20160202 City Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
February 2, 2016
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
S. Gagner, Police Officer
J. Burrell, Police Officer
D. Compton, Police Officer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO PULL THE FOLLOWING FROM THE AGENDA: ITEM 3I, FISHING PIER
REHABILITATION PROJECT CONTRACT AWARD, AND ITEM 5F, CONSIDERATION OF
THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE.
Councilmember Nelson expressed support for removing Item F from the agenda. Although he is
interested in getting the CAO done as soon as possible, in reality the document is not there yet and more
time is needed to get there. For example, he submitted two new amendments that may bridge some of the
disagreement; staff provided feedback and he is in the process of revising the amendments. Other
Councilmembers are also reviewing the ordinance. The CAO is a very technical, 109 page document. He
understood there are projects awaiting the adoption of the CAO that will be impacted by the ordinance
and many people are anxiously awaiting Council action. At the same time, the CAO will last for ten years
so it is important to get it right. If the Council needs an addit ional 3-4 weeks, that should be provided.
With regard to the deadline for submitting the CAO that the City has missed, he has now heard from the
City Attorney that although the City is not technically in compliance, it is not considered out of
compliance in terms of grants or loans and the City actually has 12 months via an exception that the
Department of Commerce expects unless informed otherwise. He summarized the reality is the sky isn’t
falling; the Council still has time and will not be penalized for spending more time to get the ordinance
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 2
right. He asked Councilmembers to hang in there a bit longer as he believed the Council was making
progress and will have an ordinance everyone can be proud of that will protect and enhance critical areas,
provide development flexibility and provide accountability.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING M INUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2016
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #218274 THROUGH #218371 DATED JANUARY 28,
2016 FOR $778,870.69
C. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION
AGREEMENT
D. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE 76TH AVE AT 212TH ST.
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
E. SECONDARY CLARIFIER NO. 3 STRUCTURAL REPAIR PROJECT FOR THE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
F. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2016
BUDGET FOR CARRYFORWARD ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND
APPROVED BY COUNCIL DURING THE 2015 BUDGET YEAR
G. HOURLY EQUIPMENT RENTAL RATES FOR EXTERNAL AGENCIES AND THE
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH
DOG DAY AFTERNOON FOR AN ATM AT RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH BHC CONSULTANTS FOR THE LAKE BALLINGER SEWER
MAIN STUDY
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Duane Farman, Edmonds, resident of Seaview, thanked the Council for delaying review of the CAO
amendments to allow for further scrutiny of staff’s recommendations and provide an opportunity for
public comment regarding the changes requested by Mayor Earling. It is very important to him and many
others in the community to get the CAO amendments as accurate as possible as decisions can h ave long
lasting effects on the environment. He requested RS-8 be included along with RS-10 and RS-12 zones in
in review of vegetation and tree canopy requirements. The Seaview area has an abundance of forested
areas as well as streams and wetlands; one of those areas is zoned RS -8 which deserves the same
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 3
consideration as RS-10 and RS-12. The City needs to protect natural vegetated areas in all residential
zoned areas, especially where wildlife habitat exists.
Phil Lovell, Edmonds, in response to the January 26, 2016 letter submitted by ACE, provided the
following comments specifically related to the new community center under design at the current
Edmonds Senior Center site. ACE’s letter presents conclusions and recommendations that are inconsistent
at least and disingenuous at most. The letter states, “build a 30 foot tall new co mmunity center measured
from the current ground elevation, but raise the occupied first floor level above pending recommended
guidelines because we want to assure adequate protection from sea level rise.” What the letter means is
that while ACE may respect the principles of Best Available Science, it considers current building height
criteria alleging “view protection” to outweigh the importance of the City’s response to this science. The
City’s Comprehensive Plan supports maintenance of existing public view corridors and the Shoreline
Management Program calls for preservation of a 30% minimum lot width view corridor at shoreline sites.
Neither the current Senior Center nor the proposed new building is even visible from any point within the
Dayton, Main or other street level view corridors. Furthermore, both the current and future buildings are
significantly blocked from any public view points in the downtown-waterfront area due to the taller office
building immediately to the north, the Ebbtide condo building to the south and the Salish Crossing
building complex across the railroad tracks to the east. The SMP 30% view corridor associated with the
existing building site is provided for within the new design. He summarized it would seem that the
citizens comprising ACE are standing on principles that impede both public and private property owners
who seek development in a responsible and sustainable manner consistent with the greater desires and
direction of Edmonds. He urged the Council to consider these factors during upcoming deliberations on
the City’s CAO.
Dave Hunnake, Edmonds, assumed from the Council’s action to remove Item F, the Council planned to
uphold the Mayor’s veto of the CAO. He expressed support for the veto for the following reasons, 1)
there is accountability without having Development Services Director Hope sign off on everything, 2) the
buffers should not be so restrictive that Willow Creek cannot be daylighted, 3) he was concerned with
increasing the size of new trees from 1 inch to 1.5 - 2 inches when 1 inch trees grow better and faster than
larger trees, 4) citizens should be allowed to remove trees up to 4 inches, 5) and the height for measuring
in floodplains should be raised to 2 feet above. He urged the Council to complete the CAO. He lives in an
area where there is a critical slope and they have delayed maintenance for nearly a year awaiting Council
action on the CAO.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, retired fish biologist, recognized Ms. Hite and her staff for the commendable
job they did with establishing a very open public participation approach in developing the Marina Beach
Master Plan. It was an exemplary effort and staff was interested in reaching all user groups to ensure their
concerns were addressed in the master plan. He recommended the Council approve the Marina Beach
Master Plan as proposed so the City can proceed with the grant application process for the Willow Creek
Daylighting project. He also commended the Council for its decision to delay action on the CAO and
hopefully have public hearings and public comment as the document needs a lot of work. He email
Councilmembers regarding issues he found that need to be amended in addition to the amendments the
Council made in December. The CAO is of critical importance to critical areas as well as the public and
should not be done hastily but rather in a manner that is easily interpreted and usable for the public.
