Loading...
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