20190618 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
June 18, 2019
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Ken Ploeger, Police Sergeant
David Machado, Police Sergeant
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr.
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Ed Sibrel, Capital Projects Manager
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 1 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.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL. OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 2019
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 2019
3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2019
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 1
4 APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
6. APRIL 2019 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
7. PFD BOARD CANDIDATE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT
8. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATES FOR THE YOUTH COMMISSION
9. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATE TO A BOARD OR COMMISSION
10. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATE TO A BOARD OR COMMISSION
11. BARNARD SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
12. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN ON-
GOING WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM FOR LAKE BALLINGER
13. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION REMOVAL IN
LAKE BALLINGER
14. 10 -FT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY BOUNDARY
OF 625 ALDER STREET
5. PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
PARAMETRIX FOR THE EDMONDS STREET WATERFRONT CONNECTOR
Mayor Earling expressed appreciation for everyone in the attendance. He described the sequence for this
agenda item: staff will make a presentation, Councilmembers will have an opportunity to ask questions
followed by an opportunity for public comment. He requested audience members with signs ensure there
were not blocking others' views. He requested a respectful opportunity for whoever is speaking without
waving and/or yelling so that everyone has an opportunity to speak. He described the light system at the
podium and requested everyone remain civil.
Mayor Earling provided introductory remarks: "I stand here this evening to kick off the staff presentation
on the Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector, taking a moment to offer preliminary remarks to the public
assembled here and, of course, the Council. The following presentation will offer important information
and updates, which are of particular importance at this time of mounting public debate, as a way of clearing
up any confusions or misstatements.
As I've said and written before, the Waterfront Connector continues to be of grave importance to me in
light of the primary duty as your Mayor: to ensure the safety of our residents, businesses and visitors —
whenever and wherever they are in the community.
As you know, the Waterfront District is a complex community of businesses, residences, community
attractions, marine -related activities, events, and the Ferry Terminal. Hundreds of people cross the railroad
tracks hourly, thousands daily, and millions yearly. What's more, at any one time there are hundreds of
people present in the Waterfront District.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 2
And folks, all of this — residents, workers, visitors, buildings, improvements, boats and equipment — is at
risk daily because of the at -grade crossings that can delay emergency -response vehicles at any time simply
from passing trains; or worse - when trains stall and block both Main Street and Dayton Street, emergency
response is entirely cut off for extended periods of time.
And this is today's reality. Imagine the risk in, say, 20 years when instead of 40+ trains a day we see up to
100 trains a day and may be blocking instead of 1-2 hours, be blocking up to 4 hours in a 24 hour period.
Instead of one or two train -related accidents or break -downs, we see several a year. This is what we have
to plan for. It's not about how many incidents we have had to date or even this year. It's about the future.
We plan for the future in everything we do, and the Waterfront Connector is precisely that: a project for the
future of our community.
At the risk of sounding dramatic, the following scenarios are very real possibilities if we do not construct
the Waterfront Connector:
• A kitchen fire in one of our Waterfront restaurants escalates to engulf the entire building as fire
trucks cannot respond in time due to passing trains;
• A diver struggling out of the water from the Dive Park suffers an embolism and needs urgent care,
yet cannot be attended to in time;
• A child playing on the beach with her family chokes on a toy and cannot be reached in time
It is precisely these — and other — potential, tragic scenarios that we wish to prevent by proposing the
construction of the Waterfront Connector.
The following presentations by Mr. Williams and others will:
• offer a summary of the very real safety issues we are hoping to address;
• include a recap of the process we conducted to analyze 51 alternatives before choosing the
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector as the preferred alternative;
• present the current design concept; and,
• offer a summary of the projected costs, funding sources and next steps.
And an important final note is that a key element of the next steps for this project is a thorough
environmental analysis that will consider the structure's environmental and aesthetic impacts and the
identification of mitigation measures — all of which we know are of vital importance to those of us in this
room this evening."
Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced City Engineer Rob English, Project Manager Ed Sibrel,
and Sandy Glover, Project Manager, Parametrix. Mr. Williams explained this item is a supplement to the
Parametrix, the lead consultant, who is joined by Tetra Tech, and a team of consultants who have been
working with the City to bring the project to this point. The supplement is for a design phase to reach 30%
and then 60% design which includes environmental documentation in preparation for permit applications
and an environmental assessment for the project, mitigation for any impacts identified during that process,
public outreach, additional education and working with stakeholders.
Mr. Williams displayed a conceptual drawing of the Waterfront Connector that begins at Edmonds Street
& Sunset Avenue, extends over the railroad tracks without rising up, makes a left turn and ends at the north
end of the cul-de-sac attached to the parking lot at Brackett's Landing North. He identified the manmade
spit, advising that the connector is north of the spit. He reviewed:
• Purpose and Need
o Growing rail traffic (40+ increasing to 100 trains/day)
0 2nd track construction
o BNSF trains getting longer, faster, heavier which makes stopping more difficult and takes
longer
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 3
[]
o Environmental Documentation (Tasks 214, 308)
■ Ecology Resources Analysis
■ Visual Quality Analysis
■ Hazardous Materials Analysis
■ Environmental Assessment
■ Endangered Species Act
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
■ Bridge Permit
■ Shoreline Permit
JARPA/HPA Application
■ SEPA Checklist
■ Cultural Resources Technical Report
• Conduct Archaeological Inventory
• Critical Areas Report
• Mitigation Design
■ Proposed restoration activities
■ Monitoring plan
■ Contingency plan
■ Shading calculations and figure
cost RP.VIP.W
■ Pmiect Partners
Project Partners
Phase 2 — 60%
Phase 3 — 90%
Phase 4 —100%
Project Totals
Design
$2,153,594
$891,609
$637,558
$3,682,961
M mt Reserve
150,000
150,000
50,000
350,000
Total
$2,303,594
$1,041,609
$687,758
$4,032,961
Expenses
4,540
6,267
2,750
58,512
$75,000
Planning
$1,500,000
Construction
Phase Totals
$2,353,134
$1,047,876
$690,463
$4,091,473
■ Pmiect Partners
Project Partners
Amount
Phase
City of Edmonds
$100,000
Study
Grant opportunities
$150,000
Planning
BNSF Railway
$50,000
Study
RCO (State)
$50,000
Planning
Community Transit
$5,000
Study
$5,000
Plannin
Port of Edmonds
$25,000
Study
$75,000
Planning
$1,500,000
Construction
Sound Transit
$10,000
Study
$10,000
Planning
Washington State
$500,000
Study
$700,000
Planning
$6,000,000
Design/Const
$1,050,000
Design/Const
Proiect Funding Status
Grant Reguests
Amount
Phase
BUILD (Federal)
$18,856,000
Construction
Grant opportunities
Amount
Phase
INFRA Federal
TBD
Construction
RCO (State)
TBD
Construction
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 6
Dept of Ecolo State
TBD
Construction
Bicycle & Ped II State
TBD
Construction
PSRC (County)
TBD
Construction
PSAR Large Capital State
TBD
Construction
Mr. Williams displayed a letter from South County Fire signed by Interim Fire Chief Doug Dahl, and
highlighted the following statement: "When asked the BEST solution to adequately provide emergency
response on the west side of the railroad tracks which creates an access point for emergency vehicles to
respond, is the proposed waterfront connector project."
