20160419 City Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
April 19, 2016
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 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
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Earling relayed a tragic accident occurred on the waterfront today, a pedestrian was killed by a
train. Little additional information is available at this time. This highlights the importance of the work
being done on the Alternatives Analysis to identify ways to keep people safe and move them back and
forth.
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 CO UNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE ITEM 6F TO FOLLOW ITEM 6A. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2016
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 2
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #219441 THROUGH #219546 DATED APRIL 14, 2016
FOR $405,746.96
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM STEPHEN AND
KAREN ERNST ($7,829.25). CURT THOMPSON (319.53)
D. RECREATION & CONSERVATION OFFICE (RCO) GRANT RESOLUTIONS
E. SNOHOMISH COUNTY ILA AMENDMENT NO 3
F. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENTS FOR PLACEMENT OF TWO PEDESTRIAN
CURB RAMP AT 21900 HIGHWAY 99
4. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
A. SOUND TRANSIT 3 UPDATE
Development Services Director Shane Hope relayed her pleasure to be working with Kathy Leota,
Sound Transit, and others on the team presenting this draft ST3 Plan.
Ms. Leota explained the Sound Transit Board recently released the draft ST3 Plan and directed staff to
present it to the region. The Sound Transit District includes 3 counties 52 cities, more than 1,000 square
miles and 3 million people which represents approximately 40% of the State’s population. Sound Transit
operates regional express bus service, Sounder commuter rail and link light rail. She displayed a graph
illustrating annual increases in ridership 1999-2015 and projected increases 2017-2025 as new services
come on line. She highlighted ST2 projects underway:
Projects Scheduled Completion
University Link Extension 2016
Angle Lake Link Extension 2016
Northgate Link Extension 2021
Tacoma Link Extension
* partnership project to be baselined in Q2 2017
2022*
East Link Extension 2023
Lynnwood Link Extension 2023
Extension to Kent/Des Moines 2023
According to Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), more people are calling our region home:
2014 2.8 million
2040 3.7 million
She relayed the ST3 timeline:
Long range plan update: 2014
Revenue authority from Legislature: 2015
System planning (develop ballot measure): 2015-mid 2016
ST3 ballot measure: November 2016
With regard to why ST3, Ms. Leota explained bold transit infrastructure investments:
Benefit quality of life, economy and environment
Increased transportation capacity in busiest corridors
Delivered steadily over 25 years
Regional 112-mile light rail system
o Fast, frequent, reliable service
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 3
o Serving more riders and communities
o 470,000 – 580,000 daily riders by 2040
Ms. Leota described early deliverables in the draft ST3 Plan (2019-2024):
To improve bus speed and reliability
o Bus-on-shoulder opportunities: 1-5, 1-405, SR 518, SR 167
o Capital improvements for RapidRide C and D routes
o Bus capital improvements for Pacific Ave (Tacoma)
o Bus capital improvements in East Pierce County
To improve system access
o Parking on SR 522 in Kenmore, Lake Forest Park and Bothell
o I-405: Parking at Kingsgate and new transit center with parking in South Renton
o Parking for Sounder north and south lines
o Passenger amenities, including pedestrian and bicycle improvements
She highlighted projects in the draft ST3 Plan:
Projects Draft Schedule
Light Rail
Redmond Technology Center to Downtown LRT 2028
Kent/Des Moines to Federal Way LRT 2028
Federal Way to Tacoma Dome LRT 2033
West Seattle to Downtown Seattle LRT 2033
Lynnwood to 128th St SW (Mariner) LRT 2036
Infill Light Rail Station: Graham Street 2036
Infill Light Rail Station: Boeing Access Road 2036
Ballard to Downtown Seattle LRT (with new downtown rail tunnel) 2038
Tacoma Link Extension to Tacoma Community College 2041
128th SW (Mariner) to Everett LRT via Southwest Everett Industrial
Center and Evergreen Way
2041
Bellevue to Issaquah LRT 2041
BRT-ST Express
Approx. 600,000 annual hours to continue providing interim express
bus service in future HCT corridors
Ongoing
I-405 BRT: Lynnwood to Burien 2024
SR 522 and NE 145th Street BRT
UW Bothell to NE 145th light rail station
Includes service from Woodinville
2024
Sounder
Lakewood to DuPont Sounder with station in Tillicum 2036
South Sounder Capital Improvements Program
Funds capital items as such as track improvements, platform
extension and access projects to meet growing demand
2024-2036
Environmental & Future Investment Studies
HCT Environmental Study: Bothell to Bellevue via Kirkland
HCT Study: Northern Lake Washington
HCT Study: Light rail extending from West Seattle to Burien and connection to light rail spine
HCT Study: Connections from Everett to Everett Community
College
HCT Study: Commuter rail to Orting
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 4
Ms. Leota displayed and reviewed the project delivery timeline (2016-2041) for ST2 projects and projects
in the draft ST3 plan, noting new projects will come online every 3-5 years. The Sound Transit Board has
challenged staff to improve the timeline for delivery of ST3 projects.
She reviewed potential funding the Sound Transit Board will be considering for the draft ST3 Plan:
Revenue Source 2017-2041
(in billions, YOE)
Sales Tax 16.8
License Tabs 6.9
Property Tax 3.9
Total Taxes 27.6
Other Revenue 22.
Total estimated source of funds $50.1 billion
She summarized the total cost is $200/year or $17/month per person. The Board will also be considering
policies related to transit oriented development, affordable housing, sustainability, and access.
Opportunities for input include:
Online survey at soundtransit3.org
Public and stakeholder outreach
o April 19 Ballard High School, 5:30 pm
o April 21 Evergreen State College, Tacoma, 5:30 pm
o April 25 Everett Station, 5:30 pm
o April 26 West Seattle High School, 5:30 pm
o April 28 Old Redmond School House, 5:30 pm
o April 28 Todd Beamer High School, Federal Way, 5:30 pm
o April 28 Union Station, Seattle, 11:30 am
June: Adoption of Final System Plan
November: Ballot measure for voter consideration
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation for the light rail extensions that have occurred in
recent years, commenting it is has been needed for a long time. She asked whether the Lynnwood
extension would cross the freeway to the west side to assist commuters from Woodway and Edmonds or
would it continue on the east side of I-5. Ms. Leota responded the Northgate to Lynnwood link project
will follow I-5 on the east side, crossing to the west side north of Mountlake Terrace to the Lynnwood
Transit Center. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she used via Sounder recently and found it a
wonderful way to commute.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the $200/person/year cost and asked if that was every person in a
household and how many years that would continue. Ms. Leota answered it is per adult, likely over age
18, and continuing for 25 years.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the opportunities to speak and learn more regarding ST3, noting it
was unfortunate that only one will occur in Snohomish County and the next closest one is occurring
tonight in Ballard. He noted there was also only one opportunity to speak in Pierce County. He suggested
next time there be more opportunities for Snohomish County and Pierce citizens to participate.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the cost to operate the Sounder train, relaying she has
been told it operates in the red on a continuous basis. Ms. Leota responded ridership of the north Sounder
line is lower than ridership on the south Sounder line and offered to report back on whether it operates in
the red. Mayor Earling relayed one of the reasons ridership is lower is there is land on both sides of the
line in Pierce County; there is only land on one of the tracks on the north Sounder Line to Everett. Sound
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 5
Transit knew ridership would not be as high as the south Sounder line when it was developed. Ridership
has improved dramatically in recent years with additional efforts to reduce slides. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas requested data regarding the operation of the Sounder line.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed due to the fast growing population in Snohomish County and increasing
traffic there is concern with ST3 rail light link Lynnwood to Everett not occurring until 2041. He asked if
it would be possible to serve that link with a vastly expanded BRT at less cost to address the growing
transportation issue. Ms. Leota responded that has not been considered in this process. Issues that resulted
in the light rail to Everett occurring late in the 25-year period included, 1) the Board’s decision to have
the light rail line serve the Southwest Everett Industrial Center rather than straight from Lynnwood to
Everett which adds approximately $1 billion to the cost and 2) because Snohomish County is the smallest
area within the region, funding capacity for that project takes longer. At a December Board workshop,
staff was asked to consider lower cost ways to serve the Southwest Everett Industrial Center; options
developed included a hybrid light rail from Lynnwood to Everett along I-5 and a high quality BRT line
serving the Southwest Everett Industrial Center. That option could be delivered in 15 years. The Board is
still working through issues and options and taking public input.
