Cmd081820EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
August 18, 2020
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. AI'I'[2OVAi, OF AGENDA
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested due to an overwhelming majority of comments, moving the
Code of Conduct to Study Item 3 and due to time constraints and people outside City staff who are present,
reverse the order of Study Items and Action Items.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE THE CODE OF CONDUCT TO STUDY ITEM 3 AND REVERSE THE
ORDER OF STUDY ITEMS AND ACTION ITEMS.
Councilmember Olson expressed support for the motion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 1
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO MOVE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FIREWORKS CODE TO
STUDY ITEMS.
Councilmember K. Johnson acknowledged the Council has discussed this once prior but this is a significant
change. During the prior discussion, she expressed interest in hearing from the acting police chief and fire
marshal who will be enforcing the code as well as the judge and the prosecutor. Changing the penalty from
civil to criminal penalty and because most of the violators will be young males, she did not understand who
would be responsible for a minor's action, whether it would be the parents or the minor. Shc was not willing
to act until the Council had a full discussion. It seems the changes were the result of a very loud 4"' of July;
the next 4"' of July is I I months in the future so this is not something the Council needs to act on tonight.
She wanted to citizens 'and the enforcement community to have an opportunity to weigh in on this. She
recognized the fire department had already addressed the Council and although she did not question that
there was an issue, she wanted it more fully vetted.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the police chief has provided input on the proposed fireworks code.
She pointed out just because an item was on the agenda as an action item, that did not mean action had to
be taken. She expressed concern that the fire department had to be asked to return and she would like to
have a full discussion tonight. She has not received any input from citizens via email regarding amending
the fireworks code; the only ones she has heard from are Councilmembers. She acknowledged
Councilmember Olson who said she had received one citizen email. She was unsure this was an individual's
issue or a citizen issue and encouraged Council to retain it as an action item as a decision could be made
whether to take action following discussion.
Councilmember Olson asked whether the experts identified in Councilmember K. Johnson's request were
present. If they were not and Councilmember K. Johnson could not get her questions answered, it would be
prudent to give her an opponunny io hear ii-uni uieui aiiu uicie wvuiu uc Ilk-)Y�iuL I<< iiaviiig 1L ail
item.
Council President Fraley-Monillas pointed out Karl Fitterer, South County Fire, was present to address
questions. There is an onus on Council to contract these entities, especially when only one Councilmember
is interested in their input; it requires a great deal of time and money to have them come forward. The fire
department can provide input tonight.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she had no difficulty discussing this and she appreciates hearing from the
fire department; however, she made her request known at the last meeting. Rather than seven individual
Councilmembers seeking this information, it would be appropriate for the person who runs the meeting to
make sure the people associated with the issue advise the Council. It also may be appropriate to have more
comment from the public such as a public hearing. She summarized it was premature to make a decision
tonight.
Mayor Nelson requested an opportunity to respond.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO ALLOW THE MAYOR TO SPEAK. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
In response to Councilmembers' request to have staff available, Mayor Nelson said generally the will of
the Council is how administration acts. If administration responded every time an individual
Councilmember asked for something, it would extend requests for quite some time and be very confusing
because Councilmembers make individual requests all the time. If there is a desire to have staff come to a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 2
Council meeting on a subject, then a majority of the Council needs to speak to that and administration will
be happy to provide staff on that issue.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she totally agreed with Mayor Nelson which is why she disagrees with
some of the issues in the code of conduct. She said Councilmember K. Johnson brought up these points at
the last meeting and the Council discussed enforcement but did not talk about the change in the charge and
what happens to a minor.
Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, suggesting that was an issue to be discussed
under the agenda item. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken, Councilmember Buckshnis' comment was
relevant to the amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Mayor Nelson, pointing out
Councilmember K. Johnson brought up these issues, they are relevant and a lot of citizens are concerned,
especially parents. She has also heard from the dog community. She expressed interest in a complete packet
and complete information.
Council President Fraley-Monillas recommended taking a vote on whether to haul in the judge, the
prosecutor, the police chief, and the fire safety chief to speak to the Council, whether a majority of Council
needed that information. If it was a minority that needed it, they could contact those individuals themselves.
Council President Fraley-Monillas attempted a motion to not bring in the additional experts.
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order that there was a main motion and an amendment on the
floor. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said there was already an amendment and an amendment to the
amendment pending so an additional motion was probably not in order. He suggested voting on the
amendment offered by Councilmember K. Johnson before taking any additional motions.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Buckshnis attempted a motion to pull an item from the Consent Agenda. Council President
Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, the main motion was still on the floor. Mayor Nelson ruled point
taken.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified Study Items would be amended to add Code of Conduct as Item
3 and Ordinance Amending the Fireworks Code as Item 4 and the Climate Target Resolution would remain
as an action item.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO MOVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 6.1,
APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 29, 2020, TO ACTION
ITEM 1.
City Clerk Scot Passey advised a second was not required because Councilmembers have the right to pull
items from the Consent Agenda.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO
REVERSE THE ORDER OF STUDY ITEMS 3 AND 4, SO THE FIREWORKS CODE COMES
BEFORE THE REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 3
Councilmember Olson assumed Council President Fraley-Monillas' intent in reversing the order of study
and action items was so that items with outside staff were earlier on the agenda.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM BER K. JOHNSON,
TO ADD AN ACTION ITEM, DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY'S INCLUSION OF EMAIL
ADDRESSES IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION OF THE MINUTES.
Councilmember Buckshnis said this likely has already been resolved, but a lot of citizens contacted her
because the last couple of minutes included email addresses. She has conferred with Mr. Taraday and Mr.
Passey, and it would be beneficial for citizens to hear what happened and what will happen in the future.
She anticipated it would be a five minute discussion.
Councilmember Paine asked if it would be a five minute discussion for sure. Councilmember Buckshnis
answered she hoped it would be as Mr. Passey can explain what happened and how it was resolved. She
summarized citizens were concerned that their emails addresses were included in the minutes.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested adding an action item regarding residential sign enforcement. She
did not receive a response from Mayor Nelson to her email so she was willing to leave it up to him whether
to address it tonight or next week.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the intent was to add it for discussion, not action.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she sent an email early this week to administration asking for
nhntio r dio rdin n nnfnro-nt C—nnil Pracirlont PrA]P[/_A/Tnnlllac Cn QQPCtp(d th1Q and
.,,�.,...�..,., .,. u.uvu��.v.. rega.u...g s;g.,.......................,u..,,.. _ ..,.,.u.,........,, ..,.,..........,»ba_.,._» ..._., ».._
the previous item would be more appropriate as study items. If they are action items, some believe action
should be taken; however, the Council should not take action on a topic that is introduced at the meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis said as a courtesy to Mayor Nelson and the administration, she wondered if he
would like to address it tonight or put it on the agenda next week. She did not receive an answer to her
email so she was unaware of the status of the issue. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested both were
more appropriately study item so they could be studied and returned for action.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested residential sign code enforcement be added as an agenda item under
study items.
Mayor Nelson requested an opportunity to respond.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO ALLOW MAYOR NELSON TO ADDRESS THIS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Nelson said he was not prepared to discuss this tonight and hoped it could be discussed at the next
Council meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis withdrew her request.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested inclusion of email addresses be a study items since it sounds
like there has already been action taken. Mayor Nelson pointed out the Council had already voted to add it
to the agenda as an action item. Mr. Taraday suggested a motion to reconsider; as the vote was 7-0, any
Councilmember could make a motion to change it to a study item.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 4
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO MOVE INCLUSION OF EMAIL ADDRESSES TO STUDY ITEMS.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, the motion should be for reconsideration. Mr. Passey
answered that was technically correct. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE TO HAVE IT AS AN ACTION ITEM AND MOVE IT
AS A STUDY ITEM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO MOVE THE ITEM TO A STUDY ITEM.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order regarding what the motion was, advising it was already
an action item. Councilmember Olson explained it had been reconsidered and was now being placed on the
agenda as a study item. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified Discussion Regarding the City's Inclusion of
Email Addresses in the Public Comment Section of the Minutes was changed to a study item; Approval of
Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 29, 2020 was an action item.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order regarding what the motion was. Mayor Nelson said the
previous motion was to remove the City's Inclusion of Email Addresses as an action item and this motion
was to move it to study items.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (HTTPS:HZOOM.US/S/4257752525)
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed a text she just received from a citizen who was in the Zoom meeting
and was kicked off and stated there was no meeting tonight on Zoom. Mayor Nelson provided the Zoom
address to join the meeting, hhtps://Zoom.US/S/4257752525 and by phone, 888-475-4499.
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Jenny Antilla advised she would yield her three minutes to her husband, Greg Toy, so he would have three
additional minutes to speak. Mayor Nelson advised the procedure is three minutes per person and speakers
could not yield their time to others.
Greg Toy, Edmonds, advised he provided Council an email today regarding code enforcement. There is a
discrepancy between statements from the Mayor's office that he did not order a suspension of code
enforcement until the end of the year and comments made by the director of code enforcement that Mayor
Nelson did make that directive. He relayed concern that someone in administration is not telling the truth
and not handing the situation correctly. Code enforcement of a sign in their neighborhood was brought to
the City's attention by eight neighbors who met with the code enforcement director as well as three written
comments. A letter was issued and later retracted with no enforcement date and essentially an apology to
the individual for attempts to enforce. His letter to the City outlines non -enforcement of City code that
needs to be explored by City Council, the Mayor and the director of code enforcement. This afternoon, the
individual covered the sign with the American flag, but the footprint remains the same, now a sign of a flag
instead of a sign that supports Blacks Lives Matter. As he has stated previously, it is not an issue of the sign
content, it is simply a question of whether the City chooses to enforce the code.
Mr. Toy said by choosing not to enforce the code at the request of citizens who are adversely affected by
non-conformance with the code, the City is walking a slippery slope that could result in citizens posting
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 5
signs with the belief that the size of their sign is a measure of conviction and could lead to acrimony in
neighborhoods and further stretch the City's resources to bring more signs into compliance. The City's
failure to address this issue initially led to a series of actions including articles in My Edmonds News that
resulted in over 50 comments and was shut down because the comments became so acrimonious, personally
insulting, and biased. He recommended this situation be dealt with immediately before it gets further out
of hand. He offered to provide further statements to the Council and Mayor.