Councilmember Nelson asked if any ground has been broken for the project. Mr. Williams answered no,
other than samples and geotechnical, no construction has been done.
Councilmember Buckshnis said in speaking with friends at WRIA 8, they believe an environmental study
should be done first before anything is done related to the marine sanctuary. She asked if he was aware the
marine sanctuary was on the national and local register, recalling a statement that the City could write a
variance for the connector to go over a marine sanctuary. Mr. Williams said when he was asked about the
marine sanctuary, he interpreted the question to mean the one set up by the City in 1982 and that was the
basis of his response.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the Brackett's Landing shoreline sanctuary is reserved solely to provide
public, scientists and students the opportunity to examine over a time of time the ecological relationship
within such an area. She asked if he was saying the addition of a massive concrete structure would not
violate this law. Mr. Williams said yes, Section 125.32.120 talks about the permit program in a marine
sanctuary that's established by the City; if there is a question of public safety, a permit can be issued.
Councilmember Buckshnis said that is only if there are no other areas available; in this case there are other
areas available than the marine sanctuary.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out it is also a Washington Department Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
conservation sanctuary. She asked whether WDFW needed to be asked before further design was done and
$2.3M expended. Mr. Williams said WDFW was listed as one of the project's primary stakeholders. Staff
has already had conversations with WDFW. Councilmember Buckshnis said she spoke WDFW today and
they would like to see why the City was not doing the EIS and SEPA themselves. Mr. Williams said he was
confused by the last part of Councilmember Buckshnis' statement, why the City was not doing the
environmental work ourselves. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the City did their own SEPA for the
Waterfront Center. Mr. Williams said Edmonds will be the responsible official for the SEPA and NEPA
with assistance from the consultant as their expertise is necessary.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the environmental aspects should be done first before signing any contracts
that are bundled into this contact for $2.3M. She pointed out there is $300,000 for environmental aspects.
Mr. Williams explained additional design is necessary to get the information necessary to do the right job
on environmental documentation; locations need identified and documentation collected with that in mind.
A higher level of design is needed to do a good job on the environmental documentation. This next phase
is to collect data about environmental impacts and the City will be the sponsor.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to comments he has heard about parking at the foot of the connector and
asked about existing parking in the area by the restrooms. Mr. Williams said he did not have the current
number of spaces with him, but could provide it. The current design either eliminates 0-2 spaces.
Councilmember Mesaros summarized there would still be parking there and the most that would be lost
would be two. Ms. Glover concurred.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 7
Councilmember Mesaros relayed after a meeting today with Fire Chief Dahl on another subject, he
mentioned the timeline on this project to him. Chief Dahl recalled being a Battalion Captain in Edmonds
when discussions began in 2009. Councilmember Mesaros said this topic has been under discussion for 10
years and the City needs to make choices about whether it wants to continue taking the risks it has taken
over the last 10 years especially with increases in rail traffic.
Mr. Williams displayed a video clip taken by a friend, an Edmonds dentist, on March 2019 on a ferry
coming to Edmonds about 10 p.m. of an unresponsive young woman. Ferry personnel are providing first
aid and the aid unit met the ferry and drove onto boat. When the aid unit left the ferry, it was delayed by a
passing train. His friend, who has been taking the ferry for 20+ years, said these anecdotes are not
uncommon.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has heard about double tracking in Edmonds for over 10 years,
probably more like 15 years. She understands BNSF will install double tracks one day but she was not
convinced they would do it any time soon. Mr. Williams said it is designed; BNSF refused to show the City
the design but allow the consultant to look at the design. BNSF has plans and specifications for double
tracks ready to go; it is a question of sequencing it into their capital program. Council President Fraley-
Monillas reiterated she has heard that for quite a while.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the table of Recent Extended At -Grade Crossing Closures,
pointing out three of the four pedestrian fatalities have been suicides. She asked how the bridge would
resolve suicides. Mr. Williams agreed it would not although a 4 quadrant gate might help. Council President
Fraley-Monillas said the documentation is not quite complete with regard to pedestrian fatalities when the
majority have been suicides. Mr. Williams said the point is not whether the person in the fatality would
have been saved, it is the resulting delay that it caused.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to comments about the safety of residents and visitors and asked
how many fatalities there have been on Hwy 99 between 2010-2019. Mr. Williams said in the past three
years there has been one pedestrian fatality and no fatal vehicle accidents on Hwy 99 within Edmonds.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it was a matter of making choices and priorities regarding
projects. She acknowledged the money that has been approved for this could not be moved to projects on
Hwy 99, it was allocated for a specific purpose. She was concerned the City was not prioritizing the safety
of citizens who live along the Hwy 99 corridor. Not only was the City not prioritizing redevelopment of the
road, but also sidewalks, lighting, etc. in residential areas of the corridor. She found it hypocritical for the
City to be worried about safety on west side of tracks and not people of color and the working class
neighborhoods along Hwy 99. The City is not doing a good job prioritizing projects in other areas.
