20170321 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
March 21, 2017
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Thomas Mesaros, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmunds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5ch 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.
Mayor Earling offered comments regarding the unfortunate remarks made at a recent Fire District 1
Commission meeting that have received local and regional press coverage. While he respected that FD1
was a jurisdiction independent of the City, as Mayor he felt it appropriate to offer remarks in response to
the incident. He found the comments by the two commissioners very disappointing. Whether intended to
be heard by the public or not, remarks that disparage or disrespect a group or class of people are not
representative of the culture that Edmonds aspires to, a culture of inclusivity and acceptance of all people
regardless of race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability or other
characteristics. It is in that spirit that the City created a Diversity Commission and provides training to all
City staff regarding diversity and inclusiveness. He concluded by stating he trusted these isolated remarks
did not reflect the overall principles and character of the Fire Commission and hoped this incident would
serve as a learning opportunity for the commissioners, district and everyone in Edmonds.
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
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 1
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2017
2. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ASHLEY DORGAN
($422.55), A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM TIMOTHY S. DANAHER (AMOUNT
UNDETERMINED), AND A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KARI MIKKELSEN
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED)
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT.
4. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE
PAYMENTS
5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN 2017 SPECIAL EVENT CONTRACTS
6. FIRST QUARTER AND 2016 CARRY FORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT
7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH MURRAY SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN SERVICES
FOR THE 2018 SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT
8. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE 76TH AVE AND
212TH ST INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT/BIKE2HEALTH PROJECT
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no public comment.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATING PEDESTRIAN SIGN REQUIREMENTS IN CH.
20.60 ECDC
Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed:
• Sign code update in 2016
o Most recent update in August 2016
o Update focused on pedestrian signs; featured:
■ Pedestrian signs as permanent signage
■ Only one per ground floor storefront
■ Only while the business is open
■ Located within 2' of building and within 10' of entry
■ Exceptions must be approved by ADB
• Current update
0 2016 update resulted in some concerns from the business community
o Concerns gained attention of Council and were brought forward to Planning Board
o Board held work session and public hearing
o Multiple options were considered (Exhibit 3)
• Planning Board Recommendation
o Permit fees should be minimized, with blade signs costing less than pedestrian signs
(currently $75+$35 and $125 +35, respectively)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 2
o Pedestrian signs should count against sign area, except for those grandfathered in
o Allow Development Services Director to approve alternate sign locations under specific
conditions
o Define "governmental signs" to allow creation of a directional signage program.
o Grandfathered signs for area
New: ECDC 20.60.025(A)(5) [packet page 290-291]
a. Exception. A pedestrian sign does not count against the permanent sign area and the
number of signs permitted if:
i. A wall sign exists and was legally permitted prior to August 12, 2016; and
ii. A pedestrian sign was in place during some or all of the period between June 12 and
August 12, 2016; and
iii. A pedestrian sign permit was received by the City by October 6, 2016
b. This exception is no longer valid if an application for a new wall sign is received by the
City
c. This exception does not apply to any other aspect of the sign code governing pedestrian
signs, including the number, size and location of such signs
Options: Don't count in sign area or add 6 square feet to total allowed area
o Alternate sign location
ECDC 20.60.055 [packet page 293-294]
3. The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry and must be placed within
two feet of the building. The Development Services Director may approve an alternative
location under the following circumstances: The si&pi , ha11 be located , i flihi i 0 feet -of
the building entfy, unless it is ploeed in a 19eaties thEA better preser--ves publie pedestrian
4 -em this stafidard mug be subfnil4ed to the mehiteetkii-al design beafd for- r-eyiew an-,
approval per ECDC 20.60.015(B)(1)
a. An alternative location in front of the building or on the property occupied by the
business is less intrusive to pedestrian movement or accessibility; or
b. The building containing the building is set back from the property line and a location
on the property can be provided such that the sign does not encroach onto a public
sidewalk.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to her suggestion last week to make blade signs free. Mr. Chave
responded that was at the discretion of the Council. One of the things intended in the code was to
encourage their use; making them free would simply require a resolution. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas recalled when blade signs were discussed several years ago, the reason they were preferred was
they attracted shoppers but did not clutter sidewalks.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Jamie Reece, Edmonds, Chair of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), highlighted
comments in the February 15, 2017 memo the EDC sent the Council. The EDC as well as a subgroup
discussed the sign code and feedback received from businesses and citizens. The goal of their discussions
was to strike the right balance between aesthetics and economic vitality of the community. The EDC
supports lowering the cost of A -board signs, not necessarily to encourage them, but to make them more
affordable for business owners. The EDC has not discussed expanding the overall sign area but supported
the concept that pedestrian signs not count toward the overall area of signage to avoid stagnating existing
signs and having different size signs on facades. The EDC supports greater flexibility in the requirement
to have A -board signs located 2 feet from the fagade and making that process more affordable as well as
ongoing cooperative efforts with the community and the 131I) for wayfinding signs for businesses located
1-2 blocks off 5th & Main without cluttering every corner with signs and flags.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 3
Debbie Rosenfelt, Edmonds, co-owner of Snap Fitness, expressed support for reducing the fees for blade
and pedestrian signs to $85, not having pedestrian signs count against total sign area, and allowing the
Development Services Director to approve alternate sign locations under specific conditions.
Robert Boehlke, Edmonds, owner of HouseWares and President of Ed! Edmonds Downtown Alliance,
urged the Council to keep the cost reasonable and make the cost for blade and pedestrian signs the same
and he and some other businesses are unable to have a blade sign. He also supported not counting
pedestrian signs against the total sign area. He supported the proposal regarding alternate locations. He
asked what was meant by "the sign does not encroach on the public sidewalk," commenting signs would
be located on the sidewalk. With regard to wayfnding signs, Ed! is interested in assisting with a project
for a wayfnding signs throughout the City, signs that enhance the cityscape and help visitors find their
way around.
Sheila Cloney, Edmonds, Anchor Chic, spoke in favor of wayfinding signs. The building they are in has
not had a lot of activity for some time and they find the A-board signs help drive customers to their
location next to Masonic Temple.
Joy Rye, Edmonds, representing ZINC, said the removal of their A-board has impacted their business.
Their entrance is located more than 2 feet from sidewalk and when the A-board sign is not up, business is
substantially down.
Janet Haus, Edmonds, Gallery North, said they value their A-board sign and she thanked the City
Council for considering pedestrian sign regulations. She expressed support for a more reasonable cost,
having blade signs and A-boards be the same price and allowing alternative locations. She asked for
clarification of "the sign does not encroach onto a public sidewalk."
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her preference that there be no cost for blade signs, commenting
they were generally fairly small signs. Mr. Chave said if that was the consensus of the City Council, the
City Attorney could draft a resolution for Council consideration setting the fee for blade signs at zero.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she will make a motion when the Council completes it deliberation.
Councilmember Teitzel recommended a group with members from Ed!, the Chamber, DEMA, EDC and
citizens consider permanent directionaUwayfinding signs and report back to the Council in six months. He
anticipated permanent directional signage would lessen the pressure for A-board signs. He suggested that
project also consider wayfnding apps to assist visitors with navigating around the City. Mr. Chave said
Development Services Director Shane Hope has been meeting with members of the BID regarding
directionaUwayfinding signs and several businesses have been working on ideas so it would not be
difficult to form a group and report to Council on ideas. With regard to an app, the Western Washington
University Sustainable Cities program is working on that and their report is due at the end of spring
quarter.
Councilmember Tibbott asked about funding for an app, recalling a suggestion at the Planning Board to
use the technology fee to offset the cost of developing an app. Mr. Chave said the Council would need to
budget the cost of developing an app. The WWU project is student time and a minimal cost. He suggested
waiting to see the results of WWU's project to see how useful an app would be.
r-- -
ouncinneineer i i000tt reierreu to l�ile question asked by € isr pu sic regarding encroachment unto € ie
sidewalk. He cited an example of a property on Dayton between 0' and 3`a where the building is set back
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 4
from the street but there could be appropriate locations on the property that were not on the sidewalk. Mr.
Chave said the intent of Item 3.b was if the businesses was setback from the property line, there should be
space between the business and the sidewalk to locate the sign. Alternate locations that include the
sidewalk would be addressed by Item 3.a, such as if there is street furniture at the curb, it may be less
intrusive to put a sign at the curb instead of next to the building. It will be very situational, hence the
recommendation to grant the discretion to the Development Services Director. Councilmember Tibbott
expressed support for allowing the Director that discretion.
Councilmember Johnson asked how the technology fee was used. Mr. Chave answered the technology fee
was broadly applicable to all permit applications and supports the website, electronic permitting system,
GIS, etc. It is basically at capacity for those purposes at this time. If the Council wanted to pursue some of
the suggestions that have been made, the cost could be subsidized by the General Fund, a minimal amount
added to the technology fee, etc. The technology fee is a flat fee.
