08/25/2015 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
August 25, 2015
Work Meeting
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Scott James, Finance Director
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Rob English, City Engineer
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember*
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
* participated by phone during a portion of the
meeting
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
1. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Nelson.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO ADD
AN ACTION ITEM TO THE AGENDA AS ITEM 4A, A MOTION OF COUNCIL PER ECDC
20.100.040.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what ECDC 100.20.040 is. Councilmember Bloom answered it
is Review Approved Permits; the intent of adding this item to the agenda is to discuss review of the
permits for the Woodway Felds. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for clarified since this is a work
meeting, is the intent to add it as an action item. Councilmember Bloom answered her motion was to add
it as an action item immediately following Audience Comments.
Council President Fraley-Monillas did not support the addition of an action item as this is a work meeting
and two Councilmembers are absent and did not have an opportunity to respond to this addition or to call
in. She found it disingenuous to add something to the agenda without notifying the absent
Councilmembers. Councilmember Bloom responded this is a time sensitive issue because the Woodway
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 1
Fields are being installed right now and there are members of the public present to speak to that issue. She
said there was nothing she could do about two Councilmembers being on vacation. Last week she
proposed adding discussion of a resolution to stop work on the Woodway Fields to the agenda which was
not supported by the Council when all seven members were present. She also asked Council President
Fraley-Monillas in advance to schedule the resolution on the agenda. Therefore, she had no alternative but
to proceed in this manner.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not refuse; the week before the full City Council had
directed the City Attorney by a vote of at least 6-1 to talk to Edmonds School District (ESD) about an
ILA. She viewed Councilmember Bloom's attempt to place the resolution on the agenda as destructive to
the process that the Council had supported. Council President Fraley-Monillas reiterated she did not
support placing this item on tonight's agenda.
Councilmember Petso said it was unfortunate the full Council was not present but she understood this was
time critical so she was willing to support having it on the agenda.
MOTION CARRIED (4-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 2015
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #215757 THROUGH #215856 DATED AUGUST 20,
2015 FOR $540,092.16 (REISSUED CHECK #215768 $750.00). APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61746 THROUGH #61759 FOR $482,379.51,
BENEFIT CHECKS #61760 THROUGH #61764 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $525,667.24
FOR THE PAY PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2015 THROUGH AUGUST 15, 2015.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECK #215857 FOR $2,167.00 AND REISSUED CHECK
#215858 FOR $140.00 DATED AUGUST 20, 2015
D. SNOHOMISH COUNTY ILA AMENDMENT
E. COUNCIL GRANT REQUESTS FOR TREE BOARD AND DIVERSITY COMMISSION
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Scott Blomenkamp, Edmonds, read a letter he sent to Council. Although the Council has expressed
interest in interceding on the makeup of the Woodway Field project being developed by the ESD, citizens
have been told that while the Council would like to take action, ESD has sole authority over the makeup
of the fields. This statement, expressed by ESD, the Development Services and Parks Departments,
Mayor Earling and even the City Attorney, is categorically false and to some, a lie. Once again the City
requires citizens to do the research and spend their time doing the City Administration's job and by
extension, the Council's. Three weeks ago he informed that the Council had a way as codified in the
Edmonds City Development Code and sent the Council a prepared Application for Miscellaneous Review
and has the same application in hand with signatures of three resident within 300 feet as required by
ECDC 20.100.040.B.3. He urged the Council to fulfill the oath of office and perform their duties by
passing a motion for the Miscellaneous Permit Review he provided. Based on the seriousness of the
allegations, he urged the Council to do the reasonable thing and pass a motion to stop work to allow this
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 2
process to be heard as the Code allows in ECDC 20.110.040.B.2. Time is paramount as outlined in the OS
zone definition, "The OS district has the following purpose B. To regulate the use of these lands and other
land in private ownership, which cannot be developing without severe irreversible environmental impacts,
which are either: part of a required greenbelt area; a native growth protection easement; or which provide
an identifiable link to the city's open space of critical areas inventory." The exposure to liability for
delaying the property pales in comparison to the potential lawsuits that will come from the Council's
failure to act. Decades ago the Washington State Legislature removed the Sovereign Liability protection
from state and local governments. While there is protection for discretionary acts, these allegations
outline major ministerial liability to the City if action is not taken.
Mr. Blomenkamp expected City Attorney Taraday to inform the Council they either do not have the
authority or need time to review, the full Council is needed, it will expose you to liability from ESD or
some other such nonsense since the development application actually has a disclaimer that is signed by
the applicant to hold the City harmless in "any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false,
misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant." He asserted Mr. Taraday
has repeatedly given the Council advice that leads to breaking the law. In fact, his own actions during the
three Council hearings held on the subject put serious question on the adherence to the Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine. Mr. Blomenkamp's allotted three minutes expired and he indicated he would have
another audience member continue reading his letter.
Jim Wassall, Edmonds, said it was not fair that he had to speak before the Sunset Avenue project
update. He reported despite angle and parallel parking on Sunset, drivers still speed and ignore him when
he yells at them. The police usually respond when he calls regarding illegal parking, however, they do not
ticket illegally parked cars. By comparison cars on Railroad Avenue near the senior center are often
ticketed if they exceed the 3-hour parking limit. He recommended illegally parked cars on Sunset be
ticketed, especially cars with no one inside. No parking means no parking. The painted "no parking" is
only a 4-inch stencil that apparently people feel they can ignore because it is small. When he informs
drivers they are illegally parked they say they didn't realize it; he asserted they do realize there is no
parking but choose to disregard the signage. Between the parking and speeding, something needs to be
fixed on Sunset. Shortly after the angle parking was installed, he was nearly struck twice by drivers
backing out. Some people look as they are backing but some do not.
Shirley Pauls, Edmonds, looked forward to the update regarding Sunset Avenue. Her concern continues
to be safety; the angle parking in front of their house narrows the roadway and drivers speed up to get
through that area. Further, because there are no breaks between 4-5 cars, it is difficult to see when
backing out. Her second concern is ingress/egress to her own driveway; it should at least be as good as it
was before. She has difficulty backing her Subaru out of the driveway and it is very difficult to back out
their truck and camper. She likes the walkway and people using Sunset for 40 years has not been a
problem. The problems are use of their own driveway and speeding in the area of the angle parking.
Carol Nickisher, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset for four years said she has observed the walkway for
the past year as well as spoken to Walker, the young man doing observations. Her observations over the
past year have led her to believe Sunset is far more dangerous now than it was before, dangerous to
pedestrians who now have to negotiate bicycles on the walkway. She has also observed bicycles darting
into the street if they encounter two pedestrians with strollers walking side -by -side. She feared Sunset was
an accident waiting to happen and was surprised there had not been an accident or injury during the past
year. She echoed Mr. Wassall and Ms. Pauls' comments, adding the angle parking is not only dangerous,
it is ugly. The beautification process has been a dismal, bark sloughs off into the street likely clogging
drains, the plants that haven't been stolen or died are very sorrowful looking, and there is no maintenance
except by chainsaw. If the letters opposing Sunset have decreased, it is only because people believe they
cannot fight City Hall. She wanted to believe that common sense would prevail.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 3
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, asked who is representing the citizen's concerns and advocating for them.