Mr. Williams said although he does not live in Edmonds, it feels like home. He took issue with the statement
that the City was not prioritizing Hwy 99. The City received a $10M grant from the State to begin the
process of modernizing Hwy 99, making it a safer corridor, hoping to slow speeds, intersection projects,
etc. He assured the City was working that problem as hard as they can. Council President Fraley-Monillas
understood he felt that way but the City has been allocated $10M out of a $150M project of which the City
received $1 M three years ago out of the $10M and $300,000 in the most recently biennium. She understands
the City does not control those funds, but if the City had prioritized Hwy 99 as high as this bridge, the City
would have had the money for Hwy 99. She had concerns with continuing this project based on other
projects that are needed. She expressed appreciation for Mr. Williams and his staff's work on this project.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the table of Recent Extended At -Grade Crossing Closures and asked if
there were any difficulties on the west side of the tracks as a result of the delays and if so, how were they
handled. Mr. Williams referred to a photograph of an aid unit on the east side of the tracks with a stopped
train in the background. He recalled there were two medical calls while the train was delayed for several
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 8
hours, one was a woman giving birth and a person who broke their ankle. BNSF does not want people
climbing through their trains or in between the train cars. First responders are trained to help people; they
put the woman on a gurney and passed her through a boxcar to reach the aid car. The same thing was done
with the person with the broken ankle. He summarized emergency personnel did their best, it was not ideal
and it delayed their response significantly.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was documentation regarding other times that delays caused
problems on the west side of the tracks. Mr. Williams explained Fire District 1/South County Fire's
database does not document that. There is a longer average response time to the west side of the tracks but
the data does not document why. Undoubtedly, some of the delays are due to trains.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how many trains passed through Edmonds in 2010 compared to 2012. He
first became aware of this issue when the rally was held in 2012. Mr. Williams said no one consistently
counts the trains and BNSF will not provide that information. When the trains have been counted for short
periods of time, he recalled 35-40 trains/day in 2012 and now there are approximately 45 trains. The number
of trains appears to be growing. The number increased with coal trains but those have been decreasing.
None of the projections included coal and oil trains, it was freight and passenger trains. There is expected
to be a large increase in freight trains over time. Councilmember Tibbott was frustrated there was not an
accurate count. He has heard consistently since 2012 that there would be an increase in the number of trains
passing through Edmonds, but he has not heard that it is actually happening. He said that would be important
information to have to understand the importance of this project.
Councilmember Teitzel recognized this was a complex issue and he appreciated Mr. Williams' diligence.
With regard to the comments about the lack of focus on Hwy 99, and whether that effort is being
deprioritized in favor of the Waterfront Connector, he pointed out the City is planning to install C -curbing
on the Edmonds section of Hwy 99 to limit left turns to decrease accident rates for vehicles and pedestrians.
He pointed out it is not a matter of either or, the City is doing both. Mr. Williams said a request has been
submitted to WSDOT for an interim project with the funds available. The remainder of the $1M and
$300,000 would be enough to install C -curbs which would dramatically reduce left turning accidents on
Hwy 99.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to comments in recent emails about a third ferry that WSF will likely
implement at some point and that the real reason for the Waterfront Connector was to accommodate loading
and unloading of the third ferry. He did not believe that was accurate but it was concerning to people. Mr.
Williams said that is not accurate. Ferries has a 5-8 years plan and they do not have enough money to buy
the boats they need to keep the ferry inventory where it should be. The Olympic class 144 car boats are
WSF's swiss army knife. The super jumbos on the Edmonds -Kingston run, like the Walla Walla and the
Spokane or on the Bainbridge run, are not as cost effective to operate although there are plans to electrify
a couple. Ultimately WSF wants to go from a two big boat operation between Edmonds and Kingston to a
three smaller boat operation.
Mr. Williams assured that would not change anything about the Waterfront Connector because it will not
be used to load and unload ferries. If a train was blocking both crossings and it appeared it would be for an
extended period and the ferry was about to dock or had docked, there is a possibility that the boat could be
unloaded over the Waterfront Connector, leaving the biggest rigs on the dock. That could happen a few
times a year but would not be the normal day-to-day operation. The only vehicles that would access this
structure would be emergency response vehicles. Councilmember Teitzel asked how Council could be
assured that loading and unloading of ferries would not be the standard practice. Mr. Williams said there
would be an operating agreement between City and WSF that spells out exactly how it would be used.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 9
Councilmember Johnson referred to the cost of phases, pointing out Phase 2 was 60%, but her
understanding was the next phase was 30%, 60% and 90% design. Mr. Williams said Phase 2 is 30% with
public input and taking the result of the 30% design to 60% design in Phase 2. He clarified Phase 2 was
30% and 60% design; Phase 3 is 90% and Phase 4 is 100% design.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that an engineering plan was necessary to do the
environmental assessment. Mr. Williams said the design did not need be beyond 60%; enough would be
known at that stage to do the environmental assessment. The details occur in the 90% and 100% phases.
Precise locations, material types, etc., all the information necessary to do the environmental documentation
would be available at 60% design. Councilmember Johnson asked what was the least amount of engineering
that needed to be done to do the environmental analysis, whether it was 30%. Mr. Williams said 30% would
provide the vast majority of what would be needed to do a good job on the environmental work.
Councilmember Johnson asked how much would 30% design cost if 60% was $2M. Mr. Williams estimated
the cost of 30% design, environmental documentation, and the public involvement would be $1.55M.
Councilmember Johnson said that might be a smaller bite that the City Council would be willing to take
and still make an informed decision. She pointed out the environmental analysis includes a build and no
build so the Council would get a range of options to make an informed decision.
Councilmember Nelson said he looked forward to hearing from the public. He relayed the following
statistics: there was an average of two collisions a day, a drunk driver arrested every three days, 65 miles
of roadways without sidewalks, roadways exceed the statewide average for collisions involving
serious/fatal injuries to pedestrians, exceed the statewide average for crashes on major arterials by four
times, and the number of fatal and serious injuries from crashes has doubled in the last five years. A lot has
been said about public safety, particularly response times to the waterfront, but what are the response times
to the entire city? What happened when fire services are cut? A bridge will not save someone; firefighters
and paramedics will. Firefighters will always find a way to save lives and rescue the injured.
Councilmember Nelson continued, today EMS cuts made by this Council in the name of efficiencies are
taking longer to respond to medical emergencies citywide. Today, there is a 100% increase in the number
of Lynnwood units responding to Edmonds. Today, there is a 50% increase in the number of Mountlake
Terrace units responding to Edmonds. Why is a Lynnwood paramedic respond to Edmonds vehicle crashes,
to swimmer rescues at Edmonds beaches? Because there are simply not enough Edmonds EMS available.
There are Edmonds residents injured and waiting in pain, waiting to be saved today, not in the future,
because of cuts that were made, scaring people with doomsday scenarios. The City has a fire contract that
recommends removing the downtown fire station. If people want to decrease response times, bring back
the 12 EMS -firefighters that were cut, the dedicated paramedic that was cut. The people of Edmonds are
not buying this. He has heard from hundreds of people; it is clear the only thing that can be done is to make
the following motion:
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
PROHIBIT THE MAYOR FROM SIGNING A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
PARAMETRIX FOR THE WATERFRONT CONNECTOR PROJECT.
