Loading...
20170207 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES February 7, 2017 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Thomas Mesaros, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (participated by phone) Michael Nelson, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT M. Bruggman, Police Officer 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 Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7.00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5'h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmembers Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 20-21,2017 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2017 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2017 4. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ARTHUR RAY AULT (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 1 5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 6. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) SURPLUS PROPERTY 7. SALARY COMMISSION ORDINANCE 5. PRESENTATION 1. PROCESS FOR AMENDING SIGN CODE Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the sign code which included specific provisions for pedestrian signs was last amended and adopted in October 2016 following a public process. Issues arose after its adoption that raised concern for the Council and a separate process followed to adopt a resolution requesting the Mayor direct staff not to enforce certain aspects of the sign code as they related to pedestrian signs for a 120 -day period. The 120 -day period expires March 7, 2017. Staff has been researching the issues and developing options for consideration including consulting with the City Attorney on special legal issues related to potential amendments. Next steps include finalizing the language as well as a SEPA review process, submitting the draft proposal to the State, and presenting the amendments to the Planning Board for consideration and recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Hope explained the planning Board is required to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on code amendment per Title 20, Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. This is true for most of development code with a few exceptions. She envisioned it would take until the end of March to complete that process; two meetings with the Planning Board, the first on February 8 to provide an overview of concepts followed by a public hearing on February 22. The Planning Board's recommendation would then be presented to the City Council in March followed by a public hearing before the Council makes a final decision, likely near the end of March. Council President Mesaros commented the moratorium ends March 7 and it could be several weeks before the amendments are adopted. He asked about options. Ms. Hope answered the Council could extend the date of enforcement which would indicate the Council's expectation and still allow reasonable progress. If the date is not extended, staff could use some administrative discretion about prioritizing enforcement but it would be helpful to have Council guidance. Councilmember Teitzel said he had concerns similar to Council President Mesaros' concerns and preferred not to have a gap between the March 7 expiration date and adoption of amendments to the sign code and he preferred not to extend the date multiple times. If the intent is to bring the amendments to Council and a public hearing near the end of March, he was doubtful the amendments would be adopted by the end of March. He asked if extending until April 30 would provide sufficient time for the public process, a decision and implementation. Ms. Hope answered April 30 would be a good date as it allowed some margin. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ON SIGN CODE ENFORCEMENT UNTIL APRIL 30, 2017. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Stephen Clifton, Edmonds, a Cascadia Art Museum Board Member, announced through March 26, 2017, Cascadia Art Museum is displaying a new featured exhibition called "Northwest Social Realism and the American Scene: 1930 - 1950." This wonderfully original exhibition focuses on northwest artists and their depiction of scenes of everyday life in the northwest during the 1930s through the 1950s. Many Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 2 of the works reflect the industrial, political and social aspects of the Great Depression and the WWII period. He displayed examples of several artworks. Beginning in late 1920s, younger American artists were turning away from the dominant influence of European impressionism and modernism in search of a complete unique representation of America. These artists utilized subject matter depicting elements of their individual regions and often celebrated urban and rural environments as well as local industries and recreational activities. On the other side of the spectrum, some Northwest artists used their talents to reflect their interest in labor causes and racial and class inequities. The Cascadia Art Museum is located at Salish Crossing, 190 Sunset, in the downtown Edmonds waterfront district. Mr. Clifton invited those who like museums and want to get involved to the Cascadia Art Museum's first volunteer open house on February 25 from 10 a.m. to 1 pm. The open house will showcase the volunteer program and provide an opportunity to hear from volunteers who have been with the museum since its doors opened in 2015. Further information about volunteer opportunities is available at www. Cas c ad iaartmus eu m. o r . Lora Petso, Edmonds, said her comments were her own and not those of Save Our Marsh or anyone else. She requested her comments and the materials she provided the City Clerk be included in the SMP record. She believed the Council was engaged in an illegal process in that the March 30 deadline from DOE is not binding on the Council. She believed the approved code may not actually implement the desired buffer. With regard to the items before Council tonight, she stated it was inappropriate to consider options that would further reduce buffer provisions. The Council selected the minimum standard buffer width provided by the guidance but the guidance also indicates that larger buffers are need for the marsh, both for habitat and because the existing buffer is not fully