Loading...
20181002 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES October 2, 2018 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Michael Nelson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob English, City Engineer Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Kemen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr. Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 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. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Mesaros. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TOTALING $919.14 AND AMOUNTS UNDETERMINED 4. INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH SOURCEWELL (MINNESOTA) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 1 5. PRESENTATIONS 1. FIRE PREVENTION WEEK PROCLAMATION Mayor Earling read a proclamation proclaiming October 7-13, 2018 as Fire Prevention Week and urged everyone to be aware of their surroundings, look for available ways out in the event of a fire or other emergency, respond when the smoke alarm sounds by exiting the building immediately, and to support the many public safety activities and efforts of South County Fire during Fire Prevention Week 2018. He presented the proclamation to Karl Fitterer, Assistant Fire Marshal, South County Fire. Assistant Fire Marshall Fitterer thanked the Council for the proclamation and for the City's support. He invited the public to an open house at Martha Lake Fire Station 21 on October 13 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. that will include activities for all ages. 2. NATIONAL ARTS & HUMANITIES MONTH PROCLAMATION Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring October as National Arts & Humanities Month in Edmonds and called upon citizens to celebrate and promote arts and culture in the nation and support the many cultural activities which flourish in Edmonds. Arts Commission Chair Lesley Kaplan accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Edmonds Arts Commission. Chair Kaplan referred to a handout from Americans for Arts that includes thoughtful points about what Americans say about the arts in 2018. Americans are highly engaged in the arts and believe more strongly than ever that arts promote personal wellbeing, help us understand other cultures in our community, are essential to a well-rounded K-12 education and the government has an important role in funding the arts. The Arts Commission was pleased to be part of the Economic Impact Survey and the results are so rewarding, recognizing art in many forms, not only enhancing the quality of life but creating a lively economic base for the community. The added value of arts and humanity deeply contributes to the feel of Edmonds. Chair Kaplan invited the public to enjoy all the varied offerings in the community and the wealth of activities this month, visual arts such as a selection of the City art collection of items from Hekinan currently exhibited at the Frances Anderson Center, music, dance, film and literary arts. This week culminates in the sold out Write on the Sound Writers Conference, a 3 -day conference that focuses on the craft of writing. She invited the public to meet authors and writers at a reception on Saturday from 5:15 to 6:30 p.m. in the Plaza Room. 3. SISTER CITY COMMISSION 30TH ANNIVERSARY DELEGATION TO HEKINAN Mayor Earling said the Hekinan delegation will return to Edmonds in late October. David Huneke said on April 1-6, 2018, Mayor Earling led a delegation of eight Edmonds residents including himself, Susan Earling, Michele Fellows, Teresa Lawson, Emily Scott, Caitlin Kelly, Margaret Safford, and Iyoko Okano. The purpose of the trip was to commemorate the 30' anniversary of Edmonds and Hekinan's Sister City relationship and to celebrate the 701n anniversary of Hekinan's founding on April 5tH Michele Fellows, Emily Scott and Theresa Lawson presented a slideshow of the delegations experiences in Hekinan that included a visit to City Hall, meeting Hekinan's civic leaders, Udon (noodles) for lunch, the Cherry Blossom Festival, the Okazaki Castle, the Samurai Museum, Kiyomizu-dera Temple, Fushimi Inari Temple, power station tour, tour of the Toyota factory floor, Sister City reception, exchange of gifts, Sumo Cafe, many other sights and a final dinner with friends from Japan and Croatia. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 2 Ms. Scott commented an Edmonds delegation visits Hekinan every five years and she encouraged everyone to apply to participate, commenting it was so much fun and they saw many things that tourists would not see. Mr. Huneke reported a typhoon hit Japan this past week; he contacted people in the area and learned there was no major damage. Ms. Fellows said the delegation had 10 days of touring packed into 4 days. Hekinan has another Sister City in Croatia, Pula, who had a delegation in Hekinan at the same time. Mr. Huneke advised the Hekinan delegation will be handing out candy at Edmonds City Hall on Halloween. Ms. Lawson commented on festivities at the 70 anniversary celebration and the graciousness and hospitality of Hekinan. The Hekinan delegation will be in Edmonds beginning on October 29; events include Halloween and a celebration of the 30th anniversary of being sister cities. Mayor Earling commented the experience of going to Hekinan twice has been life changing for him due to the beauty and the outgoing friendliness of the people. When the Hekinan delegation visits Edmonds, they are very engaging and truly have fun. They bring costumes for Halloween. He hoped the public would have an opportunity to spend time with the delegation. Mr. Huneke announced on October 31 at 11:45 a.m. in Centennial Plaza a bench will be dedicated to Keiko Sakakibara, a woman instrumental in the Sister City program who passed away just prior to the delegation's arrival. Mayor Earling commented Ms. Sakakibara was a truly wonderful person and integral in setting up the experience for the past 30 years. 4. PRESENTATION FROM SNOHOMISH PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ON RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS PILOT Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Brian Booth, Senior Manager of Rates, Economics and Energy Risk, and Jessica Matlock, Director, Government & External Affairs, Strategic Accounts and New Energy Initiatives, SnoPUD. She explained this a follow-up to work the City has been doing on sustainability, environmentally friendly attitudes and actions, and Resolution 1389's climate goals and renewable energy opportunities. Ms. Matlock said staff has working on this for approximately a year and have developed a workable solution for Edmonds to consider. She thanked Edmonds staff who have been phenomenal to work with. She reviewed: • Background o June 6, 2017: City of Edmonds Mayor signs the U.S. Mayors National Climate Action Agenda. o June 27, 2017: Edmonds City Council signs amended Resolution 1389: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds committing to achieve or exceed at the local level the goals established in the Paris Climate Accord." ■ "WHEREAS, it is imperative that energy consumers and the utilities serving them take early action to reduce carbon emissions given the accelerating rate climate change the planet is experiencing, and shifting to 100% of electricity from renewable sources by 2025 is within reach; and......" ■ Section 6: The City establishes the following renewable energy goals for both municipal facilities and for the City at large: i. 100% renewable energy for municipal facilities by 2019; and, ii. 100% renewable energy for the City's community electricity supply by 2025. o Edmonds is the first city in Washington state to commit to the Sierra Club's Ready For 100 Initiative. The City is 37th city in the country. o Renewable under the 100% Renewable Energy Initiative is defined as: ■ Energy derived from hydrogen, wind power sited in ecologically responsible ways, solar, existing and low -impact hydroelectric, geothermal, biogas (including biogas produced from biomass), and ocean/wave technology sources. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 3 ■ "Renewable Energy" specifically excludes energy derived from fossil fuels, nuclear, biomass feedstocks sourced from state and federal lands, hydrogen produced from fossil fuels, and incineration of municipal and medical waste. City of Edmonds' Request of Snohomish PUD o To help them meet their goal of achieving 100% renewable energy for municipal facilities by 2019 • Hydro Okay ■ Nuclear Not Okay ■ Unbundled RECs Not Okay o Just over 8,000 MWh per Year for City -Owned Buildings Mr. Booth reviewed: • Federal Trade Commission Green Guides o A marketer should not make unqualified renewable energy claims, directly or by implication, if fossil fuel, or electricity derived from fossil fuel, is used to manufacture any part of the advertised item or is used to power any part of the advertised service, unless the marketer has matched such non-renewable energy use with renewable energy certificates. o If a marketer generates renewable electricity but sells renewable energy certificates for all of that electricity, it would be deceptive for the marketer to represent, directly or by implication, that it uses renewable energy. o ...marketers may minimize the risk of deception by specifying the source of the renewable energy (e.g., wind or solar energy). • Strategy o Set a baseline fuel mix ■ Start with the State's Fuel Mix for Snohomish PUD ■ Match Non -Renewable Fuel Sources with Existing, Bundled RPS Resources (Wind, Biomass, etc.) o Match Remaining Non -Renewable Portion of Fuel Mix with Bundled Renewable (REC- Producing) Energy Sources ■ Generation Scheduled to SnoPUD ■ Not Necessarily Washington 1-937 Qualified Renewables • Pricing based on incremental cost of these projects above costs embedded in current rates ■ Hancock, Calligan, and Youngs Creek small hydro projects in the Puget Sound area • The Fuel Mix o State Calculated SnoPUD Fuel Mix (2016) ■ 87% Hydro 11 % Nuclear (non-renewable) ■ 2% Fossil Fuels (non-renewable o Fuel Mix with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) Accounting ■ 87% Hydro ■ 9% RPS Renewables • 3% Nuclear (non-renewable) ■ 1% Fossil Fuels (non-renewable) o State of Washington Department of Commerce and NW Energy Coalition approve of this methodology Mr. Booth reviewed the proposed methodology: ■ Pricing Details o Diagram of Pricing Components ■ Incremental cost of small hydro - $37.15 ■ Capacity and shaping credit for small hydro - $13.82 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 4 ■ Embedded cost of all SnoPUD energy - $31.41 ■ Average Cost of Youngs, Hancock, Calligan Creek projects ($82.38) ■ Credited Based on embedded value provided by these resources ($45.23) ■ Net Cost of $37.15 Ms. Matlock explained energy is the electrons flowing; capacity is the ability to turn it on and off quickly and there is a different cost component to each. Young, Hancock and Calligan Creek are low impact hydro projects that were built above fish -bearing streams and have been State certified. Mr. Booth continued his presentation: • Product Details o PUD Matches Non- Renewable Portion of Customer's Electricity Consumption with Bundled Renewables o Generated 2018 — 2020 o Additional to RPS Resources o .145 cents per kWh • 2019 Pilot Renewable Rate Estimated Fuel Mix 0 87% Hydro 0 8% Wind 0 4% Certified Low Impact Hydro 0 1% Solar, Biomass, Biogas • Risks o Fuel Mix methodology could change o Hydro, wind volatility could make for volatile program costs ■ Risk is limited by current Fuel Mix methodology o Pricing based on forecasted small hydro costs; new resources have no operating history • Risks for 2020 and Beyond 0 15% RPS Compliance will make SnoPUD 100% Renewable ■ If SnoPUD uses some unbundled RECs for RPS compliance, Edmonds might want bundled alternative o Somewhat limited availability. Hancock & Calligan, Youngs Creek can clean up about 220 average megawatts of load if only 4% of mix is non-renewable ■ The potentially high cost of integrating new resources should be borne by participants ■ Increasingly complicated rate design if the PUD must acquire more new resources, sell existing supplies. • Recommendation 0 1 -Year Pilot Program for 2019 o Work with stakeholders for long-term solution for 2020 and beyond Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Options 1 and 2 that were described in the packet. Mr. Booth responded that is a detail that will be worked out with staff. Ms. Matlock said that was omitted from the presentation because their billing department had questions. The end result will be what works best for the City and what the City prefers — one bill for 2019 for $12,000 or a monthly bill of $1000. For Councilmember Tibbott, Mr. Booth explained the total municipal load is 40-50 average megawatts for all buildings with an Edmonds address including commercial, residential, etc. The 2025 target would be approximately 40-50 average megawatts. For 2019 it is slightly less than an average of 1 megawatts for municipal buildings. Councilmember Tibbott commented the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) runs on electricity and asked if they had suggestions for its energy usage. Ms. Matlock explained SnoPUD's new CEO was confirmed yesterday and they have already been talking with him about new demand response programs Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 5 for WWTP and other industrial users in Snohomish County. SnoPUD will be developing new programs and offerings; one of their biggest pushes will be working with those entities to help them lower their energy consumption while helping reduce peak demand. SnoPUD's biggest threat now is the peak energy need when there is not enough energy for that need during certain times of the year which requires purchasing that peak. If that peak can be shaved, it saves customers money as well as lowers the carbon content. Doug O'Donnell, Executive Account Manager, SnoPUD, said Edmonds' staff has been engaged with SnoPUD's energy efficient program for many years and have upgraded lighting, pumps, added variable frequency drives, etc. to make the WWTP more efficient. SnoPUD considers the Edmonds WWTP a very mature operation in terms of energy efficiency. The WWTP is engaged in a strategic energy management system, a program that moves beyond technical capital -based installations and looks at operational and maintenance activities — how the plant can run the equipment more efficiently. This is a two-year program, the Edmonds WWTP has completed year one and he anticipated the plant will reenroll. He thanked staff for running a forward-looking, very efficient operation. Councilmember Tibbott commented the WWTP uses natural gas to burn solids. Mr. O'Donnell said SnoPUD is only electricity. Councilmember Tibbott commented the good news is with efforts and investment, the electricity usage at WWTP has been lowered. Mr. O'Donnell agreed, commenting another program that the WWTP participated in was the EPA Bonneville Power Administration pilot program. Capacity is constrained in the Pacific Northwest in the winter months Monday through Thursday mornings and evenings. The EPA program allows calling on specific loads in the service area such as the WWTP during peak periods to reduce the capacity demand on the utility and help out the region. Councilmember Johnson referred to the definition of renewable energy which includes the incineration of municipal and medical waste. As the WWTP incinerates waste, she asked how that fits into the 100% renwable energy initiative. Mr. O'Donnell answered that is excluded from the definition of renewable energy. Councilmember Teitzel commented a number of City facilities have rooftop solar panels; as technology improves, and the costs is reduced, potentially more solar panels could be installed which means the City could be generating its own renewable energy on municipal buildings. He asked if that was considered in the calculation of the $12,000 flat amount. Mr. Booth answered the $12,000 is based on net energy use of City buildings; any rooftop solar would reduce the net. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding if the City had more solar panels in the future, that energy reduction would be included in the calculation. Mr. Booth answered yes. Council President Nelson thanked SnoPUD, Ms. Matlock and her staff and City staff for making the Council's 2019 100% renewable energy goal a reality. He was excited to implement this pilot program and expressed interest in tour of the small hydro projects. Mayor Earling advised the budget will include a decision package for this program. He suggested discussing the payment structure at that time. Councilmember Johnson asked where the three small hydro projects were located. Mr. Booth answered Youngs Creek is located in eastern Snohomish County near Sultan, Hancock and Calligan are located in King County, but SnoPUD purchases transmission from Puget Sound Energy to be delivered to SnoPUD. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no members of the public present who wished to provide comment. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 6 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXCELSIOR PLACE STREET VACATION Mayor Earling recalled due to information submitted prior to the public hearing last week, at staff s request, the public hearing was continued. Environmental Programs Manager Kernen Lien displayed a map of the proposed street vacation, a portion north of 195 1194th Place West, just above Puget Drive. He reviewed: • Initiation of proceedings: o ECDC 20.70.050.13 - Petition of owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of street or alley to be vacated o Resolution No. 1417 set public hearing September 25, 2018 o Continued public hearing to October 2°a • ECDC 20.70.020 - Criteria for Vacation o The vacation is in the public interest o No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation • Applicant submitted a statement in support of the public interest criteria o Proposed street vacation would vacate a substandard road and revert the road back to private ownership ■ Street proposed to be vacated was created in 1906 via the Edmonds Seaview Tracts ■ Since 1906 the right-of-way has not been widened or improved to City standards o Vacating will relieve the City of any financial burden or liability associated with the public right-of-way • Vacation request an outgrowth of a lot line adjustment application the City received o One of proposed lots, Parcel A, extended across the Excelsior Place right-of-way and City could not approve a lot that extends over a right-of-way o Applicants then applied for a street vacation o Map of five existing lots of record and critical areas ■ Lot line adjustment allows more developable area outside the critical areas, minimizing impacts to critical area o Map of location of the five proposed lots ■ Vacation allows lot line adjustment to proceed and minimizes potential impacts to critical • Issues staff considered related to the street vacation o Traffic Flow Is Portion of Excelsior Place that is the subject of the vacation is not directly connected to a right-of-way - Private road to Puget Drive - Excelsior Place right-of-way open in small area off Olympic Avenue but is not connected - City received comment that some residents use the private road to access Puget Drive instead of using 94' Place ■ Aerial map of access based on Easements of Record identifying: - Properties that have rights to use 94th Place W - Properties that have rights to use private drive that connects to Puget Drive - Properties that have legal rights to use both - Although some residents state they historically used the private drive, it may not be a permissible action - Private drive signage on both ends of the private drive - Applicants have frequently stopped drivers using their private drive o Safety issues with access from 94th Place West to Puget Drive ■ Required sight distance is 300 feet; actual sight distance is 200 feet Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 7 - Long standing issue, first noted with a 4 -lot subdivision approved in 1982 - At that time, City Engineer required access onto Puget Drive from 94" Place W be right in/out only - Existing signage: right turn only on 94" Place W, no left turn from Puget Drive and Hidden Driveway Ahead sign on Puget Drive o Staff determined the street vacation has little or no effect on existing traffic flow or sight distance conditions • Other issues City staff considered o Utilities ■ Water and sewer mains exist in the right-of-way ■ Operation and maintenance of utilities typically more efficient when utilities located in public right-of-way versus private easement ■ Existing water and sewer mains located mostly within paved driveway areas which helps prevent overgrowth and backyard improvements ■ Applicant has offered to provide public safety and utility easement turnaround as a condition of the subject street vacation. Turnaround would be a public benefit as it improves existing access conditions • ECDC 20.70.140 Final Decision o Following the public hearing, the City Council shall 1. Adopt an ordinance granted the vacation; or 1. Adopt an ordinance granted the vacation; or 2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or 3. Adopt a resolution of intent were specific conditions must be met within 90 days a. Either i. Monetary compensation up to one-half fair market value ii. Grant of substitute public right-of-way iii. Any combination of a.i or a.ii Or b. Grant of an easement to the City in exchange for easement vacated o Monetary compensation cannot be required if the City receives a utility easement within the right-of-way ■ The appraised value of the Excelsior vacation area is $10,500; per City Code, if monetary compensation could be accepted, it would be half the appraised value or approximately $5,000. Staff Recommendation o Staff has found the proposed street vacation to be in accordance with the criteria in ECDC 20.70.020 and recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. A public utility easement shall be provided to the City of Edmonds for the installation, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or replacement of the water and sewer systems and necessary appurtenances, over, across, through and below the subject Excelsior Place vacation. 2. A utility access and emergency vehicle turn -around shall be constructed to City standards and easement shall be provided in a location agreed upon by the property owners and the City Engineering Division and Snohomish County Fire District No. 1. 3. A private access easement shall be provided to all lots with frontage on the vacated portion of Excelsior Place. 4. If the property in the area of vacation is developed and the vacation area will serve three or more lots, an emergency access road consistent with Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Fire Lane Standards will be required. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 8 Mr. Lien said if the Council agrees with staff's recommendation, the Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution of intent for approval at a future Council meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification that the turning directions onto and from 941h would not change. Mr. Lien agreed they would not change. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to page 117 of the packet that states as of the writing of this staff report the City had not received any written objections to the proposed street vacation, however, page 215 of the packet is a letter from John and Shirley Vicklund stating they hope the City will reject the proposal. Mr. Lien said the comment referenced on page 117 is in response to ECDC 20.040.13 that the states, "The city shall not proceed with the vacation if the owners of 50 percent or more of the property abutting the street or alley or part thereof, or underlying the easement or part thereof, to be vacated file a written objection in the planning division prior to the time of the hearing." The Vicklund's property does not directly abut the street. The packet includes comments from Vicklund, Janacek and Reidy but none of them directly abut the street. Councilmember Teitzel recalled in last week's agenda memo, staff recommended denial; he asked what had changed. Mr. Lien answered what changed was the additional information received, particularly with regard to access and utilities which were staff s primary concerns when reviewing the street vacation request. The applicant submitted additional information about the history of people driving through the property, both sides are marked private drive, the applicant stated over the years they have stopped people driving through the private drive. Since the original staff report, the applicant also proposed a turnaround for emergency vehicles and utility maintenance. The history of the access and the fact that that will not change with the vacation and the additional public benefit provided by the turnaround were the primary reasons for the change in staff's recommendation. Since Excelsior place has been a public right-of-way for all these years, Councilmember Teitzel asked how the property owners could legally post that portion of Excelsior Place as a private driveway. Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell explained it is currently considered a driveway that meanders through the right-of-way, partially on private property and partially within the Excelsior Place right-of-way. Due to its meandering onto private property, it is not a completely accessible public right-of-way. Councilmember Johnson asked for an explanation of the fourth recommendation. Mr. Lien explained that was a comment from Snohomish County Fire when they reviewed the street vacation; they require emergency access up to fire standards at the time of development of three or more lots. Councilmember Johnson asked the standard requirement for a fire road. Mr. Lien answered they are included in the packet. Councilmember Johnson asked if this is considered three or more because of the two existing lots. Mr. Lien answered there are only two now. Councilmember Johnson asked if two more buildable lots would count as four. Mr. Lien said if additional single-family residences are built after the lot line adjustment, it would serve three or more lots and that is when Snohomish County Fire would require the road be brought up to their standards. Councilmember Johnson asked what Snohomish County Fire's standards were compared to the City's standards. Ms. McConnell said access via driveway with 1-2 lots would require a 15 -foot wide access easement with 12 -feet paved. If that is increased to three or more lots, the Fire Department would require 20 feet be paved. The lots currently exist but if they are developed, Fire would require the road be improved to their standards. Councilmember Johnson asked how the right-of-way be can vacated if the current Excelsior place right-of-way width is 20 feet and the Fire Department asks for 20 feet. Ms. McConnell answered Excelsior place right-of-way is 20 feet, but the paved area may not be 20 feet in that area. Regardless of whether it is a public right-of-way or an access easement, there are standards for pavement Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 9 width. With the development of additional lots, the Fire Department has the authority within the City Code to require the pavement area be widen. Councilmember Johnson reiterated if the current easement is 20 feet and the Fire Department requires 20 feet, why would the City choose to vacate Excelsior Place. Mr. Lien displayed a survey of the property, pointing out the existing driveway that zigzags through Excelsior Place and is not completely contained within the 20 -foot right-of-way. If Excelsior Place were vacated and Fire required the paved are be expanded, it would not necessarily be within the existing Excelsior Place right-of-way. Considering that the City wants to maintain the sewer and water in the roadway, Councilmember Johnson asked if staff could forecast the right-of-way location if a road had to be built to Fire's standards. Ms. McConnell said it potentially still could be provided in a similar alignment as the existing driveway but widened as needed to meet Fire Department requirements. Given there are existing paved areas, it could follow the same alignment and simply be wider. It would not necessarily need to fall within the exact Excelsior Place right-of-way as it currently exists. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that that determination would be made in the future. Ms. McConnell said the existing conditions meet the requirement of the City and the Fire Department. If additional building permits are issued for single family residences, the Fire Department has stated they will require the road meet Fire Department standards. Councilmember Johnson observed the purpose of the lot line adjustment was to build new homes. Mr. Lien answered yes and the applicant has proposed to install a turnaround for utility maintenance and emergency vehicles. If additional lots are developed, per this condition, the road would need to be brought up to Fire standards and the turnaround provided. Even with the vacation, the access currently meets City and Fire standards. Councilmember Johnson said it potentially may not meet future Fire standards. Mr. Lien explained the lot line adjustment does not create additional buildable lots. There are currently five lots of record and with the lot line adjustment, there will still be five lots of record. Even with the current layout, if development were proposed, Fire would still require the existing driveway to be brought up to Fire standards, whether it is in the Excelsior Place right-of-way or other right-of-way. That will be part of development permit review when single family residences are proposed. Councilmember Johnson asked for clarification regarding the nature of the road itself and asked staff to explain how private driveways are determined, whether they could serve nine single family lots. Ms. McConnell answered there are variations. In general, 1-4 lots would be accessed from a private road. Five lots or more there is potential for the City to require a dedication of public right-of-way; it is somewhat dependent on the utilities, ability to access, etc. Generally with 10 lots or more there is a guarantee of dedication of public right-of-way. Between five to nine lots, there are variations, sometimes the access is via a private access road and sometimes it is a public road. Councilmember Johnson asked how many lots would have access if the lot line adjustment were made. Mr. Lien answered with the lot line adjustment, there is no change to the number of lots that have access in this area now because there are five lots of record now and there would still be five lots of record after the lot line adjustment. Councilmember Johnson asked if the four lots to the west were counted. Mr. Lien identified the five existing lots of record. Councilmember Johnson asked if the lot to the west was accessed via a private drive or public street. Mr. Lien identified the private drives. Councilmember Johnson said four lots plus five makes nine lots. She was having difficulty with the definition of private drive because if the entire extent was private, it served ten or more even though they were built at different times. Ms. McConnell said in the development review process, staff considers existing conditions as well as access easement or right-of-way that the lots to be developed abut. During the development process, existing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 10 private driveways would not be required to be converted to public right-of-way, only the portion where additional homes are being constructed would be considered. Due to existing conditions and the nature of the development in the area with private drives on either end of Excelsior Place, the portion of Excelsior Place would not be required to be converted to public right-of-way. She clarified if Councilmember Johnson's question was if Excelsior Place is vacated now, would it later be required to be public right-of- way and if so, the answer was no. The lot currently exist so there would not be additional development conditions to create public right-of-way when homes are built on those lots. The Fire Department has the authority via the code to require additional paved area with the construction of single-family residences. Councilmember Johnson commented there are different requirements and different definitions and it was difficult for her to understand how it added up to a street vacation. She felt she was missing a vital piece of information but was unsure what that was. Lee Michaelis, Puget Sound Planning, representing the applicants and the adjacent property owners, displayed the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment, explaining the north two lots are on the north side of the ravine. The best way to develop those is via a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the lots to avoid crossing the stream or impacting the wetland or steep slopes. He displayed a drawing of the five buildable areas via the reconfiguration. As the lot on the far left crosses the right-of-way, staff suggested a street vacation. He summarized the lot line adjustment to create five suitable areas for development rather than the five legal lots was the reason for the street vacation request. Councilmember Tibbott asked for clarification, when the street is vacated it is no longer City right-of-way, but the City retains an easement. Ms. McConnell answered because of the water and sewer utilities, the City would retain an easement for utilities through the vacated portion of right-of-way. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there would be any language that the easement would be paved and maintained in a manner so as to provide access to those utilities. Ms. McConnell assured there would be language in the easement document specific to access and maintenance. Councilmember Tibbott said the expectation was that the meandering driveway would be maintained for easement purposes. Ms. McConnell answered yes. A ipp icant Mr. Michaelis reviewed: 1) Vacation is in the public interest: ■ Preservation/reduced impact to critical area. The proposed boundary line adjustment, which triggered the need for the street vacation, allows construction to take place on more suitable areas of the property rather than on or close to critical areas. • Provide a much-needed vehicle turnaround that will be used by emergency and maintenance vehicles. The location of the turnaround will be agreed upon by the property owners, City Engineering Division, and Snohomish County Fire District No. 1. 2) No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation • All five reconfigured lots will have direct access to the new private access easement, with continued access to 196Th St SW and Puget Drive. Public Comments o Comment # 1 (Vicklund) ■ City has implemented right in / right out at the intersection of 94th PI W and Puget Drive. ■ There is no public connection from the properties west of the proposed vacation to 194th St SW. ■ The subsequent lot line adjustment will not increase traffic from what can be allowed today. o Comment #2 (Janacek) ■ The purpose of the street vacation is to allow the reconfiguration of 5 lots of record, to reduce the impacts to the critical areas (wetlands, streams, steep slopes) and wildlife habitat associated with the critical areas. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 11 ■ In general, future construction will take place in the shaded area previously shown, reducing the impact to properties to the north. o Comment #3(Reidy) ■ We concur with the city staff's conclusion that under current regulations, the appraisal was required and submitted. Proposed Option C does not require the need for an appraisal and the clarification requested by Mr. Reidy should not hold up the decision on the proposed street vacation ■ Applicant agrees with staff's conditions of approval. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the applicant's proposed Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) map illustrating the new configuration of the five lots, observing Excelsior extends through the middle of the lot to the west. Mr. Michaelis said if Excelsior Place remained, it would go through that lot. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether they could build on that area if the street vacation is granted. Mr. Michaelis answered it would depend on the utility and access easements which cannot be built on. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if they were contemplating moving the right-of-way to create a buildable area. Mr. Michaels said the right-of-way would be replaced with an easement for City services and a private access easement. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked where the easement would be. Mr. Michaelis answered it would generally be along the current meandering driveway; the utility easement would be over the existing water and sewer lines. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien identified the existing lots of record and the new configuration. Councilmember Buckshnis commented basically the vacation is being done to provide buildable lots and stay out of the critical areas. Mr. Michaelis agreed, noting that is the primary public interest. Councilmember Teitzel said he drove the property, trespassing on the private driveway and found exiting 94" Place onto Puget Drive very disconcerting because drivers cannot see very far and that was exacerbated if a driver was speeding around the corner. Observing this is not a safe intersection, he asked if there was a way to improve the safety, particularly since more drivers would be using it and potentially turning left even though that was not allowed. Ms. McConnell said there are no projects planned for that intersection; that could be discussed with the Transportation Engineer. The street vacation will not change that condition. Councilmember Teitzel said westbound on Puget Drive there is a limited sight distance sign on the bank that is not easily visible. He suggested making the signage regarding the dangerous intersection ahead more apparent. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Shirley Vicklund, Edmonds, said the Puget Drive hillside is unstable and the retaining wall has slid 4 feet, making it difficult to see to the east. When the wall was first built, drivers could see up the road. Emergency vehicles leaving Fire Station 16 stop traffic which results in 10-15 vehicles coming down the road, causing a 3-5 minute delay to exit their driveway. Drivers speed on Puget Drive; a nearby speed camera often registers 36 mph. She relayed their desire to have the neighborhood remain as it is. The Tuttles use the driveway to the east, her landscaper was given permission to use the east driveway, the applicant's mother who lives at 19518 and her two renters use that driveway and other neighbors occasionally use the driveway. In 1989 they did a lot line adjustment on their property at the request of Lois Vineyard; the lot line adjustment included several conditions on developing Lot 1 and Lot 4 (the applicant's) and giving the City the right to deny any more development on 94th Place West. The vacation is purely for the applicant's personal gain to build houses and it impacts the critical area. Last week staff recommended denial and she hoped the Council would support denying the vacation. They were told by Duane Bowman in 1989 that only 7 houses could be on a private road; there are 6 lots on this road now and 1 owned by the Tuttles. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 12 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he has observed this hill many times as he lives down the street and has always wondered how drivers exit that road because it is a very dangerous intersection. He has also seen the changes in the hillside when the trees were cut. He objected to turning City streets into private streets because the restrictions go away and the property owners can do whatever they want. He has enjoyed visiting that neighborhood to see the view but would not be welcome if it were a private road. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the lots could be developed if they remained in the original configuration. Mr. Lien answered to build on the back two lots would require a critical area economic reasonable use variance, so they could potentially build on them via that process. Councilmember Buckshnis observed that was Lots 54 and 55. Councilmember Tibbott said he did not have a problem with the street vacation and was supportive of the proposal as it makes sense to adjust the lots as proposed so that development would occur away from the critical areas. It is currently a private drive and it is his understanding the lots to the west do not have an easement to use the private drive; that condition would not change with the street vacation. He did not see that the street vacation changed the use of the existing street and he found benefit in the environmental improvement and the turnaround. He supported the street vacation as long as the City retained a utility easement. Councilmember Johnson said in theory she had no problem with the lot line adjustment. She asked why the lot line adjustment was bundled with the street vacation. Mr. Lien explained when the applicant applied for the lot line adjustment, one of the lots would straddle Excelsior Place. The City would not approve the lot line adjustment that is bisected by right-of-way. Although the City's code does not specifically address that, other jurisdictions and possibly state law indicate a lot bisected by right-of-way essentially creates two lots. One of the criteria for a lot line adjustment is it cannot create a new lot. The proposed configuration which included one lot bisected by Excelsior Place resulted in six lots which could not be approved. The applicants were given the option to adjust via a lot line adjustment or put the lot line adjustment on hold and apply for the street vacation; the applicant chose the street vacation. Councilmember Johnson observed the applicant could have chosen the lot line adjustment which would not create two lots. Mr. Lien answered they could have; he referred to the applicants BLA map, that results in more buildable area. The proposed configuration is a better layout which is why they chose the vacation process versus adjusting the lots. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has heard from multiple sources that this is a private driveway, but her understanding is it is a City street. She asked if the property owners built on City land. Ms. McConnell explained Excelsior Place is a public right-of-way. The driveway was constructed when one of the lots was developed and served only one home. The property owner chose to meander that driveway within the public right-of-way and on private property, something the City found acceptable at that time. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed it is a public right-of-way, not a private driveway, but the City was aware the driveway was built on the public right-of-way. Ms. McConnell explained access to that portion of Excelsior Place is via existing private roads; the driveway that was constructed does not fall entirely or solely within Excelsior Place and meanders both within the right-of-way and onto private property which is what makes it inaccessible to some of the other properties. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reiterated part of the driveway was built on Excelsior Place with the City's knowledge and permission. Ms. McConnell agreed, referring to a map of the east end of Excelsior where the private driveway was not built within the right-of-way; that portion does not have public access. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 13 Council President Nelson relayed his understanding that if the Council did nothing and the applicant was interested in developing the top two properties, they would need to obtain a critical areas variance. Mr. Lien explained a critical area variance is a reasonable economic use variance. The process is a variance via the Hearing Examiner with specific criteria that needs to be met. One of the major criteria is minimum necessary development so the property owner can achieve reasonable economic use from the property. A reasonable economic use variance was recently approved where the minimum necessary was a house with an approximately 300 square foot footprint. There can still be impacts to the critical area as a result; the development could be in the wetland or the road could go through the wetland and/or stream provided it is the minimum necessary and it meets all the criteria. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said the recent approval of a home constructed pursuant to this standard established a ceiling above which single family homes were not likely to be approved under the minimum economic use variance. That square footage is probably the ceiling of what could be approved under that standards. Council President Nelson said he asked that question because he found it interesting one could enhance a critical areas by developing property. He was trying to understand the logic, one way or another the property would be developed; the question was which way had the least impact to the critical area. Mr. Lien said the configuration after the lot line adjustment has less impact to the critical areas. Councilmember Tibbott asked the difference between a public street, a City right-of-way and an easement and whether this would be considered a public street. Ms. McConnell answered Excelsior place is public right-of-way which would allow for the construction of a public street within the right-of-way. The right- of-way establishes the limits in which the public road could be built. An easement for the utility would give the City the right to operate, own, maintain, construct and reconstruct utilities within that easement area. The underlying ownership of the property would belong to the property owner, but the easement gives the City rights with regard to the utilities. Councilmember Tibbott said the right-of-way is not currently a public street; it is a private driveway that allows adjoining properties easement to the east but properties to the west do not have an easement to use the private driveway. Ms. McConnell answered the Excelsior Place public right-of-way has not been developed to public street standards. Councilmember Teitzel observed if the City choses to vacate, there are two choices, retain an easement or not. If the City does not retain an easement, water meters would need to be installed at the border of City property. Ms. McConnell agreed, explaining in addition to water meters, the portion of the water main that becomes private would be considered a fire line and other backflow devices would need to be installed to provide water quality protection between that fire line and the City system. An extensive amount of work would need to be done to covert that system from a public utility to a private system. Councilmember Teitzel asked who bore the cost of that conversation. Ms. McConnell answered it would not be borne by the City. Councilmember Teitzel asked if the sewer line served the five homes in the area or other homes uphill. Ms. McConnell answered there is potential for an additional lot on the eastern end that is currently on septic to tie into the sewer main. In addition, when the existing lots of record or as they are configured via the lot line adjustment are developed with single family residences, they would also connect to that sewer main. Councilmember Teitzel observed if the City vacated with no easement, the property owner was responsible for all costs associated with connection to that existing main. Ms. McConnell answered in a development process, even if a sewer is located in a public right-of-way versus an easement, the cost to connect to the City's sewer system is borne by the property owner. Councilmember Teitzel said in effect if the right-of- way is vacated without retaining an easement, the existing water line and sewer main become private property. Ms. McConnell said if the City does not retain easements, it would be relinquished as privately - owned utility systems. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 14 Councilmember Buckshnis referred to staff's recommendation, pointing out having the utilities become private was not one of the options. She asked if privatization of water and sewer was common in a city like Edmonds. Ms. McConnell answered it is not common. With a new subdivision with a private road where there is not a need for the City to own and maintain the utility system, a private sewer main may be installed via the development process. The water main would be in the City street and water service lines to individual properties. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for confirmation that staff was not recommending privatization. Ms. McConnell agreed staff was not. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City needed to protect environment. Councilmember Johnson referred to the applicant's BLA map, relaying her understanding there were two issues, first the lot line adjustment. It would be possible to create the amber and green lots in such a way that they could be built upon by allocating the northern portion of the amber lot to a different lot. If the intent was two building sites, one south of Excelsior Place and another north of Excelsior Place, both would be outside the critical areas and it would be possible build there. The second issue is the vacation of Excelsior Place. Although Excelsior Place serves as a private driveway, it is serving more than what a normal private driveway would serve, especially due to the northern, western and eastern sections. An improvement would be appropriate notwithstanding the current meandering onto private property. Since the Fire Department may require a 20 -foot wide right-of-way, she concluded it did not make sense to abandon the public right-of-way so she will vote no. Duane Landsverk, applicant, asked Councilmember Johnson if she felt it was appropriate for the additional lots to the east, for them to suggest that they open the public right-of-way of Excelsior. First it would need to be constructed and then people would be sent to the end of Excelsior where they would trespass across neighboring lots to the east where there is no public access. Excelsior dead -ends and is only 20 feet wide. Councilmember Johnson said testimony has stated one can travel Excelsior Place and exit to the east. Mr. Landsverk said his private driveway meanders in and out of Excelsior; it is marked private and anyone using it is on private property. The public portion of Excelsior is 100% cut off. Councilmember Johnson asked if it was physically possible to drive to the east. Mr. Landsverk answered not without trespassing. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO VACATE WITH THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT IN EXHIBIT 1. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING ANDQUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mayor Earling announced the Council would not discuss Agenda Items 8.1 and 8.2 tonight. Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Resolution No. 1367 o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity ■ Frustrations with ex -parte contact prohibitions s Liability issues for councilmembers o Resolution No. 1367 Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC modifying the City Council's role in quasi -decision making processes o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 15 Council Quasi-judicial Decisions o Appeals (Type III -B): Essential public facilities; Design review (where a public hearing by the architectural design board is required); Conditional use permits (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Zoning Variances; Home occupation permit (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Preliminary formal plat; and Preliminary planned residential development. o Applications (Type N -A and IV -B): Final formal plats; Final planned residential development; and site specific rezone. o ECDC 17.00.030.C: The City Council also sits in a quasi-judicial role for variance applications from public agencies. Potential Code Amendments o Type III -B o Type IV -A o ECDC 17.00.030 -Public agency variances o ECDC 20.100.040 - Review of Approved Permits o ECDC 20.06 (Open Record Public Hearings) and ECDC 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) o Development Agreements ECDC 20.01.003 - Type III -B o Revisions to the table of land use decisions o Removing the City Council from appeal of quasi-judicial decisions could allow the Council to appeal on the behalf of citizens ■ Council would be provided notice of Type III decisions Type IV -A: Subdivisions and PRDS o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments o All requirements of preliminary approval of been met o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would delegate City Council's role in review of final formal plats and PRDs to staff ECDC 17.00.030 - Public Agency Variance o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits o Conflicts with state law ■ Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW - One open record public hearing - ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings ■ Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW - "Finality" - Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim) - Habitat Watch v. Skagit County - Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process o New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to suspend or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which operates in a manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 16 o Confusing cross references regarding appeals o Combine into a single chapter o Added some language for prehearing conferences o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings Development Agreements o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council o Council considers development agreement in closed record review o Likely process in conjunction with site specific rezone Mr. Lien said staff is seeking direction from Council regarding the proposed code amendments. Councilmember Teitzel commented there has been some incomplete information shared with the City Council from outside sources. There was an assertion that other City Councils have not gotten out of the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien displayed a survey of appeals to City Council from Municipal Research Center (MSRC) and City Attorney Jeff Taraday's list serve poll: No anneals to City Council Anneals to City Council • Bainbridge Is • Lynnwood • Bellevue ■ Bremerton • Marysville • Bellingham • Buckley • MLT o Only premilitary plats and variances related to plats • Clyde Hill • Mukilteo o All other decisions are Court appeals • Duvall • Snohomish • Ellensburg Everett • Shoreline • Kirkland • Federal Way • Spokane Vly • SeaTac (considering getting out) • Lakewood • • Snoqualmie • Sumner Under review: Renton Councilmember Teitzel recalled there was a point made that Snohomish County Council had ballot measure Prop 4 several years ago that was similar to what the Council is considering. In reading the voters pamphlet and arguments for and against, he saw nothing about the Snohomish County Council having the ability to consider an objection by a citizen and potentially taking appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizen which is something the City Council is considering. He asked if Snohomish County Council had the option to appeal on behalf of citizens. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding of 2016 Snohomish County Prop 4 was what he forward to Councilmembers from the voters pamphlet. He did not have any information that the Snohomish County was considering the process staff has suggested where the City Council could appeal the Hearing Examiner decision. There were similarities between this proposal and Prop 4 but they are not identical. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether any of the cities had gone from quasi-judicial to non -quasi- judicial. Mr. Lien said that would have taken a lot of research. Councilmember Buckshnis said this information only identifies cities that have appeals to City Council and cities that do not. It does not address other cities such as Edmonds that have changed. She hoped Edmonds would continue to have appeals to City Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the cities that still have appeals to City Council and believed there were more. With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis' question, Mr. Taraday explained cities have only had Hearing Examiner authority since approximately 1977; most of those cities preexisted that date. One could assume most Council's had quasi-judicial capacity before 1977. Some cities may have abandoned quasi-judicial a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 17 long time ago or more recently, but it would be a time-consuming exercise to determine who abandoned it and when. Councilmember Buckshnis commented politics were way different in 1977. What is going on now is relevant including that some large cities still use a quasi-judicial system. Mr. Lien said Edmonds switched to the Hearing Examiner process in 1980 and appeals went to City Council. Prior to that, the City had a Board of Adjustment that heard variances and that was a quasi-judicial decision process. Board of Adjustment decisions were appealable to Superior Court. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, said the quasi-judicial issue is important because, 1) it impacts more residents, 2) the action the Council takes will maintain the path of working together or begin to drive a wedge between certain groups, and 3) people outside Edmonds will make decisions about the community and how it develops instead of local officials. After researching this issue, she was opposed to the effort remove this from the Council. The main reason this issue was being brought up was lability concerns raised by some Councilmembers; by eliminating the quasi-judicial process from the Council, the risk to the City will be greatly reduced. This seems to be a weak reason because the Council has extensive legal representation as well as liability insurance that could be used to defend any decision reached by the Council that ends up in litigation. She pointed out the recent action taken by the Council to pass the safe storage gun ordinance and assumed legal counsel cautioned that passing such an ordinance might result in litigation. The Council did it anyway and now the City is being sued. She asked whether removing this process from the Council would benefit residents today or in the future, make it easier for residents to resolve disagreements or issues or make it more complicated, and whether it will keep the Council directly involved in Edmonds issues. She concluded abdicating this vital function would place a barrier between the elected officials and the citizens and will result in entities outside Edmonds making important decisions for Edmonds instead of local elected officials. She urged the Council to retain the Council in this process. John Reed, Edmonds, explained when making improvements to their home on 6' Avenue South in 1990, an issue arose regarding access to a deck they planned to add on the west side of their home. Their side setback was 5 feet but there was a 3Yz wide deck stairway that extended part of the length of the house. They applied for a variance to extend the deck to the end of the home and then cut over to the required 5 - foot setback. The Hearing Examiner denied their request so they appealed to the City Council under the quasi-judicial process in place at that time. They and their neighbors represented themselves at the City Council. One of the neighbors 25 feet away told the Council they had wild, late night parties and the deck would infringe on their privacy and ability to sleep and the Council denied their request for a variance by a 3-4 vote. They subsequently designed access to their deck from inside the home. They undoubtedly would not have paid a large fee, traveled to Everett and presented their request to Snohomish County Superior Court. Since 1990 the process was changed to require appeals to Superior Court and then in 2009 changed back to appeals to Council. He urged the Council to retain the current process because he believed it was what the citizens who elected them expect. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE), Mr. Reed referred to a letter, Exhibit 21 in the packet, highlighting ACE's support for retaining the quasi-judicial process at the City Council level because Edmonds citizens elect Councilmembers to represent them and the existing process retains that representation. It provides a less costly way for citizens to have their voices heard by the local residents they elect. While the basis for this change is the risk involved in quasi-judicial hearings, in fact all City Council decisions carry a degree of risk which is the reason for the City Attorney and why the City carries liability insurance. Very few land use matters are currently appealed beyond the Hearing Examiner and the Council spends little time on appeals. Councilmembers are familiar with Edmonds issues, but Snohomish County Superior Court and land use staff are not. ACE urged the Council to vote to retain the current process for quasi-judicial appeals. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 18 Gary Nelson, Edmonds, referred to his correspondence to the City Council and that Planning Board describing his opposition to moving from a citizen -friend approach to quasi-judicial matters to an unfriendly approach that requires an appeal to Snohomish County Superior Court. When the Council passed Resolution 1367 in 2016, the Charter Review Commission put Prop 4 on the ballot which essentially addressed the same idea of moving to a court appeal. There was little public discussion prior to the election; however, 57.7% of Edmonds voters voted no. His philosophy is the best government is the one closest to the people which is the City Council. The City Council acts as a jury on many of the appeals that would come to the Council under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). It does not require any specialized training; jurists do not have any training when they make a decision. Citizens rely on the City Council's judgment; the Council is presented material on the record and citizens expect the Council to use that judgment in the best interest of the City. He asked the Council to oppose this change and continue the process that has been successful for many years. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he participated in appeals while on the City Council; those decisions are important to people making the appeal. He felt privileged to serve the citizens as a judge and current Councilmembers should feel the same, that they are looking out for the citizens. This system has worked for a long time because the Council follows strict rules of behavior and have not gotten themselves into a lawsuit. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, strongly opposed these changes and feared this was another piecemeal amendment to the code. In March 2015 the City launched a major update of the development code including hiring Makers to assist with that process. He met with Makes and the City to describe his issues with the code; the code has been highly flawed for a long time. He recalled Duane Bowman saying in 2005 that the code needed to be updated. Consideration of this change should be done as part of a comprehensive, major update of the code. The City's webpage regarding the code update has not been updated since March 2016 so he had no idea where that update stands. He did not have faith in the City's Hearing Examiner system and if anything, the City Council should hear more appeals, not less. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of public hearing. Councilmember Tibbott referred to four cases brought to City Council prior to his being on the Council, two related to larger developers, one of which was Building 10. He asked how long it took for the Council to hear that appeal. Mr. Lien answered the Building 10 appeals took place over four Council meetings. There was one closed record review before the Council for the first set of appeals; that was cut short and remanded back to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to issue findings. The ADB issued findings, it was appealed again and the City considered the appeals over three meetings. Councilmember Tibbott said he was present for one of those and recalled the presentation to Council took over an hour. One of his concerns is the actual process the Council could look forward to. To him, there was a big difference between hearing a review for a neighbor adding on to their deck versus a large project like Building 10 or the Burnstead subdivision. He asked how long the Burnstead appeal took. Mr. Lien recalled it took at least 2-3 Council meetings. Mr. Taraday said Burnstead originated at City Council before he was City Attorney, went to the courts, the Court of Appeals remanded to the Hearing Examiner and then it came to the City Council on another administrative appeal. Councilmember Tibbott said he was sympathetic to the idea of listening to appeals from neighbors on personal issues but those cannot be separated from the larger appeals that take many days, have a great deal of detailed information and require a courtroom -like setting for presenting information. He recalled presentations to the Council from citizen groups and others presenting information with no opportunity to cross-examine and verify facts. The larger and more complex the issue, the greater the need for the Council to have the ability to cross-examine and verify information which requires more than a closed record review. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 19 Councilmember Tibbott explained when the Council is asked to review an appeal, the Council is asked to judge the Hearing Examiner's decision-making process, not the validity of the project. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining the Council does not have any decisions where the Council holds the open record hearing. If the Council were holding the open record hearing, Councilmembers could cross-examine witnesses. The Council is not a jury, juries hear original testimony. The Hearing Examiner hears witnesses speak and has the opportunity to ask questions and play a fact-finding role. When appeals come to the Council, it is on record and the Council only hears what was already provided to the Hearing Examiner and no new information can be provided. Councilmember Tibbott asked what it would be like for a citizen to take a request for an appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday recalled a couple citizens have filed their own LUPA appeals and represented themselves pro se. LUPA appeals are on the record, there are no witnesses, no new evidence, basically the petitioner writes a brief explaining to the court why the decision was erroneous, The City responds to that brief with an explanation of why the decision was correct and the petitioner is provided an opportunity for rebuttal to explain why the City's argument is wrong and there is some time for oral argument in front of the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked how long reviews in front of a judge usually last. Mr. Taraday answered the oral argument in front of the court includes an initial hearing which is usually 10 minutes and the hearing on the merits lasts 20-60 minutes depending on the generosity of the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it would possible to retain a review process that is not a quasi- judicial review. For example, a citizen does not agree with a Hearing Examiner decision and wants to appeal it to Superior Court but has an opportunity to bring it to the City Council first. The City Council could hear the arguments and chose to appeal on the citizen behalf. Mr. Taraday said that is one of the ideas he and Mr. Lien are considering; that is the suggestion about providing notice of hearings to the City Council. The City Council would receive a notice of application whenever there was a Type III proposal and would have the opportunity to attend the hearing. Once the decision is issued and there is an aggrieved constituent who feels justice was not done, the system being contemplated would allow the City Council to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision in the name of the City on behalf of a constituent who feel it was unjustly decided. That decision could be discussed with legal counsel in executive session as potential litigation and Council could get a candid sense from the City Attorney on the merits of the Hearing Examiner's decision and the Council would decide in open session whether to appeal. That is a way of representing constituents in a manner that allow Councilmembers to talk to them and in a manner that was truly responsive to their concerns without being bound by the decision criteria when the Council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity. Councilmember Tibbott commented under that scenario, Councilmembers could walk a property, ask questions, etc. Mr. Taraday agreed, there would be no restriction on ex parte communication in that scenario; Councilmembers could talk with constituents, conduct site visits, etc. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the Council could request an open meeting with citizens to address the issue with Council. Mr. Taraday said there are only 21 days to file a LUPA appeal. For example, if the Hearing Examiner's decision is issued on a Friday, constituents could come to the next Council meeting to ask the Council to appeal or one or more Councilmembers could inquire about it offline and/or discuss it in executive session. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the process whereby a citizen who felt aggrieved by a Hearing Decision could ask the Council to consider it and asked how a citizen would know that avenue is available to them. Mr. Taraday said the code language has not yet not finalized. If the City Council directed, staff could to develop that process. Councilmember Teitzel was not interested in forcing citizens to go to Superior Court without having that course available. If there was a less formal process whereby citizens could approach the Council to say the Hearing Examiner erred, the Council could consider it and determine if it had merit and appeal to Superior Court on the citizen's behalf. If that avenue did not exist, he supported retaining Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 20 Gary Nelson, Edmonds, referred to his correspondence to the City Council and that Planning Board describing his opposition to moving from a citizen -friend approach to quasi-judicial matters to an unfriendly approach that requires an appeal to Snohomish County Superior Court. When the Council passed Resolution 1367 in 2016, the Charter Review Commission put Prop 4 on the ballot which essentially addressed the same idea of moving to a court appeal. There was little public discussion prior to the election; however, 57.7% of Edmonds voters voted no. His philosophy is the best government is the one closest to the people which is the City Council. The City Council acts as a jury on many of the appeals that would come to the Council under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). It does not require any specialized training; jurists do not have any training when they make a decision. Citizens rely on the City Council's judgment; the Council is presented material on the record and citizens expect the Council to use that judgment in the best interest of the City. He asked the Council to oppose this change and continue the process that has been successful for many years. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he participated in appeals while on the City Council; those decisions are important to people making the appeal. He felt privileged to serve the citizens as a judge and current Councilmembers should feel the same, that they are looking out for the citizens. This system has worked for a long time because the Council follows strict rules of behavior and have not gotten themselves into a lawsuit. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, strongly opposed these changes and feared this was another piecemeal amendment to the code. In March 2015 the City launched a major update of the development code including hiring Makers to assist with that process. He met with Makes and the City to describe his issues with the code; the code has been highly flawed for a long time. He recalled Duane Bowman saying in 2005 that the code needed to be updated. Consideration of this change should be done as part of a comprehensive, major update of the code. The City's webpage regarding the code update has not been updated since March 2016 so he had no idea where that update stands. He did not have faith in the City's Hearing Examiner system and if anything, the City Council should hear more appeals, not less. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of public hearing. Councilmember Tibbott referred to four cases brought to City Council prior to his being on the Council, two related to larger developers, one of which was Building 10. He asked how long it took for the Council to hear that appeal. Mr. Lien answered the Building 10 appeals took place over four Council meetings. There was one closed record review before the Council for the first set of appeals; that was cut short and remanded back to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to issue findings. The ADB issued findings, it was appealed again and the City considered the appeals over three meetings. Councilmember Tibbott said he was present for one of those and recalled the presentation to Council took over an hour. One of his concerns is the actual process the Council could look forward to. To him, there was a big difference between hearing a review for a neighbor adding on to their deck versus a large project like Building 10 or the Burnstead subdivision. He asked how long the Burnstead appeal took. Mr. Lien recalled it took at least 2-3 Council meetings. Mr. Taraday said Burnstead originated at City Council before he was City Attorney, went to the courts, the Court of Appeals remanded to the Hearing Examiner and then it came to the City Council on another administrative appeal. Councilmember Tibbott said he was sympathetic to the idea of listening to appeals from neighbors on personal issues but those cannot be separated from the larger appeals that take many days, have a great deal of detailed information and require a courtroom -like setting for presenting information. He recalled presentations to the Council from citizen groups and others presenting information with no opportunity to cross-examine and verify facts. The larger and more complex the issue, the greater the need for the Council to have the ability to cross-examine and verify information which requires more than a closed record review. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 19 Councilmember Tibbott explained when the Council is asked to review an appeal, the Council is asked to judge the Hearing Examiner's decision-making process, not the validity of the project. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining the Council does not have any decisions where the Council holds the open record hearing. If the Council were holding the open record hearing, Councilmembers could cross-examine witnesses. The Council is not a jury, juries hear original testimony. The Hearing Examiner hears witnesses speak and has the opportunity to ask questions and play a fact-finding role. When appeals come to the Council, it is on record and the Council only hears what was already provided to the Hearing Examiner and no new information can be provided. Councilmember Tibbott asked what it would be like for a citizen to take a request for an appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday recalled a couple citizens have filed their own LUPA appeals and represented themselves pro se. LUPA appeals are on the record, there are no witnesses, no new evidence, basically the petitioner writes a brief explaining to the court why the decision was erroneous. The City responds to that brief with an explanation of why the decision was correct and the petitioner is provided an opportunity for rebuttal to explain why the City's argument is wrong and there is some time for oral argument in front of the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked how long reviews in front of a judge usually last. Mr. Taraday answered the oral argument in front of the court includes an initial hearing which is usually 10 minutes and the hearing on the merits lasts 20-60 minutes depending on the generosity of the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it would possible to retain a review process that is not a quasi- judicial review. For example, a citizen does not agree with a Hearing Examiner decision and wants to appeal it to Superior Court but has an opportunity to bring it to the City Council first. The City Council could hear the arguments and chose to appeal on the citizen behalf. Mr. Taraday said that is one of the ideas he and Mr. Lien are considering; that is the suggestion about providing notice of hearings to the City Council. The City Council would receive a notice of application whenever there was a Type III proposal and would have the opportunity to attend the hearing. Once the decision is issued and there is an aggrieved constituent who feels justice was not done, the system being contemplated would allow the City Council to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision in the name of the City on behalf of a constituent who feel it was unjustly decided. That decision could be discussed with legal counsel in executive session as potential litigation and Council could get a candid sense from the City Attorney on the merits of the Hearing Examiner's decision and the Council would decide in open session whether to appeal. That is a way of representing constituents in a manner that allow Councilmembers to talk to them and in a manner that was truly responsive to their concerns without being bound by the decision criteria when the Council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity. Councilmember Tibbott commented under that scenario, Councilmembers could walk a property, ask questions, etc. Mr. Taraday agreed, there would be no restriction on ex parte communication in that scenario; Councilmembers could talk with constituents, conduct site visits, etc. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the Council could request an open meeting with citizens to address the issue with Council. Mr. Taraday said there are only 21 days to file a LUPA appeal. For example, if the Hearing Examiner's decision is issued on a Friday, constituents could come to the next Council meeting to ask the Council to appeal or one or more Councilmembers could inquire about it offline and/or discuss it in executive session. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the process whereby a citizen who felt aggrieved by a Hearing Decision could ask the Council to consider it and asked how a citizen would know that avenue is available to them. Mr. Taraday said the code language has not yet not finalized. If the City Council directed, staff could to develop that process. Councilmember Teitzel was not interested in forcing citizens to go to Superior Court without having that course available. If there was a less formal process whereby citizens could approach the Council to say the Hearing Examiner erred, the Council could consider it and determine if it had merit and appeal to Superior Court on the citizen's behalf. If that avenue did not exist, he supported retaining Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 20 quasi-judicial authority. If that avenue exists, he was leaning away from the Council retaining quasi-judicial authority as long he was convinced that avenue was available and reasonable for citizens. Mayor Earling advised Agenda Item 9.1 would be moved to a future meeting. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Johnson pointed out staffs research included two appeals that required counsel for the City Council, Carol Morris. She asked how much was spent on the Burnstead and Pt. Edwards projects. Mr. Lien said he could research cost. The City utilized Carol Morris on three appeals; the only one where she was not hired was the fence appeal. Councilmember Johnson recalled there was advice two years ago from WCIA, MSRC and the City Attorney to move away from the quasi-judicial review. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in seeing in writing what has been discussed behind the scenes. She was not seeing much difference between the quasi-judicial process and that process which would still take time, Council involvement, attorneys and staff. She asked staff to return with that process in writing. Councilmember Tibbott raised a point of order that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was insinuating there have been private discussions on these matters. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified her request was for staff to return with a proposal for the Council to appeal decisions to Superior Court on a citizen's behalf. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email stating the City has had four closed record reviews since 2009. Mr. Lien said there have been four closed record reviews on appeals since 2009, there have been other closed record reviews such as the public agency variance. Councilmember Buckshnis said those closed record review appeals were Pt. Edwards, Willowdale, Hillman and Burnstead. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis said those were part of the normal part of a Councilmember's job. Councilmembers are not scientists, yet they make important decisions about the Shoreline Master Program. She did not see any reason to change the current process. Councilmember Tibbott said one of the things he was trying to understand was changes in state law related to the review process such as only one closed record review and one appeal is allowed. He asked if there was a further process if those two are exhausted. Mr. Taraday answered administratively there is not, administratively the State allows one open record hearing and one closed record review. Councilmember Tibbott asked if a citizen could appeal the Council's decision on a Hearing Examiner's to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday explained the open record hearing takes place at the Hearing Examiner, the closed record review takes place at the City Council which is the end of the administrative work and there is either a final decision that no one appeals or there is a subsequent appeal that goes to Court. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON, TO FORWARD THIS TO A FUTURE AGENDA WITH A LONGER TIME FOR DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has been discussing this for a while tonight and there still seems to be a lot of questions. She would like to have time to discuss it so she recommended moving it to another meeting. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO INCLUDE WHEN THIS COMES BACK, DETAILS ABOUT THE PROCESS WHEREBY A CITIZEN COULD COME TO COUNCIL, PRESENT THE FACTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 21 ABOUT THEIR CONCERN ABOUT A HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND THE COUNCIL COULD APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZEN. Mr. Lien said staff would return with code language regarding how the Council could appeal the Hearing Examiner or ADB decision on the citizen's behalf. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE REPORT Due to the late hour, this item was omitted from the agenda. 2. DISCUSSION ON PROHIBITING EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE (EPS OR C4STYROFOAM") IN FOOL] PACKAGING Due to the late hour, this item was moved to a future agenda. 3. VIDEO STREAMING OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Council President Nelson commented this issue has been raised in a variety of ways. Previously all Council meetings were televised. Then the Council changed to a committee structure, committees meet in separate meetings and there is only an audio recording. Anyone wanting a copy of the audio recording must make a submit a request. What is accessible to citizens online with regard to committee meetings is minutes. He wanted the Council to do better job in terms of transparency; as Gary Council President Nelson said, the best government is one that is closest to the people. If the public is unable to attend a meeting, the next best thing is to watch it live. An op ed by Teresa Whipple on September 9', Let's Talk about Transparency, relayed her frustration in trying to cover Council committee meetings when she cannot be in three places at the same time. To that end, he invited a subject matter expert, Michelle Earl -Hubbard, Vice President of the Board of Washington Coalition for Open Government, a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring transparency and open government to speak to the Council. She is also a media law attorney. Ms. Earl -Hubbard introduced her daughter, a youth outreach ambassador, also interested in open government. Council President Nelson originally asked Toby Nixon, President of Washington Coalition for Open Government but he is a member of the Kirkland City Council which also meets on Tuesdays. She is an open government and media law attorney representing news organizations through Washington and in five other states and for the past 22+ years she has handled litigation involving open government laws. She urged the City to consider doing in committees what they already do in Council meetings. It is wonderful there are cameras in Council Chambers livestreaming the meeting and that there is downloadable, click on demand video available online. However, because committee meetings are held simultaneously in separate rooms, the public cannot watch them. She recognized the challenge for the press, they cannot be in all the places they need to be. In places like Edmonds that do not have large newspapers, television stations or media outlets, what happens does not get covered unless there are citizens like My Edmonds News. Ms. Earl -Hubbard urged the Council to add what they already do in Council meetings to their committee meetings because seeing is believing. A citizen could record a meeting themselves and put it on You Tube or their Facebook page, but it would be their version and may not be authentic or gavel -to -gavel and may be taken out of context. Therefore, it is always wiser for the government to control the mic and put it all out Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 22 there gavel -to -gavel and more importantly, tell their constituents they want them in the room, that they have nothing to hide, that everything factoring into their decision is proper and they want them to understand it. If the public is not allowed in the room, they will think whatever the Council is doing is wrong, is bad and is much more important than it is and may sue to get into that room. Since the Council has already taken the step to wire Council Chambers and livestream Council meetings and make them available on demand, it is not that much more expensive to do the same for the three committee meetings. It can be run on the existing system and although she understood there may be some challenges living streaming all three at once, she believed it could be done and the viewer could choose which one to watch. The video could certainly be available on the website so a person unable to attend could watch the committee meetings. Any City Council that is proud of the work they are doing, needs to make their work accessible to the citizens. A number of cities are doing this, small and large. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Earl -Hubbard said for example Issaquah, Kent and Redmond video record all their Council committee meetings. In Redmond, all Councilmember are on all committees. Seattle also video records their committee meetings. Federal Way and Des Moines audio record their Council committees. Many cities are livestreaming their Council meetings and there are many vendors that would be happy to help. The City already has a system, it only needs a few more cameras in other rooms. This is what the public expects, to be able to see committee meetings, not just the minutes. They do not want someone to tell them what happened; they want to see and hear it and if not, they won't believe it. She concluded there were so many advantages to agencies from video recordings, 1) it ensures a record of what happens, 2) it will make preparing minutes much easier, and 3) if there isn't a video, it is subject to other people's impressions. Councilmember Buckshnis said she is all for open transparency and she has participated in thousands of hours of committee meetings. The meetings are audio recorded and she asked if audio was considered non - transparent. Ms. Earl -Hubbard answered audio is helpful but is not sufficient. The audio is not available on demand, accessible, or livestreamed and requires a person to request it and a staff person to create a copy. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Edmonds' committee meetings are not as exciting as Seattle; she could recall possibly three instances in the past nine years that could be considered exciting. Ms. Earl - Hubbard said it was not whether the meeting is exciting, if people are not able to view it, they will think it was exciting. Councilmember Buckshnis said audio is as legal as video from a liability standpoint. Ms. Earl -Hubbard clarified there is no obligation to record anything. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was making it sound like because the Council did not video record committee meetings, they were being non - transparent. There was nothing wrong with an audio recording. Ms. Earl -Hubbard said the Council has chosen to video record Council meetings. When they do not video record committee meetings, it makes the public wonder why. For example, are topics moved to a committee because the cameras aren't there? Because the public is so used to seeing, then they are told they can only listen, they think they are missing something. Councilmember Buckshnis said decisions are not made in committees; all decisions are made at Council meetings. Committees review things, ensure the packet is complete and refer it to the Consent Agenda or to full Council. When she joined the Council, committee meetings were not even audio recorded. Ms. Earl - Hubbard said RCW 42.30.010, the preamble to the Open Public Meetings Act states, "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." Ms. Earl -Hubbard summarized the public gets to decides what's important Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 23 and what it is interested in, if the Council chooses not to make something available to their public, they will doubt the motives. Councilmember Buckshnis said there have not been any complaints until just recently. She pointed out it took the Council two years to decide to video record Planning Board meetings. She felt Ms. Earl -Hubbard was trying to say what the Council was doing was bad; it was not bad, it was still an open public meeting. On behalf of Washington Coalition for Open Government Ms. Earl -Hubbard urged elected officials to do a greater service to the constituency they serve as well as send a message to other citizens in Washington that Edmonds wants the public to see what they are doing and there is no reason they cannot do their job in the public's view and video is better than audio. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed appreciation for the Washington Coalition for Open Government. She agreed with Ms. Earl -Hubbard, for $300/month, it would be a good service if the cost could be kept down. The video did not have to be streamed or looped, it could just be available on the City's website. She assumed few people would actually be interested, most of the topics are dry and slightly boring but there are topics that people are interested in. Mayor Earling suggest scheduling another discussion and he will discuss the logistics with staff. Councilmember Teitzel suggested other options be presented when this comes back to Council such as the cost to post the audio recordings online and make them available on demand. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT 1. SPECIAL FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT AND MINUTES Due to the late hour, this item was moved to the next meeting. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS - None 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Johnson reminded Councilmembers and the viewing of the public of the reception for volunteers and boards and commissions on Tuesday, October 9 at 5:30 p.m. in the Brackett Room. She encouraged Councilmembers to invite the members of committees they serve on. 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.1100)(i) This item was not needed. 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 24 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m. e `O bA ID C. EAR IN , AYOR SL07f PASSEY, CITY CLER Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 25 ,• 3 �-