Michael Reagan, Edmonds, a Marine Vietnam Veteran, said he visits the plaque on the rock at the
Public Safety Building daily on his walk from Meadowdale High School and doubted anyone visits it
more than he does. Fifty years ago he joined the Marine Corps; 48 years ago on April 10, 1968 he came
home from Vietnam. Two weeks before he left Vietnam, his unit was hit while in Cam Lo to rest; many
people were killed including his friend Vincent Santaniello. The last thing Vincent said before he died
was, “Mike, I just want to go home.” He visits that rock every day to talk to Vincent. He referred to the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 4
Fallen Hero Portrait Project, displaying portrait of a mother holding her five year old daughter who is
holding their 13-week old son. When the young man went to Iraq, she was pregnant; he never came home
and children never got to meet their dad. The Veterans Plaza will provide a place for this mother to bring
her children and to tell them that the City of Edmonds appreciates your sacrifice and your father’s
sacrifice so much that they created a place for us to come and talk about him, to tal k to his brothers and
sisters, a place that tells us they were proud of your father. He summarized the Veterans Plaza was a place
for people like him when he walks late at night to go and talk to his friends and a place for the town to tell
veterans they are proud of them.
David Quinn, Woodway, a teacher at Edmonds-Woodway High School but speaking as a citizen,
reminded the community of Mr. Reagan’s tremendous work, beautifully representing each person who
has made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. He recognized it was a permanent sacrifice. He referred to
Councilmember Nelson’s earlier comments about taking time to get something right. When creating a
veteran’s memorial, the necessary time must be taken to get it right, to get the sacrifice right to properly
honor those who made a great sacrifice for the country. It is important to get right because it is beyond a
place for reflection but also a place of permanence for the community, not just at night but also during
events such as the Saturday market. He was proud to have worked with the community to get the quotes
right which will also be permanent. Some of the design elements in the packet are not right, out of scale
and proportion; the committee has considered this and will address it during their presentation. He urged
the Council to consider the idea of permanence and to remember it is their responsibility to ensure the
final design templates, the size, scope and scale of this tribute are exactly right regardless of how much
time it takes.
Rick Steves, Edmonds, referred to the Veterans Plaza, commenting he was speaking for people who may
not agree with always thinking about our military. A large part of society has not had that experience
although all benefit from the sacrifice and valor of the military and want to remember veterans’ sacrifice.
He agreed a veteran’s memorial was needed but found it difficult to question the motive of veterans and
military groups who speak for everyone in a way that can be misunderstood as pro-military rather than
remembering our veterans. If the intent is to use City land and money to create an area that everyone
walks by, it is the Council’s responsibility to make it inclusive and something everyone can enjoy and
celebrate rather than be a lecture. He feared if a careful eye was not kept on the project, people who are
understandably passionate about it will make it pro-military rather than to remember our veterans and our
fallen heroes. He asked the Council to keep a careful eye on this project because he walks by it daily as
well as the 9/11 monument and he and many others have a different perspective. He saw no reason to
have five emblems celebrating the difference branches of military; he wanted to remember the men and
women who gave their lives for our freedom. To be effective, the Veterans Plaza does not need to
convince those who have a vested interest in remembering the troops; it needed to appeal to the other half
so they take it seriously and do not roll their eyes when they walk by. He concluded the emblems of the
different military branches distracted from the memorial.
Farrell Fleming, Edmonds, Executive Director, Edmonds Senior Center, spoke regarding the Council’s
consideration of the CAO. With regard to timeliness, he urged the Council to complete the CAO update
process in a timely fashion. Take as long as needed to get it right; from their perspective it did not need to
be done tonight but shouldn’t be drug out unnecessarily over many months. They intend to begin the
permitting process for the new community center in the coming months and need the COA update
complete so the legal context of the permit process is clear. Next, he urged the Council to reject
amendment #8 regarding frequently flooded areas. The agenda prepared for tonight which defines the
implication of amendment #8 concludes with the following statement, “The Council amendment to delete
the height definition change while keeping the requirement to construct buildings two feet above base
flood elevation penalizes properties designing projects for the impacts of sea level rise and flooding by
essentially eliminating a portion of the allowable zoning height. Under the Council amendment, a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 5
building would end up being 27 or 28 feet tall rather than the 30 feet currently allowed by code.” They
want to build a sustainable structure that, a) abides by current BAS regarding sea level rise, and b) serves
its community functions superbly. Their wish is to build a 30’ facility from elevation 15’ as their design
team believes this will accomplish both objectives. Ultimately though, they will build with whatever the
codes and permitting process allow them. There is a once in a lifetime opportunity to do this right, to give
Edmonds a new community center that will be used by all generations well into the future and be a source
of civic pride. They are eager to continue to work with the City Council, Mayor, administration and
Edmonds residents to make this a reality. He reminded they are doing this because the City asked them to:
the City’s strategic plan recommended something good be done with the senior center, appointed them the
lead in accomplishing this goal and they have taken that charge very seriously.
Maria Montalvo, Edmonds, commented nothing in life is permanent as illustrated by all the changes
occurring in Edmonds and as the people who have lost family and friends in war know. She urged the
Council to be attentive to the people who are here who need to see the Veterans Plaza. She did not come
from a military family or have veterans in her family; she came from a perspective where she did not see
where it mattered to her. When she began meeting and working with military families, she learned the
incredible sacrifice they make every day, not just the service members but also their families. One of the
most impermanent things is their day-to-day existence; one of the fathers of one of their scholarship
recipients will not be here in 6 months; it matters to him what is done today. The two year process of
developing the Veterans Plaza has involved the community and the families, those are the people who
need to know the community is thinking about them and understand they are not permanent. She said the
best thing to do is create conversations because the only way people learn the sacrifices these families
make is by asking questions and being in a situation where those questions arise. She urged the Council to
open the community to being better citizens and better people and asking those questions by being in a
place that allows those questions to be asked.
Don Requa, Edmonds, commented the dog park is one of great things in Edmonds. It is utilized during
all seasons and is rated #6 of the dog parks in Washington. He and his dog enjoy the dog park and the
people he talks to enjoy it. He did not see that the marsh needed that much buffer. The dog park is a good
thing and a lot of good things are being lost in Edmonds such as old houses that are being demolished and
replaced with subdivisions.
Rob Matina, Edmonds, asked whether the dog park was in jeopardy. Mayor Earling advised information
regarding the dog park would be provided later during the meeting. Mr. Matina expressed his profound
support for the dog park. Although he does not own a dog, he visits the dog park regularly; it is a
spectacular asset for Edmonds. He liked how the dog park was divided into areas with and without dogs;
he felt fortunate to have the opportunity to visit the dog park and enjoy dogs playing. If this dog park is
#6 in Washington, he would love to see 1-5 as he could not image any better. He implored the Council to
leave the dog park as untouched as possible.
