Loading...
07/07/2015 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 7, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5 h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 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 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Sean Conrad, Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Mesaros. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADD AN AGENDA ITEM, DISCUSSION REGARDING EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER. Councilmember Bloom explained the City received notification last week that there are three other bids for the Edmonds Conference Center. As the bids are public, she suggested it be discussed in a public session. Council President Fraley-Monillas added it as Agenda Item 10A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM 8 TO ITEM 6A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 1 A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2015 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #214862 THROUGH #214863 DATED JUNE 23, 2015 FOR $18,030.32, CHECKS #214864 THROUGH #214980 DATED JUNE 25, 2015 FOR $445,807.83 (REISSUED CHECK #214883 $304.50) AND CHECKS #214981 THROUGH #215078 DATED JULY 2, 2015 FOR $2,265,404.38. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61663 THROUGH #61673 FOR $499,150.70, BENEFIT CHECKS #61674 THROUGH #61682 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $426,838.65 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JUNE 16, 2015 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2015 C. MAY 2015 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT D. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BHC FOR THE 2016-2017 SANITARY REPLACEMENT PROJECTS E. REJECTION OF ALL BIDS FOR THE SW EDMONDS — 105TH/106TH AVE W STORM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT F. REPORT OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND A RECOMMENDATION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2014 WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT 4. CEMETERY BOARD PRESENTATION Joan Longstaff, Cemetery Board, invited the public to a guided tour of the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, "A Walk Back in Time," on July 16 at 1:00 p.m. She thanked the Council for the privilege of serving on the Cemetery Board. Along with the Chamber and the Museum, the Cemetery is celebrating Edmonds' 125th anniversary of Edmonds. "A Walk Back in Time" will honor and includes stories of the 13 former Edmonds mayors buried in cemetery. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern with City officials on Sunset Avenue doing the work of the police, telling people where they can and cannot park. The person who reported it to him is frequent user of Sunset and has seen it occur more than once. He found it interest that certain City officials feel it is their duty to enforce the rules on Sunset Avenue. He suggested returning to bike lanes and a sidewalk on Sunset Avenue, eliminating the need for City officials to enforce the law on their own. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, said he regularly attended Council committee meetings when the format was changed to study sessions. He originally did not support the change but now likes study sessions and felt with a few revisions, study sessions could serve the Council, administration and citizens well. With the committee structure, citizens had to choose which committee to attend as they were all held on the same day and time and only two Council committee members studied an issue with staff and made recommendations to Council. Recommendations were often pulled from the Consent Agenda or rejected by the full Council, resulting in delays and requiring repetitive staff presentations. The quality of the committee minutes depending on who took the minutes. Citizens could not view the committee meetings on television or the internet and rules for citizen participation varied depending on the chair and issue being discussed. The greatest citizen benefit of study sessions is added transparency. With study sessions, citizens have equal time to comment and can view all Council discussion on television and the internet and consistent, written minutes are available to the public. He recommended the following format revisions: Council return to the dais where microphones provide better sound quality Staff presentations be made from the podium where presentations can be seen and heard Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 2 • Discussions grouped by topic on the agenda for continuity and using Council and staff time efficiently • Council ask questions of staff before meeting to provide staff time/opportunity to prepare detailed response • Councilmembers ask questions in round-robin fashion with each Councilmember asking 2-3 questions at a time He questioned why a Council that places such a high value on transparency would consider reverting to a format that was so much less transparent and less efficient. Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, said it appeared Edmonds' offer to purchase the Edmonds Conference was rejected and the State has given the City Council until July 15 to submit a counteroffer. She recalled some weeks ago the Council President was asked to allow the Council to vote on having a Town Hall meeting to allow Edmonds taxpayers to air their views on the potential purchase of the building and she declined to let the Council vote. If there had been an agreement to that democratic process, the Council would have citizens' feedback/opinions regarding the purchase. She explained in 1997 a previous Council declined an offer from the property owner to give the property to the City for free and it was given to the Edmonds Community College. The City now has an opportunity to purchase the building. She has no qualms with any other entity purchasing the building but felt it would have been the right thing to do to allow taxpayers to voice their opinion. She recognized many citizens with young children who enjoy the hometown activities do not have time for small town politics. Most towns are run by older people who often lack the aspiration for a legacy. Citizens look to the City Council to balance all needs, now and in the future. What the Council thinks is too expensive now will be unattainable in the future and there will be no land for the Council to consider purchasing. She commented on the vision of people on the east coast, stating Edmonds also needs a vision. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2016-2021 SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss introduced the 2016-2021 Six -Year Transportation Program (TIP): • Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that each city update their TIP prior to July I" • Document contains all significant transportation projects that a City possibly plans to undertake in the next six years • City of Edmonds policy: TIP financially constrained first (3) years • Federal Grants, State Grants, and Local funds are programmed as revenue source for TIP projects He reviewed scheduled projects in 2016: 76`'' Avenue W (a� 212'h St SW Intersection improvements • Project description o Add left turn lane for northbound and southbound movements on 76th Avenue W o Improve intersection delay o Add bike lanes / wider sidewalk o Utility upgrades (including conversion of overhead utilities to underground within project limits) Schedule o Completion of Design / ROW End of 2015 o Start of Construction Spring 2016 Funding o Estimated total project cost: $6,228,000 ■ Design $ 412,000 ■ Right-of-way $ 789,000 ■ Construction $5,027,000 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 3 o Funding Sources ■ Federal Grant secured $3,960,000 ■ Local Funds (Fund 112, Utility) $2,268,000 Trackside Warning System/Quiet Zone at Dayton Street & Main Street Railroad Crossings • Project Description o Install Wayside Horns at two railroad crossings to reduce noise level (within downtown Edmonds) created during many daily train crossings • Schedule o Construction 2016 • Funding o General Fund Transfer $300,000 236th Street SW Walkway from SR-104 to Madrona School • Project Description 0 600 feet of sidewalk along 236th St from SR-104 to school entrance o Bicycle sharrow markings o Stormwater upgrades • Schedule o Completion of Design Fall 2015 o Start of Construction Early 2016 • Funding ■ Secured Safe Routes to School grant $494,000 ■ Local Funds (Fund 422) $250,000 Citywide Bicycle Improvements (formerly known as Bike -Link) • Project Description o Complete critical missing links of bicycle's network, with installation of bike lanes and sharrows throughout Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Edmonds o Bicycle route signage and parking at key locations o Bicycle education and outreach Status/Schedule o Design o Construction Fall 2015 Summer 2016 • Funding o Secured Verdant grant $1.9M (— $737,000 allocated to Edmonds) Mr. Hauss displayed and reviewed a map of the proposed improvements funded by the Verdant grant. Other projects in 2016-2021 TIP a) New projects / not identified in 2015-2020 TIP • Corridor / Intersection Improvements 0 228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl. W o SR-104 @ 226th St SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements"* o SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements * * * o SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements"* Walkway Improvements o Dayton St. from 7th Ave. to 8th Ave 0 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104 0 236th St SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104 0 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W 