Council President Mesaros asked how the $125 fee for an A -board signs was calculated. Mr. Chave said
that represents approximately 1.25 hours of staff time. When fees were established, consideration was
given to who does the review, the average amount of time the process takes, etc.
Councilmember Nelson said if the Council wanted to encourage blade signs by making them free, he did
not want the difference made up by increasing the fee for A -board signs. If the Council reduced the cost
of blade signs, he supported also reducing cost of A -boards signs, such as reducing it by half.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Ed! should work on a wayfinding sign program, and the City
Council should not be involved with it. She supported the WWU project that will consider an app, noting
she often uses TripAdvisor when visiting other cities. Mr. Chave commented the fees were up to the
Council. He recommended directing the City Attorney to draft a final ordinance for Council
consideration.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF BLADE SIGNS WHICH SHALL HAVE NO FEE OR TECHNOLOGY FEE.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has been discussing blade signs for a number of
years; it was important not to have a fee since they are the preferred sign type and having no fee will
encourage businesses to choose that type of sign. She recognized some businesses did not have an
overhang to display a blade sign.
Councilmember Tibbott suggested the Council discuss either not having pedestrian signs count against
the total sign area or adding 6 square feet to the total allowed signage.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS,
TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD 6 SQUARE FEET TO THE TOTAL ALLOWED SIGNAGE.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Mesaros commented his heart supports having no fee for blade signs but his head does
not. He suggested reducing the fee for blade and pedestrian sign to $40 + $35 technology fee, recognizing
that a number of businesses do not have the architecture for a blade sign.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers to pass the motion eliminating the fee for
blade signs and she would support a motion to reduce the cost of A -board signs.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 5
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO REDUCE THE FEE FOR PEDESTRIAN SIGNS FROM $135 + $35 TO $75 +
$35. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING
YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND NELSON VOTING NO.
2. SHORELINE MASTER I" 11OG 11.A M PUBLIC HEARING
Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the purpose of the public hearing is the four options for the Urban
Mixed Use (UMU) IV environment, basically the area around the Edmonds Marsh. He identified
similarities between all options:
■ Default buffer of 110 feet with 15 -foot setback
• Mechanism for establishing alternative buffer
Mr. Lien outlined the options:
Ecology Option A
• Add a reference to the interrupted buffer provision in the critical area regulations (ECDC
23.40.220.C.4) in footnote 18
• Notes that an alternative buffer may be established with a shoreline conditional use permit
consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.4
• ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 provides an exemption from prescribed buffer width if site is proven to be
functionally isolated from a stream or wetland
• Two potential results
o Determined to be functionally isolated and exempt from buffer requirements
o Not functionally isolated and the 110 -foot buffer and 15 -foot setback apply
o Does not provide for an alternative buffer
Ecology Option B
• Establishes buffer between 110 and 50 feet
• Buffer established through a shoreline conditional use permit process
• Buffer based on "potential ecological lift" and "no net loss of ecological function"
• Lacks detailed criteria for consideration of site specific study to establish alternative buffer
• Conflicting terms in "potential ecological lift" and "no net loss of ecological function"
Staff' Developed Option C
• Combines elements of Ecology's Options A & B
• Keeps Council 110 buffer/15-foot setback as a default, and establishes minimum buffer of 50 feet
■ Criteria from interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis
• Site specific study shall address hydrologic, geologic, and the existing and potential wildlife
habitat of pre and post development conditions
• Could be modified to specifically note where buffer begins
Citizen Developed OWian D — Part 1
• Modify Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Table to list buffer and shore setback
separately
• Modify footnote 18
o Note where buffer begins, "where the presence and action of waters are common and usual or
at the wetland/upland edge"
o Require buffer between railway right-of-way and marsh
ccnt_ _ _n_ _ _ten cct__[t t[_ _ _tet
• Shore SeIDdCK l0 DU11UlIlg SCIDdGx
Railway right-of-way
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 6
o Extends up to edge of marsh
o City owns marsh next to railway right-of-way
o Mixing requirements for different shoreline jurisdictions
Ogtion D — Part 2
• Modify definition of setback in 24.90.050 A. "Shore setback" or "setback" means the minimum
distance between a structure or use from the outer edge of a buffer, or from the edge of the
shoreline if no buffer is required.
• Has broader implications
• Suggest adding definition for "building setback"
Option D — Part 3
• Delete provisions from CAO Appendix B related to buffer reductions or exemptions
• 23.50.040 (G)(1) to (4) [Wetland Buffer Modifications], 23.50.040 (I) [Additions to structures],
and 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted wetland buffer]; and 24.40.020 (F)(2)(e) [Additions to
structures].
• Has broader implications
Option D — Part 4
• Add Appendix C — Scope of Work for Site -Specific Study
• Unbiased study
• If Council wants an Appendix C, should be limited to items to include in the study and criteria for
analysis
• Peer review — suggest City select consultant for study
• Requires analysis of past conditions,
o SMP standard of no net loss of ecological function is based on existing conditions
Mr. Lien described:
Council Review
o Options A — C note a shoreline conditional use permit (Hearing Examiner recommendation to
Ecology); Option D notes Council approval of alternative buffer
o Both sides of marsh subject to master plan approval
■ Council approve master plan then development proposal goes through shoreline
conditional use permit process; or
■ Council approve master plan and SMP amendment
Next Steps
o Public Hearing Tonight
o Council Extended Agenda
■ March 28th
o Response to Ecology by March 30, 2107
o If not meet March 30, 2017 deadline, notify Ecology City will respond by April 30, 2017
Mr. Lien referred to letters provided to Council from the Washington State Ferries (WSF) received last
Friday and from Chevron received today, both raising concerns about the potential impacts the
amendments could have on the future Edmonds Crossing located on the old Unocal site.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the letter from WSF which states they and the City have spent a lot of
planning time and funds developing the Edmonds Crossing project and the City has included it in the
Comprehensive Plan. In their letter, WSF requested clarity regarding the City's commitment and ongoing
interest in creating that multimodal facility. He asked Mr. Lien to clarify the impacts that a 110 -foot
buffer in UMU IV would have on that project. Mr. Lien displayed a drawing of the Edmonds Crossing
from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), identifying the Edmonds Marsh, an existing stormwater
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 7
pond and parking and transit elements of Edmonds Crossing. He displayed the Edmonds Crossing
drawing overlaid on an aerial photo, identifying shoreline jurisdiction and explaining the setback from the
marsh will not really impact the Edmonds Crossing project because shoreline jurisdiction extends only to
the edge of the existing stormwater pond. The impact would be from the Willow Creek outlet which is
currently culverted if buffers and setbacks are expanded. The Edmonds Crossing parking and transit
turnaround would be impacted by the Willow Creek outlet.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how far the edge of the marsh is to Edmonds Crossing. Mr. Lien identified
shoreline jurisdiction, 200 feet from the edge of the marsh, basically the edge of the existing stormwater
pond. The Willow Creek outlet and its setback will impact the Edmonds Crossing project.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to emails she received today about an Ecology recommended
100 foot buffer and 15 -foot setback. The closest thing to that is Option B where Ecology recommended
50 -foot buffer and 65 -foot setback. She wondered where the 15 -foot setback came from. Mr. Lien said he
had not seen the emails Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was referring to. Ecology's initial
recommendations last year was a 50 -foot buffer with a 15 -foot setback for a total of 65 feet. The two
options Ecology has now proposed are Option A, a 110 -foot buffer with a 15 -foot setback and Option B
which established a buffer between 110 feet and 50 feet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified the
50 -foot buffer and 15 -foot setback was the old Ecology recommendation. Mr. Lien answered yes, now
Ecology is proposing Options A and B.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented in the presentation she gave with the assistance of Joe Scordino,
she had issues with the railroad and three peer reviews. She noted this was not the first time the City has
received letters from WSF and/or Unocal regarding the SMP. She recalled WSDOT favored a 100 -foot
buffer in 2013. Mr. Lien agreed WSDOT has submitted a number of letters over the years; they all have
been consistent in their concern how this may impact the Edmonds Crossing project. One of their letters
that mentioned the 100 -foot buffer was sent to Ecology during Ecology's comment period. That was
essentially what WSDOT proposed in the Edmonds Crossing EIS from the edge of the marsh. They
showed that buffer for the Willow Creek outlet; in the Edmonds Crossing project they identified
daylighting Willow Creek as mitigation. Assuming the Edmonds Crossing won't happen in the next 20-30
years, Willow Creek likely will be daylighted by then and will not be part of the mitigation.
Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why the Marina Beach master plan was prepared if WSDOT is
still planning for Edmonds Crossing. She referred to another email from WSDOT stating they are really
not considering Edmonds Crossing.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the definitions of setback and buffer, pointing out Anacortes has
separate definitions for buffer and setback. She recalled a few years ago Edmonds combined them so that
the buffer and setback occurred at the same point of origin. She noted that is causing some of the
confusion; in most literature, buffers and setbacks are separated. Ecology originally recommended a 50 -
foot buffer and 15 -foot setback, referred to as the 65 50. Option D includes a definition of setback. Mr.