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. VETERANS' PLAZA UPDATE
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite recalled the Council approved a design of the Veterans Plaza one
year ago today. The community group the Council charged with working on the Veterans Plaza has been
working diligently for the past year with site Workshop on design development and defining the space;
part of taking a concept to construction is design development phases. Concerns have been expressed
during the past 3-4 months by a few citizens including Mr. Quinn and Mr. Steves about the size, style,
design and welcoming aspects of the plaza. The committee met with Mr. Quinn and Mr. Steves a few
times over the past few months and worked with Site Workshop to redesign the plaza; that redesign will
be presented to the Council tonight. The Council packet includes the original design and the redesign. The
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 6
redesign includes some development of the original plaza area. In the original design, the community
group was not allowed to include the plaza, only the garden area and the median between the parking and
the plaza for a commemorative wall. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Steves were concerned that the design of the
plaza area was very militaristic, a flat, hard surface that was not welcoming. The plaza has now been
redesigned to break up the hard surface and add vegetation and seating that could be considered more
welcoming.
Following Site Workshop’s presentation, Ms. Hite requested Council give direction to the community
group regarding the revised design as well as consider a $30,000 contribution to help with development of
the plaza. The community group committed to raising the $400,000 cost of the garden area and the wall
but the plaza was not part of their capital campaign. There is fund balance in the Real Estate Excise Tax
(REET) fund and this expenditure would fit with the purpose of those funds. Parallel to this process, the
Off Leash Area group has also been engaged with the committee and raising funds to commemorate the
role that dogs played overseas and during wartime.
Brian Bishop, Site Workshop, explained since presenting the competition concept they developed for
the Veterans Plaza a year ago, they have been working closely with the committee, Park staff and
community members to refine the design and evolve it to fit within the space and the intended purpose.
The design elements include the wall, garden and plaza. The current design is stronger as a result of the
process that has occurred. He displayed an aerial, identifying the location of the proposed Veterans Plaza.
He displayed overhead view of the original design which included minimal impact on the existing plaza,
the veteran’s walls on the north side, the veteran’s garden in the existing planting area on the south and
seating cubes in the existing plaza that contains smaller planting beds and columnar trees.
He displayed an overhead view of the currently proposed design that includes the veteran’s wall, plaza
and veteran’s garden. He displayed a bird’s eye views of the original design and the proposed design
looking toward the northeast. The original 120-foot wall consumed the entire length of the north edge of
the existing plaza, from the access to the parking lot to the existing sign wall. In the revised plan, the wall
is 80 feet long and includes modification to the parking stalls to the north without changing thei r
dimensions to provide space for an evergreen hedge on the back side of the wall and circulation on the
front side in the plaza. He displayed elevations of the original and currently proposed design; originally
there were five walls depicting the military branches separated by water walls. The emblems on the
original design were approximately 30 inches in diameter. The new design includes three primary walls,
one with the five emblems which are about 12 inches in diameter, a primary sign wall and a quote wall at
the east end, two water walls on either side of the center wall and a runnel and waterfall on the west end
and a hedge on the back side.
Mr. Bishop displayed the original design that included a large emblem and information on the
establishment, motto and other information about the military branches with a runnel in front of the walls.
In the current design, the walking area and benches provide a more contemplative feeling on that edge.
The wall will be clad with natural stone, a range of lighter granites to address concerns that the original
design was too dark and memorial-like. He displayed and reviewed details of the water wall, runnel and
waterfall.
Mr. Bishop displayed an overhead view of the original garden design, identifying the seating area with the
memorial boulder in the center, garden pathways and seating walls. He displayed an overhead view of the
proposed design, identifying the seating area, memorial boulder in the garden but closer t o the pathway,
space for a service dog statute, garden pathway, and northwest garden. He displayed a prospective view
looking toward the garden from the plaza in the original design and the proposed design. Due to the
grades, the number of seating walls was reduced in the current design to protect the root system of the
existing oak tree. He identified elements of the garden space including the semi-circle granite bench in the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 7
seating area, the memorial boulder, stone paving on the garden paths and a depiction of a memorial to
service dogs.
Mr. Bishop displayed a drawing of the original design of the plaza, essentially as it currently exists with
the additional of seating cubes. The existing sloped plaza contains a series of trees and small planters and
free-for-all circulation. He displayed the revised plaza design explaining the intent to provide a clear
circulation space, a minimum of 20 feet, flanked with generous planting areas and a 7’6”-foot wide more
intimate side path adjacent to the veterans wall. One of the benefits of the redesign is the amount of soil
available for tree growth, approximately 10 times more soil than the existing trees. He identified a
pathway to the sidewalk, seating cubes at each end of the planting area, and a series of benches flanking
the garden space. He provided examples of the seating cubes and the benches that will be consistent with
other benches downtown.
Ron Clyborne, Co-Chair, Veterans Plaza Committee, was honored to be representing the Edmond
Veterans Plaza Committee. After the Council’s original approval a year ago, the committee went out to
the community and regrouped. He noted in every community, people have lost family members in service
to our country. This is not intended to be a memorial but a park plaza, a place the community as a whole
can come and enjoy. The project began three years ago and the design was approved by Council a year
ago. Since that original approval, the following vision for the committee and project was created: The
Edmonds Veterans Plaza will be a place where veterans connect with each other, coming together to find
ways to heal themselves and each other. They will find strength and comfort from opportunities to
remember comrades and share stories about their experiences. It will also serve as a venue where veterans
and non-veterans can engage in dialogues. The venue will be appealing and attractive to all members of
the community who will come to the plaza to listen, share their own thoughts and will walk away with a
greater understanding and appreciation of each other.
Mr. Clyborne appreciated Mr. Steves and Mr. Quinn bringing their concerns to the attention of the City.
Originally the plaza area was off limits to the design. Thanks to Mr. Steves and Mr. Quinn, they are now
able to create three wonderful parklike environments, bringing the modified wall and garden together in a
place where the community can gather. He envisioned people sitting in the plaza during the Saturday
market.
Mr. Clyborne explained presentations have been made to numerous organizations and service clubs over
the past year seeking their input including three detailed meetings with the community leaders who spoke
to the Council earlier. The Edmonds Veterans Plaza will act in partnership Edmonds Community College
Veterans Resource Center; the plaza will be a conduit for help and provide information to veterans and
their families, access to information regarding veterans services, family services, suicide prevention will
be located in the garden in the eastern most portion of the plaza. One of the biggest dilemmas in serving
veterans is making the initial connection; the centrally located Veterans Plaza, a place for quiet reflection,
will draw many to it and many will learn about the services and support that are available.