The School Board has dismissed their concerns and called them a small but vocal minority. The School
Board is charged with educating and protecting children; they have stated crumb rubber has been
determined to be an acceptable risk. She wholeheartedly disagreed; to her and many others, any avoidable
and unnecessary risk is unacceptable. She recalled the School Board President declined Council President
Fraley-Monillas' request for the School Board to meet with the Council as a whole to discuss infill
material. She questioned whether the School Board President followed appropriate protocol and followed
up with other School Board Member regarding their opinions. The matter has been brought to staff s
attention multiple times; staff has been actively involved in advocating for the ESD's plans and have not
actively advocated on behalf of the many citizens concerned with the use of crumb rubber. There has been
no public involvement in the actually planning process. Input at the Architectural Design Board was not
allowed and a finalized plan was presented at community meetings, not a planning process. They met
with and presented risk and alternatives to the Parks & Recreation Department and the Mayor. Instead of
advocating for citizens, staff continued to support ESD's plan. The Mayor has not issued a public
statement on the matter but behind the scenes has chosen to selectively circulate industry -funded
materials. All information and opinions should be considered; with that in mind, she questioned why the
City was circulating one-sided information and ignoring the information that has been supplied by many
residents. She referred to the local toxicologist who at the request of a State Senator donated his time and
expertise on the matter. The idea of continuing to partner in order to possibly have some control over
infill choices in the future did not make sense because there was no guarantee the partnership would not
be canceled when ESD wanted to install new fields. ESD has clearly shown they do not negotiate. If the
City partners with ESD, they are partnering in a questionable, risky and divisive decision. She urged the
Council to advocate for citizens, keep citizens' concerns in mind and find a way to protect them.
Thalia Moutsanides, Edmonds, reported from September 27, 2014 to November 19, 2014, she spent 37
days gathering 1,060 signatures from residents of 33 cities and 5 states opposing the Sunset Avenue
multipurpose walkway on the west side of the street. While doing this, she spoke with hundreds of people
outraged about the new configuration and the fact that they knew nothing about it, it was unsafe, how
could the City get away with something like that and spend so much money for three blocks, no formal
agreement with BNSF, it catered to only walkers and not the elderly and people parked in cars, and what
was wrong with the way it was. People were angry there was no information posted on the grassy strip
informing them about the proposed sidewalk, how they could oppose it and how they could get involved.
Not only did she gather signatures of people opposing the walkway, she provided them information on the
project whether they were for or against it which should have been done by the City years ago. The right
way to inform the public would have been to post it on Sunset for all to see like the City does with zoning
changes and variances. She finally had to stop gathering signatures because it was upsetting to her to see
so many opposed and how angry and upset they were. Many felt the City had an agenda and would not
listen to any viewpoint but their own. The majority of residents on Sunset Avenue would like to
compromise and not make the sidewalk about grant money. She questioned whether the City had talked to
any of the granting agencies to determine whether a narrower sidewalk such as 3 feet would be acceptable
since there is a sidewalk on the east side of the street; not allow bicycles, segways, skateboards which
increase the danger; and provide reasonable parking that is not located in front of the residences at the
south end of Sunset Avenue. Residents on Sunset Avenue share the street with hundreds of cars, tons of
people, dogs, and bikes and she urged the City to consider what they experience on a daily basis. Before
the walkway is finalized, she recommended a meeting open to the public where people could voice their
opinions.
Tom Gable, Edmonds, relayed several of his neighbors on Sunset Avenue have spoken about their
disappointment with the project. In spite of the no parking zones, every night as sunset approaches the
road is parked solid with cars, making it nearly impossible get out of their driveways. If rules are made
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 4
for Sunset Avenue, he urged the City to enforce them. In the course of their construction project, multiple
people have used the porta-potty on their property. He questioned whether the intent of the project was to
bring cars or walkers to Sunset Avenue or revenue into Edmonds. He applauded making the walkway
ADA compliant and bringing walkers across the street. He observed most pedestrians and drivers look
into the houses and not at the water. If the project continues, he suggested determining what it was trying
to achieve and to include the residents of Sunset in that discussion.
Mike Herb, Edmonds, said he walks Sunset Avenue daily and loves it, finding it a great design that is
much safer for walking because the street is so level. Prior to the walkway, he walked on the uneven
sidewalk on the east side and before the present configuration, broke his leg walking there when he fell
stepping onto the muddy grass. He supported the current figuration.
Margret Pinson, Edmonds, recalled when asking questions of their parents when they were children, she
and her siblings were often told "because that's the law." They knew they were expected to follow the
law; not skirt the law, not twist the law, not manipulate the law. She was incredibly dismayed by the
conduct of a great many in the ESD, the City Administration, Planning Division and others with regard to
the Woodway Field project. The fields are school property that is deed restricted and intended to be used
for school purpose for perpetuity, the students and children of ESD now and in the future. That land must
be kept free of toxins that are sure to hurt children. That is very least that is expected of elected officials.
She hoped the Council would take action to protect children.
James Martin, Edmonds, observed there is a difference of opinion with regard to Sunset Avenue. He
likes Sunset the way it is. He enjoys walking on the west side and he looks at the water and sees a lot of
other people enjoying the view of water, sitting on the benches and walking on the west side. He
summarized the current configuration was a good situation.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he has thought a lot about what he would do if he were a parent of child
who played on the toxic fields and then came down with cancer or another medical problem. Some people
are likely to sue when things happen especially when the City Council and Mayor are in fully knowledge
of all the problems that can occur, yet choose to put their head in the sand. Only Councilmembers Bloom
and Petso realize the need for caution. The rest of the Council, led by Council President Fraley-Monillas,
chooses to ignore the obvious and say they cannot do anything about it. He asserted the Council could do
something; they could put their foot down, establish a precedent and make news. If the Council did not,
they left the City liable to someone suing the City and the ESD. With regard to Sunset Avenue, he said all
that has been accomplished so far is creating a substandard sidewalk whose width is not adequate for
bikes and people. He suggested reverting back to a simple 5-foot sidewalk, markings in the street for
bikes and extending the parking northward. He admitted he and others parks illegally to look at the sunset
and thumb their noses at the City due to lies that were told and false information provided when the City
sought grant funds.
Mark Wall, Edmonds, said the Council has been informed of dozens of code violations, many zoning
issues, unethical City employee involvement as well as interference of the City Attorney allowing the
Council to fulfill their responsibility to uphold the City's laws and codes. The City and ESD have gotten
plenty of local news coverage regarding this issue. The City knowingly continuing down this path has
attracted national media attention; ESPN discovered Edmonds and is excited to be doing a story on
corruption and powerful lobbies that represent crumb rubber and how cities allow this to happen to
generate revenue. He provided pictures of the lighting infrastructure ESD has installed. Although the
Hearing Examiner denied the lighting, ESD withdrew their permit for lighting, and the City Council
approved a condition that no lighting was allowed, the infrastructure is being installed and the City has
chosen to remain silent on this illegal aspect. At the April 28, 2015 Council meeting, the City Attorney
stated we don't generally consider staff to be either proponents or opponents of a project. He referred to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 5
several emails that refute that statement including a statement from Planner Mike Clugston that he will
push the School District to include all aspects of land use review and permitting at this time rather than
apply for additional land use permits with each phase of development, get all your land use done now and
get vested, then pull those building permits for subsequent phases when those pots of money become
available.