Lien explained there is a shore setback definition. Changing the definitions to have shore setback and
setback mean the same thing has implications. For those places in the table that have shore setback, there
is also a buffer required due to a wetland or stream; the setback from the buffer for the Shoreline
Residential 3 will be 35 feet. That was why he suggested adding a definition for building setback.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has reviewed numerous SMPs, many have separate buffer and
setback definitions. Mr. Lien said there is a buffer definition.
For Councilmember Teitzel, Mr. Lien confirmed the railroad right-of-way extends to the edge of the
marsh and there is no place to establish a buffer between the railroad right-of-way and the marsh. The
h:ti. .,r L'.1......,... ,.1 .. ._._� _r W _..L. _11 ,_L'_.._.. L_1_��,_ � �L_ n._a 7r �L_ l�:—.. _L �,__ __l.]
l.1Ly Ul Edmonds owns 111UJL Ul 111ars11, a s111Q.11 J11VG1 MIUIIgN LV Mr, rV1 L. 11 LIM %-ALy U11UNU, lL GVUlU
improve the marsh without a requirement in the SMP.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 8
With regard to where the railroad right-of-way touches the marsh, Councilmember Teitzel asked whether
the City or Ecology would have any legal standing to require the railroad establish a buffer within their
right-of-way. Mr. Taraday referred to Mr. Lien's statement that there is no space for a buffer; even if
there were physical space, it was his understanding that that was a different shoreline environment, not
UMU IV that is being discussed tonight so it would require a different amendment to the SMP.
Councilmember Teitzel concluded for tonight's purposes the railroad discussion can be set aside and he
recommended that be removed from Option D.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Fred Gouge, President Port of Edmonds Commission, submitted the latest reports the Port had
prepared by Landau and Associates and HartCrowser. The Port has been working on protecting the marsh
around Harbor Square since purchasing the site in 1970. The Port removed all soil contamination caused
by industrial activities that existed when the Port purchased the site. The Port has spent over $1.7 million
since 2005 to stop contaminants in Harbor Square from reaching the marsh and continue to allocate funds
for any cleanup at Harbor Square as necessary. When Jacobsen Marine was built, the Port paid over
$11,000 toward marsh restoration and cleanup even though the project was west of the tracks. The Port
has been the only entity putting money toward protecting the marsh. Everyone welcomes the daylighting
of Willow Creek and the restoration of the marsh but the cleanup of the Unocal site on the south side of
the marsh has been stalled by Joe Scordino who crafted proposed options for the SMP by filing an appeal
to Ecology in October 2016 which has harmed the timeframe for Willow Creek daylighting. Since the
Port's master plan was withdrawn in 2013, the Port has invested nearly $2 million in Harbor Square, plan
to continue operating Harbor Square as it currently exists, and have no plans for a development. Nothing
has changed except making many of the 60+ businesses nonconforming with the proposed setback
including the Harbor Square Athletic Club and other buildings. Over 7,000 members use Harbor Square
Athletic Club and the Port has long term leases with tenants. He emphasized the Port has no intention of
selling Harbor Square despite all the rumors. The Port had a master plan development meeting and that
effort died. Councilmember Teitzel was present at the Port's last retreat where it was again stated the Port
has no plans to sell Harbor Square. The Port purchased the buildings in 2006 for $13.5 million; the
income from current long term leases covers the debt service which will be paid off in 33 months. When
the City Council is ready to think about the future of Harbor Square for the good of Edmonds residents,
the Port asks that the Council start a task force.
Mike Shaw, Edmonds, requested the Council support Option D, the only option that fully details what is
necessary for an independent site survey of the Edmonds Marsh and also spells out buffer and setback
specifications. In addition, he requested the Council expand their vision of Harbor Square. For too long
Harbor Square has represented the vision of the Port and a few developers. There are people in the
audience who want to make a profit at the expense of the Marsh. That is short sighted and does not take
into account the wishes of a majority of Edmonds residents. Rather than continue to hope for multistory
residences, he urged them to think about truly green and low impact development that would encourage
and restore the health of the Edmonds Marsh. The Edmonds Marsh could become a Washington State
treasure with restored salmon runs, ecotourism for birdwatchers and ecologist and not an area would be
shared with duck hunters like other tide flats. If the Council or Port thinks redevelopment always has to
be intensive or test height limits, he cited Salish Crossing as an example of what can be accomplished
with little disturbance.
Mike Schindler, Edmonds, CEO, Operation Military Family, and EDC member, speaking as a private
citizen, recognized there are strong opinions laced with convenient facts on both sides with regard to the
Edmonds Marsh and Harbor Square. He recalled one of the best assignments a high school teacher gave
him was to argue the other side of an issue he was dead set against. That assignment had a tremendous
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 9
impact on his life and made him a believer in the 1% principle of starting where we can all agree. When
the rhetoric is dropped, both sides are explored, and the focus is on the mission and outcome, mission
success can often be achieved even if parties are on opposite sides of an issue. He challenged each
Councilmember to argue the other side of their position. Everyone can agree on attracting partners and
leaders to Edmonds who contribute economically but also value the environment and natural
surroundings. What if the City could find a partner willing to build economic value, not only Port
infrastructure but also willing to invest in the marsh? Wouldn't that benefit both sides? How to find such
as partner, one willing to find economic value to the City by maintaining a world-class, award winning
marina and boardwalk that attracts residents from across the region and tourists from throughout the
northwest as well as is willing to invest millions in protecting the marsh and Puget Sound via industrial
site cleanups and effective stormwater and industrial runoff? He suggested starting by picking up the
phone and talking to the Port. Because he was interested in economic and environmental value and
preservation, he supported the original Ecology recommendation of a 50 -foot buffer and 15 -foot setback
if a scientific study shows no net loss of function. He recommended defining who a scientist is, it cannot
be Bill Nye the Science Guy. He believed this to be a fair and balanced proposal that protects and
potentially will enhance the marsh but also allow allows for responsible redevelopment of the Harbor
Square site.
Beth Burrow, Edmonds, thanked the Councilmembers and community members who have brought this
effort to this point and special thanks to Councilmember Buckshnis for her effort on Option D. She urged
the Council to accept Option D; this option ensures when a development proposal for Harbor Square or
the old Unocal site is submitted, an alternate buffer for the Edmonds Marsh will be derived from a site
specific study to be conducted at the time. Option D is the only option that places the needs of the marsh
and its wildlife as the driver for future site specific studies. Option D requires a rigorous scientific study;
the other three options focus more on the needs of development. The Environmental Protection Agency
may cut, among other things, its Puget Sound budget 93%, from $28 million to $2 million. The Edmonds
Marsh is one of the few remaining saltwater estuaries in Puget Sound and now, more than ever, it is
dependent on local actions to enhance and restore it. Unless the remaining marsh is protected and
enhanced, it will lose its ability to support birds and wildlife that visitors cherish. As the community
grows, she recommended working together to ensure the environment and special places remain a top
priority. Without these special places, Edmonds will lose the very things that make it a special place that
attracts visitors, developers, investors and residents. She did not want the last word on the marsh to be a
historical sign noting there was once a health marsh there.
Jon Houghton, Edmonds, marine biologist specializing in coastal ecology and shoreline ecological
functions, and owner of biological consulting company since 1989 located at Harbor Square whose
laboratory would be bisected by the 110 -foot buffer, said his experience includes a lot of habitat
restoration projects, field research on juvenile salmon throughout Puget Sound, and design of a number of
coastal habitat restoration projects in Everett, Tacoma, Olympia and Seattle. He also conducted BAS
reviews for Everett and Tukwila for their SMP updates. He referred to a memo he submitted to the
Council that summarizes the science behind buffers as they apply to the north shore of the Edmonds
Marsh. It is a unique environment and having lived and worked next to it for 30 years, he appreciated the
ecological functions the marsh provides as well as the limitations. Dikes on the north side of the marsh
prohibit developing great ecology functions via construction of wider buffers. The best way to restore and
enhance the marsh would be to daylight it and preserve and enhance existing buffers and vegetation on
the north side. He pointed out shorebirds need big mudflat areas and clear lines of sight. If big trees are
planted on the north side where no trees currently exist, they will further limit shorebirds' use of the
marsh.
ir ari,cal, 1VlLiWiVlLUL'UEdmonds Gi1Vlr Gnllelllal cilglilcer 11V 11aJ wV1Acu Gl a aAA.Y Vl 11r GjeVW uvul
cleanup of contaminated projects to designing wetland mitigation projects and stormwater treatment
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 10
facilities, expressed support for improving the quality of the marsh, but he was concerned about the
approach of establishing such a large buffer. Based on what he knows of the marsh and other projects, the
single most important thing that could be done to improve the quality of the marsh would be to treat
stormwater that discharges to the marsh. There are very good state-of-the-art treatment methods but they
are expensive to construct and operate. The only catalyst for construction of that type of facility is some
form of redevelopment. Establishing a 110 -foot buffer essentially maintains the status quo which will not
improve the marsh. Responsible and thoughtful development will require a more reasonable buffer at
most what Ecology originally suggested, a 50 -foot buffer and 15 -foot setback. If the goal is to improve
the functionality of the marsh, the Council should establish setbacks that can support responsible
development; otherwise the overall goal is more to stop development, not improve the marsh.