Mr. Clyborne explained over the past year, without even going public, the Edmonds Veterans Plaza has
raised $282,000. Once the campaign goes public, he anticipated a substantially greater percent age of the
public will be behind this project. He concluded unfortunately each day we lose more men and women
who are serving our country. It is most important to honor and remember all veterans past, present and
future.
Ms. Hite thanked Councilmember Mesaros who has been on the fund development team for the Veterans
Plaza, Councilmember Tibbott who was involved as a Planning Board Member and former
Councilmember Peterson.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 8
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she would like to see what will be written on the walls as it is not
visible from the drawings. She asked whether the design would be ADA accessible and whether there
would be ADA seating in the plaza. Mr. Bishop answered yes, explaining due to the sloping nature of the
plaza, the pathway is aligned with the street and the plaza. Ms. Hite advised the words on the wall are in
development and have not been finalized. That could be brought back if the Council wanted to see it
before it moves into construction. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if there was opportunity for
input regarding what will be placed on the walls. Ms. Hite said the c ommittee wants the branches of the
military and honoring veterans past present and future on one wall. The intent is to have reflective quotes
on the other two walls; a committee is working on a proposal for the wording.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the Council initially approved this as a Veterans Memorial Park
and one of the reasons was the park in front of the museum was not sufficient to honor those veterans.
She asked where the names of the people who have given their life for their country will be memorialized
on the walls. Mr. Clyborne responded the names of Edmonds veterans that were either MIA or KIA will
be properly researched and accurately spelled and placed on a special veterans wall in the memorial
garden.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the memorial portion will not be on the walls but in the
memorial garden. Mr. Clyborne said any and all memorial elements will be located in the garden area. He
clarified the entire project is not a memorial. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why the name was
changed from Veterans Memorial Plaza to Veterans Plaza. Mr. Clyborne said the term Edmonds Veterans
Plaza was used when he made the presentation a year ago. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled when
the project was first proposed, it was Veterans Memorial Plaza. Mr. Clyborne acknowledged that may
have been in the early days before there was an organized committee.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Mr. Clyborne’s comment that this hasn’t gone public yet;
they have only gone to individual groups. Observing this wall will be owned by the public, she asked
whether the public would have opportunity to propose additions or changes. Mr. Clyborne responded his
reference to not going public was in regard to fundraising and completely to the media. He has personally
made numerous presentations to Rotary Clubs, Chambers of Commerce, Edmonds Community College,
Elks, etc. My Edmonds News has offered free advertising space but they have not yet used it because they
did not want to go out to the general public related to fundraising yet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
said she was interested in whether the general public not just community leaders had been able to provide
input. Ms. Hite recalled the Council held a public hearing on the Veterans Plaza last year before the
Council adopted the design. Revisions have made during the design development and they are asking for
Council direction regarding the revisions. The committee is hopeful a design can be finalized in the near
future; it would not be feasible for the committee to launch a public fundraising campaign and continue to
modify the design. A design needs to be finalized to proceed to 60% and 90% design and construction.
For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Ms. Hite explained a public hearing was held on the design on
January 15, 2015; the request tonight is to consider the revisions to the design since the Council already
approved the original design. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recognized the veterans were raising the
funds but she wanted to ensure there was enough input from the general public. She commented the
design looks very interesting and will be a nice addition to the downtown core. She relayed both her
parents were WWII veterans, her father was in the Air Force and her mother was a Navy officer and 4
years ago she lost her 27-year old nephew because of what he did for his country. Mr. Clyborne expressed
his condolences for her loss, noting this plaza will provide an opportunity to honor those relatives.
Councilmember Teitzel complimented the committee for incorporating Mr. Steves and Quinn’s input and
revising the design. He said the revised design looks great and this will be a public space everyone will
enjoy. He was supportive of the additional $30,000 for the revised design and asked if there was potential
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 9
for additional funding requests in the future for other design revisions. Ms. Hite answered in conversation
with the committee, she did not anticipate any future funding requests; the $30,000 request was
specifically for the plaza area to carve out the hard surface and add soil, plantings and seating. The
committee has been very ambitious in their fundraising and is very positive about the fundraising.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the new design looks much better. The dog park will provide
$6,000 and potentially more once the campaign goes public as there is a huge dog contingency in the area.
She asked whether there will be an opportunity to include memorial plaques on the benches. Ms. Hite
answered the City has been working with the committee to provide the bench design used downtown that
has a memorial plaque. The committee asked to have the opportunity to sell those benches first to those
who want to commemorate someone. If they are unable to sell the six memorial benches, the City has a
waiting list of people wishing to purchase a memorial bench. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed adding
the three trees and the benches softened the plaza. She noted the cubes were nice but not really nice. She
referred to the history of the plaza and did not recall it was ever Veterans Memorial Plaza; it has always
been Veterans Plaza unless that wording was used at the Planning Board level. She noted many veterans
including her family specifically visit the emblem of the branch they served in.
Councilmember Nelson appreciated Mr. Clyborne’s distinction between this being a plaza and a place
rather than a memorial. He wanted to ensure this place included a memorial, a place for people to pay
their respects as well as being a place for everyone to visit. He expressed support for including the
Council in reviewing the quotes that will be on the wall. He was s upportive of the additional $30,000. He
questioned the use of the seating cubes and suggested having more benches instead. Mr. Bishop said the
cubes are not included in the funding request from the Council; they are funded from the original project
budget.
Councilmember Mesaros said working with the veterans on this project has been one of his great joys. As
the only veteran on City Council, a reluctant Vietnam era Army veteran who was drafted but served in
Germany, he agree with Councilmember Buckshnis that the emblem plays a role in the identification for a
veteran. He teased his fellow veterans that without the Army, the other branches would not have been as
successful, noting veterans often tease, cajole and pay respects to each other. He relayed when visiting
West Haven, Connecticut, last summer, he came upon a new veterans plaza that had just been installed.
His first inkling was to find and stand by the US Army emblem. He noticed the other emblems in the
plaza and acknowledged Mr. Clyborne would likely find and stand by the Marine Corps emblem. He
summarized the incorporation of the emblems was an important element of the Veterans Plaza.