Jenny Antilla, Edmonds, relayed she spoke to Mayor Nelson earlier in the week and to Shane Hope today.
She relayed Ms. Hope is trapped with what the City attorney is going to say. She could only assume that
the City attorney will enforce the code as she did not see the point of having codes if one could unilaterally
say we'll let this one go until the end of the year which is apparently what Mayor Nelson said, but then told
My Edmonds News that he did not say that. There is a conflict between Mayor Nelson, Ms. Hope and the
City Attorney not following through with the rules. She recalled Mayor Nelson telling her that City
employees were involved in other things, but it only took Dan Gooding a day to send out the letter of non-
compliance. Unfortunately, mistakes were made in the letter and the right letter, according to the City,
which was hand -delivered, apologized to the homeowner with the sign and gave no date for compliance.
She recommended this be resolved between Mayor Nelson, Ms. Hope and the City Attorney.
Cynthia Pruitt, Edmonds, referred to the Climate Target Resolution, and said she was excited to be part
of a community that takes meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gases and thanked the City for their
efforts. She has been a member of the Climate Protection Committee since 2010. She supports the 1.5°C
target as the basis for future preparation of City policies and documents. Many committee members
supported a 1 °C target; she reluctantly felt the challenges and timeframe for the community to meet a 1 °C
target was too daunting and was uncertain she could convince her own household to do the things that
would have required, let alone tell the committee they should. However, the 1.5°C target is as high as she
is willing to go. She found page 8 of the Good Company memo to be a very good graphic illustration of
sorne of the results of the various targets. A 2°C increase results in 117 million more people exposed to
water scarcity along with disease and other consequences. A target of 1.5°C could save people from that
misery. She urged the Council to adopt the 1.5°C target.
(Written comments submitted to Pub]icComment@Edmonds.wa.gov are attached.)
6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 2020
3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2020
4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2020
5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
6. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
OSBORN CONSULTING, INC. FOR THE PHASE 2 & 3 STORM UTILITY
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
7. ACTION ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 6
1. CLIMATE TARGET RESOLUTION
Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the Council was provided a briefing at a recent
meeting regarding the Climate Action Plan. She relayed climate is one of the key issues of this century. The
City has been very proactive in working on climate -related issues.
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Settirtp, a Science -Based Target
Science -based Targets
Celsius
10
1.5°
2°
Fahrenheit
1.80
2.70
3.60
o A science -based climate target sets a rate of climate action that is aligned with keeping average
global temperature increases below a specified level of increase compared to pre -industrial
temperatures.
o Keeping global temperature increases below 2°C will allow the majority, but not all, of the
global population to avoid the worst social and economic effects of climate change (Paris
Agreement)
o The average temperature of the earth is approximately 1.2°C higher today than at the beginning
of the industrial revolution.
■ What are the options? What rates of GHG reduction are reouired:
Target
+1.0°C
350 ppm
+1.5°C
400 ppm
+2.0°C
450 ppm
Average Annual Rate of Reduction to Meet Target (rounded)
8%
1 5% 1 2%
Cumulative GHG Reduction compared to 2010 (values are rounded for
simplicity)
By 2020: 15% 13% 10%
By 2030: 70%
50%
35%
By 2050: 100%
100%
80%
o Targets assume global participation
How urgent is our situation?
o Graph of existing international and domestic activities and policies remain inadequate to
prevent a 2°C warming
■ Collective action beyond national plans, such state and local efforts in the U.S., is essential
in order to meet a 2°C or lower increase
• Physical conditions
Physical
Conditions
°
1.5 C
2.0°C
CO2
Ocean acidity increase 9%
Ocean acidi increase 24%
Frequency of warm extremes over
Frequency of warm extremes over land
land (PNW) increase 131%
(PNW) increase 350%
Temperature
Extreme heat: 14% of global
Extreme heat: 37% of global
population exposed to severe heat at
population exposed to severe heat at
least once every 5 years
least once every 5 years
Water
Population exposed to water scarcity
Population exposed to water scarcity
worldwide: 271 million
worldwide: 388 million
Ice
Sea -ice -free artic: at least 1 summer
Sea -ice -free artic: at least 10 summer
every 100 years
every 100 Xears
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 7
Species loss: 4% of vertebrates lose
Species loss: 8% of vertebrates lose at
at least half of their range
least half of their range
Species loss: 8% of plants lose at
Species loss: 16% of plants lose at
Vegetation
least half of their range
least half of their range
Species loss: 6% of insects lose at
Species loss: 18% of insects lose at
least half of their range
I least half of their ran e
■ CPC Goal Recommendation
o In 2019, the Mayor's CPC discussed different options, considering:
■ What's at stake?
■ What will public support?
■ What's achievable & how can it be done?
o CPC recommended the 1.5° C max. increase by 2050
■ Climate Target Resolution
o A draft resolution to formally recognize this target is included in the Council packet
o The resolution will inform the update of the Climate Action Plan
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Cynthia Pruitt was a great help during the five years she was the
Council liaison on the CPC. The Youth Commission also agreed to this target. If the Council approves this
resolution, she asked how the City will ensure the measurements are done correctly. Mr. Lien responded
the levels of reduction identified in the tracking model were for the 1.5°C target. If a different target was
selected, different levels would be established in the tracking model. Mark Johnson, PSA, clarified the
tracking tool was developed as part of the Climate Action Plan update; this overall target is one of variables
that can be adjusted in the tool. A different number would affect the target and the strategies would need to
be revised.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed support for the resolution. As Ms. Hope said, 'this is probably the
nrimary is.eile l,f this Pene.rntlnn Che. nointed ont tho.. 1 �� and tht- 1 50� C! IPn! P-hacPrl tnrapft ix/Prhae"
on Celsius; VC is 1.80 Fahrenheit and the 1.5°C is 2.7° Fahrenheit. One of her main concern in the Puget
Sound was the relationship to sea level rise. Although she was unsure there was a direct relationship, she
wanted the Council to address that moving forward. She requested Mr. Johnson speak to sea level rise.
Mr. Johnson said an in-depth analysis of the effects of sea level rise in the community had not been done
as part of the Climate Action Plan with regard to the targets. Background information was brought forward
and will be included in the Climate Action Plan update. Simple online tools can provide a general sense of
how much sea level rise could be expected under different scenarios. That is a different part of the issue, a
mitigation measure to minimize the amount of GHG and sea level rise is an adaptation question, what can
be done about the fact that there will be sea level rise with any of the scenarios, and what can be done to
slow the effect for future generations. Mr. Lien referred to page 271 of the packet which includes a
comparison of sea level rise globally with different targets; a 7-foot sea level rise globally with the 1.5°C
target and up to 15 feet with the 2°C target. Those numbers are based on the Surging Seas Seeing Choices
tool. There is more detailed study for Puget Sound; these numbers are on the higher end of the range in the
Puget Sound region.
Councilmember K. Johnson appreciated the work on GHG emissions, but she was raising sea level rise as
a concern. A new flood zone map adopted this year basically puts all the development in downtown
Edmonds along the seashore in the flood zone. Although that may be beyond the scope of this item, it is a
very important issue for the CPC and she wanted it on their agenda for future discussion.
Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for all work that has gone into this particularly by the
consultants. She asked whether data collection included the most current data or if it included data that had
been collected over a few years and then synthesized into a report. She was interested in having the freshest
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 8
data possible when making science -based decisions. She supported the 1.5°C target as it will support
environmental goals. She appreciated Councilmember K. Johnson's suggestion about also discussing sea
level rise as it pertained to the coastal community in Puget Sound. She noted the University of Washington
Climate Action Group has also developed estimates. Mr. Johnson said the inventory was developed in 2018
so 2017 was the last full year data was available. It provides a data point and adjustments are made going
forward based on population and other factors. Ms. Hope added that the project includes identification of
key measurable and trackable things which will help with tracking the things that the City can control.
Councilmember Paine commented if variations are seen in the data such as an outlier or a trend, she would
appreciate hearing that that there might be some other data to move the City to be more aggressive or that
efforts were beginning to be successful. She recognized that was not how peer review worked.
Councilmember L. Johnson echoed Ms. Pruitt's statement, she was she proud to be part of a community
that takes action on climate protection. She also appreciated that Edmonds recognizes global warming as
an environmental, health and equity issue. She appreciated the time the CPC put into this over the past few
years.
Councilmember Olson thanked the consultant and the CPC for the great work that has been done over the
past few years. She recognized that even though there was no money attached to this action item, this will
affect decision making and box the City into choices to be in compliance with this policy. It is overdue; we
are in this pickle environmentally because not enough priority has been given to the environment and it was
past time to get serious. She was going into this with her eyes fully open, that there would be a cost to the
City, but she felt strongly that it was something that needed to be done.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussions last year about the 2010 Climate Action Plan and how it
did not include the marsh or the marsh estuary. The marsh restoration project will have a tremendous impact
on blue carbon. She pointed out Hank Landau, who was on the CPC in 2010, is still on the CPC. She asked
Mr. Johnson to speak to blue carbon and the marsh estuary. Mr. Johnson explained blue carbon refers to
the carbon sequestration that happens in marsh restoration. Carbon sequestration in forests is one form of
sequestration; blue carbon has been advancing and there has been good science done in Puget Sound and it
is definitely a potential source for sequestration that could take place in the City. Additional study will be
required to determine exactly how much.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented another key factor in developing the Climate Action Plan is the
tree ordinance which Mr. Lien is working on. The City has lost a great deal of carbon sequestration by
removal of trees on private land, another issue that is tied to the total topic and needs to be addressed.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mr. Lien and Mr. Johnson for answering his questions via email.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1453, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL SETTING A SCIENCE BASED CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING TARGET OF
LIMITING THE GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE INCREASE TO 1.5 DEGREES CELSIUS
ABOVE PRE -INDUSTRIAL TEMPERATURES.