Jamie Reece, Edmonds, Chair of the EDC, but speaking as a private citizen, said his family are boaters,
hikers, cyclists and outdoor enthusiasts, and feel the marsh is a treasure. He expressed concern with
establishing what would be on paper something that would protect and benefit the marsh but in reality
may not achieve that objective. Restoring the marsh and improving stormwater management and the
treatment of stormwater requires money. Therefore either taxes need to be increased to accomplish this
approach and the City needs to approach the property owner about improving their land using City funds
or the City needs to attract responsible developers. The City is demanding of those who develop in
Edmonds and has attracted developers willing work within the City's values. He encourage flexibility
rather than establishing the largest buffer possible and establishing a buffer that asks for specific
proposals such as benefits, a more walkable and attractive Harbor Square and waterfront in exchange for
the most rigorous protections for the marsh.
Maggie Fimia, Edmonds, read a letter from Port Commissioner Steve Johnston, a retired environmental
professional who spent more than 35 years helping to put projects on the ground in balance with the
environment throughout the Pacific NW And Alaska, experienced in providing onsite and offsite
mitigation to offset potential development impacts to natural resources. She summarized his 3 -page letter,
the actions of the Save our Marsh (SOM) group and Councilmembers who support larger setbacks cannot
have the best interests of the Marsh in mind since the premise of their position in promoting a 125 -foot
setback is not based in any way on BAS or law. Their real agenda may be to preclude options for further
development of Harbor Square. This concern is supported by recent affiliations with the SOM group by
former Councilmembers with a record of adamant opposition to the redevelopment of Harbor Square. If
this is their agenda, they should just say so; their position cannot be based on science because the science
favors smaller setbacks and buffers and it cannot be based on environmental concerns because some of
the Councilmembers who support larger setbacks have shown no real respect for the environment in some
past uninformed decisions like establishing a dog park right on the beach. The SOM group and their
spokespersons are not qualified to assess positive or negative impacts on the marsh from any action; the
qualified PhUd biologists who have spoken tonight are. Do not make the future of the marsh subject to
misdirected politics and obstruction; the marsh is too important for that. Lay the groundwork for
protecting and enhancing the marsh. Do not foreclose options for future responsible development that will
benefit marsh. The Port and the City deserves better than that.
Alan Mearns, Edmonds, expressed support for Option D and particularly Appendix C because it was the
first time he had seen a discussion from a scientific and ecologic point of view of the science. He reported
on two seminars he attended this past week, one by the USGS about citizens and scientists working
together to measure, monitor and assess the functions and future of marshes. The other was a seminar by
NOAA's National Estuarian Reserve Program, providing new tools to evaluate marshes, tidal marshes in
particular, with regard to sea level rise. He summarized BAS is continually changing.
Dianna Maish, Edmonds, referred to a Seattle Times opinion published today, written by business
officials and an attorney for Sound Partnership, Federal Funding, a Bill that Could Cut the National
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 11
Budget for Puget Sound Recovery to Zero. Over the last decade, as long as Puget Sound has been
designated an estuary of national significance, it has been recognized that the economic and environment
health of Puget Sound are bound together. The Edmonds saltwater marsh is a small but significant
contributor to Puget Sound and can be protected. Today's investment has helped hold the line on Puget
Sound degradation, but as the authors of the opinion state, that can be undone very quickly if efforts at
pursuing and sustaining recovery are not supported. For each step backward, the cost to regain lost ground
becomes many times magnified as time passes and problems increase; the same is true with the Edmonds
Marsh. Degradation of Puget Sound and its salmon runs have been occurring for more than 125 years.
Protecting the Edmonds Marsh can be part of the solution, not the problem.
George Keefe, Edmonds, retired middle school science teacher, said he lives near the marsh and
regularly walks along the marsh to go birding and to eat blackberries. The 23 -acre saltwater marsh is all
that remains of the original 40 -acre marsh. There are no other saltwater marshes between Everett and
Tacoma. The Edmonds salt marsh is home to over 40 species of resident and migratory birds over the
course of a year. Historically, the marsh was a highly valuable habitat for juvenile salmonids to transition
between fresh and saltwater. Buffers are a critical tool for protecting natural areas and should be based on
BAS. He urged the Council to adopt Option D as it puts the most emphasis on BAS. The Environmental
Protection Agency may cut the Puget Sound budget 93% from $28 million to $2 million. The Edmonds
Marsh is one of the few remaining saltwater estuaries in Puget Sound. Now more than ever Puget Sound
is dependent on local community action to enhance and restore natural areas such as the Edmonds Marsh.
Community participation in decisions that protect the treasured environment is invaluable. He thanked
Councilmembers who have worked with community members to reach this point, especially
Councilmember Buckshnis.
Barbra Tipton, Edmonds, explained the Edmonds Marsh is a 24 acre estuary, a Puget Sound habitat that
is an ecological asset to the community. Less than 20% of tidal wetlands in Puget Sound remain intact;
reestablishment of proper hydrology in the marsh would improve stormwater management and lessen the
probability of damage resulting from flood events. Protecting and restoring this ecosystem benefits fish,
birds, wildlife, and people who enjoy this unique resource. The State's SMA provides jurisdictions with
the flexibility to tailor their SMP to reflect their unique attributes. Under the State's GMA, local
governments are required to use BAS when reviewing and revising policies and regulations. She did not
see a bias in Option D or any rhetorical words, phases or ideas. A retired fisheries biologist, formerly with
NOAA, collaborated in the drafting of Option D; he is an expert and the City should be thankful for his
work. The scope of work for the site specific scientific study ensures the study will be conducted by
professionals with field experience in and knowledge of wetlands and wildlife. Once the study is
completed, three peer review will be conducted by independent scientists. Those reviews will determine
researcher bias, if any, in the site specific study. The 45th president's anti -science bias calls for gutting the
EPA and NOAH; according to today's Seattle Times, funding for the National Estuary Program will
disappear, a program that benefits all who rely on Puget Sound for tourism, shellfish and recreation. She
provided the following quote, "The federal government has been an essential partner in restoring and
protecting Puget Sound. It would be destructive and shortsighted to walk away from this responsibility
now."
Leslie Brown, Edmonds, stated she missed Agenda Item 5 and her comments were not related to the
marsh.
Emily Paynich, Edmonds, commented she was relatively new to the marsh issue. While she appreciated
the vibrancy that comes with development, if the protective buffer is not expanded, the marsh will
disappear and then everyone will be worrying about how to bring it back and restore it. She urged the
C.UUnCIl l0 SUppOPt 11 ie 1'drgeSl Duller pUSSIib- IC DCGdUSe tSUIIIUIlUS ]VII dr5i1 is a treasure.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 12
John Paynich, Edmonds, a builder and a contractor, said when the environment is literally under attack,
it the duty of the City and citizens to protect beyond what is legally required. This is necessary for Puget
Sound, for salmon runs, for the J Pod and as a legacy for the City. This is an opportunity to make the
situation better and make it work better than it is supposed to, rather than just doing the minimum. When
he builds, he thinks about the legacy of the project; builders who are considering any development in this
area need to have that as their primary function. The marsh is unique, a necessity to the environment and
it is worth protecting.
Jason Stutes, Lynnwood, a marine scientist employed in Edmonds who has studied estuarian processes
from the Baltic to the Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound to Alaska, said he has a particular investment in the
Edmonds Marsh both for its aesthetics and ecological uniqueness. When thinking about the Edmonds
Marsh and its ecology function, he considers what could potentially impair that function. He recognized
what the marsh currently provides but believed it could provide more. Thinking from an ecosystem
prospective, the major constraints on the marsh's ecological function is processing a lot of unfiltered,
unmanaged stormwater, its high retention and lack of a natural connection to Puget Sound. In considering
the buffer options, he liked the idea that there was no one size fits all. Promoting an overly larger buffer
may preclude a more specialized, tailored approach to preserving and perhaps enhancing the marsh. He
advocated for a more tailored approach, looking at the specific issues and how a buffer might help
alleviate those issues. One of the primary goals of an overly large buffer is stormwater management,
filtration and processing for contaminants; however, a buffer of that size does not actually provide that
function and more specific stormwater management for the marsh should be the goal via a more
customized buffer options.