Mr. Wall asserted the City's Park Director Carrie Hite has tirelessly lobbied in support of the project and
gave the Council misinformation. Her email to friends at ESD, Matt Finch, Stewart Mhyre and Ed Peters,
and fellow City employee Lead Planner Mike Clugston to inform them she emailed supporters of the
project to ask them to comment at the Hearing Examiner and City Council hearings. The notes from his
public records request include Mr. Taraday gave ESD advice to break up the zones so that lights could be
added without a development agreement, advice that avoids the Council as the Council would need to
vote on a development agreement. The Council has had many opportunities and dozens of things have
been brought to their attention. Although one Councilmember said the Council did not have the ability to
tell ESD what to do with their property, the point of the closed record review was to tell ESD what to do
with their property.
John Pauls, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, suggested after tonight's meeting, the Council very slowly
cruise down Sunset Avenue and determine if they saw a walkway or parking plant.
Toni Rochelli continued reading the letter Mr. Blomenkamp submitted to the Council: Mr. Taraday's
nonsensical repeated coaching of how review boards and hearing examiner hearings constitute "Public
Involvement in Design," interpreting the Hearing Examiner's determinations, and most importantly his
statement in the record that "I'm sorry, the rules do not allow this hearing to go on forever. We need to
bring it to a close" when the hearing can certainly go on as long as the council wishes, begs the question
of his impartiality. This as well as allowing Ms. Hite and Mr. Clugston to add to the record as supposed
"only neutral staff when there is clear evidence via public records request of their culpability in
manipulating this process. He asked whether they have just been hearing words or will they see action. If
the Council refuses, this application will be filed on Thursday and urged the Council to stop the endless
lawsuits to be expected from not taking reasonable action now.
Mayor Earling relayed Council President Fraley-Monillas' request for a brief recess. Council President
Fraley-Monillas advised Councilmember Buckshnis has agreed to phone in.
From the audience Mr. Blomenkamp questioned whether that was allowed by Robert's Rules of Order
and asserted state law requires the code state someone can phone in.
Mayor Earling asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday whether Councilmember Buckshnis would be allowed to
participate by phone. Mr. Taraday answered historically the Council has allowed it. He advised Robert's
Rules does not allow remarks from the audience during a Council meeting.
Councilmember Bloom said in the past a Councilmember calling in to participate in a vote has been
required to be engaged and hear every single comment that went on before the item whether it was a
public hearing or audience comments; Councilmember Buckshnis has not involved in that and she already
stated a long time ago she feels this project should go forward and the Council has no jurisdiction. She
found it offensive that Council President Fraley-Monillas would call Councilmember Buckshnis because
she has not been privy to all the comments and she expected Councilmember Buckshnis has not read the
multiple emails the Council has received including emails received today. Council President Fraley-
Monillas responded she was not sure what Councilmember Bloom was afraid of. Councilmember Bloom
said she was afraid of a tie vote.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 6
Councilmember Petso recalled the Council may have passed a resolution regarding this topic in 2013. She
supported taking a break to allow her to locate the resolution.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
4A. A MOTION OF THE COUNCIL PER ECDC 20.100.040
(Councilmember Buckshnis joined the Council meeting by phone.)
Mayor Earling relayed there is a request from Councilmember Buckshnis to participate in the meeting by
phone. He asked Mr. Taraday to speak to past practice. Mr. Taraday said past practice has been to allow
telephonic participation at a Councilmember's request. It is up to the Chair to rule whether that can occur
and the Council can appeal the Chair's ruling. The City does not have text searchable resolutions and
Robert's Rules does not address this.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmember Buckshnis has been watching the Council
meeting live from Wisconsin. Councilmember Buckshnis said she is in car watching while driving to Fort
Washington, Wisconsin.
Councilmember Petso recalled the Council set some reasonable parameters for Councilmembers' remote
participation such as they needed to be able to hear and to be heard. If the Council has a resolution that
governs how this is done, she questioned why it would be a Robert's Rules decision. Mr. Taraday said
staff had not been able to locate the resolution. No one anticipated this would occur and without advance
notice, he did not have an opportunity to locate the resolution before the meeting. The meeting could be
recessed until it was determined whether such a resolution exists. Councilmember Petso suggested
proceeding with other agenda items while staff conducted further research. Mr. Taraday advised that was
at the pleasure of the Council.
Councilmember Bloom's recollection of the resolution was that it had to be planned in advance, it had to
be in relationship to a specific item that the Councilmember had an interest in, the Councilmember knew
they would not be available to attend the meeting and they had to listen to all comments and associated
information. She referred to Councilmember Buckshnis' comment that she was driving in the car and
questioned how she could be watching or listening to a Council meeting and be able to give it her full
attention while driving. She urged the Council not to waste any more time. Councilmember Buckshnis
responded she is a passenger in the car.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether a motion to table until the information was available
would be appropriate. Councilmember Petso said a motion to table would be out of order in this context.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said a motion to table was non -debatable. Councilmember Petso said a
motion to table is subject to a point of order; a motion to table is for an emergency, this would be a
motion to postpone. Mr. Taraday said a motion to table is indefinite and a motion to postpone is to a
specific time. Mayor Earling suggested the Council proceed with Item 5A to allow staff to conduct further
research.
Council President Fraley-Monillas explained the phone connection with Councilmember Buckshnis will
be broken but Councilmember Buckshnis will continue to watch the meeting and will call if she has
comments on the following item because her (Council President Fraley-Monillas') cell phone did not
have adequate power to keep Councilmember Buckshnis on the phone during the next agenda item.
5. STUDY ITEMS
A. SUNSET AVENUE WALKWAY PROJECT UPDATE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 7
Public Works Phil Williams explained this pilot project was placed into operation approximately
September 14, 2014, nearly a year ago. A few adjustments/modifications were made to the project
following that date but most of the geometry was established at that time. Traffic counters were placed in
the vicinity of the angle parking and a second further north, a few hundred feet short of Caspers. He
displayed and reviewed graphs with the following information:
Aver a a Daily Traffic ADT
November 2014
April 2011
July 2015
862
1,145
1,087
For comparison, average daily traffic volumes for SR 104 are 35,000-40,000; for Olympic View Drive
3,600-4,000 and for 761h north of Perrinville 2,000.
851h Percentile Speeds
November 2014
April 2015
July 2015
South at angledparking)
23 mph
21 mph
19 mph
North end
26 mph
23 mph
21 mph
Wrong Way Counts (per week
November 2014
April 2015
July 2015
11
14
18
Mr. Williams displayed accident data January 1, 2014 — July 31, 2015, advising there were a total of 7
accidents but 5 were outside the project limits and only 2 within the project limits, 1 backing accident in
the vicinity of the angle parking that occurred prior to the project and 1 accident at the north end due to a
vehicle backing out of a driveway. He displayed a graph of pedestrian usage, collected by an intern
between July 20 and August 19, 2015 of mid -morning, mid -day, early mid -afternoon and mid -late
afternoon on the east sidewalk, west sidewalk and total pedestrians, summarizing 80% are walking on the
west side walkway and 20% are walking on the east side.