Mayor Earling relayed the three members of the Snohomish County delegation sent a new proposal to
Sound Transit staff and Sound Transit Chair Dow Constantine today that would greatly reduce buildout
time to Everett.
B. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF EARTH DAY, APRIL 22, 2016
Mayor Earling read a proclamation pledging Earth Day, April 22 2015, to support green economy
initiatives in Edmonds and to encourage others to undertake similar actions. He presented the
proclamation to Council President Johnson.
Councilmember Nelson provided a list of Earth Day events:
Lifting our Voices for the Earth – a concert of inspiration songs, displays and information on
combatting climate change. Edmonds United Methodist Church, Friday April 22, 7 – 9 pm
Low Tide Beach Walk and Cleanup, Meet at Olympia Beach Visitor Center, Sunday, April 24,
noon – 2
Seaview Elementary annual Perrinville Creek Clean-up led by acclaimed retired teacher Bob
Shepherd, Friday morning near Perrinville Post Office
Regional events including events at the UW and Seattle Center including the Science Center,
further information available on the King County website.
Tree Plantings – Renton, Seward Park, Marysville
Clean-up activities – Duwamish waterway, Washington Park Arboretum
Family activities – Newcastle, Duvall, Bellevue
Block parties – Everett, Mill Creek and Seattle’s Capitol Hill
C. RESOLUTION ON ZERO WASTE POLICY
Councilmember Nelson read the Zero Waste and Beyond Waste Resolution into the record:
WHEREAS, the State of Washington’s Waste Not Washington Act ESHB 1671 of 1989, is a
comprehensive solid waste management bill that establishes the fundamental strategies of waste reduction
and source separation of solid wastes; and
WHEREAS, the Waste Not Washington Act also established an aggressive state goal to achieve a fifty
percent recycling rate by 1995, which included the efforts of local governments to help achieve this goal
by including waste reduction and recycling elements in their own comprehensive solid waste management
plans; and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 6
WHEREAS, the Washington Department of Ecology issued in 2004 a state solid and hazardous waste
plan titled “Beyond Waste Plan” as required under Chapter 70.95 and Chapter 70.105, Revised Code of
Washington [RCW] to be developed and regularly update d (updated in 2009 and 2015), which is a 30
year plan for eliminating wastes and the use of toxic substances; and
WHEREAS, the Beyond Waste Plan is the state plan to support the waste management hierarchy
established in the main solid and hazardous waste statutes which both identify waste reduction as the
highest priority. The 30 -year vision outlined in the Beyond Waste Plan seeks to eliminate most solid
wastes and toxics and use any remaining waste products as resources; and
WHEREAS, the Beyond Waste Plan uses a sustainable materials management approach that looks at the
full life cycle of materials from the design and manufacturing phase, through the use phase and to the end
-of-life phase when the material is either disposed of or recycled, which is an approach also used by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and
WHEREAS, the Snohomish County 2013 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan embraces the
State strategies and goals, including the Beyond Waste Plan, and has a vision that shifts to a more
sustainable future, where people are generating less waste and handling wastes they do generate using
environmentally sound and approaches; and
WHEREAS , the Snohomish County 2013 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan includes waste
prevention , reduction of waste and toxic materials pollution prevention, reuse, recycling, and equitable
and efficient waste collection services for County residences and businesses, and supports product
stewardship that acknowledges that not all products and packaging are suitable for reuse or recycling and
that some products require special handling for disposal such as pharmaceuticals , pesticides and other
hazardous waste ; and acknowledges that the reduction of waste and toxics, pollution prevention and
reuse , make up the highest tier of the solid waste hierarchy; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is a signatory on the interlocal agreement to follow the County’s
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and indeed continually carries out waste reduction and
recycling actions and activities as outlined in the Plan; and
WHEREAS, Zero Waste is a philosophy and visionary goal that supports the Beyond Waste Plan and is
ethical, economical, and efficient and will guide people in changing their lifestyles and practices to
emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are designed to become resources for
others to use; and
WHEREAS, Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid
and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not
dispose of them; and
WHEREAS, implementing Zero Waste strives to eliminate all discharges to land, water or air that are a
threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health; and
WHEREAS, Edmonds 2015 Comprehensive Plan identifies Zero Waste as a strategic goal for
consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Edmonds hereby adopts both Zero Waste
and Beyond Waste as long -term goals in order to prevent and eliminate waste and pollution in the
extraction, manufacture, transportation, storage, use, reuse, and recycling of materials.
These goals can be achieved through action plans and strategies that significantly prevent and reduce
waste and pollution. These strategies will include 1) encouraging residents, businesses and agencies to
use, reuse, and recycle materials judiciously, in addition to encouraging manufacturers to produce and
market less toxic and more durable, repairable, recycled, and recyclable products; 2) investigating
mandatory waste collection in support of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan; and 3) investigating construction and demolition waste source separation strategies
such as permit incentives, mandatory source separation and recycling , education and outreach.
In order to establish short- and long-term goals, and monitor city efforts, City staff will first identify
quantitative metrics and establish dependable baseline measurements. Staff may collaborate with the
Climate Protection Committee to assist in program evaluation. Data measures should mirror State and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 7
County measures when possible, and should include reasonably attainable local per capita rates, and other
pertinent data. Quantitative targets should strive to meet or exceed State and County targets and be
updated accordingly.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1357, ZERO WASTE AND BEYOND WASTE
RESOLUTION.
