October 16 Planning Board public hearing and the
October 20 City Council public hearing provided enough time for the Council to review the results of the
Planning Board public hearing before making a decision. Mr. English recalled the Council typically holds
a public hearing on both documents and then deliberates and makes a decision at a later meeting. Effort
will be made to include the October 16 Planning Board minutes in the Council packet.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested moving the Council public hearing to October 27. Mr.
English said October 27 is a study session and typically public hearings are held at a business meeting.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said a public hearing could be held at a study session. Mr. English
agreed.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council had given final design approval for the
Veteran's Plaza. Ms. Hite responded Council approved a concept from Site Workshop with walls, service
emblems and a meditative garden area. A few changes have been made as a result of concern in the
community with the significant size of the walls and having each service branded on the walls. The new
design sites all the branches on one wall, bringing honor to anyone who served in any capacity, not
honoring just the branches. The concept is very similar. She offered to invite the community group to
present the slightly revised concept to the Council.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has been contacted by two individuals who, observing this is a
community space in perpetuity, felt there had not been enough public input from members of the
community who were not in the military. She suggested creating an opportunity for more public input into
the project prior to completing the design. Ms. Hite reminded the Council that the community group
charged with creating a Veteran's Plaza had been at Council a few times, a public hearing was held and
Council officially gave them the go-ahead. The community group has been fundraising this plan
($475,000) and the design is almost at 60% design and out for survey. The project is quite far down road
to introduce more public input for changes. The changes are in the design concept now and it would be an
appropriate time for the community group to present them to Council.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said at least a couple citizens would like to provide input to the
Council. Ms. Hite said two citizens provided input to the community group which resulted in some of the
proposed changes. She suggested Council President Fraley-Monillas refer those two individuals to the
committee or that they provide comment to Council. She did not support another public hearing on the
concept the Council has already approved because the community group is diligently raising funds for
that concept. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the two individuals met with community group and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 12
did not feel their voices were heard. She will speak to the two individuals and suggest they provide
comment to Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis cited one change; the Off Leash Area Edmonds (OLAE) is raising funds to
include a K-9 veteran in the plaza. She felt the concept looked great. Ms. Hite said the community group
is very open to suggestions and are working with the landscape architect to finalize the design
development. At least one individual provided input recently and changes were made based on that input.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said he contacted her after his meeting with the community group and
felt he was not being heard.
It was the consensus of the City Council for Ms. Hite to ask the community group make a presentation to
the Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she would invite the citizens to make comment.
Councilmember Petso referred to audience comment tonight regarding the Meadowdale Fields project and
asked if now was the time to be more specific with regard to the designation in the Comprehensive Plan if
a majority of Council was interested in doing that. Ms. Hite answered it could be done now; that project
has three other partners so it is not just the City's decision. Councilmember Petso asked whether it would
be preferable to remove that project from the plan to see what the legislature or Attorney General's office
does with issues that have been presented to the State. Ms. Hite responded taking it out of the plan would
mean the City would not go as a forward a partner. Edmonds needs to include funds in the plan and have
a vested interest in order to continue utilizing the fields. The existing ILA includes termination clauses
and ESD could terminate the ILA if Edmonds shows it does not want to be a partner and will not be at the
table to discuss the plan. Removing the project from the CFP could jeopardize the partnership.
Councilmember Petso asked what happened if the Attorney General rules it is against the Children's Safe
Products Act. Ms. Hite responded if the Attorney General made a statewide ruling, ESD, City of
Lynnwood, Snohomish County as well as Edmonds would be impacted. There are four partners on the
project; Edmonds either needs to be in and be part of the process and decision -making or completely out
and not even be at the table.
Councilmember Petso asked the same question with regard to subsequent phases of Woodway Fields. For
example how to address the CFP saying there will be lights, but the Hearing Examiner says there will not
be. Ms. Hite said the description reflects what the plan has been all along. The plan has been to have
lights at the fields. The Hearing Examiner ruled on the variance with regard to permits for lights; ESD is
still interested in having lights and will have to go through the permit process to do that. An ILA with
ESD is currently being negotiated to provide the City more decision -making in the partnership; to the
extent that occurs, the remaining phases would occur in partnership with ESD.