He reviewed a list of possible survey questions:
1. My primary use of Sunset Avenue between Main Street and Caspers Street has been as a; (Check all
that apply)
❑ Pedestrian
❑ Bicyclist
❑ Motorist
❑ Adjacent Resident
❑ I have not used it
❑ Other (please specify)
2. The availability of parking on Sunset Avenue is;
❑ More than what is needed
❑ Adequate
❑ Somewhat Inadequate
❑ Completely Inadequate
❑ Parking should be removed
❑ Other (please specify)
3. The angled parking on Sunset Avenue is;
❑ OK to navigate
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 8
❑ Difficult to navigate
❑ Should be adjusted westward if possible
❑ Should be removed
❑ Other (please specify)
4. Bicycle use on the shared pathway
❑ Safe bicycle use should be encouraged
❑ There are not enough bikes to be a problem
❑ A separate bike path should be considered
❑ Bikes should not be allowed on the path
❑ Other (please specify)
5. I would like to see Sunset Avenue have additional amenities (park benches, picnic tables,
artwork, etc.)
❑ Strongly Agree
❑ Somewhat Agree
❑ Neither Agree nor Disagree
❑ Somewhat Disagree
❑ Strongly Disagree
6. I would like to see the current temporary pathway improved and made permanent
❑ Strongly Agree
❑ Somewhat Agree
❑ Neither Agree nor Disagree
❑ Somewhat Disagree
❑ Strongly Disagree
7. I would use this walkway...
❑ Daily
❑ Several times a week
❑ Several times a month
❑ A few times a year
❑ Almost never
❑ Never
8. The best way to get information to me is; (Check all that apply)
❑ The City's website
❑ The City's Facebook page
❑ E-mail updates (my e-mail is )
❑ My Edmonds News
❑ Edmonds Beacon
❑ Public Meetings and Council Meetings ❑ In person ❑ On TV ❑ Replay or streaming
❑ Other (Please Specify)
He advised the survey could be conducted via an online survey like Survey Monkey; the approximate cost
of a statistically valid survey is $10,000420,000, about the cost of the temporary project. He displayed
the original artist's rendering of the walkway and a photograph of what exists today.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 9
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how an online survey prevented people from voting over and
over. Mr. Williams acknowledged someone that was committed to skewing data likely could determine a
way. Improvements Survey Monkey has made in recent years attempts to identify people such as via an
IP addresses. He agreed an online survey was not perfect and was not a statistically valid survey.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to valid issues identified by citizens such as angle parking,
bikes on the pathway, lack of parking in general and plant maintenance. Mr. Williams agreed the general
scheme of parking and the amount of parking is probably the most difficult issue. The pilot project tried
to mimic the number of parking spaces; there are about five more identified spaces but parking is
distributed differently with more at the south end and eight more angle parking space than there were
previously. In early testimony, people liked the angle parking so it did not seem unreasonable to create
additional angle spaces instead of parallel parking. In the pilot project parallel spaces have to be carefully
located so they do not interfere with driveway ingress and egress. More parallel spaces could be added
and the angle parking reduced if there were funds to fix some of the driveways. Council President Fraley-
Monillas asked how many spaces would be lost if the angle parking on the south were replaced with
parallel parking. Mr. Williams answered the existing 21 angle spaces would be reduced to 10 parallel
spaces, a net loss of 11.
With regard to plant maintenance, Mr. Williams said Parks did good job for a pilot project in planting
roses and spreading bark. He acknowledged some plants have likely died and could be replaced. The
roses were low lying to prevent them growing high enough to interfere with views. The intent of the roses
was also to discourage people from continue to walk the habitual path west of the curb which was a
concern for BNSF. Promises were made 20 years ago that the City would establish and maintain
vegetation that made it difficult for people to reach the railroad tracks in an effort to prevent the
installation of a fence on Sunset. The roses were an attempt to reestablish that and make it look a little
softer which was accomplished. With regard to the comment that there has not been any maintenance,
Parks was there yesterday pulling blackberries and doing maintenance.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to public comment from a couple who are probably the most
affected by ingress and egress into their driveway, recalling there were plans to improve that. Mr.
Williams said staff has talked with and met with the owners of 310 Sunset onsite a number of times to
discuss their concern with getting in and out of their driveway with their truck and camper. Cones have
been used on occasion to block spaces to assist them at specific times but that would not be done long
term. A minimal design was prepared to widen the throat of their driveway to give them better access;
staff intends to construct that in the next 30 days or so when normal summer workloads decreases. The
property owners are agreeable to that.
Councilmember Petso requested the presentation be posted on the City's website. Mr. Williams said he
will do that tomorrow. Councilmember Petso asked whether Mr. Williams would be amenable to a public
hearing and public meeting process to look at this again. She has received a diagram from a citizen, a
suggestion from a citizen to taper the walkway in certain areas rather than a uniform width, etc. There are
a lot of ideas that could bring the project closer to a final answer if a way can be determined to collect that
input. Mr. Williams said if Council wants to have public meeting or hearing, staff will do their best to
make it successful. He explained this is a pilot project and some comprises were made to fit it into a small
budget. He referred to the 13 feet that exists behind the angle parking, suggesting if vehicles are traveling
at an appropriate speed such as 12-13 mph and drivers back out very slowly, there is plenty of time to
stop. He referred to the accident history, noting there were no backing accidents during the last year. He
understood it was different than the previous configuration and may not feel comfortable to some. With
an actual project and funds, there would be room on City property to move the angle parking 3-5 feet
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 10
further west. Councilmember Petso said that is something citizens have suggested which is the reason she
is interested in something more interactive than a public hearing.
Councilmember Petso referred to survey question #1 regarding primary use of walkway, observing
people's primary use of Sunset may have changed with the walkway on the west. She suggested the
survey also ask about people's primary use before and with the project in place. Mr. Williams agreed.
Councilmember Petso said a fairly significant update of the Strategic Action Plan is planned next year
that will include more elaborate sampling than Survey Monkey. She suggested including questions about
the Sunset Walkway in that survey. Mr. Williams answered or both could be done.
Councilmember Johnson requested Mr. Williams' presentation be provided to the Council as well as the
City Clerk. She suggested Council review the questionnaire, possibly simplify it and use all available
resources such as online, in person surveys on Sunset, My Edmonds News and the Beacon because the
more information the City receives the better. She requested Mr. Williams describe the current
configuration of Sunset Avenue. Mr. Williams said there is a marked 8-foot wide walkway from the
westerly curb from the existing formal City sidewalk on the south to the crosswalk at Caspers and a
double yellow line with hash lines where there is parking to allow a door to open without intruding onto
the path. At its narrowest point, the street is 30 feet from curb to curb, 10 feet for the walkway and clear
space leaves 20 feet of paving. Some parallel parking spaces have been marked which consume 7 feet
which leaves 13 feet. The angle of the 21 angle parking spaces was adjusted slightly from the consultant's
original design and leaves 13 feet of clear pavement between the end of the parking and the easterly curb.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the photograph of the project as it now exists, observing the BNSF
right-of-way goes into the street in places and there are portions at the north and south that the City owns.
The design is a relatively straight north -south walkway. He asked if there would be any advantage to a
design that keeps the existing curb where the BNSF is and follows the City property, resulting in an arced
walkway which would expand parking in some points. Mr. Williams said there has been some thought
given to that. He noted where the person is standing taking the picture is about where the BNSF right-of-
way line meets the curb and narrows slowly to a maximum of 12 feet into the street that BNSF owns. The
City has occupied that for 75 years but does not have an active lease or easement other than at the pump
station and a few other specific locations.
Councilmember Mesaros explained his suggestion was to leave the curb in its existing location and in the
places where the City owns more property to the west, push the curb west. Mr. Williams agreed that could
be done where the angle parking is and further south, push the curb west or use the property west of the
curb for additional benches, tables, etc. Councilmember Mesaros observed the picnic table in the
photograph is on BNSF property. Mr. Williams agreed it was.
