The URL can be used to link to this page

02/24/2015 City CouncilEdmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES February 24, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. I Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PER RCW 42.30.140(1)(b) At 6:45 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Sharon Cates, City Attorney Office, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services/Human Resources Reporting Director, Human Resources Manager Mary Ann Hardie and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 7:02 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:05 p.m. and led 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 BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA BY MOVING ITEM 14 TO ITEM 6A. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2015 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #212946 THROUGH #213004 DATED FEBRUARY 19, 2015 FOR $99,966.33. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61502 THROUGH #61511 FOR $465,060.76, BENEFIT CHECKS #61512 THROUGH #61518 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $516,891.19 FOR THE PAY PERIOD FEBRUARY 1, 2015 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2015 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF TWO CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MARIAN UNGUREANU ($2,000.00 TOTAL) D. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS David Meyer, Edmonds, was opposed to any change to Resolution 1005 and vehemently opposed to public access through the cemetery. A property owner on the north side of the cemetery, he noted funerals at the cemetery often have 50-100 cars and he questioned how public access would be possible. If the proposal would widen the road, it would be within inches of his rear property line which was not the situation when he purchased the property nor was it the situation the people who purchased the plots in that area envisioned. He spoke of the beautiful setting and found it ridiculous to clear the large pine trees to build nine homes and even more ridiculous to build a public thoroughfare in that area. People visiting the cemetery to mourn their loved ones appreciated the solitude and would not want the occupants of another nine homes staring at them. Craig Pierce, Bothell, representing Select Homes, who is specifically involved with the parcel that abuts 104th and the 20-foot alley/access road. He described their process; they originally came to the City in September for a pre-application process for the parcel to see if it could be developed. That meeting which involved Public Works, Fire, Planning and Building staff included discussion of a 4-lot short plat for the property. One of discussion items was the 20-foot access road and verifying ownership. Staff found it was owned by Edmonds and later said it was available for access for the 4-lot short plat. From that pre- application meeting, Select Homes completed feasibility, closed on the property and began a formal application for a 4-lot short plat. They were informed of the resolution and its impact on their application at the first review of the short plat. Staff’s presentation will include the original application for the 4 lots as well as a secondary, potential access but Select Homes does not think it would be as advantageous to the City to have two roads side-by-side. Jan Robertson, Edmonds, Forest Glenn, said she was opposed to the proposed construction. She referred to a letter she submitted from John Nordquist, a former Councilmember. When Woodway Highlands was being developed, Councilmembers and then-Mayor Haakenson walked area and subsequently adopted Resolution 1005. The resolution grandfathered the existing residents but did not Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 3 allow additional access because most of the utilities were installed pre-code when the property was in Snohomish County such as a 9-inch diameter cast iron water pipe that serves all the residents, a sewer lift for Woodway Meadows and their area and pipes at depth of 2½ feet which is no longer allowed. The residents welcome new neighbors as it would not be a bad thing to get rid of the blackberries but not on the alley which cannot handle the weight of traffic. She suggested access be built on the north side where a lane could serve the properties without destroying what they were promised in Resolution 1005. Mayor Earling declared a break to resolve a technical issue. Eric Montgomery, Edmonds, Forest Glenn, said his property backs up to the alley and he was opposed to any change to the alley. He suggested access be provided on the north side off 104th. He was also speaking for a couple of his neighbors who could not be here tonight. He suggested if four houses were approved, there was the possibility of six more houses which would be 20 more cars using the access. He questioned whether there would be a 28-30-foot wide road with sidewalks, fire lane, street lights, etc. in his backyard. Jim Letson, owner, Beck Funeral Home and Restlawn Memorial Park, explained when they purchased the properties in 2006, they knew some changes would need to be made in the future to ensure economic viability and provide the necessary support facilities for maintenance, staging of equipment and inventory to support the activities of Restlawn. Cemeteries are a unique entity; few other businesses convey something that carries an obligation into perpetuity. When he sells the rights to use of cemetery or cremation space at Restlawn, he is contractually obligated and regulated by law to care for the property as long as he owns it. When ownership of the property is conveyed in the future, the new owner must comply with State board requirement that they will accept those obligations. Further a cemetery is the repository for a tremendous amount emotion. They began to look at options to secure a strong future for Restlawn quite some time ago and have met with staff a couple times to discuss the conversion of dedicated, unplatted and unneeded cemetery land, presently used for maintenance and storage, into tax lots that would be sold and constructed with moderately priced new homes consistent with the surrounding zoning. He invited Councilmembers to drive down the alley and look at the back corner of their property and the wooded area. He referred to things happening in that wooded area that should not; this transaction, which they support, would be a win-win for everyone and would provide for the future of Restlawn as a viable property. Rick Wurdeman, Edmonds, requested the Council consider repealing Resolution 1005. He has been working with owners of both parcels for approximately a year and was surprised to learn at this late stage of the existence of resolution that limits the way the 20-foot right-of-way can be used. He understood the residents to not want change but said it was somewhat unreasonable for them to ask that the land sit unused in perpetuity at the expense of Select Homes who has purchased approximately half of the property and are now facing the possibility of not being able to use it, and Mr. Letson who has over an acre of property he has no use for and can be developed. The development proposed by Mr. Letson and Mr. Pierce will be good for the City; it will create 9-10 new moderately priced homes that will help the City meet the demand for housing, meet Comprehensive Plan goals, and result in enormous improvements to the strip of property where undesirable activities occur. The concern about utilities is not realistic because Select Homes’ plans include bringing all utilities up to code including improved fire and safety access for all residents as well as increasing the City’s tax base as the cemetery property is currently exempt from tax. If the City repeals the resolution, it gives staffs an opportunity to promote and facilitate the orderly and logical development of the property consistent with the City’s obligation to make the best and highest use of their property. He urged the Council to seriously consider repealing Resolution 1005 or to refer it to staff or the Planning Board for recommendation regarding access to these large, unused properties. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 4 Charles Thompson, Edmonds, Forest Glenn, spoke in support of retaining Resolution 1005 as it is currently written. He referred to correspondence from 1996 from Edmonds’ Planning Manager to the Town of Woodway that states the City does not support any access roadway that provides anything more than a restricted, emergency-only access to the east. Unrestricted access would introduce through traffic into adjacent subdivision and seriously impact the safety and character of these developed areas. These subdivisions were not designed to support this type of traffic impact. He was not opposed to development and actually welcomed development because it would replace the blackberries and it would great for the City. He supported retaining Resolution 1005 and providing access on north side within the developer’s property. Evan Pierce, Edmonds, said the effect on him personally would be negligible as the houses would be across street and he and his neighbors were okay with the property being developed. When his house was developed in 2004, he was told the gate at the end of the strip of land that borders Woodway Highlands would never be opened and based on Resolution 1005 it was designated as emergency and he could not gain access from that area and needed to gain access from 104th. He referred to a survey done by the Orca Survey Company of the 4-lot as well as the 6-lot parcel that is still dedicated cemetery property and then a single family application was submitted in early December without any borders shown for the other lots and the 4-lot subdivision that was submitted in early January. He pointed out this is a 10-lot development running east to west and it should be viewed holistically as one project because regardless of whether the deed dedication of the cemetery property occurs now or in a year, they will be contiguous at some point. Speaking for most of his neighbors, he said this could be accomplished without spending any more City time or resources or publicly owned property by putting the access east to west on the north edge of the contiguous 10-lot parcel. This would also provide full access to the 5-6 lots in the back and would not require any action by the City. He referred to a letter he provided the Council. Marsha Fisher, Edmonds, said her property borders the alley on the south side. She agreed with the previous speakers in that she did not mind the development occurring but access should be on the north side instead of using the alley. She referred to an email she provided the Council. Marjorie Pemberton, Edmonds, said she lives on the alley and did not want the alley turned into major a road and everyone whose property borders the alley feels the same way. She disagreed that crime occurred in the alley. Eva Marie Bottle, Edmonds, a resident on the north side of the cemetery said her property would be affected by a road on that side. Their backyard is approximately 5 feet from the existing road. Backyards are where people retreat for privacy and no one wants their backyard to border a road. She feared a road would reduce property values and homes are many people’s most important investment. She said Woodway Meadows had been butchered in the last few years by the park and the baseball cage. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out Councilmembers usually campaign on protecting neighborhoods; a lot of the audience members represent a neighborhood. He said the problem could be easily solved as some of the speakers have suggested. A member of Economic Development Commission, he reported Commissioners were told that no more than seven Commissioners could serve on a subcommittee or visit a subcommittee meeting because it would result in a quorum. He suggested advertising the subcommittee meetings would resolve this problem. Commissioners were also informed the annual report to the Council will be written by a few members and presented to Council without review by the entire the EDC. 6. DIVERSITY COMMISSION Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Carrie Hite reported in 2011 the Council discussed forming a Diversity Commission and in December 2014 the Council charged Councilmembers Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 5 Buckshnis, Petso and Peterson with inviting interested citizens to form a task force for the purpose of bringing forth a recommendation for a Diversity Commission. Before the Council tonight are, 1) an ordinance creating a new ECC Chapter 10.65 forming a Diversity Commission, and 2) a recommendation for staff support and a budget for the Diversity Commission. Ms. Hite introduced three task force members, Mario Brown, Venus Gomez Deming and Gayle Ketzel. Other members of the Diversity Task Force include Emily Hill, Tung Bui, Jeanne Park, and Diane Talmadge. The task force along with Councilmembers Petso and Buckshnis did a lot heavy lifting in two meetings as well as homework between the meetings. The Council packet contains the agendas and minutes of those meetings Task Force Member Mario Brown presented the Diversity Task Force’s recommendation • Form a Diversity Commission comprised of nine members; two appointed by the Mayor and one by each Councilmember. After Commissioners’ terms expire, the Commission will find their own replacements • Include Woodway and Esperance in the Commission • Allow anyone who lives, goes to school or works in Edmonds, Woodway Esperance to apply to be on the Commission. With regard to why the City should have a Diversity Commission, Mr. Brown said some may think this is a post-racial world and it was obsolete to have discussions regarding diversity. He was honored to live in a City that was being proactive regarding this issue; several surrounding municipalities and the County have human rights and diversity issues. He pointed out there are two classes of people in the country, the in crowd and the out crowd. That happens in Edmonds illustrated by comments such as, “of course we have diversity, just look on Highway 99.” The City needs to be proactive to turn these two groups into one group; to turn two Edmonds into one Edmonds. Even though some people have lived without experiencing the pain of discrimination that does not mean the pain is not there. Society can be racist without having racist people because the system can be rigged against second class citizens. Mr. Brown described his own family, his father is a European Jewish man who worked for the Department of Defense in the Pentagon. He was raised in a 6-bedroom house in Eldorado Hills in Bremerton overlooking Puget Sound. He had all the privileges anyone could ask for growing up and has applied for the Council vacancy. Yet, when he sees a police car, he cringes and thinks about what to say if he gets pulled over. With all that he has accomplished, that thought is still in his head. Having a Diversity Commission means maybe his children will not have that fear. When someone has not experienced that feeling and are not prejudice themselves, they may think everything is fine; everything is not fine. He summarized the City can do something or hope it will go away; he encouraged the Council to do something. Ms. Deming commented it is time for Edmonds to have a Diversity Commission. She has lived in Edmonds since 1980. Her two American/Filipino children were raised in Edmonds but they are not sure they want to return to Edmonds and she can see their point. One of her children lives in Leavenworth and other lives near Green Lake in Seattle. Young families want to come to Edmonds; there is a dividing line between the bowl and Highway 99. It is time to show those who are hesitant to move here or be participants that Edmonds is open. Something is lacking and there is a way to bridge that the gap by creating a Diversity Commission that will work on creating one Edmonds. She hoped her grandchildren would enjoy diversity; although people love to come to Edmonds, many do not want to live here. Ms. Ketzel echoed Mr. Brown’s and Ms. Deming’s comments, stating these efforts are not for us, it is for the children. Inclusiveness or equality cannot be legislated but the City can reach out to the community to bring them in to encourage them to participate in the community and in government. Bringing people Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 6 together will help move away from two Edmonds. She recalled speaking to a young Filipino woman last Halloween who moved away from Edmonds ten years ago because she felt there was too much prejudice and bias; she has since moved back to Edmonds because she wants to raise her daughter in a community that includes everyone. Mr. Brown commented the average age is Edmonds high, yet the United States will be a majority minority by 2050. As people age, others will take their place and Edmonds should be ahead of the curve in welcoming them. He commented the members representing the Diversity Commission tonight are privileged people of color and they are still nervous, what about the people without those privileges? He wanted the Diversity Commission to be a bridge for everyone else and recommended the Council form the Diversity Commission. Ms. Hite relayed her research of neighboring cities with regard to staff support for the commission; staff support ranges from a few cities with FTEs dedicated to diversity issues, cities that dedicated 5-10 hours/week to diversity issues as part of an FTE to 1-2 cities that dedicate 10 hours/month. The task force and Councilmembers Buckshnis and Petso suggested starting with contract staff working 10 hours/ month. The City does not have the internal staff capacity to staff this Commission. The recommended budget is $10,000; $6,000 for contract staff and a $4,000 budget for cultural awareness events. Councilmember Bloom referred to language in Chapter 10.65.030, “The commission shall set its own meeting dates and shall give notice of such meeting in compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act of the State of Washington, as it now exists and as it may be amended from time to time.” She questioned why the commission would be responsible for noticing their own meetings when that was an administrative function. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said it was not the intent to make commissioners themselves publish meeting notice. Mr. Hite advised that language was taken from the template for other boards and commissions. Mr. Taraday said the intent of the sentence was for the commission to establish the meeting date and direct the contract staff person to publish notice accordingly, not commissioners themselves. Councilmember Bloom commented other boards and commissions do not have dedicated staff. There needs to consistency in language and support for all boards and commissions. For example, the Tree Board has no dedicated staff and no funds to provide dedicated staff. She has repeatedly asked the Development Services Department to assign a staff person to support the Tree Board without success. She fully supported the Diversity Commission but had questions about the language, their responsibilities and the funds allocated to the Diversity Commission when other boards and commission do not receive that level of support. The Tree Board needs that level of support; the Tree Board must Tree City USA obligations and other cities have dedicated staff that does Arbor Day events. She was not ready to approve funds until the Council reviewed all other boards and commissions for consistency in the support they are provided. Mr. Taraday suggested the language be changed to “and City shall give notice of such meeting.” Councilmember Bloom agreed with that change. Councilmember Petso said it was a pleasure to work on the Diversity Task Force. She thanked Ms. Hite for the excellent assistance she provided to get the task force moving and bringing a proposal to the Council. With regard to the concerns raised by Councilmember Bloom and the concerns she has received via email this week, she suggested if the Council supported establishing a Diversity Commission, the Council authorize it now, start the application process and form the commission while OPMA compliance, consistency between boards and commission with regard to staff and budget is reviewed. Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked the task force, commented she has a multicultural family and does not live in the bowl. With regard to Councilmember Bloom’s comment regarding equal treatment of commissions, she agreed that was an issue the Council needed to consider. Some boards and commissions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 7 have support, some do not, some have posted notice, some do not, etc. It was not intentional other than different interests have developed without standardizing and that should not stop Diversity Commission from moving forward. She had concern with including citizens who live in Esperance and Woodway. Esperance is in Snohomish County which has a Diversity Commission and Woodway has its own resources to develop a Diversity Commission. She preferred the Diversity Commission be an Edmonds Commission. Although there needed to be discussion regarding funding, she was confident the entire Council was interested in forming a Diversity Commission. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation for the work done by the task force. She suggested the commission be staffed under Community Services and Economic Development Department. A consultant is necessary because staff does not have background in diversity. Ms. Hite said the consultant will need strong facilitation skills and the ability to jumpstart the commission; staff does not have that capacity at this time. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the consultant will need to be a strong person with training in diversity. Councilmember Johnson suggested the commission provide the Council an annual report. To those who question the need for a Diversity Commission, her research found a variety of Diversity Commission in other cities. She suggested the commission or the Council develop a work program or tasks for the commission. Her research found one Diversity Commission that wants to have election debates; another sees domestic violence as an issue. Mr. Brown said the task force formed the structure; the commissioners and Council will determine what the commission will do. Councilmember Johnson expressed interest in the purpose of the Diversity Commission and what can be expected from the commission, especially since the commission will self-select its replacement members. Mr. Hite referred to Section 10.65.010 where the task force defined the mission for the Diversity Commission, knowing that the commission may want to change that once it’s formed. Section 10.65.040 contains three statements regarding the commission’s powers and duties. Councilmember Johnson remarked the statements are very general and suggested they be refined. She noted the commission will have a budget but it is not clear what they will do. There are funds allocated in the Council budget for all boards and commissions; that would be an appropriate funding mechanism. Councilmember Johnson suggested the Diversity Commission consider a student representative, a Council liaison and seven members instead of nine members that would include an alternate and a student representative. She echoed Council President Fraley-Monillas’ concern with including Woodway and Esperance residents; she preferred members be residents of Edmonds. With regard to specific duties, Mr. Brown assured the Diversity Commission will develop a work program. With regard to including Woodway and Esperance, he suggested the Town Woodway may be interested in providing funding. The spirit of including Woodway, Edmonds, and Esperance was to take care of those residents in the event something racially-related happened to them. He agreed with the suggestion regarding a Council liaison and a student representative. With regard to a student representative, Ms. Hite said by code all codified boards and commissions are allowed to have a student representative. Ms. Deming agreed with having a student representative on the Diversity Commission, noting students in the Edmonds School District speak more than 50 languages. Councilmember Petso inquired about the residency requirement for student representatives as lot of students at Edmonds-Woodway do not live in Edmonds. If the eligibility requirements were altered to require members be Edmonds residents, she was concerned that may be inconsistent with the student representative requirement on other boards and commissions. Ms. Hite offered to research that. She pointed out the ordinance as proposed would allow anyone who lives, works or goes to school in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 8 Edmonds to be eligible to serve on the commission. The intent of the task force of including them was they work, pay taxes and/or attend school in Edmonds and should benefit from the City’s programs. Mr. Taraday referenced Section 10.03.020 which states student representatives must be residents of the City of Edmonds. With regard to why Woodway and Esperance was included, Mr. Brown provided a scenario where a Jewish family who lives in Mountlake Terrace opens a business in Edmonds and someone breaks their windows and paints swastikas. He questioned whether the City’s Diversity Commission should be able to help take care of that. Ms. Hite recognized the existing code was in conflict with the proposed ordinance with regard to residency for the student representative; she will confer with the City Attorney and return to Council with a recommendation. With regard to Mr. Brown’s comment regarding a Jewish family’s business and the Diversity Commission, Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified the intent of the commission was not to track down what happened. Most of City’s commissions are comprised of citizens of Edmonds who pay taxes. Using Mr. Brown’s theory, residents of Shoreline and Mukilteo should be eligible for the commission. She preferred to have the Diversity Commission be an Edmonds project to start with and possibly expand it in the future to include other areas. Ms. Hite summarized Council consensus on the following policy questions: • Add language that the City will notice meetings • Remove Woodway and Esperance • Only Edmonds residents are eligible to serve on the commission (not work or go to school in Edmonds) • Add a Council liaison and student representative • Add a requirement for an annual report and work plan to the City Council Ms. Hite pointed out one outstanding question is staff support. If Council approves the ordinance and a Diversity Commission is formed, she can assist with advertising for applicants, etc. but it will “die on the vine” without staff support. She encouraged the Council to discuss consistency between boards and commissions. Mayor Earling summarized the ordinance will be returned to Council with the amendments as described above for action at a future meeting. Councilmember Petso asked whether a public hearing was required. Mr. Taraday answered there is no requirement for a public hearing; the Council could hold one if they wished. 6A. ACCESS OPTIONS FOR POTENTIAL LOTS NEAR RESTLAWN CEMETERY (previously Item 14) Councilmember Petso disclosed she lives in Woodway Meadows near one of the proposed access roads to the site. Her house does not actually back on the cemetery where the proposed road would be located but it is close by. As she was on the City Council in 2001, she suspected she voted in favor of Resolution 1005. She sought legal advice from City Attorney Jeff Taraday today who indicated although she could choose to excuse herself, she did not have to and her choice tonight did not prevent her from participating at a later date if she chose. Councilmember Petso announced she will excuse herself tonight and she left the Council Chambers at 8:18 p.m. Senior Planner Kernen Lien displayed an aerial map identifying Woodway Meadows, Woodway Highland, Forest Glenn, the cemetery and the City parcel. He provided history regarding Resolution 1005; in the late 1990s when Woodway Highlands was being built (in Woodway), the developer Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 9 approached the City about using the alley as emergency access. At that time, it was discovered the City did not actually own the parcel. The strip of land is identified as a parcel on Snohomish County’s parcel layer and not identified as a City of Edmonds right-of-way. In 1999 it was discovered the parcel did not transfer into City ownership when this area was annexed in 1995. When the City accepted the deed for this area, the Council enacted a temporary resolution that restricted access to the area, forwarded it to the Planning Board and the Council ultimately adopted Resolution 1005. He provided further details regarding Resolution No. 1005: • Adopted by the City Council in 2001 • Use of the tract was limited to: o Those who had previously established access to private properties to the limited extent that such access was already established o For maintenance of and access to water, sewer and other public utilities o For emergency access purposes • May be revisited at the legislative discretion of the City Council Mr. Lien display an aerial view identifying the cemetery, potential cemetery redevelopment with 5 residential lots plus cemetery maintenance lot, and 4-lot short plat PLN20150001. An application has been submitted for a 4-lot short plat on the front parcel owned by Select Homes. The City is under statutory regulations to process the short plat. There is not an application for the back property that is owned by the cemetery. However, staff did not want to view the development proposal on the front lot in a vacuum