Council President Johnson thanked everyone who has worked on this over the past two years including
Public Works Director Phil Williams, Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher and members of the Climate
Change Committee.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Maggie Fimia, Edmonds, representing SmarterTransit.org, a nonpartisan, pro-transit, all volunteer
organization (previously the Coalition for Effective Transportation Alternatives) responded to the Sound
Transit’s representative’s presentation. Ms. Fimia pointed out Seattle is not behind in its high capacity
transit system; in fact, transit ridership is in the top 10 in the nation with its mostly bus transit. The high
capacity transit system includes the bus tunnel and 310 miles of HOV lanes that carry more transit riders
than any city with light rail. The area is only behind cities with heavy rail like New York and Chicago.
Light rail is related to capacity not weight; light rail cars are actually very heavy because they often
operate on the surface and must be able to withstand the impact of vehicles. Light rail can only be four
cars long, cannot block intersections or travel more often than 4-5 minutes which results in less capacity
than a high capacity bus in a bus-only lane. Their organization was not aware of a 25-year sunset on the
taxes in ST3 like there in ST1 and ST2. According to the PSRC adopted Transportation 2040 Plan, this
area goes from over 16 million to 19 million trips per day by all forms of transportation. She requested
SmarterTransit.org have an opportunity to make a 15-minute presentation at a future meeting.
Dave Buelow, Edmonds, relayed three requests related to the potential increased building heights in the
frequently flooded area in the CAO:
1. Councilmembers, particularly new Councilmembers, remember their campaign promises not to
support increased building heights in the bowl. The voters are watching.
2. Do not make a far-ranging decision based on emotion regarding a specific project. He doubted
building height would be an issue in the CAO discussion if not for the pending senior center
project. If two 2 attractive, useable floors cannot be accommodated in 28 feet, the plans should be
revised and possibly an alternate location sought. To those who say it’s only two feet, give it to
them, he said it’s only two feet, don’t give it to them. He feared if the additional height were
allowed, other property owners in the multi-acre frequently flooded area would request it. That
area include much of the waterfront as well as Harbor Square, Salish Crossing and adjoining
properties. As BAS evolves, 2 feet may prove not to be enough for the senior center and 4-8 feet
may be requested for future projects.
3. The City has many citizen commissions and study groups; most are well intended but the results
frequently include wish lists that seep their way into plans or governing documents which are
used to drive the necessity to change building codes to meet the desired study or plan. If the
Council wants to discuss amending building heights in Edmonds, it should take up that topic, but
it should be done openly and not through the backdoor such as via the CAO.
Mr. Buelow summarized: keep campaign promises and credibility, raising the height of buildings is the
same as raising building heights; vote with your head not with your heart and don’t drive building code
changes via inappropriate vehicles.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 8
Bruce Farris, Port of Edmonds, relayed the Port represents the economic and environmental health of
the community. The City is in the process of updating the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) and the CAO.
The Port has formally submitted comments opposing some of the SMP elements. The CAO must be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology (DOE) and Growth Management Board. The CAO
will have significant impact on the economic health and environmental future of the community;
potentially affecting homeowners who live by streams and businesses interested in expanding and
developing their properties and improvements to the Marsh and shoreline property. DOE is awaiting
completion of the City’s CAO before approving the SMP and have cited the importance of consistency
between the plans. DOE has stated under state law there is no science supporting a buffer greater than 50
feet and has supported the categorization of the Marsh as a Category 2 wetland. He quoted from the BAS
addendum with regard to buffer effectiveness, in highly developed community’s such as Edmonds,
standard buffer widths may be difficult to achieve as noted in the 2004 BAS Report. Many wetlands and
stream buffers extend into residential yards that have been previously developed and are likely to provide
limited function in terms of wetland protection. Furthermore, some buffers are substantially developed
and can contain impervious surfaces, commercial or residential buildings. While not specifically stated in
BAS and buffer guidance documents, a scientific judgment of these areas would conclude they do not
provide the same function and values as vegetated or undeveloped due to the physical separation. He
commented the City Council’s process with regard to the CAO update has been lengthy, confusing and
seemingly at odds with DOE and Growth Management Board’s guidance and review process.
Amendments have been proposed after formal public testimony with little time for public comment or to
understand the proposals including a large volume of new information released last Friday regarding
possible revisions to the CAO. The Port respectfully suggests the CAO be brought into conformance with
the SMP, the Council cease proposing new amendments without providing adequate time for community
review and comment and the Council work to comply with applicable state law in finalizing both the
CAO and the SMP.
Doug Swartz, Edmonds, expressed the following concerns with increasing building heights:
1. Liability – requiring a building to be two feet above flood level implies that level is sufficient
and no one know whether that will be sufficient. It is up to the designer to build a building in
a flood zone that is both conservative and safe.
2. This type of change opens flood gates for further requests for building height increases
3. FEMA documentation, a key element for this change, is in process. The amendment can wait
until the new FEMA document is completed
Mr. Swartz relayed after meeting with the Senior Center Executive Director today, he was impressed with
the building and the director’s knowledge of the building but it appeared the building would be just as
functional and beautiful without the extra two feet. He urged new Councilmembers to remember their
campaign pledge not to raise building heights in the downtown core.
Kathleen Rath, Edmonds, recalled several Councilmembers were opposed to increased building heights
when campaigning for election. The waterfront and downtown areas have been declared a frequently
flooded zone by FEMA due to rising sea levels. She was concerned with allowing a 32-33 foot total
height for a new building such as the senior center because it opened the City to exceptions. She recalled
at the March 15 public hearing, when the Port of Edmonds expressed interest in 35-foot building heights,
another citizen said he was glad home heights could be raised in frequently flooded areas. The proposed
building is beautiful and would be a vibrant part of the City, but architects and engineers could reduce the
ceiling height on one or two floors.
Rowena Miller, Edmonds, a resident of the Seaview area, said she has no vested interest in views from
the Edmonds bowl area. As an Edmonds resident since 1967, she has seen numerous building height
increases, and was again concerned about building height creep. The proposed change in the CAO to
allow an additional two feet of building height in the waterfront area invites development in addition to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 9
the proposed senior center. Higher building heights downtown or on the waterfront decrease light and
diminish the charm of Edmonds and higher buildings have eroded Edmonds’ charm enough. During
election campaigns, all Councilmembers promised to keep building heights at currently required levels;
constituents expect Councilmembers to abide by their promises. Because the senior center wants to build
in the floodplain is no reason to change the CAO. This waterfront area is already a development risk; king
tides and winds have resulted in costly damage. The Earth Day Proclamation and the Zero Waste
Resolution state global warming will bring rising sea levels. Remembering the tragedy and cost of Oso,
code changes to prohibit any development in floodplains is more sensible, wi ser, less costly and safer.
She implored Councilmembers to retain the present building height regulations and prohibit floodplain
development.