Councilmember Teitzel said he had an amendment to the motion but would first like to hear public
comment.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she would like the administration to discuss the local match that she found
out about when she was in Washington D.C. that Mr. Williams and Mayor Earling said was 100% approved
by the citizens. They did not speak about Hwy 99, only the Waterfront Connector project and how everyone
was behind it. She said if that were true, there would not be 7,000+ signatures to remove the Waterfront
Connector. She asked the amount the City would be required to pay up front, recalling she heard 60% in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 10
Washington, D.C. Mr. Williams said that was wrong across the board as it was the match for the federal
grant. The feds call it a local match, but that does not mean City of Edmonds; it is any non-federal money.
The City already has $10.23M in non-federal funds; the $8.55M available to spend on design and
construction is all non-federal money so it is all local match. The City currently needs 40-60% local match.
The City would need a BUILD grant in the amount indicated to supplement the current funding. If a local
(non-federal money) match was needed, there would be about a $2.73 gap in the necessary funds.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council was never made aware of this until she'went to Washington
D.C. which she anticipated would have been a deal breaker at the beginning in addition to there being a
marine sanctuary. Mr. Williams said that is not correct, he has mentioned several times during presentations
that federal transportation grants have changed compared to the past. The City used to get funds that
required no local match such as the roundabout and the 228"'/Hwy 99 project. Typically the local match
was 13.5% which includes state money to match an 86.5% federal grant. That changed a couple years ago
and more match is required which is why the project funding looks this way. He agreed the City would
need to come up with more money but he has been saying that all along.
Mayor Earling was baffled with as many presentations as have been made with Councilmember Buckshnis'
comment that there was 100% support by citizens. That was never the case, they stated there had been two
votes by the Council and a majority were in support. Mr. Williams was clear about matching funds and
none of the discussion included the amount the City had contributed other than the City's $250,000. The
next phase would be funded using State money and no additional funds from Edmonds. He was sorry there
was this much misinformation and for Mr. Williams to be the whipping post when it was simply not the
truth.
Councilmember Mesaros stated he was originally appointed to the Council and later reelected. He recalled
when he was interviewed by the Council, one of the questions was whether he was supportive of emergency
access to the waterfront. He was in support of it. At that time there was no design, no location, and no
inkling of what it would look like but it was priority to solve. The Council seems to have lost focus on that,
the sense of importance. The connector began the same way as tonight's meeting; people were so concerned
that they demonstrated on the waterfront encouraging the City to solve the problem. Maybe this solution is
not to people's liking, but just dismissing it does not solve the problem.
Councilmember Mesaros explained the task force that Port Commissioner Orvis and Councilmember
Nelson co-chaired looked at 51 options. He believed that somewhere in those 51 was another serviceable
option. That group recommended this location and the Council unanimously approved it. He recognized
things change but there did not need to be contention in making that change but instead there should be
reasonable discussion in making a change. He was highly disappointed since the Council all voted to move
the project forward, many were now approaching it from a contentious standpoint instead of what is the
best answer for Edmonds.
Councilmember Mesaros said in his opinion there was not have enough information and an environmental
impact study needed to be done to find out the facts. He had a sense of what the facts would be but
acknowledged he could be wrong and having that data is important. He was old enough to remember a time
when city governments did not want to do environmental studies because they wanted to move projects
forward. It would require people advocating for the studies in order to have them done. Now, a group of
people think they know what the study will say, so many do not want the study done. He preferred to have
the facts. The sense of contentiousness was not good for the City and he preferred to work together to solve
the problem. The initial problem is how to project people who may get harmed on the west side of tracks.
Just like a fire insurance policy that people pay annually or take the risk and not have a fire insurance policy.
If that's what the City decides to do, okay, but he wanted to be respectful and not throw accusations at one
another.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 11
Council President Fraley-Monillas responded to the comment about having the facts. She acknowledged
51 different options were studied. She received approximately 400 emails, many that included different
solutions to the problem. Her opposition to the project developed due to the cost and the effect on the
environment, something that was not addressed initially. The Council had no idea what the cost would be
or the effect on the beach environment. As time went on, the Council learned about the cost and the
environment and then some objections arose. There are many different ways to create emergency access.
She still believed emergency access was needed but it did not need to be a $30M project.
Mayor Earling asked Mr. Williams to respond to the comment about not knowing about the cost. Mr.
Williams did not recall the date of the first cost estimate, but when the connector was first contemplated,
the estimated cost was $25-30M, the current estimate is $27.5M. That number has been available for a very
long time. Experts and/or staff can opine on the logical environmental impacts, but the answers are not
available until that work is done. This supplemental agreement with Parametrix is to do the detailed
environmental work to answer questions about the environmental impacts this project might create and if
there are impacts, how they would be mitigated.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has been opposed to this project since the beginning and liked
some of the other 51 alternatives better. She has never said she loved the Waterfront Connector project. She
believed emergency access was needed but did not believe the City needed to spend $30M to get there. Mr.
Williams clarified he was responding to when the cost estimates were known and the environmental impact.
Councilmember Nelson said it was no secret that he was appointed by Mayor Earling to look into
alternatives and it was no secret that he supported having a safe way to get to the other side of the tracks.
His eyes were opened when the same administration with vigor decided to cut fire service and then the data
said it has made the City less safe. He did not buy that the Waterfront Connector made the City more safe.
He agreed there needed to be a reliable way to reach the west side of the tracks, but did not think the City
needed to spend $30M. He was happy to work with anyone to consider other more affordable options find
a reliable, safety way to reach the west side of tracks.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she is not a scientist but found out after she voted for this location that
there is a marine sanctuary and many scientists have contacted her. She has always fought for the marsh
and as soon as found out about the marine sanctuary, she fought for preserving it. She apologized for her
email to Mr. Williams and Mayor Earling that stated she did not know about the local match.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO STATE THE COUNCIL WOULD APPROVE PART OF THIS PHASE,
TO GET TO 30% DESIGN AND THE ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT TO HAVE FACTS AND
DATA IN HAND RELATIVE TO THE DEGREE TO WHICH THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE
DAMAGE TO THE MARINE ECOLOGY AT BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH AND THE DIVE
PARK.
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about funding for 30% design, whether it would be $1.5M. Mr. Williams
said $1.55M was the approximate cost of 30% design, environmental work and public outreach.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was a lower amount to determine whether the marine sanctuary is
buildable, whether a basic environmental assessment could be done prior to design work or does the design
work need to be done. Mr. Williams said it was hard to say but 30% was a generally accepted number that
most of the resource agencies that would review the environmental documentation would want to ensure
the City knows enough about the project and that the documentation fits the project.