In recognition of the CPC's discussion about the feasibility of 1 °C versus 1.5°C targets, Councilmember L.
Johnson made the following motion:
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION TITLE TO READ, "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL SETTING A SCIENCE BASED CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING TARGET OF
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 9
LIMITING THE GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE INCREASE TO 1.5 DEGREES CELSIUS
OR LESS ABOVE PRE -INDUSTRIAL TEMPERATURES."
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed appreciation for the amendment. He offered a friendly amendment:
"...temperature increase to no more than 1.5 degrees above pre -industrial temperatures."
Councilmember L. Johnson restated the motion:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL SETTING A SCIENCE BASED CLIMATE CHANGE
PLANNING TARGET OF LIMITING THE GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE INCREASE
TO NO MORE TITAN 1.5 DEGREES CELSIUS ABOVE PRE -INDUSTRIAL TEMPERATURES."
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Sections 1 and 2 also needed to be changed to reflect that revision.
Councilmember L. Johnson restated the motion:
TO CHANGE THE TITLE TO, "...NO MORE THAN 1.5 DEGREES CELSIUS..." AS WELL AS
ADD "NO MORE THAN" PRIOR TO 1.5 DEGREES CELSIUS IN SECTIONS 1 AND 2.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested staff and the consultant weigh in on this minor change. Ms. Hope
said that minor change was not a problem; it was always assumed that 1.5°C was the maximum preferred
so stating no more than was acceptable and she agreed it should be consistent in Sections 1 and 2. She
envisioned the CPC would be comfortable with that change as well.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OFJULY 29 202U Previonsl
Consent Agenda Item 6.1
Councilmember Buckshnis read her proposed amendment to page 4 of the minutes, to replace the paragraph
that begins, "Mr. Bailey and Mr. Turley responded to questions regarding...."
"AFM — question regarding particular departments that have underspent every year and at the end of the
year, they transfer money here or there and it is done on a continues basis with funds being shifted. So,
they can shift funds within the budget (around-2:12:15 left)?
MB - short answer is yes, this issue comes up all the time and the issues of the structure and approach. But
MRSC would be advocating that there should be a robust discussion about between administration and
council and policy makers about any significant adjustment that the administration plans to make you say
routine and it is being reprioritized and policy makers are to align money with policy so how does that work
and go back to team sport and rationale on this issue and end of day, Council.
AFM - it occurs on a frequent basis and it's kind of feels like it is a bit unethical as Council appropriate
funds for a particular item at the beginning of the process and then the Administration goes ahead and shifts
it and it doesn't seem transparent and a little unethical. - -
MB again, its legal and important to have the conversation and in order to be on the same page and to ensure
that follow what needs to be done from a City level. There can be good reason sort what folks do in October
compared now and that again, it is good to talk about it. I recommend they come back to Council.
DB — I'll step in for Dave Turley or Scott James and we do have an amendment process that we do definitely
utilize when there is a shifting of funds. Notoriously our main budget has been underbudget 3-5 percent
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 10
every year and I have not seen a department utilize carry forwards or amendments for this process. So, I
have no idea what Adrienne is speaking about (-2:13)
Speaking about "this year" with a new Mayor — there was an incident with developing community fund
established and a transfer of funds was made from various department and you were right, its well within
his budget. But my question is shouldn't these transfers go through the amendment process as opposed to
BARS so that Council can see it and approve it. A citizen did turn this transaction into the Auditors for
their review as the City has used the amendment process.
MB- now we are going to get into talking to policy. The answer to that can be yes as a policy and again,
the mayor has legal authority. To the extent you as a Council have an established policy and practice that
looks at the movement of funds at a lower level that certainly is within your prerogative and what is in or
outside that is something you can talk about. Policy and organizational approaches are a good ways for
creating the conversation. You as a Council you need to have those policy in place and each City can use
whatever works for them as each City has different approaches to help them and just figure out what works
best and document that in the form of a policy.
DB 1 wanted to bring you up to speed but since last year, we did adopt a fund balance policy took us two
years to get there and so our fund balances are in good shape as you know we received a AAA rating so we
have a good policy.
DB (-2:11)
Digress backwards to the enterprise funds and one of the issues that I have seen over the past three years is
that we have tremendous carry -forwards on capital project that balloons our budget. Dayton Street Pump
station is a good example, they held off for one year to get a new part and so last year our carry -forwards
were over $7.0MM. (-2.11) which of courses caused the budget to continue to inflate. Is there any way we
can manage the budget to attempt to curtail those projects such as don't put money in the budget unless it
can be defined that it will be done in one of two years and not three or four? Or is it too difficult?
MB again this is a common problem. In Redmond we had a big problem with capital project and as you
say the money carry on. One option is that the RCW does permit the Council to reduce an appropriation
if there is a basis for that and if you get word that a project is not going to be pursued in a fiscal year and
you wanted to change that — you can go in a change that budget item and the reason I recommend this
sometimes is that when you adopt that ordinance and appropriated those monies — you have indeed
authorized those monies to be spent and as I said they can be spent within the context of that ordinance and
so they could be spent somewhere else. I am not suggesting that it happens — but to the extent that Council
thinks it's no longer a necessary plan Council can go in and adjust that fund so that it doesn't remain inflated
and in affect that would true up your budget and would be more consistent in what would be happened."
Mayor Nelson asked for clarification regarding Councilmember Buckshnis' intent. Councilmember
Buckshnis recalled there had been an intense discussion about the budget, carryforwards and normal
practices. Those details were omitted from the minutes and she felt it was important to include them.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented the amendment Councilmember Buckshnis was reading was
not in the packet. She suggested a better way would be for Jeannie Dines to prepare minutes from everything
that was said during the retreat. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the minutes are accurate except for
this one discussion. It was important for new Councilmembers to understand the CFP/CIP and the budgetary
process. She had asked Mr. Passey why the full discussion was not included like other minutes, recalling
he had suggested she read her proposed amendment into the record and to approve the minutes on the
Consent Agenda next week.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 1 I
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she noticed there were other things missing from the minutes. She
requested Jeannie do accurate minutes for the five hour meeting versus notes. If clarification is added in
one area, it should also be added elsewhere.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO HAVE JEANNIE GO THROUGH THE TAPES AND TRANSCRIBE THEM
INTO MINUTES VERSUS NOTES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
Councilmember Buckshnis said this extremely important aspect of the Council discussion needs to be
included. Mr. Bailey is the expert and he answers a lot of important questions. She did not see anything else
that was not included in the minutes.
Council President Fraley-Monil [as did not disagree, that was why she wanted the minutes of retreat redone
from notes into minutes so the discussion was captured. She agreed that was an important discussion that
had not been included. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled it was a 10-minute discussion. She did not recall
there being notes instead of minutes for a retreat in the past.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. STUDY ITEMS
1. CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE REPORT
Environmental Program Manger Kernen Lien reviewed Critical Area Biannual Report #6
• ECDC 23.40.055
o The director will provide a report to the city council during the first and third quarter each year,
summarizing critical area decisions that have been made since the previous report. The report
1 W. U II1%aLlV110.L11G UU.y1GI IdUGIJ1V11a11Ulll llWu.1....:l L�LJ 4L_AlLG_ __a pe VD 1:a:G0.1 _ aG::_J t_t __VG_GG_
made, including information on buffers and enhancements approved for each applicable
decision, a description of each approved restoration project, and other information specifically
requested by the council following the previous report.
Critical Area Determination
o Required prior to development if there has not been a critical area determination within the last
five years
• Determines whether or not there is a critical area on or adjacent to the site
o Determination
■ Waiver -No critical area on or adjacent to site
• Study Required -Critical area present on or adjacent to site
- Critical area review with building permit or land use application
o Staff conducts an initial review of GIS information
■ Examples
- Property with potential landslide hazard areas, slopes greater than 40%, erosion hazard,
stream, and wetland
_ -Property likely to be a waiver
o Site visit to verify conditions on GIS map
Summary of Determinations
o Exhibit 1 contains spreadsheet of critical area determinations since January 1, 2020
■ 104 applications for critical area determinations since January
- 60 "Waivers" Determinations
- 35 "Study Required" Determinations
- 9 Pending
■ Study Required
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 19, 2020
Page 12
- 28 -Erosion Hazard
- 18 -Landslide Hazard
- 8-Stream
- 3 -Fish and Wildlife Area (PHS)
Subsequent critical area determinations
o New critical area determination is required for properties whose previous critical area
determination is more than five years old
o Reduced application fee for subsequent critical area determination
0 38 Subsequent Critical Area Determinations
• Five changed from "Waiver" to "Study Required"
- Most due to the change in how erosion and landslide hazard areas are determined
■ Three changed from "Study Required" to "Waiver"
o Pre-2005 CAO update determined erosion and landslide hazards differently than current CAO
Critical Area Development review
o Projects on site with a "Study Required" determination requires review for consistency with
critical area regulations
o Three Hazard Tree Removal (allowed activity)
o One interrupted buffer
a Aerial view of an example of an interrupted buffer
it If site is physically separated and functionally isolated from a critical area, buffer does not
apply
o No buffer reduction or buffer averaging projects
Councilmember Paine asked about the standard used to determine a hazard tree. Mr. Lien answered most
of the time the City requires a report from a certified arborist using the International Society of
Arboriculture's tree risk assessment form. A certified arborist looks at the tree, completes the form and
there are four potential results: not a hazard, moderate hazard, high hazard or extreme hazard. if the tree is
determined to be a high or extreme hazard, it is considered a hazard tree. He clarified if a resident shows
him a picture of a dead tree next to their house, he does not require they pay for an arborist to document
that the tree is dead. A lot of times people do not completely remove the tree; they may top it to create a
wildlife snag and reduce it enough so the hazard no longer exists but it still provides wildlife function.
Councilmember Paine asked how many of the three this year required a risk assessment. Mr. Lien answered
if a tree is not obviously dead, an arborist report is required.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the list of critical area determinations and asked what "applied"
meant. Mr. Lien answered "applied" meant it had not yet been reviewed. When a resident applies, there are
one of two determinations, initial or updated; they are identified that way due to different fees.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for this report, recognizing how time consuming it
was to prepare.