Phil Lovell, Edmonds, explained due to ongoing scientific investigation, it appears the federal guidelines
will designate certain shoreline areas with a new and higher 100-year floodplain elevation; this would be
elevation 12.0 for the Edmonds Senior Center site which is currently elevation 11.0. These elevations are
in accordance with the national datum standard identified as NAVD 88. In shoreline areas of the Puget
Sound, this is in anticipation of sea level rise and/or storm sea level surge. The c urrent senior center
building is at approximately 12.0 and it already gets flooded by Puget Sound under certain conditions. To
address the federal designation, the first floor of the new waterfront community center on the same City-
owned site should be at least 2 feet higher than the new 100-year floodplain elevation which would be
elevation 14.0. However, the senior center and its design team, in an effort to be extra vigilant and
conservative, would like to place the first floor at elevation 15.0. The surrounding site will need to be
raised by approximately two feet to accommodate the new higher floodplain while maintaining level
building conditions at the entrances to the new building. The proposed fix to the CAO in anticipation of
the new federal guidelines is an amendment establishing the 2-foot criteria, raising the first floor of any
new building this reasonable amount above the new 100-year floodplain elevation. Such as provision has
nothing to do with building heights in Edmonds. ACE appears to be saying do whatever you need to do to
accommodate this sea level rise but don’t modify any building height measurement criteria within the
development code to accommodate the new waterfront community center because others will use the
precedent to gain extra building height downtown in the future. Mr. Lovell summarized ACE’s posture is
an insult to the greater community who will benefit from the new community center and the highly
responsible governance structure within the City who are seeking solutions to enable continued
movement forward.
Don Osterhaug, Edmonds, President Board of Directors Edmonds Center, expressed support for Mr.
Lovell’s comments. The City is facing a simple choice; the Council needs to provide a path through the
bureaucratic maze to allow the Edmonds Senior Center to build a new community center under its
proposed design parameters or the City will inherit the liability of supporting and maintaining the current
building indefinitely at increasing expense, money the City does not have. With sea level change a reality
of science, these maintenance and liability issues will only get worse. The City cannot walk away from
this as the property was acquired and dedicated as a senior center and long term lease documents have
been executed between the Senior Center and the City locating the center at the current site. There are
currently major maintenance issues with existing building; several years ago the City and the Senior
Center recognized the west wooden wall was in serious condition and the City chose not to investigate it
further with the assumption the building would be replaced. The floors continue to settle due to subsoil
consisting of decomposing sawdust. The floors have been repaired several times at significant cost and
are due for repair again. If the cost of repairs ever exceeds 25% of the replacement cost of the building, it
was his understanding the City would be required to do seismic upgrades.
6. ACTION ITEMS
A. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR SEABROOK ESTATES AT 860 CASPERS STREET
(PLN20140061)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 10
Senior Planner Kernen Lien displayed the final plat map, explaining Seabrook Estates is a 7-lot plat
located at the corner of Caspers Street and 9th at 860 Caspers Street, next to the United Methodist Church.
The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on April 9, 2015 and granted approval of the preliminary
plat on April 23, 2015. Final plat approvals are Type IV-A decisions made by the City Council; if the City
Council finds the public use and interest will be served by the proposed subdivision and that all
requirements of the preliminary approval have been met, the final plat shall be approved and the Mayor
and City Clerk shall sign the statement of City Council approval on the final plat.
The applicant has completed all the requirements of the preliminary plat approval or, in the case of some
Engineering and Planning Division requirements, a performance bond has been posted to ensure
completion. Upon completion of required improvements, maintenance bonds will be posted as required.
Since all the conditions and requirements of the preliminary plat have been completed or p rovided for,
staff recommends the final plat be approved. The packet includes the final plat, signed by the Public
Works Director and Development Services Director.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if all the Hearing Examiner’s conditions have been met. Mr. Lien
answered yes.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1358 IN PREPARATION FOR RECORDING OF THE PLAT
WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR
Councilmember Teitzel noted the soil structure is very dense and drainage is not great. Typically the City
requires all roof runoff to be managed on site; he asked how that would be accomplished if the soil does
not drain well. Mr. Lien answered the stormwater plan calls for detention rather than infiltration.
Councilmember Teitzel observed any overflow from the detention facility would be into the City storm
system. Mr. Lien agreed.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
F. CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE
Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed:
Tonight
o Recap of amendment decision
o Continue Council discussion and decide which proposed amendments to carry forward
Next Council meetings:
o April 24th – present draft copy of code with all amendments
Mr. Lien reviewed potential amendments:
ECDC 23.90.040.C.1 –Native Vegetation
5.A – Apply to RS-8 and RS-10 zones
o Would greatly expand the area the provision would apply to
o RS-12 and RS-20 established because of the presence of critical areas
o Comprehensive Plan designation
Single-family Resource (RS-12, RS-20)
Single-family Urban (RS-8, RS-10)
5.B – Consider different native vegetation percentage for RS-8 and RS-10 zones
5.C – Change “…native trees over 10 inches in dbh make up more than 70 percent of the canopy
cover” to “…native trees over 6 inches in dbh make up more than 40 percent of the canopy
cover.”
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 11
o May trigger the requirements of this provision on more properties than the original proposal
o Original proposal based on specific habitat features
o Amendment intended to preserve more canopy coverage
o May be further refined through development of UFMP
Councilmember Tibbott referred to proposed development on undeveloped land zoned RS-8 or RS-10
land and asked how this amendment or low impact development (LID) would instruct the City on the
preservation of native vegetation. Mr. Lien answered that is not really a critical area issue. Updated
subdivision regulations will be presented to the City in the future; if the City wanted to maintain more
canopy coverage, LID could provide flexibility in the way plats are designed to cluster lots to preserve
trees or other features. LID techniques include stormwater infiltration, less impervious surface, etc.
Councilmember Tibbott acknowledged it was not a CAO goal but it was a policy the City could pursue in
the future. Mr. Lien agreed, via the UFMP.
Councilmember Buckshnis said forests and steep slopes are critical areas. Mr. Lien agreed steep slopes,
streams, wetlands are critical areas. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if 5.C would include R-8, 10, 12
and 20 zones. Mr. Lien explained 5.C would only apply to the RS-12 and RS-20. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked the timing of the UFMP. Mr. Lien said the Comprehensive Plan anticipates adoption by
the end of 2017.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO APPROVE AMENDMENT 5C.
Council President Johnson asked how canopy coverage requirements in 5.C would be managed and
implemented in advance of the UFMP. Mr. Lien explained the canopy coverage requirements in 5.C are
related to subdividable properties. For example, if a subdivision was proposed in the RS-12 or 20 zone,
staff would consider whether the specific conditions/criteria are met such as is there a stream, wetland or
landslide hazard associated with that potential subdivision. If yes, the makeup of the native vegetation
would be considered. If 5.C passed, whether 40% of the canopy coverage consist of trees of 6 inch dbh or
larger would be considered. If yes, this provision would apply. He summarized it is site specific.
Council President Johnson asked how the canopy cover would be measured. Mr. Lien referred to
Amendment 12 which requires native trees over 6 inch dbh or larger be identified. He provided an
example of a subdividable property, identifying trees 10 inch or greater dbh and trees 6 inch or greater
dbh. In this example the trees do not make up more than 70% of the canopy coverage so in the draft
proposal this requirement would not be triggered. If 5.C were adopted, trees greater than 6 inch dbh make
up more than 40% of the canopy coverage so it would be triggered.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether a category forest could be considered a critical area. Mr.