Councilmember Teitzel said he respects the public process, recognizing there was an extensive effort to
reach this point. He also respected the time of the people in attendance and the hundreds of emails the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 12
Council received, all of which he has read. A number of the emails express concern that the project would
destroy the marine environment at the dive park at Brackett's Landing North. That may or may not be true;
he has seen no facts to prove it either way. As Councilmember Johnson mentioned, Councilmembers have
a duty to listen to all the input and consider the data in making a decision. He needed to see data before
taking a vote on the next steps.
Councilmember Nelson said he was confident in saying he did not need an environmental study to tell him
that putting a concrete overpass through a beach would not be helpful to the environment.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, MESAROS
AND TEITZEL VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, BUCKSHNIS AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, BUCKSHNIS AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, MESAROS AND TEITZEL VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
A brief discussion ensued regarding whether comments should be on topics other than the Waterfront
Connector as that matter had already been voted on. Council agreed to allow the public to speak on any
topic including the Waterfront Connector.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he had never seen as strong a reaction except for trees; the environmental
question has never really been answered for a lot of people. With this many people interested in the
waterfront and concerned about the environment, they should be aware that the ferry system's next move
is a second slip which will be against one of the beaches. The City said no a long time ago and Ferries built
a pedestrian overhead loading that could be moved and there was a plan to study alternate sites. The result
of that study was the Unocal property which did not move forward due to the cost. He envisioned the future
of the Edmonds waterfront with double tracks, 70-100 trains/day, and the ferry unable to operate. He
suggested using the same principle of reaching the west side of tracks and engineering it into the hillside.
He noted the dive park is a pristine study area, the City cannot ruin the waterfront, and the Council made
the right choice.
Brian Thompson relayed his understanding that there has been concern expressed with fire and medical
safety in the City. In 2006, the Council passed a resolution stating 9 out of 10 calls needed to be answered
timely, 1 out of 10 calls, time does not matter. Based on Parametrix's data, calls west of tracks represent
about 1% of the call volume, therefore, there is no obligation to compel the fire district to do better. A
presentation last month stated the fire district is failing to meet the 90%; he was curious what will happen
to their compliance. With regard to the letter from Fire Chief Dahl, it was in stark contrast to statements of
Chief Widdis who told the Council on July 21, 2015 that they were contemplating a potential response for
an oil train accident at the ferry terminal that blocked both crossing and would render access south of Main
infeasible. As the Council considers how to provide access and improving the service demanded by the
resolution, he urged them keep in mind points south so that not all the connections to the waterfront are in
same location.
Pamela Bond, Edmonds, a member of the Snohomish Tribal Council and the Snohomish Tribe's fish,
wildlife and environment director, relayed the Tribe was the second signer to Point Elliott Treaty. They
have seen that voices in Edmonds are not being heard, but she was glad to witness a change tonight and she
hoped that continued. Since Edmonds' inception, the City has been actively participating in environmental
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 13
and cultural genocide. Mr. Brackett ruined marsh lands, allowed mills to be built and felled every millable
tree in the City. She hoped the Council would continue supporting the environment. This land was occupied
by her people for millennia upon millennia. Although people may think there was no permanent village
here, there are midden piles and archeological dig sites along Edmonds beaches. This is a cultural
preservation area, not just an environmental preservation area. She hoped the Council's vote was
permanent. Just as she serves her people, she reminded the Council they were voted into office to serve
their people and it was a privilege to listen to citizens. She suggested if things like coal trains or fracked oil
tankers come through Edmonds, maybe citizens needed to take non-violent action. She concluded the
Snohomish Tribe did not receive free and informed consent and the City did not have it.
Mike McMurray, Edmonds, asked if it was possible to have a motion to kill this option permanently. The
Council already approved the Waterfront Connector; the motion was to kill the funding for this contractor.
He requested this area be permanently protected. Most people support some kind of connector and he
suggested the Dayton option as an opportunity to have a nice pedestrian walkway that would accentuate
Edmonds as an art center and actually draw people to the city. He thanked the Council for their work tonight,
noting 8,000 people signing a petition was a lot.
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, recognized the Brackett's Landing Task Force who came to Council meetings
to ask the Council to protect and preserve the waterfront. It was due to their efforts that the City has the
natural beaches it has today. At that time the elected leaders listened to concerns and declared the water and
the beach, the area from the ferry dock to Caspers Street, as a protected marine sanctuary. She supported
the need for emergency access on the waterfront, however, as a mother of three teens, she does not ask them
to avoid the waterfront due to safety concerns but does advise her teen drivers to avoid Hwy 99 because it
has 4 times the number of accidents as comparable roads. In a recent letter to the editor, two pro -connector
Councilmembers asked the casualty limit that triggers a response, one life lost or two? They asked this
knowing full well there are documented injuries and deaths on Hwy 99. If public safety is a priority, she
asked why the City doesn't put more effort there. It does not have to be done all at once; 1-2 intersections
could be done at a time and the Council needs to commit to moving forward. She requested the Council put
the same effort into improving safety on Hwy 99 and continue to protect and preserve the beautiful
waterfront and beaches for future generations.
Tara Ashton, Edmonds, Secretary of Save Richmond Beach and outreach liaison, said the connector and
the public opposition reminded her of the debacle at Point Wells, the proposed site in unincorporated
Snohomish County for over 3000 condos and thousands of square feet of retail, which was quickly green
lighted by Snohomish County Council to be built at the end of 2 -lane road. If not for the creation of Save
Richmond Beach by Caycee Holt in 2011, that massive development by Blue Square Real Estate would be
nearly complete. The project was denied and it is currently under appeal due to citizen involvement and
grassroots outreach just like what was witnessed tonight. She was shocked and disappointed the City
Council approved the Waterfront Connector in 2016. She suggested a narrow pedestrian overpass similar
to the one at Richmond Beach along with a small fire station could elegantly, discretely and aesthetically
serve the concerns of the Mayor, the City Council and the public.
Thomas Sawtell, Edmonds, said coastal communities from San Diego to Cold Bay, Alaska are suffering
with the same problems whether it is trains or tsunamis. He suggested looking for guidance from
communities in Oregon who have strong watershed management, community -led grassroots organizations.
What happened tonight would not happen there because stakeholders would have been brought in and
marine affairs representatives would have been involved. The process was so oriented toward transportation
that it left out that aspect. He applauded Councilmember Johnson's comment at the Parks & Public Works
Committee that there needs to be a renewed effort to reach out to stakeholders. He relayed Meadowdale
Park received funding to expand the bridge over the creek so users do not have to go over one of the most
dangerous railroad tracks in the state. He referred to a comment letter from Duane Johnson that envisioned
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 14
an interpretive science center at Brackett's Landing Park, possibly 2 story with a walkway over the railroad.