Councilmember Bloom observed there have been a number of comments from the public on My
Edmonds News and via email about the reduction of the parking on the north end and whether
consideration has been given to replacing parking on the north end. She asked the rationale for reducing
the parking on the north end. Mr. Williams answered it was related to driveways and that is the narrowest
portion of the project. The intent was to mimic the number of parking spaces and the project actually
added a few more. A lot of motorists drive as well as park on Sunset Avenue enjoy the view so the goal
was not to reduce the number of spaces but during the pilot project parking was moved so it did not
interfere with driveways. More parking could be added on the north end by addressing some of the
driveways. There is one acute problem where the driveway returns will be adjusted funded by the
maintenance budget. Councilmember Bloom asked whether that driveway was on the north end. Mr.
Williams said it is within the 200 feet of angle at the south end.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 11
Councilmember Bloom expressed concern there were no attachments to the agenda memo so the public
and the Council did not have an opportunity to review the information in advance of Mr. Williams'
presentation. She is a visual person and likes to formulate questions in advance. She supported
Councilmember Petso's suggestion to hold a public hearing with all the history attached so the Council
was not just looking at the current situation.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she drives Sunset almost daily in her small SUV and is still
uncomfortable with the angle parking. She preferred to make all the parking parallel and lose some
parking spaces. Another issue that needs to be resolved is speeding; she drives slowly and often cars pass
her. Mr. Williams said there would be a lot of techniques available in an actual funded project to reduce
speeds on Sunset. There have been discussions about a tabletop intersection at Edmonds Street which
would slow drivers before they reach the angle parking. There could also be a traffic calming device at
the end of the angle parking. He was not a huge fan of traffic calming there because drivers focus on the
speed bump to time their braking and then speed up versus watching for movement in the angle parking.
He acknowledged angle parking in general has different concerns than parallel parking. He recalled
testimony the Council received regarding the importance of angle parking and the preference to look out
the windshield versus the side window.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said speeding is occurring mid -street north; she was unsure what
traffic calming could be used to address that and suggested possibly more patrol emphasis was needed.
Mr. Williams answered staff has had conversations with the Police Department and they have issued
tickets. The number of tickets issued would be another piece of data he could gather. He acknowledged it
is a long straight stretch and it is easy to speed where there is not much parking, the driveways are visible,
etc. The speed data indicates speeds are not impressive for a street signed at 20 mph and the street does
not qualify under the current policy for traffic calming.
4A. A MOTION OF THE COUNCIL PER ECDC 20.100.040 (Con't)
(Councilmember Buckshnis joined the Council meeting by phone.)
Mr. Taraday advised he had not been able to locate a resolution adopted by the City Council that
addresses telephone conferences. He explained he does not have access to a word searchable database. He
scanned the relevant time period, 2012-2014, looking for a resolution and the only one he found was
adopting Robert's Rules. He did not think the Council had adopted such a resolution. Robert's Rules refer
to telephonic meetings as a possibility if the body has provided for that in its bylaws. That is not in the
Council's bylaws but there has been a past practice of allowing for telephonic participation. With regard
to how to decide the matter, he recommended the Chair rule whether telephonic participation is
appropriate and the Council then has the ability to appeal that ruling by a majority vote.
Mayor Earling said since there is no information available with regard to a resolution or under what
conditions a Councilmember may participate via phone, the Chair rules that Councilmember Buckshnis
be allowed to participate with the understanding she has watched the meeting with regard to the
Woodway Fields from the beginning.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPEAL THE CHAIR'S RULING.
Councilmember Bloom explained her rationale; there are seven Councilmembers, Councilmember Nelson
is also not present. She was uncertain whether he could be contacted but he had not been contacted and
not given the option of participating. Allowing just one Councilmember to participate on the fly like this
will potentially result in a 3-3 vote. Barring the ability to allow both Councilmember Nelson and
Councilmember Buckshnis to participate, the Council is not doing justice to issue because they have
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 12
different opinions just as other Councilmembers do, and there was not an opportunity to include
Councilmember Nelson's opinion. She summarized it was not appropriate to have Councilmember
Buckshnis participate and not Councilmember Nelson.
Councilmember Mesaros said it was appropriate to have Councilmember Buckshnis participate and it was
unfortunate that Councilmember Nelson could not participate, assuming if he knew this agenda item were
going to be discussed, he would have liked to participate. With regard to Councilmember Bloom's
comment about things being done on the fly, he said it seems this whole agenda item is on the fly;
therefore, it was not a good characterization. He voted to place this on the agenda, finding it worthy of
discussion but wanted to allow as many Councilmembers as were available to participate. If
Councilmember Buckshnis was available, he welcomed her participation.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmember Nelson knew he had the opportunity to call in for
any Council meeting he missed but he is a kayaking in remote place. She was disturbed one of reasons for
not wanting Councilmember Buckshnis to participate is the possibility of a 3-3 vote. She felt this agenda
item was taking advantage of a situation where Councilmembers were absent and lining up votes prior to
the meeting. She summarized it is Councilmember Buckshnis' right to participate via phone.
Councilmember Petso voiced her support to appeal the Chair's decision because the City Attorney said
under Robert's Rules a member does not have the ability to participate remotely unless it has been set up.
She thought the Council had set that up but apparently no one can find it. She will vote not to allow
Councilmember Buckshnis to participate, not because of how it affects the vote but because it was likely
an incorrect ruling under Robert's Rules. She also pointed out as she understands the agenda item,
Councilmembers will either vote to have a review of permits or citizens will file for a review of the
permits. There may not be as much at stake as people think so everyone could relax and let the process
unfold as correctly as we figure out how to do it.
Councilmember Buckshnis said everybody knows she is out of town for family reasons. She has called in
from out of town in the past when she was in Charlotte, in Wyoming, etc. She watches Council meetings
all the time now that they are live. What she found disarming was, like Councilmember Mesaros said, her
participation was not on the fly, adding this to the agenda was done on the fly. When she joined the
meeting by phone, she turned off the video of the Council meeting due to the five second delay. She felt
setup and found it unfortunate that she had to call in when it was nearly midnight because this was put on
the agenda because votes were being counted. She found it disrespectful to her and Councilmember
Nelson. To Councilmember Bloom's indication that she had not read all the emails, she has read all her
email. She found Councilmember Bloom's implication she was not doing her job very disrespectful as
well as the issue of us versus them. She was floored with how this got on tonight's agenda.
Councilmember Bloom responded this was only on the fly because there was no other way to get this on
the agenda. It is time sensitive, ESD is moving forward with putting in the fields and there has been a lot
of concern expressed by citizens. Last week she tried to get a stop work order on the agenda via a
resolution and Councilmembers would not even talk about it. She said Councilmember Buckshnis made
her opinion pretty clear last week as did five other Councilmembers, that they did not even want to
discuss this. This had to happen in this manner, remote participation is not the best way and it is not per
Robert's Rules and staff cannot find any documentation regarding rules for remote participation. She
summarized that was what was on the fly tonight.
Mr. Taraday said until a determination is made regarding whether Councilmember Buckshnis can
participate, she cannot vote.
MOTION CARRIED 3-2, COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 13
(Councilmember Buckshnis ceased her participation by phone.)
