Loading...
2023-05-23 Regular MeetingEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES May 23, 2023 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Neil Tibbott, Council President Vivian Olson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Todd Tatum, Comm./Culture/Econ. Dev. Dir. David Levitan, Planning Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described the procedures for audience comments. Greg Goodman, Edmonds, spoke regarding speeding on the straightaway on Olympic View Drive between Olympic Avenue and Wharf Street. In the ten years he has lived there, traffic as well as the number of speeders have increased. Having officers with radar guns occasionally patrol the area does not deter speeding drivers anymore. He questioned next steps such as physical controls. His driveway backs out onto Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 1 Olympic View Drive and speeding both north and south bound especially on weekend nights is pretty wild. Although he feels blessed to live there, he does not want anyone to get hurt. The City has known speeding on Olympic View Drive has been an issue for some time; when he previously lived in the bowl and drove Olympic View Drive, there were always officers with radar guns there. The solar radar speed sign seems like a green light for people to test their speed. Peter Moon, Edmonds, spoke regarding speeding on Olympic View Drive between Olympic Avenue and Wharf Street. He recalled speaking to council previously, explaining he applied for the traffic calming program. He gathered eight signatures but could get many more. He believed the area is being considered for the program as there are two rubber hoses in front of his house. He noted that is a good start, but it is antiquated technology and there are much more superior and inexpensive technologies that can be employed to determine the speed of traffic, when it happens and the type of traffic. He will share that information with the council in hopes it can be incorporated at minimal expense to further the study. He felt incremental progress is being made, acknowledging there was not a quick solution. He plans to attend council meetings every Tuesday when he is in town and bring in neighbors who also have concerns with the speed and volume of traffic on Olympic View Drive. They want to be polite and persistent and hopefully not a pain. He invited councilmembers to his home to sit and watch traffic. He has a speed monitor and plans to take pictures of vehicles speeding through the area and to demonstrate the volume of traffic, pedestrians, bicycles, delivery trucks, ferry users taking the back road, etc. He is also developing a website and enlisting the support of his neighbors. Marlin Phelps, Marysville, commented when he was driving 70 mph between Tacoma and Marysville, he was passed 12 times by cars traveling at least 90 mph. With less police, people get to drive faster. It is not the City's problem that people are driving fast. He referred to the small town of Bannack, Montana, 10- hours from Edmonds, where 150 years ago a charismatic grifter got himself appointed sheriff and used his authority as sheriff and his knowledge of the stagecoach's schedule to tell his highway men when to steal gold. They shot two of his men, and the civic leaders hung Sheriff Plummer because they had to. He said the City's Sheriff Plummer, Robert Barker, orchestrated the murder of Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Wales who was shot four times while sitting in his Queen Anne home. His murderer was part of Edmonds Police force and he can prove it, all he needs is the power of asking the question. Jay Grant, Edmonds, Port of Edmonds Commissioner and liaison to the City, commented 5t' Avenue coming into downtown is not the only place where speeding occurs. The Port as a municipal agency under Washington State rules is to support the city. Since 1948, the Port of Edmonds has generated considerable revenue that directly benefits the City via employment, leasehold taxes and sales taxes. He recently learned that when the state could not afford it, the Port of Edmonds floated bonds and built the Edmonds ferry dock until the state took it over by imminent domain in 1990. One of the greatest assets is the public access between the Port and City; nearly the entire waterfront is available to the public. He announced the Port's Executive Director Bob McChesney is retiring tomorrow. Mr. McChesney has had an outstanding 30 year career working for Port authorities, first in Everett, then the manager in Port Angeles and for the Port of Edmonds for the last 14 years. He expressed appreciation for Mr. McChesney's distinguished work for the community and hoped the council would wish him the best for his exemplary work and a good retirement. Teresa Shultz, Edmonds, referred to her recent emails to council, explaining she volunteered last year removing invasives in the marsh to help water flows. She found the work rewarding and wanted to continue, but had heard volunteers did not have permission to go into marsh. She was unaware of the politics and did not think the work should be political; she just wants to do what she can to save the marsh by offering free labor. There are many volunteers who enjoy the work, want to get back to doing it, and do not want to miss the window of opportunity which she understands is July 15 through September 15. She hoped whatever was going on could be resolved and the volunteers could return to working in the marsh. She did not want to look into her grandchildren's eyes and say she didn't do everything she possibly could to save the marsh Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 2 and did not think any of the electeds wanted to do that either. She urged the council to help the volunteers get back into the marsh. 6. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 2. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 3. PARKS, RECREATION & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT - 2023 Q1 ACCOMPLISHMENTS 4. ZONE REPRESENTATION ITEM STATUS 7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 2, 2023 2. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2023 3. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2023 4. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS 6. APPROVAL OF LAG AGREEMENT WITH KPG PSOMAS, INC. FOR THE MAIN ST OVERLAY PROJECT 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. ACTION ON PERMANENT ORDINANCE FOR DESIGN REVIEW PROCESSES AND BUILDING STEP BACKS IN THE CG ZONE TO REPLACE INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283 (AMD2022-0008) Senior Planner Mike Clugston reviewed: • Overview of planning board recommendation on CG step backs o Buildings 55' or less do not require step back o Buildings > 55' require 10-foot step back at 25' and 30-foot step back at 55' when adjacent to or across the street from RS zone o Planning Board felt this option was consistent with the Subarea Plan, provided certainty for builders, and would comply with HB 1293 • Overview of recommended design review processes 1. Projects > 75' in High Rise nodes a. Type III -A (ADB review) b. HB 1293 limits: max of one meeting; two-phase process to be phased out 2. Projects > 35' adjacent to or across the street from RS zone a. Type II -A (Staff Decision with public notice and public comments) 3. Projects < 35' adjacent/across street OR projects < 75' not adjacent a. Type I (Staff Decision with no public notice or public comments) • Council question during May 16 public hearing 1. Can/should the city expand the mailing radius for the Type II -A design review process from 300 feet to: a. 400 feet? b. 500 feet? 2. What types of notice are other cities providing? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 3 Analysis potential changes to noticing requirements o Currently — property owners w/in 300' receive mailed notice ■ Also include taxpayer addresses if different from property owner o Staff looked at several CG-zoned properties adjacent or across the street from RS-zoned properties, as well as a few RS-12 properties for reference o Expanding to 400' results in a —60% increase in noticed properties (from —50 properties to —80 properties) o Expanding to 500' results in a —100% increase in noticed properties (from —50 properties to —100 properties).... Options for Council o The draft ordinance includes language expanding the mailed notice requirement to 500' (packet pg. 196) o If the City Council is comfortable with this distance, should the 500' distance apply only for CG/RS projects or throughout the City? ■ Staff looked at noticing requirements for Type II/III applications in several cities ■ Most common requirement is 300', but some cities do require 500', including Shoreline/Woodinville (NOA and NOPH) and Mill Creek/Bothell (NOPH only) ■ Several cities don't require a mailing at NOA stage (so notice only required if a public hearing is required) o A reminder that public notice is also provided in Herald; at project site; at City Hall, Library, Public Safety Building; and on City website Deliberation and decision o Interim ordinance 4283 expires June 10, so action is needed this evening on the following topics: o Step backs o Design review process o Mailed notice (if desired by Council) ■ Could remove changes to noticing requirements and cover under a separate code amendment as part of the Code Modernization project Other Options o There was previous discussion of potentially requiring a neighborhood meeting either prior to or just after a design review application is submitted ■ City of Edmonds currently requires for just Planned Residential Developments ■ 8/11 of the cities looked at don't require neighborhood meetings ■ The other three required them for certain Type II/III projects (or at director's discretion) either before application submittal or soon after submittal Mr. Levitan noted the language for neighborhood meetings in the Planned Residential Development (PRD) section could be used, adding a note that it would only apply to projects subject to the Type IIA/IIIA review process. That could be incorporated into a motion to amend the ordinance to include that language. It was his understanding that Director McLaughlin