Councilmember Petso asked about the field surface on subsequent phases. Ms. Hite clarified the project is
currently in the CFP; if the City decides not to sign the ILA, the City is no longer a partner and not
contributing to the project, scheduling or maintaining. If language can be negotiated in the ILA that is
amenable to Council and the Council signs the ILA, it makes sense to keep Phases 2 and 3 in the CFP
with that same language for future development. Councilmember Petso asked if Ms. Hite was suggesting
the Council not take final action on the CFP until the ILA is resolved. Ms. Hite recommended keeping the
project in the CFP to preserve options and allow Council discussion and decisions. If Council at some
point decides they do not want to be a partner and not contribute funds, it can be removed from the CFP.
She preferred to keep it in the CFP to retain options.
Councilmember Petso recalled the Council approved the TIP three weeks ago. Since that time a number
of projects identified in the TIP as funded from the General Fund are now identified as funded from the
126 Fund. She asked why that change was made. Mr. English responded the largest reason for changes
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 13
was the budget process; the TIP was developed in June. Councilmember Petso observed an additional $2
million is now being spent from the 126 Fund which is the only capital fund that can be used for property
acquisition. If $2 million in expenditures is transferred into the 125 Fund, those funds cannot be used for
property acquisition. Mr. English agreed, pointing out funds were not being spent from the 126 Fund,
they are being transferred to different funds for projects.
Councilmember Petso said sometimes the CIP is not consistent with the TIP and that is attributed to
differences in timing. This year the Council approved the TIP three weeks ago; she asked whether they
should be consistent under those circumstances. Mr. English answered staff tries to make them consistent
but project expenses are typically good for that date and there has been a lot of back and forth on the
budget in recent weeks and numbers change. As an example, Councilmember Petso asked whether the
Council should amend the TIP if the Council chose to pay for the trackside warning system from the
General Fund as it states in the TIP versus from the 126 Fund. Mr. English answered the TIP could be
amended but it could also be corrected next year.
With regard to the Meadowdale Fields, Councilmember Nelson observed the existing ILA language
includes allows negotiation of changes in the infill when it expires or needs to be replaced. Ms. Hite
agreed. Councilmember Nelson noted that language does not currently exist for the Woodway HS Fields.
Ms. Hite agreed, noting the language in the Meadowdale Playfield ILA allows Council to make decisions
at the design and design development level. She was also at table in that process and Edmonds' feelings
about crumb rubber would not be a surprise to Lynnwood or ESD.
Councilmember Nelson asked where parklets and fitness zones would be located. Ms. Hite answered
there is a parklet location selected on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor in the triangle area near Edmonds
Center for the Arts. There is also a business downtown that is interested in developing parklet outside
their business. That prompted the development of a policy to ensure a fair/equitable process for
developing a parklet in a parking space outside a business. Usually parklets are temporary and do not
have a high cost but add flavor and culture to the City. Mathay Ballinger is being considered for a fitness
zone as it is in a higher use area and public health statistic indicate the demographics do not have access
to fitness. Another potential location for a fitness zone is City Park to allow adults to work out while
children play in the spray pad and play area
Councilmember Nelson said he looked forward to being at the spray park ribbon cutting rain or shine.
Councilmember Bloom expressed appreciation for Councilmembers Petso and Nelson's questions about
the Meadowdale Field and appreciated that the City of Edmonds would be at the table. She asked who at
Snohomish County would be a partner. Ms. Hite answered Snohomish County Parks and the County
Council adopted the ILA between Edmonds, Lynnwood, ESD and Snohomish County. The City of
Lynnwood has since renegotiated an ILA looking at exclusive use of Meadowdale Playfields if Edmonds
were ever to terminate its interest. She has represented that Edmonds is not planning to terminate its
interest; there are no other full size fields in the City's park system, therefore the Meadowdale Playfields
are utilized quite significantly.
Councilmember Bloom asked when the ILA regarding the Woodway Fields would be presented to the
Council. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered it has been in ESD's court quite a while; the City could
hear back from ESD any day.