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, PER
ECDC 20.100.040, REVIEW OF APPROVED PERMITS, THAT ALL RELATED PERMITS IN
THE WOODWAY FIELDS PERMITTING PROCESS BE REVIEWED. THIS REVIEW SHALL
INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO:
1) PERMIT BLD20141182 ISSUED ON MAY 28, 2015 FOR FIELD LIGHTING BASES. THAT
PERMIT STATES PHASE 1 SPORTS FIELD SITE WORK, FENCE, DRAINAGE FIELD
LIGHTING BASES, SPECTATOR SEATING.
2) THE DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE BY THE LEAD AGENCY, THE
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE SEPA REVIEW OF THE PROJECT, AND
3) THE USE OF 2005 VERSUS THE NEW 2014 STORMWATER REGULATIONS IN
DETERMINING FILTERING OF THE FIELD RUNOFF.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the City Council can legally stop the District by
Councilmember Bloom's motion. Mr. Taraday explained Councilmember Bloom's motion is for review
under Chapter 20.100 which is not a stop work order. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether it
would stop the District from proceeding. Mr. Taraday answered under the code it could but that is not
Councilmember Bloom's motion; her motion is to initiate a review under ECDC 20.100. That only results
in a stop work order if the only reasonable way to correct the deficiencies which have yet to be specified,
is for the permittee to cease the permitted activity. The Director of Community Services refers the matter
to the Hearing Examiner for review. The Hearing Examiner holds a hearing and if he finds the only
reasonable way to correct the deficiencies is for the permittee to cease the permitted activity, the Hearing
Examiner may revoke the permit. He clarified a stop work order is different than a permit revocation.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what activities have been permitted at the Woodway Fields that
would be reviewed. Mr. Taraday answered all the land use permits Councilmember Bloom identified in
her motion.
Councilmember Bloom said she mentioned three items in her motion, items she felt came up the most.
Mr. Blomenkamp's email which the Council received today included a lot more issues. She highlighted
those three but her motion states this review shall include but not be limited to those three.
Councilmember Petso spoke in favor of the motion on the basis that since this review will occur anyway,
it was preferable for the Council to initiate it rather than make the citizens pay a permit fee.
Councilmember Johnson spoke speak in favor of the motion and provided some context. Some time ago
when the Council had a closed record review of the Woodway Fields project, she was confused and
contacted Development Services Director Shane Hope who provided a very discreet explanation. She read
what Ms. Hope wrote: "Because the variance would be for a public agency, the Edmonds Community
Development Code 17.00.030 requires that it receive a recommendation by a Hearing Examiner and then
a final decision by the City Council which is equivalent to a Type IIIB decision. And under ECDC
20.01.003 a Type IIIB decision requires a closed record review by the City Council."
Councilmember Johnson explained when the City Council held its closed record review, the Council was
guided by very specific instructions and was told only to look at two issues, the bleachers and a variance
for the height of the fence around the ballfield. The Council was advised not to discuss it with citizens,
not to visit the site and not discuss it for period of time after the decision. In the past month citizens have
come to the Council week after week raising their concerns and issues. The City Council has a
responsibility to make sure all questions are answered and the best way to do that is via this appeal
process. She supported the review for that reason, not because she has taken a position one way or
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 14
another, but because very specific concerns and allegations have been raised and she wanted to use the
process in place to review it.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the process Mr. Taraday described, if the motion is approved, a
review of the permit process will follow and there may be an appeal to the Hearing Examiner. Mr.
Taraday explained according to the code, this review may only occur i£
1) The conditions of the permit are not being met.
• To his knowledge no one has indicated the conditions of the permit are not being met, so he
did not have any reason to believe the review was appropriate under that item.
• If the Council passes this motion, Ms. Hope will do the initial review to see if the three items
are satisfied. If one of them is satisfied, the process proceeds to the next step.
2) The requirements of the City Code are not being met.
• He was not aware of any way in which the City Code requirements were not being met.
• Again, it would be Ms. Hope who makes that determination after the review is commenced,
whether it is commenced by the Council or by three residents living within 300 feet.
3) Is the permitted activity causing a nuisance or hazardous condition.
Mr. Taraday explained if none of three can be satisfied, the review does not go any further and does not
go to the Hearing Examiner.
Mr. Blomenkamp spoke from the audience, urging the Council to read the code. Mayor Earling informed
Mr. Blomenkamp that one more outburst he would be asked to leave the room.
Mr. Taraday addressed Mr. Blomenkamp's comment, stating the code is not well written. In his opinion
the only way it makes any sense is if it is interpreted the way he just explained. If that was not the case,
there would be an endless cycle of land use appeals every time an opponent of a project wanted to
challenge something, whether or not there was any basis for a challenge which State land use laws do not
allow to happen. Edmonds may be the only city in the State that has this procedure; it is extremely
unusual. It does not make any sense to say a group of resident or the City Council could, without any
violation of a permit condition, violation of city code or finding of nuisance or hazard, just bring
something back to the Hearing Examiner. The State Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) specifically states the
city is forbidden to revoke permits after 21 days of issuance. He was not sure how this procedure is
reconciled with LUPA. He said this was perhaps not intuitive for the non -legally educated.
Mayor Earling observed in the citation of the code, the Community Service Director is mentioned. Mr.
Taraday agreed, commenting the City does not have one. Historically most of those references are
interpreted to refer to the Development Services Director by context. He agreed that was another way in
which this code provision does not make sense.
Councilmember Mesaros said if by chance fault is found and it goes to Hearing Examiner and there is an
appeal from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council for a closed record review, would the Council be
qualified to review it if this motion is passed. Mr. Taraday clarified it is not an appeal to the Hearing
Examiner. Assuming Ms. Hope found one of the violations is met, under subsection C, the Director of
Community Services shall notify the permittee in writing that the permit is being reviewed, list the
alleged deficiencies and specify a reasonable time for the permittee to correct the deficiencies. If the
permittee could reasonably correct the deficiencies but fails to do so in the specified time, the Director of
Community Services may refer the matter to the City Attorney. If the only reasonable way to correct the
deficiencies is for the permittee to cease the permitted activity or for the City to impose new or changed
conditions on the permit, the Director of Community Services shall refer the matter to the Hearing
Examiner for review. He explained it is not an automatic referral to the Hearing Examiner even if there is
a deficiency. Councilmember Mesaros asked if it comes back to the City Council. Mr. Taraday responded
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 15
he was fairly certain this miscellaneous review provision was not listed in the table of land use processes
so it was unknown whether it was a Type IIIA or B so he did not know how to answer that question.
With regard to timing, Councilmember Mesaros said it had been stated the reason the Council needed to
act tonight when two Councilmembers were absent was because this was an emergency. If a deficiency is
found, the School District has a right to correct the deficiency in a reasonable period of time. He asked
what the timing would be. Mr. Taraday estimated the timing based on Mr. Blomenkamp's submittal of an
application for miscellaneous review of a development occurring near his property; the hearing will be
this Thursday and his application was submitted earlier than July 16. In Mr. Blomenkamp's instance,
there was over a month between the application and the hearing date and the Hearing Examiner typically
would have 10 days to rule.
Councilmember Bloom recalled a reference was added to the code that states every time the Community
Development Director is referenced, it meant the Development Services Director. Mr. Taraday did not
disagree, whether it was in the code or not, in this instance, he agreed it was the Development Services
Director. Councilmember Bloom pointed out the review procedures state the Director of Community
Services which is different than the Community Development Director. She was unsure whether both
were replaced by the Development Services Director as the City no longer had a Community
Development Director.