David Richman, PhD, Edmonds, said like many people, he finds the Edmonds Marsh a very pleasant
place to spend time reconnecting with nature in a hectic world. The marsh serves as a haven for wildlife
in a much-reduced ecosystem but also as a place for casual wildlife watching, scientific research
education and a place to maintain mental health. He expressed support for Option D, a rigorous current
best science approach to determining the best outcome of development at Harbor Square. He has over 25
years' experience as a reviewer of scientific grant proposals, a book proposal and journal manuscripts as
well as a review participant in grant proposals and journal articles. The rationale and ethical standards
involved in peer review for scientific research are pertinent to the redevelopment of Harbor Square as
both require judgment of competent professionals who have no stake in the outcome and who rely on the
understanding of best science available. Ideally such peer review of future projects should include three
reviewers and reviewers must have some knowledge of ecosystem requirements and have no vested
interest in the outcome of their review. This accomplishes two major goals, sets the most knowledgeable
basis for a given project and reassures citizens of Edmonds that all interests are taken into account when
making decisions that will affect the City for decades.
Valerie Kendall, Edmonds, spoke in favor of a course of action that helps preserve and restore the marsh
ecology. As the parent of a scientist, she supported the best scientific information but was aware science
evolves and it takes citizens with a clear commitment and stake to participate in the decision. She thanked
the citizens who attended tonight's meeting as well as staff and Councilmembers for their work. She
recognized this was a sensitive issue, and as a planner herself, she was aware not everyone was always
happy with an outcome. She believed the Edmonds Marsh is a key identifier for Edmonds and it has the
potential now and in the future to help economic development, tourism, and provide a sense of who we
are. She urged the Council to consider this opportunity to preserve, enlarge and enhance the functionality
of the marsh and not worry about where the money would come from; establish the goals first and figure
out the funding later.
Phill Butler, Edmonds, said he and his wife have been publicly, positively and proactively supportive of
the best possible scenarios for the Edmonds Marsh. Due to his work, he had the opportunity to view the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 13
interface between ancient landscapes, water features and other ecological elements in other counties, an
experience that convinced him that even in places like the European Union where ecological concerns are
draconian, it is possible to have creative solutions at the intersection of modernization, organization and
respect for the environment. There is no reason Edmonds cannot find the best possible solution for the
Edmonds Marsh. The official Ecology position was originally 65 feet; the City Council revised Ecology's
position to include multiple options. No technical, scientific study has been done by Ecology or any other
groups suggesting a setback greater than 65 feet is either needed or justified. He recalled the Harbor
Square development plan adjacent to the marsh because a highly decisive issue several years ago and an
ill-advised City Council rejected the Port's proposed plan. He feared the position of many who steadfastly
hold to the 125 -foot setback is actually a Trojan horse for the old, high divisive, anti -Harbor Square
development, now cloaked in the respectability of environmental ecological concerns. As a citizen paying
taxes, he was concerned with the adversarial relationship between the City Council and the Port.
Although the City Council positions itself as authority in environmental issues, the Port, who controls
Harbor Square, has since its formation in 1948 been looking out for the best environment interest of
Edmonds citizens for 70+ years.
Janet Way, Shoreline, representing the Sierra Club Snohomish County Group, requested they be a party
of record with legal standing in this matter. She loves to visit Edmonds and when her parents visit from
New Jersey, they stay Harbor Square Inn so they can be next to the marsh. The Edmonds Marsh is a
historic regional destination for tourists, a magnet for people worldwide who come to enjoy its beauty,
wildlife, diversity, and passive recreation experiences. The Edmonds Marsh is unique in this region as a
saltwater wetland estuary especially in an urban area. The marsh is a wildlife refuge, salmonid habitat and
has over 200 birds species. She worked on a project in the Northgate area, daylighting of Thornton Creek
at Thornton Place, a long fight that resulted in the best project. Buffers are important for water quality and
wildlife habitat; Option D provides the most ecological function. Invasive development is a threat because
the integrity of the saltwater marsh and impervious surfaces are the enemy. Whatever the Council can do
to reduce impervious surfaces and expand the marsh should be done. Option D ensures the best outcome
for people and wildlife based on rigorous science and sustainability. Edmonds has an obligation and duty
to protect and defend this unique resource.
Debbie Hopkin, Edmonds, described her background in immunological disease and public health and
current pursuit of a second graduate degree in public health in the environment. She thanked the Council
for carefully considering the SMP, acknowledging the need to make changes that provide definition and
clarity. Defining who has the ecological expertise to perform scientific site specific studies and how they
are peer reviewed is essential to decision making and is consistent with best practices around the world.
There is no doubt this will provide value for future development of the shoreline. She expressed support
for Option D for its specificity, clarity and peer review. Protecting nearshore environments is critical for
two reasons, 1) the health of the Puget Sound, increasingly at risk from toxic stormwater and pollution
and how that negatively affects food webs and diminishes ecological function, and 2) as sea level rises,
water draws closer to communities and in the rapidly shifting environment where shoreline communities
worry about stormwater and sea level rise, governments are already implement policies for new green
infrastructure programs to prevent the degradation and flooding from higher than expected tides and
storm surges. Edmonds has a 22 -acre salt marsh that can naturally do what the money, planning and work
seeks to do if it is protected and fortified. A rigorous study released last week values Australian salt
marshes at $7.2 billion for their ability to sink carbon. Preserving naturally occurring salt marshes is a
widely -recognized need and is a priority among governments from Massachusetts to Florida and
internationally. As shoreline communities around the world model sea level rise scenarios, they are
looking to rebuild and replace salt marshes that have been lost. Edmonds has an opportunity to
demonstrate leadership in the shared and intertwined responsibility of public health and ecosystem
�: A 14,. +1 !� ;1 . ,t :+; 1,_A. tet. ,1,7 A— .t,.,+o :L.lo +_ .,A
pleJel VQLIVll. P& a 1 V111111u111L�, L11V VVUllcll a11U VILlzell VVUY J11VUlu UV VY11QLV Ve1 pVJs1V1V LV plesel Ve a11U
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 14
fortify Edmonds Marsh for the invaluable and irreplaceable resources it provides to both the larger
ecosystem and the health and safety of the community in future years.
Marty Jones, Edmonds, a member of SOM, asked the City Council to support Option D, commenting
on the importance of any study for an alternate buffer include the scope of work in Option D to ensure the
wildlife who depend on the marsh are protected. Peer review by experts in the subjects outlined in the
scope of work is necessary to ensure the study is done in a competent and unbiased manner. The
Edmonds City Council is the only entity qualified make the decision on how to act on the site specific
study. The Edmonds Marsh belongs to the City and its citizens; the City Council is citizen's voice, and
citizens put their trust in the Council to make the best decision. This is a critical decision for Edmonds
that will have impacts for many generations. She expressed concern with a recent comment in My
Edmonds News from a Port member who said it now appears that wider buffers will eliminate any
prospect for redevelopment of Harbor Square. She displayed a picture made from satellite images from
Google Earth to illustrate the 125 -foot buffer does not impact a majority of Harbor Square and does not
eliminate it from possible redevelopment. The area impacted by the buffer is primarily parking lots and
tennis courts. Edmonds needs representatives that look for opportunities and cooperative ways to find
solutions rather than assuming every problem is an insurmountable obstacle. It is time for the Port, the
City, the Council, SOM and others to work together to find the greatest good for Edmonds.
Victor Eskenazi, Edmonds, said he would like to see the marsh returned to the size it was 200 years ago
before the first white man arrived. He was tired of the divisiveness due to money. Those with financial
stakes at risk do not want to lose money, no one does. If finances were removed from the discussion, the
Port likely would not object to a wider buffer. Rather than fighting over money, he suggested mediation
such as a weekend conference with all the stakeholders concerned about money as well as everyone else.
The conference would provide an opportunity to listen and understand why there is a fight over money
and then there may be more willingness to work with those who do not have finances at risk. This process
has been inundated by facts, yet best science is a fantasy. Most decisions are based on emotion and
peoples' livelihoods. He summarized his suggestion for a facilitated weekend conference where everyone
that has a stake works together.
Joan Bloom, Edmonds, urged the Council to approve Option D without any amendment. Option D will
ensure the marsh is preserved for the long term by providing a detailed scope of work for site specific
study to ensure an unbiased study is done that values all the ecological functions of the marsh. To
Councilmember Teitzel's concerns that SOM is a special interest group, she reminded that most members
are Edmonds residents who he represents. None of the members of SOM have anything to gain
financially from their support of the Edmonds Marsh. She urged Councilmembers to consider whether
special interest groups support reduced buffers. Marjorie Fields, a SOM member, wrote an excellent
editorial in My Edmonds News last week about her support of the Edmonds Marsh. Port Executive
Director Robert McChesney replied, "it now appears that wider buffers will eliminate any prospect for
redevelopment at Harbor Square. What you see is what you get." Mr. McChesney's statement is not only
false, it is baffling. All Mr. McChesney and the elected Port Commissioners need to do is look to Salish
Crossing where the owner, Lindsey Echelbarger, redeveloped the existing building without increasing the
height, without adding condominiums, remaining code compliant and economically viable and creating a
community asset. She was sure a majority of the Council's constituents would applaud the redevelopment
of Salish Crossing, yet Mr. McChesney says it cannot be done. It is time the Port and City work with
taxpayers of the City and Port to envision appropriate redevelopment at Harbor Square, redevelopment
that excludes residential, supports existing businesses, and adds services and amenities that reflect the will
of the community. If done properly, the Edmonds Marsh will be protected now and for future generations.