Council President Johnson thanked the veterans who came tonight and those who spoke to the Council
about the plaza. She remarked there were two perspectives to the plaza; visiting the plaza as a veteran and
traversing the area. When she traverses the area, she is headed to the doors of the Public Safety building;
the current design delineates the walking path. The trees and plantings in the new design are exactly
where she wants to walk. The original plan included 9 trees and established shrubbery that have been in
place for 20 years. She hated to see the existing trees cut in order to plant new and different trees. She
recognized the desire to green up the area and soften the edges but did not support this design. The design
needs to work for City employees and people using the Public Safety building. She viewed the seating
cubes as tripping hazards. She looked forward to the completion of the project and questioned why the
committee was asking the City Council for the additional $30,000 when their fundraising has been so
successful. Ms. Hite answered the committee has a very ambitious goal of $400,000 - $430,000; their
fund development materials do not include the funds for the plaza. They would like the Council to
consider contributing to support the plaza.
Mr. Bishop agreed the trees have been in place since the Public Safety building was constructed.
Although there are no apparent structural problems, they have reached their potential due to the way they
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 10
are arranged and the available soil. Many people do not like the plantings in the planting pits and find it
spotty and have asked whether there would be an opportunity to revisit the plantings. He agreed when
coming from City Hall or some parking locations, there may not be an unimpeded paved area to reach the
front door. He disagreed it was a convoluted path or blocked access and felt it was making better use of
the existing space so it was not only circulation space but also usable, enjoyable space.
With regard to the cubes being a tripping hazard, Mr. Bishop said the cubes are 18 inches high. He had
more concern with the cubes when they were scattered in the plaza but did not have concerns now that
they were consolidated to the edges. The cubes are an important element of the design to the committee
and he felt the proposed location was preferable to the grid overlay. Council President Johnson agreed her
concern with the cubes being a tripping hazard was in the grid overlay.
Council President Johnson asked whether the soil and root system of the existing trees could be enhanced
instead of replacing the trees. Mr. Bishop answered the existing planting pits are 5’x5’ and the depth is
unknown. The trees have not been evaluated by an arborist and there do not appear to be any long term
problems other than their organization and their columnar nature. The intent was a different tree form to
provide a more garden-like space. He summarized the replacement of the trees is more an organizational
site planning issue rather than a tree health issue. A tree with a larger canopy likely would not grow well
in the existing tree pits and would need to be replaced more often. Council President Johnson commented
she may be in the minority but she likes the plaza as it is currently. One of the reasons is chairs can be set
out to create a gathering space on special events like Veterans Day. She concluded there were advantages
to both designs.
Councilmember Tibbott thanked Mr. Clyborne for the work he and the team have done. He was amazed
at how much has been done in the three years this project has been underway. He found himself caught up
in the committee’s vision and was excited the City will have an opportunity to enjoy the space and to find
comfort and healing. He noted the drawings depict lot of green space and asked if any thought had been
given to colorful, all-season landscaping. Mr. Bishop answered the final planting palate has not been
finalized. The intent is to have an evergreen framework with seasonal color and variety, more of a
northwest palate, not necessarily native but a combination of native and plants that would be found in
northwest gardens. There is also opportunity to add additional color with annuals.
Councilmember Tibbott asked whether the intent was to utilize the current hardscape and embellish it in
some way. Mr. Bishop answered the majority of the hardscape will remain; the intent is to remove pieces
selectively. The only patching anticipated is lighting adjacent to the wall on the north edge. Recognizing
the plan for the plaza has morphed in the recent past, Councilmember Tibbott asked whether
consideration had been given to how the design could incorporate additions in the future. Mr. Bishop
answered one of the challenges with designing spaces that take on a memorial aspect is trying to find the
right balance of design and space for further additions. The intent is a design framework that would allow
additions in the future but there are no areas identified for specific additions in the future.
Councilmember Tibbott commented the proposed seating arrangement was not conducive to conversation
such as benches that face each other or a table between benches. Mr. Bishop agreed, recalling the intent of
the original cubes was they could fit a couple of people. Given the slope in the plaza, there has been
discussion whether to locate benches on the pathways that run through the three garden areas. It is not a
key element to the design but he agreed it warranted further discussion.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the $30,000 would be spent on the actual development of
the plaza. Ms. Hite answered yes, the green space. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the Council
already contributed to the project. Ms. Hite agreed the Council contributed $10,000 to begin the design.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 11
Councilmember Buckshnis offered to develop a memo to contribute $5,000 from the Council
Contingency Fund toward the $30,000 request. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled Ms. Hite said
there is fund balance in REET 125 that could be used to provide the $30,000. Mr. Hite offered to prepare
a budget amendment to fund it from REET 125. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to fund the
request from REET 125 if the funds are available and especially this early in the year.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO PUT TOGETHER A $30,000 PACKAGE FOR THE VETERANS PLAZA FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAZA, FUNDED FROM REET 125 FUND. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO SUPPORT THE VETERANS PLAZA AS DESIGNED AS OF TODAY.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether there will still be opportunity for the Council to weigh in
as the process continues. Ms. Hite relayed the Council’s requests tonight, 1) the committee bring back the
wording on the walls to allow Council to weigh in, 2) the committee possibly look at the seating design as
proposed by Councilmember Tibbott, and 3) consider whether to include the cubes. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas commented other things may come up. Ms. Hite answered at some point the project
needs to go to 90% design and construction documents; at that point changes require a change order and
are more expensive.
Councilmember Mesaros said the committee members have thought about the cubes a lot and they are an
important element to the project. Councilmember Nelson said he would drop any questions he had about
the cubes and expressed his full support for the design.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
B. MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN APPROVAL
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite thanked the Project Advisory Committee (PAC), remarking
several were in the audience:
Renee McRae – Interim Assistant Park Director, City of Edmonds
Keeley O’Connell– Senior Project Manager, Earth Corps
Jerry Shuster – Stormwater Engineering Program Manager, City of Edmonds
Rich Lindsay – Park Maintenance Manager, City of Edmonds
Diane Buckshnis – City Council, Floretum Garden Club, OLAE
Val Stewart – Planning Board, City of Edmonds
Rick Schaefer – Tetra Tech
Susan Smiley – Edmonds Floretum Garden Club
Joe Scordino – Community Member (retired NOAA fisheries)
Ron Brightman – City of Edmonds Tree Board
Laura Leeman – Community Member (Edmonds Moms Group)
Kevin Conefrey – Edmonds Arts Commission
The intent of tonight’s presentation is final approval of the master plan. She acknowledged final approval
is pending any changes to the CAO that might impact the plan. The proposed master plan is in
compliance with current codes. If changes are made to the COA in the future, staff will need to request
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 12
Council open the master plan to make changes. Official adoption of the Marina Beach Master Plan will be
done with the Comprehensive Plan amendment later this year.