Councilmember Bloom observed the funding estimate and timeframe for the year-round market had been
eliminated; she recalled the previous funding estimate was $5 million. Ms. Hite said a lot of projects are
unfunded and unplanned due to other priorities or not enough money to fund it. There is currently no
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 14
funding source for that project. If Council is interested in moving that project forward, a funding source
could be identified.
Councilmember Bloom observed outdoor fitness zone was scheduled in 2017 and $50,000 is allocated.
Ms. Hite said the timeframe is 2016. The intent is $50,000 from REET and to apply for $75,000 in grant
funding.
Councilmember Bloom observed the costs for the alternatives study extend from 2016 into 2017. If the
study is prioritizing near term solutions for emergency access; she asked whether the analysis should be
completed before 2017. Mr. English answered the alternatives analysis study has not started yet. A task
force has been formed, an RFQ process completed and two consultants will be interviewed tomorrow.
The projected timeline is 14-18 months due to the scope/magnitude of the project which takes it into early
2017.
Councilmember Bloom recalled the Sunset Avenue Walkway was discussed as part of the Comprehensive
Plan discussion and recalled a Councilmember made a motion to eliminate the multi -use aspect [motion
was not approved]. She also recalled Councilmember Petso referenced data that 8 feet was not sufficient
for a multi -use path. Mr. Williams answered staff is still researching the standards/guidelines that
Councilmember Petso cited. He explained the initial preference was a 10-foot path with a 2-foot shy zone
but there is simply not enough space for that. Therefore an 8-foot path was used in the pilot project. The
question becomes whether that is too narrow for bicycles, pedestrians and other non -motorized traffic to
coexist comfortably and safely which was one of the reasons for the pilot project. The pilot project has
reached the end of a year and two reports have been made to the Council about what has been learned and
the data collected. That effort has not been completed; an online survey will be available shortly. When
all the information is gathered, another report will be made to the Council.
Mr. Williams explained the type of traffic to include on the walkway will be one of the considerations of
a permanent project, whether to include bicycles, whether the width is sufficient to accommodate bicycle
traffic that has been observed. Bicycle traffic has been fairly low volume and low speed. Efforts were
made to address bicycle traffic via signs for a 10 speed limit and for the most part cyclists have complied.
There have not been any accidents between bicycles and pedestrians in the past year and it is not felt to be
a significant hazard at this point. NACTO recommends a 10-foot minimum width for a path with all types
of traffic; the path can be narrower in a location where the use is limited. He did not find that to be the
situation on Sunset Avenue; it is very well used. He summarized width will be an issue when and if a
project is designed.
Councilmember Bloom asked when the design will come back to the Council and when will the public
have an opportunity to be actively involved; people have been asking for a Town Hall meeting or other
opportunity to ask questions and provide input. Her understanding was the test period concluded in
August. Mr. Williams said the end of the yearlong pilot project was September 14, 2015. Once the survey
results are available, all the information will be present to Council and a public meeting can be scheduled,
whether it is a Town Hall, public hearing before the Council, public meeting, etc. He agreed some type of
public meeting would be a useful part of the process.