vegetated. The Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates (page 11) states, "providing forage and nesting habitat for common wetland dependent species such as water fowls, herons and amphibians in high-quality wetland adjacent to residential development would require a buffer vegetated with trees and shrubs in the range of 200 to 300 feet." Page 13 of the same document states, "Ecology's buffer recommendations are also based on the assumption that the buffer is well vegetated with native species appropriate to the ecoregion. If the buffer does not consist of vegetation adequate to provide the necessary protection, then either the buffer area should be planted or the buffer width should be increased." Page 13 also states, "If you choose to adopt narrower buffer widths than those supported by BAS, then further reductions to the buffer width should not be allowed under any circumstances." She clarified if the Council wants to stick with the small buffer they selected, they cannot have new exceptions or further reductions. She understood the desire for a site specific analysis for the marsh and it is called for in the restoration portion of the SMP. But based on the Guidance, it's clear that such a study can only be used to increase the buffer in width or quality, not reduce it. The Council chose the absolute minimum possible buffer; she urged the Council not to permit further reductions, averaging or avoidance of any kind. Mike Shaw, Edmonds, said the phrases site specific analysis, detailed analysis of wildlife and associated habitat come up a lot in the text of SMP update and especially within the context of Options B and C for the marsh buffer. This is a problem for those in the community who want to preserve and protect the protect the marsh, as well as Councilmembers who truly want to protect the marsh. The last thing that's needed is an analysis or study to be performed by a developer or someone with ties to a developer. This situation is easily remedied; he encouraged the Council to consider changing the wording as follows: instead of site specific study, he suggested unbiased site specific study performed by a disinterested third party. Instead of detailed analysis of wildlife and associated habitat, he suggested unbiased analysis of wildlife and associated habitat performed by a disinterested third party. He recognized unbiased did not have a true legal definition and depends on the context of use. In this case, unbiased should refer to no conflicts of interest or licensure issues and should include full public disclosure of financial ties and contracts by the party conducting the site study or analysis. Disinterested in this context means there is no vested interest on the part of the entity that performs the study or in how the study is used. Third party Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 3 means a party that is not affiliated with either side of any potential argument appropriate to the study. He was sure all the Councilmembers who truly want to protect, preserve and restore the marsh would agree with his suggestions. Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, addressed the Ecology proposed setback options in the SMP, referring to Footnote 18 of Option C which seemed to be the crux of tonight's proposal. He referred to the statement existing conditions shall be used as the baseline for assessing no net loss and the site specific environmental study shall address hydrology, geologic and the existing and potential wildlife habitat of pre and post development conditions. He believed several important factors had been left out of the statement, including noise, light or light obscuration and activity level associated with the type and scale of the proposed development. For example, there is a difference between the noise and activity associated with residential or retail development versus commercial and light manufacturing and species sensitive to light conditions within the habitat may be impacted by taller buildings which obscure light. He recommended adding noise, light and activity level associated with the type and scale of the proposed development to the previously mentioned statement. He pointed out different species have different buffer requirements as well as sensitivity to the habitat factors previously mentioned and special attention should be paid to those species that have been declining in numbers at the Edmonds Marsh waterfront sanctuary. He recommended consideration be given to including text that acknowledged attention to wildlife species' declining numbers within the scientific based site specific environmental study. Janice Huseby, Edmonds, said her interest in understanding more about ocean acidification and whether there is any investment opportunity led to her involvement with the Save the Marsh group. She is also on the Board of the Washington Environmental Council. She referred to the study done by Western Washington University, the Sustainable Cities Study, and relayed last Monday a couple members of the group went to the Port Commission meeting because some of the march is overseen by the Port. She was surprised by Commissioner Gouge's suggestion that because the Port had not been a participant in the study, the Port would reject any of the recommendations in the study. He also mentioned Chevron, who owns the Unocal site, was not included. She suggested identifying the stakeholders and those interested in saving the marsh as participants in helping to identify solutions. Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, representing the science committee of the Friends of the Marsh, reported four of the five members have PhDs. The mission of FOM includes the goal of preventing degradation of the Edmonds Marsh and to restore and enhance its ecological functions. They are working to get the study started by reputable scientists so that there is best science based evidence for what's going on at the marsh currently and to establish a baseline for future tracking. She described the members of the science committee: • Dr. David Richmond — chair, an expert in macroinvertebrate zoology and microorganism • Dr. Ray White, a professor at a Montana university and watershed restoration ecologist, will lead the study of birds and is working with other researchers • Dr. Alan Mearns, a marine ecologist ecology working for NOAA in hazard materials response Ms. Wolfe said the ecology needs of the marsh must be determined and a baseline established for all the life in the marsh. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, thanked Councilmembers Johnson, Nelson, Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas for their support of the 110 -foot buffer and 15 -foot setback to the Edmonds Marsh. She explained in the February 5, 2013 Council meeting, Kemen Lien confirmed the Harbor Square property is located in a seismic hazard area, therefore governed by ECDC 23.80.040. Per Mr. Lien, the property was consistent with a neighboring property, Salish Crossing, on bearing ground located approximately 25 feet down. The oharf nn nacre '278 of the ('niwnril nnnl_at ghn�xig the (`ifi 'g n-ennnsiS'e altarnat;ve nrnnngal to T)nF related 1-"- Y `J —e -1 --he Y to the SMP. She referred to D. Exceptions, "The specific provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance listed below shall not apply to development within shoreline jurisdiction." 3.a. of that section states, "ECDC Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 4 23.80.040.B.1 & 2: Allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas." Geologically hazardous area is referred to as seismic hazard area defined in the code as areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading or surface faulting. These areas are designated on the liquefaction susceptibility map of Snohomish County by Washington State Department of Natural Resources for areas located within landslide hazard areas. Ms. Bloom referred to the section of ECDC governing seismic hazard areas which states, the following activities are allowed within seismic hazard area: construction of new buildings with less than 2500 square feet of floor area or roof area whichever is greater and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly. This provision is excluded from the SMP which means Harbor Square is excluded from the protection of the City's CAO provisions for seismic hazard areas. Those provisions are there for the protection of life and property in the event of a catastrophic earthquake. She asked whether the Council was aware of this and if so, she urged them to think carefully about why they were doing this and what, if any, other areas of the code provide protection for life and property in this seismic hazard area in the event of an earthquake. She asked Mr. Taraday the City's liability if residences are built at Harbor Square contrary to the City's CAO guidelines and people living there die or are injured in an earthquake. 7. ACTION ITEM 1. FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER BANDSHELL REPLACEMENT BUDGET REQUEST Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite referred to the narrative in the Council packet identifying the issues that have been encountered underground at the bandshell as well as with construction of the bandshell project. She requested an additional $32,000 of authorization for management reserve for the project. There is a substantial fund balance in REET that could be used for this expenditure or funds allocated to Parks in 2017 could be dedicated to this project. Specifically, $50,000 was set aside for the Brackett's Landing North restroom in 2017; as the location of the flyover will displace that restroom, now only minor drainage repairs are planned for the restroom. The remaining funds could be dedicated to the bandshell project. Councilmember Johnson asked the amount initially estimated for this project in the adopted CIP. Ms. Hite answered there was initially $180,000 set aside for this project for construction; funds were also set aside for design in 2015. Councilmember Johnson asked the cost of the bandshell itself. Ms. Hite answered approximately $45,000; it was delivered about 1'/z months ago and has been constructed. Councilmember Johnson asked the what difference between the estimate and the actual. Ms. Hite answered the estimate was about $250,000-$260,000 and the project was currently at $322,000 including costs for engineering staff time. Councilmember Johnson asked what department has been managing this project. Ms. Hite answered a capital project manager in Engineering oversees this project. Councilmember Johnson said this appeared to be an exceptional budget creep. The cost of the bandshell was minimal compared to all the other costs. Ms. Hite agreed, explaining the largest part of the cost was demolition of the old bandshell. Significantly deteriorated metal beams were discovered and the plan had been to reuse them. When those were removed, it was discovered they extend out underground 6-8 feet. As soon as the ground was opened, there were continual problems with the construction project because what was underground was not considered in the original design. The i -beams of the existing bandshell were found to be completely corroded through resulting in concerns with leaving them in place. Councilmember Johnson recalled the demolition would be done in-house. Ms. Hite answered that was never part of the plan; it was too expansive a project to do in-house. Parks crews removed landscaping Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 5 and fencing but not the large bandshell, steel i -beams and underground work. Councilmember Johnson said she would vote against the expenditure on principle. Councilmember Teitzel said when he went by the Frances Anderson Center yesterday; the bandshell looks great and he was excited to have that amenity for the City. He supported not investing in the Brackett's Landing restroom as it will be removed when the flyover is constructed and reallocating the funds toward this project. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO AUTHORIZE THE REQUEST BY MS. HITE AND THE PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL $32,000 TO FINISH THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER BANDSHELL PROJECT. Mayor Earling relayed his understanding the source of the funds would be the set aside for the Brackett's Landing restroom. MOTION CARRIED (4-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. CITY PERSONNEL POLICY UPDATES Human Resources Director Mary Ann Hardie referred to the list of revisions to the City Personnel Policy explaining it has been a standard practice since 2012 to periodically bring forward updates as revisions are required due to regulation changes as well as clarifications for best practices and ease of administration. She provided an overview of the changes, advising there were no major changes: • Update to the Table of Contents • Clarification to college reimbursement language and process to obtain reimbursement • Addition of drug free workplace policy. As a federal contractor as well as doing grant work, the City is required to have this policy • Updated language in workplace violence policy to clarify what violent behavior • Added a requirement for supervisory training within the first 12 months • Updated language in Appendix A from IT for clarification/compliance with the Public Records Act, integrity/security of the City's IT infrastructure/system and best practices — all software applications installed on a City -owned device must be approved by the IT Department prior to installation and applications systems, hardware, tampering or procedures that bypass circumnavigate or disable any process are not allowed. • Added clarification that violation of any of the policies may be subject to potential disciplinary action Councilmember Tibbott expressed appreciation for the redline version of the Personnel Policies and the practicality of adding the drug free workplace policy. He noted prescription and/or over-the-counter drugs can create an impairment, but was not addressed. Ms. Hardie answered there is language in the Personnel Policies regarding over-the-counter drugs. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the practicality of software on Council iPads, commenting he downloaded a version of Word without asking IT. Ms. Hardie answered as a practice, the IT Department likes to be the administrator of downloads. She offered to follow-up on that question with IT. Councilmember Nelson complimented the statement if the policies are violated, it is subject to potential disciplinary action. He also liked the addition of "promptly" related to jury witness duty. He referred to the addition of "CPR" with regard to first aid training and asked if that included AED training. Ms. Hardie answered quarterly First Aid/CPR training is offered by and paid for by HR and includes foreign Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 6 pathogens as well as AED training. Staff is talking with Fire District 1 about servicing the AEDs and possibly getting more. Councilmember Nelson recognized there are some AEDs in the City but the problem is no one uses them. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on next week's Consent Agenda. 2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Mayor Earling advised Council President Mesaros and he agreed the presentation and discussion would be held to the scheduled 30 minutes as further discussion is scheduled on a future meeting agenda. Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed: • Ecology proposed options o Option A ■ Add a refence to the City's CAO 23.40.20C.4) • Requires a scientific study demonstrating functional isolation from critical area; ■ Would allow alternative buffer to be established based on site specific conditions ■ Minimum buffer width undefined o Option B ■ Established criteria to allow for a site specific assessment to determine buffer widths' • Require demonstration of lift to eco -functions ■ Limits buffer reduction to no less than 50 ft. Staff -developed Option C o Combines elements of Ecology's Options A & B o Keeps Council 125/110 buffer as default o Alternate buffer may be approved through a shoreline conditional use permit process • Alternative buffer cannot be less than 50 fee o Criteria from interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis o Site specific analysis shall address hydrologic, geologic, and the existing and potential wildlife habitat of pre and post development conditions. Option C and No Net Loss Criteria o WAC 173-25-201(2)(e) ...does not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions... o Site specific study may result in smaller buffer or lager buffer depending on the impact of a proposed development to achieve no net loss Next Steps o Scheduled on Council Extended Agenda on February 21 and March 7 o Response to Ecology by March 30, 2017 Council President Mesaros asked how Option C differed from Options A and B and whether the criteria for interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis was the key difference. Mr. Lien explained the interrupted buffer provision does not have a minimum buffer requirement. The criteria from the interrupted buffer is used but also establishes a minimum buffer, it cannot be less than 50 feet and that 50 feet would have a 15 -foot building setback. Council President Mesaros said that is also in Option B. Mr. Lien agreed that was also in Option B; 50 feet is what Ecology included in their required change. Option B has a range of 125 to 65 or 110 to 50 feet. Council President Mesaros referred to public comments regarding the SMP; Ms. Petso stated the buffer cannot be reduced by State law; either she is correct or the City is correct, but the Council needs to determine who's correct and move forward with confidence. Mr. Shaw recommended having an unbiased study; Council President Mesaros hoped all the studies the City requires are unbiased and if there is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 7 evidence that biased studies are being done, that should be stopped. The third comment was from Ms. Bloom regarding development and potential contradictions between the CAO and the SMP. With regard to Ms. Bloom's comments regarding liquefaction and allowed activities, Mr. Lien explained allowed activity in the CAO context basically means a critical areas report is not required, it is something that is allowed outright. In the section Ms. Bloom referenced, 23.80.040 states the following activities are allowed in geologically hazardous areas and do not require submission of critical areas report; that is related to an allowed activity in the CAO. Exempting that section from the SMP means a study will automatically be required and the use is not allowed outright. With regard to independent studies, Mr. Lien explained typically the developer pays for the studies because they are proposing the development. The City can have those studies peer reviewed and has done that for some areas. The City can also do a third -party contract