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Mr. Lien for the information, recalling a time when this information
was not provided biannually. She commented on the importance of monitoring critical areas. She hoped the
reporting was relatively automated so it did not take a lot of time to prepare this semi-annual report. Mr.
Lien said he is working on getting the report to be more automated but is having to learning Sequel which
is not within his normal range of work activities.
HAINES WHARF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT INTRODUCTION
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained this is a City -initiated Comprehensive Plan
amendment to follow up on the Shoreline Management Program (SMP) update. He provided an aerial image
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 13
of the area, identifying four parcels in the Meadowdale area. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the
four parcels is currently Mixed Use Commercial; the upland properties are designed Single Family
Resource and most of the rest of the shoreline is designated Open Space. The four parcels are zoned
Commercial Waterfront (CW), the adjacent property is zoned Open Space, and the upland is zoned RS-20
(20,000 square foot minimum lot size) and RS-12 (1200 square foot minimum lot size). Mr. Lien reviewed:
• Old Shoreline Designation
o Urban Mixed Use Environment. Same designation the Port of Edmonds had. These areas have
been intensely developed with a mix of commercial uses, port facilities, multimodal transit
facilities, railroad facilities and limited light industrial uses.
• Current Shoreline Designation
o Aquatic I (Low Intensity). These areas are mostly characterized by aquatic ecosystems that
have been modified by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad bed fill that covers the
intertidal and transitional upland zones along the beach. The beach has been altered by seawalls
or large -rock riprap. These shoreline areas generally exhibit low -intensity development and
few overwater structures. In freshwater areas, there may be a significant number of docks and
piers serving residential areas.
• Site history
o Wooden barn like structure barged in 1939
• Original Haines Wharf operated as a full -service fishing facility for 30 years
o Approximately 1970, property sold and a second metal structure constructed in 1975
• Renamed Meadowdale Marina and shifted from full service sport fishing to primary boat
storage
o According to City's records, no business license since 2001
■ Business license applied for in 2008 but never issued
o Current owner applied for and received a Shoreline Substantial Permit in 2005 to reconstruct
then existing timber portion of pier
■ Permit recnani7ed structnres nn site were nnnc.nnfnrminv and cnnriitinns nciderl that nnterl
if structures were moved any distance, they would have to be demolished. Other conditions
required compliance with conditions imposed by Army Corps. Of Engineers, Washington
State Department of Ecology, Fish & Wildlife, Natural Resources and National Marine
Fisheries Service
• Property owner unsuccessful in receiving all the approvals to reconstruct the pier
o Over time Haines Wharf structure and the wooden pier deteriorated and no longer exists
o The metal structure still exists and is connected by a small walkway
o Identified in SMP restoration plan
ECDC 20.00.050
o Amendment to the comprehensive plan maybe adopted only if the following findings are made:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan and is in the public interest;
B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or
welfare of the city;
C. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the
city; and
D. In the case of an amendment to the comprehensive policy plan map, the subject parcels are
physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use
development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility
with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints.
Consistent with Comprehensive Plan
o Commercial Development Goal A. Commercial development in Edmonds shall be located to
take advantage of its unique locational opportunities while being consistent and compatible
with the character of its surrounding neighborhood. All commercial development should be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 14
designed and located so that it is economically feasible to operate a business and provide goods
and services to Edmonds
o A.2 Parcels of land previously planned or zoned for commercial use but which are now or will
be identified as unnecessary, or inappropriate for such use by additional analysis, should be
reclassified for other uses.
o Application of above to these parcels:
• Located in a residential neighborhood
■ Can only be accessed via local streets
Unsigned railroad crossing
■ Not compatible with surrounding neighborhood and no safe access
o ECDC 24.60.030.D.9 Aquatic I. Commercial and light industrial use and development are
prohibited, except that water -dependent uses and appurtenant structures may be permitted
subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline area
designation.
o Two abutting upland shoreline environments (Urban Railroad and Shoreline Residential 1)
prohibit commercial uses and development
o Site should be reclassified to Open Space consistent with Commercial Development Goal A.2
• Open Space
o Open Space Goal A. Open space must be seen as an essential element determining the character
and quality of the Edmonds environment, in accordance with the following policies.
■ A.2. All feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces:
OF A.2.b Areas which have an abundance of wildlife, particularly where there are linked
wildlife corridors or habitats of rare or endangered species.
o Open Space Goal B. Edmonds possesses a most unique and valuable quality in its location on
Puget Sound. The natural supply of prime recreational open space, particularly beaches and
waterfront areas, must be accessible to the public, in accordance with the following policies:
B.1 Edmonds saltwater shorelines and other waterfront areas should receive special
consideration in all future acquisition and preservation programs.
o Numerous fish and wildlife species depend on the Edmonds shoreline and adjacent shoreland
habitats for either part or all of their life stages.
o Eight species of salmonids
o Endangered and threatened species: Puget Sound Chinook, bull trout, Steller sealion, and Puget
Sound Orcas
o Open Space Goal B specifically recognizes that the Puget Sound and our saltwater shorelines
should receive special consideration for preservation.
o Open Space designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
• Not Detrimental
o The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or
welfare of the City;
■ Implements the Shoreline Master Program
• Help preserve and enhance habitat for federally listed species
■ Access via unsignalized crossing safety concern
■ Low intensity Open Space designation is more appropriate for the site
• Appropriate balance of land uses
o The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City;
■ One other area with Mixed Use Commercial designation
• Urban upland areas more appropriate for commercial uses than Puget Sound tide lands
■ Other areas with commercial designations
■ Removal of this nonconforming site will not impact the appropriate balance of land uses
• Physically suitable
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 15
o In the case of an amendment to the comprehensive policy plan map, the subject parcels are
physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use
developments(s), including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with
adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints.
■ Not physically suitable for current Mixed Use Commercial designation
■ Landward neighborhood is single-family residential area
r Site can only be accessed via local roads
■ Railroad tracks imposed a physical obstacle to access site
• SMP prohibits commercial uses and development
• Proposed Open Space is more appropriate for intended land use and more compatible with
the adjoining land uses
Planning Board recommendation
o Planning Board held a public hearing on April 10, 2019 and forwarded a recommendation of
approval
o Shortly after Planning Board public hearing, City approached by someone considering
purchase of the site for redevelopment. Comprehensive Plan change delayed to allow them to
do due diligence. They did not pursue anything, so Comprehensive Plan amendment is
proceeding.
o City Council public hearing scheduled for September 1st
Councilmember Olson agreed with the assertion that the parcels are not appropriate for commercial uses
unless it had something to do with the waterfront. She inquired about the ability to use the property for
moorage, paddleboards or kayaks rental, etc. She asked if the concern was there was no railroad access to
safely reach the water. Mr. Lien answered the railroad has not allowed access; they allowed the owner to
reach the property but were not keen on improving access at that location. The current use of the site is
nonconforming because it is not allowed by the SMP. When a nonconforming use ceases for a period of a
year or it is an intermittent use over two years, it is no longer an allowed use on the site. There has been no
business license for the site since 2001, so at least 19 years since there was a commercial use, and a
nonconforming use cannot be reestablished after that period of time. Councilmember Olson asked if that
was based on the SMP, citizen desires, or the code. Mr. Lien answered the SMP went through a public
process and it represents what the City wanted for its shoreline areas.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented it appears the Haines Wharf property, and Vladan Milosavljevic
(Milo) have had a lot of issues of with the property. Mr. Lien advised Mr. Milo obtained the shoreline
permits in 2005, but had difficulty getting permits on site. The initially shoreline permit was to rebuild the
wooden structure, but it has since deteriorated into the Puget Sound. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if
there was any liability, referencing a letter from Mike Clugston. Mr. Lien explained that letter was related
to the timing of the shoreline permits and whether they were still valid. Under the old SMP, a shoreline
permit is good for five years, an applicant has two years to start a project and five years to complete it and
the timeline did not start until all the other permits were received. Mr. Milo was unable to obtain the other
necessary permits. The updated SMP includes a time limit for obtaining the other permits; if it takes five
years to obtain those other permits, the City's shoreline authorization goes away.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the status of a creosote removal project that was submitted to WRIA
8. Mr. Lien answered it is on WRIA 8's list so a funding request can be made and it is in the SMP as a
restoration site.
Councilmember Paine observed the last activity on the site was due diligence by a potential purchaser and
asked when that occurred. Mr. Lien answered the day after the Planning Board public hearing, the City was
contacted by a potential buyer who appeared to have resources to do something with site. The
Comprehensive Plan change was paused and not brought to Council to wait and see if other changes to the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 16
Comprehensive Plan or SMP would be sought. Changes would be required to the SMP to allow
development of the site. Nothing more was heard from the potential purchaser. The last business license
for the site was 2001.