Councilmember Bloom asked what information will be evaluated. Mr. Williams advised data collection
has included observation, monitoring, accident and speed data, past survey data as well as an online
survey at the end of the yearlong pilot project. Councilmember Bloom asked if the Council would have an
opportunity to review the survey questions. Mr. Williams offered to send her the questions, noting staff is
still working on the questions.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 15
Councilmember Bloom observed the cost of the Sunset Avenue Walkway had increased from $1.9
million to $2.35. Mr. Williams answered until the scope of the project is known, the cost is unknown. A
number was developed quite a long time ago associated with a full size Sunset Avenue Walkway that
included a raised, decorative pathway all along the west side of the street. The project will likely look
different than original scope, be less expensive and robust with fewer improvements and concentrated on
the two ends. He did not see the cost estimate being particularly relevant but it could be reduced if the
Council wished. Councilmember Bloom asked if the goal was to have that decision made before the
Council votes on the CIP/CFP. Mr. Williams answered the cost estimate would not be changed unless the
Council requested. The exact scope of the project will not be completed by the time the CIP/CFP is
adopted.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
E. CONTINUED REVIEW OF CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS UPDATE
Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the second in-depth review with the Council of the Critical
Area Ordinance (CAO) update. As he did not receive any questions from Councilmembers as a result of
the first review, he will highlight a few items in the update. He described critical area restoration projects:
• New Section ECDC 23.40.215
• Provide relief from standard critical area buffer for restoration projects that is not required as
mitigation for a development proposal
• Restoration Project involves:
o The day -lighting of a stream, or
o Creation or expansion of a wetland that would cause a landward expansion of the wetland
and/or wetland buffer
In response to a Council comment at the previous meeting, whether the restoration provisions were tight
enough and whether a 1-inch expansion of a wetland would allow a substantially reduced buffer, the
restoration project relief was amended slightly:
• Expanded buffer: that portion of the stream or wetland buffer that extended landward as a result
of the restoration project (not associated with a development proposal)
• May apply a buffer that is not less than 75% of the expanded buffer
• Request a buffer between 50% and 75% of expanded buffer if-
* 75% buffer would significantly limit use of the property
o Minimum necessary to achieve restoration project
o There will be a net environmental benefit
o Granting relief is consistent with the purposes of the critical area regulations
Mr. Lien provided a drawing of an example of an existing wetland with a 50 buffer, expanded buffer and
a 75% relief buffer. He reviewed changes made in response to a comment at the September 8 presentation
that the estuarine wetland buffer was missing from the wetland buffer categories:
• Added Category I — Estuarine Wetland Buffers to ECDC 23.50.040.F
• Modified Category III wetland buffers to be consistent with the Guidance for Small Jurisdictions
He reviewed changes made in response to a comment at the September 8 presentation regarding Bald
Eagle habitat:
• Existing provisions under Endangered, Threaten, and Sensitive Species
o References WAC 232-12-292
o Only applies when threatened or endangered in Washington State
• Added new section ECDC 23.90.040.E referencing Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 16
Mr. Lien highlighted changes related to critical area report and determinations:
• Critical area reports and determinations valid for 5 years
• Critical area determination after 5-years
o New determination, or
o New assessment verifying previous determination
• Critical area report after 5-years
o Determine if revision or additional assessment necessary
He highlighted changes to allowed activities and exemptions:
• ECDC 23.40.220.C.7 — Select Vegetation Removal
• ECDC 23.40.230.C.2 — Operation and Maintenance includes normal maintenance of vegetation
performed in accordance with best management practices
o Would allow removal of alder seedlings
• "Normal maintenance of vegetation" means removal of shrubs/non-woody vegetation and trees
(less than 3-inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also
may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the City in the past 5 years.
He highlighted new provisions related to penalties for critical area violations — ECDC 23.40.240.E:
• Currently references tree cutting penalties in ECDC 18.45
• Maintain reference to tree cutting penalties, and
• $3 per square foot penalty of impacted critical area and critical area buffer
He reviewed next steps:
• Comments from state and tribal agencies (Commerce, Ecology, WDFW)
• October 6: City Council Public Hearing
• Consideration for Adoption
Councilmember Petso asked if the City has to follow Best Available Science (BAS) in developing the
CAO or does BAS only have to have been considered. Mr. Lien answered generally BAS has to be
followed; jurisdictions can deviate from BAS if there is a documented reason to do so. For example, the
City deviated with regard to the restoration project, allowing a buffer reduction to 50%; that is not really
supported by BAS but it provides a net benefit to critical areas. Other things that may be a slight deviation
from BAS include physically separated and functionally isolated; that has not been studied and there is no
peer review report but because Edmonds was developed prior to adoption of critical area and
environmental regulations, the intent is to provide a net benefit to critical areas. Mr. Taraday said in
looking at this in the context of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and Shoreline Management
Program (SMP), BAS is a factor but not the only factor jurisdictions are allowed to consider. He offered
to provide a more detailed explanation in the future.