had forwarded that information to Council President Tibbott or he could read it into the record. The only change would be if the council wanted to expand the mailed notice requirement, the PRD language would be changed from 300' to 500' as reflected in the version emailed to the council president. Councilmember Nand referred to statutorily required notices, commenting it was great there were notices in the Herald, at the project site, and City Hall. She asked why notices were not included in Edmonds -based news sources such as My Edmonds News (MEN) and the Edmonds Beacon. Mr. Levitan answered he did not know the legislative history related to when the Herald became the paper of record for the City, but that is codified. If the City wanted to include a requirement for notice in the Beacon or an online publication such as MEN, that would need to be incorporated into the code. He was unsure that could be done as part Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 4 of the interim ordinance, but it could potentially be explored as part of the larger code amendment process. Councilmember Nand commented while the Everett Herald may have a wider circulation, people in Edmonds tend to get their Edmonds -targeted news from those two sources. With regard to whether to expand notice to 500', Councilmember Nand said the angst she has heard from neighbors on the Highway 99 corridor is zoning changes were happening in the BD2 zone in the Edmonds Bowl at the same time as concern began surfacing with zoning changes in the CG zone and Highway 99. People wondered why there was a different level of handholding from the City based on the neighborhood. She asked if 500' is the notice radius in the BD zone and other zones in the Edmonds bowl and how to make the experience for community members in the Highway 99 corridor commensurate with community members in the Edmonds bowl when new projects are introduced to their neighborhoods. Mr. Levitan responded the current notice radius in the downtown zones is 300' for Type II and III land use applications. It is not that the mailing radius was larger, it was that the land use type for downtown zones was elevated to a Type III -A process subject to ABD review. Under the current interim ordinance, the CG zone is subject to a similar process that requires ADB review. If the mailed notice for design review applications within the CG zone is increased to 500', consideration could be given to expanding notice requirements for other Type II and III land use applications as of part of larger code amendment to make them consistent. Councilmember Nand said providing earlier and more comprehensive notice to the neighborhoods about projects and the ability to provide input will help defuse anger when residents do not know what is happening in their neighborhood. Mr. Levitan answered if the council provided direction to require a neighborhood meeting either specifically for Type II design review applications in the CG zone or as part of a larger code amendment for certain other land use application types, that would provide an opportunity for input before the applications is submitted. If a project is only subject to a Type II process, it does not go to the ADB and a neighborhood meeting, if required, could serve as the one meeting allowed under HB 1293. Councilmember Nand commented even though one meeting is allowed, could guidance be provided to encourage developers to have multiple meetings. Mr. Levitan answered when the code is amended to require a single phase public hearing before the ADB meeting for applications subject to Type III -A review, developers could also be encouraged to hold a neighborhood meeting to identify issues before they submit an application. Once HB 1293 becomes effective, the City could not require it because a neighborhood meeting and the ADB public hearing would be two separate meetings which would seem to conflict with HB 1293. Main Motion COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND RELATED PROCEDURES FOR CG ZONED PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONED PROPERTIES AND REPEALING INTERIM ORDINANCE 4283. Council President Tibbott expressed appreciation for the addition of 500' notification to the ordinance, commenting it was appropriate, primarily because larger developments in the CG zone impact a larger area than 300'. He expressed interest in hearing from other councilmembers about neighborhood meetings, indicating he will potentially make that amendment. Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the great work done by the ADB, the planning board, Mr. Clugston and Mr. Levitan. The ordinance as written is a good compromise, provides certainty for the developer, and provides some measure of a transition for single family residents living near a development. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 5 He also liked the 500' noticing radius requirement, because even though that is not a great distance, only about 1/10t1i mile, the council often hears residents say they did not know about a project. He favored providing more notice rather than less which this ordinance does. He expressed support for the motion. Councilmember Paine asked if this would be applied throughout the City, relaying her belief that all zones could benefit from additional noticing. She agreed with providing abundant notice which includes sending notice to the taxpayer because sometimes there are differences. She asked if notice is sent to people with post office boxes, commenting she uses a post office box and does not have a home mailing address. Mr. Levitan said whatever is in the Snohomish County property records would be used. There is language in the ordinance about sending notice to taxpayers as well. Mr. Clugston said the requirement is property owners, but several years ago the City began sending notice to taxpayer addresses if they differed from the property owner address. With regard to whether this applied to other areas of the City, Mr. Levitan said he did not believe that change could be made within Section 20.03 to apply to all land use applications because it would be outside the scope of the interim ordinance. That could be included as part of the code modernization project via a separate ordinance if there is support from the council to expand notice to 500' for any Type II/III. With regard to notice in the newspaper, Councilmember Olson said when she researched that in the past, state law required a newspaper that was circulated in paper, not digitally. She agreed with the assessment by Councilmember Nand and suggested lobbying state representatives to change that law. With regard to property owner versus resident, she appreciated that the approach had changed and hoped it would also be changed in the code update. She noticed in the packet a lot of language was added to change the requirement for 500' for special circumstance. She asked it would be possible as part of this ordinance to instead strike the line that was added in red and change 300' to 500' so it would apply to everything. Mr. Levitan read from packet page 196, Section 20.03.002.D "The owners of real property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property(ies) involved in the application (the distance is extended to 500 feet for Type II -A design review applications in the General Commercial zone). He asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday to weigh in on whether that is an option for projects not specifically related to the design review process for step backs within the CG zone. Deleting 300 feet in that sentence and replacing it with 500 feet and deleting the text in the parentheses would change the land use process for all zones and all Type II and III applications which would seem to be outside the scope of the interim ordinance. Mr. Taraday responded the question for him is whether or not D.2 on packet page 196 constitutes a development regulation. If it is a development regulation, it is required to go through a public participation process before amendment, a public hearing that usually occurs at the planning board level. It's clear there hasn't been any public participation process regarding a citywide change to 500'. What is unclear to him and there is no clear law regarding whether there is a substantive versus procedural distinction where the public participation requirement only applies to substantive development regulations versus merely procedural ones such as notice radius. He could not give a clean, clear, black and white answer; he was unsure law had been developed to make that distinction. Mr. Taraday continued, from his perspective it would make sense to make a distinction between procedural and substantive changes; cities generally look to their planning boards to weigh in on the substance of a zoning ordinance. If the council feels differently and wants the planning board to weigh in on both process and substance, clearly this process change has not been thoroughly vetted by the planning board. It is a question of how the council assesses the planning board's jurisdiction. Councilmember Olson wanted to ensure the City did not get into a gray zone. She was okay with waiting, but supported having the same notice requirement citywide. She expressed support for making that change in the future and support for the ordinance in the packet. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 6 Councilmember Chen expressed support for the motion to adopt the ordinance. He was interested in the option for a neighborhood meeting which provides an opportunity for residents to learn about potential development. He asked approximately how long that additional requirement would delay the process. Mr. Levitan answered it depends on the language in the ordinance. Some cities require a neighborhood meeting prior to application submittal which would delay the schedule a couple weeks. The language in the PRD code requires at least two weeks' notice in advance of the meeting and preparation of minutes that are mailed to attendees of the neighborhood meeting. He concluded it would potentially add about a month if the neighborhood meeting were held prior to application submittal. If the neighborhood meeting was required after determination of completeness of an application submittal, it would add 3-4 weeks to the process. Councilmember Chen commented that additional requirement would be beneficial for development adjacent to single family zoning, but suggested waiving the requirement for development on Highway 99 or SR-104 adjacent to another commercial building. Mr. Levitan said the language provided to Council President Tibbott references projects subject to Type II -A, adjacent or across the street up to 75' as well as Type III -A which are above 75' primarily on Highway 99 within the high rise nodes. If the council did not feel a neighborhood meeting was needed for projects on Highway 99, the reference to Type 111-A could be removed and it would only apply to projects subject to a Type 11-A design process. That would cover all projects adjacent or across the street from RS zones. Councilmember Chen agreed with striking the requirement for projects that are not adjacent or across the street from single family zones, but he was interested in hearing other councilmembers' thoughts. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her intent to propose an amendment to delete the language in red related to 500 feet for Type II -A design review applications; however, her understanding of Mr. Taraday's comment was the council could not blanketly say 500' without knowing the jurisdiction of the planning board and the zoning requirements. Mr. Taraday explained the City could be more clear about how it wanted to scope the planning board's jurisdiction. If the City wants the planning board to weigh in on regulations that are purely procedural, like this one regarding how many feet of notice to provide, then clearly the planning board has not had an opportunity to do that. If the City wants the planning board to weigh in on things like building heights, setbacks, design review, etc. those are substantive requirements. He did not see anywhere in the code that clearly articulates that distinction so it is a bit of a gray area. It was his personal opinion that it would make sense to make that distinction because where the planning board adds the most value is on substantive issues. If the City can unburden the planning board from some of the procedural regulations, it may allow them to add more value on substantive things. Councilmember Buckshnis commented people often find out things after the fact such as the "BD blowup." She opined the more people can find out about things, the better. She suggested investigating the cost to extend the distance for noticing to 500' for everything, not just Type II -A, noting people get frustrated when they do not know what's going on until it's too late to do anything. Expanding the distance to 500' would help educate citizens. Council President Tibbott described how he arrived at the idea of an amendment regarding neighborhood meetings. In talking with Director McLaughlin about what public notices actually accomplish, he assumed it would lead to a neighborhood meeting or community discussion, but that is not necessarily what happens. Individuals get a public notice and they respond individually and there is not necessarily a community discussion. It would be valuable to have a community discussion. Director McLaughlin suggested a neighborhood meeting prior to a design meeting would be beneficial for the community to express their thoughts and as well as valuable to the design process. The amendment suggests an applicant would be required to host a public preapplication neighborhood meeting with the same public noticing requirements as previously discussed. The neighborhood meeting would give the community an opportunity to hear about what's happening in their neighborhood, see pictures of a design, talk about streetscape and amenities the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 7 whole neighborhood would use was well as an opportunity for the City to talk about infrastructure improvements that would accompany a project. He concluded a neighborhood meeting serves a multitude of purposes. Amendment # 1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND THE MOTION ADD A REQUIREMENT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. Council President Tibbott asked to have amendment read, noting he emailed it to councilmembers about four minutes ago. Mr. Levitan referred to Councilmember Chen's suggestion to remove the language staff originally forwarded to Council President Tibbott rescinding the requirement for a Type III -A process, 75' or taller buildings on Highway 99. Council President Tibbott said he would speak to that after the council has heard the amendment. Mr. Levitan read the amendment, a new section 20.12.010.B.4, "Pre -application neighborhood meeting for proposals subject to a Type II -A or Type III -A review process, the applicant shall host a public pre - application neighborhood meeting to discuss and receive public comment on the conceptual proposal. The applicant shall provide notice of this meeting to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject site by depositing written notice in the U.S. Mail postage paid at least 14 calendar days in advance of the meeting to all persons and entities shown as having an ownership interest in the land records of Snohomish County. An affidavit of mailing shall be provided to the City by the applicant attached to its mailing list. While this meeting will allow immediate public response to the proposal in its conceptual form, comments submitted during the meeting are not binding to the applicant or staff. However, staff may make general recommendations to the applicant as part of the formal application based on the input from the meeting to the extent that said comments are consistent with the adopted provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. As a courtesy, the applicant shall provide summary minutes of the meeting to all of those in attendance within two weeks of the date of the meeting." Council President Tibbott commented this meeting as described would not add much extra time to the application process and would not hold up the design process or application process. The meeting is an opportunity to get community feedback and provide that feedback in summary notes. Staff could use those ideas in reviewing an application as it applies to the design standards in the code. He was uncertain about the Type III -A process, partially because some buildings in the high transit corridors are also buttressed by nearby residential areas so there is some benefit to notifying all the neighbors. He was open to council input on that. Mr. Levitan advised there have not been any projects subject to Type III -A, above the 75-foot threshold, so far. That is a different construction type and different model of development. If a developer goes above 511 or 6/1 construction, there are different structural requirements so the building may as well be much taller to make it cost effective. That market has not yet been seen in Edmonds. Council President Tibbott relayed his understanding that it was not likely to be triggered. Mr. Levitan agreed, unless the market changes and the City begins to see buildings over 75 feet. With regard to the proposed amendment regarding the neighborhood meeting and Councilmember Chen's comment about whether to provide notice to property owners that are not zoned single family, Councilmember Nand said she perhaps is uniquely qualified on the council to discuss this because she is not a property owner and lives in high density housing near Highway 99. She said it was important to provide notice to everyone and suggested expanding notice to all residents within 500', not just property owners. Even though she is not a property owner, she would like to know if a 75 foot tall building would be built next door to the townhouse she rents. Even if someone is not on the title of a property, they invest sweat equity into their neighborhood; they choose to live somewhere, build connections, and move into a neighborhood expecting it to look and feel a certain way. When a drastic change is coming, they have as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 8 much right to know as a property owner. She summarized it would be very equitable to not stop at just property owners, but provide notice to all residents within 500' of proposed projects. Councilmember Paine asked if these changes would be considered procedural or substantive; she could see this one going a couple different directions. Mr. Taraday considered Council President Tibbott's amendment procedural. The difference between this procedural amendment and the one he was commenting on previously is the previous one would have citywide effect, whereas this proposed amendment would be more narrowly tailored to the subject of the issues this ordinance is addressing. It was less controversial in his mind versus a adding a new process that applied citywide. He concluded it was still not a clean, black and white question for him. Councilmember Paine asked if the City would be included in the invitation to the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Levitan answered the City is not included in the PRD code language which is where this language originated. That could be required, but it was not currently required for PRDs. Councilmember Paine said she was agnostic about this; it may be helpful to have the City present, but it also may be helpful for the developer and applicant to be more free style and not constrained by the City's presence. She appreciated Councilmember Nand's comments about notifying residents and not just property owners; notifying just property owners is an equity issue. When citywide noticing requirements are considered, noticing all residents should be included. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO AMEND TO REQUIRE NOTICE FOR BOTH RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS. Councilmember Nand said she originated the idea, but did not offer an amendment because she hoped the planning department could workshop the idea for implementation. For example, should notice be limited to residents who had occupied their unit for at least 12 months and some businesses have month -to -month leases. She asked for staff input on how to make that notice requirement workable. Mr. Levitan said he would also like clarification regarding the amendment to the amendment related to providing notice to residents/tenants in addition to property owners and whether that was only in the new neighborhood section or was it a more broad change to the language in Chapter 20.03. He has administered city codes in other jurisdictions related to multifamily residences where notice is provided to individual tenants. That requirement could be included in the neighborhood meeting or it could be a separate code amendment that is addressed in the future. Councilmember Nand asked if that change should be included now or should the council give the planning department an opportunity to develop an ordinance that retroactively affects the entire City. Mr. Levitan said if the focus is on the neighborhood meeting requirement, it would not be a major change to require notice to individual tenants as well as property owners. Councilmember Nand asked if he anticipated push - back from developers, saying this is not workable, too procedurally burdensome, etc. Mr. Levitan said it is a pretty common practice; he has seen a requirement to send notice to individual units in multiple other codes so it would not be something Edmonds requires that is not required by other jurisdictions. Councilmember Nand expressed support for Councilmember Paine's amendment to the amendment. Councilmember Teitzel asked if notice is sent to a tenant of an apartment within 500', what is that person's legal standing and do they have legal standing to comment as a renter. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on the City code. For example, in certain types of applications, one can obtain standing by showing up at a public hearing and offering testimony. If it is the type of application that has a public hearing requirement and a tenant provides comment, they likely could obtain standing. Without taking time to review the City's code, he could not state categorically that residents who are non -owners would always have standing. Mr. Levitan answered the way the code is currently written, anyone who submits comments within the 14-day comment period for notice of application becomes a party of record for the land use application which he Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 9 assumed provides them with standing. For a Type III and it goes to public hearing, even if someone was not within the 300' radius, they are required to be provided notice of the public hearing and notice of the decision which would seem to provide some legal standing. He deferred to the city attorney. Mr. Taraday said he was unsure how someone became a party of record. Any party of record who wanted to appeal would be able to do so. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned who was driving the car on this. It mentions the involvement of staff and the developer holding the neighborhood preapplication meeting and providing summary minutes of the meeting. She questioned the purpose of the neighborhood meeting if staff was not involved. The proposed amendment states staff may make general recommendations to the developer as part of the application based on the input from the meeting to the extent that said comments are consistent with adopted previous of the ECC. She reiterated who drives the car on this, who sets up the meetings, where are they held, who pays the cost for the meeting, etc. Mr. Levitan answered it would be a preapplication meeting in advance of the submittal of the land use application. The applicant would be responsible for providing notice, hosting the meeting, sending out the mailings, etc. Assuming the language remains as is, and the meeting was prior to application submittal, it would not be tied to an actual land use application and would essentially be a submittal requirement for the land use application. For a developer building on a CG zoned site subject to the Type II -A review process, if the summary minutes and affidavit of mailing were not included when they submitted the design review land use application, it would be considered an incomplete application. Action on Amendment #2 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Paine asked if this preapplication meeting would be compliant with HB 1293. Mr. Levitan answered yes, if it was only required for a Type II -A review process, basically for properties adjacent or across the street for buildings between 35' and 75' in height where a public hearing before the ADB is not required, the neighborhood meeting could be a submittal requirement. Councilmember Paine loved the idea of a preapplication meeting so the developer can get immediate feedback from the neighbors. She asked it was appropriate to approve the amendment or did staff need to get further clarification about whether it would be the one meeting. Mr. Levitan responded the only way he could see it becoming an issue would be if the council imposes a public meeting requirement as part of the official land use application which would raise the issue of whether the preapplication is tied to the land use application or is it considered a separate public meeting outside the parameters of HB 1293. Councilmember Paine asked if summary minutes will be part of the project file that is maintained by the planning department. Mr. Levitan answered yes, they would be part of the developer's submittal. Action on Amendment # 1 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Action on the Main Motion MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her hope that the council would put a moratorium on MFTE until it was studied further. It was her understanding one project with 700 units provided only 70 affordable units and she did not think a completely residential building should be afforded tax credits over a decade and only provide 10% affordable units. She referred to the SEIS and the aquifer and what may be happening with not having those documents in place; there may be environmental issues that impact future development in the CG zone. 2. LETTER TO STATE REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS FOR MARSH Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 10 Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has been with Puget Sound Partnership and WRIA 8 for a number of years. There are many ways get property transferred within state agencies. One of the ways is having the Governor transfer it and she offered to provide examples. The council agreed at a previous meeting to draft a letter to the state. The only intent of the proposed letter is to meet with the Governor. Governor Inslee does not plan to run for another term, he has always been an environmental steward, and his presidential campaign even pushed climate change and climate action. He may want to have a good send-off by putting this project into another state agency such as Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Councilmember Buckshnis continued, it was her understanding DNR was not interested because they have not yet seen the science and everyone, even the Governor, wants to see the science first. The letter is the first step toward having a meeting. Department of Ecology has signaled that the science will be released on for this property in July. If the Governor transfers the property, there are funds available for stormwater mitigation, contamination mitigation, etc., and it would save the taxpayers money. The Governor signed ESHB 1125.PL which provides the provision in the 2023-2025 budget that Edmonds has the "right of first purchase" for the City's intended use of the property. The reason the letter does not mention the MOU is this is separate from the MOU, simply asking for a meeting with the Governor. Councilmember Teitzel stressed the importance of keeping the big picture in mind, everyone is unified in the goals of salmon recovery, recovery of the southern resident Orca population, greenhouse gas reduction, carbon sequestration, etc. Those are not just Edmonds' goals, they are regional and statewide goals. When Governor Inslee ran for president, his campaign stressed he was most strongly focused environmental candidate at that time and he still holds that position and belief. This letter appeals to him to look at this restoration opportunity as a way to support his and the state's high property goals. The state has the expertise and resources to deal with future contamination if it is uncovered when the new channel for the creek is dug. There are two paths for the state to pursue once they obtain ownership from Unocal, 1) retain the property as a restoration effort in partnership with the City, or 2) sell the property to the City. As Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned, this letter highlights this great opportunity in Central Puget Sound for the state, region and Edmonds and gets it on the table for discussion. It's possible the state does not want to retain ownership and the City will proceed with the MOU and purchase. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE LETTER AS SUBMITTED IN THE PACKET. Councilmember Nand said she has had extensive discussions with Councilmember Teitzel and other community stakeholders regarding the marsh as well as email exchanges with City staff. Her concern is not sending mixed signals to the state. She was very concerned with the statement in the second to last paragraph, "Our suggested option for you to consider to drive this high priority restoration forward is to have the State maintain ownership." which she felt would be in direct conflict with the MOU. She did not feel it was appropriate to request a meeting with Governor Inslee to discuss options and she questioned if the state were to retain title, how high a priority the restoration would be whereas it was a very high priority restoration project for the City Edmonds. If the council wanted to proceed with the letter and an MOU, she preferred to wait until July until the Ecology documents are available. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND THE LETTER TO REMOVE ENTIRELY THE PARAGRAPH STARTING WITH, "OUR SUGGESTED OPTION FOR YOU TO CONSIDER TO DRIVE THIS HIGH PRIORITY RESTORATION FORWARD IS TO HAVE THE STATE MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP" AND THAT ENDS WITH "WE THANK YOU AND WISH TO MEET WITH YOU REGARDING THE REASONS FOR THE STATE TO MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP." Councilmember Nand commented it was too early in the process to make any representations to the Governor, WSDOT, Ecology or any other potentially interested party regarding the City's wishes. The City Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 11 needs to get its house in order before going to the state to suggest a strategy for pursuing the marsh. If it is the information from Ecology that the City has not had time to review or digest properly yet, the City can amend the letter, remove any representation about taking title to the Unocal property and initiate a less formal discussion with the Governor or whoever on the Governor's staff will steer this discussion. She feared the letter would send conflicting messages to different parts of state government. Council President Tibbott said he was not in favor of the amendment or the letter. He found it inappropriate to address the letter to the Governor as it circumvents the authority of WSDOT who is the authority on the purchase agreement with Chevron and it disrespects the investment they would be making. The letter addresses the why that everyone agrees with which he felt was appropriate, but moves to telling the state how to do it without hearing from the state, the state hearing from the City, essentially dictating the answer. The letter assumes to speak for the City of Edmonds by stating the City would gladly enter into an ILA once the information is available. There are enough risks associated with the property that that would be an over statement and assumes too much. Council President Tibbott continued, he preferred a letter addressed to WSDOT which he believed was the intent of the motion previously passed by the council to create some level of understanding about the common ground and express the City's eagerness about working toward a mutually beneficial solution. That type of letter would be effective and open the door for further discussion. In all his years of negotiating contracts, he never talked with a potential client and said in the process of looking at all the risk, before I enter into a contract with you, I want to talk to your parent first. That is the equivalent of going to the Governor instead of negotiating with WSDOT who has the authority to work on this with the City. Councilmember Paine did not support the letter, finding it provides a problematic set of dialogue, who is it speaking to when the operating agency is WSDOT in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and she did not see that the Governor had a role in that. She was supportive of removing the problematic paragraph, but did not support the letter. The letter does not address what the City is waiting for, more information about the property provided via the MOU process where the City will have access to past data as well as new data from Ecology this summer. This letter does not get any additional information, and it sends a rather confusing message. Councilmember Buckshnis began to speak and Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, asking whether councilmembers were required to speak only on the amendment, noting the last two councilmembers have not. Mayor Nelson offered to do better. Councilmember Olson began to speak to the amendment, expressing her support for striking that paragraph. Mayor Nelson advised the maker of the motion was speaking before her point of order. Councilmember Olson clarified one of her points of order was that the person was speaking for a second time and she had not spoken yet. Mayor Nelson did not recall imposing that restriction on the maker of a motion. Councilmember Olson raised a point of parliamentary procedure from the City Clerk. City Clerk Scott Passey advised typically a new speaker or the maker of the motion is called on again after everyone has had a chance to speak. Councilmember Olson said the why versus the how was the crux of offering this amendment. She suggested the council talk about whether the letter should be changed in other ways after the council approves or declines this amendment. Removing the statements about the outcome of the meeting gets back to the fact that the City is also interested in an agreement with WSDOT. However the council decides to proceed with the letter now or in the future, this is a good amendment and gets to the point that the council does not want to be prescriptive about the outcome of the meeting. She expressed support for the amendment. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 12 Councilmember Teitzel observed some councilmember do not like the letter at all and prefer to just continue with the MOU. He suggested if the council takes that approach, it completely eliminates the possibility of the other option. The letter keeps that option open. Councilmember Chen raised a point of order, stating council comments should be related to the amendment. Councilmember Teitzel explained he was speaking to the amendment to strike the second to last paragraph related to the state retaining ownership. If that paragraph is removed and the letter is subsequently abandoned, that leaves only the path of purchase and completely negates the other option which he felt should be explored further. Councilmember Chen expressed support for the amendment. His first impression of the letter is it delivers contradicting information; the City has been trying to acquire the property from WSDOT, but this paragraph goes in a different direction. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Teitzel, some aspects need to be retained such as that the Governor signed the budget providing the City "the right of first purchase." City representatives have addressed the marsh with the Governor when talking about the connector in Washington DC in 2019 so he is very familiar with the marsh. The marsh is on the WRIA 8 priority list and Puget Sound Partnership, all of whom are aware of the City's restoration efforts. She was unclear why the entire paragraph needed to be removed; the marsh is a state priority and one of the Governor's priorities so she did not view it as conflicting. The letter only asks for a meeting and a meeting is unlikely to occur until September/October. She concluded she did not see any conflict with the MOU or with WSDOT and she did not think WSDOT would get their feeling hurt as a result. She did not support the amendment. Councilmember Nand commented this is putting the cart in front of horse. The council needs to properly inform themselves about their bargaining position, vis-a-vis the environment impact if the City does or does not takes title before making any representation to state government. She preferred tabling both the MOU and the letter until after July when Ecology releases documentation and the City has an opportunity to digest how that materially affects its bargaining position. The public is excited because the marsh is a huge priority and a multidecade project that will affect Edmonds for generations. She questioned why the council needed to rush forward with either the MOU or the letter instead of waiting until Ecology releases the environmental documents and the City has an opportunity to properly digest how it affects its bargaining position. This is a very momentous potential acquisition for the City and she wanted to ensure it was done properly. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, OLSON, PAINE AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO TABLE THE LETTER UNTIL WE HAVE THE INFORMATION FROM ECOLOGY. Mr. Passey advised a motion to table is not debatable. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN AND PAINE VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 3. WSDOT/CITY OF EDMONDS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 13 Community/Culture/Economic Development Director Todd Tatum reviewed: • Recap o Council approved resolution asking the legislature to require WSDOT to give the City first right of purchase (in Transportation Budget) o Council expressed desire to write letter o Council expressed concerns about upcoming Ecology review o Council expressed concerns about the impact on the City's bargaining position o Council expressed questions about the timing of MOU • First right of purchase in the transportation budget o Does not guarantee the City's ownership o Does not require that the City purchase o Signals the City's intent o Does not give the City a process or model to follow to get to its ow decisions about purchasing decisions o Does not talk about risk or post -purchase options Ecology documents o Governed by the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) o Interim Action Plans o Upcoming documents: ■ Feasibility study ■ Cleanup action plan ■ Consent decree ■ SEPA determination of non -significance o MANY preceding documents which have led to these City studies o Existing Conditions & Site Constraints 0 2019 Shannon & Wilson study produced multiple options for daylighting Willow Creek, modeling and offered the option it was a feasible project o Council concerns about details of the study and another study was undertaken which concurred • Long term options discussed in previous meetings o Purchase property o Encourage transfer of property to another state agency o Other partners/non-profits who might want to transform and manage the property Mr. Tatum described his background as the development division manager with a natural resource agency so he is familiar with natural resource agencies and a good understanding of partnerships. He reviewed two from his history: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 14 Lake Sammamish State Park o Complex restoration project that included Issaquah Creek o Entered into MOU with Mountain to Sound Greenway Nisqually State Park o Former dump site o Feasibility study with preferred options prepared o Entered into MOU with the Nisqually Tribe about development of the property and Weyerhauser cleaned up the site and a likely transfer of remediated site to Washington State Parks