Councilmember Petso referred to an email the Council received late this afternoon and asked whether Mr.
Taraday received a copy. Mr. Taraday said if it was what was read during Audience Comments, he has a
copy. Councilmember Petso said the email contained allegations that the conditions had not been met, for
example the Council said no lights, the Hearing Examiner said no lights, but lighting infrastructure is
being installed. Another allegation is related to the code such as waiting 14 days after the SEPA authority
is chosen before any work begins and that that time period was not met. If the Council approved the
motion, she asked if those would be the type of things that would be reviewed. Mr. Taraday answered not
procedural things. Assuming there was a procedural error, he could not imagine that State law would
allow the City to correct it more than 21 days after the permit was issued; that would be a clear violation
of LUPA.
Mr. Taraday said what would be considered would be whether there was a substantive violation on a
condition of the permit, a substantive violation of the code or a hazard on the site. With regard to lighting,
he did see an email inquiring about lighting and whether it would be a violation of the current permit for
the District to be installing the foundation for future light poles that would be installed in a future phase.
He did not think that would be a violation of their current permit because they cannot make light with a
foundation and light poles are not being installed at the height requested in the conditional use permit. He
explained the lights drove the extra hours and potentially extra traffic and none of that happens with the
installation of the foundation. In his opinion that in and of itself was not a violation of a permit condition.
The permit did not say thou shalt not install conduit or foundations for light poles.
Councilmember Petso said by passage of this motion would allow that kind of issue to be reviewed. Mr.
Taraday agreed that would be the kind of issue that would be reviewed.
Councilmember Bloom read #5 on page 6 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions following the quasi-
judicial hearing, "Adverse impact of proposed use. The administrative record created at the time the
District was proposing field lighting revealed the potential for unmitigated significant adverse traffic
impacts. Had the District not abandoned the lighting application, further information would have been
necessary to determine whether traffic impacts needed to be mitigated. Excluding traffic impacts
associated with the abandoned field lighting applications, the proposal will not create any other
significant adverse impacts or be significantly detrimental to other properties. Impacts are more
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 16
specifically addressed below." She explained essentially the lighting was removed because the impacts to
traffic could not be mitigated and a traffic study was not done, yet the lighting poles have been installed.
She had a difficult time resolving that and wanted that to be reviewed. She informed Mr. Taraday she was
not asking him to explain.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Taraday to explain. Mr. Taraday explained the School
District is probably taking some risk by putting that infrastructure in because the City has not permitted
the lights. The District is making a business decision that it makes more sense to put the infrastructure in
now and it may be easier from a construction standpoint to do it now, but there is some risk associated
with it because the City is not bound to permit the lights in the future, there is no application for the
lights, and if the District cannot satisfy the code when that application is submitted, the City has every
right to reject the application not withstanding that the foundations have been installed.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she will support the motion but was disturbed Councilmembers
Bloom, Johnson and Petso would not allow Councilmember Buckshnis to participate in the discussion. In
her six years on the Council, which is longer than any of the Councilmembers present, Councilmembers
have been allowed a dozen times to call in when they were unable to attend a Council meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis had a family emergency and needed to go to Wisconsin. She found it very
disturbing that those Councilmembers would not allow Councilmember Buckshnis do her duty.
Mr. Taraday expressed concerned about one procedural hiccup; Councilmember Bloom's motion
identified a catchall of other issues that should be reviewed. Unless those are specified in a motion, the
direction staff is getting is to review what was addressed in the motion, otherwise he was unsure how staff
would scope the review without the Council informing staff what the alleged deficiencies are.
Councilmember Petso asked whether formal action was necessary for staff to look into the three things
specified by Councilmember Bloom plus the email the Council received today or could the Council
agreed that is what the motion means. Mr. Taraday recommended the motion be amended.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ALSO ADD THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN THE EMAIL
RECEIVED TODAY.
Councilmember Mesaros said this is really bad process; now he is voting on a motion that refers to an
email received today without any mention of what email, who sent it, or what the subject was. To quote
Councilmember Bloom's earlier comment, this is a good example of doing things on the fly and doing
them badly especially considering the timeframe. If this is an emergency, it will be 45-60 days before the
Council knows whether the review will happen and by then the fields will be done. He questioned why
the Council was even going through this exercise in the first place, reiterating it was very bad process.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was not able to read her email prior to the Council meeting
and possibly Councilmember Mesaros did not either. Councilmember Mesaros said he did not know what
email the Council was voting on. Council President Fraley-Monillas assumed it was the email sent to
Council this afternoon and suggested Councilmember Petso outline the concerns in the email.
Councilmember Mesaros suggested the specific email be identified; he read 15 emails this afternoon.
Mayor Earling commented on the number of emails the Council has received during this process,
estimating there have been hundreds. He was puzzled by suddenly attaching significance to one.
Councilmember Petso said the email she was referring to was received this afternoon and included a
document with the footer Application for Miscellaneous Review of Multiple Permits. She suggested the
9-page document that was submitted this afternoon be added to Councilmember Bloom's motion. Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 17
President Fraley-Monillas asked who sent the email and what time. Councilmember Petso answered she
did not know who emailed; it was an appeal that was intended to be filed on Thursday by Margaret
Pinson, Christine Johnson and Randy Burke. Her rationale for taking action tonight was to save these
residents the appeal fee.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was just now opening the email, an email Councilmember
Petso sent at 4:00 p.m. today. Councilmember Petso answered she did not think so. Councilmember
Bloom said it was from Scott Blomenkamp to Dave Earling that begins Dear Edmonds City Council
Members and was blind copied to the School Board, legislators, media, Verdant, SnoCo Gov and multiple
residents of Edmonds were involved. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what issues within the
email staff would be asked to look at. Councilmember Petso said the date and time of the email was
August 25 at 5:25 p.m. Council President Fraley-Monillas said there are multiple pages in the email.
Councilmember Petso said that is why Council should not discuss it tonight but let staff look at it.
Councilmember Mesaros recalled earlier in the meeting Councilmember Bloom faulted Mr. Williams for
not having information regarding the Sunset Avenue project available for the Council's discussion,
information she felt the was important for citizens and the Council to see before the Council's discussion
in a study session. Now the Council is discussing items for a vote that have much larger ramifications
than a study session without adhering to the normal process of not voting during in study session. Further,
there is a sense of emergency that the Council needs to take a vote when the process will take at least 45-
60 days. He did not understand the emergency.
Council President Fraley-Monillas recanted her earlier support of the main motion. She supported the
motion when it was related to the three issues but she has not even read the email referred to in
Councilmember Petso's amendment. .
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Bloom restated the motion:
PER ECDC 20.100.040, REVIEW OF APPROVED PERMITS, THAT ALL RELATED PERMITS
IN THE WOODWAY FIELDS PERMITTING PROCESS BE REVIEWED. THIS REVIEW
SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO:
1) PERMIT BLD20141182 ISSUED ON MAY 28, 2015 FOR FIELD LIGHTING BASES,
2) THE DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE BY THE LEAD AGENCY, THE
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN THE SEPA REVIEW OF THE PROJECT, AND
3) THE USE OF 2005 VERSUS THE NEW 2014 STORMWATER REGULATIONS IN
DETERMINING FILTERING OF THE FIELD RUNOFF.
