Loading...
Cm131217EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES December 17, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (arrived 6:05 p.m.) Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Thea Ocfemia, Student Representative 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Carol Morris, Special Counsel Scott Passey, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Johnson. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the applicant for Item 6 may not have been informed of the 6:00 p.m. start time. Although not legally required, out of an abundance of caution, he suggested taking other matters on the agenda and taking up Item 6 at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess to allow staff to contact the applicant. (Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:05 p.m.) The applicant was located and Mayor Earling reconvened the meeting. COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO REMOVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS P (AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (ILA) WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR A NATURAL YARD CARE PRACTICES OUTREACH PROGRAM TARGETING HOMEOWNERS) AND S (REPORT ON BIDS OPENED NOVEMBER 15, 2013 FOR THE CITYWIDE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 1 PIONEER CABLE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $201,598), AND AGENDA ITEM 11. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Petso requested Item L be removed from the Consent Agenda to abstain from the vote. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO ABSTAINING FROM ITEM L. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2013 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #205898 THROUGH #206029 DATED DECEMBER 12, 2013 FOR $464,056.52 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM MICHELLE BAILLET AND GUY FINEOUT (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND KAREN GURNETT ($636.35) D. UPDATE ON 2014 HOURLY WAGE E. APPROVAL OF PROPOSAL TO REFINANCE CITY OF EDMONDS 2003 UTGO BONDS F. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF 2013 OCTOBER BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT G. APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' BENEFIT TRUST PLAN RESTATEMENT H. APPROVAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT JOB DESCRIPTION I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING OF A STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT TRANSFER AND ACCESS EASEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT FOR 1142 VISTA PLACE J. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING OF A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT RELEASE AND GRANT AGREEMENT FOR 620 SUNSET AVE. K. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES M. A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL THANKING COUNCILMEMBER FRANK YAMAMOTO FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL N. ADOPTION OF UPDATED RESOLUTION ON THE 2014 ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEES O. APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE ADOPTING MINOR TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 10.90.040 REGARDING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S POWERS AND DUTIES Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 2 Q. RENEWAL OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR FOOTBALL GAME SECURITY R. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT (2) TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CELLMARK FORENSICS, INC. FOR DNA TESTING 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no comments from the audience. 5. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE TO COUNCILMEMBER FRANK YAMAMOTO Council President Petso read a resolution recognizing Councilmember Frank Yamamoto for his service on the Council since January 2012. She presented the resolution and a plaque to Councilmember Yamamoto. Councilmember Yamamoto thanked the Council and Mayor Earling for the resolution. He thanked the City's professional and knowledgeable staff, community leaders and citizens and said it had been a privilege and honor to serve on the Council. 6. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S DESIGN APPROVAL OF POINT EDWARDS' BUILDING 10 TO BE LOCATED AT 50 PINE STREET UNDER FILE PLN20130022. APPEAL NUMBERS APL20130005 - APL20130008 Mayor Earling explained on October 15, 2013 and November 12, 2013 the City Council deliberated on 4 appeals of the Architectural Design Board's (ADB) decision conditionally approving revisions of Building 10 of the Point Edwards development, PLN20130022, which includes a multi -family residential building of 85 units with structured and surface parking totally 144 parking stalls located at 50 Pine Street, Edmonds. During the November 12, 2013 closed record public hearing the City Council deliberated and voted to reverse the ADB's decision. The Council directed staff to prepare draft Findings and Conclusions for review and a vote on the final written decision. The draft Findings and Conclusions have been circulated and are ready for consideration and a vote. The Council's discussion of the draft Findings and Conclusions will not involve any participation by the public, the appellant or any parties of record. Oral arguments have been presented by the appellants and parties of record and that portion of the closed record hearing is over. At every continuation of the close record hearings on this matter, the Council is required to observe the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. The Doctrine requires the hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it must also appear to be fair. Mayor Earling asked whether any member of the decision -making body has engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this appeal outside the public hearing process since November 12, 2013. Councilmembers Yamamoto, Buckshnis, Johnson, Bloom, Fraley-Monillas and Peterson responded they had not. Council President Petso reported she had received two emails which she was not certain were from opponents or proponents that she forwarded to Special Counsel Carol Morris. She relayed Ms. Morris' advice that the emails be printed and provided to Senior Planner Kernen Lien. One of the emails addresses the right kind of development in Edmonds with a heading related to this topic and the second email is a question regarding the delay on December 3, 2013 to which she responded Carol Morris cannot attend tonight. She provided the emails to Mr. Lien. Mayor Earling asked if any member of the Council had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not consider and hear the application in a fair and objective manner. Councilmembers Yamamoto, Buckshnis, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 3 Johnson, Bloom, Fraley-Monillas and Peterson indicated they had no conflicts. Council President Petso stated she had two items to disclose; although she was told they were not conflicts, she was encouraged to put the information in the record. First, she has been individually named in a lawsuit in regard to this matter and second, she discovered 1'/z weeks ago that her daughter's father-in-law works for one of the applicants. Mayor Earling advised he had no disclosures to make. Mayor Earling asked whether any audience member objected to his or any Councilmember's participation. There were no objections voiced. Mayor Earling relayed he has been informed the applicant would like to supplement the administrative record with a document that was not introduced into the administrative record at the November 12, 2013 closed record hearing. The document was presented to the City's planner after the November 12, 2013 closed record hearing and has not been reviewed by any of the decision -makers. He directed the applicant to present the document to Mr. Lien so it can be clearly marked as a document that was presented to the City after the November 12, 2013 closed record hearing. Appellants and parties of record may review the document. Mayor Earling summarized the Council's deliberations have been concluded and the Council directed the attorney to draft Findings and Conclusions. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO USE THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO BEGIN DELIBERATIONS ON THEIR ACCURACY. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING NO. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Council President Petso and the City have been named in a lawsuit that used the minutes as their supporting document. She asked whether the transcript of the meeting and Findings and Conclusions would become part of the record for the lawsuit. Ms. Morris answered yes. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO STATE THEY WERE ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 17TH, NOT DECEMBER 3RD. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BY REMOVING ITEM I1 FROM PAGE 9. Council President Petso did not recall the Council making a decision on that item; she recalled the Council was told not to consider the procedural arguments related to the ADB process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for a further explanation. Council President Petso explained the draft Findings and Conclusions do not exactly correspond to the motions that were made. The Council did not make a motion on this item or discuss/deliberate it. In the case of other items, for example the Council found the lighting appeal should be upheld, the Findings and Conclusions indicate it should be affirmed. With regard to this item, she did not recall the Council making a finding regarding the ADB process and therefore would prefer it not be included in the Findings and Conclusions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed the information in the Findings and Conclusions is the ADB voted to approve the design on May 15 and entered a final written decision on August 7. She asked whether Council President Petso believed that was not part of the Council's discussion at the hearing. Council President Petso answered the Council did not discuss the appellant's claim that ADB adoption of Findings and Conclusions were post hoc rationalizations or not supported by the transcript of the ADB meeting. Ms. Morris explained the Council could deliberate on that issue tonight and agree to include it in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 4 the Findings and Conclusions or to remove that item. The Council is not limited to what was discussed during its last deliberations. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussing the information in I1 in rebuttal to Councilmember Peterson. She referred to page 39 of the old packet, where she stated her support for Title 20 to allow citizens to speak for themselves, that as legislators the Council were also quasi-judicial, that it was important Councilmembers read everything, that citizen volunteers on the ADB were appointed by the Mayor and needed checks and balances and that she recognized errors were made by the ADB. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the Council had not voted on this issue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Ms. Morris whether I1 should be deleted or retained, recognizing the Council discussed it but did not vote on it. Ms. Morris answered if the Council felt 11 reflected its decision, the Council could vote to include it. Councilmember Bloom referred to language in I, that similar appeal issues have been grouped together. She asked whether I1 grouped together numerous issues. Ms. Morris responded numerous issues were grouped together in the body of the document; she was uncertain how many appellants appealed the issue identified in 11. The statement Councilmember Bloom referenced refers to the entire document not just 11. For example, I2 definitely included items group together. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS AND PETERSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, JOHNSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DELETE THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 18 WHICH READS, THE COUNCIL DISAGREES WITH THE ASSERTION THAT THE HEIGHT LIMIT WAS INCORRECTLY MEASURED. Council President Petso recalled the Council passed a motion determining the ADB's findings regarding height were clearly erroneous. Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion as he recalled the Council never questioned how the height was measured. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council did not disagree but questioned how the height was measured, if the incentive was correct and the fact that it was erroneous. She did not recall the Council saying it disagreed. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS AND FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, MOVED THAT CONCLUSION OF LAW #4 ON PAGE 23 BE CHANGED TO DELETE THE PHRASE, ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED BUILDING 10 SATISFIED THE CITY'S CODE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS AND FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DELETE CONCLUSION OF LAW #5 ON PAGE 23 WHICH STATES, THE ADB'S Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 5 DECISION RELATING TO THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND THE LIGHTING STANDARDS TO BE INSTALLED BY THE APPLICANT IS AFFIRMED. Council President Petso recalled the Council passed motions finding the determinations regarding lighting and parking were clearly erroneous. Councilmember Johnson asked Ms. Morris to explain how she reached this conclusion. Ms. Morris answered she was unable to articular any explanations due to the pending lawsuit. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO DELETE CONCLUSION OF LAW #8 ON PAGE 24, THE COUNCIL DENIES ALL OTHER APPEAL ISSUES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THIS DECISION. Council President Petso explained the Council's discussion and vote regarding the number of permitted units was not reflected in the Findings and Conclusions, therefore she wished to delete Conclusion #8. Ms. Morris suggested the Council consider whether the density issue should be added before addressing Conclusion #8 because there were other appeal issues that were not addressed by the Council. Council President Petso asked whether it was permissible to have an executive session. Ms. Morris answered not at this time. The Council could vote on the Findings and Conclusions and then have an executive session. Ms. Morris reiterated there were other appeal issues other than the density argument that were not addressed in the Findings and Conclusions; therefore Conclusion #8 is still a true statement. She recommended a separate motion if Council President Petso wanted the density argument included in the Findings and Conclusions. At Council President Petso's request, Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Rick Gifford, attorney representing Edmonds Pine Street LLC, entered an objection related to Council President Council President Petso's request for a brief recess after being advised by counsel she could not enter into discussions in executive session. Council President Petso then proceeded for several minutes to effectively speak in executive session with Mayor Earling, City Attorney Jeff Taraday and Special Counsel Carol Morris. He provided Mr. Lien a summary of objections made on the applicant's behalf at the Council's November 12, 2013 hearing. Mayor Earling relayed his understanding that that information was submitted to Mr. Lien after the conclusion of the hearing. Therefore it cannot be part of the record but will be accepted as information outside the record. Mr. Gifford advised those materials were presented during the course of the proceedings and should not have been precluded at that time. He agreed to leave that to Ms. Morris' discretion as she considers the materials. He felt the materials were presented in a timely manner and only summarized comments made orally during the course of their objections prior to the commencement of deliberations. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO WITHDREW THE MOTION. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO CHANGE CONCLUSION #8 ON PAGE 24 TO READ, THE COUNCIL DENIES ALL OTHER APPEAL ISSUES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THIS DECISION, EXCEPT DENSITY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 6 Councilmember Buckshnis commented there was no discussion regarding density in the Findings and Conclusions. Ms. Morris agreed it was not included; Council President Petso was referring to appeal issues. hi response to Councilmember Peterson's request for clarification, Council President Petso recalled the Council made a motion during prior discussions regarding density due to the zoning code; the density issue is not addressed in the Findings and Conclusions. The motion reflects that fact. She provided the wording of the previous motion, determine that the conclusion regarding density demonstrates clear error because the zoning code specifies lot not site. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested including the Council's decision regarding density in the Findings and Conclusions rather than adding "except density" to Conclusion #8. Ms. Morris did not recommend the Council add anything to the Findings and Conclusions related to density. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Ms. Morris' recommendation included using the word in Conclusion #8. Ms. Morris answered yes. MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES. Mayor Earling said his conversation with Ms. Morris during the break was to determine whether any clean-up needed to be done to the Findings and Conclusions. Ms. Morris explained changes need to be made to the Findings of Fact. For example, the amendments related to the manner in which height was calculated was clearly erroneous, the number of parking spaces and lighting standards are only reflected in the Conclusions of Law; the Findings of Fact need to be revised to reflect those changes. She offered to draft the changes for consideration by the Council later on the agenda. Councilmembers Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas voiced their agreement with Ms. Morris' suggestion to draft the changes tonight. With the agreement of the Council, Mayor Earling continued this item for 45 minutes or more to allow Ms. Morris to draft the changes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON WHETHER TO INCLUDE A DEFINITION OF "REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE" WITHIN THE CITY'S CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS. (FILE # AMD20130009) Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained on July 2, 2013 the City Council passed Interim Ordinance No. 3931 which removed the definition of reasonable economic use from the City's critical area regulations and forwarded the issue to the Planning Board for consideration. This is a public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation on the definition of reasonable economic use within the City's critical area regulations. To address situations where critical areas and/or buffers cover much of a property and the site could not meet the City's critical area regulations, the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) outlines a variance process to allow reasonable economic use of the property. Prior to adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 3931, the City's definition for reasonable economic use included specific reference to a single family residence as a reasonable economic use on property zoned for residential development. The City Attorney expressed concern with that specific reference and recommended it be deleted. The City Attorney also recommended reasonable economic use be determined on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Lien explained the Planning Board reviewed the issue at their September 25, 2013 meeting and held a public hearing on November 13, 2013. The Planning Board recommended retaining the first sentence in the reasonable economic use definition, "Reasonable economic use(s) means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid taking and/or violation of substantive due process." The Planning Board felt retaining the first part of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 7 definition was useful in providing parameters for those applying for a reasonable use variance and still allow reasonable economic use to be determined on a case -by -case basis. The draft ordinance reflecting the Planning Board's recommendation is included in the packet as Exhibit 7. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested only stating case -by -case basis and omitting the phrase taking and/or violations. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained anytime someone applies for a reasonable use variance it will be determined on a case -by -case basis; that does not need to be articulated. The language also does not need to reference constitutional provisions because that is considered when analyzing a reasonable economic use variance request. When this issue arose, a brief survey of other jurisdictions found several do not have such a definition which led to the recommendation to delete the definition in Edmonds' code. His recommendation, which differed from the Planning Board's recommendation, was not to have any definition and to adopt the interim ordinance as the permanent ordinance. He summarized the reasonable economic use variance is a complex legal analysis that cannot be distilled into a sentence in the code. Councilmember Buckshnis commented reasonable economic use can be subjective. Mr. Taraday agreed, pointing out a sentence regarding constitutional principles would not narrow the scope of the difference of opinion and would not assist in confining the legal analysis. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Taraday provided his recommendation and the Planning Board's recommended paragraph: • Mr. Taraday's recommendation: Interim ordinance (packet page 1232), completely delete the definition of reasonable economic use in its entirety. • Planning Board recommendation: retains the sentence, "Reasonable economic use(s) means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid taking and/or violation of substantive due process." Mr. Taraday said it makes little difference whether that sentence is in the code because those issues are considered when analyzing a reasonable economic use variance. That language does not need to be in the code for that exercise to occur. Mayor Earling opened the public testimony portion of the public hearing. Susan Paine, Edmonds, urged the Council to remove reasonable economic use from the code because it can be confusing and misleading. If it is retained, she suggested critical areas not be considered as expendable and that policies allow development in the most restrictive manner possible as critical areas are very fragile. Christine Lund, representing Chevron Corporation, relayed Chevron's concerns about reasonable economic use of property. In light of other actions the City is considering with regard to shoreline buffers and downzoning the property Chevron owns, Chevron wants to be on record with their concerns about reasonable economic use of the property and wants to ensure the language is not diluted. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented there were two viewpoints, first, a person on a board making a decision and second, a property owner who has held property only to discover the regulations have changed. He inquired what rules were used to make a determination regarding reasonable economic use, fearing without rules, the matter would end up in court. Jordan Shenk, Edmonds, explained the Planning Board meeting included examples of jurisdictions that do not have a definition as well as jurisdictions that defined reasonable use in a critical area such as Lake Forest Park. The Planning Board agreed to retain this language to guide applicants in understanding this is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 8 a constitutional rights issue. He agreed it was redundant but would provide direction to an applicant. He recommended retaining the sentence as recommended by the Planning Board. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public testimony portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3952, WITH THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION. Councilmember Bloom spoke in favor of Mr. Taraday's recommendation. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas agreed. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Mr. Shenk, pointing out redundancy did no harm and would add clarity. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON, YAMAMOTO AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSSION ON ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TO STUDY WATERFRONT ACCESS ISSUES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 1) EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS, 2) AT GRADE CONFLICTS WHERE MAIN AND DAYTON STREETS INTERSECT BNSF RAIL LINES, 3) PEDESTRIANBICYCLE ACCESS, AND 4) OPTIONS TO THE EDMONDS CROSSING MULTIMODAL TERMINAL PROJECT (IDENTIFIED AS MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 2) WITHIN THE 2004 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, ETC. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained this item on the December 3, 2013 agenda contained the following wording, "Public Comment and Discussion on the SR104 Railroad Crossing Alternatives Analysis." Prior to the December 3 meeting, he met with Councilmember Bloom and Council President Petso who expressed a desire to have the language more clearly reflect the purpose of the agenda item. He presented alternate language during the December 3 meeting, "Alternatives Analysis to Study Waterfront Access Issues Including, But Not Limited to, 1) Emergency Vehicle Access, 2) At Grade Conflicts Where Main and Dayton Streets Intersection BNSF Rail Lines, 3) Pedestrian/Bicycle Access, and 4) Options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project (Identified as Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement." Mr. Clifton explained this title more clearly reflects how the $2 million would be used should the State Legislature appropriate funds. If approved, this language will be incorporated into the 2014-2019 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Bullet 4 under Transportation Revenue Issues in the draft 2014 Legislative Agenda includes this language. Councilmember Bloom recalled at the December 3 meeting she asked whether emergency access could be separated from the alternatives study and Mr. Clifton's response was that could be done but that was not the administration's recommendation. She asked why the administration did not recommend separating the emergency access from the alternatives study. Mr. Clifton answered all the issues need to be considered holistically. For example, some Councilmembers have stated the emergency vehicle access could be located at Point Edwards. As he said on December 3, that is a big presumption because there is no certainty that it can or should be located at Point Edwards. Wherever an emergency vehicle access is located, it will need to be at least 28 feet above the existing BNSF rail lines. Locating it at Point Edwards could have a significant impact on the proposed Edmonds Crossing project as identified in the FEIS. The alternatives study would also consider minimum build options to the existing Edmonds Crossing project in the FEIS; identifying a specific location for the emergency the study could have an impact on any Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 9 minimum build options the study identifies. He recommended the issues be considered holistically including the location of emergency vehicle access. Councilmember Bloom pointed out emergency access is not included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clifton answered emergency access was to be a part of the Edmonds Crossing project. Since consideration of that project has been deferred until at least 2030, it will be some time before an emergency vehicle access will be constructed. Councilmember Bloom asked whether emergency access was defined in the Edmonds Crossing project. Mr. Clifton responded it was supposed to be at -grade as well as over the ramps and climb down the other side. Councilmember Bloom pointed out "climb" indicated it was not an emergency vehicle access. Mr. Clifton advised emergency vehicle access would be at grade from the bus turnaround area. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the Comprehensive Plan addressed emergency vehicle and pedestrian access over the railroad tracks. Mr. Clifton answered it addresses pedestrian and bicycle access but not vehicular. Councilmember Bloom summarized there was nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that addressed emergency vehicle access over the railroad crossing or in the Edmonds Crossing project. Mr. Clifton answered the alternatives study would consider that as part of the other three items. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her interest in emergency access. She asked whether the intent was to fund all the items together or could the emergency access be funded sooner. Mr. Clifton answered the $2 million appropriation by the legislature would not fund any construction; it was only to conduct an alternatives analysis to consider feasibility, location, and how it relates to the other items in the alternatives analysis. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the proposed alternatives analysis was a package. She asked whether the funding for construction of items 1-3 would be a package. Mr. Clifton answered there is no guarantee the alternatives analysis will identify any acceptable alternatives. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reiterated her concern with the length of time to achieve an emergency access if all the items are packaged together. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Shell Valley emergency access in the Comprehensive Plan, recalling that happened right away. She was concerned with tying emergency access to Edmonds Crossing when that project was not even in the 2040 transportation plan. She preferred to separate emergency access from the alternatives analysis. Public Works Director Phil Williams said different areas of the study could be sequenced. If the solution that is identified is long range and expensive, consideration could be given to interim options for an emergency vehicle while a longer range project is developed. He recognized the alternatives analysis may determine there is no project other than Edmonds Crossing that addresses all the issues. Conversely, if a large, long term project is identified, efforts could continue on that while an interim, smaller project is considered. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the emergency access be a separate study and docket it for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Williams responded an emergency vehicle access only project may obviate other solutions that would solve other problems in the future. He noted an emergency vehicle access 28 feet over the railroad tracks with approaches on both sides is huge project, easily $20+ million, and would take time to develop. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how a waterfront emergency vehicle access could be docketed for the Comprehensive Plan. Interim Development Services Director Rob Chave commented the Downtown Plan in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan was the first time the Point Edwards idea was included in the Comprehensive Plan following analysis that identified Point Edwards as the best alternative. The proposed alternatives analysis would consider the relationship between the items and the best solutions. Once that analysis is completed, it would be appropriate to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 10 anticipated a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be fleshed out with information from an alternatives analysis. Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Williams' rationale for studying all the issues in the alternatives analysis, explaining her rationale for separating them was the location for an emergency access could be limited if it were linked with the ferry and railroad at -grade crossing issue. She referred to a citizen's email that proposed emergency access at Edmonds Street or Caspers Street. She preferred to separate emergency access rather than combining it with an enormous study of the at -grade crossing issue to allow an emergency access project to proceed as soon as possible. Mr. Chave answered that is a potentially problematic approach; it would be best to look at all alternatives which may include separating emergency access from Edmonds Crossing. If it is assumed the only and best solution is to separate the issues, there are potential implications on funding. He explained phasing may be an option with emergency access done first followed by a larger project. There is some urgency to the study and there has been some interest in including it in a state transportation package. He feared opportunity could be lost by focusing narrowly on one particular solution. Councilmember Bloom feared emergency vehicles being unable to reach someone at the Senior Center or Anthony's while the City was focused an enormous, poorly defined study to resolve the ferry and railroad's problems. She referred to the emergency access provided for Shell Valley, yet there is no waterfront emergency access in the Comprehensive Plan. She pointed out the City already studied the at - grade crossing and ferry issues in the Reid Middleton study; the proposal is to study those issues again and to include emergency vehicle access which she noted should have been done years ago. Mr. Chave explained Shell Valley was discussed for many years before a solution was arrived at. His concern with a narrow focus on an emergency access was that would be an extremely expensive project for which it would be difficult to find grant funding. There may be other short-term alternatives to provide emergency services such as parking an aid car on the other side; those should be part of the study. Councilmember Bloom summarized her main concern was time. She questioned the $20 million estimate for an overpass when the Vancouver land -bridge, a beautiful work of art, cost $12.25 million in 2010. She preferred to focus on emergency vehicle access rather than delaying it by trying to resolve the ferry and railroad's issues. Council President Petso suggested an alternative to separating emergency vehicle access from the other three items and studying it first is to break out Item 4, the multimodal terminal alternatives study. Several emails she received over the past week indicated in a project related to WSDOT, WSDOT could take it over at any time. She suggested the alternatives analysis focus on the Edmonds -centric issues and not issues related to the ferries and SR104. Another alternative would be for the Council to vote separately on the inclusion of each of the four items in the alternatives analysis. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it was fortunate no major things had occurred on the waterfront but assumed it eventually would occur. She recognized the connection between the issues, but emergency access is a life and death issue. She supported separating the emergency access to get attention and funding for it; citizens plan to talk to legislators about this issue. She anticipated a uniform approach would increase the changes of obtaining funding for both projects and feared combining all the issues would result in nothing occurring soon enough. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the project needs to appeal to a majority of the legislature who are already struggling to develop a basic transportation package. He agreed emergency access was a priority but to obtain funding, the study needs to be global. If the City had its own funding, the study could be Edmonds -centric although he recognized a study of only an emergency overpass would not be inexpensive. Transportation is never about one city; it is about a connection of state highways. If the legislature does not providing funding for the study, the scope does not matter. He agreed with having a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 11 consultant focus on public safety but said that did not mean everything else should be ignored. If the other issues are ignored, he doubted the legislature would appropriate funds for the study. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with Councilmember Peterson. This is a business decision; the City does not have the money to fund a separate study. He supported an emergency access but it needed to be considered along with other issues to attract funding. Without funding for the study, nothing would be done. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this is not about what the legislature will/will not fund. In her discussions with the legislature, they are concerned about emergency access and it is a priority to both House and Senate members. Mayor Earling opened the opportunity for public comment. Debbie Matteson, Edmonds, a realtor who lives on the west side of the tracks, said she lost business when the tracks were blocked for four hours a few weeks ago. There were also people at the Senior Center who were nervous and afraid because they were unable to leave. She encouraged the Council to explore alternatives. Susan Paine, Edmonds, spoke in favor of a separate emergency vehicle access, pointing out emergency access is needed regardless of what the state does to address other issues. She recommended an overpass rather than underpass due to the environmental damage a tunnel would cause. She recommended the scope of the study be as comprehensive as possible but prioritize emergency vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle access. Darlene Stern, Edmonds, speaking as a citizen, asked the Council to support the SR104 Railroad Crossing Alternatives Analysis. Edmonds needs a permanent, comprehensive solution to unimpeded access to the east and west side of the railroad tracks to resolve all problems. In addition to emergency access, other issues include pedestrians, bicycles and ferry travelers. An independent analysis of the problems will provide new ideas/innovations and a multi -faceted resolution to all the issues. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, compared the number of people in the audience to the number that could be at the Senior Center or restaurants during a blockage of the train tracks. He asserted staff was carrying the Mayor's message to do it his way, not the Council's way which made public safety a priority. He expressed concern Mayor Earling wanted a ditch for the ferry terminal and was not concerned with public safety. An emergency overpass could accommodate emergency vehicles as well as pedestrians and bicycles. He asserted Edmonds Crossing never had an emergency access. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, expressed support for the $2 million for the alternatives analysis as identified on page 6 of the CIP. If the legislature passes a transportation package and the $2 million is not in the CIP, Edmonds has no chance of securing funding for an alternatives analysis. A small project has less chance of being funded and no money has been appropriated in the City's budget to fund such a study. He agreed with Councilmember Peterson's comments regarding a broader study to generate support for state funding. All available alternatives to resolve conflicts should be explored. Three directors recommend this alternatives study, taking into consideration the Council's comments about phasing. An alternatives study would include broad -based community input which increases community buy -in for the ultimate plan. Some who have criticized staff for presenting limited alternatives now seek to limit the study. A thorough, credible analysis process is required; he urged the Council to support the $2 million funding request for such a study. Mike Schindler, Edmonds, disagreed with Mr. Hertrich's assertion that anyone put transportation issues over public safety. He urged the Council to look at the whole problem because everything has a cause and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 12 effect. He compared it to a doctor diagnosing a patient without doing an overall physical and missing something else. He feared building an emergency access in the wrong location could impact future decisions. He anticipated the study would provide options and the solution could be phased with emergency access in phase one. Councilmember Bloom read an email from Peter Gibson, Edmonds, in which he recommended the emergency vehicle access at the waterfront be high on the City's list of priorities. A 20 year resident of Edmonds, he has been stranded on the other side of the tracks a handful of times, usually due to a mechanical issue with a train that blocked both crossings. He envisioned a stalled train or a very long train could delay patient care to people living or visiting the waterfront. With the possibility of more freight and commuter trains in the future, he recommended the City pursue an emergency access; noting it should have been done yesterday. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked staff to draft wording prioritizing emergency access. Based on public comment, Council President Petso suggested instead of pulling Item 1, pulling Item 4 from the study and discussing it at the 2014 Council retreat. If WSDOT could take over a project, broad - based community input would not have any impact. Finance Director Roger Neumaier commented at Snohomish County he was more involved in financial discussions than he has been in Edmonds because with expensive projects, the County's the focus was on money as well as the project. Although he concurred emergency access was critical, he did not anticipate the City could afford $10412 million for an emergency access in the near future. The challenge was not whether an emergency access was needed, it was realistically identifying funding for it as well as funds for a planning study. He recalled former Snohomish County Councilmember Gary Nelson secured much of the County's road and public safety funding by building a coalition. He agreed with prioritizing emergency access, recognizing it may be difficult in this legislative climate to be successful in obtaining funds for an Edmonds -centric project. He suggested he Council's discussion include the fiscal reality. Mayor Earling advised further discussion would occur as part of Agenda Item 9. He declared a brief recess. Continued Item 6. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S DESIGN APPROVAL OF POINT EDWARDS' BUILDING 10 TO BE LOCATED AT 50 PINE STREET UNDER FILE PLN20130022. APPEAL NUMBERS APL20130005 - APL20130008 Special Council Carol Morris explained staff will describe the changes made to the Finding and Conclusions document, but there will be no explanations. Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the changes: • Finding G, page 8, the sentence, "The proposed building height elevation of 191.02 is 40 feet above the average grade elevation of 151.0220." was deleted. Ms. Morris advised this was in response to the Council's motion to remove the phrase, although the proposed building 10 satisfied the city's code height requirements, in Conclusion of Law on page 23, and that the height limit was incorrectly calculated. • Finding I1, page 9, was deleted in its entirety. • Page 13, insert the following phrase at the beginning of the first paragraph, "Using the erroneous height calculation methodology," Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 13 • Page 18, delete the sentence, "The Council disagrees with the assertion that the height limit was incorrectly measured." Also delete "However" at the beginning of the next paragraph. • Pages 18-20, delete Item 5 in its entirety. • Page 20, Item 6, 1st paragraph, insert "parking, lighting," so that it reads, "Whether the ADB's Final Decision is clearly erroneous on the issue of compliance with applicable design review criteria, codes and comprehensive plan elements/policies, regarding parking, ling, landscaping, buffers and privacy." • Page 20, Item 6, 2nd paragraph, insert "parking, lighting," so that it reads, "Appellants have appealed the ADB's decision on parking, lighting landscaping, buffers and privacy, based on:..." • Page 23, Item 4, 2nd sentence, delete the phrase, "Although the proposed Building 10 satisfied the City's code height requirements," • Page 23, Item 4, insert sentence at the end of paragraph that reads, "Building height should have been calculated as required in the Master Plan on AR p. 0240." • Page 23, Item 5, delete in its entirety. • Page 23, Item 6, insert "Parking, lighting," so that it reads, "The ADB's decision with regard to parking lighting landscaping was clearly..." • Page 24, Item 8, delete 1 st sentence and insert "The City Council's decision is based on the finding of facts and conclusions set forth herein and the Council does not decide any remaining appeal issues." Council President Petso asked whether the changes to the building height language incorporate the question whether there was sufficient modulation to obtain five feet. Ms. Morris said the Council did not make any finding or changes related to that issue and asked whether the Council wished to make a finding on that issue. Council President Petso said she was reviewing the Council's decision and items related to building height to determine whether they were reflected in the revised findings. Ms. Morris advised the Council did not direct any changes with regard to the modulation issue. Mr. Lien referred to Item 4 on page 16 that addresses height and modulated roof design. Council President Petso asked about the change that referenced a page in the record. Mr. Lien answered that was a reference to the Master Plan and that height rectangles shall be calculated separately for each portion of the building. Councilmember Buckshnis did not recall the Council's requesting removal of Item 5. Ms. Morris explained the Council asked that the Conclusion of Law be removed that stated the ADB's decision relating to the required number of parking spaces and lighting standards to be installed by the applicant is affirmed. Section 5 has the guidelines and the ADB's decision and the Council's finding in Section 5 is that the ADB's decision is affirmed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Council President Petso to describe the reason for removing that item. Council President Petso said she did not want to remove Item 5, she wanted the finding to reflect what she thought the Council decided. She suggested the Council's Finding regarding that item on page 20 be changed rather than deleting the entire item. She explained the issue was problems with parking and lighting; the Conclusion of Law appeared to indicate the Council did not have a problem with parking and lighting. Ms. Morris advised parking is addressed in Item 6. Councilmember Buckshnis responded Item 5 addressed specific items such as illumination spill and other items that are not captured in Item 6. She preferred to include Item 5. Ms. Morris asked what finding Councilmember Buckshnis would like to make with regard to lighting and parking, explaining the finding in Item 5 is inconsistent with the Council's decision that the ADB's decision should be affirmed. Councilmember Buckshnis said the issue with parking was it was initially underground and there was now a large parking lot, new lighting, questionable off-street parking, cobra lights, and illumination on all the time. Those issues were not addressed in Item 6. Ms. Morris advised those items could not be discussed in open session. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested amending to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 14 reverse the ADB's decision that affirmed parking and lighting. Ms. Morris said that was done in Item 6 on pages 20-21. Councilmember Buckshnis explained there are specifics in Item 5 that are not addressed in Item 6 such as minimize potential for light to reflect or spill offsite or lights will be directed downward. Ms. Morris explained those issues could be addressed through conditions. There was enough in the decision to support the Council's reversal of the ADB's decision without getting into specifics. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1309, THE REVISED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion. Although he agreed it reflected what transpired, he did not agree with the conclusion that was made. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON, AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. 9. PUBLIC COMMENT AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE 2014-2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Mayor Earling opened the public comment. There were no comments from the audience. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton provided proposed language: Alternatives Analysis to Study, 1) Waterfront Access Issues Emphasizing Near Term Solutions to Providing Emergency Services Access, Also Including, But Not Limited to, 2) At Grade Conflicts Where Main and Dayton Streets Intersection BNSF Rail Lines, 3) Pedestrian/Bicycle Access, and 4) Options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project (Identified as Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement." Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the use of the word "prioritizing." Mr. Clifton suggested adding "and prioritizing" following "emphasizing." Mr. Clifton explained "emergency vehicles" was changed to "emergency services" to include all emergency services. Councilmember Bloom suggested "emergency access" may be more likely to include pedestrian emergency access. She requested "emergency services access" be changed to "emergency access." Council President Petso requested the Council delete Item 4. Mr. Clifton relayed David Mosley's, Director, Washington State Ferries, support for conducting an alternatives analysis. Council President Petso explained her concern was not WSF's support; it was inconsistent with the plan for the past 20 years to move the ferry to Point Edwards, the 4 Nos, etc. She preferred to remove Item 4 from the alternatives analysis and discuss at the Council retreat whether there was interest in alternatives to the existing plan. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested retaining Item 4 and removing the words, "options to the." Mr. Clifton explained without the words, "options to the," the alternatives analysis would not apply to Item 4. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Council vote on each item. She agreed with considering all transportation issues as long as emergency access was prioritized. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 15 Councilmember Bloom asked staff to describe what an option to the Edmonds Crossing multimodal project would be. Mr. Clifton answered the FEIS includes modified alternative #2 (Point Edwards); with the economy downturn in 2008, WSF did not anticipate funding for the project until at least 2030. He emailed the Council in 2008 about discussions with WSF regarding minimum build options. An option could be a scaled back version that did not include multimodal components at the existing location, other locations along the waterfront, and other options. In response to a public comment that he was driving staff s conclusions, Mayor Earling explained professionals developed this as the best way to solve the problem. He was affronted with the demeaning comments made about staff including the assertion tonight that they were simply his shill which is simply not the case. Every effort has been made in the modified language to include study of an emergency overpass. He pointed out narrowing the project also narrows the ability to obtain funding for it from the state and other regional sources. A project that has limited appeal outside Edmonds will not score well at the local, state or federal level. He was open to all alternatives and found the modified language acceptable. Council President Petso pointed out the concern about WSDOT taking over a project goes away if Item 4 is eliminated. The first three items do not directly reference SR104 or the ferry system. Mr. Williams referenced emails regarding WSDOT's role in projects that affect state routes that are initiated by local agency. He explained that was quite common and agreed WSDOT could assert their statutory authority and take over a project. WSDOT could also initiate a project. A local agency can initiate a project, go through the planning phase, assemble political support for funding and do the environmental work until a large project reaches design and construction. Such a project often exceeds a city's capacity and it makes sense for WSDOT to take over at that point. It is preferable for the local agency to have as much input in a project; the best way is to initiate, plan, and reach local consensus on a project. WSDOT has shown willingness in the past to accept local agencies' decisions. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO VOTE ON THE ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY MR. CLIFTON FOR ITEM 1 (ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS TO STUDY WATERFRONT ACCESS ISSUES EMPHASIZING AND PRIORITIZING NEAR TERM SOLUTIONS TO PROVIDING EMERGENCY ACCESS). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO INCLUDE ITEM 2 WHICH READS, "ALSO INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 2) AT GRADE CONFLICTS WHERE MAIN AND DAYTON STREETS INTERSECTION BNSF RAIL LINES." COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE "CONFLICTS" TO "SAFETY ISSUES." Councilmember Peterson pointed out safety is addressed in Item 1. Further, there are many conflicts in addition to safety such as traffic, lost business, etc. Councilmember Bloom pointed out conflicts related to the railroad and ferry are addressed in Item 4, options to the Edmonds Crossing multimodal terminal. There are safety issues that would not be addressed by emergency access over the tracks such as safety issues at the crossing itself. The description of the study does not include the safety of the railroad crossing. Councilmember Peterson agreed there were safety conflicts at Main and Dayton, but there are other conflicts such as beach access, etc. The word "conflicts" covers everything. Mr. Clifton explained BNSF has plans for a second track. Intersection improvements related to the second track have not been completed designed; at grade conflicts need to be considered at both intersections. There are also quiet Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 16 zone issues at those intersections; a quiet zone may require 4-quadrant gates at each intersection. He summarized conflicts were much broader than safety. Council President Petso asked whether the amendment would preclude analysis of a quiet zone. Mr. Clifton answered no. AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES. MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO INCLUDE ITEM 3, PEDESTRIANBICYCLE ACCESS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO INCLUDE ITEM 4, OPTIONS TO THE EDMONDS CROSSING MULTIMODAL TERMINAL PROJECT (IDENTIFIED AS MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE 2) WITHIN THE 2004 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. Councilmember Bloom did not support the motion for the reasons Council President Petso described and the alternatives have not been clearly defined and are too vague. She preferred to have staff return with a more clearly defined study. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Clifton advised the intent of Item 4 was to define the best project. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the public and Council will have input into locations, etc. Mr. Clifton answered once the Request for Qualifications is completed, a scoping meeting open to the public will be conducted. Council President Petso reiterated concerns she has received via email regarding taking the money and being required to proceed with the project; she used the roundabout as an example. She noted although public comment can be provided, when the public expressed their displeasure with the Bremerton project, the state took it over. She preferred to keep the existing policy of moving the ferry to Point Edwards in place, take public comment over the next year and not seek grant funds until "such time as we dare." Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the comment that the City obtained the grant for the Five Corners roundabout and not everyone was on board; she assured everyone was on board. Councilmember Bloom relayed her concerns with including a study that will consider alternatives such as leaving the ferry in its current location or a tunnel, because WSDOT can take over the project. Alternatives were studied in the Reid Middleton Study and Point Edwards was identified as the preferred alternative. WSDOT took over a project in Bremerton and she feared that could happen in Edmonds. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out WSDOT can do whatever they want on any state route. She asked whether the language "options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project" disqualified Point Edwards. Mr. Clifton answered no, the FEIS will remain although it likely will need to be updated in the future. Item 4 allows other options to be considered. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the alternatives could be to move the terminal, keep it in its current location, scale back the project, etc. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 17 Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the public meeting tomorrow regarding the Sunset Walkway Project. She asked whether that project could be changed in the future. City Engineer Rob English answered yes. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE 2014-2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. Council President Petso asked for clarification that the CIP will include the updated language the Council just approved. Councilmember Buckshnis advised that was the intent of her motion. Councilmember Johnson relayed her concern with a $5 million public market on the downtown waterfront. She asked how the $5 million estimate was determined. Mr. Clifton relayed Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite's indication it was a placeholder for an indoor/outdoor year-round public market. The estimate assumes a building would be acquired, infrastructure installed, as well as land for parking and an outdoor market. Councilmember Johnson was opposed to the $5 million placeholder concept without any study. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE $5 MILLION ESTIMATED PROJECT COST OF THE PUBLIC MARKET DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT PROJECT TO UNKNOWN. Finance Director Roger Neumaier explained the CIP is a transparent document that shares with the community projects the City is considering; funding estimates are a critical element. Approval of the CIP does not approve any budgetary appropriations. Councilmember Johnson referred to a $30,000 estimate for a Cultural Arts Needs Study. She preferred a needs study rather than a $5 million placeholder. Mr. Neumaier suggested the estimated cost be reduced and preliminary added to the language. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW HER SECOND AND THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the estimated cost for other projects in the CIP was identified as unknown. Mr. Neumaier answered no. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REDUCE THE ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR THE PUBLIC MARKET TO $500,000. Council President Petso referred to Mr. Neumaier's indication that there was greater transparency if the estimated project cost was more representative. If the CIP pretended it could be done for $500,000 and the eventual cost was $5 million, the City could be accused of lack of realism or deceptiveness. Conversely if the project estimate is listed as $5 million and it only costs $250,000 the City will be accused of being incredibly brilliant. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the CrP can be revised. The Council needs to rely on professional staff, if staff developed a $5 million project estimate, she would support it. Councilmember Johnson expressed concern with the placeholder concept. She recalled there were many placeholder projects in the past, all with a $5 million amount. The public market began as a Comprehensive Plan concept/policy; $5 million is a tremendous amount of public investment. There are current two successful public markets in the City, one in the street by the museum and the other in the Salish Crossing parking lot, neither cost $5 million. She preferred to have a more realistic project cost; $5 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 18 million for a public market was out of scale and was more than the purchase price of the entire Salish Crossing site MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING YES. MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. CITY OF EDMONDS DRAFT 2014 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND MIKE DOUBLEDAY Government Relations Contractor Mike Doubleday reviewed top priorities in the City's 2014 Legislative Agenda: • Transportation Revenue Package o Support a transportation revenue package with the following elements for Edmonds: 1. Funding for the Edmonds Gateway project (Hwy 99 Corridor) 2. Funding for the Sunset Avenue project 3. Local options for cities including raising the transportation benefit district (TBD) rate from $20 to $40 by Council approval 4. Alternatives Analysis to study waterfront access issues including, but not limited to, 1) emergency vehicle access, 2) at grade conflicts where Main and Dayton Streets intersect BNSF rail lines, 3) pedestrian/bicycle access, and 4) options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal project (identified as Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement, etc. ■ This item will be amended in accordance with the Council's direction 5. Advocate and fund key Safe and Healthy Communities, including safe routes to schools, bicycle and pedestrian grants, and Complete Streets program • Coal Trains o Monitor any legislation relating to the movement of coal along the BNSF rail lines passing through the City of Edmonds State -Shared Funding o Work to achieve these state funding issues: 1. Restore Public Works Trust Fund monies diverted into the 2013-15 state general fund (operating budget) 2. Restore local liquor revenue sharing to the historic revenue sharing formulas (help fund public safety and other local impacts of liquor consumption). 3. Ensure continued appropriation of committed state share funds such as municipal criminal justice account funding, the annexation sales tax credit, and public health funding Marijuana Legalization Revenues o Share a portion of the anticipated marijuana revenue collected with cities to help offset local impacts. Harmonize medical marijuana regulations to reflect legalization and state regulation of recreational marijuana. Oppose any pre-emption of local authority over traditional land use, licensing, local taxes and fees, and other regulatory functions regarding marijuana production or distribution. Extension of Public Facilities District (PFD) Sales and Use Tax Credit o Seek to extend the PFD sales tax credit (.033) 15 years from 2027 to 2042 Mr. Doubleday reviewed support/monitor items on the 2014 Legislative Agenda: • Public Records Requests o Work with other local jurisdictions to pursue further funding for mediation of the public records cost recovery issue. Fish Consumption Rulemaking and Legislation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 19 o Monitor the Department of Ecology's rulemaking and any subsequent legislation regarding fish consumption and water quality standards with an emphasis on costs to comply with new standards Council President Petso asked whether this was as expensive as she has heard it will be. Mr. Doubleday explained this is related the state's establishment of their water -quality formula. The state has established a 6.5 grams/day fish consumption rate; the federal EPA has determined that is too low. The State of Oregon established a rate of 175 grams/day/person. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email she forwarded Mr. Doubleday from WRIA 8 related to the Clean Water Act. She suggested Mr. Doubleday include the one related to Edmonds. Mr. Doubleday continued his review of support/monitor issues: • Protect WWRP funding in 2014 Capital Budget • Support Department of Revenue (DOR) request legislation on "Amusement and Recreation Services" sales taxes • Support Issues for WRPA: o Protect funding for dedicated accounts within the Capital Budget o Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) — Monitor efforts to bring consistency between the first and second quarter -percent REET, giving cities more financial tools to fund infrastructure and acquisition COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE MIKE DOUBLEDAY'S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling recognized the superb job Mr. Doubleday does for the City, commenting local legislators have a great deal of confidence in him. 11. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON POTENTIAL SALE OF SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF 184TH STREET SW AND 80TH AVENUE W (TAX PARCEL NUMBER 00370800101200) This item was removed from the agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 2. 12. UTILITY TAX RATE RENEWAL ORDINANCE Finance Director Roger Neumaier explained this is related to the utility tax charged on electricity and does not affect any other utilities. The current rate which has been in place many years sunsets at the end of 2013 and drops to 5.25%. This was not anticipated in the 2014 budget and would impact revenues by $186,000. The proposed ordinance removes the sunset language and continues the utility tax charged during prior decades. COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3953, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3.20.050 OCCUPATIONS SUBJECT TO TAX — AMOUNTS, RELATING TO UTILITY TAX RATES FOR PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICTS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SUCH RATES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. 2013 FINAL BUDGET AMENDMENT Finance Director Roger Neumaier advised this was reviewed at length by the Finance Committee. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 20 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPROVE THE 2013 FINAL BUDGET AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE. THE CITY IS REQUIRED BY THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (SMA) (RCW 90.58) TO UPDATE ITS SMP IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL SMPS. THE SMP APPLIES TO SHORELINES WITHIN THE CITY AND ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. THE SHORELINE AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS JURISDICTION INCLUDE PUGET SOUND, LAKE BALLINGER, AND THE TIDALLY INFLUENCED PORTIONS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH. SHORELINE JURISDICTION ALSO APPLIES TO UPLAND AREAS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SHORELINE EDGE (ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK) AND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the last time the Council discussed the SMP, the Council requested options. Tonight he is seeking guidance from the Council regarding the options before they are incorporated into the SMP. The goal is to incorporate the Council's suggestions into the SMP and return to the Council for a public hearing and final approval to send the SMP to Department of Ecology (DOE). He reviewed a potential Urban Mixed Use IV (Exhibit 16, Attachment A): • Create a new shoreline environment for Harbor Square without residential uses. • Update 24.40.080 (Shoreline Development Table) and 24.40.090 (Bulk and Dimensional Standards) Mr. Lien reviewed potential incentives for residential development: • Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around Edmonds Marsh and to City-wide bike and pedestrian routes. • Provide direct pedestrian access to Edmonds Marsh form SR 104. • Incorporate low impact development (LID) elements, such as pervious pavements and rain gardens to reduce undesirable run-off. • Incorporate into individual building and overall site development both low energy and low water consumption techniques, as well as other strategies to minimize carbon footprint. • Contribute to day -lighting Willow Creek and improving the site's ecological value. • Provide improved natural vegetated buffers to protect and enhance Edmonds Marsh He referred to the use table in 24.40.080, attachment A to the staff memo, and described how the residential incentives would be applied. For example, residential development would be allowed if some of the incentives were provided. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many incentives and the dollar amount. Mr. Lien answered the dollar amount would be subjective. There are six potential incentives; a requirement for three could be incorporated into the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the varied cost/complexity of the incentives, anticipating a developer would be choose the easiest. Councilmember Johnson recalled an earlier discussion that some LID techniques would not be feasible due to the high water table. Mr. Lien answered LID techniques such as imperious surface or rain gardens may be difficult at the Harbor Square site; studies have indicated the water table across the street is five feet below the surface. Other LID techniques such as green roofs may be feasible. Councilmember Johnson recalled previous discussions about appropriate types of residential uses such as live/work units. She asked whether that would be part of an incentive program. Mr. Lien answered it could be. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 21 Councilmember Buckshnis recall the Friends of Marsh supported residential due to stormwater issues. She suggested including stormwater incentives. Mr. Lien responded any new development must comply with the City's stormwater regulations; that was not an incentive. His approach to incentives was tying them to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and SMP as well as the Council's interest in environmental stewardship of the marsh. Council President Petso was not interested in residential incentives and preferred the Urban Mixed Use IV environment. Mr. Lien advised the residential incentives could be applied to Urban Mixed Use IV. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether these could be requirements instead of incentives. Mr. Lien answered they are termed incentives but they actually are requirements for residential development. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there should be a nexus between a development condition and the impact the development has; that is what distinguishes incentive zoning from a typical development regulation. In many development regulations, there is a direct nexus between the impact and the requirement; those withstand constitutional scrutiny and there is no tradeoff like in incentive zoning. In incentive zoning, for example no incentives would be required for commercial; residential development would require incentives. Mr. Lien explained the SMP as recommended by the Planning Board includes a 50-foot setback from the edge of the marsh. Council requested staff provide options for setbacks and buffers. He reviewed three potential options: Option 1: 50 foot setback as recommended by the Planning Board with a 45% maximum structural coverage Mr. Lien explained the City's multi -family zones have a 45% maximum coverage. Council President Petso observed the building would have a 45% maximum coverage; the remainder of the site could be paved for parking. Mr. Lien agreed there was no limitation proposed on imperious surface. • Option 2: 100 foot setback, 50 foot vegetative buffer with redevelopment For Councilmember Bloom Mr. Lien explained in this option the 100 feet is a structural setback; the 50 foot vegetative buffer is within the 100 foot setback. Different setbacks can be established for different uses; buildings could have a 100 foot setback, roads and parking could have a 50-foot setback. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • Option 3: 150 foot setback Mr. Lien explained the buffer from a Category 1 wetland, such as the Edmonds Marsh, is 150 feet. Establishing a 150 setback did not establish a 150 buffer because the area is developed. A 50 foot setback requirement with a coverage limitation would allow some development which may result in some enhancement to the marsh. He was concerned a 150 setback would result in continuation of the existing conditions and no improvements to the marsh. Councilmember Bloom suggested a 50 foot buffer enhancement along with the 150 foot setback. Mr. Lien agreed any combination of the options was possible. He pointed out a 150 foot setback did not provide any incentive for redevelopment or establishment of a 50 foot buffer. He noted this would only apply to the shoreline jurisdiction; the regulations do not apply outside the shoreline jurisdiction. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 22 Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated in 100 years citizens would be more interested in the marsh, not development. She referred to WRIA8 funding opportunities, expressing concern with the implication that restoration will only occur with redevelopment. She referred to a project on the lower Cedar River that included removal of 30 mobile homes and relocation of the residents to restore the area. She wanted to be known for restoring the marsh, not for development. When WRIA8 allocates funds, they look at the buffers. She concluded there was a lot of funding available for salmon recovery. Mr. Lien relayed another option proposed by DOE: • Establish an interim designation for Harbor Square • Allow the City more time without holding up finalization of the SMP update • Would require an SMP amendment in the future David Pater, Shoreline Planner, DOE, explained Everett did something similar with their marshland area in the southeastern portion of the city ten years ago as part of a legal settlement agreement. Everett developed a subarea plan about four years ago including a restoration plan and a permanent environment designation. Establishing an interim designation for Harbor Square would allow the SMP to proceed and provide time to address issues in Harbor Square. Everett's designation was Urban Conservancy Agricultural Interim; existing uses were allowed to continue. Edmonds may be able to take a similar approach to Harbor Square. Councilmember Bloom asked what the zoning for Harbor Square would be in the interim. Mr. Pater answered it could be Mixed Use IV to reflect existing uses or one of the options could be incorporated into the interim designation. The goal is to develop a permanent designation within a few years. An interim designation would allow the City and Port time to agree on a plan for redevelopment, reestablish a functioning buffer, improve water quality via incentives, etc. rather than being rushed by the SMP process. Councilmember Bloom asked whether buffers could be established and no residential allowed as an interim designation. Mr. Pater answered yes. Councilmember Bloom asked how long the interim designation could be in place. Mr. Pater answered Everett's was in place longer than hoped. Councilmember Bloom asked whether it would be preferable for the interim regulations to be more restrictive. Mr. Pater answered not necessarily; he suggested the interim designation reflect ongoing uses and what the City perceives will happen in the interim. Council President Petso was unclear why an interim designation was needed and asked if the SMP could be amended in the future if a plan were developed for Harbor Square. Mr. Pater agreed that could be done. Council President Petso asked the purpose of an interim designation. Mr. Pater answered it recognized the separate process for this part of the shoreline that could not be resolved in a reasonable time and to allow the SMP to be adopted by the Council and approved by DOE. Mr. Lien explained an interim designation was simply an option. If the Council wanted to proceed with one of the other options, an interim designation was not necessary. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the only reason she will support an interim designation is she anticipates WRIA 8's plans and funding will gel within five years. Councilmember Peterson referenced the progress WRIA 8 has made in securing funding and moving the marsh up in priority. The exercise with the Port provided direction regarding what the Council did not want but not what they wanted. Most everyone agrees the existing development is not desirable in the long run. He liked the interim designation option, anticipating there will be future opportunities such as new building techniques, understanding the impacts and how to improve impacts on a sensitive area such Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 23 as the marsh. He anticipated working together DOE, the Port, WRIA 8, Friends of the Marsh, and the City could develop a plan and establish the marsh as a world class waterway. He also anticipated more creativity in the future with regard to stormwater such as funding resources, treatment techniques, etc.; pausing the process will allow the City to take advantage of changes that will occur in the next few years. Councilmember Johnson commented the northern edge of the marsh is contained by a dike. She asked whether changes to the dike were anticipated that could change or improve the northern edge of the marsh. Mr. Lien answered that could be part of the discussion in the future with an interim designation. He described the historic boundaries of the marsh, explaining it was filled over the years; the edge of the marsh is marked by the edge of the fill. Enhancements to the marsh, daylighting Willow Creek and removing the tide gate will return the marsh to an estuary rather than a freshwater marsh. The marsh's shoreline of the state designation ends at the saltwater boundary. The boundaries established by historic fill will not change; all the historic fill would need to be removed for those boundaries to change. He did not anticipate any changes would occur on the Unocal side of the marsh. Councilmember Johnson observed setbacks referred to the built environment. Mr. Lien agreed, setbacks, buffers and shoreline jurisdiction are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark. Enhancement will not change the edge of the marsh, only the makeup of the marsh. Mr. Lien asked for Council guidance/consensus to direct final changes to the SMP regarding: • Buffers/setbacks • Interim Shoreline Designation • Urban Mixed Use W Councilmember Bloom expressed support for a 150 feet setback with a 50 foot vegetative buffer and the Mixed Use IV shoreline environment that does not include residential. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DOCUMENT THAT INCLUDES A NEW URBAN MIXED USE IV WITH NO RESIDENTIAL, A 150 FOOT SETBACK AND A 50 VEGETATED BUFFER. Councilmember Peterson asked if this was on an interim basis. Council President Petso answered that was not her intent. Councilmember Peterson said he would not support the motion because it was too restrictive, would not result in needed improvements and would stifle any creative thinking. He agreed a 50 foot vegetative setback was fantastic if it was not already on top of an asphalt parking lot. Councilmember Bloom pointed out when staff returned with the final language, the Council could decide whether to make it interim or permanent. Mr. Lien requested the Council indicate whether this was intended to be an interim designation because that needed to be described in the SMP. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT THIS BE AN INTERIM ORDINANCE. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, YAMAMOTO, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Peterson did not support the main motion as he felt the very restrictive standard would defeat the purpose. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 24 Mr. Lien summarized the Council's direction: a new, interim Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment that applies to Harbor Square. He will incorporate the changes into the SMP document and bring the SMP to the City Council for a public hearing and approval to submit to Ecology. Council President Petso asked what would be done on the other side of the marsh, whether this environment applied to that area as well. Mr. Lien answered no. On the assumption that funding opportunities would require 150 feet on both sides of the marsh, Council President Petso asked what should be done on the other side. Mr. Lien advised both sides of the marsh could be included in the new, interim designation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO INCLUDE BOTH SIDES OF THE MARSH IN THE NEW, INTERIM DESIGNATION. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. 15. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 10, 2013 Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported most of the items discussed by the committee items were either approved on the Consent Agenda or on tonight's agenda. The only outstanding item is the Interlocal Agreement clarification between the City and EPFD. Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Councilmember Johnson reported on items discussed by the committee: • Docket of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and proposed rezone for Unocal lower yard — no action • Authorization for Mayor to sign professional services agreements with KPG for the 15`h St. SW Walkway, 236h St. SW Walkway, and 238`h St. SW Walkway projects — schedule on a future agenda for discussion • Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of a Storm Drainage Easement Transfer and Access Easement Grant Agreement for 1142 Vista Place —Consent Agenda • Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of an Asset Transfer Agreement for 645 9th Avenue North — scheduled for further discussion at the January PPP Committee meeting. Public Safety & Personnel Committee Councilmember Peterson reported on items discussed by the committee: • Renewal of an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds School District for football game security — Consent Agenda • Supplemental Agreement (2) to the Services Agreement with Cellmark Forensics, Inc. for DNA Testing — Consent Agenda • Human Resources Assistant (part-time) Job Description — Consent Agenda 16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling expressed to Councilmember Yamamoto how much he enjoyed having the opportunity to work with him during the last two years including his no nonsense, business, let's get something done approach. Mayor Earling referred to a letter from Eric Laschever, K&L Gates regarding the Port's position on setbacks. Mayor Earling wished the Council and citizens a happy and joyous holiday. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 25 17. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Petso reported on the Council vacancy appointment process. The vacancy will be advertised soon; she invited Councilmembers to contact her with any comments/concerns. Councilmember Peterson told Councilmember Yamamoto he will be missed. He thanked him for everything he has done as a City Councilmember and a business owner active in the community as well as his volunteer activities. He applauded Councilmember Yamamoto's sense of humor, professionalism, and respect for staff, citizens and fellow Councilmembers. He encouraged the public to apply for the vacancy. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas wished Councilmember Yamamoto well in his future endeavors. She wished the public a happy holiday and a lovey new year, advising the next Council meeting is January 7. Councilmember Bloom thanked Councilmember Yamamoto for his service. She thanked Council President Petso for her hard work and leadership as Council President. She wished everyone happy holidays. Councilmember Johnson thanked Councilmember Yamamoto for his service and said she enjoyed working with him on the Council. She recognized Councilmember Yamamoto for helping her adjust when she was appointed. She also appreciated Councilmember Yamamoto's leadership on the EDC. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Yamamoto for his work on the Finance Committee and the EDC. She wished everyone happy holidays. Councilmember Yamamoto commented this is goodbye but he will be around. He thanked the Councilmembers, relaying that he enjoyed working with them. He wished everyone happy holidays. ���\ 171L�11J 7�I With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:44 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2013 Page 26