0 84th Ave. W from 234th St. SW to 238th St. SW 0 80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St. SW Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 4 o Citywide ADA Transition Plan • Ferry Storage Improvements from Dayton St. to Pine St *** • Waterfront At -Grade Crossing Study (*** Projects identified in Sr-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis) b) Preservation/Safety/Capacity Projects • Annual Street Preservation Main @ 9th Ave (2019-2020) Signal Upgrades o Puget Dr. @ OVD (2019 — 2020) 0 238th St. SW @ 100th Ave. W (2019) o Main St. @ 3rd Ave. (2020 — 2021) o Citywide Conversion to Protected Permissive traffic signal conversion (2016) • Intersection Improvements 0 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W (2019-2021) o Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW (2019-2021) o Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW (2019-2021) o Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW (2019-2021) c) Non -motorized transportation projects • Sunset Ave. (2016-2019) • 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Walkway (2019-2021) • Sidewalk projects near schools / parks o Maplewood Dr. Walkway (2020-2021) o Walnut St. Walkway (2019) o ADA Curb Ramp Improvements (2016-2021) Mr. Hauss provided a summary of recently secured transportation grants (last three years): Project Name Grant Type Total Grant Amount Five Corners Roundabout 2012 Federal $1,937,000 5th Ave. S Overlay from Walnut St. to Elm St 2012 Federal $525,000 228th St. W Corridor Improvement Project 2012 & 2013 Federal/State $5,934,000 Hwy 99 Enhancement Phase 3 2012 Federal $684,000 236th St. SW, 238th St. SW and 15th Ave. W Walkway Projects 2013 Federal/State $1,459,000 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave. S 2013 Federal $90,000 School Zone Flashing Beacons 2013 Federal $37,500 Bike -Link 2014 Local $737,000 220th St. SW Overlay from 84th Ave. to 76"' Ave. 2014 Federal $780,000 76th Ave. @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements 2015 Federal $3,020,000 Waterfront At -Grade Crossing Study (2015) State $500,000 TOTAL $15,703,500 Mr. Hauss relayed staff s recommendation that the City Council approve the TIP. Councilmember Buckshnis gave kudos to staff for securing grants, especially the $500,000 for the Waterfront At -Grade Crossing Study. She remarked people continue to call her about Sunset Avenue; she asked whether that was still in a testing phase and how it will be tested. Public Works Director Phil Williams said it was not a test but rather an evaluation over time. He is trying to hire a summer intern who will make physical counts regarding percentage of parking used, illegal parking, etc. That data would be summarized and presented to the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 5 Councilmember Buckshnis asked when the evaluation period ended. Mr. Williams answered a year would be the end of August. He was hopefully a good amount of data would be available by then. Data from the first months as everyone was learning about the new geometry may be less important and the more current data may be more relevant. Councilmember Buckshnis said the biggest concern she hears is bicycles, the path being multiuse and bicycles riding in the street when there are people on the path. She asked how the multiuse path would be evaluated. Mr. Williams commented that is difficult to measure; he has also seen bicyclists go into the street when others are using the path. He said anecdotal information as well as data is important. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the project cost morphed up to nearly $2.3 million with the entire project completed in 2019. Mr. Williams answered that was a placeholder; he doubted the project would reach that magnitude, a path for much of the length of Sunset, particularly where BNSF's ownership intrudes onto the existing street. It would be difficult to get grant funding for a project on BNSF's property without their express permission long term which BNSF will not provide. BNSF will lease property for a year which would grant funding difficult and likely require a short term project funded with local funds. He envisioned a considerably scaled down project from what was originally proposed. Councilmember Petso thanked staff for the exhibit that isolates the changes from last year and since June 9. One of changes proposed to be made this year is to change the Sunset project from sidewalk to multiuse path. She planned to make motion to not make that change. With regard to the changes since the June 9 presentation, she asked about the addition of the project, 228th from Hwy 99 to 95th Place, observing that goes significantly through Esperance. She asked whether the City will partner with Snohomish County for funding. Mr. Hauss said that project was identified with the 228th project that is currently underway; design in 2021 was added. The City will coordinate with Snohomish County on funding, grant applications, etc. Councilmember Petso observed most of that stretch is located in Esperance. Mr. Hauss agreed approximately two-thirds of it was in Snohomish County. Councilmember Petso concluded from his explanation there would be cooperation and funding participation from Snohomish County. Councilmember Petso referred to the ferry storage improvements from Dayton to Pine, noting that area includes City Park, the treatment plant, the marsh and a wetland. She asked whether those would be disturbed to make room for ferry traffic. Mr. Hauss answered more detailed analysis will be required but the project is envisioned as restriping of the area southbound from the terminal converting that from two lanes to one to provide more queue area in the northbound direction. The road will not be widened to extend into any of the areas Councilmember Petso mentioned. Councilmember Petso referred to the road diet to reduce travel lanes to create room for bike paths. She recalled that was designed for 76th and the numbers show it should work even though the schools present a potential problem. She recalled during Mr. Hauss' presentation that that may be done on 212th pending investigation whether the intersection delays were tolerable. She questioned why that was still in the plan on 9th Avenue when history shows that it hasn't worked due to the light at 220th and extra lanes at Walnut. Mr. Williams said in studying the data, the ADT is 30,000 and not 40,000 as Councilmember Petso mentioned in an email. The most recent data regarding the PM peak shows 3,073 movements through the intersection. Modeling of the existing geometry with the existing traffic movements showed a level of service (LOS) B; the City's adopted intersection LOS at is D. Modeling of the proposed changes, a 3-lane section south of the intersection and bike lanes up to the intersection and north, the same 2-lane configuration, removing parking on one side and adding bike lanes, suggests the LOS will still be B with the current traffic volumes. Mr. Williams explained modeling of the existing and proposed geometry and projected 2035 traffic volumes which includes movements from development at Pt. Wells, redevelopment at Westgate, and traffic from assumed growth results in LOS C. He acknowledge the travel lanes would need to be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 6 maintained through the intersection and one identified as a sharrow; there would be a dedicated bike lane up to a certain distance from the intersection and then transition to a sharrow through the intersection and then back to a dedicated bike lane. He summarized that would not change the capacity of the intersection for vehicles. Councilmember Petso said if that is the plan, the correct designation in the CIP and TIP should not be road diet but bike lane/sharrow. Mr. Williams agreed the project could be identified that way. Councilmember Petso said she was not just concerned with the Westgate intersection. For example at Walnut, a temporary painting project that added a northbound lane significantly reduced peak hour backups. She envisioned undoing that would be a significant step backward and asked if the additional lane would be removed or a sharrow used at that intersection. Mr. Williams responded not all the issues on the corridor have been figured out. He agreed that interim improvement has helped in the short term. There may need to be another solution to accommodate bikes in that intersection but the design has not yet been done. He acknowledged there will be design challenges with extending that improvement from Main to Westgate including the 220th intersection. The idea of bicycle facilities on 9tn/100'h is meritorious and should be kept in the plan. There will be several touchpoints for the Council once a project is funded. Councilmember Petso said changing the description to bike lane/sharrow would resolve her concern. Councilmember Petso referred to the double light at 238th and 100t1'/Firdale where that same treatment is planned, noting the lights must be carefully timed to avoid congestion. She did not envision northbound vehicles lane could be reduced. Mr. Williams agreed that would be reviewed as part of the project design. Referring to Sunset Avenue, Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Williams' indication that an intern is being hired to do data collection and asked when the Council will have an opportunity to provide input regarding what data will collected and how that will be accomplished. Her understanding was Council would be involved in the process of determining whether there would be surveys and how data would be collected. Mr. Williams answered he did not see an intern contributing to a survey; that would be a different data gathering effort and staff can provide Council a draft survey. The intern would spent time on Sunset during the summer collecting objective data. Councilmember Bloom commented that should be done soon as it is July and the testing period ends in August. Mr. Williams anticipated the evaluation would occur in the fall after a full year of usage. Councilmember Bloom requested that be scheduled on the Council's agenda. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed to work with Mr. Williams. Councilmember Bloom asked why the previous funding level of $1.9 million was increased to $2.3 million when Mr. Williams has said it is unlikely that much would be spent on BNSF property. She suggested leaving the funding at $1.9 million or even reducing it. Mr. Williams said the amount in the TIP does not make a great deal of difference it is a placeholder. Staff used the original project scope and updated the cost estimates and used information regarding utilities and improvements on Caspers. Those elements may still be done; the improvements in the middle will be more problematic. A detailed scope will not be available until after the evaluation when the Council determines what improvements should be made. The $2.3 million amount was calculated by costing out the scope in the grant application. Councilmember Bloom suggested leaving the cost the same because staff did not envision spending that much. Mr. Williams said the revised amount best reflects the increase in the costs of the original scope. Councilmember Bloom asked for a breakdown of the increase. Mr. Williams answered it included utilities, inflation, increase costs for asphalt and construction materials, etc. Councilmember Bloom asked what additional hard costs are included in the increased amount. Mr. Williams answered additional stormwater improvements, noting because little design has been done, much of it is speculative at this point. He hoped the $2.3 million was the high end. Councilmember Bloom suggested discussing Sunset Avenue separately as there are a lot of questions. Mr. Williams said there is a concept for Sunset Avenue, not a design. The scope was retained and the cost estimates updated as no decisions have been made to change it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 7 Councilmember Nelson asked how the bike lane improvements on 9th/100th came about. Mr. Williams answered it recognizes that 9th/100th is a natural corridor for non -motorized users, the most direct route from Westgate to connections north. As a key corridor, staff sought to use the right-of-way in a way that balances motorized and non -motorized users. The City's Bike Plan identifies that corridor and putting bike lanes on the corridor would be meritorious. Councilmember Nelson noted the difference between LOS B and D over 20 years in an additional 15 seconds of delay. Mr. Hauss said staff has had numerous meetings with the bike group regarding 9th/100th as well as many other bike projects. The bike group initially suggested the 9th/100th bike lane a couple years ago. Councilmember Johnson referred to the $625,000 Waterfront At -Grade Crossing Study of which $25,000 is provided by the Port, $500,000 from the State and $100,000 local match and the time period is 2016- 2017. Related to that project is $300,000 in 2016 for a trackside warning system. She preferred the Waterfront At -Grade Crossing Study be completed before implementing the trackside warning system which would only delay it a year. Councilmember Johnson observed typically TIP projects take years to be completed. The very quick implementation of the trackside warning system is unusual. Mr. Williams explained there are contractors who install them all over United States; it is a cookie cutter approach and not a particularly complicated design. Following an RFQ/P process, staff interviewed three teams today and will be recommending selection in the next week. He did not agree the trackside warning system was in conflict or would be contraindicated based on the results of the alternatives analysis. Whatever projects come from the At - Grade Crossing Study likely will take a long time to develop and great benefit could be realized from the wayside warning system in the meantime. Councilmember Johnson responded the $300,000 commitment from the City from the General Fund or Fund 112 could be used for other projects. To her it was a question of priorities and who makes that decision. Mr. Williams said the next touchpoint for the Council would be approval of the contract which identifies costs and timing. Taking the project off the list before that information is available may be premature. Mayor Earling said citizens frequently contact the City looking forward to installation of wayside horns. He hoped to keep that separate from the alternatives analysis. Councilmember Johnson said citizens also contact the City about pedestrian improvements to access Seaview Elementary and other missing links. She summarized this is a key question of priorities for the City Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for retaining the full amount for Sunset Avenue in the TIP because the extent of the project is not yet known and it would be short-sighted to reduce the amount. She asked whether any other north -sound connections for bike lanes that do not go through neighborhoods had been considered. Mr. Hauss said 9th/100th is the most direct route between Edmonds and Shoreline. He identified an alternative route north of the cemetery on 226th and 15th; the route on 9th/100th from 238th to the cemetery is .75 mile and the route through the neighborhood is 1.5 miles. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the alternative route was on 2-lane residential streets. Mr. Hauss said bike improvements on residential streets would likely be sharrows and bike route signage as there is not space available for a bike lane due to parking. Council President Fraley-Monillas was not interested in having bike lanes in residential areas, envisioning that would create disaster. Mr. Hauss identified other possible alternatives that were less direct than 9th/100th Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Peter Hallson, Edmonds, said he is an avid cyclist, Co-chair of the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group (EBAG), a member of the Cascade Bike Club, a ride leader, and is responsible for safety training and tracking for the Club. He explained the EBAG worked closely with Mr. Hauss for a number of years defining safe and usable bike routes in the City and recommended bike -related facilities in the TIP that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 8 have been updated over the past year. The facilities in the plan are not just theoretical, but have been tested and accommodate commuters and recreational riders traveling in all directions. A good example is 9th/100th; it is a well-defined, busy bicycle route, a destination route through Edmonds from Shoreline to Meadowdale and points north. He supported cyclists having a way to get there in an efficient manner, considering time, distance and safety. The 9th/100th route is one of many that resulted from a study of all the routes in the area. Bike -Link, funded by Verdant over the next three years, will provide bike connections between Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds, enhancing the ability for cyclists to travel with confidence and safety to a number of important destinations. He recommended approval of TIP as presented, specifically the bicycle routes. He relayed a saying from Cascade daily rides, "act like a car," noting bicyclists fare best when they act and are treated like drivers of vehicles. Don Feine, Edmonds, member of the EBAG and the Transportation Committee for the Transportation Master Plan, voiced his support for the TIP as presented, noting staff extensively involved the Transportation Committee and EBAG. With regard to the 9th Avenue bike route, he developed the 2000 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan while employed by the City and 9th was identified at that time. It is signed as a regional bike route and is a regional link to Shoreline and into Edmonds. It is widely used, and he uses it himself. He was highly supportive of continuing to use 9th as a bike route and making it safer for bikes. Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, expressed support for the trackside warning system, explaining Edmonds has suffering with train noise for years; delaying it again would be a travesty. The train in Edmonds is very noisy particularly at night; $300,000 is not a lot of money when the City Council has not done anything about train noise for many years. She appreciated Councilmember Johnson's comments about sidewalks, pointing out existing sidewalks are often obstructed by overgrown vegetation. With regard to Sunset Avenue, she compared it to slowly boiling a frog; it was marked in the hope people would get used to it and slowly making people accept it. There are too many cars parked on Sunset particularly from the south end to the middle, cars often leave their engines running, and the road is very narrow. The path is too narrow for bicycles and should be wider but there is not enough street width. She hoped the Council would conclude it was a bad idea overall, the improvements are too expensive and it is a perfectly quiet street much of which the City does not own. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out the page numbers in the May 15 printing of the TIP did not match the TIP in tonight's packet, making them difficult to compare. He suggested stormwater improvements on Sunset Avenue be funded by the Stormwater Utility. He referred to safety projects at 238th, 84th, SR-104 access management, Hwy 99 access management and 228th, pointing out no safety improvements are planned for Edmonds Way/100th/Westgate even though collisions exceed 1.0 collisions/million vehicles. Page 344 indicates that intersection had 90 collisions or 1.4 collisions/million. He concluded the traffic at Westgate has not been effectively analyzed and it remains a problem. Next, he referred to the annual street overlay, pointing out there was no mention of using chip seal as a method. Snohomish County is doing chip seal in several municipalities but not in Edmonds. He recommended chip seal be included in the City's street preservation program. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public hearing. He advised approval of the TIP will be scheduled on next week's agenda. Councilmember Petso requested it be an agenda item for full Council and not on the Consent Agenda as she planned to propose some changes. Councilmember Bloom inquired about chip seal. Mr. Williams said there are no chip seal projects in 2015 as no appropriate locations were identified and staff is still evaluating how the three chip seal projects area holding up. There is no implied ceasing the use of chip seal in Edmonds; there just are none proposed in the 2015 preservation program. Mr. Hauss referred to the purpose of the Annual Street Preservation Program states grind pavement, overlay, chip seal and slurry seal. A variety of methods are used; there is no chip seal in the 2015 program but it not excluded as an option in future years. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 9 6A. APPOINTMENT TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD Council President Fraley-Monillas advised Council has reviewed three applications for the Tree Board after two Tree Board members resigned. A third member, Anna Heckman, resigned from the Tree Board this week, enabling Council to appoint all three applicants. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ALL THREE APPLICANTS TO THE TREE BOARD, BARBARA CHASE, ALBERT (JED) MARSHALL AND CRANE STAVIG. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she knew Ms. Chase and Mr. Stavig, they are members of the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club and are very knowledgeable about trees, flowers, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Mr. Marshall has applied for previous Tree Board vacancies and has special interest in the Tree Board. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW AND ACTION ON HEARING EXAMINER'S APPROVAL OF VARIANCE FOR 9/11 MEMORIAL (PLN20150017) Mayor Earling explained the purpose of this closed record hearing is for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner regarding the application of David Erickson on behalf of the Firefighters of Local 1828 and Snohomish County Fire District #1. The case number is PLN20150017, setback variance. Tonight's hearing follows a Type III-B process where the Hearing Examiner forwards a recommendation to the City Council for final decision. Unlike the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, participation in tonight's hearing is limited to parties of record (POR). POR include the applicant, any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application and any person who individually submitted written comment regarding the application at the open record public hearing. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires this hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance; the hearing must not only be fair but also must appear to be fair. Mayor Earling asked whether any member of the decision -making body had engaged in any oral or written communication with the opponents or proponents of the project outside of the presence of the other party. Councilmember Johnson said she was aware of the fundraising efforts and had attended 9/11 memorial events in the past. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has no conflicts. Councilmember Bloom said she has no conflicts. Councilmember Nelson said he has no conflict and no contact with anyone working on this project. Councilmember Petso said the only contact she has had was a short email from Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite today. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has had no contact but attended a ceremony when the beam was brought to Edmonds. Mayor Earling said he has no conflict but also attended the ceremony where the steel beam was presented. Mayor Earling asked whether any member of Council had a conflict of interest or was unable to consider the matter in fair and objective manner. Council President Fraley-Monillas, Councilmembers Nelson, Bloom, Buckshnis, Petso and Johnson, and Mayor Earling said they were able to hear the matter in a fair and objective manner. Mayor Earling asked if anyone in the audience objected to his or any Councilmember's participation as a decision maker in the hearing. No objections were voiced. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 10 Mayor Earling asked the Council whether they agreed to the following procedure: five minute introduction by staff, five minutes for oral argument by the applicant followed by questions of staff and/or the applicant. No other parties spoke before the hearing examiner. Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Sean Conrad, Associate Planner, who has been employed by the City for approximately a year. Mr. Conrad explained the reason the variance request was before the Council was because the applicant is public agency. Typically variances are considered by the Hearing Examiner; in this case, Snohomish County Fire District #1 is requiring a zoning variance for setback to allow installation of a 9/11 memorial monument. Per the code, when a public agency requests a zoning variance, it goes to the Hearing Examiner for recommendation and to the City Council for consideration. He displayed a vicinity map, stating the project site was approximately 500 feet north of Council Chambers at the Fallen Firefighter Memorial Park at 6th Avenue N & Sprague Street. He displayed a zoning map, explaining the park site is zoned Public Use which requires a 20-foot structure setback from streets. With those setbacks from Sprague and 6th Avenue N, a variance is needed to accommodate installation of the memorial. He displayed an aerial view of the park, identifying the approximate location of the 9/11 memorial monument and an existing memorial sculpture honoring Captain Bill Angel that will be moved slightly to the east to accommodate the installation of the 9/11 memorial. He provided a photograph of the park looking south. He displayed a site plan showing the approximate location of the 9/11 memorial monument located between Sprague Street and the parking lot and slightly within the 20-foot setbacks. He displayed a model rendering of the 9/11 memorial monument, advising it is approximately 9 feet in height, well within the height restrictions of the Public Use zone. The lighting associated with the memorial is within the standards of the zone. Mr. Conrad provided an aerial photo of the park identifying the 20-foot setback which consume approximately 90% of the park. A small area of the park is outside the setbacks but approval of the installation of the memorial monument required it be moved slightly within the 20-foot setback on Sprague Street. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on May 28, 2015. The applicant spoke in favor. The Planning Department received no comments. The Hearing Examiner recommended approval with conditions: 1. The installation of the 9/11 Memorial monument, relocation of the existing sculpture honoring Captain Bill Angel, landscaping and lighting shall substantially comply with the plans submitted with this application. 2. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to installing the monument. • Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. Applicant is encouraged, wherever feasible, to incorporate pervious pavements, rain gardens and/or other low impact development techniques into the project design. • The location of the monument shall be in accordance with Edmonds City Code, 9.25, Street Obstruction and located such that the existing City utilities may be maintained, repaired, and operated. Applicant Dave Erickson, a firefighter in Edmonds for 25 years, noted there have been variances granted in the past and he did not envision this artifact would be an exception. Three items that exceed three feet (the definition of a structure) have been located in park, the first a totem pole that was subsequently removed due to decay. Following removal of the totem pole, the Fire Department created a Fallen Firefighter Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 11 Memorial Park in the location and a monument honoring fallen Fire Captain Bill Angel was erected. Mr. Erickson said the park, approximately the size of the open area in front of the Council dais, also includes a fallen firefighter flagpole that honors firefighters who have died in the line of duty and flies at half-staff for three days for every firefighter that passed in America. The third item proposed to be located in the park is the 9/11 memorial monument. The artifact proposed to be included in the monument is a one -ton steel beam recovered from ground zero of the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001. Snohomish County Fire District 1 was fortunate to obtain it following a lengthy process; only 1,117 items were released from the Port Authority of New York to be used in memorials around the United States. The Port Authority had a number of contingencies for siting including no private ownership of the artifact at any time, free and constant access by the public 24 hours a day and no tax dollars used as a funding source for construction of the memorial. All the funds for the memorial are private donations. The fund raising portion of the project has been completed and the construction process is beginning. Fire District 1 had reserved the item and was looking for a suitable site shortly after the merger with Edmonds. He knew of an outstanding site, Edmonds' existing Fallen Firefighter Memorial Park in front of Fire Station 17 that already honors fallen firefighters. The 9/11 memorial monument will honor the nearly 3,000 people who perished that day including 343 firefighters, 60 police officers and over 2,500 citizens. Many have not had an opportunity go to ground zero and it was important to bring a piece of the building to Edmonds to allow people to find solace in the very powerful and emotional piece. He was honored to have it in Edmonds and looked forward to its installation. He endorsed the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and urged the Council's approval of the variance. There were no Council questions. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE 9/11 MEMORIAL. MOTION CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling asked when the Findings of Fact would be available for Council approval. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said his interpretation of the motion was the City Council approved the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for the variance exactly as recommended, it was debatable that findings were needed. Because the Council normally adopts finding, he will have them prepared for approval on next week's Consent Agenda. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 9. REVIEW OF DRAFT 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE WITH REVISIONS Development Services Director Shane Hope explained under State GMA, most cities and counties must complete a major review and update of their Comprehensive Plan at least every eight years. The current deadline is June 30, 2015. She commented on the public process that has occurred as part of the update and the update schedule that included review and several public meetings on each element. Several questions arose at the Council's last review on June 23: • Why was phrase "commercial" or mixed use" removed from description of development compatible with Edmonds Crossing project? Not clear on original reason, probably just didn't seem necessary. If City Council wants to either reinsert the language or leave as is, no problem. • If above phrase removed, can remaining part of the Unocal hillside property be entirely multi- family (rather than mixed use)? No, Edmonds zoning does not allow it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 12 Suggestion to change the annual performance measure of utilities element (Lineal feet of old water, sewer and stormwater mains replace or rehabilitated). Public Works Department has confirmed this is good overall utilities performance measure. Ms. Hope reviewed minor changes made to the draft Comprehensive Plan since June 23 based on Council questions: • Refined land use data and made adjustment to text. See page 8 and figures 9 and 11 of Exhibit A (or Exhibit A packet pages 18, 49 and 51) o New figure for park acreage (using new calculation method to be closer to that used in the PROS Plan) o New figure for commercial acreage to include districts in which commercial is specifically allowed or required • Updated and streamlined Edmonds Crossing narrative o See pages 16, 44, 47 and 49-54 of Exhibit A (or Exhibit A packet pages 25, 54, 57 and 59-64) Note: A new drawing has been included because the existing one is from the Environmental Impact Statement and is the best we have for now. • Added brief "Implementation Action Performance Measure" subsection to General section o Page 17-18 of Exhibit A (or Exhibit A packet pages 27-28 of 222) Note: information on adopted measures will be reviewed annually with City Council as part of process • Took pertinent information from Stevens Memorial Master Plan (1994) and placed in Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center narrative, Goal E o See page 61 of Exhibit A or packet page 71 of 222) • Added Edmonds Urban Growth Area Map (a previous feature of Comprehensive Plan but not included in the last update) o See page 83 of Exhibit A (or packet page 98 of 222) • Minor change to Utilities Element on page 134 of Exhibit A (or Exhibit A packet page 144 of 222) o Solid Waste Goal D: Continue to investigate policies for a Zero Waste Strategy, applicable to City operations ■ D.1 Pursue and implement strategies to eliminate or reduce waste and pollution in the production and lifecycle of materials ■ D.2 Consider action plans and measure that encourage residents, businesses, and agencies to use, reuse, and recycle materials judiciously. ■ D.3 Eliminate or reduce use of hazardous materials in City operations ■ DA Take a leadership role in reducing waste for City operations and events • Minor updates to CFP o Arts Center/Museum — listed cost as "unknown" ■ This needs to be changed in one or more place (heading) o Boys & Girls Club — changed to "Work with the nonprofit to assist in accommodating the growth and changing needs of the club." The cost changed to "unknown" o Senior Center — narrative revised on first page, removed reference about rebuilding the center o Minor revision yet to be made: slight rewording of capital facilities performance measure to say: "Project delivery results — based on comparing projects in the Capital Facilities Plan to what was actually done on the projects." • Updated Transportation Element (Exhibit B) o Minor adjustment to project costs, including addition of projects identified I SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis o Minor edits to figures and tables o Indicated that the proposed bicycle improvements along 9th Ave/l00th Ave are subject to further analysis (before final determination made) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 13 o Added reallocation of REET Funds to Transportation projects as possible funding option Appendices will include: • Streetscape Plan (2006) • Street Tree Plan(2015) including minor updates to tree species list o Several poor performing species were removed from list and replaced with other species (as discussed by Tree Board, etc.) o Could be further revised to reflect latest comments from Tree Board Member ■ Remove more tree species ■ Add new tree species ■ Clarify planting instructions o Or wait until more complete update of Street Tree Plan in 2016 Ms. Hope reviewed the latest Street Tree Plan suggestions (not currently incorporated but could be) • Remove following tree species: o Amur maple, ash, grafted Japanese cherry trees, little leaf liden, Keith Warren hybrid maples, Raywood ash, Norway maple, European beech • Add following trees: o Adirondack crab apple (in place of cherries) o Silver linden (in place of little leaf linden) o Golden rain (in place of ash) o Freeman maple (where adequate overhead space) o Windmill palms (in tight areas) • Clarification for planting instructions o Use same soil throughout root area with no pockets or zones of different material Documents proposed for adoption by reference: 1. Community Cultural Plan (2014 2. Pros Plan (2014) Note: Stevens Memorial Hospital Plan is removed because key content has been placed directly into Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. In existing Comprehensive Plan, 20 plans are adopted by reference. Ms. Hope explained the Comprehensive Plan originally was to be considered for adoption tonight; due to the changes, a request has been made to postpone adoption until July 21. Councilmember Bloom referred to her earlier question about mixed use versus mix of uses, acknowledging she has been told by Mr. Taraday and Ms. Hope that the terms are interchangeable. She recalled when working on the Harbor Square Master Plan a citizen who said the Council was breaking the law by not enforcing the Comprehensive Plan; their reference was the area was appropriate for a design driven Master Plan with a mix of uses. She requested defining mix of uses and mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan to be clear what is meant and suggested the definition of mix of uses as any commercial use or any use that does not include residential, and mixed use as residential above first story commercial. She was concerned with leaving it open to interpretation. Ms. Hope was cautious about narrowing mixed use to mean only one thing in the Comprehensive Plan because it may affect other areas. Currently mixed use and mix of uses means a combination of at least two different uses; it can be vertical in the same building, on different properties or parts of properties. She was concerned defining it in the Comprehensive Plan may unintentionally limit other things. If the concern was in a particular small part of the City, Mr. Taraday suggested insert a phrase in the description of that area rather than defining the term. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 14 Councilmember Bloom said her concern is with the waterfront and downtown area. When the Council voted against the Harbor Square Master Plan, they were essentially voting against residential and commercial mixed use and the area is zoned General Commercial. She was concerned with lumping multiple areas together in the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center, noting the City has not gotten final approval of the Shoreline Master Plan, there are issues related to the Unocal property, etc. She was concerned with leaving it open to interpretation. She asked whether the waterfront area could be separated out and addressed in more detail when there was clarity about Edmonds Crossing. Planning Manager Rob Chave referred to page 57-58 regarding various districts and suggested including more detail in that description rather than a definition. Councilmember Bloom asked which district description would need to be changed. Mr. Chave said if the concern was Harbor Square, that area is described under Master Plan Development on page 58. A phrase could be inserted in that district description. Councilmember Petso recalled when the changes for Westgate were approved, she was concerned the zoning map was not consistent with Comprehensive Plan map. The Westgate changes moved ahead because it would have required a separate Comprehensive Plan amendment which proponents of the Westgate plan were unwilling to wait for. It was her understanding the changes would be made with the Comprehensive Plan rewrite; however the map has not yet been changed. Ms. Hope said her focus with the update has been on the language in the Comprehensive Plan and the description of the Westgate and not on the map. In talking with staff, it was realized the zoning of two properties at the south edge of Westgate were General Commercial but they were designated otherwise in the Comprehensive Plan. It would be ideal to adjust map but she was uncertain whether more public process would be needed for a map change that had not previously been discussed. There are two options, 1) before Council adoption research whether that could be done as a matter of course, or 2) accomplish that in the next update. Councilmember Buckshnis commended staff for a great job on the update and thanked staff for incorporating the hospital information. She referred to Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Goal C 1 which refers to mixed use development but El refers mix of uses. Ms. Hope reiterated the terms mixed use and mix of uses are used interchangeably. Councilmember Buckshnis said the update of the Comprehensive Plan reads very well. Councilmember Johnson said she was ready to approve the update and looked forward to the final product. She requested Councilmembers be provided a hard copy of the Comprehensive Plan that includes PROS Plan and Community Cultural Plan. Ms. Hope said she was happy to provide that to the Councilmembers who want it. Councilmember Bloom referred to the Comprehensive Plan designation map (page 38), and asked the designation of the downtown/waterfront area that is labeled pink with spots. Mr. Chave answered that is the upper and lower yard Unocal site, the Port, commercial and condominium area, and Salish Crossing. It is designated Master Plan Development. If there was interest in specific language for a particularly area, the area would need to be specified or the language would apply to the entire designation. Councilmember Bloom asked about the green area and dark pink area. Mr. Chave answered the green is park and the marsh and the dark pink is Downtown Master Plan. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the zoning of the area labeled pink with spots. Mr. Chave answered MP 1 and 2 on the Unocal property. MP1 is where the condominiums are; MP2 is the lower yard, potentially Edmonds Crossing. MP2 does not allow entirely residential; it must be commercial or mixed use. Councilmember Bloom recalled WSDOT saying they did not need residential, they only needed commercial. That property is current in escrow and is being cleaned up by Unocal. Mr. Chave said the MP2 zone is reserved for Edmonds Crossing but in the event Edmonds Crossing did not happen, it would Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 15 revert to a mixed use scheme. Before it could be developed mixed use, a declaration would need to be made that Edmonds Crossing was not going to happen. Councilmember Bloom asked if developing that property mixed use was consistent with the SMP. Mr. Chave did not recall the Shoreline designation but believed it was. He summarized the zoning is MP and 2 on the Unocal site, across the railroad tracks to the west on the Port property is zoned Commercial Waterfront. Councilmember Bloom observed the SMP is in process. She asked whether the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended if there were any changes such as in response to the Port's challenge of the setbacks from the Marsh. Mr. Chave answered the SMP is part of the Comprehensive Plan. After the SMP is ultimately approved, staff will review other regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and highlight any inconsistencies. Councilmember Bloom asked when the City's SMP will be approved. Mr. Chave answered Ecology's review is underway. With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis' comment about mixed use and mix of uses in the hospital district, Councilmember Bloom suggested defining mixed use as mixed use within a building with residential and mix of uses as within an area. Mr. Chave answered that would be problematic as the terms are used interchangeably. The entire Land Use Element would need to be reviewed and a differentiation made between the two terms. He recalled in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, mixed use does not have to be a single building but it can be arranged in different buildings such as a campus. Downtown is different in that generally buildings are vertical mixed use although not exclusively. He feared defining terms in an exclusive way would result in unexpected results. He suggested descriptive language targeted for specific areas. Mayor Earling advised the Comprehensive Plan update will be scheduled on the July 21, 2015 Council agenda for action. 10. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled there have been numerous discussions regarding this issue and numerous opinions. Councilmember Johnson relayed she contacted each director last week to determine their preference regarding study session versus committee. All the directors preferred the current study session, including Police Chief Compaan, Finance Director Scott James, Development Services Director Shane Hope, Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty, Public Works Director Phil Williams and Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite. She also contacted Mayor Earling and the City Clerk; they both prefer the study session format. The reasons given include the openness and transparency in the decision -making process, opportunity for twice a month study session instead of once a month, everyone hears the same information at the same time, and study sessions have a better success rate for Consent Agenda approval. She noted there were also a number of recommendations for improving study sessions. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has had many discussions with citizens. She displayed several folders of documents representing hundreds of hours she and the City have spent on legal issues, financial issues and Finance Directors. She noted the finance committee meetings were audio taped. She preferred to have study sessions because the meetings were videoed. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented on the openness and transparency of Councilmembers and citizens hearing things at the same time. She could not support returning to committees meeting in separate rooms and isolating Councilmembers from citizens. The past six months have made her a better Councilmember because she is able to hear what is happening in all areas. Previously, there were separate Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 16 Finance, Public Services & Human Resources and Parks, Planning & Public Works committees and Councilmembers were only able to attend one. She acknowledged there were problems with study sessions; she agreed with Mr. Witenberg's suggested improvements such as returning to the dais due to difficulties with microphones, staff presentations at podium, grouping topics together, asking questions before the meeting, and round-robin questions. She commented in the current structure, often one Councilmember asks multiple questions which does not give other Councilmembers the ability to participate. She summarized the most important aspect of study sessions is transparency because they are televised. Councilmember Petso recognized it appeared the Council was not changing back to committees. She pointed out once committee meetings were recorded, they were fairly transparent, particularly since the recordings could have been posted on the City's website. If the Council continues with study sessions, she asked for a greater commitment to ensuring Council has lead time; that items are not scheduled on the Consent Agenda until they have been reviewed by Council. She observed there was a tendency by one department to decide an item is not important enough for a televised presentation and review by all Councilmembers and schedule it directly on the Consent Agenda. When that happens, it reduces the Council and public to 3-4 days' notice of an item. She requested Council be provided short presentations on the financial report, pointing out the financial report on tonight's Consent Agenda went straight to Consent which is less transparent because there was no committee or Council discussion. She said one of the benefits of committees was lead time. If things are not important enough for full Council and they are scheduled directly on the Consent Agenda, that lead time is eliminated. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Petso's suggestion regarding lead time. She acknowledged it was difficult to track what has been presented in a study session and how long ago. She said that would require items always be presented at a study session before scheduling it on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with losing one of the ways citizens who were not comfortable speaking at podium had to communicate with Councilmembers; the City does not have many ways for citizens to communicate. She suggested the Council consider how they can increase the ability to have a two-way conversations with citizens; that is the key to transparency, not being on camera. All the ways she has suggested to have two-way conversations with citizens, such as a Council blog, have been declined. Committees were the only way where on occasion there could be two-way conversation in a more intimate setting with people who were interested in a particular issue and may not be comfortable on camera speaking at the podium. Councilmember Bloom said Councilmembers have tried having Town Hall meetings. She did one on Westgate and the only support she had was from the Council's Executive Assistant. The Council does not have staff support for Town Hall meetings; Mayor Earling has staff support for his Town Hall meetings but it was her understanding those were not two-way conversations. Some Councilmembers are not comfortable with two-way conversation at committee meetings; she was very comfortable with it. She recalled in previous discussions about study sessions versus committee meetings, staff said it provided an opportunity for uncivil conversations and behavior. She recalled Councilmember Johnson referencing improper behavior. She said what one person feels is uncivil or improper, another may see as robust conversation. She planned to vote against changing to study sessions because of the loss of something very significant without anything to replace it. She felt framing it as more transparent was disingenuous because it ultimately eliminated a way to communicate with citizens. Council President Fraley-Monillas said committee meetings were set up to be meetings between two Councilmembers and staff; they were not intended to be an opportunity for involvement with citizens. With regard to Town Hall meetings, Councilmember Buckshnis and she organized and held five with no staff support. Councilmember have the option to hold a Town Hall meeting any time they want to. With Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 17 regard to two-way conversations, she agreed it was difficult to get input from more than a handful of people. Citizens have many ways to interact with Councilmembers; she receives emails, phone calls, has coffee with citizens, attends functions where citizens ask her questions, and is invited to speak and answer questions. She assured there were opportunities for communication; committees were never intended to be a way for citizens to express their views. She summarize the ability to listen to a taped meeting was not as transparent as seeing the Council on television and hearing the debate. Councilmember Nelson preferred Councilmembers hear information at the same time. He was troubled there was a debate about what had occurred under the previous format. He agreed there was room for improvements with the study session format but having everyone in same room, hearing the same information and discussing it together was important. He agreed with asking questions round robin so that there could be more discussion. He suggested a quarterly joint Council Town Hall where Councilmembers could engage with citizens. Councilmember Buckshnis said she always answers her phone and she hears from citizens. She referred to the audio tape of a Finance Committee meeting two years ago where a $5.2 million receivable was removed from the City's books without the Council's knowledge; that would not have happened if it occurred at a videotaped Council meeting. She agreed with returning to study sessions. Councilmember Johnson summarized the recommendations for improvements from directors that had not been mentioned previously: • Shorter agendas and shorter meetings • Better equipment for visual presentation • Return to dais for better sound system • Routine items go straight to Consent with good written staff report but not an advance presentation Councilmember Johnson said she liked study sessions and would like to continue that format. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO FORMALLY MOVE STUDY SESSIONS TO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. Council President Fraley-Monillas said there has been criticism in the past few months that the Council study sessions were against the code. She preferred to formalize the process by amending the code. Mr. Taraday asked whether the intent was to formalize study sessions by amending the code. Council President Fraley-Monillas said that was the intent of her motion. Mr. Taraday asked whether all meetings would start at 7:00 p.m. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed Councilmembers were nodding yes. If the motion passes, Council President Fraley-Monillas requested Councilmembers send her their issues so they can be addressed. With regard to routine items going straight to the Consent Agenda, Councilmember Petso recalled that has been a very dangerous practice in past. For example, a bond issue that was approved on the Consent Agenda has caused the City numerous troubles. She suggest developing some kind of pre -Consent process so that the public and Councilmembers have a week and a half notice of items that go straight to Consent such as a page on the website where the Consent Agenda is posted in advance. If a Councilmember did not view an item as appropriate for the Consent Agenda or would like a presentation, a presentation could be requested. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 18 Council President Fraley-Monillas said it was not her intent for issues to go straight to Consent. The Council's preference has been to have issues discussed at a study session prior to a business meeting. She suggested she and Councilmembers Petso and Johnson flush the study session format out after she receives input from the rest of the Council. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. Councilmember Petso said she will participate on the committee Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested. However, this was exactly why committees were needed; instead of inventing committee on the fly, the matter could have gone to committee. 10A. EDMONDS CONFERENCE CENTER PURCHASE DISCUSSION Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that following the City's $300,000 bid, the State received a bid for $2.4 million from North Sound Church, a bid of $1.2 million from another church and another bid from a private individual. In her conversation with Stephanie Fuller, State Department of Enterprise Services, Ms. Fuller questioned why the State would sell the building to the City when the City's offer was only $300,000 and the City planned to tear the building down. Councilmember Bloom relayed to Ms. Fuller that the City was told the building was not worth anything and that the repairs exceeded the value of the building. Ms. Fuller said that was not accurate; the repairs were much lower than were estimated. Councilmember Bloom commented the Council based its bid on a repair estimate that apparently is much higher than is accurate. Her primary concern is Ms. Anttila brought this to the Council's attention in January and the Council finally made a bid in June. This property was known to be available by others in October. She was concerned the Council had not had a public process related to the purchase, no input from citizens regarding how the property could be used, and the bid was based on information that more than likely was inaccurate. The Council owes it to the public to increase its bid to $1 million to at least extend it enough for the State to consider it a viable bid and give the public an opportunity to comment and be involved in deciding whether it was a good public use. Councilmember Bloom said she has serious concern about a church purchasing the property; churches do not pay taxes and there will be no economic benefit of a church taking over this key property in the middle of downtown. A former Council had an opportunity to acquire the property for free. This is a valuable, key property in the Edmonds arts corridor but citizens have not been allowed to provide input regarding how it could be used. The Council has not held a public hearing, yet the property has been available since October 2014. Her primary concern was the lack of a public process. If the Council submits an offer of $1 million, obviously the City would not be able to purchase it for $1 million if the church is offering $2.4 million but it would extend the time to discuss offering more and the State has the offsets to consider. Councilmember Petso commented the Council generally discusses price in executive session. If the Council has that discussion now or next week, is it still an executive session matter or is it okay to discuss in open session. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained property acquisition is discussed in executive session when public knowledge of the price the City is willing to pay was likely to result in an increased price. He did not know the Council's top number; that was the type of thing that should be discussed in executive session. Given that the bids of $2,4 million, $1.2 million and $1 million have been made public, the Council could have a general discussion about whether they are interested in that ballpark without settling on a specific number. It may be that that discussion will come to a quick resolution and there is no need for an executive session. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 19 Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding of Mr. Taraday's explanation if the Council wanted to discuss a different price, an executive session would be appropriate for that topic but the Council was not necessarily the breaking law discussing it in open session. Mr. Taraday said any subsequent or higher offer the Council directed staff to make would almost immediately be made a matter of public record once it was submitted to the State. In this instance, there may be little reason to have continued discussion in executive session. Councilmember Petso said she heard tonight the City has until July 15 to revise its offer. Mr. Taraday said the State indicated last week they would be willing to wait until then to see if the City was willing to "get in the game." Councilmember Petso said she did not recall being told that. Mr. Taraday said if she was told, it would have been confidentially; he was uncertain how the citizen found out. Councilmember Petso requested the Council discuss this at the July 14 meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was always of the opinion that the building did have some value but the Council did not have a goal for the building. There have been comments in My Edmonds News and she has received emails and phone calls; Ms. Anttilla suggested using it as a central park. She pointed out there will be a beautiful Veterans Plaza two blocks from the 4th Avenue corridor and the 9/11 memorial will be located in another plaza. She preferred to stop talking about the Edmonds Conference Center in light of the upcoming senior center/community center, Veterans Plaza, Fallen Firefighters Memorial Park as well as the Museum plaza in that area. The City does not need an aged building or even a new park among its assets. Her main goal was purchasing civic fields, a cost of $1 million, which would be beneficial to everyone and does not require any demolition. Councilmember Bloom remarked there were a lot of ideas tossed around about how the property could be used. If a church purchases the property, there is no opportunity for economic development. She envisioned a different pool of money could be accessed to purchase the building versus the civic fields because it is not open space. The people she talked to are interested in purchasing the property for a variety of purposes. Purchasing the building, tearing it down and making the property into a park was only one idea; other ideas included a parking lot, using the building as a business incubator or for ArtWorks, in a cooperative relationship with Edmonds Center for the Arts or as a conference center. She strongly believed the Council owed it to the public to have a conversation about it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND MEETING TO 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed Councilmember Mesaros contacted her and said he was not interested in putting any more money into this beyond the bid the City submitted. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she had difficulty justifying that level of spending for a building in the middle of a residential area with a tall apartment on one side. She did not see the value of the building compared to many other areas of Edmonds. She agreed with Councilmember Mesaros that it would be a good buy to potentially use the property for other things 10-15 year in the future when the City may have the money to develop something there. She anticipated the City would need to spend over $2 million to purchase the building. She asked about the City have the first right to purchase the building. Mr. Taraday said the State's notice and policy state a governmental agency like Edmonds would be entitled to some priority upon disposition of the property. In a conference call he and Mr. Doherty had with the State last week regarding that prioritization, the State essentially said that was an internal policy, not legally binding and they would sell the property to the highest bidder. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the current highest bid is $2.4 million with an escalator to $2.8 million. Mr. Taraday agreed, anticipating $2.4 would be the sale price as there was currently no other offer near $2.4 million. If the City wanted to compete with the church that offered $2.4 million, the City may theoretically need to bid up to $2.8 million to outbid them. Council President Fraley-Monillas Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 20 inquired about an escalator. Mr. Taraday explained an escalator is a clause a purchaser puts in the contract indicating that even though their offer is X, they are willing to pay X plus some amount to outbid another bidder. Councilmember Petso reiterated her request that this be scheduled on the next week's agenda. She was uncertain she had been informed the Council had until July 15 to revise its offer and did not want to foreclose that possibility via a discussion tonight that was not even on the agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO BRING THIS BACK AS A DISCUSSION ITEM NEXT WEEK. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2); COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON, NELSON AND PETSO VOTING YES, AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS VOTING NO. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported the legislature sort of adjourned this week; some outstanding issues still need to be resolved. He listed the funds the City received: • $500,000 for the At -Grade Waterfront Crossing Study • Approximately $15 million in projects including $10 million for Highway 99 enhancements • $2.8 million for parks projects that could include the purchase of civic playfield as well as repair of the fishing pier • $250,000 to repair the leaking ECA roof • $1.25 million for a new senior/community center • Over $600,000 for stormwater improvements in north Edmonds Mayor Earling recognized the extraordinary effort by local legislators, staff, Councilmembers, and himself. He planned to author a column that will be published Thursday regarding the projects funded by the legislature. Mayor Earling reported the legislature authorized Community Transit to seek voter approval of a 3/10th increase for extended transit service. The Community Transit Board's July 16 meeting will include consideration of a ballot measure. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed the budget approved by the legislature includes a number of good things for Edmonds. In response to comments by Ms. Anttila, she acknowledged she did not feel it was inappropriate for the Council to hold Town Hall meetings on one issue. In the six years she has been on the Council, dozens of issues have arisen that are of great concern to citizens. Council communication with citizens has included live testimony at Council meetings, emails, phone calls as well as individual meetings. The Council has never held Town Hall meetings on individual issues. Council has the ability to vote whatever way they wish; no one person has the ability to say whether something will not occur. If a Councilmember makes a motion to do something, the Council votes and with four affirmative votes, a matter can proceed. It does not matter what the Council President wants to do; the Council makes that decision. Councilmember Nelson thanked the Chamber of Commerce for a wonderful 4th of July parade and City staff who worked on the parade route and providing street closures as well as all the volunteers. It was a wonderful celebration of the United States' independence. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 21 Councilmember Bloom advised she has made a formal request for the Council to discuss the crumb rubber fields on the former Woodway High School where three school programs operate. She looked forward to hearing from Mr. Taraday regarding that and hoped it could be scheduled on the agenda soon. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Nelson's comments; it was a great parade. She thanked staff, the Chamber and everyone involved. Councilmember Johnson reported there are a lot of events this week: • July 15 Marina Beach open house in the Plaza Room o Virtual open house available via the City's website July 9-21 • July 15 Planning Board meeting will consider the Critical Areas Ordinance • July 16 Mayor Earling's Town Hall meeting at the hospital • Sunday Concerts in the Park 3:00 PM, first concert Ballard Sedentary Sousa Band • July 16 Walk Back in Time at the Edmonds Cemetery at 1:00 p.m. 13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 10:15 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Action may 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, and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 10:27 p.m., Mayor Earling emerged from the Jury Meeting Room to announce that the executive session would be extended for approximately 15 minutes. The executive session concluded at 10:44 p.m. 14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:45 p.m. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE OFFER OF A FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS BROUGHT BY FINIS TUPPER UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AS SET FORTH IN THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY CAUSE NUMBER 15-2-02484-0 IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PAYMENT OF $50,269.25 AND DIRECT THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE FORMAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO BE DRAFTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 22