That would not be possible with the overpass.
Lee Kimmelman, Edmonds, said he claimed some responsibility for the mess that happened today. He
has been aware of everything that has been going on for 10 years, has read the newspaper articles, knew
about the meetings but did not attend any of them because he did not realize the environmental impacts.
When this issues arose two weeks ago, he was playing catch up. He was glad the public was able to catch
up in time to prevent the wrong solution. To those who think this happened without proper oversight and
opportunity for the public to speak their mind, there was that opportunity but the public missed it. He
applauded Mr. Williams and the others involved for their efforts and diligence without an agenda or
personal gain in mind. They developed what they thought was the best possible solution using the feedback
they received. There is a disconnect between Hwy 99 and the Waterfront Connector. The safety issue at the
waterfront is related to response time when trains block access to the waterfront and prevent emergency
vehicles from crossing the tracks. The hazards on Hwy 99 are safety issues and the two issues should not
be confused. Both are both serious and important but require different attention, different solutions and
different resources to solve them. He applauded the Council for their decision and looked forward to seeing
more community input on important issues.
Bob Kleinschmidt, Edmonds, requested the speed limit on 3`d North from Edmonds to Caspers be reduced
to 25 mph, the same as other residential streets. With vehicles accelerating and decelerating, it is more of a
noise issue but also a safety issue, particularly due to the proximity to ECA and people parking there.
Bob Brown, commended the City Council for their vote to deny the Waterfront Connector.
Rosy Bailer, Edmonds, said she had a great story to tell about going to Edmonds Beach with her grandma,
digging a hole and watching the water pour in and a metaphor about watching money pouring into the
connector, but it was unnecessary due to the Council's decision. She assured the Council that citizens know
the issue of the connector is not over and citizens need to stay vigilant, present and active. She is a registered
voter and is paying attention.
Kelly Picasso, Edmonds, commended the Council on their vote. She has been a complacent voter in the
past and vows to be a more attentive citizen. She acknowledged what it takes to be an elected official and
the delicate balance between the City's economic progress, what citizens wants and the environment. When
she saw the connector design, all she saw was a tombstone to her involvement. She envisioned her children,
who are not old enough to vote, saying how did you let them build that, where were you? She appreciated
the Council's vote tonight and vowed to pay more attention.
Cam Tripp, Edmonds, said he started the petition, the Facebook account, the website, the Instagram
account and the Twitter feed due to his visceral reaction when he saw what the connector would do to the
beach. He was happy about the Council's action tonight but was not confident it would stick. He assured
the petition will continue to be circulated, anticipating 200-300 signatures would be added per day, citizen
will watch the issue all summer, TV stations will continue to cover it. He referred to 30 pages of comments
from people wanting to save the beach, a 2" printout of all 8,000 signatures, the majority of which are
Edmonds voters who are watching. He acknowledged the difficulty of being a public servant and thanked
the Council for their service, for having the courage to make tough decisions and to change their mind. He
said the number one option according to the 200 page report was the mid -block pedestrian overpass by the
senior center that cost $20M less. It was higher rated than the Sunset connector and equal in safety. The
public was baffled by the City spending $20M extra for an inferior solution that ruins the beach. He
encouraged the Council to do the right thing, look at the report the City funded and save the beach for
everyone.
8. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 15
ECC 5.32 AND 5.05.060; PARK RULES AND DOG RULES
Parks & Recreation Carrie Hite said Jennifer Reed, Snohomish Health District, was here earlier to talk
about the proposal to prohibit smoking and vaping in parks, but she had to leave. The proposed changes
were discussed at the Parks & Public Works Committee and forwarded to full Council. The Edmonds City
Code includes chapters on parks rules and dog rules; the park rules have not been changed for a long time.
The City was approached by Snohomish County Health District to ban smoking vaping and marijuana in
public parks. Parks in Edmonds have no smoking signs but it is not codified so it is not enforceable. She
displayed a sign provided by Snohomish Health District, advising a reference to the ECC would be added
to allow enforcement.
With the change to park rules regarding smoking, staff was interested in making some other housekeeping
changes. Ms. Hite reviewed:
■ Changes to Park Rules:
1. Add a chapter to prohibit smoking, vaping, marijuana in parks.
2. Add a chapter to prohibit feeding wildlife on waterfront beaches
3. Change park hours to read " closed from sunset to sunrise"
4. Clarify chapter 5.32.030 about the allowance motor vehicles in parks
5. Clarify 5.32.040 to be consistent with the City's practice
6. Small housekeeping items
a. ADA language
b. Drinking of intoxicants is prohibited in parks unless authorized by a special event permit.
The use of controlled substances was added.
With regard to dog rules, Ms. Hite explained dogs on public grounds is addressed in ECC 5.05.060. People
often call asking where they can walk their dog; staff refers them to the code which contains a list of very
specific locations which is confusing. The City's animal control is reactive to problems with animals and
does not patrol. Staff does "soft enforcement" such as beach rangers reminding people that dogs are not
allowed on the beach. Park Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay, who has served the City for 48 years, said
the reason the dog rules were so explicit was because people did not pick up after dogs. Now people pick
up after their dogs and parks have dog waste bag dispensers. The proposal is to allow dogs in parks except
waterfront beaches, athletic fields, spray ground, playgrounds, and school grounds. If the change is
approved, Parks is prepared to add dog waste bags, to encourage people to pick up after their dogs, launch
an educational campaign, promote this as a pilot and to change the rules again if necessary. Most other
cities in the Puget Sound region allow dogs in parks on leash and under voice control.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she is also known as Dog Park Diane because she helped start Off Leash
Area Edmonds in 2005 and knows a lot about the dog community. The changes were not done at her request.
She will abstain from the vote due to her connections with the dog community and to avoid any conflict of
interest but will help with publication as she writes the dog park newsletter.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was willing to try it and see if owners are responsible. People
are different than they were 20 years ago and most pets are leashed. She lives near a park that allows dogs,
Mathay Ballinger, and does not see much of a problem.
Councilmember Tibbott agreed with Council President Fraley-Monillas about trying it. He liked prohibiting
dogs on sports fields, playgrounds, spray park, etc., commenting those restrictions area were somewhat
obvious and he hoped they would be obvious to others. He asked if there was any language related to dogs
staying on paths in parks. Ms. Hite said the current code identifies specific park paths; the proposal is to
generally allow dogs in parks. One benefit of leashed dogs in parks, especially at Civic where there are a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 16
lot of geese, is the presence of dogs will disrupt their nesting. Councilmember Tibbott commented there is
a park in his neighborhood where it is difficult to tell where the sports fields end and the park begins. He
assumed that would be left to the owners discretion. He supported putting up signs in parks prohibiting
smoking, vaping, etc.