whereby the City selects the consultant and the developers pays for it. He assured the City was not doing biased studies. With regard to Dr. Senderoffls comment regarding adding language to the criteria related to light and noise, Mr. Lien said that is already captured in the existing and potential wildlife habitat and the pre and post development condition; light, noise, etc. are types of activities that impact habitat and species. Councilmember Tibbott asked to what extent the CAO informs the SMP and to what extent do the regulations overlap in the shoreline. Mr. Lien responded that is a difficult question to answer. The critical area regulations are an outgrowth of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the SMP is from the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the two do not necessarily work together. The City's SMP adopted large sections of the critical areas regulation, those that apply in shoreline areas and excepted certain some things out such as allowed activities in geologically hazardous area. With regard to buffers and setbacks in the UMUIV environment, the buffers and setback that are being established by the Council now or via a future site specific study will rule in the UMUIV environment versus the wetland buffers established in the CAO. What is established here will rule in the UMUIV environment but for geologically hazardous areas, streams, etc. in shorelines, those regulations apply. If there are other wetlands along the shorelines, the critical area regulations apply. He summarized it was a complex relationship. Whatever the Council establishes for the buffers and setbacks will apply in the UMUIV environment. Councilmember Tibbott was glad to hear there were very specific guidelines for SMP areas. The City is on the verge of making a commitment to establish a 125 -foot buffer around the marsh which in effect is a seizure of property from the property owners. Some of property owners do not care such as BNSF; other owners do care and they are significant stakeholder in how the marsh is managed. For that reason it was very important be clear when a site specific study is done in the future that it can be measured against something very specific. Because the City is asking property owners to surrender a portion of their property for an extended buffer, the City also needs to be clear about the activities they can use to recoup their costs as well as pay for vegetation of the property. In order to recoup the costs, there need to be opportunities such as more taxation or grants to fund revegetation or the possibility of commercial development. (Councilmember Johnson discontinued her participation by phone.) Councilmember Teitzel referred to the interrupted buffer in Option A and C, commenting since stormwater from Harbor Square runs off into the marsh today in at least two places, how can the buffer between the marsh and Harbor Square be considered interrupted. There seems to be a functional connection between the two by virtue of stormwater running directly from the parking lot into the marsh through the levy. Mr. Lien answered that may be the case. Whether there is an interrupted buffer would be determined by a qualified professional. There are some physical connections between the Harbor Square property and the marsh with stormwater pipes. Ecology was looking at the dike between the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 8 Harbor Square property and the marsh and the sheet flow. Due to the stormwater pipes, it may not meet the interrupted buffer requirement but that would be determined by the study. Councilmember Teitzel appreciated the work done to develop Option C and felt it made sense; to consider the full range of options and have a site specific study done. He posed a hypothetical: a site specific study is done when redevelopment is proposed. Based on the conditions on the ground and BAS, the study determines the number should be 75 feet. He personally liked the concept of incentive based zoning where the developer is provided achievable goals such as rooftop raingarden in exchange for some reduction in the buffer. In his hypothetical example where the study determined the buffer should be 75 feet, he asked whether the City could require a buffer of 90 or 100 feet and provide reasonable achievable incentives for the developer to reduce the buffer to 75 feet. Mr. Lien answered the criteria to focus on is no net loss, what development is proposed and the type of mitigation required to achieve no net loss. In Option C, no net loss is the requirement that must be met, not incentives for development to reduce the buffer but the buffer for a specific type of development, given the criteria and what mitigation is required to achieve that no net loss requirement. Councilmember Teitzel suggested the site specific study using BAS and considering all the factors on the ground found 75 feet satisfied no net loss. He asked if there was anything that prevented the City from requiring 90 feet and to provide incentives to the developer to reduce it to 75 feet. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered that is a complex question; it gets to the fundamental question of whether the City can only regulate to the extent of no net loss which is a point of contention between he and Ecology. A clear answer could not be provided to Councilmember Teitzel's question because there is a dispute regarding that question. Ms. Hope said the other challenge would be having the study done and then changing the rules which would be difficult from a regulatory point of view. Councilmember Nelson asked about the property owners, relaying to his knowledge there was Chevon, BNSF, WSDOT and the Port. Mr. Lien agreed although WSDOT is not yet a property owner. Councilmember Nelson relayed his understanding that typically the developer does the site specific study but they are sometimes peer reviewed and there can be a third party contract where the City selects the contractor. He asked who makes the selection. Mr. Lien answered in peer review, if there are questions with a study's findings, it can be send to another qualified professional for review. With a third party contract, the City selects the consultant and the developer pays for it. Sometimes the director is involved or the City already has professionals on the Small Work Roster. Councilmember