Lien answered potentially. The Priority Habitat Species Map maps forested urban corridors. A forest
could be a critical area if it was on the Priority Habitat Map but it may not be if it is just a flat, forested 2-
acre property that is not connected to anything else. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the way a
forest becomes a critical area is if it has habitat. Mr. Lien clarified if it is associated with another critical
area, stream, wetland or slope or identified on the Priority Habitat Species layer.
Council President Johnson recalled a proposal to include other zoning areas. She wanted assurance any
critical area would be evaluated regardless of the zone. Mr. Lien assured the critical area regulations
apply to all properties in the City regardless of the zone.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
It was the consensus of the Council that Amendments 5A and B were off the table.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 12
Frequently Flooded Areas
6 – Do not consider amendments to ECDC 19.00.025 and 21.40.030 at this time
o Frequently flooded areas are critical areas by definition
o Building code regulates development in the flood plain
o Proposed amendment to definition height intended to compensate for requirement to build
two feet above base flood elevation
o Is appropriate to consider at this time
Council President Johnson asked whether discussion of all the CAO amendments had been concluded.
Mr. Lien explained this is a CAO amendment; frequently flooded areas are critical areas by definition.
The City regulates frequently flooded areas in the building code rather than what is normally thought of
as the CAO, Chapters 23.40 – 23.90. Council President Johnson asked whether there were any other
Council amendments to be considered tonight before the Council directed the City Attorney to bring back
the CAO for Council consideration and final adoption. Mr. Lien answered yes, this is a CAO amendment.
Council President Johnson asked if there were any further amendments for the Council to consider other
than the frequently flooded areas amendment. Mr. Lien answered all the amendments other than
frequently flooded areas have been reviewed. He stressed frequently flooded areas are critical areas and it
is part of the critical area regulations.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY -
MONILLAS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE CRITICAL AREA
ORDINANCE IN TWO FORMS, THE UNDERLINED/REDLINED VERSION AND A CLEAN
COPY FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
Council President Johnson relayed her understanding there were three components the Council was
considering. The first, the CAO which is adopted as part of the GMA and when adopted will be in place
immediately. There are two very important and related pieces of legislation before the Council, changing
the building code and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). She recognized they are
related to the CAO but were contained in different documents. The City Council’s obligation was to
complete the CAO which she felt the Council could do by concluding the amendments. If time remains,
the Council can discuss the other two items.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she looks at things very differently; she looks at it globally; frequently
flooded areas need to be considered as part of the CAO similar to the amendment that included reference
to the definition of City Council. She did not support the motion.
Councilmember Tibbott asked for reference to frequently flooded areas in the CAO. Mr. Lien displayed
Exhibit 1, page 59, Chapter 23.70.010 in the portion of the code that is generally thought of as the critical
area regulations. This chapter specifically states, “… administration shall utilize such other data as may
be reasonably available from the federal state or other sources in administering this chapter as provided in
the current edition of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in
ECDC Title 19.” He summarized the critical area regulations specifically reference frequently flooded
areas are addressed in the building code. The COA update includes frequently flooded areas and since
they are regulated by the building code, the change in Title 19 of the building code has been proposed.
The proposed definition change is due to the implications the recommendation has for building height.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding Mr. Lien was suggesting floodplains be identified the
same as identified on FEMA maps. An amendment has been proposed to increase the base by two feet for
any new buildings constructed in the floodplains. Mr. Lien clarified the proposed Council amendment
was not to consider the proposed changes. During Planning Board review, the Planning Board
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 13
recommended all structures be required to be at least 2 feet above base elevation and to consider a
potential amendment to the definition of where height is measured, 2 feet above base elevation.
Councilmember Tibbott said if the Council approves the CAO as written without any further
amendments, it contains the 2-foot provision. Development Services Director Shane Hope clarified if the
proposal before Council as recommended by the Planning Board along with the other amendments is
approved by the City Council, it would have the two feet above base elevation provision and it would not
dock the height of new buildings constructed in the floodplain at the new base flood elevation.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday asked for clarification regarding the ordinance he is being directed to draft.
From the discussion it appears a least a couple Councilmembers seem to think the motion contemplates
the original frequently flooded areas language would remain in the ordinance he would be drafting.
Council President Johnson clarified her motion was to direct the City Attorney to prepare the CAO
contained in all of the discussions to date, meaning it only addresses the CAO and does not include any
proposed amendments from December 15, 2015 and does not include the Planning Board
recommendations. Her intent was to recognize there are three separate, legal instruments, 1) the CAO
which is part of the GMA, 2) the building code, and 3) the ECDC. Her motion was directed toward the
CAO as presented by staff. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding is the Council has already adopted
amendments as part of this process that are contained in Title 21. He asked whether Council President
Johnson’s motion was directing him to take out those Title 21 amendments from the ordinance. Council
President Johnson said it was difficult to answer that question but basically yes, she wanted the ordinance
to focus on the CAO first and foremost and the Council can adopt that and then discuss the related
building code and ECDC amendment separately.
Mr. Taraday said it would be more clear if the Council spoke with regard to titles; until now, when
discussing the CAO, there has not been a distinction between the Title 21, Title 23 or Title 19 portions of
the CAO. He suggested the motion may be more clear if it directed him to draft the Title 23 portions of
the CAO.
Mr. Lien relayed his understanding of Council President Johnson’s intent, to direct the City Attorney to
draft an ordinance that would include all the proposed amendments, Exhibit 1, pages 1 – 90, but not
include the proposed amendments to 19.025.Q requiring all structures to be built 2 feet above base flood
elevation or the amendment to ECDC 21.40.030.D related to the height exception.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE
PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO 19.025.Q AND HEIGHT
EXCEPTIONS.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order that the amendment changed the intent of the
motion. Mr. Taraday agreed that given how expressly Council President Johnson intended to remove
those portions of the proposal in her motion, the amendment seems to go in the opposite direction which
typically is not allowable for an amendment. He suggested it would be more appropriate to speak against
the motion rather than to make the proposed amendment.
Councilmember Mesaros said this portion of the CAO is important as the City moves forward. He
appreciated that Council President Johnson was trying to put things in silo format. However, issues in the
City are not siloed, they are integrated. He recommended voting down Council President Johnson’s
motion.
City Clerk Passey described a process in Roberts Rules of Order for a substitute motion which is used
when a motion presents a radically different solution than the motion on the table. The form would be to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 14
move to substitute for the motion this other solution. If the motion to substitute is seconded, the debate is
taken on the first motion, then debate and conclusion occurs on the second motion, and then Council
votes whether to substitute. Councilmember Mesaros suggested the cleaner version was Mr. Taraday’s
suggestion to vote on the first motion.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS WITHDREW HIS AMENDMENT.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4); COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, MESAROS, TEITZEL, AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE AND ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
DRAFT THE ORDINANCE AND PRESENT IT TO COUNCIL NEXT WEEK TO INCLUDE THE
PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATIONS ON TITLE 19 AND THE HEIGHT EXCEPTION.