knowing there is potential for development on the back lot. Mr. Lien displayed a drawing of the potential development area, the 4-lot short plat and the cemetery property using the City parcel for access. The cemetery owner has begun the deed dedication process for the cemetery property. His understanding is the cemetery intends to develop Tracts C-G with residential development and Tract B would be used for maintenance facilities to serve Restlawn Cemetery. Using the City parcel for access would require dedication from the property on the north to obtain the necessary width. He displayed another drawing of the 4-lot subdivision as submitted to the City using the City parcel for access; Tracts 2, 3 and 4 take access from that roadway and Tract 1 would take access off 104th. When Resolution 1005 was discovered, Select Homes was informed this configuration would not be allowed. Mr. Lien displayed a drawing of the 4-lot subdivision reconfigured to include Tract 999 that would provide access for the 4-lot plat on Select Homes’ property and not using the City’s parcel. This configuration limits development possibilities for the cemetery property in the back. The City cannot compel Select Homes to provide access to the properties in the back. Constructing the road on the north side of the development is an option but the configuration that Select Homes has proposed is code compliant and the City cannot require the road be constructed on the north side. Mr. Lien explained the back property is not land locked and there are no burial plots in that area. He displayed an aerial view that identified the boundaries of the cemetery parcel and a possible way to access the parcel if access is limited by development of the 4-lot short plat in front. Staff has not made a recommendation regarding the resolution. The question for the Council is not to make a decision whether to repeal Resolution 1005, only whether the Council wants to reconsider the resolution. If the Council wants to reconsider the resolution, future meetings and a public hearing would be held to discuss the issue. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed she was not interested in reconsidering Resolution 1005, fearing it would set a bad precedent for City-owned land. She was sorry for the developers but was unsure Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 10 it was the City responsibility to ensure they could maximize the number of homes and development of the lot. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she grew up with alley and knows what it is like to have an alley and a street. Although it makes common sense to change the alley into a road, Select Homes has developed an alternative and the cemetery has other options for access. She did not want to set a precedent that alleys could become roads. She was sorry the developer did not know about Resolution 1005 but there were alternatives. Councilmember Bloom said she was not in favor of reconsidering the resolution. Her concern is manifold; this is the back of residents’ property and the issue of privacy is very compelling to her, this has never been used as road, Woodway would like to have it be opened eventually and she did not want to introduce that option for a future Council. She inquired whether there were other options for access to the 4-lot shot other than providing access adjacent to the City parcel and the access to the back parcels through the cemetery. She asked whether it would be possible to provide access on the north side ; how wide it would need to be and whether it whether it would impact the number of lots on the cemetery property and the 4- lot short plat. Mr. Lien answered it is possible to provide access on the north all the way back. The properties are under different ownership and the City cannot compel the property owner in the front to provide access to the back. If the property owners wanted to work together to provide access to all the property on private property (not using the alley), the access tract would have to be 30 feet wide. Given the zoning and the minimum lot requirement, a 30-foot wide access tract would eliminate 1 of the 4 lots in the 4-lot short plat. He was not sure how it would impact the back property. Although a north access is possible, the City cannot compel them to provide access in that location. The front property owner can proceed with their code-compliant short plat and the City is required to process it. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding there was no space on the cemetery property north of the 4-lot short plat that would allow development of a 30 foot wide access. Mr. Lien answered there are burial plots against the property line and there is no room to provide access on the cemetery property without moving graves. Councilmember Johnson asked whether there were any deed restrictions on the City parcel. Mr. Lien did not recall any deed restrictions; the deed was included in the Council packet as Exhibit 2. The only restrictions are those imposed by Resolution 1005. Councilmember Johnson asked whether construction on the ten lots would require upgrading sewer and water. Engineering Program Mgr. I Jeanie McConnell responded the water and sewer in that area is owned and maintained by Olympic View Water and Sewer District and they would review any development proposals. Potentially there could be requirements to upgrade the utilities. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the timeline for the short plat process. Mr. Lien answered the short plat is currently in the comment period. The City issued a Letter of Completeness; the comment period ends March 5. In the Letter of Completeness, the City requested additional information. With the discovery of Resolution 1005, one of the City’s comments to the applicant was the alley cannot be used for access and they would need to propose another alignment; one option was shown during tonight’s presentation. The City has 60 days to process a short plat; the clock stops while the City awaits their response. The applicant is interested in how the Council views Resolution 1005 and may slow their development if the resolution is reconsidered but if not, he anticipated the developer would respond to City comments and the City will be required to continue processing the application. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 11 Councilmember Johnson inquired about the deed dedication process for the cemetery property. Jim Letson, owner, Restlawn Memorial Park, explained the process for removal of the dedication has started. Notice is provided to the State Funeral and Cemetery Board and the State Department of Archeology who have the opportunity to review in detail; they usually just acknowledge the application and no action is required on their part. The matter is then submitted to Superior Court for signature on the rededication for other use. The process of submitting to Superior Court has not yet been done. Councilmember Johnson asked whether the process would take years or months. Rick Wurdeman, Edmonds, said it is approximately a 100 day process, 60 day notice to the State Funeral and Cemetery Board; when that expires, there is a month of published notice before the matter is heard by the Snohomish County Superior Court. A Superior Court Judge makes the determination whether all the statutory requirements have been met to remove the property from dedication for cemetery purposes. The cemetery property is about halfway through that process. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether rezoning would be necessary. Mr. Lien advised that property and the surrounding property are currently zoned RS-8. Councilmember Bloom asked what alternatives staff would present if the Council was not open to changing the resolution. Mr. Lien displayed the aerial view showing options for access to the cemetery property, advising staff has not offered a recommendation. If the Council reconsidered the resolution, options include allowing access to development on the cemetery property. The City parcel is only 20 feet wide which is not enough area for a road through to Woodway. Unless Resolution 1005 is reconsidered, access to the properties must be provided internally. Council President Fraley-Monillas reiterated she had no interest in reversing the resolution. Mayor Earling observed there were three dissenting voices on the Council. Development Services Director Shane Hope said the intent of this item was to bring it to the Council’s attention in the event they wanted to reconsider the resolution, look at options and/or direct staff to return with alternatives. Hearing none, staff will proceed with Resolution 1005 in place. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Councilmember Petso returned to Council Chambers at 8:43 p.m. 7. PRESENTATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PERTEET FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained the 228th project will be advertised in early March and construction is anticipated to begin in late spring. Perteet is the designer on the project; during the construction phase there will be times their support is needed to review and provide input on submittals, RFIs, shop drawings, etc. The $63,930 fee includes a $5,000 management reserve for items that may arise during the construction phase. The fee is split between Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds because a portion of the project is on the Lakeview Drive section of Mountlake Terrace. Staff recommends placing the item on next week’s Consent Agenda. He advised the contract will also be extended to June 30, 2016. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum is planning to master plan Ballinger Park (the former golf course) and wanted to ensure the project is conscientious about their master plan. Perteet did a great job on the culverts in the Nile Golf Course. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on the Consent Agenda. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 12 8. DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT FOR 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled a public hearing was held last week on the Economic Development Element. The focus of this discussion is changes made to the Element to reflect Council comments made at the public hearing. Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty advised the packet contains a clean version of the Element highlight the changes made in response to Council comments: • Page 95: Changed “political governance” to “social and political equity.” • Page 108: One of the opportunities revised to read, “Large numbers of workers who commute to Edmonds create additional demand for affordable housing. • Page 110: Revised Policy B.5 to read, Provide staff support to businesses wishing to explore the potential of additional Business Improvement Districts in other commercial areas to help fund business promotion, marketing, improvement projects, beautification, etc., in a sustainable fashion. • Page 112: Revised Policy E.5 to read, “Market Edmonds as a year-round destination for its waterfront location, historic downtown, arts community and venues, eating and drinking establishments, international shopping and dining, natural amenities, gardens and flower displays, parks and recreational assets, etc. Ms. Hope invited Councilmembers to provide any additional direction. She reviewed next steps: • February 25 Open House on the Comprehensive Plan update (5 to 7 pm, City Hall, Brackett Room) • Ongoing work and public meetings to update other Comprehensive Plan elements Councilmember Johnson asked staff to describe how citizens can engage at the open house. Ms. Hope answered people can see/learn more about the Comprehensive Plan process and the schedule so they can choose to attend meetings as well as provide comment at the open house. Councilmember Bloom said the change to B.5 made the language worse. The first objective includes language about improving the economic well-being of the community through efforts that entail job creation, job retention, tax base enhancements and quality of life. Nowhere does it mention anything about taxing business owners for the benefit of other business owners and allowing a small group of business owners to decide how to spend other business owners’ money. She said the additional language was in stark contrast to another passage, develop or maintain business recruitment programs, including a toolbox of possible incentives to encourage a wide range of new business development including retail, service, artisanal, manufacturing and professional services sectors. Councilmember Bloom said incentives to businesses are usually getting something back, reducing taxes, providing a benefit to encourage businesses to come to Edmonds; exactly the opposite is happening with the BID. Ed! is controversial, a number of business owners do not support it and do not like being taxed for the benefit of other businesses and B.5 was changed from exploring the potential of additional BIDs to providing staff support to businesses wishing to explore the potential of additional BIDs. This suggested support would be provided to a small group of businesses who want to tax all the businesses in their district, whether Westgate, Five Corners, or Firdale Village, for the benefit of a small group of business owners. She felt it was inappropriate to include this statement in the Economic Development Element and requested it be removed as she suggested last week. Mr. Doherty suggested putting the EDBID aside for the moment and explained another business district may want to form a BID to tax them for beautification, extra security, graffiti removal, etc. The staff Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 13 support would be to assist the business district with understanding and navigating the process. Ability to form a BID can be an incentive for businesses who want an improvement in their area. Formation of a BID is self-generated and requires Council approval. The additional language in B.5 was to state there would be staff support if businesses wished to explore additional BIDs. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested deleting “provide staff” so that the paragraph reads, “Support to businesses wishing to…” noting the support would differ depending on the area. Mr. Doherty noted Seattle developed a manual that is available online regarding how to establish a BID. Ms. Hope referred to Policy 2.E that says explore options such as BIDs. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Finance Director does provide financial support to the BID. She noted the possibility of the International District forming a BID in the future. Councilmember Bloom reiterated her request to delete B.5 as she did not feel it was appropriate to include reference to supporting more BIDs in the Economic Development Element. The value has not been proven, a lot of businesses are unhappy, the work plan does not address the concerns of many open-door businesses, and it does not provide anything for open-door businesses. She saw no rationale for providing any staff support to a small group of business owners who want to tax other business owners for the benefit of a small group of business owners. All the other items in the Economic Development Element address promoting the City, recruiting businesses, beautification. She clarified the flower program was not the result of the BID; it was the result of the hard work of a lot of volunteer citizens, park staff, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis said she spearheaded the Adopt a Flower Basket and Adopt a Corner Flowerbeds program which is supported by donations from citizens and businesses. She preferred to retain B.5. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email from Rich Senderoff regarding property tax versus sales tax ratio and asked staff to explain. Mr. Doherty explained Dr. Senderoff raised the idea that the document includes a snapshot of the economy using the most recent data and not necessarily showing a trend analysis. Specifically, there is a percentage of municipal revenue from various tax sources such as property tax versus retail sales; Edmonds has a higher percentage of property tax. Dr. Senderoff inquired how that has changed over time. Even if the document illustrated how that has changed over time, it would not change the goals and policies. The policies recognize that the property tax percentage is too high and the City needs to grow the economy to enhance the retail sales tax sector of the municipal revenue. There was nothing missing in the document by not having that information. He summarized trending over a ten year period may not paint a picture from which conclusions can be derived and it would not change the policies. Councilmember Buckshnis recognized a large portion of the City’s sales tax revenue is from car dealers and that is significantly impacted during a recession. With regard to B.5, Councilmember Johnson said she is generally in support of BIDs. If another business district such as Five Corners, Perrinville, or Firdale Village was interested in forming a BID, she would be supportive of using staff time. She acknowledged Councilmember Bloom has consistently opposed that and Ed! in particular and a significant number of people share her point of view. Councilmember Johnson said BIDs are generally a good idea and the City needs to determine how to make them as good as possible so they reflect the needs and values of the people who are being taxed. To the extend people do not feel they are getting their money’s worth, an effort needs to be made to determine how to better serve them. Councilmember Petso referred to a remark she made at the Economic Development Commission (EDC) regarding the Economic Development Element regarding a tension she feels in the document whether it is a true comprehensive planning document or whether it is an action plan type of document. She found that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 14 more so than in the Economic Development Element than in any other Comprehensive Plan Element although she found some of it in the Land Use Element. As the City is not required to have an Economic Development Element, she asked whether the City should proceed with an Economic Development Element or instead include a paragraph in the Comprehensive Plan acknowledging economic development and then develop an Economic Development Action Plan. For example one area of the document says monitor and enhance the BID; she wanted to avoid a requirement to amend the Comprehensive Plan in the event the BID is disbanded. She questioned whether the element is too specific and whether it would be preferable to include general economic development policy statements in the Comprehensive Plan and develop an Economic Development Action Plan outside the Comprehensive Plan so that changes can be made without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mayor Earling recognized Councilmember Bloom was opposed to B.5 but three Councilmembers have stated they would support an amendment to, “Support to businesses…” Mr. Doherty suggested revising the language in B.4 slightly to recognize the possibility the BID could cease to exist in the future. He explained the reason there are so many policies in the document is the number of day-to-day activity and statements in other documents related to economic development. It is appropriate to have an overarching policy document that provides the framework for which direction is derived. He noted 22 of the 88 action items in the Strategic Action Plan are related to the economy. In addition to those 22 items, many other things are done daily to fulfill these objectives. He viewed the Economic Development Element as the document that provides him policy direction. Councilmember Johnson acknowledged there are GMA-required chapters and there are optional elements of which the City’s Comprehensive Plan has many such as the Sustainability Element and the Arts and Culture Element. She viewed the Economic Development Element as an optional element that only enhances the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Buckshnis did not favor rewriting or eliminate the Economic Development Element. Her Google search found at least 15 cities that address economic development in their Comprehensive Plan. Staff has done a very good job; the largest issue continues to be the BID. Mayor Earling reminded of the February 25 open house. The Economic Development Element will continue to be refined along with other Comprehensive Plan elements. 