Councilmember Teitzel agreed with doing this on trial basis. He has two dogs so may be somewhat biased.
He agreed people are more responsible although it was not 100%. He inquire about the fine if someone did
not pick up after their dog. Ms. Hite said it was in a different chapter and she could provide it to Council.
Councilmember Teitzel asked who is authorized to ticket someone not picking up after their dog. Ms. Hite
answered the animal control officer and police officers. The Parks crews are the eyes in the park and can
encourage/discourage behaviors but cannot write tickets. Councilmember Teitzel asked the cost of
providing dog waste bags in additional locations. Ms. Hite estimated $5,000-$6,000.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to 5.23.020, motor vehicle prohibited in City Parks, and the
statement regarding battery operated vehicles, relaying when she thinks of a battery operated vehicle, she
thinks of a Tesla. Ms. Hite recalled the Planning Board discussed battery operated uniwheels, scooters, etc.
and their interest in keeping them on designated roadways not paths. Council President Fraley-Monillas
suggested "battery operated devices."
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed horses are not allowed in parks. Ms. Hite said the current
language in the code does not allow horses and "unless used for ADA purposes" was added. Council
President Fraley-Monillas recalled riding her horse from Woodway to City Park as a kid. She noted pigs
had been added to the list of animals not allowed in parks unless utilized for ADA purposes. Ms. Hite said
someone had pig in a park recently.
Councilmember Nelson said these are common sense updates. Park hours sunrise to sunset is very common,
he was surprised the City did not have something in the code prohibiting smoking, it will prohibit feeding
wildlife on beaches and will alleviate confusion about where dogs are allowed. He supported making the
change on a trial basis.
Councilmember Mesaros relayed there are now battery powered bicycles. Ms. Hite said they are allowed
everywhere bicycles are allowed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS TO APPROVE THE CHANGES AND PLACE AN ORDINANCE ON THE CONSENT
AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS
ABSTAINING.
ACTION ITEMS
1. LAND USE PERMIT DECISION-MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien advised he will provide an overview of the proposed code
amendments. A packet includes a draft ordinance; he recommended approval on Consent following
Department of Commerce's review. He reviewed:
• ECDC 20.01.003 — Permit'[' a and Decision Framework
TXpe I
Type II
Ty a II -B
TYPE 111-A
Type III -B
Type IV
T e V
Zoning
Compliance
Letter
Accessory
dwelling unit
Contingent
critical area
review
Outdoor
dining
Essential
public
facilities
Proal R 4
Plat
Site specific
rezone
Development
agreements
Lot line
adjustment
Formal
I interpretation of
Shoreline
1 substantial
Technical
I im racticalit
NY
Final
Development
Zoning text
I amendment: area
Agreements
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 17
B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed
collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed
individually under each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may determine
whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the applications are processed individually,
the highest numbered type procedure shall be undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from the
highest numbered to the lowest. When Type III -A and TV
pe 111-B permits are consolidated under this subsection,
the proiect shall proceed under the Type III -A permit process.
• Type IV -A: Subdivisions and PRDs
o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 18
the text of the
development
waiver for
hear-ing b)
residential
wide zoning map
ECDC by the
permit, where
amateur radio
^f^"'�taral
de*6"Mi.44
amendments
director
public hearing
antennas
design board
not required
is required)
per ECDC
24.80.100
Critical area
SEPA
Critical area
Comprehensive
determinations
determinations
variance
lan amendments
Shoreline
Preliminary
Contingent
Conditional
Annexations
exemptions
short plat
critical area
use permits
review if
(where public
public hearing
hearing by
requested
hearing
examiner is
required)
Minor
Land
Shoreline
Variances
Development
amendments to
clearing/grading
substantial
regulations
planned
development
residential
permit where
development
public hearing
is required per
ECDC
24.80.100
Minor
Revisions to
Shoreline
14eme
preliminary plat
shoreline
conditional
eceuralie
amendment
management
use
tri
permits
publieheaFiffg
by hemi"
f
Staff design
Administrative
Shoreline
Drelimi„^^ y
review, including
variances
variance
formalp!
signs
Final short plat
Land use permit
Design
D"7
extension
review
Planned
requests
where
residential
public
�
hearin_z by
architectural
design hoard
is re uired
Sales
Guest house
Preliminary
office/modellap
nned
(ECDC
residential
17.70.005)
development
Final formal
Innocent
plats
purchaser
determination
Final planned
residential
development
B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed
collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed
individually under each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may determine
whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the applications are processed individually,
the highest numbered type procedure shall be undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from the
highest numbered to the lowest. When Type III -A and TV
pe 111-B permits are consolidated under this subsection,
the proiect shall proceed under the Type III -A permit process.
• Type IV -A: Subdivisions and PRDs
o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 18
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 delegate City Council's role in reviewing final
formal subdivisions
ECDC 170.00.030 — Public Agency Variances
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
■ 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 Recording Public Hearings
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 ...
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Lien for the recap, summarizing there will still be quasi-judicial
review but not for large projects. Mr. Lien answered essentially yes, there are three type of permits
appealable to the Council: essential public facilities, conditional use permits, and variances.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Department of Commerce approval was required. Mr. Lien answered
it is a change to a development regulation that requires notice to Commerce. For Councilmember
Buckshnis, Mr. Lien described the combination of 20.06 and 20.07.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how conflicts between the RCWs and ECDC were rectified. Mr. Lien
answered 21.00.040 was deleted. Recognizing the City still wants the ability to suspend or revoke a permit
that is not complying with conditions of approval or was achieved under false information, a new section,
20.110.045, was added to recognize the City's ability revoke a permit in certain situations.
Councilmember Tibbott observed a development agreement was similar to a site specific rezone. It was his
understanding there would not be a closed record review on development agreements; the Planning Board
would provide a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien explained currently development
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 19
agreements are a Type V legislative process which allows an open record hearing at the Planning Board
and at the City Council. Moving it to a Type IV, the open record occurs at the Planning Board and a closed
record review occurs at the City Council.
Councilmember Tibbott asked about advantage of a closed record review. City Attorney Jeff Taraday
referred to other Type V actions in the table such as zoning, text amendments, area wide zoning map
amendments, comprehensive plan amendments, all things that are not one parcel and are appropriately Type
V. Development agreements will usually have one applicant similar to a site specific rezone. It sets up a
proponent -applicant situation and the Type IV process is more appropriate because of the site specific
nature and the likelihood that one person will have a vested interest in lobbying for their application.