Chris Jones, Landscape Architect, Walker | Macy, advised this is the fourth time he has presented the
project. This has been a very successful project which he attributed to the p ublic outreach effort by Ms.
Hite, himself and the PAC, outreach to stakeholders, three public open houses, and an online open house.
The final draft master plan in the packet documents all the outreach efforts.
He displayed and reviewed the site context that illustrated environmental features that would impacted
and the site analysis of manmade and environmental features. He displayed Stream Alignments A, B and
C, explaining Options A and B, were presented at the first open house. Option A was eliminated due to
the community’s concern with its impact on the dog park. Public input at the first open house included:
Beach, views, environment, picnic tables, seating, walking, active/passive recreation
opportunities
Retention of dog park
Parking capacity
Restroom facilities
Provide more habitat and educational opportunities
Willow Creek alignment and impacts
Dog and human conflicts. Dog impacts to environment
Options B and C were presented at the second open house as Option 1 and 2. Public input included:
75% of attendees preferred Option 1
Like parking turnaround
Like restroom location – make it centrally located and/or include an additional restroom for dog
park users
Prefer larger lawn areas
Prefer two overlooks
Separate dog and people best
He displayed a drawing of Option 1, the preferred Master Plan and reviewed elements of the plan:
Beginning at the north:
o Maintains large lawn area
o Wide paths that circulate through park
o Overlooks
o Turnaround that accommodates fire trucks
o Plaza space that will accommodate food rucks
o Brick and mortar restroom adjacent to parking lot
o Park amenities such as picnic tables, barbeques and benches throughout the park
o Retains feeling of beach, driftwood, views, lawn trees, essence of place and
o Uses natural materials
o Allows for non-motorized personal watercraft such as kite sailing
Central section
o Play area (reduced by 1/3)
o Lawn area (reduced by 1/3)
o Willow Creek with two bridges
o Soft paths in the buffer zone
South side:
o Second restroom (similar to Portland loo)
o Natural play area
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 13
o Off leash dog park, consolidated slightly
Relocate agility area to the south portion
Improve fence and queuing areas
Mr. Jones assured the dog park is not in jeopardy based the current master plan. He displayed the
approximate Edmonds Crossing alignment, explaining they met with Kojo Fordjour, Washington State
Ferries (WSF), who supports this project. WSDOT cannot say exactly where the ferry terminal will exist
or how it translates to Marina Beach Park.
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the percentage reduction of the off-leash area. Mr. Jones answered
pretty minimal, 3000-5000 square feet. Councilmember Tibbott asked the percentage reduction of the
lawn area. Mr. Jones answered it was reduced by about 25-30%.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to Ms. Hite’s reference to potential conflicts with the CAO and asked
about the potential conflict related to buffer size. Ms. Hite explained the buffers reflected in the master
plan are 75 feet on the dog park side and 50 feet on the north side using buffer averaging. At her request
Mr. Jones prepared drawings depicting 75-foot buffers and 100-foot buffers on both sides. A 75-foot
buffer on both sides impacts the northern part of the park a bit and impacts the restroom, entrance to the
bridge to the dog park and the pathways. Impacting the pathways means they will have to be soft surface
and not ADA accessible. The 100-foot buffer greatly impacts the park including the park entrance,
parking areas and the pathway on the north side, eliminates most of the play area, and limits ADA access
to the park. If Council decides on a 100-foot buffer, she recommended opening the master plan and re-
planning, as it would be difficult to configure an entrance to the park, would eliminate some parking and
limit active areas in the park.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed concerns he has heard about the dog park creating pollution issues for
Willow Creek when it is daylighted by being 75 feet away. He asked if that was a real concern or was 75
feet enough. Mr. Jones responded as part of the master plan and redevelopment of the park, grading
would occur so there is no runoff from the dog park into Willow Creek; runoff would either captured in a
catch basin and treated or kept within the park. Likewise on the shore edge, grading would be back into
the park and not into Puget Sound.
Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the water quality of Puget Sound at the dog park is tested now and
have there been any concerns. Ms. Hite answered it is tested by Snohomish County on a regular basis and
there have not been any concerns.
Council President Johnson asked what the water is tested for. Ms. Hite offered to provide a link to the test
results on Snohomish County’s site that includes testing for many beaches in Washington State. Council
President Johnson said the daylighting of Willow Creek is of paramount importance to her. She
appreciated the extensive public outreach to stakeholder groups and the formation of the PAC. This is a
very ambitious project and questioned whether it was necessary to have two pedestrian bridges and two
restrooms. She suggested taking another look at the plan and making it not quite the full Cadillac version.
Ms. Hite said the master plan identifies optional items and she agreed some elements could be phased.
Those questions do not need to be answered until the project reaches the design development phase. The
master plan reflects the public’s strong sentiment for two bridges. Similarly in discussions about having
only one restroom, there was concern expressed with dog owners having to walk into the park where dogs
are not allowed and having portapotties in the new park.
Council President Johnson referred to a conversation she had yesterday with Ms. Hope and Mr. Lien
about the buffers and the concept of buffer averaging for the north side which could work in the Marina
Beach Master Plan. Based on that conversation, 100-foot buffer are required for this type of stream;
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 14
however restoration can allow a 25% reduction and there is opportunity for buffer averaging. It was her
understanding that could all be accommodated within this park. She reiterated her main priority was
Willow Creek; it is beautiful, natural area that can be enjoyed by fish, dogs and people.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation for all the work that has been done. She relayed
Keeley O’Connell, Val Stewart, and Joe Scordino are present to answer any questions about the
environment, shoreline, buffers, etc. She summarized Willow Creek was not being reestabl ished because
that would go through the parking lot; an entirely new channel was being created hence the different CAO
requirements.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO APPROVE THE FINAL MASTER PLAN FOR MARINA BEACH.
Councilmember Nelson commented this is a great design. He participated in one of the public meeting
and agreed it was very collaborative. He was fully supportive of the proposed master plan.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Hite reported the existing play area in Marina Beach Park has been removed because it was beyond
repair. The play area went out for bid, the PAC was engaged in the selection today and the goal was to
have the equipment installed before summer. She assured the play equipment could be moved to the new
play area when Marina Beach is developed.