Nelson asked about Ecology's role in the site specific process. Mr. Lien answered in all three options, an alternative buffer is allowed with a Shoreline CUP. In that process, the City's Hearing Examiner approves or denies the permit. For a shoreline CUP or variance permit, Ecology has the final say; the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to Ecology. Councilmember Teitzel observed a site specific study would be done at the time a redevelopment plan was proposed, not before. Mr. Lien said in order to assess no net loss, there needs to be a development proposal to analyze the post development conditions. Harbor Square and the Unocal property are both master planned development sites; a master plan could be done through the master planning process or via a planned action SEPA. A site specific study could be done at the planning process stage, not a specific development proposal, because the zoning would need to be changed, the master plan prepared but the shoreline CUP and the site specific study would be done on the proposed development or the planned action SEPA. As long as the proposal meets what is described in the planned action, it could proceed. Ms. Hope said conceptually at that stage the design and general configuration and uses are known but not the design detail. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 9 Councilmember Teitzel recalled hearing during public comment a suggestion to do studies to determine habitat and declining bird species in the marsh. He asked what a study done now would look like, who would pay for it and whether it should be done now in the context of the SMP. Ms. Hope answered any study that would be done now would be paid for by the City as there is no nexus to make someone else pay for a study not associated with a proposed development. A study done now would also not be able to assess the impacts and mitigation options absent a development proposal. Councilmember Teitzel observed if a study was done now and a development proposal was made in three years, there would be a large gap in time. He asked how that would consider pre and post development conditions. Ms. Hope agreed that would be problematic. Council President Mesaros asked Mr. Taraday to comment on Ms. Petso's statement that the Council cannot legally reduce the size of the buffer. Mr. Taraday answered he would rather not comment on it publicly. He suspected this matter will end up in litigation regardless of what happens so it was more appropriate to discuss risks of possible actions in executive session as matter of potential litigation. If a study was done before a development plan, Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it would be in the Port's best interest not to do any improvements such as let non-native vegetation take over and leave the property the way it is until a pre -study is needed. He envisioned any improvement done on that side of the marsh would ultimately count against the Port at the time of development. Ms. Hope said there were probably pros and cons. While one could say over the last many years things have deteriorated in certain areas near the marsh, the information needed is the measure relate to no net loss and what does the scientific information reveals. The area is maintained reasonably well; stormwater is a continuing issue. Meanwhile there are other improvements planned for the marsh that will help improve the quality regardless. Even though there may be some good points about having a study done now, there are also disincentives for doing it now without knowing the potential project. Councilmember Tibbott commented deferring improvements would be advantageous for future developers. Ms. Hope answered maybe, maybe not. Maybe not because what else might occur there to improve condition from the existing conditions is unknown. Councilmember Tibbott envisioned it would be a disincentive to improve the area around the marsh in light of a future site specific study. Ms. Hope answered it could be but it was not guaranteed to be an incentive or disincentive. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 3. CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT AND POTENTIAL COMMITTEE STRUCTURE (Councilmember Johnson resumed her participation by phone.) Council President Mesaros explained this is a follow-up to discussion at the retreat where the Council considered reinstating Council committees. He referred to information in the Council packet, advising Legislative/Council Assistant Andrew Pierce, City Attorney Jeff Taraday, City Clerk Scott Passey and he met to discuss the format. The first issue is reaffirming the committees; three are proposed, 1) Finance, 2) Parks, Planning & Public Works, and 3) Public Safety & Personnel. He referred to a draft description of each committee in the Council packet and suggested if the Council agreed with those three committees, each committee could review the draft description and bring it back to Council for final review and approval. Another options would be for the Council to approve the description and the committees could suggest amendments if necessary. Council President Mesaros explained the second issue is how often the committees will meet and the format. He referred to an email from staff with suggestions/ideas, explaining originally, committees met on the second Tuesday of the month. The downside of that option is meeting once a month can cause delays for staff. An option to address that includes not having committees review items if time does not Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 10 allow. His personal view was why have committees if items are reviewed by committee sometimes and sometimes they are not. Another option is to have committees meet for a hour twice a month, the second and fourth Tuesday, followed by a shorter Council meeting, 1 — 1'/z hours. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was a better week of the month to hold committee meetings such as to accommodate the presentation of budget reports. Council President Mesaros agreed the previous month's financial information was usually not ready by the second week and the financial information may be from the two months before. Councilmember Tibbott suggested meeting twice a month on the first and third Tuesday, noting action required following a meeting on the fourth Tuesday may be delayed if the month has five Tuesdays. Councilmember Nelson referred to a draft meeting format that was suggested by staff that noted the purpose of committee meetings was to have a more in-depth discussions with staff. To make it as convenient as possible for staff, holding committee meetings twice a month makes the most sense. His preference was to start committee meetings at 7 p.m. Council President Mesaros said the intent was to create an atmosphere where more in-depth discussion can occur on a regular basis as well as be more efficient with the Council's time. He and Councilmember Tibbott agreed the reason for committees was to be more efficient and more thorough. Councilmember Teitzel liked the idea of meeting twice a month on the first and third Tuesday but wanted enough flexibility so that a time -sensitive issue could be taken directly to the Council. Councilmember Tibbott supported meeting twice a month as long as the committee meetings were held to one hour. If meetings are expanding to 1'/z hour followed by a 1'/z+ Council meeting, that would be 3-4 hour meetings which he felt was counterproductive. He asked whether the ordinance had to specify one or two meetings a month. Mr. Taraday answered the goal of setting forth particularity in the ordinance is so they are considered regular meetings under the Open Public Meetings Act instead of special meetings. That is important because it, 1) relieves the Clerk's Office from noticing special meetings, and 2) provides additional flexibility to talk about topics that were not on the agenda that was noticed 24 hours before the meeting. Any business the Council wishes can be conducted at a regular meeting; the Council is limited to taking final action at a special meeting on items that are on the agenda noticed 24 hour before the meeting. Councilmember Tibbott observed if the ordinance stated two meetings a month and only one is needed in a particular month, one could be cancelled. Council President Mesaros provided an example, tonight the Council approved an extension to the moratorium on the sign code which was not on the agenda but could be done because it was a regular meeting. Mr. Taraday agreed that was a good example. Councilmember Teitzel supported limiting twice a month meetings to one hour. However, he recognized limiting meetings to a hour did not provide much time for committees to get through multiple issues. He was concerned if public comment was allowed at committee meetings, it could constrain the time even further. He suggested inviting the public to committee meetings but not allowing public comment. The public could provide comment outside the committee meeting via phone call, email, or at the subsequent Council meeting. Council President Mesaros recalled discussion at the retreat that public comment would probably not be allowed at committee meetings and comment allowed at the subsequent Council meeting. Councilmember Tibbott agreed the public could provide comment at the Council meeting immediately following the committee meeting. There could be an exception, if the committee's business is completed before the hour time limit, public comment could be allowed if the committee chair chose. Mr. Taraday said that is another example of why it is helpful to have the committee meetings be regular meetings; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 11 public comment would require notice. If it is a regular meeting, public comment can be allowed as time permits. Council President Mesaros summarized the Council was satisfied with: • Three committees as proposed • Meet twice a month on the first and third Tuesday • Meet for an hour followed by an abbreviated Council meeting Council President Mesaros said he will work with Mr. Taraday and Mr. Passey to prepare an agenda item for approval in a few weeks. Councilmember Tibbott suggested evaluating the effectiveness of the committee structure in 3-4 months. Council President Mesaros agreed it would be appropriate to have a three month trial and make adjustments if necessary. Councilmember Johnson recalled the purpose of the study session format was to have the full Council participate in a candid conversation with staff. The remodel of the Council Chambers eliminated the ability to hold those conversations on the floor. The committee structure will allow more informal discussion; however, there may be other ways to solve this problem. For example, other councils have discussions off camera such as holding study sessions in the Brackett Room but that was different than the discussion at retreat. She supported returning to committees and evaluating how committees are working in six months. 9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Nelson reported the SERS meeting included a report regarding the $75 million cost to upgrade the radio system in 6-7 years with the cost spread among SERS members. This will be a significant investment and will require further discussions regarding the funding method. He reported on the Lake Ballinger Advisory Task Force and commended Public Works for meeting with residents about flooding challenges on Lake Ballinger and being responsive and creative in working with other members such as Mountlake Terrace to address those issues. He also attended the Diversity Commission. Councilmember Teitzel reported the Port of Edmonds recently refinanced bonds which will save the Port approximately $600,000. The hydraulics in the dry stack boat launcher were recently repaired due to mechanical problems. Buds Bait Shop is closing and the space will be occupied by Puget Sound Express whale watching boat. Puget Sound Express' ridership has grown rapidly and they expect a 15-20% increase in ridership this year. The Port reported a dozen slips were sold at the Seattle Boat Show. Councilmember Teitzel reported the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is refocusing their efforts. Very few properties have been added to the historic register. Because the standards are fairly high for a property to be added, the HPC is considering adding a new category, Edmonds Heritage Property, which would have less stringent standards and allow more properties to be added to the registry. Councilmember Teitzel reported he attended a multicultural listening forum at the Edmonds Methodist Church that included three speakers, a Palestinian