Councilmember Paine asked about the last time staff has had correspondence with Mr. Milo. Mr. Lien
advised he has sent emails, letters and a certified letter informing him that this was being considered by the
Council and has not heard anything from him. Councilmember Paine asked about notice provided to the
owners of the parcels whose designation would be changed and asked whether another public hearing would
be required since it has been 1'/2 years since the Planning Board public hearing. Mr. Lien answered the four
parcels are owned by Snohomish County, City of Edmonds, Jeri Ann Merritt, and Meadowdale Marina
LLC. Snohomish County does not have an issue with the change; they acquired the property through tax
default. Mail to Jeri Ann Merritt has been returned. In addition to noticing the property owners of last year's
public hearing, notice was provided to property owners within 300 feet of the site and the site was posted
with a blue land use sign. A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination was issued 3-4 weeks
ago and public notice was provided to the property owners within 300 feet and the site was posted, and
notice provided to agencies. Notice will also be issued by the clerk's office for the Council's September 1
public hearing.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the land use designation is changed in on the Comprehensive Plan,
does the City need to use its power of imminent domain to purchase the land and make it open space. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday answered it was one thing to have a regulation that limits the use on the site and other
thing to own the property. This is step that makes the regulations consistent with the fact that there is no
feasible way to obtain permits for development on the property as has already been established. This action
is essential confirming the regulations with the reality it has not been possible for the owner to obtain
permits to do anything.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the City was obligated to purchase the open space from the landowner
who cannot develop it. Mr. Taraday answered there is no obligation to purchase property merely because
the City was confirming its regulations with what is effectively the status quo. This property has been
essentially unused since at least 2001 which led him to the conclusion it was not usable and if was not
usable, it did not have market value. Councilmember K. Johnson concluded the City was not under any
obligation to reimburse the property owner. Mr. Taraday answered if the City was planning to take title to
the property, some type of compensation, probably small, would probably be required. If the property will
remain owned by other people, he was not aware of anything that would force the City to purchase it; it
was not a regulatory taking.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled during the SMP update there was something about damage to 75% of
a structure would require removal of the remaining pier. Mr. Lien explained the 75% rule is part of the
nonconforming code; if a structure is damaged to more than 75% of its replacement value, it has to be
rebuilt in full conformance with the City's code. The condition for the shoreline permit issued in 2005 stated
the nonconforming use could not be moved any distance and if the structure were moved, it would need to
come into full conformance with the code. The SMP language was changed slightly, allowing a
nonconformance to be moved it if made it more conforming. There is nothing that can be done to this site
to make it more conforming. The current SMP does not allow new over -water structures so something like
that could not be built.
With regard Councilmember K. Johnson's earlier question regarding open space, Mr. Lien explained
tonight's discussion is related to the Comprehensive Plan designation which would be Open Space. The
site is also zoned CW. If the Council approves the Comprehensive Plan amendment, a rezone of the site
will also need to be considered. A lot of the shoreline is currently zoned RSW-12, residential water 1200
minimum lot size. The area in Edmonds around Lake Ballinger has that zoning designation. It makes sense
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 17
around Lake Ballinger, but does not make sense in tidelands as single family homes would not be allowed.
The Zoning code has a Marine Resource zone but the current Zoning map does not have Marine Resource
zone. His research found that before the City went to a digitized map, the old mylar zoning maps had a
Marine Resource zoning designation (RSW-12) outside the City's official boundary. If the Comprehensive
Plan amendment is approved, a rezone of the tideland area will be required, potentially to Marine Resource.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she was surprised to hear there was a proposal for removing the creosote
logs because it was her understanding nothing could be done and we have to just wait for nature to take its
course. She asked if some of the creosote logs and debris could be removed from Haines Wharf. Mr. Lien
said that is the restoration identified in the SMP and was put in WRIA 8's study. Removal of creosote piers
throughout Puget Sound is a restoration activity.
Councilmember Olson asked about the recent proposed use, recognizing that the potential buyer had walked
away. Mr. Lien answered commercial type uses such as moorage, potentially a restaurant, an office,
moorage for a large boat for tours of Puget Sound, generally commercial water -oriented activity. Another
issue is there is no parking at the site; parking would need to be landward of the pier and there is nowhere
for commercial development parking.
Councilmember Olson asked if the City stands a slightly higher chance of being sued by the landowner
with this change for what they perceive as a lost opportunity cost with regard to what they thought they
could use the and for versus just leaving it alone. Mr. Taraday said he was having trouble determining an
answer to that question, but this was on the margins of things. There are a lot of facts that point to this
property be unusable and having no market value in its current condition under the current regulations.
When property is essentially valueless to begin with, it's hard to say that changing the Comprehensive Plan
designation and potentially later the zoning designation would take value away from nothing.
Hypothetically, if the property were worth $1000, does changing Comprehensive Plan and zoning
designation make worth $900? He said he was unable to answer that question. If the City were changing
the Comprehensive Plan designation on developable property to Open Space, that could potentially be a
regulatory taking. He did not consider this developable property. If there was an argument that this was
developable property, that question should be considered He did not see how it was developable knowing
the history and how hard the owner has tried to get permits from other agencies to make development
happen.
Mr. Lien said the property does not have zero value and referenced minimal reasonable economic use. The
Aquatic l zone does allow some use of the site, but it cannot be a commercial use. The site could be used
for a private use such as private boat storage but it cannot be commercially developed under the current
SMP.
Councilmember Buckshnis said if she was a property owner and paying taxes, the property would have
some value to her. She agreed with designating it Open Space, but felt the City has some liability or has to
purchase the land since it was being downzoning to relatively nothing. Mr. Taraday answered if the
Comprehensive Plan designation had the effect of taking away uses that would otherwise be allowed in the
existing shoreline designation, the City would want to take a harder look at changing the Comprehensive
Plan designation. If the change to the Comprehensive Plan designation and ultimately -the zoning can be
done in way that is consistent with the underlying shoreline uses that are allowed such as the ones Mr. Lien
mentioned such as a personal marina, it is not a regulatory taking.
Mr. Lien said that is purpose of this Comprehensive Plan amendment, to bring it into alignment with SMP.
The site is nonconforming and it hasn't been used so the nonconforming use cannot be reestablished. In his
opinion, the Comprehensive Plan change was not taking away any use that was currently allowed; it was
bringing the Comprehensive Plan into consistency with SMP and the Marine Resource zone does allow
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 18
private moorage. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that the Comprehensive Plan
designation would be Open Space, but the zoning would be something else. Mr. Lien agreed.
Mr. Lien advised that a Council public hearing is scheduled on September 1st
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FIREWORKS CODE
Assistant Fire Marshal Karl Fitterer introduced himself, explaining he has been with South County Fire
(SCF) for 27 years and a firefighter/paramedic for 32 years. His concept of fireworks changed after
becoming a medic and seeing the damage they cause. As a firefighter, he saw the damage to homes and
families displaced and became an advocate. As a safety officer, he focuses on risk reduction and lowering
the risk of fireworks. As stated at the July 28"' meeting, there has been a lot of property loss in South
Snohomish County, $3.7 million since 2005. On July 4, 2020, two people were killed, one in Marysville
and one in Mt. Vernon. The fire department's statistics related to fireworks are conservative; if it cannot be
proved it was absolutely fireworks, it is not a fireworks claim.
Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer said the ban has resulted in less fireworks; over half the cities in Snohomish
County have banned fireworks. In both 2018 and 2020 there were 92 fires, but there was over $161,000 in
damage in 2018 and $67,000 in 2020. He offered to return at any time to answer questions or provide
information. He understood the concern with fines, however, fireworks have been banned for several years,
yet people still insist on lighting fireworks, terrorizing pets and pets owners, etc. It has become not a
celebration of the U.S., and people need to learn to celebrate in a different way. Part of SCF's role would
be to educate the public as well as to protect the City Council from people being upset about the fines. He
anticipated 1-2 years of education before the fines are implemented and SCF continuing to work with the
police department. Education is the key, however, there is a group that won't stop until they are fined.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the current fine in Edmonds is $50. Assistant Fire Marshal
Fitterer answered he believed that was accurate; SCF is not commissioned so they cannot write fines but
Edmonds Police Department and the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office can. Council President Fraley-
Monillas asked the fine for a first offense in surrounding cities. Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer answered
he did do not know; Everett's fine is low, he guessed it was $100. Mayor Nelson advised Everett's was
$125 and the second offense was a misdemeanor. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Mayor Nelson
if he knew the fine in other cities around Edmonds. Mayor Nelson asked if he could respond.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO ALLOW MAYOR NELSON TO ANSWER HER QUESTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Nelson said off the top of his head he was aware of Everett's fine which was $125 for the first
offense and a second offense within 1-5 years was a misdemeanor. Lynnwood's first offense is a
misdemeanor. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked about the fine in Lynnwood and Shoreline. Mayor
Nelson answered there was no fine in Lynnwood's code. Edmonds' current fine of $50 was established
almost 25 years ago; with current inflation, it would be $125.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked about the police chief's thoughts on this change. Mayor Nelson
said he did not want to speak on his behalf other than to say he was generally supportive. He would prefer
Councilmembers communicate with him directly. Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled Acting Chief
Lawless had already talked to the Council once and indicated via email that he was fine with it. She
questioned whether there was enough staff to process thefines and asked whether the police department
issued tickets on the 4" of July. Mayor Nelson said he did not have those statistics. Council President
Fraley-Monillas asked if anyone had talked to the judge or any other resources. Mayor Nelson indicated he
had not.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 19
Councilmember Olson agreed knowing what surrounding communities were doing would be of some value.
She pointed out it often costs a large amount to buy fireworks so these are people who have some means.
For that reason she did not think the proposed penalty of $250 was high enough and preferred $500 for a
first offense. She was happy it would not be a misdemeanor on the first offense because she would prefer
someone not have that on their permanent record. She recommended the fine on the first offense be high
enough to hurt, otherwise people will just take turns taking a chance on a first offense.
Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer agreed the people that are the bigger offenders also have fairly deep
pocketbooks and do not seem to care as much. it is difficult for Edmonds Police Department to staff for
that short period of time and SCF personnel can be used to weed out the apologetic offenders from the ones
who are belligerent. SCF simply has to radio the Edmonds Police Department and they respond. He
recommended educating first and then fining those who are not educatable.
COUncilmember Buckshnis thanked Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer for his service. She agreed with the
importance of education, but after living in Edmonds for 20 years and hearing fireworks, enforcement is
also very important. She recalled Chief Hovis saying the police chief, fire marshal or their designees are
authorized to enforce and asked whether SCF will enforce the code. Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer said
fire department personnel have to be commissioned to write fines; Edmonds Police Department and
Snohomish County Sheriff's Office would have to be on board with that. Councilmember Buckshnis asked
whether Snohomish County has a ban on fireworks, noting Esperance is in the middle of Edmonds.
Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer said a ban was passed but it does not go into effect until 20201.
Councilmember L. Johnson said when her children were small, they lived in Snoqualmie and people lit
fireworks everywhere and there were a number of tragic and nearly tragic events. She recalled throwing her
body over her infant son to protect him from misfiring fireworks. She watched a neighbor's home burn
down after a bottle rocket smoldered on their roof for several hours, unnoticed because the owners were on
vacation. A year later, Snoqualmie banned fireworks and their fine is $250 for each violation for possession
and $700 each violation for discharge. She fully supported the change to the fireworks code. She thanked
Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer for providing his perspective.