C. SNOHOMISH COUNTY ILA AMENDMENT NO.2
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this is amendment #2 to the Conservation Futures
funds for Civic Field. The Conservation Future funds require the City file and record a conservation
easement. The language in the easement has been negotiated over the past week; she thanked City
Attorney Jeff Taraday for his assistance negotiating with Snohomish County. She pointed out revised
language in Section IV.B, allowing more development within Civic Field. Conservation Future funds are
allocated for passive recreation but active recreation language was added which is consistent with the
RCW regarding Conservation Futures. She referred to another change in Section V.F regarding 10%
impervious area where language was added so that accessible pathways would not be considered
impervious surface. She was satisfied with the language which will help to master plan Civic Field in the
coming year. She requested Council approval of the agreement.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT 2 TO THE ILA WITH SNOHOMISH
COUNTY FOR CONSERVATION FUTURES FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF CIVIC FIELD.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
D. ORDINANCE REESTABLISHING CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty provided background:
On June 2, 2009, the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance 3735, creating a Citizens
Economic Development Commission (CEDC), arising from the Citizens’ Levy Review
Committee, which had been tasked with reviewing the financial situation of the City of Edmonds,
and its recommendation to develop a broad vision and long-term strategies to make the City’s
fiscal situation sustainable without recurring to votes of the public for increased property taxes.
The original EDC was approved with a sunset date of December 31, 2010.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 15
Through a series of 3 subsequent ordinances, a final sunset date for the Commission of 12/31/15
was established.
At the 2015 City Council Retreat a study subgroup was called for to study and discuss the CEDC,
its purpose, usefulness, meeting format, subgroups, and whether to extend the Commission or
allow it to sunset.
o This subgroup, comprised of Councilmembers Bloom, Mesaros and Petso, met informally in
October 2015 to discuss these issues, offering several observations and/or recommendations
which were shared with full Council in November.
o City Council considered the recommendations and chose to take no action, allowing the EDC
to sunset on December 31, 2015, as set out in the corresponding Code provisions.
Mayor Earling and staff proposed reestablishing the CEDC at the 1/26/16 Council meeting,
laying out the constituent parts of a proposed new ordinance in concept.
City Council offered additional language to the ordinance that would encourage the CEDC to
invite ex-officio participation from other boards, commissions and agencies, as well as to
encourage collaboration with such entities on programs or activities of mutual interest.
He reviewed salient components of the proposal to amend Chapter 10.75, “Citizens Economic
Development Commission”:
10.75.010 Membership – Term of appointments
o Nine members
o Each Councilmember appoints one; Mayor appoints two.
o Members must be residents and should exhibit experience in fields such as private or
nonprofit business, economics, real estate, finance, development, education, or other similar
fields.
o Ultimately two-year terms, initially staggered by two- and three-year terms
o One Councilmember liaison as ex-officio member
o No term limits
o No sunset
o Port Commission, Chamber of Commerce and Planning Board encouraged to appoint ex-
officio members
10.75.020 Officers, Meetings, Forum
o Commission shall elect Chair and Vice-Chair, with similar duties as in previous code
o Quorum is a simple majority of filled positions
o Regular meeting days, times and place shall be established to avoid “special meeting” status
and extra notice requirements every time
o All meetings open to public
10.75.030 Powers and Duties
o Advise and make recommendations to Mayor and City Council, and as appropriate to other
boards or commissions of the City, on matters independently generated or specifically
referred to it by the Mayor or City Council related to:
Strategies, programs or activities intended to generate economic development and
consequently increase jobs and municipal revenue
o Annual report to Council and Mayor
o Commission is encouraged to work in conjunction with other boards, commissions or other
agencies/entities on proposals, recommendations or projects of common interest, which may
be presented to Mayor or Council jointly
Mr. Doherty recommended approval of the ordinance.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: THE COMMISSION SHALL
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 16
DELIVER AN ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN WRITTEN AND ORAL FORM
DURING THE FIRST QUARTER OF EVERY YEAR AND WHEN APPROPRIATE DURING
OTHER TIMES AS DIRECTED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
Mr. Doherty advised the language in the current ordinance stated the report was to be delivered in
December. The amendment is intended to avoid having reports due in December when the Council’s
agendas are quite busy.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented her thought was to have the report due in February. Mr. Doherty
preferred the first quarter, recognizing the intent was to have the report provided as soon as possible after
the first of the year but to allow some flexibility.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Johnson said she discussed with Ms. Hope the issue of coordinating land use
recommendations between the Planning Board and EDC. She recalled when the EDC was first
established, there was an awkward joint presentation but that never quite worked out. She asked Ms.
Hope to describe options for coordinating recommendations of the EDC and Planning Board regarding
land use matters. Ms. Hope said the proposed language regarding the EDC coordinating with boards and
commissions could work. However, as Council President Johnson was interested in more specificity,
options include having the EDC chair periodically confer with the Planning Board chair or have the EDC
present land use recommendations to the Planning Board before presenting it to the City Council. With an
effective staff board/commission relationship, if land use issues arose at the EDC, she was certain Mr.
Doherty would alert her and she would do the same for issues at the Planning Board of interest to the
EDC.
Mr. Doherty referred to new language added to 10.75.030. C, “The commission is encouraged to work in
conjunction with other boards and commissions on proposals, recommendations, projects or activities of
mutual interest, or as otherwise directed by city council.” He envisioned with a smaller group of nine, an
active Council liaison and the language encourage cooperation and collaboration, the EDC should not go
too far on land use issues before someone pointed out they were encouraged to work together. He
suggested the bodies that are collaborating decide how best to make that collaboration happen.