Councilmember Mesaros commented this has been a great process and a long process, the Council has
been reviewing the CAO since September. Mr. Lien added this is the 12th City Council meeting regarding
the CAO update. Councilmember Mesaros referred to an email he received from a citizen regarding how
hasty the Council was being. This has been a thoughtful process and staff has been very interactive. An
ordinance was originally approved by the Council and vetoed by the Mayor. There are others in addition
the senior center awaiting the Council’s decision on the CAO.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed appreciation for all the work that has been done. She pointed
out the Council approved the CAO in December; it was the Mayor’s veto that took it back through the
process. She was shocked by the lack of environmental concern demonstrated by several
Councilmembers. Not enough is known about frequently flooded areas, there has been discussion about
climate change, the marsh, waste management, etc. Whether two feet is enough had not been discussed to
her satisfaction; she felt six feet was more appropriate. One of the recommendations related to sea level
rise is to move buildings to the back side of the property which has not been discussed. She recalled being
laughed at when she made that suggestion with regard to the senior center due to dislike for cars between
the building and the water. She has learned a lot during the process but also viewed it as a hurry-up-and-
wait process.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she refused to be held hostage to the senior center saying they will
not construct a new building if they do not get exactly what they want, finding that blackmail at its bes t.
She expected better than that from the senior center, noting she had the right to say that because she
serves on the Board of Directors and is a frequent volunteer. She wanted to do the right thing for the
waterfront and for all of Edmonds, not the right thing for one area. She assured there would be a better
outcome if the Council looked at the building codes and determined the responsible approach. Stating two
feet is the right thing is a travesty when the floodplains are expected to extend to SR104. She concluded
she did not have enough information to make a decision tonight.
Councilmember Nelson observed all Councilmembers agree sea level rise is a real threat and concern to
the City; where Councilmembers differ is how respond, address and adapt to it. In doing his homework,
he looked at Olympia, one of only a few cities who began looking at this issue over 20 year ago. Olympia
updated their CAO in February 2016. One of the things that struck him was how sea level rise is being
impacted by the current El Nino events, a greater hazard than climate-driven sea level rise. In
November/December tides were 6 inches higher than predicted; on December 11 and 13, tides were 30
inches higher than predicted. This is a problem identified by science, quoting Albert Einstein, “The
significant problems of our time cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.” He
urged caution over expediency and did not support motion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 15
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested taking emotion out of this; everyone agrees sea level rise is going to
happen. After spending a great deal of time working with WRIA 8 and the marsh, she did not like being
told she did not understand the environment. She understood there is never right answer; even if all the
world’s scientists were put in a room, there would never be the right answer. This is an issue that either
Councilmembers get or they don’t; if they get it and want to do something about it, they either do it or
don’t. It has nothing to do with height, there is still a 30-foot height limit at the senior center and the
waterfront and a 35-foot height limit at Harbor Square. The issue is water levels will rise, plain and
simple. The Council can guess at the number but sooner or later a decision needs to be made. She relayed
Lake Washington has been raised and lowered 2 feet every year for years, anticipating a great deal of
discussion was necessary to make that decision. The fact of the matter is something has to be done and
there appears to be enough support for this something.
Council President Johnson estimated the Council had 1 hour and 25 minutes’ worth of agenda items left.
This one of the reasons she wanted to simply adopt the CAO because she knew this would require a great
deal of discussion and debate. Based on a review of the Planning Board minutes, there was a lot of
discussion at the Planning Board regarding sea level rise; the City Council has not had any presentations
on sea level rise or been educated on how the two-foot recommendation was made. It was her
understanding that recommendation was made by staff based on their best estimate of all the scientific
estimates. She felt the Council would benefit from a larger, longer discussion regarding sea level rise. She
favored adoption of the CAO and would support on an interim basis the two-foot height adjustment for
the building code but did not support the recommendation made by Phil Lovell at the Planning Board to
define a new base level for evaluating height. She viewed this as three distinct and interrelated decisions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her hope would have been to pull together groups and information,
have good solid base information regarding sea level rise as well as look at what other cities on Puget
Sound and on open waters have done. In her opinion this was a travesty to the environment and although
she may not be the biggest environmentalist, she understood that going to a few meetings did not make
her an environmentalist; what made her an environmentalist was standing up for the environment.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed he had done a significant amount of research regarding this issue,
studying many difference pieces of research related to sea level rise. The mean level that can be expected
is 2 feet or possibly little bit more over the next 100 years. He noted 100 years is a long time;
governments across the world are making efforts to work together to limit greenhouse gases; he was
hopefully sea level rise could be arrested over time. Based on the available data, the time is right to adjust
the base level elevation and measurement as proposed. There is a great deal of emotion related to this
issue; he agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis’ suggestion to take the emotion out of the discussion and
to talk about facts and logic. Logic would say to proceed; not proceeding is not responsible. With regard
to comments about honoring his campaign pledges, he said his predominate campaign pledge was to take
all the input he received, process it properly and make the very best decision he could for the City; he
intended to do that tonight.
Councilmember Tibbott said the complete CAO proposal includes Title 19, the provision related to an
additional 2 feet in the floodplain. When this came to Planning Board, they considering data provided by
the federal government. FEMA does not make recommendations without a great deal study and input
from scientists. FEMA’s recommendation is that it would be advisable for cities to use their information
as a basis for establishing a base two feet above the floodplain. In his opinion that recommendation from
the federal government was responsible and allowed cities to look at the reality of sea level rise and plan
for it. It is also equitable; all humans and possibly animals have contributed to the problem of sea level
rise and global warming. As a result, it is only equitable to plan for sea level rise plan and establish a two-
foot base for buildings in those locations. The proposal is simply to establish a new way of measuring the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 16
base in a frequently flooded area. The same option will not be extended to other areas of the City nor will
new standards be created for measuring on a hillside. This simply adjusts the way the base is measured
for new buildings in the floodplain. With regard to a campaign pledge not to increase building heights, he
assured the base is responsible and equitable and buildings will be the same as they have always been. He
summarized this was doing the best possible with the knowledge available and making use of the
information received from FEMA.
Council President Johnson asked when the FEMA map was due to be promulgated. Mr. Lien responded
the draft FEMA map is currently scheduled to be effective June 2017. Council President Johnson asked if
the FEMA states the elevation for building heights. Mr. Lien advised the FEMA map establishes the base
flood elevation; in the waterfront area it is 12 feet.
Council President Johnson said there is no direction from FEMA regarding the base flood elevation. She
recognized that is an important issue but there are many different opinions and she would like to hear
those opinions. For example, the University of Washington plans to convene a conference on this subject
and she was interested in what they said. She relayed there is no requirement for a new way of measuring
building height. It may be an equity issue, for example if a building is constructed two feet above the
current level to accommodate sea level rise, there is no requirement to allow an additional two feet in
building height. This is strictly a policy decision and a political decision; the Council cannot rely on what
the Planning Board said, the decision needs to be made independently and the Council must be
responsible for the decision.