Susan Pane, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their tireless service. She was excited about Option D,
explaining she moved to Edmonds for the schools but also the terrific parks and great natural areas such
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 15
as Pine Ridge, Yost, Maplewood Parks. An experience in nature is not available in many places and the
places in Edmonds should be cherished. The Edmonds Marsh offers many opportunities to connect with
the natural environment, adds continuation of the beaches, and having an active natural marsh for both
estuarian environment services and the ecology impacts provides tremendous benefit to all Edmonds
residents as well as attracts visitors and birds. She appreciated the scientific basis for decision making and
peer review. Science will declutter the issues and she supported having peer reviews. A fully functioning
salt and freshwater marsh will also attract new businesses. People come to Edmonds for the beauty, the
people, the culture and the environment. She recommended using that as the vision for any new
development near Edmonds Marsh.
Ray White, PhD, Edmonds, a member of the SOM science committee along with Alan Mearns and
Dave Richmond, retired from Michigan State University and Montana State University, said he and his
wife moved to Edmonds for the mountains and amenities like the Edmonds Marsh. His professional
specialty is ecological restoration of trout and salmon streams; he started his first job in 1957. He echoed
previous speakers' comments about the value of the Edmonds Marsh. With regard to building setback, he
recommended defining building, recognize that much else is detrimental to the Edmonds Marsh such as
roads, parking lots, other infrastructure and impervious surfaces. All engineering work such as buildings
eventually deteriorate and have to be replaced; redevelopment of Harbor Square will occur at some point.
Sarah Murphy, Edmonds, described her background as a former English and science teacher and
survivor of three floods on the east coast. The impact of poor planning has devastating effects and her
hometown in New Jersey did not recover from repeated flooding of the Delaware River. She was excited
about the idea of planning and options that include involving scientists and peer review. She applauded
the Council for their forward environmental thinking. While a middle school teacher, she witnessed the
wonder of a child visiting a marsh and identifying birds and fish as well as to learn about the impact of
plastic on the ecosystem, an experience that cannot be duplicated in the classroom. The Edmonds Marsh
is a valuable ecosystem; she feared development would result in only pictures of the former wildlife in the
marsh. The EPA identified ecosystems as the nursery of the sea, without them, there cannot be viable,
strong ecosystems that feed into places like Puget Sound. With the current administration gutting the
EPA, it will be up to the local government to save the marsh in spite of funding cuts to Puget Sound. She
summarized D was the best option.
Suzy Schaefer, Edmonds, said she was both discouraged and excited; excited about Alan Mearns'
statement about the science of today and tomorrow because she knew the science of yesterday and that
development projects do not solve environmental problems. Fortunately SOM includes scientists; Option
D was the best SOM could do; it provides flexibility and does not take anything away from the existing
marsh. She was excited the coyotes were back at the marsh. She expressed support for Option D and
saving the marsh.
Victoria Leistman, Seattle, an organizer with the Sierra Club, commented it was not often this many
citizens came out to talk about an issue they care about. As an organizer, she often has talk about what she
is against; in this case people are expressing their support for preserving the Edmonds Marsh. She had an
opportunity to meet with Ecology Director Bellon on this issue last December before the 110-foot buffer
option was submitted by the City Council. Director Bellon prides herself on giving communities the
opportunity for compromise. This is an incredible opportunity to protect the marsh in a way that is based
on a scientific site specific study but also gives the community an opportunity to work together in a way
that protects the special place but does not preclude Edmonds from growing in a manner that is
sustainable and promising for the future in spite of what is happening at the federal level.
r . 91h UA .. .A c L. 1 D L TRo ti.l.o a 'tier 1 � + , o >L.o
%-arlin 4-111ase, LiU1 onus U411001 L V0.1L11VIlember, said goal was LV ensure. Lily vd UCULlVllUl oppVl Lulll LlVJ
that children have at the Edmonds Marsh are protected. Given the national climate and the challenges that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 16
Puget Sound is facing, the City has an opportunity to lead the nation in defending and protecting natural
places. She began her career as a marine field researcher biologist at the Valdez oil spill; many places
have still not recovered and are lost forever. Protecting the natural environment is the Council's
paramount duty, and she urged the Council to protect Edmonds Marsh to the upmost within their power.
David Preston, Edmonds, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, commented there have been coyotes at the
marsh since the late 1970s. He displayed pictures of the Edmonds Marsh in 1940 where there was no oil
dock or marina; 1947; 1955 shows the oil docks and tanks, railroad tracks and where trains would dump
asphalt and oil; 1967 which shows the marina and infill from the marina toward the future location of SR -
104; 1970 showing the footprint of Harbor Square and contaminants on the railroad tracks; 1976 where
not much is going on in marsh; 1981; 1985 post cleanup; 1989 showing a healthier marsh; and 1993. He
read a proclamation dated March 21, 2017:
Whereas by talking to each other instead of about each other, the marsh will have a better outcome,
Whereas tenants, property owners and concerned citizens need to sit together at the table to true help the
environment,
Whereas honesty and transparency will further improve the marsh,
Whereas the daylighting of Willow Creek will help improve the salmon runs in Puget Sound,
Whereas a healthy marsh and clean stormwater protects Puget Sound,
Whereas recognition that the Port of Edmonds has spent almost $2.5 million on cleanup of Harbor
Square,
Whereas 25 years and with a 25 -foot buffer, the marsh has benefited.
Let's resolve to save the marsh together and keep the unity of this community together to improve the
long term condition of the marsh for our kids, grandkids of the Edmonds and Woodway area.
Laurie Johnson, Edmonds, expressed appreciation for the Port's proclamation. As she has learned more
about the marsh, how unique it is and how fortunate citizens are to have it in Edmonds, the importance of
protecting it is apparent. Citizens recognize the uniqueness of the marsh and the benefits it provides to the
community and want to put their resources put toward protecting it.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified Unocal's two phase cleanup process, noting that Mr. Scordino's
appeal did not stop the cleanup of Unocal Phase 1. His appeal was in regard to the closing of the gate,
flooding, and overflow into the marsh. According to Unocal's Public Affairs Manager, his appeal has
placed Phase 2 on hold. The letter from Unocal stated "We were planning to begin the next phase of
cleanup work at the former Unocal Edmonds Terminal site in late fall 2016, but the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit needed for the work was appealed by Mr. Scordino. Due
to the appeal we placed the work on hold." David Pater, Ecology, said it was an appeal of the water
quality and the NPDES permit. Development Services Director Hope offered to provide further
information at the Council's next meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in the Council having a scientific report done based on
Appendix C, removing the sentence "and in the context of an approved master plan development or
redevelopment on one or more edges of marsh." She proposed using Council contingency funds to do a
site specific report with the information in Appendix C to provide a baseline for future review when any
development is proposed.
Councilmember Teitzel thanked the audience members for their comments; they are very well informed
and care about the City, the marsh and the environment. and marsh. With regard to the obligation to
respond to Ecology by the end of March, he did not think that would happen. He has a number of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 17
questions he wants to bring up on the record next week. He suggested a motion to extend the response
deadline to April 30. Mayor Earling suggested that decision be made next week.
Councilmember Nelson looked forward to voting next week.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
7. ACTION ITEMS
1. POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced John Fregonese, Principal, Fregonese Associates,
who provided an aerial of the project area on Highway 99 and reviewed:
• Planning Process
o March - April 2016: Understanding existing conditions
o April - June 2016:
o April - Nov 2016: Develop land use and transportation scenarios
o Oct - Dec 2016: Develop Sub -Area Draft plan
o Dec - Feb 2017: Final Sub -Area Plan
• March 2016 Public Workshop
o Identified opportunities for new housing and business, community centers and services, and
infrastructure upgrades
o What did the public want?