MOTION CARRIED (4-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS ABSTAINING.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
B. PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT SR-104 CORRIDOR STUDY
Bertrand Hauss said he and Don Samdahl, Fehr & Peers, made a presentation to Council on July 14, 2015
following by Q&A. He referred to his July 20, 2015 email to Council with responses to two of three
questions staff was unable to answer on July 14. In response to the third question regarding congestion
issues at SR 104 and 244th, he talked to a WSDOT traffic engineering who indicated that intersection is
limited access and controlled by the State. There are three approaches to the intersection and
approximately 40,000 vehicles per day. The intersection flows fairly well with the existing coordination
with signals to the east and west. In speaking with WSDOT as well as reviewing Shoreline's
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 18
Transportation Plan, there are no short or long term improvements proposed at that intersection. There is
congestion for a short period of time but it is not significant.
Mr. Hauss explained on July 22, 2015, the Planning Board recommended this document be used for
future planning and implementation. During the July 14, 2015 meeting, Council was also invited to send
any follow-up questions to staff, none have been received. The intent of this agenda item is to address any
additional questions so that the document can be finalized and forwarded to the Consent Agenda at a
future Council meeting. He advised Mr. Samdahl was also present to answer questions.
Councilmember Petso asked whether there have been any changes to the document since the prior
version. Mr. Hauss answered no. Councilmember Petso preferred this be scheduled on the full agenda
instead of the Consent Agenda as she intends to make a motion to remove Appendix C that pertains to
Westgate as it appeared to differ from what was adopted with the Westgate Plan. For example the
appendix may state a 12-foot setback and the Westgate Plan states 16 feet.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if staff had had an opportunity to review the document in relation to other
documents and was there an opportunity to amend Appendix C so it mirrored the Westgate Plan. Mr.
Hauss said amendments can still be made. Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Councilmember Petso's
suggestion to discuss it as an agenda item. He suggested staff provide two versions of Appendix C, the
existing one and an amended version that reflects the Council's previous decision.
C. WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA (WRIA) 8 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed Councilmember Buckshnis intended to present this but was
not allowed to. Councilmember Buckshnis indicated it was okay to postpone this item as it was not
urgent. Mayor Earling preferred to delay this to allow Councilmember Buckshnis to present it.
It was the consensus of the Council to delay this item to a future meeting.
6. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Councilmember Johnson reported she attended AWC training on budgeting and municipal finance. She
offered to share information with the Council.
Councilmember Mesaros reported:
• The SeaShore Transportation Forum will join the Eastside transportation forum and the South
transportation form in hosting a conference on October 9 on advanced transportation technology
and planning, looking at futuristic ways of transportation.
• On October 15 he and Police Chief Compaan, who represent the City on the SnoCom Board, will
attend a joint meeting with SnoPac (911 dispatch in North Snohomish County) to discuss going
live with the new software.
• The SnoCom Board's annual retreat is October 8
Councilmember Bloom reported:
• The Tree Board meeting included the introduction of three new board members, excellent public
comment and a report from Chair Steve Hatzenbeler regarding his meeting with Mayor Earling
and Shane Hope about the Tree Code. Unfortunately the recorder did not work and the minute
taker was not present. Chair Hatzenbeler plans to draft minutes of the meeting.
• The Port Commission meeting included discussion regarding their budget schedule, a marina
camera, revenue and refunding of bonds, second quarter financial statements, a report from
Harbor Square property management, and comments from Port Commissioners.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 19
Councilmember Petso reported:
• The PFD Board meeting was cancelled this month. She attended a special meeting earlier this
month and Councilmembers should have received an invitation to their audit exit interview on
Thursday at 9:00 a.m.
• The Economic Development Commission is working on its presentation to the City Council.
They are working with the Economic Development Director to develop a summary of business
districts that describes the district's attributes, traffic volumes, etc.
• She attended an open house on August 20 regarding the Unocal cleanup of the property below Pt
Edwards and the marsh. A video of the presentation is available on My Edmonds News as well as
a summary with a link for the public to submit comments regarding the cleanup process. The
comment period ends August 31.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reported on the Lake Ballinger Watershed Forum. The former
Mountlake Terrace golf course is being developed into a park; the estimated cost is $15 million. The
forum also discussed funding with the federal lobbyist for continued work on Lake Ballinger.
Mayor Earling reported the legislature approved Sound Transit moving ahead with Sound Transit 3 and a
bond measure is expected to be before the voters as early as 2016. The upcoming Board meeting on
Thursday will refine the issues that need to be studied throughout the region. Following that meeting,
staff will study the issues and return with results of their analysis next year. Of paramount importance to
Snohomish County is completion of the light rail line to Everett. A letter of support signed by all eight
mayors in the subregion was submitted.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported he is a new grandparent. He has already has two grandchildren, his daughter
Sarah delivered an 8 lbs. boy this morning.
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Fraley-Monillas congratulated Mayor Earling. She was invited to participate at the
senior center with a large group of stakeholders regarding the development of the new senior/community
center. She encouraged citizens interested in the aspects of the future center to view drawings on display
at the senior center. She introduced the bands at three concerts in the park this year; the last live concert
this season will be this Thursday at the Hazel Miller Plaza.
Councilmember Bloom said she noticed on My Edmonds News that a Sound Transit representative has
been asked to join the Rail Crossings Analysis Task Force. She recalled asking last week if the meeting
would be noticed and said she did not see any notice of the task force meeting on My Edmonds News.
Mayor Earling advised the meeting is September 2 at 9:00 a.m. in the Brackett Room.
In response to Councilmember Mesaros' concern the agenda item was done on the fly, Councilmember
Bloom explained Councilmembers were told by Mr. Taraday that they could not speak to citizens after
the quasi-judicial hearing and that the Council only had authority over only two things. Since that quasi-
judicial hearing she has spent a lot of time and energy reading and listening to people who are strongly
opposed particularly to crumb rubber. She referred to Mr. Wambolt's comment that probably every
Councilmember does not support crumb rubber. Her concern was the Council has been told they have no
say over it which is not true; the Council had the authority to do what it did tonight and had more
authority to work with the School District. She wished she had also added a stop work order to tonight's
agenda. The fields are going in right now and they will be in by the end of the week and then the Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 20
will be asked to vote on an ILA next week. The Council has been made to feel powerless, that they do not
have control or authority or this and she believed the Council did. Tonight was a step to at least state the
Council has the authority to ask for the permits to be reviewed. She also believed the Council had the
authority to stop the work but did not believe she had the support of the Council for that. She recognized
the fields will be in by the end of this week; her efforts have been to try to get the work stopped. She did
not want to continue to feel powerless; the Council is the elected body and represents the citizens of
Edmonds.
Councilmember Mesaros said Councilmember Bloom and Mr. Wambolt were correct that none of the
Council were in favor of crumb rubber. The Council is called upon to do the things they are supposed to
do as Council and the Council has fulfilled that. His own belief is some of the individuals that are
championing the opposition of crumb rubber have lost their way a little bit because the goal was not to
have crumb rubber, not to embarrass the School District.
Mr. Blomenkamp called out from the audience. Mayor Earling asked him to leave the room and Mr.
Blomenkamp refused.
9. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
10. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
11. ADJOURN
Mayor Earling adjourned the Council meeting at 9:47 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 25, 2015
Page 21