Councilmember Paine thanked Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer and hoped the change to the fireworks code
could be put in place quickly. In the past if a responsible person wanted to light fireworks, they would take
the necessary precautions, but that was no longer the situation. She supported developing the commission
documents once the ordinance is adopted so that SCF would have ticket writing capability. She recalled
fireworks were a big issue when she was doorbelling particularly after the 4`1 of July, but also fireworks
that we lit on other occasions such as after sporting events and said there were better ways to celebrate. She
was sensitive to the issue of someone being cited for a misdemeanor, but this is fully within everyone's
decision making capability. The court system is able to handle infractions and misdemeanors and it will be
a normal part of the process.
Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for everything the fire department does, recalling she had to
call due to tree that fell and set her house on fire and the fire department provided excellent service. She
looked forward to having the changes to the fireworks code adopted as soon as possible: Assistant Fire
Marshal Fitterer said SCF's statistics are for the week prior and the week after the 4' of July. There are also
a few instances outside that timeframe, including a grass fire in Edmonds a couple weeks ago that was
started by fireworks. There are also issues with fireworks on New Year's and although it is a wetter season,
accidents still happen.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented it was important to have as much information as possible. In
addition to the property loss and injuries for Snohomish County, she expressed interest in statistics for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 20
Edmonds in recent years. She agreed education was a major part of enforcement; the process can include
education, a warning and fines. She questioned who would be liable if an incident involved minors, whether
the parents or the minor would be liable. She anticipated there were so many incidents this year because
the 4"' of July celebration was canceled as well as the proximity of the Indian reservations where illegal
fireworks can be purchased. It will also be important to educate the public on the types of fireworks that
are illegal.
Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer said an individual has to be 18+ years old to buy and possess those fireworks.
He anticipated the parent would be ticketed for a child setting off fireworks; there can also be child
endangerment depending on the caliber of the fireworks. Councilmember K. Johnson said since it has been
a civil complaint in the past, it would be nice to know how many civil complaints went forward. There are
many ways to solve this problem and she wanted to ensure she had all the information she needed to make
a decision. Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer said 2020 was the first year there was not a house property loss
in the City of Edmonds. A few trees were lost including an 80-foot cedar, a lot of bushes and garbage cans.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
SWITCH THE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE COMING UP. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
INCLUSION OF CITIZEN EMAIL ADDRESSES IN MINUTES.
Councilmember Buckshnis said it came to her attention that as of August 4"', public comment that is
included in the minutes includes citizens' email addresses. She sent an example from the July 19 where the
email addresses were not included to the City Clerk and City Attorney. Citizens are concerned that the
inclusion of their email address in the public record is an invasion of their privacy and they wanted to know
why that had changed. She spoke to Mr. Passey and Mr. Taraday and requested citizens' email address not
be included in the minutes. She agreed including citizens' email addresses could be liability and a privacy
issue because the public would have access to the email addresses.
City Clerk Scott Passey explained the Council's Legislative Assistant Maureen Judge compiles the public
comments and sends them to the minutes writer. Ms. Judge changed the way she did that a couple weeks
and instead of doing a lot of formatting, she copied and pasted the email directly from Outlook into Word.
That is when the email addresses started showing up; if that is a problem, she could be directed to leave the
email addresses out of the minutes.
City Attorney Mr. Taraday said if there is a public records request for the original emails, the City may not
be able to redact the email addresses. It is one thing to take them out of the packet, but quite another to
redact them in response to a public records request. He did not want to create a false impression among the
public that the City can protect their email addresses and keep them confidential because he doubted that
could be done.
Councilmember K. Johnson said one of ways of dealing with this is public comment during the meeting,
because during public comment on Zoom, speakers are only required to give their name and residency. She
offered that as an option for anyone who wishes to remain anonymous from a public record request
standpoint.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said that was her question, whether a public records request could obtain
email addresses. If someone put their address on a letter, she asked if that would that be revealed in a public
records request. Mr. Taraday said he did not want to speak in blank statements because it depends on the
context and also because he was not the person in his law firm that specializes in this topic. Anytime
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 21
someone contacts the City with identifying information, they are potentially creating a public record that
will not be redactable.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she asked Ms. Judge to change how she was preparing the public
comments and to include the entire email. Ms. Judge was spending abnormal amounts of time reformatting
and cutting and pasting documents. For example, the issue of bike lanes took her 1-2 full days to do public
comments. Certainly, Ms. Judge can delete the email address although as Mr. Taraday mentioned, it may
be considered a public record.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she preferred to have this as an action item next week. Due to COVID,
citizens are beyond stressed out and do not like the Zoom process. She has encouraged citizens to make
public comment which is the only vehicle other than three minutes via Zoom. She recognized all emails
could be revealed in public records request, but the information is generally only sent to the requester and
not in the Council packet. She preferred to err on common sense, individuals are trying to provide public
comment during the pandemic and it is important that they feel they can say what they want and not have
their email address available to anyone who can then contact them. During the pandemic, the City should
attempt to facilitate the issue of privacy for citizens who are attempting to provide comment. Not everyone
wants to speak on Zoom or has the capability of participating via Zoom. She preferred to have this as an
action item next week for further discussion.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he had no problem with not including email addresses in the minutes. The
information in response to a public records request is not only provided to the requester, it is available
online and anyone can access it. Although the email address would not be included in the minutes, in his
experience, the records provided in response to a public records request are all posted publicly.
Council President Fraley-Monillas did not understand why this needed to be on next week's agenda as
everyone seemed to be in agreement with deleting email addresses from the information included in the
minutes and Mr. Taraday could report in the future whether that information would be publicly disclosable.
Mayor Nelson suggested a motion to direct Ms. Judge to no longer cut and paste the email addresses.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, noting this was a discussion item. Mayor Nelson ruled point
taken.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said a motion was not necessary, it was an administrative action to direct
the Council Assistant not to include the email address in public comments.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Ms. Judge did not include email addresses in the past.
Counci Imember Buckshnis wanted to ensure the public knew their email addresses for public comment will
not be part of the packet although they would be available as part of a public records request.
5. REVIEW OF COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1),
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS
ABSTAINING.
Councilmember L. Johnson recognized this is a draft, a possible starting point for the Council to, after
discussing the merits of, consider amending to strengthen and clarify. She viewed this as an opportunity to
discuss improved civility and decorum, to address concerns over Council interaction with staff and to clarify
Council roles with respect to boards and commissions. This does not silence Councilmembers nor prevent
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 22
bringing forward, discussing or debating issues though it does require doing so with civility and respect.
The ten commandments of effective Council meetings states we should not allow legitimate critique of
policy and practice to become a personal attack aimed at the person who devised the policy or implements
the practice.
Councilmember L. Johnson assured this has been her undertaking from the beginning to present. Draft
versions were shared with the city attorney, city clerk and HR for guidance, with the legislative assistant
for clarification on a few points, as well as excellent wordsmithing help from one Councilmember shortly
after his appointment. The continued claim that she is a cover for another's effort is both insulting and
unfounded. Instead of speaking to the substance of the issue, there is a focus on experience that includes
attacking character and motive which pretty much makes her point for this discussion. Unfortunately
attacking a woman's experience in an attempt to discredit her is as old as time. As one Councilmember
pointed out, the men who were new to Council four years ago were not subject to repeated mention of their
newness. New or not, Councilmembers are elected to legislate and though there have been attempts to
insinuate otherwise, the legislative process has been followed. It is now up to Council to accept, amend or
reject.
Councilmember Olson thanked Council for changing this to a discussion item. Last week the Council talked
about the points in the proposed code of conduct but never got to the bigger picture of the fact that there
was an existing code of conduct, what its failings were, what needed to be improved, just the overall concept
of the problem and what any update or change was trying to fix. When she was elected to Council, she was
counseled that there had been a code of conduct done by a Council long ago and that this Council needed
to develop a new code, which reasonably led her to believe there wasn't a code of conduct in effect. In view
of the code of conduct that is in currently in effect, adopted via Resolution 1306, there have been huge
violations of that code. When that code of conduct showed up in the packet, she learned it there had been a
two-year process to develop it. She also learned that that code of conduct was developed by a
Councilmember at the time who had almost 40 years of related education and experience in social work,
counseling and mediation, all very relevant to developing a code of conduct.
Councilmember Olson pointed out the Council has completely disregarded the existing code of conduct,
developed by that experienced Councilmember and another Councilmember over a two year process that
was initiated by the Council themselves. She questioned how the code of conduct could be working if the
Council was not even aware that it existed. The conversations about conduct have had some value, even
the conversations last week about new, proposed conduct including enforcement which the existing code
of conduct does not have. Although there has been some value in those conversations, there have also been
some downsides.
Councilmember Olson said the accusations about squelching conversation may feel unfair because they
were probably unintentional by the drafter of the code. In fact, that was one of her initial concerns; if a
Councilmember was worried about being censured or publicly called out, they might be less inclined to
speak freely. For example being respectful and it is the delivery that matters, she did not necessarily agree
when it was all subjective. What one person thinks is respectful or something that shouldn't be said, to
someone else it is critical to the conversation and something that needs to be vetted. She cautioned against
creating a hostile work environment for Councilmembers. Although it is important to treat staff respectfully,
it is most important to the democratic process that Councilmembers are able to have conversations and not
watching their Ps and Qs to the extent that something that is pertinent to the conversation isn't said. She
concluded it is too subjective.
Councilmember Paine said codes of conduct are important and two aspects are really important. First, it
helps define the culture and the cultural development for behavior as a new Council. She disagreed with
Councilmember Olson that everyone did not know there was an existing code of conduct; she was certain
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 23
that more seasoned Councilmembers knew and she knew, and that broad generalization did not advance the
discussion. Councilmembers are all well prepared to talk about what is needed in a code of conduct. It has
been done once before, it is part of the governance work and is important as part of building the Council's
own culture. Second, expectations need to be clear and members held accountable through a code of
conduct.