Councilmember Petso referred to development within the previously developed footprint, noting that also
may not be entirely consistent with BAS. She suggested gravel be deleted from the definition of
previously developed footprint. She questioned why gravel and a structure would be treated the same; she
acknowledged a 5-story structure represented previously developed but gravel will revegetate. Mr. Lien
answered the interim ordinance regarding previously developed footprint defined developed footprint as
all impervious surface areas which included gravel. He displayed an aerial of stream between two house
and photograph of the stream adjacent to a gravel parking area. By the definition, that is a previously
developed area. If a garage was added to that area, it would not be adding new impervious surface and by
allowing some development in exchange of the buffer achieves a net benefit to critical areas instead of no
change to the buffer if no development is allowed. Gravel is listed because it is an impervious area and
the addition of a building would not increase the impervious surface area.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 17
Councilmember Petso commented she has never had impervious gravel; the gravel she has experienced is
pervious to water, vegetation, etc. Mr. Lien said gravel is defined as an impervious surface in the State
stormwater regulations. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Council could change the definition of
previously developed area to be only structures. Mr. Lien answered the definition of previously developed
area could be changed; the existing definition includes gravel, blacktop, structures, and several other
things.
Councilmember Petso recalled discussion at the September 8"' meeting about buffer reduction and buffer
averaging; it was her understanding averaging was a better way to protect critical area buffers. Mr. Lien
responded both buffer averaging and buffer reduction are allowed but buffer averaging is preferred. A
change was made in the draft code related to the amount of buffer averaging and buffer reduction that
could occur. In the existing code the buffer can be reduced or averaged up to 50% and a buffer width
reduction and buffer averaging could be combined on the same project. The draft code does not allow the
buffer to be reduced or averaged not more than 75% and averaging and reduction cannot be combined.
Councilmember Petso agreed that was a change for better but asked why buffer reduction would be
allowed at all when buffer averaging was a better tool. Mr. Lien responded it is another tool in the
toolbox. Jim Keeney, ESA, explained depending on land used on adjacent properties, buffer averaging
may not be an option; therefore, a secondary choice would be buffer reduction. Buffer reduction provides
some flexibility without overly restricting potential land uses on a property being redeveloped.
Councilmember Bloom commented the imperviousness of gravel depends on how deep it is. She agreed
with Councilmember Petso's suggestion to eliminate gravel as an impervious surface. She commented the
stormwater regulations may consider a different depth. Mr. Lien provided the definition of footprint of
development, the area of a site that contains legally established buildings, concrete, asphalt, or gravel
paved roads, parking lots, storage areas or other paved areas, driveways, walkways, outdoor swimming
pools and patios. He offered to confer with Stormwater Engineer Jerry Shuster to determine how that
definition could be tweaked. He pointed out a gravel paved road as well as a graveled parking area that
was driven on a great deal and was packed down were impervious. A walkway with two inches of pea
gravel may not be impervious.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the reasonable use definition that states "while also allowing for
reasonable use of private property." She asked whether that meant private property and did not include
public property such as the Port, Woodway Fields, School District, City owned property, etc. Mr. Lien
provided the definition of reasonable economic uses, "the minimum use to which a property owner is
entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid taking and/or
violations of substantive due process." The definition was amended a few years ago to omit reference to a
single family residence. Mr. Taraday said that raises the question whether a governmental entity could sue
the City for a taking. He suspected governments that hold property in a propriety capacity likely have
property rights and if violated could lead to a constitutional violation. For example if General Motors is a
person for constitutional purposes, a municipal corporation could also be a person and therefore entitled
to constitutional rights. If that was an important issue to the Council, further research could be done. Mr.
Lien referenced the critical area section, advising A.1 addresses critical area variances for public agencies
and A.2 addresses variances for private properties.