• May 2016 Open House
o Revealed near and long-term development and transportation opportunities and its impacts
• November 2016 Open House
o Revealed implementation strategies and policy recommendations
o Public had opportunity to review the recommendations at the Open House and online and
provide feedback
o Community values:
■ Connectivity
■ Destinations
• Beautification
■ Safety
■ Walkability
• Affordable housing
• Healthy businesses
• Distinct Subdistricts
o Major local and regional destinations on Hwy 99
■ International District
- Diverse restaurants, grocers and shops; major Korean business cluster
• Health District
- Swedish Hospital and medical offices
• Gateway District
- Identified by the community during workshop
- Desire for "gateway" and distinct transition point in and out of Edmonds
Long segments without crossings
o Central area requires 10 -minute walk to find safe crossing
Housing development
o Widespread desire for housing, particularly in south
Mixed Use Development
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 18
o Widespread desire for mixed use, particularly in south and central
Pedestrian Crossing
o More mid -block crossings throughout
Key Assets in Corridor Area
o Opportunity to build on the momentum of ongoing improvements in Shoreline along Hwy 99
o High-quality transit facilities already in place providing links to housing, jobs and amenities
in the region
o Distinct districts already emerging — International and Health Districts — that provide core
services and amenities
o Already a mixed-use district with retail uses adjacent to single- and multi -family housing
o Business, developer community and residents are ready to see positive changes to create a
safe, walkable, healthy place
Mr. Fregonese reviewed Implementation Strategies, Policy Recommendations + Actions
• Draft Zoning & Development Recommendations
o Strengthen Economic Opportunity
• Support unique business clusters such as International District and Health District
■ Major auto sales facilities remain important to the local economy. Pedestrian Activity
Zone standard will allow auto sales to continue business as usual
• Strengthen and continue support for business orgs. in county and state
• Pursue broadband internet throughout corridor to attract high-tech business investment
• Consider unique designs for streetscape improvements such as signage and lighting
o Encourage Sustainable Building Practices
• Transit and pedestrian -friendly development with less reliance on automobile trips,
should be promoted through new design standards
• Consider requiring electric vehicle charging facilities especially within new residential
developments and bicycle facilities
■ Encourage use of solar panels and green building practices
o Map of proposed update to Comprehensive Plan designations
■ Health District
• International District
■ Gateway District
o Current Zoning Map
• The only difference between CG and CG2 is the height limit (CG = 60' and CG2 = 75')
• Many current zones are remnants from the counties antiquated zoning
• Many zones do not match with the parcel boundaries
o Proposed Zoning Map
• The proposal is to change these zones to the consolidated CG zone
■ Incorporate design standards directly into zones to ensure scale transition into
neighborhoods
• More predictable outcomes for community
o Comprehensive Plan Map
• New zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map
o Strengthen current design standards
• Incorporate them directly into the zoning code
■ Consideration of special circumstances within the corridor will be made to ensure the
standards are feasible, such as large parcels that would have multiple buildings if
redeveloped and parcels with unique access or transportation challenges may require a
modified approach to the design standards.
o Changes to Access and Parking
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 19
■ Issue Today: current standards allow too much parking in the front of buildings, which
negatively effects the pedestrian environment and hinders redevelopment potential
o Existing District -based Design Standards Hwy 99 Corridor CG/CG2 - criteria
■ Access and Parking
- Not more than 50 percent of total project parking spaces may be located between the
building's front facade and the primary street. Parking lots may not be located on
corner locations adjacent to public streets
o Recommended Design Standards for Urban Areas
■ Parking Predominately on Side or Rear
- Parking areas may comprise 40% or less of street frontage
- Better design than current standard: no more than 50% of total project parking spaces
may be located between building's front fagade and the primary street
• Buildings on the Street Frontage
- Primary Frontage - min. 50% of primary street frontage should have buildings within
10 feet of front property line (at the edge of Pedestrian Activity Zone)
- All Other Frontages - 50% of side and rear street frontages to have buildings, walls,
or hedges at least 4 feet in height, within 10 ft of property line
• Ground Floor Transparency
- 50% of Primary Frontage building fagade within 10 feet of frontage lot line be made
of transparent windows and doors. All other building frontages require 30%
transparency.
o Current Standards
■ Screening and Buffering - Parking lots
- Type IV landscaping, minimum four feet wide, is required along all street frontages.
➢ This standard creates landscaped barriers between pedestrians and buildings
rather than enhancing a safe and comfortable pedestrian zone
o Changes to Screening and Buffering "Pedestrian Activity Zone"
■ Replace with required 10 -foot Pedestrian Activity Zone
- Allows for a range of active uses like sidewalk cafes and amenities such as public art,
street furniture, street trees, bus shelters, pavement patterns, lighting, etc.
- Expanded Sidewalk Width
■ Amenity Space
- Outdoor amenity space, such as landscaping, benches, etc. should be required in
conjunction with development
- A portion of the required amenity space should be provided as common space and
may include pedestrian areas
o New Stepback Design Standards
• No current stepback regulations exist
• Purpose: Ensure a transition in height and bulk between multifamily/mixed-use buildings
in commercial zones and adjacent single family zones, while enabling more housing
options to be built adjacent to Hwy 99
o Recommended Front Setback for Multifamily and Mixed -Use Adjacent to Single Family
Zones
■ GROUND FLOOR SETBACK
- For frontages on Highway 99, require a front setback of 10 feet to accommodate a
Pedestrian Activity Zone.
- For frontages not on Highway 99, reduce frontage setbacks to 5 foot and encourage
enhanced pedestrian realm (larger sidewalks, useable landscaping, etc.).
- Keep current 15 feet setback and 10' landscaping requirements for lot line adjacency
with single family zones.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 20
o Recommended Front Stepback for Multifamily and Mixed -Use Adjacent to Single Family
Zones
■ UPPER FLOOR SETBACK
- Zero setback up to 25 feet in height (30 feet is the maximum height in RM 1.5, which
is the predominant zone surrounding the commercial zones on Highway 99).
- 10 foot setback beyond 25 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to single
family zones
- 20 foot setback beyond 55 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to single
family zones
- 8 foot stepback beyond 30 feet in height on sides across a street from single family
zones
- Stepback areas can be used for active outdoor space such as balconies.
o Recommended Transit -Supportive Parking Standards
■ Reduce minimums; follow market demand for parking
- Residential
➢ Current: Studio: 1.2 / 1 -Bedroom: 1.5 / 2 -Bedroom: 1.8 / 3 -Bedroom: 2
➢ Recommended: One space per unit that is less than 700 sq. ft.
- Commercial
➢ Current: 2.5 per 1,000 square feet (1 per 400 sq ft)
➢ Recommended: 2 per 1,000 square feet
- Exempt first 3,000 sq ft of commercial uses within mixed-use buildings that have a
shared parking plan (parking study and management plan)
➢ Reduces cost burden for small, local entrepreneurs
➢ Staff decision on compliance
Mr. Fregonese continued his review:
• Draft Affordable Housing Recommendations
o Define Hwy 99 area as a "target area" to allow Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE)
projects
• Pass ordinance to enable MFTE project in Hwy 99 area
• All residential -portion of building value tax exempt for 12 years with at least 20%
affordable units
o Continue to enhance fee waiver program for affordable housing
Enhance its City program to allow the reduction of transportation and park impact fees
for projects that include affordable housing
o Mixed -Use, Mixed -Income Demonstration Project
■ Identify site with willing owner or City purchase/transferrable option
• Actively recruit developers (non-profit; public-private)
• Pilot project for new MFTE and fee waiver programs, and other possible special
assessment districts
o Other Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Finance Recommendations
• Key Financing Tools and Funding Sources to Pursue
- City Fund for Redevelopment and Affordable Housing
- Community Renewal Area (CRA) - used in Shoreline
- Hospital Benefit Zone (HBZ) Financing Program
- Local Infrastructure Project Area (LIPA) Financing
- Landscape Conservation and Local Improvement Program (LCLIP)
- Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
- HUD HOME Program
- HUD CDBG Program
- Enterprise Community Partiers Regional Equitable Development Initiative
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 21
Draft Signage & Wayfinding Recommendations
o Gateway Signage at Hwy 99/Hwy 104 interchange
o Transit Gateway Signage/Station at Hwy 99/228th
o Improve wayfinding signage along corridor
Identify downtown, Lake Ballinger, multiuse path (Interurban Trail), new regional rail,
International District, Health District, other activity nodes
o Unique District Design Identity
• Branding, public/local art, street furniture, unique bus shelter designs, pavement patterns,
special lighting fixtures, colored crosswalks, banners, etc.
o Prohibit new pole signs
Draft Transportation Recommendations
o Improve Transit Transfers:
■ Unify/consolidate BRT and local transit stops to reduce walking distance for transfers
o Hwy 99 and 228th will be Key Intersection
• 228th will connect Edmonds to regional rail in Mountlake Terrace.