9. PRESENTATION OF CODE REVISION TO CHAPTER 18.80.060 – DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS City Engineer Rob English distributed a revised redline version of Chapter 18.80.060 in response to comments from City Attorney Jeff Taraday. He explained the City Attorney made changes to the code in 2010 to make the appeal process more clear. This section of the code, particularly the driveway slope waiver, was an administrative decision and appealable but did not have a notice requirement. That was changed in 2010. Staff felt requiring notice on a driveway slope waiver was a burden to private property owners and the initial scope of this change was to address that. He summarized the two areas of change, 1) eliminating the notice requirement on the driveway slope for a change of 14% to 20%, and 2) changing the width for residential driveways to match the current Edmonds details. Engineering Technician Jennifer Lambert explained a Type II notification requires mailing to property owners within 300 feet, publishing notice in the Everett Herald, posting the site and a $820 permit to cover staff time, mailing and publication. Other reason for change this change is driveways do not create a fire or safety concern but it is a minimum 2-week process for public notification. Typically final grading and driveway pavement is done at the end of the project and the Type II notification process can impact the timeline for closing of the sale, etc. She provided an example, many properties want a flat driveway at the entrance to the garage; driveway slope is not an average, it is a spot point on the driveway so a waiver Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 15 is required if any point exceeds 14%. Driveway widths were revised to be consistent with Edmonds standard details, providing minimums and maximums for 2-car and 3-car garages. Section 18.80.060.C separates the information for commercial and residential. With regard to driveway slope waiver, Mr. English said the appeal process remains as shown in the last sentence of 18.80.060.D.4. The intent of the changes was to make the code easier to read and reorganized the commercial and residential sections. Although the recommendation in the agenda memo was to forward to the Consent Agenda, it is a gray area whether a public hearing needed. In talking with Mr. Taraday today, he felt it best to have a public hearing. It is at the Council discretion whether the public hearing is held by the Planning Board or the City Council. Councilmember Petso asked why this change was not delayed until the code rewrite. Mr. English responded from an administrative standpoint he preferred to make this minor change now. This change will also eliminate the $820 fee that a property owner is required to pay. Councilmember Petso observed the revisions to the driveway slope waiver remove the public notice but retain the appeal. She asked whether that created a situation where the public cannot appeal but applicant can. Mr. English answered no, most often it will be the property owner who will appeal the decision not to approve a driveway slope waiver but it does not prevent anyone from appealing. Mr. Taraday said it was true without notice an appeal was much less likely because there was no way to find out about the permit. It was staff’s sense that these are the type of permits that would only be appealed by the owner because no one was likely to care about their neighbor’s driveway slope. Councilmember Petso said one of the concerns with the Resolution 1005 was the potential for a snake road around the back of her neighborhood; she did not know whether that would be an access road or a driveway. She could envision having a heightened concern over what is a driveway and whether she will be notified if that the driveway is adjacent to her neighbors’ residences. Although in that situation the property is level, she could envision a situation where neighbors may want to know about driveway width, slope, etc. She was concerned with eliminating the notice provision and encouraged the Council to have a public hearing. With regard to changing driveway widths, Councilmember Petso recalled interest in keeping driveway widths narrow downtown to enhance the pedestrian environment. She wanted an opportunity to research why the current driveway widths were established and what would be lost if they were wider. She recalled driveway widths arose during review of the Westgate proposal Councilmember Bloom referred to language in Section 18.80.060B.1, “No driveway shall be so located as to create a hazard to pedestrians, bicyclists or motorists or invite or compel illegal or unsafe traffic movements.” She relayed the unpleasant experience walking along 9th to PCC due to driveway cuts in the curb and sidewalk that require walking sideways on the driveway, an uncomfortable experience for pedestrians, bicycles, wheelchairs, people using walkers, etc. Mr. English said none of proposed changes address that; the changes address the throat of the driveway which is the ramp from the sidewalk to the structure. Ms. Lambert said those driveways were built under old driveway standards; current standards for driveway approaches must meet ADA compliance. The slope addressed in the proposed code is from the back of sidewalk to the structure. The ADA requirement for driveway approaches is a 2% cross slope. Councilmember Petso asked where the City’s driveway standards were located. Mr. English referred to E2.2.6 in the development section of the code. To the question about commercial driveway widths, Mr. English explained there are pros and cons to small and large driveways depending on the situation. Driveways on SR 104 would tend to be wider due higher speeds; smaller driveways are desirable downtown. No changes are proposed in driveway widths. Staff’s intent was to clean up the section and make it easier to read. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 16 Councilmember Petso observed someone can currently request a wider driveway even downtown. Mr. English answered yes, a request for a 40-foot driveway would require the Type II notice requirement in accordance with Section 18.80.060.C.a. He clarified more than one lot is a short plat which requires public notification. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested scheduling a public hearing at Council on March 17. Councilmember Petso requested a public hearing at Planning Board and Council; this is a complicated issue and the Council spent a lot of time on it years ago. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the purpose of a public hearing at both the Planning Board and the City Council. She suggested sending it to the Planning Board for a public hearing and recommendation. If there was only one public hearing, Councilmember Petso requested it be at Council. She asked why Planning Board would not have an opportunity to discuss this. Mr. Taraday explained certain matters are required to go to the Planning Board; according to the City’s code this did not appear to be one of the required matters but it is within the Council’s discretion to send it to the Planning Board for discussion and recommendation. Councilmember Petso said it would be appropriate to send it to the Planning Board and possibly even the Economic Development Commission because there may be suggested changes based on the commercial area. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether staff had considered different areas. Mr. English explained the focus of this revision was removing notification for a driveway slope waiver to return the code to the way it was prior to the change in 2010. There will be a more in-depth code rewrite in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis did not see this as a difficult issue. It appeared all staff did was separate commercial from residential and remove the Type II notification. Mr. English agreed the intent was a small piece of the code rewrite to facilitate a smoother process. Councilmember Petso asked whether the change was made accidentally in 2010 and at what meeting that was discussed so she could review the minutes. Mr. English answered the inadvertent change occurred in fall 2010; he will provide the exact date. Public Works Director Williams said this typically addresses one driveway at a time, usually due to construction of a new house but sometimes the replacement of an existing driveway. The size of the project is generally very limited and the publication requirement seemed onerous. Posting the site would be a better way to handle notification of something of this size/magnitude instead of publication in a newspaper that few people would see. Councilmember Petso said one reason she was particularly concerned about this was the access options for potential lots near Restlawn Cemetery. In talking with her neighbors, none of them saw the property posting and only some received the 300-foot notice. She liked the requirement for mailed notice although she was sorry it was only 300 feet. Mr. Williams commented this is related to an individual driveway which is different than a short plat. Council President Fraley-Monillas recommended this be referred to the Planning Board for discussion and a public hearing. She did not see any reason for two public hearings. Councilmember Petso was glad there would be a public hearing but preferred it be at Council. Given Councilmember Petso’s concerns, Councilmember Bloom suggesting sending the proposed revisions to the Planning Board for discussion and then to Council for a public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 17 Councilmember Johnson asked whether the Council can approve a code change without a public hearing. Mr. Taraday recommended holding a public hearing because this falls within the definition of a development regulation which requires a public hearing. The code does not state where the public hearing occurs. It was the consensus of Council to refer this to Planning Board for discussion and for the Council to hold a public hearing. 