Councilmember Paine relayed an excellent article in Municipal Service Research Center (MSRC) by Ann
Macfarlane, "Sanctioning Rogue Board Members," that talks about conduct using Roberts Rules. The
existing code of conduct is good; the Council can work on the proposed code of conduct to build it out for
the Council's own purposes and that will be important for the Council. There have been examples this year
of unproductive, loose language and particularly during the last six months of 2019, but that was a different
Council. The Council is here to legislate; some of it is related to the internal workings of the City and some
of it is for the broader community. The Council has dealt with and will continue to deal with tough things.
Whether a Councilmember has been on the Council for 7'/2 montbs, 7'/z years or longer, all are well prepared
to make adjustments, changes and suggestion regarding the code of conduct that will advance the internal
governance and allow the Council to be more productive.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not consider Resolution 1306 a code of conduct, especially
when compared to surrounding cities' codes of conduct. It is perhaps a guideline for how people should
behave, but it is not a code of conduct compared to the document Councilmember L. Johnson wrote.
Resolution 1306 was written 7-8 years ago; good personnel documents should be reviewed more frequently
than every 7-8 years. She said the elephant in the room is the censure. Her research found there had only
been one censure in Edmonds in 25 years. Councilmembers could have been censured in the past for hostile
work environments, bully behavior, etc. but the Council chose not to, choosing to handle it in other ways.
No one should fear a censure; a censure is nothing more than people writing memo regarding someone's
behavior. As far as she was concerned, it could be called something other than a censure if that term was
concerning.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested talking about the updated code of conduct and the only way
to do that was to put a motion on the floor. She will refrain at this point from making a motion and looked
forward to working through the document that Councilmember L. Johnson spent a long time preparing.
Council President Fraley-Monillas assured she had nothing to do with the drafting of the proposed code of
conduct. She reviewed it at one point just as all Councilmembers have reviewed it. The proposed code of
conduct was prepared by Councilmember L. Johnson with the help of some others, but she was not one of
them and she took offense at people calling this her document. She was aware that Councilmember L.
Johnson and other citizens had concern with the Council's behavior last year and that a group of people
were interested in making the Council an enjoyable place to work and for people to run for office. She
expressed her appreciation for everything Councilmember L. Johnson has done, commenting it shows
initiative and an interest in moving forward to try to create a better Council.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Councilmember L. Johnson saying this was a draft, but the Council
had a lengthy discussion last week. She asked if any of the suggestions made last week had been
incorporated into an updated draft. COUttcilmember L. Johnson they were not. Councilmember K. Johnson
asked why not. Councilmember L. Johnson said that would be difficult to do because there could be
competing or conflicting suggestions. In her viewpoint the best way to strengthen or clarify the document
was through the amendment process.
Councilmember K. Johnson questioned the point of a discussion if the intent is to go to the amendment
process. She expressed concern that this was Councilmember L. Johnson's body of work; Council President
Fraley-Monillas has said she didn't participate in drafting it, but neither have any of the other
Councilmembers. If Councilmember L. Johnson is ignoring the Council's comments, it is difficult for it to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 24
be a code of conduct for the entire Council. She requested Councilmember L. Johnson consider this
fundamental problem moving forward. It doesn't make sense start to start from Councilmember L.
Johnson's opinion; the previous process took two years and included everyone's input and discussion. She
recalled the Council worked with consultant and had discussion at retreats. It is a very important process,
but it needs to not only be a legislative process but a collaborative process.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked to respond. Councilmember K. Johnson said no thank you. Mayor Nelson
requested Councilmembers address their remarks to the chair and not to each other.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he appreciated a lot of the added value and specificity in the proposed
code. Resolution 1306 which he was aware of after being appointed and possibly before, has some great
points, guidelines and general guidance that most adults in a professional work environment, whether public
or private sector, are aware of. Councilmembers' role on Council is more definitive than Resolution 1306
and he appreciated the specifics, procedures and guidance in the proposed code. There is obviously
opportunity for amendments to further improve it and to collaborate and make it a document that people
are proud of and that creates a work environment that everyone can adhere to and support. He hoped the
Council could move forward with that process as it will benefit the current and future Councils. In
organizations he has been involved in, policies and procedures and bylaws are reviewed every 2-3 years. It
has been 7-8 years so it's reasonable to consider updating the code of conduct.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she spent many months working on Resolution 1306. Her request has been
for a complete packet including past minutes to show how the code of conduct was created and that it was
an extremely collaborative process. Three Councilmembers have been Council President, this information
should have been provided to new Councilmembers, recalling when she joined the Council she received a
booklet from then -Council President Steve Bernheim. The minutes of last week's meeting reflect the
Council's review of each section in the proposed code and comments that it is extremely subjective from
the perception of someone who different than she is. She referred to minutes from May 2020 where
Councilmember L. Johnson criticized her behavior.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested establishing a committee to look at all the policies and as a Council
determining who should work on the code of conduct. With regard to the references provided today, she
said Wisconsin is not a good example of a code of conduct. The code of conduct should be updated if that
is the will of the Council. The Council should also consider the code of ethics which she and former
Councilmember Bloom worked on along with the code of conduct. It is important to have a lot of input,
research regarding the source of the material and to listen to what citizens are saying. Citizens elect
Councilmembers and want to see how they are policing each other. Councilmembers are all professionals
who know how to interact with each other. She cannot change anyone's perception of her, only that person
themselves can change their perception.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has not read anything saying this is the Council President's code and
in fact she asked Councilmember L. Johnson last week if Council President Fraley-Monillas had been
involved. Her concern was the subjectivity of the code and that it was developed by one person without any
direction from Council. She suggested the Council step back and collect themselves. She is waiting to hear
about pandemic -related issues and instead the Council is worried about their interaction when they should
be concerned with the budget, walkable Edmonds, etc. She suggested the code go back to the drawing
board.
Councilmember L. Johnson thanked the Council for their comments. It was unfortunate if any
Councilmembers left last week or are entering this week feeling as if their concerns were ignored. When
the Council considered the rules of procedure, unlimited comments were provided by Councilmembers and
it became a mess and it was necessary to return to the original starting point. Learning from that effort, she
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 25
said the fairest way was to make changes to the proposed code via the amendment process. She apologized
if anyone felt ignored.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the Council works by idea, not by large groups of people. Just as
Councilmember Distelhorst is working on a great program, he hasn't had a bunch of other Councilmembers
working with him and the Council may amend his proposal. She did not have a problem with
Councilmember L. Johnson working on this independently. The process is not to add everyone's opinion,
that is done via vote. If a Councilmember can get four votes for their opinion, it passes. She said Resolution
1306 was a disaster and it took months to complete due to push back from a variety of people. Although
Councilmember Buckshnis said she wrote the code of ethics, Council President Fraley-Monillas said she
actually wrote the code of ethics using a document from another agency and amended to apply to Edmonds.
She commented there were a lot of incorrect comments. She objected to a Councilmember raising their
hand, likely to disagree that she wrote the code of ethics.
Councilmembers Distelhorst and Buckshnis raised points of order regarding Council President Fraley-
Monillas' comments.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said being unwilling to consider the proposed code of conduct was a
slash at Councilmember L. Johnson and all the work she has done.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED THE CODE OF CONDUCT.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating this was a discussion item. Mayor Nelson ruled
point taken.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked to finish her statement, pointing out although it is a study item,
four votes can move it. She suggested Councilmember K. Johnson should know that because it was from
Roberts Rules of Order. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers refrain from personal comments.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the face and head throw back by Councilmembers was enough for
her.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the only way the Council can discuss the document is to put a
motion on the floor and asked for confirmation from City Attorney Jeff Taraday. Mr. Taraday said the
Council has been discussing it for the last 20 minutes without a motion. Council President Fraley-Monillas
said she was talking about going section by section. Mr. Taraday agreed the only way to amend the
document was by motion but a motion was not necessary to discuss the document. Council President Fraley-
Monillas said the Council has already discussed the content but there has not had input regarding
Councilmembers' support for each section. Mr. Taraday said the purpose of this discussion was unclear and
suggested the Council try to get on same page about the purpose of this session and see if that can be done
without motions.
Council President Fraley-Monillas questioned how the Council could discuss the document without a
motion on the floor. Mr. Taraday reiterated the Council has been discussing the document. Council
President Fraley-Monillas said the Council has- not been discussing this document; they have been
discussing other documents and what has happened in the past. She asked how the Council could discuss
the document without motions. Mr. Taraday said Council President Fraley-Monillas had the floor; she could
begin talking about whatever part she wanted to talk about.
Council President Fraley-Monillas read Section 6 to 6C of the proposed code of conduct.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 26
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, asking if this was a filibuster. Mayor Nelson requested
Councilmembers direct questions to the chair. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was going
through the document to see what Counci [members can agree on.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, pointing out what the Council agreed on was discussing the
overall concept today, not point by point concepts. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers raise their
hand and wait to be called upon and not interrupt each other. With regard to the point of tonight's discussion,
he was not aware that the Council had determined what they were discussing so anything and everything
related to the code of conduct was currently under discussion.
Mayor Nelson asked Council President Fraley-Monillas if her intent was to read the entire proposed
document. Council President Fraley-Monillas said her intent was to see where Councilmembers agree.
Otherwise the Council was just talking nonsense, laughing, eye rolling and throwing their heads back.
Mayor Nelson agreed there was disruptive behavior.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES TO WRAP UP.
Councilmember K. Johnson did not think this could be concluded in 10 minutes and discussion should be
continued to the next City Council meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT CITY
COUNCIL MEETING.
Mr. Taraday said the meeting needed to be extended before that motion could be considered.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF
DISTELHORST, PAINE, L. JOHNSON
PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
VOTING NO.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. ADJOURN
The Council meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m.
MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR
A SUPER MAJORITY (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS
AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL
COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND K. JOHNSON
SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 27
CounciImember Buckshnis raised a point of order, asking if this was a 1)1ibuster. M.ayorNelson requested
Councilinember,s direct questions to the chair. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was doing
through the document to see what Councilmember:s can agree on.