Councilmember Bloom reiterated the definition refers to private property. Mr. Lien again referenced the
definition of reasonable economic use on page 32 of definitions. Councilmember Bloom said she read a
statement somewhere, possibly in the introductory statement that included "while also allowing for
reasonable use of private property." Mr. Taraday said in the vast majority of instances the City would be
dealing with private property.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 18
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the proposed $3 per square foot penalty for activities like
filling a wetland. She asked if there was also a requirement to rehab what was done. Mr. Lien answered
the violation would have to be rectified in addition to paying a penalty. Council President Fraley-Monillas
calculated filling a 2,000 square foot wetland would only result in a $6,000 penalty. Mr. Lien said fill was
used as an example but mowing down vegetation in a wetland would be another example. Council
President Fraley-Monillas asked how $3/foot was determined. Mr. Lien said that is the cost of a simple
planting plan for wetland mitigation. Council President Fraley-Monillas did not view that as enough for
destroying a critical area. Mr. Lien said he compared it to the current tree cutting violation where a
violator can be fined up to $9,000 for removing one tree in a critical area. Council President Fraley-
Monillas asked if anyone had been ever been fined $9,000 for the removal of one tree. Mr. Lien answered
yes, the last tree cutting violation was appealed to the Hearing Examiner and the $23,000 fine was upheld.
Another appeal of a $45,000 fine for the removal of multiple trees is coming up. He explained he was
comparing the fine to the current tree cutting violations since that was what this section referenced. There
could be a critical area violation without removal of a tree but since the section refers to the tree cutting
fines, this fine would be comparable. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested separating a tree
cutting fine from a wetland violation.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the CAO reads very well. She referred to standard buffers,
wetland categories and scoring of habitat and asked how the habitat score was determined. Mr. Lien
explained the scores come from a wetland delineation which is a change in the science in the last ten
years. When a wetland scientist delineates a wetland, a number of scores are calculated to categorize the
wetland. One of those scores, largely on which buffer widths are based, is related to habitat; higher habitat
scores require wider buffers. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Category 1 Estuary such as the
Edmonds Marsh which requires 150 feet. She asked if that was 150 feet from the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) like the SMP. Mr. Lien answered it is from the edge of the wetland which is same as the
OHWM in the SMP.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the differentiation between setbacks and buffers in 23.80.070 and
the addition of a buffer requirement. She recalled in the SMP some citizens took issue with including the
buffer in the setback. Mr. Lien answered it a little different in the critical area regulations. He referenced
building setbacks in 23.40.280. In the existing code the buffer is the area adjacent to the wetland, stream,
or slope and there is an additional 15-foot building setback. The change in the draft COA is related to
geologically hazardous area; the buffer or setback for geologically hazardous area is determined by a
geotechnical report.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the section regarding mitigation ratios and the table of wetland
categories and ratios for rehabilitation only and enhancement only (packet page 53 of 90). Mr. Lien
explained this came from Department of Ecology's Guidance for Small Jurisdictions. Mr. Keeney
explained the general concept is it is harder to create a new wetland than to rehabilitate an existing
wetland. The intent is to encourage the use of natural systems rather than to make new ones. Ecology
reviewed the scientific literature to develop these ratios; the primary driver of that science was Dr. Tom
Ruby, Department of Ecology, who has experience in wetland modeling. Mr. Kenney summarized the
table is basically Ecology's assimilation of all the science and making it applicable to land planning
processes. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding of his explanation was Ecology would
rather have a wetland enhanced than recreated. Mr. Keeney explained a lot more must be done to get the
same credit for creation or reestablishment.
Councilmember Nelson expressed appreciation for the updated information regarding Bald Eagles. He
referred to definitions and the experience/qualifications for geologist, geotechnical engineer and qualified
critical area consultant, observing a geologist is no longer required to have a license and the experience
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 19
requirement was removed. Mr. Lien said that information was relocated in the code. He offered to email it
to Councilmember Nelson.
Councilmember Johnson recommended when a penalty is assessed, restoration or rehabilitation also be
required. Mr. Lien referred to 23.40.240 Unauthorized critical areas alterations and enforcement;
paragraph B addresses requirement for a restoration plan.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS SECONDED, TO EXTEND TO 10:10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Bloom recalled the presentation identified tree topping as maintenance and if approval
had been given in the past, approval would be given to top trees. She asked if there were any criteria for
restricting or prohibiting tree topping. Mr. Lien explained tree topping is considered tree cutting; topping
is generally frowned upon by arborists. A tree cutting permit is required to top a tree. A lot of trees in the
City have been topped in the past. Once a tree is topped and grows out, the branches are not as strong and
do not grow as well and it needs to be maintained which is why that provision is included. He clarified it
did not refer to new topping but maintaining trees that had already been topped in a safe manner.