Council President Johnson explained she raised this issue because as a former Planning Board member
and the Planning Board liaison to the EDC she saw this as a problem. She wanted to predispose how it
was handled so there wouldn’t be problems in the future. She expected coordination but especially with
regard to land use issues, the Council relies on the Planning Board.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED TO HAVE THE EDC PRESENT ANY LAND USE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PLANNING BOARD. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested a further explanation. Council President Johnson explained in
the past the EDC has had land use subcommittees and has made recommendations directly to the Council
regarding land use issues. The previous requirement was for a joint presentation on the annual report to
the City Council but that never happened so the idea of a natural coordination never happened. She
wanted to ensure any EDC recommendations regarding land use, which is the Planning Board’s area of
expertise, were made to the Planning Board.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO HAVE THE EDC PRESENT ANY LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
PLANNING BOARD.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 17
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested this could be handled by having a Planning Board member be part
of team like when the EDC first began. Mr. Doherty said the proposed ordinance requests the Planning
Board provide an ex-officio member. He explained the previous ordinance language, “The planning board
and economic development commission shall make joint recommendations on such subjects to the city
council on or about the first meeting in December.” was replaced with language stating the commission
will work with other boards and commissions and other entities on areas of common interest. He
envisioned that problem would not arise due to the Planning Board liaison, the Council liaison and this
more directed language. He acknowledged a little bit of policing would be required.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented all those people were members of EDC previously and it did
not work well. She questioned how EDC land use suggestions would get to the Planning Board to be
vetted before they come to the City Council. Mr. Doherty said the code does not specify exactly how that
happens but it could occur at different points in the Planning Board’s consideration. For example, in the
Highway 99 subarea plan, provisions regarding land use will ultimately go to the Planning Board and on
to the City Council. Along that path, the EDC may want to input such as ways to incentivize
development. He anticipated the ordinance language would instruct the EDC to find ways to engage with
the Planning Board whether a joint meeting, submitting their recommendations, a companion piece, etc. It
was difficult to know the best mechanism for that interaction in advance for every issue. The City Council
liaison should interject to the EDC the need to collaborate with the Planning Board.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Councilmembers Tibbott and Nelson, former Planning Board
members, their thoughts. Councilmember Tibbott agreed the vagueness of the language lends itself to a
variety of options. Any proposed land use change would need to go through the Planning Board and he
felt the proposed language was workable. Councilmember Nelson concurred.
Councilmember Mesaros commented it sounded like was a management problem rather than a structural
problem. The proposed structure is correct; it just needs to be managed well and followed through on
because in Council President Johnson’s observation, they were not. There are two sides to
communication; the Council needs to demand the EDC and Planning Board live up to their sides of the
communication.
MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4018, REESTABLISHING THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she will not support motion, not because she does not support the
general idea of the EDC but she objects to the experience members are required to have. She believed that
would prevent a large blue collar group of citizens to include occupations such bartenders, daycare
workers, bus drivers, artists, nurses, etc. as well as stay-at-home parents and caregivers.
Mr. Taraday relayed the motion included the amendment that was adopted prior to the main motion, to
require the report to Council be made in the first quarter.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling reported the positions will be advertised for about two weeks beginning tomorrow.
Councilmembers will be informed of the pool of candidates and a response will be requested within two
weeks with a goal of having the EDC up and running in early March.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 18
E. RECONSIDERATION OF THE MAYOR’S VETO OF ORDINANCE NO. 4017 -
AMENDING THE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 23.40 ENVIRONMENTALLY
CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS, 23.50 WETLANDS, 23.60 CRITICAL
AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS, 23.70 FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS, 23.80
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS, AND 23.90 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
CONSERVATION AREAS, AND AMENDING ECDC SECTION 19.00.025, A
PROVISION OF THE BUILDING CODE RELATED TO FREQUENTLY FLOODED
AREAS
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the statute states there is an obligation to enter the rationale for the
veto into the journal. He suggested there be a formal acknowledgement of receipt of the basis of the veto.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas acknowledged receipt of the veto. Mayor Earling acknowledged he sent
the veto.
F. CONSIDERATION OF THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE
This item was pulled from the agenda via action taken during Agenda Item 2.
6. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling encouraged Councilmembers to attend tomorrow’s signing of the final documents for the
purchase of Civic Field tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Mayor Earling reminded of his State of the City presentation on February 11 at 8:30 a.m. at the Edmonds
Theater. There will be free popcorn.
7. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis invited the Council to attend WRIA 8’s Salmon Recovery Summit on
Thursday. She expressed her appreciation for the Council agreeing to pull Item 5F; she plans to prepare
several amendments in response to citizen input. She thanked the citizens who have provided comments.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported at the Special Olympics Regional Tournament the four
Edmonds teams that participated received gold, silver and bronze medals in basketball.
Councilmember Mesaros reported at his first Public Facilities District meeting last week, a stakeholders’
event later this month was announced. He will email Councilmembers the date and encouraged them to
attend.
Councilmember Teitzel commented the CAO is a very delicate issue. Edmonds is over 95% built out so
the question is how to respect property owners’ rights to modify their property and also support
environmental health. He was encouraged by a letter from the Department of Ecology that acknowledges
water quality may be improved with reduced buffers in exchange for restoration. He plans to continue
talking to citizens, researching and reading in order to make a well informed decision. He sought a win-
win, improving environmental health and not unduly restricting property owners’ rights.
Councilmember Tibbott reminded of the upcoming Edmonds School District Levy election; ballots are
due by Tuesday next week. This is a great opportunity to support technology in schools as well as to
support children and families in the district.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 19
Council President Johnson announced a SNOCOM open house on Thursday. She sought Council
direction regarding whether to hold a public hearing on the CAO.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether it would be a public hearing to gain input into the new
CAO or a public hearing after the ordinance is amended. As a result of the Mayor’s veto, Council
President Johnson explained the Council now has a clean slate and can make amendments to the last
version of the ordinance prepared in October for the December 15 meeting. Due to the amount of time
that has elapsed, members of the public and Council have requested another public hearing. Although
legal requirements have been met by the public hearing at the Planning Board and at the City Council, her
question to the Council was whether to have another public hearing. She suggested providing notice and
having the public hearing in two weeks. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recommended if the Council chose to
have another public hearing, the Council first flesh out all the conceivable possible versions of an
ordinance and amendments and have the public hearing on all of them. That would put the Council on
very solid ground as to whether another public hearing was required due to the amendments.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not vote for many of the previous amendments. She plans to
provide several amendments using the old ordinance. She suggested a study session to identify all the
amendments and then decide whether to have a public hearing. She has spent 20-30 hours during the past
two weeks talking with citizens and recommended Councilmembers review the document and propose
amendments.
Senior Planner Lien said he is on vacation for the February 16. A work session could be held on February
23 to discuss amendments, followed by a public hearing in March and a decision made after the public
hearing or at a subsequent meeting in March.
Councilmember Buckshnis recommended Councilmembers work off the ordinance that was presented to
Council on December 15 prior to Council amendments.
Council President Johnson summarized the Council would hold a work session on February 23 where
Councilmembers propose all their amendments. Following a public hearing, the Council could vote.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed his concern the Council was now revisiting an item that was discussed in
great detail on December 15. He was hopeful the Council was not setting a precedent, whereby a decision
was made and the Council was now undertaking another public hearing process due to public concern.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the veto changed everything. Mayor Earling commented there was
always that potential again.
8. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
9. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 2, 2016
Page 20
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.