Councilmember Mesaros asked Mr. Lien to review the bar graph related to sea level rise. Mr. Lien
explained the graph relates to the two most recent studies related to sea level rise, NRC 2012 and Mote et
al 2008. The NRC projection is about a two-foot sea level rise in the Puget Sound region; that is one of
the criteria used for establishing two feet above base flood elevation.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Councilmember Tibbott’s comment that FEMA indicated
buildings needed to be two feet above base flood elevation. Mr. Lien explained FEMA sets the base flood
elevation. The 2-foot recommendation was a result of, 1) most recent information indicates the average
projection are 2 feet at year 2100, and 2) the existing building code requires some structures to be at base
flood elevation and potentially up to 2 feet above base flood elevation. The amendment requires all
structures to be at two feet above base flood elevation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether
that was from FEMA. Mr. Lien answered no. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding
FEMA did not recommend two feet. Mr. Lien said FEMA establishes the base flood elevation and he was
not aware of any specific FEMA recommendation to require structures be above base flood elevation.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is a simple question, either you get it or not; either you are
ready to make decision or you won’t. She used the example that Edmonds passed a plastic bag ban before
other cities.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. MOTION FAILED (4-3)
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO. [MOTION REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY TO PASS.]
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS,
MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON
AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
B. FIRST QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 17
This item was postponed to a future meeting.
C. NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY
Economic Development & Communality Services Director Patrick Doherty relayed the Council approved
up to $19,000 for the National Citizen Survey (NCS), a survey conducted across the nation by the
National Research Center (NRC). The NCS is statistically significant survey utilizing a standardized
questionnaire to allow comparison to other communities. The City has the ability to request specific
geographical comparisons or comparisons based on community characteristics as well as to add 5-6
customized questions. The wording of the customized questions will be vetted by NRC as well as space
availability.
Mr. Doherty reviewed the customized questions, explaining Questions 14 and 15 were reworded to be
more similar to Question 17:
14. How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased funding for the following transportation-
related services: (Strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, strongly oppose, don’t
know)
- Repair and/or maintenance of City streets
- Construction of new sidewalks and repair/replacement of existing sidewalks
- Expansion of bicycle facilities
15. How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased funding for the following parks and
recreation-related services: (Strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, strongly oppose,
don’t know)
- Upgrading maintenance levels of existing parks
- Upgrading Frances Anderson Center
- Capital projects such as Civic Field, Marina Beach Park, etc.
- Acquisition of parkland, beachfront
16. Please indicate whether or not you currently experience discrimination in Edmonds based on your:
- Age
- Gender
- Race
- National origin
- Religion
- Disability
- Sexual orientation or gender identity
17. How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased funding to enhance the following Police-
related services: (Strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, strongly oppose, don’t
know)
- Increased patrol presence for crime deterrence, detection and apprehension
- Traffic enforcement
- Crime Prevention Services
- 24-hour coverage at Police Department front counter
- Youth Services programs (High School Resource Officer, DARE, GREAT, etc.)
- Crime analysis
- Domestic Violence Services
18. Rate how much the following are regular sources of information for you about City functions,
activities, programs and events through the following channels: (Major source, minor source, not a
source.)
- Printed media (newspaper, magazine, etc.)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 18
- City website or Facebook page
- Online media
- Posters, banners or other signage
- Word of mouth
Mr. Doherty advised Question 18 could be eliminated due to space availability.
Council President Johnson suggested two categories under 14, repair and/or maintenance of existing
sidewalks and construction of new sidewalks. She noted many streets lack sidewalks; it is the City’s
policy to have sidewalks on at least one side of the street. A question that combines the two may provide
a different answer. This change was agreeable to Council.
Councilmember Teitzel questioned what the Council would do with the response to Question 14, pointing
out a respondent may respond one way if the intent was to pursue a grant and another way if the intent
was a special levy. Mr. Doherty suggested adding “municipal” or “public” funding. He noted NRC likely
will have the appropriate wording; while NRC has been very accommodating with concepts, they will not
specify the wording until they are under contract. Councilmember Teitzel suggested adding “local”
funding.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested adding that it cost $1 million to maintain current streets. Mayor
Earling relayed at one point Public Works Director Phil Williams said $1.25 million/year would be
required to get caught up. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested quantifying the amount of transportation-
related services, noting the answer may differ depending on the cost. Mr. Doherty said that would be
difficult to do; strong support indicates that issue is a priority. Mayor Earling cautioned NRC will make
the final determination regarding wording.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THERE WILL BE FURTHER
CHANGES TO THE WORDING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
D. DOWNTOWN RESTROOM BUDGET AUTHORIZATION AND APPROVAL OF
PURCHASE
Economic Development & Communality Services Director Patrick Doherty provided background on the
project:
Preliminary cost estimates: $300,000
City Council approved $260,000 in the 2016 budget with the remainder expected from grants
o $10,000 received from the Edmonds Downtown Alliance
o $5,000 received from the Rotary with the potential of an additional $5,000 from the Rotary
District Office
Two concepts presented at March 22 Council meeting
Council preferred Concept Two
Council proposed enhanced Concept Two with addition of unisex/family restroom
Cost estimates:
o Concept One: $311,000
o Concept Two: $352,000
o Enhanced Concept Two: $390,000
He displayed drawings and reviewed the concepts:
Concept One:
Male and female restroom, each with two WCs
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 19
Located on the north (or south) side of the parking lot
Retains parking opposite the restroom
Bollards to define the protected sidewalk.
During Ad hoc design process with members of the Art Commission, BID and ADB, concern was
expressed with the perception of safety and welcoming with cars backing up into the waiting area
which led to Concept 2.
Concept Two:
Restroom located on the south side of the parking lot
Located in 2-3 parking spaces
Provides plaza with larger landscaping area
Restripes and re-landscapes
Removes only 1 parking space
Canopy for weather protection
As a result of Council discussion on March 22, a concept incorporating a unisex/family room was
proposed. This concept was not provided by the vendor on Washington State Master Contract. After staff
described it, they designed it and plan to include it in their list of options.
Enhanced Concept Two
Includes unisex/family room
Takes up no more east-west space
Slightly deeper north-south to accommodate the unisex/family
Separate doors to ADA accessible women’s restroom with 2 stalls, a unisex/family restroom and
a male 2-stall restroom
Utility area is smaller
Mr. Doherty recommended the Council:
Select the enhance Concept 2 (with unisex/family restroom)
Appropriate additional $115,000 from REET 1 (Fund 126)
Approve purchase of prefab building with male, female and unisex restroom from CXT, Inc.