Councitmember Olson raised a point of order, pointing out what: the Council agreed on was discussing the
overall concept today, not point by point concepts. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers raise their
hand and wait to be called upon and not interrupt each other. With regard to the point of tonight's discussion,
he was not aware that the Council had determined what they were discussing so anything and everything
related to the code of conduct was currently under discussion.
Mayor Nelson asked Council President Fraley-Monillas if her intent was to read the entire proposed
document, Council President Fraley-Monillas said her intent was to see where Council mein bers agree,
Otherwise the Council was just talking nonsense, laughing, eye rolling and throwing their heads back.
Mayor Nelson agreed there was disruptive behavior.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES TO WRAP UP.
Councilrnember K, Johnson did not think this could be concluded in 10 minutes and discussion should be
continued to the next City Council meeting.
COUNCIL.MENIBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT CITY
COUNCIL MEETING.
NVIr. faraday said the meeting needed to be extended before that rrrotion could be considered.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS
DISTELHO.RST, PAINE, L. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNC31,
PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND K. JOHNSON
VOTING NO.
9. MAYOR .S COMMENTS
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. ADJOURN
fhe Council meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m.
MXHAEL NELSON, MAYOR
PASSEY, !TY L R
Edmonds City Council Approved Minut"
August 18, 2020
Page 27
Public Comment for 8/18/20 Council Meeting:
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:07 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>
Subject: Action Item 3. Review of Council Code of Conduct
Council,
I urge you to table, or postpone indefinitely, Action Item 3. Review of Council Code of Conduct. Council
President Adrienne Fraley Monillas' proposed Council Code of Conduct is filled with subjective language
regarding conduct of Council members. It is not Council's job to police fellow Councilmembers' behavior,
with each other or with staff, and enforce "compliance".
The proposed Council Code of Conduct bears no resemblance to Resolution No. 1306, our existing Code
of Conduct which was fully vetted through a lengthy process involving Councilmembers, staff, citizens,
and the city attorney. I urge you to honor the extensive work that was put into our Code of Conduct by
all of these individuals. The citizens would be better served if, rather than continuing contentious
discussions about the proposed Council Code of Conduct, you focused on enforcement of Resolution No.
1306.
Citizens' perception of the Council dynamics and process that has occurred must also be considered.
Nathan Monroe's comment (in response to Lori Rasmussen's LTE: New council code of conduct a way to
publicly humiliate "unliked" Councilmembers?) says it best:
"Our council majority is looking for a new and improved way to keep discussions out of the council
chamber. That's simply horrifying."
You can read Nathan's full comment here:
htt s: m edmondsnews.com 2020 08 letter -to -the -editor -new -council -code -of conduct-a-wa -to-
ublicl -humiliate-unliked-councilmembers #comment-256607
Again, table, or postpone indefinitely, Action Item 3. Review of Council Code of Conduct.
Former Councilmember Joan Bloom
Edmonds is a gift. Let's show our appreciation.
Joan M. Bloom
From: Richard Senderoff
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:02 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Johnson, Kristiana<kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Distelhorst, Luke
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 28
<Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>; Monillas, Adrienne <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>;
Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov>;
Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Laura <Laura.Johnson@edmondswa.gov>;
Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Regarding New (Not Updated) Code of Conduct
Dear Councilmembers,
I highly recommend that you indefinitely table the new (not updated) Code of Conduct being put
forward by Councilmember Laura Johnson, at least until a more inclusive and normal Council process
is established that describes the need, objectives, process, and outline for addressing collectively
identified deficiencies in Resolution:1306.
Most elements of the proposed Code of Conduct do not add significantly to that of the previous
Resolution No: 1306. If anything, Resolution No: 1306 should have been used as the starting point for
any possible revisions/amendments.
More subjective wording that is subject to interpretation does not make for a better resolution. In
fact, what these revisions do is attempt to establish a new legislative process, reduce transparency,
suppress Council discussion & oversight, diminish Councilmembers legislative assistance access (other
than that of the Council President), and concentrate power within the Council President (an
appointed/unelected role) & the Mayor. Additionally and perhaps most importantly, the establishment
of a simple majority vote (as opposed to a supermajority of at least 5 of 7 Councilmembers) to interpret
compliance and impose sanctions serves to further suppress the discussion and oversight roles of a
Council minority; this sets the stage for politically -motivated and inappropriate retributions.
In fact, other than Compliance and Enforcement (indicated above), the only thing that the newly
proposed Code of Conduct attempts to explicitly accomplish (albeit with wordy, highly subjective
language) other than the negative outcomes described above —that is not covered by the more
straightforward Resolution: 1306 and/or Robert's Rules— is to include Councilmember interactions
with Administrative Staff and other city employees (including consultants and contractors). Yet, the
newly proposed Code of Conduct does NOT hold the Mayor, Administrative Staff, other city employees
(including consultants and contractors) as well as members of Boards, Commissions, Committees, and
Working Groups to the same standard as the Councilmembers which was addressed in Resolution:
1306. In this way, the newly proposed Code of Conduct is actually less broad than Resolution: 1306.
Additionally, the newly proposed Code of Conduct does not appropriately reference sources
associated with the specific verbiage chosen. Nor does it cite appropriate meeting minutes (and any
relevant documents) used to establish Resolution: 1306 in the first place.
Finally, in my opinion, a much more appropriate Compliance and Enforcement process would be to
require any formal complaints to be forwarded to the HR Director for investigation (independent from
the Mayor). An ad hoc committee composed of citizens and led by the HR Director could be formed to
receive and review the results of the HR Director's investigation and render judgement.
For all these reasons, I highly recommend that you indefinitely table the new (not updated) Code of
Conduct being put forward by Councilmember Laura Johnson at least until a more inclusive and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 29
normal Council process is established that describes the need, objectives, process, and outline for
addressing collectively identified deficiencies in Resolution:1306.
Sincerely,
Rich Senderoff, Ph.D.
From: Finis Tupper
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 8:11 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Fireworks Code 5.27
Prior to passing the needed changes to ECC 5.27, the council should ask Assistant Chief Lawless, Why
isn't the current code being enforced? I want a public hearing and citizen input before this section of the
code is amended.
Was the problem the City of Edmonds doesn't have a Fire Chief? How long ago did we sell our Fire
Department to Snohomish County Fire District #1? 11 years ago. Is our legal department on top of the
needed code changes? Let me answer that question, no.
What guarantees do the citizens have that this new ordinance will be enforced? None.Under the
leadership of Mayor Nelson, city and state law doesn't really seem to be very important or even
considered in making his decisions.
There really should be a public hearing on this important issue. This code isn't just about the July 4tn
celebrations. In my neighborhood for over the last 6 years every time the Seahawks make a touch down
there is a very loud boom either from a M-80 or a Cannon.
New Years Eve is also problematic every year! There seems to be no consequences because the behavior
is ignored by law enforcement and the current and pass city administrations failure to enforce. The
Mayor should be held accountable for not enforcing City and State laws.
Yours truly,
Finis Tupper
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 6:57 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Judge,
Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for August 18, 2020 City Council meeting -remember all persons attending the
meeting must be able to hear each other at the same time
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 30
Council President Adrienne Fraley Monillas' proposed Council Code of Conduct effort is spinning off the
racetrack. I urge Council to table this tonight.
Resolution No. 1306 is our Code of Conduct for the Mayor, City Councilmembers, and members of all
City Boards, Commissions, Committees, or Work Groups. We have a Code of Conduct for City Staff,
including Directors. We have a Code of Ethics to govern the conduct of elected officials and appointed
citizen volunteers serving in an official capacity (i.e. Boards and Commissions). And, we have our official
Municipal Code and our Community Development Code.
I can provide evidence of instances that ALL these codes have been disrespected and that there is rarely
any accountability. The underlying culture of the City of Edmonds government is different rules for
different people.
Based on years of observing City Conduct, I believe the most important Code we have is found in our
official Municipal Code —Chapter 2.01:
The mayor shall be the chief executive and administrative officer of the city, in charge of all departments
and employees, with authority to designate assistants and department heads. The mayor shall see that
all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is maintained in the city, and shall
have general supervision of the administration of city government and all city interest. [Ord. 2349 § 2,
19831.
If the Mayor refuses to do his duty, city government breaks down and citizens do not know what will
come next. Arbitrary and capricious does not work. Why would a Mayor consciously choose to behave
this way? By not doing their duty, Mayors create a situation where citizens lose confidence in Edmonds
City Government. The recent refusal to enforce a simple, clear sign code is yet another example. Are
you kidding me? City government is supposed to seek to improve the quality of public service, not to
exasperate citizens.
Why adopt yet another Code when our existing Codes are disrespected?
Our Code of Ethics says Edmonds City government (elected officials, staff, etc.) SHALL, quote: "Keep the
community informed on municipal affairs and encourage communications between the citizens and all
municipal officers. Emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public and each other; seek to
improve the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens."
ZOOM meetings have made it even more difficult for our city's government to meet this ethical
principle. Council's time should be focused on developing means to improve transparency, improve
ways for citizen input to be gathered, heard, and respected, and thus to, quote, "improve the quality of
public service, and confidence of the citizens."
Again, I urge you to table Council President's proposed Council Code of Conduct.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 31
From: Finis Tupper
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2020 9:06 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Enforcement of City Sign Code
Dear Councilmembers:
Residential zone character is important.
Large signs are not appropriate in the single family neighborhoods period. Mayor Nelson sworn oath of
office requires him to enforce the city code. See ECC 2.01.010 Duties that states "The mayor shall see
that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced ... [Ord. 2349 § 2, 1983].
Mayor Nelson lacks the authority to pick and choose which laws to enforce. Maybe a Recall Petition
against Mayor Nelson is warranted. The specificity requirements of a Recall Petition (RCW 29.82.010)
mandate that the charges alleged a prima facie showing of misfeasance, malfeasance, or a violation of
the oath of office. Chandler v Otto, Wn.2d 268 at 274 (1984). Only the City Council has the authority to
pass a Moratorium ordinance to stop enforcement of the sign code.
Furthermore, our Planning Director Shane Hope certainly is well aware of this requirement.
Yours truly,
Finis Tupper
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 32