immigrant, a Mexican immigrant and a member of the local LGBTQ community. It was a good opportunity to hear about their personal experiences, the challenges they face, their hopes for living in the community. and to ask questions. Council President Mesaros reported the Seashore Transportation Forum did not meet in In due to another larger conference in King County regarding transportation issues. The SNOCOM Board had a joint meeting with SNOPAC regarding the potential merger. The Executive Director and the facilitator Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 12 who has been leading discussions about the potential merger will provide the Council an update On March 7. Police Chief Compaan is on the merger committee and he attended the December meeting in Chief Compaan's absence. Among the issues being considered are governance and the structure of the boards. The SNOCOM Board is current comprised of elected officials and safety professionals; the SNOPAC Board is comprised of all safety professionals. Finances are also a key issue because the goals of a merger include financial savings as well as improved service. Council President Mesaros reported the Public Facilities District Board meeting held at the end of January reported ticket sales are doing well and the second half of the season also looks very good. Tonight the ECA and PFD Boards held a follow-up meeting to their December joint board retreat to discuss a strategic plan for the organization. Councilmember Tibbott reported on a Housing Task Force meeting he attended, an Edmonds group that anyone is welcome to join. During the last month that group was particularly interested in ways to increase grassroots options for assisting with homelessness and increasing housing options. They are following the possible increase in homelessness among Edmonds -area students. Councilmember Tibbott reported he also attended an Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA) meeting, which is a Snohomish County group interested in establishing practices and opportunities for housing in Snohomish County. Snohomish County is planning to have a housing levy on the next ballot to raise money to jumpstart housing projects, AHA hopes to raise $500,000 as a grant funding pool to help with housing projects. Lynnwood has a new homeless college student camp at the Good Shepherd Church on 196th to assist homeless people attending college seeking to improve their lives. AHA is also looking at State legislation to prevent source -of -income discrimination. He advised Edmonds is embarking on a housing strategy in 2017 in the Comprehensive Plan. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he found the art exhibit at Cascadia Art Museum absolutely spectacular and encouraged the public to visit the museum. He reported on a ribbon cutting today for the downtown restroom. Signs will be installed to direct the public to the restroom which is located south of City Hall in the parking lot adjacent to the Rusty Pelican. Mayor Earling explained the Health District sought funds this year from cities; Edmonds contributed $41,000. The Health District plans to sell their building; he distributed a quit claim deed to release the City's interest in the building. Mayor Earling reported Friday is Snohomish County Day in Olympia, an annual event that draws Snohomish County leaders and many legislators from Snohomish County. He encouraged Councilmembers to attend the AWC Legislative Conference next Wednesday and Thursday in Olympia 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Tibbott relayed his plans to attend the State of the City address. Council President Mesaros expressed his pleasure at seeing the construction fencing installed for the Veterans Plaza. He looked forward to the dedication ceremony at 2 p.m. on Memorial Day following the program at the Edmonds Cemetery. Councilmember Teitzel reported Representative Strom Peterson recently introduced a bill to restrict ownership of assault rifles in Washington. He encouraged the public to contact their legislators to express their support or opposition. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 13 Councilmember Nelson relayed last week a member of the Diversity Commission said the Safe City Resolution was a "feel good" thing. Unfortunately, people don't feel good now; they feel afraid. Shortly after the Council passed the resolution, with the stroke of a pen, a federal immigration ban was imposed on people who practice one religion but not another, the second largest religion in the world and practiced by 3 million Americans and over 100,000 Washingtonians. Persons who were lawful, permanent U.S. residents were denied entrance back into the U.S. including medical doctors, scientists, students, Microsoft employees and interpreters for the military. In response, thousands of people throughout the country went to the street objecting to this act, including many in Edmonds. Many are afraid of the rise in hate, those who are trying to divide, us versus them. Not somewhere else, but here in Edmonds. It is seen in schools and in churches. Edmonds children are being taunted by students saying their parents will be deported. An Edmonds church is being targeted with hate mail and hate calls because they invited people of the Muslim faith to their congregation. Councilmember Nelson questioned who will be next? Your loved one? Your friend? Your neighbor? Time and again in the nation's history in times of hardship or war, those that seem different from us have been targeted and discriminated against on our soil, people who are indigenous, people who were brought here, people who immigrated here. It doesn't take a scholar to know that these times are before us again. What are we to do as a City, as a Council? Pretend it doesn't apply to us, saying there's nothing we can do, it's the federal government, the President? It's clear we're beyond feel -good measures; we must do more as a City government to protect our immigrant community. History will not judge us for what we did or what we didn't do, but whether we were willing accomplices or did we take a stand. 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1 )(i) This item was not needed. 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. AVID O. EARLING, MA R S PASSEY, CITY C Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 14