(approved vendor on Washington State Master Contract
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the drawing of the enhanced Concept Two and suggested
eliminating one stall in each restroom. Mr. Doherty cautioned that reduces the capacity to only three
stalls. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she thought there were three stalls in the male and female
restrooms. Mr. Doherty reviewed the drawing, explaining the symbol in the entryway indicated the
restrooms were ADA accessible; there were two stalls in each restroom including one ADA accessible
stall in each.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed seeing more and more strollers downtown and inquired about fold-down
diaper changing tables in each restroom. Mr. Doherty said he inquired about that and it was suggested the
City purchase and install those.
Councilmember Nelson echoed Councilmember Teitzel’s request for changing table. He thanked Mr.
Doherty for articulating the Council’s vision and making it a reality.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support. She inquired about providing the additional funds from
excess REET funds. Mr. Doherty relayed REET 1 funds in 2015 were $250,000 over projections.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 20
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO APPROVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
E. RECLASSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTING MANAGER POSITION TO ASSISTANT
FINANCE DIRECTOR
Finance Director Scott James described the reasoning for reclassification:
Began recruiting for Accounting Manager position in February
Conducted multiple rounds of recruitment
Posted job on several sites including Indeed & Craig’s List
Labor market is a “job seekers” market
Edmonds’ recruiting woes are being widely experienced
He described additional benefits of reclassifying the position:
Fill the position sooner
Candidate will be able to “hit the ground running: due to their experience
Improve City’s sales tax auditing program
Add key staff support to development of the City’s Long-range Financial Plan
Integrate finance into development of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan
Improve performance of City’s investment portfolio
He provided an overview of the job description:
Acts in the capacity as Department Director in Director’s absence
Assist with development of City’s Long-range Financial Plan
Assist with management of the City’s Risk Management Plan
Assist with the development of the City’s Capital Improvement Program
Oversees the City’s treasury functions
Mr. James provided an overview of the skill sets being sought:
Higher level of experience with managing staff
Displays confidence
Effective communicator
Experience with developing budgets and CAFR
Willingness to engage Mayor, Council, staff and citizens
Experience with investments
He described Human Resources’ role:
Conducted salary survey of comparable cities
Recommends adjusting the salary range from step 14 to 16
o Adjusted salary range will make the City more competitive in a tight labor market
o Adjusted salary range increases the top step by $11,265
He relayed ways to pay for the additional expense:
Finance was able to increase 2015 investment earnings by $174,000 over the previous year
By paying off the last Public Safety payment early saved the City over $13,000
Expect investment portfolio earnings will continue to improve in 2016 with addition of new
position
Mr. James recommended the Council approve reclassification of the Accounting Manager position to
Assistant Finance Director tonight or on next week’s Consent Agenda.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 21
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed it was not an additional position, just an adjustment of a
position. She asked the difference in cost between the old position and the new. Mr. James answered
$11,265 at the top step.
Councilmember Mesaros inquired about the salary range for the position. Mr. James answered it starts
mid-$90,000 and the top is $121,000.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. James explained a Staff Accountant position was added during the
budget process. The Accounting Supervisor was reclassified to Accounting Manager; the City has been
unsuccessful in filling that position since January so the request is to reclassify it to Assistant Finance
Director.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the qualifications do not include municipal finance experience. Mr.
James relayed the details identified in the job description such as experience with GASB, BARS and
CAFR are unique to government. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the reclassification.
For Council President Johnson, Mr. James clarified the request is to, 1) reclassify the Accounting
Manager to Assistant Finance Director, and 2) adjust the salary range from step 14 to 16.
Councilmember Tibbott observed the job description also requires supervision of employees and
accounting staff. He asked how many people the position would supervise. Mr. J ames answered there are
currently six employees. Councilmember Tibbott asked who currently manages those employees. Mr.
James said he does.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO
APPROVE THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ACCOUNTING MANAGER AND THE
INCREASE IN THE SALARY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling advised of the ST3 open house in Everett on Monday, April 25 at 5:30 p.m. He
encouraged the public to provide feedback on the ST3 proposal either at a meeting, email or mail.
Mayor Earling relayed the three Sound Transit Board members from Snohomish County forwarded a
revised plan for Snohomish County that would save considerable time and move construction up
dramatically.
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Tibbott said the CAO discussions over last months have been broadening for him; he has
learned a lot about how the City governs in discussions with Councilmembers, staff and citizens. He
encouraged the public to submit emails to Council by Monday morning, noting he received 5-6 emails
this afternoon that he was unable to read before the meeting.
Councilmember Teitzel reminded of the Edmonds Jazz Connection on Saturday, May 21 at three venues:
Edmonds Center for the Arts, the Edmonds Theater and Holy Rosary. The event sponsors school jazz
bands and vocalists from throughout the northwest. There is no charge to attend but donations are gladly
accepted.
Councilmember Mesaros reported the City of Edmonds was featured on the front page of the Seattle
Times this morning. Today was a glorious day to enjoy the sunshine. Unfortunately there was a tragedy in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 22
the City today, a reminder of the contrast of life. Citizens are fortunate to live on the coast in a small town
next to a big city with a population of 3 million struggling with transportation issues. He felt fortunate to
live in Edmonds and was privileged to serve citizens as a Councilmember.
Council President Johnson thanked the Council for their courteous and thoughtful debate regarding the
CAO. Although she did not prevail, she appreciated the way the Council conducted its business. She was
glad after two years of effort to finally adopt a Zero Waste Policy.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Tibbott about the difficulty reading citizen
comments submitted on Tuesday. She noted the same was true for staff reports that the Council does not
receive until Tuesday.
In view of today’s tragedy where a pedestrian was killed by a train Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
relayed Councilmember Nelson assurance that emergency access was part of the At-Grade Crossing
Study. She noted having a safe way to cross the tracks was an important part of that study and she was
pleased it was being considered by the Task Force.
Councilmember Nelson reported a 43-year old man was killed today by a train. Trains blocked access
to/from the waterfront for three hours. During that time, three medical emergencies occurred including an
injured child and a woman in labor. In each of those instances, emergency responders had to obtain
permission from BNSF and crawl through a rail car to access the patient. Today’s tragedy is a reminder of
the important work the Mayor’s At-Grade Access Task Force is doing. The first criteria for considering
the potential alternatives is does the concept improve or provide reliable emergency access to the west of
the railroad tracks.
Councilmember Nelson congratulated Council President Johnson, the Climate Protection Committee and
staff for pushing through the Resolution on Zero Waste, an issue he worked on while serving on the
Climate Protection Committee. He shared statistics of waste that other cities’ produce that will never end
up in a landfill: Seattle 57%, Portland 60%, San Diego 67%, San Jose 73%, Los Angeles 76% and San
Francisco 80%. Edmonds joins a respectful list of cities that are seeking to make a tangible difference in
the environment.
Councilmember Buckshnis reminded April 22 is Earth Day. She complimented staff, citizens, Ms. Hope,
Mr. Lien and Mr. Taraday and Councilmembers for the tremendous amount of time that went into the
CAO. She suggested the Council take a breather and enjoy the earth on Earth Day.
9. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
10. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2016
Page 23
11.ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m.