Councilmember Bloom asked if there was clarity in the code that tree topping was not allowed unless it
was approved in the past. Mr. Lien read the definition of alteration, "Alteration" means any human -
induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but
are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping,
clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic
substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water
management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation,
hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas." Councilmember Bloom relayed her
understanding that the way the City finds out that any of that has occurred is via code enforcement. Mr.
Lien answered generally yes.
Councilmember Bloom referred to small hydrologically isolated wetland (packet page 50 of 90) where the
size was changed from 500 to 1,000. She asked whether the size of the smallest critical area had been
increased to 1,000 from 500 square feet. Mr. Lien said most of the language is from the Guidance for
Small Jurisdictions but was tweaked slightly so that a small hydrologically isolated wetland was no longer
an exempt wetland but a specific category of wetland. Hydrologically isolated means it is not connected
to a stream or other wetland complex. This section only applied to Category III and IV wetlands that have
a low habitat score. He summarized these wetlands are not exempt but are exempt from a few of the
provisions such as they do not necessarily have to have buffers, mitigation sequencing must occur before
a wetland can be impacted but a mitigation plan must be developed to replace lost wetland functions and
values. For example if a small wetland was filled, an onsite rain garden could be established to replace it.
He clarified 500 square feet was in the existing code and 1,000 is from Ecology's Guidance for Small
Jurisdictions.
Councilmember Bloom asked for an explanation of the in lieu fee program. Mr. Lien responded that was
related to mitigation, a small site that impacted a wetland but there was no opportunity to mitigate on site.
The in lieu fee program allows a property owner to put money toward wetland mitigation in another
location. Councilmember Bloom asked if that wetland would be within the City. Mr. Lien answered
typically it is desirable to have mitigation occur within the same drainage basin. The one instance where it
may occur outside the City is via a certified wetland bank which has defined service areas. He did not
envision Edmonds being within the service area of a certified wetland mitigation bank due to short
drainages that go directly to Puget Sound.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 20
Councilmember Bloom referred to discretion of the director as well as the term shall which appear a lot in
the CAO. She was puzzled by the numerous opportunities for the discretion of the director when there
were so many statements of shall. She asked how that was resolved. Mr. Lien said often someone in City
must make a call; the director is the highest ranking person. There are definitions in the code where shall
means imperative. Not everything in the critical area is imperative; when there is a judgment call, the
director makes that decision.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the definition of director which means the City of Edmonds
Development Services Director or his/her designee. She suggested tweaking the language to ensure it was
the director's responsibility rather than someone the director designates. Mr. Lien explained ultimate
authority falls to the director. How it works, there are four planners in the City, they do not go to the
director to interpret every sentence in the code. Questions about the code or how the code is applied are
brought to the director. Councilmember Bloom suggested the definition of director be the Development
Services Director and delete designee. Development Services Shane Hope said the term "or designee" is
used because it means the director makes the decision unless he/she designates someone else in his/her
absence. The term director means the highest person responsible. Councilmember Bloom commented
these decisions do not have to be made immediately so she felt any important decisions up to the
discretion of director should be reviewed by director. She requested eliminating "his/her designee."
Mayor Earling suggested Councilmembers forward any additional questions to Mr. Lien.
Mr. Lien advised he will provide highlights and respond to any additional Council questions at the
October 6 public hearing
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported on the AWC legislative meeting he attended yesterday. The focus of the
legislative session will be education, education, education. Elections are upcoming in 2016 for some of
the Senate and all of the House so the legislative session will only be 60 days.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Nelson announced the Diversity Commission is seeking applicants; the deadline for
applications is September 30.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reminded the public to get a flu shot. The vaccine is a better strain this
year and it is important to get vaccinated early.
10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 21
This item was not needed.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:11 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 22, 2015
Page 22