10. PRESENTATION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITIES OF LYNNWOOD AND MOUNTLAKE TERRACE ON CITY-WIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS City Engineer Rob English advised this covers a $1.9 million Verdant grant Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace received last year. The ILA proposes Lynnwood be the lead agency. Edmonds’ share of the grant, approximately $736,000, will provide approximately 3.6 miles of new bike lanes within Edmonds, bike route and corridor signage and public outreach and education within the three communities that will be led by Lynnwood. The locations of the proposed bike routes are outlined in Exhibit A: •212th St SW - 84th to Hwy99 (Bike Lanes/Sharrows) •76th Ave W - 208th to OVD (Bike Lanes) •76th Ave W - 220th to 208th (Bike Lanes) •220th St SW - 84th to 76th (Bike Lanes) •Dayton/9th/Bowdoin (Bike Route Signing) •9th/80th (Bike Route Signing) •Improved Bicycle Signing (existing routes, 220th, 76th) •Improved Bicycle Signing (Interurban Trail and proximity) Staff recommends forwarding this to the Consent Agenda for approval. Councilmember Johnson concurred with staff’s recommendation. She thanked Verdant for the grant to provide bike lanes and missing links. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the outreach and education will occur in all three communities. Mr. English answered yes. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the before/after usage study would be coordinated with all three communities. Mr. English answered yes, Lynnwood will be the lead. Councilmember Bloom asked why there were no bike parking installations in Edmonds. Mr. English answered the focus was tie together corridors and routes identified in the Transportation Plan; bike parking installations was not scoped in Edmonds. Councilmember Bloom asked whether they could be added, noting there were ideal places along the routes. Mr. English answered potentially; it will depend on whether any extra funds are available. Councilmember Petso asked whether this agreement was related to the reduction of travel lanes on 76th. Mr. English answered yes, it was related to the road diet on 76th Avenue. Councilmember Petso recalled questions were raised at that time about traffic flow, how to get in/out of the high school and College Place Elementary. She recalled staff planned to return to Council once design was completed. Mr. English advised design work cannot begin until the ILA is approved. The queue at the entrance to the high school has been evaluated as part of the 76th/212th project; the latest proposal that the City and School District are working on is adding a new right turn lane into the high school. Modeling has been done and that appears to be the best solution. Consideration was also given to providing access off 216th but the modeling recommended a right turn lane to accommodate the queue. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 18 Councilmember Petso asked what happened if the solution for College Place or Edmonds-Woodway High School did not work and the City wanted to omit the 76th portion of the project at some point in the design phase; whether that be done or was the City committed once it accepted the grant money. Mr. English did not have a specific answer; that discussion would need to occur with Verdant. To address drop off traffic, he could envision the possibility of sharrows at College Place Elementary instead of dedicated bike lanes but that would be determined during the design. Mr. Williams answered the issue in that area was parking north of 208th. The modeling states a center turn lane and travel lanes in each direction provide a better flow. Councilmember Petso asked what happened if the project is done and the reduced travel lanes do not allow cars to get from 220th to 208th fast enough. She asked whether the City would be required to pay to undo the project. Mr. Williams did not see that as a possibility. The traffic modeling is clear that more cars can be moved through the area from 76th to 196th with a different geometry. The issues at Edmonds-Woodway High School are resolvable with a right turn lane. Further answers will be available once the ILA is in place and design begins. Councilmember Petso requested staff advise if it becomes apparent the design does not work. Mr. Williams said if there is a section where parking is required and dedicated bike lanes will not fit, there may be bike sharrows. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the locations of the bike links were determined. Mr. English answered when the grant application was submitted, the three agencies included what they identified as the highest priority bike lane locations. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on a future Consent Agenda. 11. PRESENTATION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE (RCO) FOR $157,331 FOR THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING OF THE WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PROJECT COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:20 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Engineer Rob English advised the City received a $157,000 grant to begin preliminary design and permitting to daylight Willows Creek. The work will begin this fall after the Marina Beach master planning is completed and continue into 2016. The estimated cost for preliminary design and permitting is $200,000. Mr. Williams advised this is being done in stages; the City received a small grant to begin the feasibility study, a more sizeable grant supplemented with stormwater funds and now this final feasibility study and environmental permitting. This will take the project to the point of qualifying for detailed design money for improvements to connect Puget Sound with the marsh. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on a future Consent Agenda. 12. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD TO FORMALIZE ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND USAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED EMERGENCY INTERTIES THAT INTERCONNECT WATERMAINS BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND CITY OF LYNNWOOD City Engineer Rob English advised this ILA, 1) documents the existing water line interties with Lynnwood, and 2) proposes to build a 5th intertie to solve a service problem in the north end of the City. There are currently approximately 150 homes that have a single source of water service, an 8-inch line 2600 feet in length. If that line has a disruption, water service will be disrupted to those 150 homes. The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 19 installation of the fifth intertie will provide a second source of redundancy for that area and improve service if there are problems in the future. He recommended forwarding this item to the Consent Agenda. Mayor Earling asked the location of the interties. Mr. English referred to exhibit A which identifies the locations: 1. 21000 block of Highway 99 2. Intersection of 76 th Ave W and 208th St SW 3. On Olympic View Drive approximately 170 feet west of intersection with 73 rd Ave W 4. Intersection of Olympic View Drive and 180 th St SW 5. On 68 th Ave W north of the intersection of North Meadowdale Road It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on a future Consent Agenda. 13. PRESENTATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE GROUP FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING & INSPECTION SERVICES FOR 2015 City Engineer Rob English advised in 2014 staff presented a contract for construction management and inspection services with the Blueline Group. That was done through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) issued in 2014 for work to be completed in 2014 and 2015. This agreement is for support construction management on capital improvement work for sewer, water and stormwater in 2015. Approximately $7,000 is carryover work to close out projects. The bulk of the services Blueline Group provides is inspection; an inspector in the field during construction, doing daily reports, documenting what the contractor is doing, taking measurement quantities, reviewing contractor submittals, requests for information, scheduling material testing, etc. He highlighted changes from last year’s contract including an increase in the level of effort. Two sewer line projects went to construction last year; they were scoped for .25 FTE, anticipating staff could provide the remainder. Staff found gravity sewer and stormwater installations require nearly full-time inspection due to the potential for conflicts. The work is funded through the capital project budgets approved by the Council for 2015. Those projects are identify in the agenda memo; the two largest are the 2015 sewer line replacement project report and 2015 water line replacement projects which total $4.7 million, 2 stormwater projects on 105th/106th and the citywide storm drainage project. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about a hold harmless clause. Mr. Williams answered the contract requires they carry their own errors and omissions insurance. Councilmember Petso said she was informed Blueline also did work related to Item 14 on tonight’s agenda and she was asked by a citizen whether there was a cozy relationship between Blueline and the City. She promised the citizen she would ask how Blueline was selected and whether there was any relationship between Agenda Item 14. Mr. English answered no, Blueline does work for developers which may be why they did work related to Agenda Item 14. The City’s selection process included issuing an RFQ in 2014 in accordance with the City purchasing policy. The City received 10-12 submittals which were reviewed and scored based on their qualifications and from that Blueline determined to be the top firm. Councilmember Petso recalled comments regarding this contract last year; the Council budgeted for a project manager and then was told this contract was required because the position had not been filled. She asked whether that position has been filled. Mr. English advised it has been filled but that was not the sole purpose for needing Blueline’s services. There is more work than there are FTEs in the engineering division. The contract did not hinge on filling one of the project management positions; the workload for the capital improvement program is double the biggest year 3-4 years ago. Staff is still needed to oversee Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 20 and facilitate projects but additional effort is needed when projects go to construction to ensure they are built in accordance with plans and specifications. Mr. Williams added private development review is also very busy. In the past staff whose primary job was reviewing permit applications could be used for inspections but they are now fully committed to private development reviews. Councilmember Petso recalled contract services were needed due to the complexity of certain projects like the hospital and the fishing pier. With those projects completed, she questioned why contract services were needed. Mr. English answered there is a separate consultant for the fishing pier. A budget amendment was approved last year to fund Blueline inspections for the improvements at Swedish. Due to the volume of work, the development fees were used to contract with Blueline to provide support and inspection services. That was not part of the Blueline contract approved in May 2014. He recalled when the Blueline contract was presented in May 2014 he explained there was a high potential staff would return with a budget amendment before yearend. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on a future Consent Agenda. 15. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Lake Ballinger McAleer Creek Watershed Forum discussed the relationship between Edmonds, Lake Forest, Mountlake Terrace, and Snohomish County and toured the culvert replacement in the Nile Golf Course which has helped reduce flooding in that area. With her connection to WRIA 8, there may be an effort to obtain funds for salmon streams in Lake Forest Park. The Affordable Housing Consortium and Snohomish County Tomorrow are meeting tomorrow. SCT will be discussing its legislative agenda and the transportation packages. Councilmember Bloom read from the minutes of the January 26 Port Commission meeting: Mr. McChesney announced that that the City’s Shoreline Master Program was forwarded to the Department of Ecology on December 17th. Comment period was through to begin on January 17 but has been delayed. The Port is now in the process of putting together appeal materials that will be comprised of legal, scientific and economic opinion. He reported the work is coming together nicely. Councilmember Bloom reported the Port has allocated $25,000 to appeal the City’s Shoreline Master Program. Councilmember Bloom reported the February 9, 2015 Port Commission meeting included finalization of an agreement with Puget Sound Express to operate wildlife excursions/whale watching from the Port. Mr. McChesney reported he continued to work with the Port attorney and consultant to finalize the Port’s appeal of the City’s Shoreline Master Program. The meeting also included discussion regarding the restroom project. She read from the minutes regarding the delay in the restroom project while staff attempts to provide additional technical information the City requested for the shoreline permit. The building likely will not be ordered and installed until late 2015/early 2016. Commissioner Gouge stated the Port has gotten nothing but grief from the City in this endeavor and that is why no one wants to build in Edmonds anymore. He was inclined to stop the project and let the City of Edmonds find a way to provide restrooms for its citizens. The Port also discussed the alternatives study and Commissioner Orvis relayed his understanding the Mayor is considering approaching the Commission with a request that the Port contribute and become a partner at least in name to enhance the potential of receiving grant funding to conduct the analysis. She suggested Councilmembers read the minutes regarding that discussion. Councilmember Bloom reported the January 21 Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting included an update from the Business District Enhancement Subgroup. She noted up to four staff members attend EDC meetings and 2-3 staff participate on the Business District Enhancement Subgroup. In contrast, the Tree Board continues to function without any staff support. The EDC brainstormed ideas for 2014 which included finding a company to rent cars to those traveling by train and it was suggested Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 21 the commission discuss with Council what they would like the EDC to do this year and in the future if the EDC is not sunseted. Councilmember Petso agreed the Tree Board meeting did not have a staff representative. Using a consultant, the Tree Board developed a Tree Code that will be reviewed by the Planning Board before coming to the Council. The Tree Board is also working on a list of trees for rights of-way. Councilmember Petso reported on the Regional Transit Oriented Development Group meeting (Growing Transit Communities) that she attended remotely. It appears by joining Growing Transit Communities the City agreed to their program as well as Sound Transit’s 2015 legislative agenda. Councilmember Petso reported the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) plans to bring a property to the Council for listing on the historic registry. The HPC is working on a calendar, but may need a budget amendment. She reported the February 23 EDC meeting included a presentation from Doug Spee who is developing the post office building. She recommended Council review the presentation via the meeting audio or the minutes. As reported by Mr. Hertrich, several members of the EDC were surprised to find the report to Council would not include their input. Due to the late hour Councilmember Johnson and Council President Fraley-Monillas offered to delay their reports to next week. Mayor Earling reported four finalists for the Community Transit CEO position will be interviewed on Friday. 16. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS Council President Fraley-Monillas distributed a revised version. Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported when the fire station was built on 196th several years ago, the City has first right of refusal on the property to the east. The City has been asked by the property owner whether the City intends to exercise that right of refusal. The property owner has an offer on the property so the Council should make a decision as soon as possible. He noted a real estate executive session scheduled at the beginning of tonight’s meeting was canceled on the advice of Mr. Taraday because the Council would not be discussing price because the price was fixed in the first right of refusal. Mr. Taraday advised the 45- day period commences upon the delivery of the notice and a copy of the offer. The City received notice and a letter from the purchaser but he was uncertain the letter constituted the offer. An argument could be made that the 45 days has not started but he encouraged the Council to act quickly in determining whether there was interest in exercising the first right of refusal. Mayor Earling advised further information would be provided to Council this week via email. 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Bloom reminded of the open house on the Comprehensive Plan in the Brackett Room of City Hall on February 25 from 5 to 7 p.m. The open house will also include the SR 104 Complete Streets analysis for the Westgate portion of the SR 104 corridor study. She requested it be presented in another format and noticed in a way that people who are interested in Westgate could attend. She preferred it be noticed more formally instead of lumped together with the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Earling suggested she make that request to Ms. Hope. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 24, 2015 Page 22 Councilmember Bloom reported the Council retreat is scheduled to be held in Lynnwood; she does not support holding the Council retreat outside the City of Edmonds and a number of citizens have objected to that in the past. Councilmember Petso asked whether the open house had been noticed as a public meeting in the event several Councilmembers attended. City Clerk Scott Passey advised it had not been noticed as a special Council meeting. As it is a City-sponsored meeting that relates to City business, Mr. Taraday discouraged four or more Councilmembers from attending as there was not sufficient time to provide special meeting notice. Councilmember Petso said she planned to attend the open house. Councilmember Johnson said as a member of the SR 104 Complete Streets Technical Advisory Committee, she has been asked to attend the open house. She announced the Planning Board’s regular meeting will follow the open house and will include the draft Tree Code and recommendations for SR 104. Council President Fraley-Monillas announced she planned to attend the open house. 19. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 20. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 21. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m.