Councilmember Tibbott assumed disclosures, potential disagreements with neighbors, etc. would be
addressed during the Planning Board hearing but the City Council would not have opportunity to discover
additional information. Mr. Taraday said if Council approved that change, the typical quasi-judicial
limitations would apply to the development agreement such as no ex parte communication, no evidence
outside the record, etc.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how that is handled in other cities. Development Services Director Shane
Hope answered it is mixed, one of the reason other cities have gone to a quasi-judicial process rather than
a legislative was because at one time people thought of development agreements as a rezone opportunity
specific to one property. Under state law an applicant for a development agreement cannot rezone the
property. Councilmember Tibbott summarized development agreements have more limited use now.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the City has not had any development agreements in the last 9 years. She
agreed with having it be quasi-judicial and asked if a development agreement could be used as an incentive
for a developer. She recalled Mr. Taraday saying development agreements were used in Seattle to encourage
escalators. Mr. Taraday said the discussion Councilmember Buckshnis recalled pertained to incentive
zoning rather than development agreements. Escalators can be incentivized via the zoning code. He said
Ms. Hope was correct in saying that under state law development agreement have to be consistent with
development regulations; an applicant cannot use a development agreement to create exceptions to
development regulations. Where a development agreement was most likely to occur in Edmonds was an
applicant proposing a site specific rezone combined with a development agreement that limits the use of
the property to a particular use. In the past that was called a concomitant agreement, it is now called a
development agreement. This would allow those two things to proceed together using the same Type IV
process so the site specific rezone and the development agreement could be considered on a parallel track.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien explained a site specific rezone and development agreement
would go to the Planning Board and then to the Council and any subsequent development would follow the
appropriate process.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO MOVE THE ORDINANCE PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT 1 TO A FUTURE CONSENT AGENDA
TO BE ADOPTED FOLLOWING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTICE PERIOD.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:05 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS SCon't}
2. UTILITY RATE ANALYSIS & FUTURE ADOPTION OF A UTILITY RATE ORDINANCE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 20
Due to the late hour, This item was postponed to a future meeting.
9. REPORTS ON COUNCIL COMMITTEES
1. MONTHLY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES
Due to the late hour, this item was omitted from the agenda.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported the Arts Festival was a tremendous success. It was fun to see the arts being
celebrated and the first Saturday Market was also very successful.
Mayor Earling relayed with the action the Council took tonight, he will notify the state and federal
legislators that the interest in the connector has been withdrawn as well as notify the legislature that the
City no longer needs $7.05M and he assumed the Port will withdraw their $1.5M contribution.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Teitzel reported he also attended the Arts Festival. He thanked Councilmember Buckshnis
and Councilmember Johnson for service at the beverage garden.
Councilmember Tibbott said tonight he voted not to move forward with the connector, a vote that surprised
a lot of people so he wanted to explain the reasoning behind his decision. He has spent a considerable
amount of time talking with people, and the Council has heard a lot of public comment. He has heard a
common theme, a desire to preserve the waterfront as a natural amenity for the City in perpetuity and the
fear that a concrete structure on the waterfront would destroy it. Interestingly, that sentiment came from a
diversity of people across the spectrum of the City. That caused him to realize something about the process;
somehow the City missed an important part of process, engaging the public about their vision of the
waterfront. When the idea of an at -grade crossing study was first proposed, he assumed it would be some
kind of crossing from Sunset down to the waterfront. He didn't realize, 1) how the big structure would need
to be to transport vehicles, and 2) what it would mean to the waterfront.
Councilmember Tibbott said as a Councilmember he wants to do better getting public input, to better
anticipate options for consideration, how it will impact citizens and to ensure the taskforce is proactive. He
expressed interest in redouble efforts to solicit a wide range of opinions. As a result of that discovery, he
could not support going forward with connector. He offered to work with the Council President to bring
forward a study item to review the actions of the task force that looked at the 51 options to recap what
happened and to understand the process. He was also interested in summarizing what the Council heard
from the public during this process. He suggested setting a deadline to complete a study/review of the task
force's efforts and the public response.
Councilmember Tibbott said people still want some kind of access to the west side of the tracks in the event
of a train blockage and suggested looking at short term public safety options to protect people on the
waterfront side of the tracks and create options for response that could include emergency response via
water and/or materials/equipment on the waterfront to facilitate an emergency response until an access is
developed.
Councilmember Tibbott recognized the Council put Mayor Earling in an awkward position. The task force
was commissioned, the task force provided a recommendation, the Council voted unanimously to move
forward and then the Council backed away. He wanted to figure out what happened, what changed and
when it changed, when new information arose, and how could the Council have respond earlier. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 21
summarized it was important to review what happened with the task force, summarize the public's
comments and explore options for safety measures that could be implemented in the near future.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was a little confused by Councilmember Tibbott's statement
and she and he will need to talk about what he wants to have occur next. She thanked staff and citizens who
came out tonight and spoke and all the work that has been done. It has been an enormous feat of work by
everyone. She said the Council recent retreat included discussion about engaging the public; it seems the
public is coming out later and later, clearly the City is doing something wrong. The City needs to do a better
job notifying people and getting people engaged. The lack of full public engagement was the problem. She
appreciated everyone who came to tonight's meeting; the Council has received hundreds of emails. With
regard to public safety options, she suggested reaching out to police and fire regarding their emergency
response protocols if a train is blocking and something occurs on the west side of the tracks. She recognized
that some people were disappointed they did not have the opportunity to speak tonight.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who visited her at the grotto this weekend and thanked
Councilmember Johnson for her assistance. With regard to the connector, she has always been a proponent
of the marsh and buffers and wished that the marine sanctuary, which was established in 1970, had been
brought up right away. The public got involved once they found out what was going on. She appreciated
all the work everyone has done including Mayor Earling's efforts at the state and federal level. The City
has to reassess a location that will not ruin open space for future generations.
Councilmember Nelson said he was interested in moving forward and finding another option to provide
emergency access to the other side of the tracks that does not harm the natural environment. He believed
that solution could be identified and looked forward to working with Councilmembers and the public to
achieve that.
In response to Councilmember Buckshnis' comments, Mayor Earling said when he, Councilmember
Buckshnis and staff were in Washington D.C., they spoke about the Waterfront Connector and the marsh.
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(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.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
0. EARLING, MAYOR SC PA SEY, bTYC K
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 18, 2019
Page 22