Mr. Tatum continued his presentation: • Next Steps o Sign the MOU ■ The City can withdraw from the MOU without penalty o Use a portion of the dollars set aside for the property to hire a consultant/s to aid in the next steps of due diligence Recommendation o Authorize Mayor Nelson to sign MOU Councilmember Buckshnis commented Lake Sammamish State Park receives WRIA 8 funds every year. She explained in 2019 a simple majority put the marsh into stormwater which affected stormwater rates and used as mitigation for the Connector so it never went through a public process. The Shannon & Wilson report is irrelevant because it never when through a public process. When then -Director Williams proposed the project to RCO for grants, WRIA 8 said there needed to be a public process. She emphasized Design 6 was mitigation for the Connector which the council decided against. She did not think the City should spend any money on consultants or real estate people to look at the marsh until the Ecology reports are received and there are comments from Ecology. Councilmember Buckshnis continued, one report that was left out was the Terrestrial Ecological Evaluation Report which is part of the Model Toxic Control Act related to unseen chemicals that needs to come from Unocal. She expressed concern that without the science, the City does not have enough information to make decisions. The science is important before the City makes decisions about going down any path. The right of first purchase is included in the last biennial and this biennial, a good sign that the state legislature recognizes the City's intent to purchase it. She expressed support for tabling the MOU. Councilmember Nand expressed appreciation for Mr. Tatum's responsiveness to questions and concerns from the council and the public. She agreed the City needed to do its due diligence and proceed with caution and speak in unison to the state with regard to this potential momentous real estate acquisition. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE MOU UNTIL JULY POSSIBLY IN TANDEM WITH THE LETTER THAT THE COUNCIL JUST TABLED. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, OLSON, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Councilmember Chen thanked Mr. Tatum for his analysis and addressing questions raised in prior meetings. He referred to Sections 6.1 which states the MOU is non -binding, 6.2 which states amendments can be made with the agreement of both parties and 6.3 which indicates either party can terminate the MOU with written notice. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the MOU is a nonbinding agreement and easily terminable by either party at any time for any reason. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 15 Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR NELSON TO SIGN THE MOU. Amendment # 1 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THAT EXPRESS COUNCIL APPROVAL IS NEEDED IN ADDITION TO BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR ANY AND ALL SPENDING ON MARSH RELATED PROJECTS. Councilmember Olson said the bottom line is not spending money on consultants until the City learns about what comes out in the next report. This document signals the City's intent; whether it is binding or not, it puts the City on a path which was what the authors of the letter objected to. Whether or not the path is binding, that is a concern because the council is still questioning whether that is the right path. She understood and agreed with what the authors of the letter were trying to do. The letter was tabled which does not mean tabling it forever, it may be for a short while a new version is developed. Councilmember Olson continued, she was in favor of going forward with the MOU, not because she thought it was the perfect instrument or that she wanted to signal the City's intent, but because a lot of the work has already done with this agency and she feared sending a mixed signal of thanks but no thanks did not bode well for the City. She has read the MOU numerous times and felt confident it was not binding in any way, but it did signal intent of going in a direction when the City should be worried about liability especially without having all the results of study. Councilmember Olson continued, with regard to her proposed amendment, the City can enter MOU but should be very prudent about next steps. Council should be more involved in what is happening and should discuss spending on consultants prior to getting the scientific reports from Ecology. She did not think the council should support the MOU without having limits on the steps the administration can take to move in this direction. The council should be in lockstep and participating in all those decisions; this would help make that happen by requiring council approval of spending related to marsh vetting. Regarding the motion to restrict spending, Councilmember Paine anticipated that would put sway on the MOU that is the opposite of the needed support, available options and exit pathways with WSDOT. Because of the way the MOU is structured, the City will have access to all the past Ecology decisions and data points as well as access to information Ecology plans to publish in July/August. She was not necessarily against the amendment, but wanted to ensure the council was not tying hands so when the information is provided there will be more options and a longer timeline to conduct due diligence. This is terribly exciting and fraught with risk and she wanted to ensure the council was not unnecessarily tying the administration's hands by restricting the ability to do that due diligence by requiring council approval. Council President Tibbott expressed support for the amendment, finding it puts the council on equal footing with the administration. He understood the council would typically approve a consultant contract, but making it explicit allows the council to evaluate the benefits of the strategies the City might use, including funding for consultants. Mayor Nelson said council should be aware if they are going down this path, then he will be evaluating the time and staff allocation and availability to councilmembers. Councilmember Nand observed the amendment was to the motion authorizing Mayor Nelson to sign the MOU, but the amendment limits his authority to sign contracts under $100,000. Councilmember Olson answered it would limit his authority to sign contracts related to the marsh. She did not change the original motion to approve the MOU; the amendment was to require express council approval in addition to budget Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 16 authority for marsh related projects. Councilmember Nand asked how that would affect ongoing consultant contracts that the City is already engaged in related to the marsh. Mr. Tatum answered the langue is pretty broad; if taken at face value, there are a lot of projects going on related to marsh. The MOU is asking for something more specific, funding to further the purchase of the property, funding related to marsh acquisition. Councilmember Olson said if that was agreeable to the seconder, she was happy with that clarification. Councilmember Nand observed if this amendment passed, it would reduce Mayor Nelson's contracting authority related to acquisition of the marsh project to zero. Mr. Tatum said that was his understanding. Councilmember Nand asked how administratively burdensome it would be to operate under this amendment, to bring every expenditure to council. Mr. Tatum asked for clarification regarding what expenditures this was related to, assuming it would not relate to anything that was currently ongoing, construction or otherwise. It would be related to new money spent on appraisals, risk analysis, due diligence, etc. He said it was hard to say how administrative burdensome this amendment would be. He assumed there would be a quarterly budget amendment after the Ecology documents come out and the council would authorize up to certain amount and bills up to that amount could be paid. Mr. Taraday asked for clarification; if the amendment passes, he will inevitably be asked how to comply with it so he wanted to ensure he understood the intent. As Mr. Tatum said, logically the motion would not be retroactive with respect to contracts that have already been made or debts that have already been incurred, because it obviously would be a problem if a debt had already been incurred and the council decided not to approve the spending when it was previously within the mayor's spending authority. It sounds like the intent of the maker of the motion would be that future contracts would need to go to council for approval whether or not there was budget authority which is a significant change from the mayor's current spending authority. The mayor's spending authority is set forth in purchasing policies adopted by resolution. It would seem the proper place to make the change to that spending authority would be in that document so there are no inconsistencies versus doing it via an amendment to a motion to approve an MOU. He summarized there was a procedural piece to the motion that he was unclear about. Councilmember Buckshnis asked where in the MOU this amendment would be added. She was in favor of the council being apprised of spending on consultants, attorneys, etc. during this MOU process, but it did not seem to fit in the MOU. Councilmember Olson responded it was a more general thing to apply to the marsh acquisition so the council can control going down this trajectory. There are different paths and the timing of those paths is something other councilmembers have objected to. It seems prudent to take this opportunity to control whether the council is moving forward prior to having the information that everyone is excited to consider. She suggested bringing it back next week once the right place for the amendment is determined. She was not looking for the dollar amount to be lowered or different which is the more general policy that Mr. Taraday was referring to, her concern was whether the City is paying for consultants or attorneys related to marsh acquisition prior to it being the right move for the City. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Olson's statement. She relayed her intent to rescind her vote on Agenda Item 8.2. Councilmember Olson suggested staff determine where the amendment would go and bring it back next week. Councilmember Paine commented this process seems to be internal to Edmonds and does not belong in the MOU because it has nothing to do with the relationship/understanding in the MOU. Mr. Taraday agreed. If Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 17 the council wants to direct him to draft a resolution to accomplish something along lines of Councilmember Olson's amendment, that would be an appropriate way to accomplish that. He agreed a spending procedure internal to the City did not belong in an agreement with WSDOT. Councilmember Chen said he can appreciate Councilmember Olson's intent for the council to have more control related to the marsh. However, this is an internal spending limit and not part of the MOU. Personally, if the council gives the mayor the authority to sign the MOU, the City has qualified staff and experts in this area, and he did not want to micromanage staff. He trusts staff as he does not have personal knowledge of the marsh. The council has previously approved the mayor's spending limit of $100,000 and anything over that has to come to council. He trusted the City's professional staff to make decisions they are authorized to make. Councilmember Nand commented if a majority of councilmembers are not comfortable with signing the MOU tonight, she wished her motion to table had passed. This is a momentous document for the City and a momentous process to potentially acquire the Unocal property, something people in Edmonds have been working on for decades. She noted after offering her original amendment, Councilmember Olson said she would like staff to work on incorporating the revision to the mayor's internal spending limits either within the MOU or a separate document and bring it back next week. She asked if Councilmember Olson was amending her original amendment. Councilmember Olson said the MOU should be tabled until the resolution regarding the internal spending limit on marsh acquisition related spending comes back to council so they would come back together. Action on Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO TABLE THE MOU UNTIL THE RESOLUTION REGARDING THE SPENDING LIMITS ON MARSH ACQUISITION EXPENSES COMES BACK TO COUNCIL. Councilmember Chen raised a point of order, stating there was a motion on the floor. Councilmember Olson explained that was why she proposed the spending limit as an amendment because the motion to approve the MOU was already on the floor and she did not want to vote for the MOU until the spending limit was in place. Mayor Nelson assured no money would be spent regarding the marsh until after next week. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, asking for a parliamentary decision because during Agenda Item 8.2, there was a motion on the floor, and the council voted to table instead. She reiterated her intent to rescind her vote on the previous motion. Mr. Taraday explained a motion to table is not debatable, but a motion to postpone something indefinitely is debatable. The council frequently uses the word table; if the intent is to postpone indefinitely or to a certain time, the motion should be phrased that way. Councilmember Buckshnis said Councilmember Chen's point of order was related to there already being a motion on the table, the motion to authorize Mayor Nelson to sign the MOU. During Agenda Item 8.2, there was also a motion on the floor that the council did not vote on, but voted on a motion to table. Mr. Taraday advised all three of these are in order when there is main motion pending. When there is a main Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 18 motion pending, the council has the option to postpone indefinitely which is debatable, postpone to a certain time which is also debatable, or table which is not debatable. Councilmember Olson restated her motion: TO TABLE THE MOU UNTIL THE RESOLUTION REGARDING THE INTERNAL SPENDING LIMIT ON MARSH ACQUISITION EXPENSES COMES BACK. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO AMEND SECTION 2.8 TO READ, "THE CITY HAS EXPRESSED INTEREST IN ACQUIRING THE FORMER UNOCAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANDING THE ADJOINING EDMONDS MARSH ESTUARY AND THE CLEANUP SHOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE CITY'S USE OF THE SITE FOR SALMON RESTORATION. Councilmember Buckshnis said the City needs to ensure the cleanup covers salmon recovery. Her amendment was to expand the language to be very clear that the cleanup needs to be commensurate with salmon restoration. The current language only refers to expanding the adjoining Edmonds Marsh Estuary which could mean a contaminated park which is not what the City wants. The amendment clarifies than the cleanup should be commensurate with the City's use of the site for salmon recovery. Councilmember Chen asked if that limited actions in the marsh to salmon recovery, noting the marsh is more than salmon recovery. Councilmember Buckshnis responded the most important thing to salmon restoration/salmon recovery is the water. Salmon restoration will benefit birds, bees, etc., the entire habitat. The language could include habitat, but the WRIA 8 grant was related to salmon recovery. The state's key goal is salmon recovery. Once salmon are restored, all the other critters come into place. Councilmember Paine viewed the proposed language as the Department of Ecology's job. She asked how that language would be put into action. Mr. Tatum said the language is not within the purview of relationship, the level of cleanup is governed by MTCA and Ecology's determinations or the City's own actions pre or post transfer of the land. He could not imagine WSDOT would accept that language because it either is not in their purview or requires them to clean up the property at their expense. Mr. Taraday said WSDOT has been pretty careful about making sure the language in the MOU does not interfere with their contractual relationship with Unocal. The proposed language proports to dictate how the cleanup would be done, something that has been heavily contracted between WSDOT and Unocal and he assumed they would be concerned about doing anything that could be perceived as interfering with their contract with Unocal especially when there is already pending litigation. Councilmember Teitzel referred to Section 2.14 of the Transportation budget, the section that governs the first right of purchase in the budget; the last part of the sentence says, "This would be for the City's intended use of the property to rehabilitate nearshore habitat for salmon and related species." He concluded the amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis was consistent with the Transportation budget. Mr. Taraday suggested WSDOT did not need to sign off on the Transportation budget, but the City would need WSDOT to sign off on this MOU. Mr. Tatum said the language refers to the level of cleanup on the site versus the purpose or intended use. Amendment #3 COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE WORDING TO, "FOR THE CITY'S INTENDED Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 19 USE OF PROPERTY TO REHABILITATE NEARSHORE HABITAT FOR SALMON AND RELATED SPECIES. Councilmember Olson said she was very willing to support the amendment. The wording of the MOU was floated by WSDOT and they were open to it. She wondered if it was important enough to add this language and WSDOT was not open to it. Councilmember Nand agreed the amendment and the amendment to the amendment had the potential to trigger hesitation from the City's partners in the MOU. She was hesitant to make a statement about who is responsible for cleanup and the level of cleanup at this stage. She asked how Councilmember Teitzel's amendment to Councilmember Buckshnis' amendment would affect the City's bargaining position with WSDOT. Councilmember Teitzel read the entire revision to 2.8 in the MOU: "The City has expressed an interest in acquiring the Former Unocal Property for the City's intended use of the property to rehabilitate nearshore habitat for salmon and related species." Councilmember Nand asked how the proposed amendment would affect the signaling of intent and bargaining position with WSDOT and how this might potentially affect the stages for acquiring the marsh. Mr. Tatum responded he was not sure it would have a material impact. Mr. Taraday agreed, advising although he could not speak for WSDOT, he was hopeful the amended amendment would not be objectionable to WSDOT. Action on Amendment #2 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. Action on Amendment 93 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, OLSON, PAINE AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 4. ADOPT ORDINANCE TO ADD COMPOST PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 43.19A.150 Mayor Nelson advised this item was removed from the agenda due to staff absence. It is not time sensitive. 5. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2024 BUDGET PLANNING CALENDAR Council President Tibbott explained the calendar was developed based on input at the budget retreat. Before making amendments to calendar, he recommended a motion to adopt the resolution followed by amendments. He reviewed: • Proposed 2023 Budget Schedule for the 2024 Budget (for planning purposes, subject to change) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 20 Date Description Note April Budget Retreat — Council, Mayor and City Staff May Resolution of Budget Schedule for the 2024 Budget Council Meeting June Council hosting 3 outreach events to community on Budget Priorities Council -organized community events Council Special Meeting, Brackett Room June Public Hearing on 2024 Budget Priorities 6/27 Council Work Meeting on Budget Priorities July Resolution of Council 2024 Budget Priorities Council Meeting 7/11 Budget -Focused Committee Agenda: Department reviews of 2023 Budget, 2023 Decision Packages and Budget Amendments, outlook for remainder of 2023 Council Committee August Council requests a robust presentation of 2"d Quarter Financial Report, outlook for remainder of 2023 Finance @ Council Meeting September 2023 Salary Ordinance (Not required) Better if done before Mayor's budget message is presented. HR @ City Council Meeting September 2023 Non -Represented Salary & Benefits Resolution. Better if done before Mayor's budget message is presented. HR @ City Council Meeting September Presentation of CIP/CFP Proposed joint presentation to Council and Planning Board September Council discussion of CIP/CFP Council Meeting September PublicHearing— CIP/CFP Council Meeting October Adopt the 2023 CIP/CFP Council Meeting October Salary Commission Determination 9/27 (Monday) Mayor's Message and Presentation of Preliminary Budget Mayor Presentation 10/3 Budget Orientation Council Meeting 10/10 Budget -Focused Committee Agenda: Department Operating Budget presentations/ discussion Council Committee 10/17 Department Operation Budget presentations/ discussion First Public Hearing on the 2024 Budget Council Work Meeting— Department Operation Budget questions and discussion Council Meeting 10/19 (Thursday) Council Special Meeting, Brackett Room 10/24 Department Operating Budget presentations/discussion Public Hearing— Revenue Public Hearing— Property Tax Council Meeting 10/30 (Monday) Council Decision Packages/ Amendments Due Council Work Meeting— Review Council DPs/Amendments Council Special Meeting, Brackett Room 10/31 ST" Tuesday (no scheduled meeting) 11/6 (Monday) Second Public Hearing on the 2024 Budget Council Budget Review and Discussion Council Meeting 11/7 General Election No Meeting 11/14 (Cancel Council Committees) Council Budget Review and Discussion Council Special Meeting 11/16 (Thursday) (If needed) Council Budget Review and Discussion 11/18 (Saturday) (If needed) Council Budget Review and Discussion 11/20 (Monday) (If needed) Council Budget Review and Discussion 11/21 Rnal Budget Review and Adoption of the 2024 Budget Council Meeting Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is wonderful, but things are being jammed up. She did not want to repeat what happened in 2021 when an appointed councilmember was allowed to approve the budget when an elected councilmember could have approved it. She was unsure why the proposed schedule has adoption of the 2024 budget before the election is certified. She recalled what happened in 2021 was disrespectful, assuring no disrespect to Councilmember Teitzel because they have worked on many budgets in the past and he brings value to the team, he has helped her tremendously and is very experienced and she is glad the council appointed him. The two candidates running for his seat will be following the budget just like the two candidates that ran for former Councilmember Distelhorst's seat. She wanted to be cognizant of citizens' concern with an appointed councilmember instead of the elected councilmember approving the budget and avoiding the disaster that occurred in 2021. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 21 Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the administration had reviewed the schedule. Council President Tibbott answered yes, there has been great cooperation from Director Turley in helping understand how the pieces fit together. He was confident the schedule would be beneficial to the administration and to the council. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if approving the resolution set the schedule in stone, adopting the budget on November 21. She preferred to go into the first week of December so the elected councilmember could approve the budget. Council President Tibbott referred to Section 2 in the resolution which states, council shall retain full authority to modify or amend the planning calendar. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION AS PROPOSED. Councilmember Nand thanked Council President Tibbott and Council Executive Assistant Beckie Peterson for their work developing the calendar. When she joined the council on October 17 as an appointee, basically during the 1l' hour of budget season, it seemed incredibly stressful for everyone including Director Turley. This seems like a much more workable timetable to consider the budget. This is a very bizarre election cycle due to her and Councilmember Teitzel appointments and she hoped it would not be considered disrespectful to allow Councilmember Teitzel to go through the entire budget process. She recalled when she joined the council in the middle of the budget process, even though she had been religiously attending meetings, it was difficult to review lengthy packets and be expected to have expertise whereas the other councilmembers had had months to review information and make decisions. It will be quite a learning curve for whoever is elected to Councilmember Teitzel's appointed position and she concluded it would be kinder to stick to the proposed schedule and allow Councilmember Teitzel to vote on the budget. Councilmember Olson commented the need will dictate the schedule in the end. There has been interest theoretically for a few years to move the calendar back; she agreed there was a big hubbub in 2021 and citizens and councilmembers included herself were not happy. She did not see a downside to planning in advance and vetting the CIP/CFP early in the season. She supported the proposed schedule and was open to making changes if the budget could not be properly vetted in the time allotted. If the budget reflects inputs from the council and public through the outreach, there may not be a lot of amendments this year, the process could go more smoothly and this could be the year the council really excels. Council President Tibbott commented the difference between this calendar and other years is this calendar is front loaded with input and deliberation among councilmembers before they get to a final vote. He anticipated there would be a lot of input and deliberation up front that will help the budget process smoother. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND THE NUMBER OF OUTREACH EVENTS ON THE BUDGET CALENDAR FROM THREE TO TWO, WITH THE THIRD OUTREACH EVENT BEING THE PUBLIC HEARING IN JUNE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED (RESOLUTION 1521) CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND UNTIL 10:10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE INTERNAL SPENDING LIMIT ON MARSH ACQUISITION RELATED ITEMS AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK THE RESOLUTION TO A FUTURE MEETING. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 22 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. 6. RESOLUTION REGARDING INTERNAL SPENDING COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY DRAFT A RESOLUTION BASED ON THE CONVERSATION EARLIER IN THE MEETING. During the vote, Councilmember Chen raised a question about the dollar limit, stating if it was zero, he would vote no. Mayor Nelson advised the motion does not specify that detail. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. Councilmember Buckshnis asked to reconsider her vote on Agenda Item 8.2 and add it to the agenda. Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, asking if there was a provision that allowed this to be taken up at the next meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis said she planned to do that once it was on the agenda. Mr. Taraday advised Councilmember Buckshnis was not a prevailing party on the motion to table 8.2 and therefore would not be able to move for reconsideration. Councilmember Buckshnis said she voted yes and wanted to change her vote. Mr. Taraday said his notes reflect there was a motion to table the letter. Councilmember Buckshnis said she voted yes and wanted to reconsider her vote. Mr. Taraday reiterated his notes did not indicate she was on the prevailing side. City Clerk Scott Passey said if Councilmember Buckshnis voted to table, the vote can only be reconsidered by someone who voted against it. If she voted in favor of tabling, she could not move for reconsideration. Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to change her vote. Mr. Passey said Councilmember Buckshnis voted to lay the motion on table. Mayor Nelson explained Councilmember Buckshnis could not change her vote because the vote failed. Councilmember Buckshnis said the prevailing party tabled the letter and she would like reconsider and change her vote. Mr. Taraday suggested Councilmember Buckshnis make a motion to take the item from the table. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson said he was looking forward to the Memorial Day Ceremony on Monday at 11 a.m. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Nand relayed some marsh supporters who came to her office hours last week provided her a flyer about contest in June for artwork inspired by the marsh. She invited anyone interested in participating in the art contest to memorialize the marsh in artwork to reach out to her and she will connect them with the art contest organizers. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 23 Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who contacts her for their information and comments. The WRIA 8 grant funding process was completed. She welcomed councilmembers to talk to her about the information she received during review of the grants. WRIA 8 has more money than they have ever had. She planned to attend the Memorial Day Ceremony. Councilmember Paine congratulated Port of Edmonds Executive Director Bob McChesney on his retirement. She reported on the beautiful and very inspiring ceremony for the Housing Hope project. She reported on the event at the Public Works Department where they were recognized for their work as first responders. Councilmember Chen agreed the Housing Hope kickoff was inspiring. He extended an invitation the Asian Service Center kickoff on Saturday, June 3 at the Edmonds Waterfront Center from 10 a.m. to noon. The event will include food from various Asian countries and performances/entertainment. He encouraged the public to attend and to refer anyone who needs services to the agency. The agency has been recognized and supported by Verdant, the Hazel Miller Foundation, and others. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. SCOTT PASSE , CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2023 Page 24