• Shuttle/transit service from Hwy 99 to regional rail station
• Consolidated transit stop at 228th
■ New BRT station
• Clear signage
• High quality bike connection on 228th
o Incentivize Alternative Transportation Options:
• Car Share/Bike Share
• On-site bike parking
• Ride sharing services (Uber, Lyft)
• Electric car charging stations
■ Incentives: Impact fee reductions and parking requirement offsets for providing dedicated
accommodating alternative transportation options on-site
Draft Transportation Infrastructure Recommendations
o Expand use of grant programs to fund safety improvements and pedestrian facilities
• Safe Route to School Program
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Program
■ Highway Safety Improvements Program (HSIP)
• Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program (CMAQ)
o Proposed Short & Long -Term Transportation Improvements
• Transportation Goals:
- Improve pedestrian safety and access to/from Hwy 99 corridor
- Improve pedestrian environment along Hwy 99 corridor
- Safe pedestrian crossing of Hwy 99 and access to transit
- Improved transit mobility and transit stop environment
- Improved traffic flow and general safety with access management
• Key Recommended Transportation Improvements
- Close the most significant gap in the pedestrian crossings within the corridor
- 238th to 228th - a distance of 3,700 ft. - has no controlled pedestrian crossing
- Improve pedestrian access from the south at the SR 104 interchange
- Long-term recommendation: Reconfigure ramps to conventional 90 -degree stop
control intersections
- Short-term recommendation: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's)
with high visibility crosswalk
- Encourage walking and biking to access plan Highway 99 from surrounding
neighborhoods
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 22
- "Complete Streets" - sidewalks, safety lighting, street lighting, pedestrian -scaled
lighting, drainage improvements, etc.
- Streets that can be safely traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists
experience travel during the day
- Improve connections between transit and major employment centers
➢ Swift Stations at 216th and the Swedish Hospital Campus:
pedestrian walkway system within campus with wayfinding
o Maps of Planned Transportation Improvements and Project Supportive
Improvements, identifying the location o£
• Improvement Index Number
• Existing Signalized Intersection and Ped Xing
■ Proposed New Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Crossing
• Intersection Safety & Capacity Improvements
■ New Bike Route Designation
• New Class II Bicycle Lanes
• Street Improvements for Pedestrians
• Access Management (Raised Medians)
• Pedestrian Hybrid Signal (HAWK)
o Photographs of:
• Health District Gateway
- Today
- With initial public investments
- With corresponding private investments
■ SW 234"'
- Today
- With initial public investments
- With corresponding private investment
at night will
Implement a
Transportation
Next Steps:
o March 21 - City Council disscussion of Subarea Plan
o March 22 - Planning Board meeting for initial review/discussion of Development Code
Amendments to implement the proposed Hwy 99 Subarea Plan
o Early April - Open House for Draft EIS
o April 12 - Planning Board public hearing on Development Code Amendments and Planned
Action Ordinance (PAO)
o May 9 - City Council public hearing on Development. Code and PAO
o June 5 - City Council to consider adopting: a) Subarea Plan, b) Development Code
Amendments, and c) PAO
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commended the plan, commenting this would be an improvement to the
corridor and brighten the entire environment. She referred to the proposed zoning map, recommending the
RM -2.4 zones be changed to CG. Mr. Fregonese said they have the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Because there was development on the property that was not envisioned to redevelop, the zoning was not
proposed to be changed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas She preferred more contiguous CG zoning in
the corridor for the future.
Councilmember Johnson concurred this was a great plan but it needs fine tuning. For example at the
beginning of the plan, there are three alternatives, but at the end there are only two and there is reference
to the second alternative but the description is actually the third alternative. Mr. Fregonese agreed that
could be clarified, explaining some of the residential options were combined for the EIS.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 23
Councilmember Johnson expressed interest in how the recommendations regarding transportation will be
translated into the Comprehensive Plan as there is already a Transportation element. Ms. Hope answered
staff is working with engineering; a number of the projects are already in the City's plans. If anything is
not, it will presented to the Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendments at the end of the year.
Councilmember Johnson commented on the lack of analysis about the importance of auto dealerships in
the economic analysis but it did appear in a recommendation. The Highway 99 corridor has a number of
auto dealerships which represent the number one revenue stream for the City. She recommended that be
included in the economic analysis.
Councilmember Johnson observed there is a lot of concern about bicycle connections across Highway 99
to the Interurban Trail, yet she did not see any specific recommendations. There are projects that come
close to 76`h but the crossing of Highway 99 is missing at key connections to the Interurban Trail such as
220°''.
Councilmember Johnson observed the plan includes three districts, Gateway, International and Health;
however, the Swift station in the Health District is the Gateway station. She recommended working with
Community Transit to change the name of that station or develop a new name for the Gateway District.
She referred to the proposed zoning map, expressing interest in establishing a strategy for Highway 99 in
Esperance.
Councilmember Tibbott liked how public input was incorporated into the plan. He asked about walkways
that move pedestrians from sidewalks along Highway 99 into the interior of projects. Mr. Fregonese
answered the code requires a pedestrian path to connect building fronts. Councilmember Tibbott
commented on the importance of pathways through parking lots. He was encouraged to see the
landscaping especially along the walkways in the pedestrian zone and separation from traffic. He
expressed interest in locating affordable housing close to transit and recommended the plan address the
importance of affordable housing in those areas, even stating a preference for affordable housing in those
areas.
Council President Mesaros referred to the zoning map and inquired about the white area at the south end.
Ms. Hope offered to research.
With regard to Councilmember Johnson's comment about Esperance, Council President Mesaros
suggested a future presentation identify the zoning on Highway 99 in Esperance to determine if it was
compatible. Mr. Fregonese agreed that could be done. Ms. Hope assured the zoning in Esperance would
be different than Edmonds.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the recommendation to allow MFTE projects and
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' suggestion about consistent CG zoning.
Councilmember Nelson referred to the statement, "encourage use of solar panels and green building
practices" and suggested changing it to "encourage and incentivize use of solar panels and green building
practices."
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Hope advised staff will return to Council with minor modifications; work will continue on next steps.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 24
Mayor Earling reported while Edmonds was enduring rain last week, he was in Washington D.C.
enduring snow and ice. Fortunately, D.C. only got 3 inches of snow compared to 1'/z feet of snow in New
York. He was in Washington D.C. attending a Transit Conference, paid for by Community Transit. He
also had an opportunity to meet with Senators Murray and Cantwell, and Representatives Larsen,
DelBene and Jayapal.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Nelson provided the following: Today we see discrimination against immigrants on the
rise throughout our country. Locally, we are not immune. Recently, we had two local fire commissioners
make discriminatory remarks about immigrants during a public meeting unaware they were being
recorded. I do not know what is more troubling, their actual discriminatory comments or their public
defense of them as jokes and that others have said worse. You can call it jokes, banter, whispers, gossip,
but every time we allow this type of behavior to go unanswered and without consequences, we will only
encourage and condone it. The City of Edmonds is in a contract with Fire District 1 for fire service with
board members who think it is funny not to hire immigrants. Tonight the commissioners decided to
reverse themselves and voted to support their own reprimand. What assurances do we have from Fire
District 1 that this discriminatory behavior does not exist elsewhere over there? What is Fire District 1
going to do to prevent these acts from happening in the future?
Councilmember Nelson continued, it is clear to me that under the current circumstances, there is little we
can do. I believe our City, our residents, deserve better. That is why I will be introducing an ordinance in
the coming weeks that requires all our city contracts to prohibit discriminatory practices. If you have a
contract with our city and you engage in discrimination, we will be able to terminate our contract with
you. Our Safe City resolution calls on our City Council to be committed against any acts of intolerance
against our community members. It is time we mean what we say.
Councilmember Tibbott echoed Councilmember Nelson's comments; the words by FD1 commissioners
are regrettable and inexcusable and would not be tolerated in Edmonds. He remind citizens that FD1
commissioners are elected officials and some are coming up for election soon. The Council welcomes
diversity in Edmonds as Mayor Earling mentioned earlier and it was regrettable that the FD1
commissioners spoke the way they did.
Councilmember Tibbott reminded of the Town Hall that he and Councilmembers Teitzel and Fraley-
Monillas are hosting an tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. at Swedish Edmonds. He looked forward to meeting with
citizens to discuss their views and opinions.
Council President Mesaros expressed appreciation for Councilmembers Nelson and Tibbott's comments,
agreeing there was no defense for the comments made by the FDI commissioners and he encouraged
them to resign. He relayed Chief Compaan's invitation for a Councilmember to participate on the
interview panel for the new parking enforcement officer.
Councilmember Johnson reported this is National Brain Injury Awareness Month and tomorrow is Brain
Injury Awareness Day on Capitol Hill. This is an important issue and one of the things the City can do is
require bicycle riders to wear helmets. She volunteered to work with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and
the Health District to develop a countywide policy similar to the policy in King and Pierce Counties. In
Snohomish County, only Lynnwood requires bicycle riders wear helmets.
Councilmember Teitzel encouraged the public to attend the Town Hall at Swedish Edmonds at 6:30 p.m.
in the 4`h Floor Conference Room B.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 25
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Special Olympics World Games are underway; at least one
athlete from Edmonds is participating. Today is Down Syndrome Awareness Day, a day to recognize
their abilities.
10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110 1 i
This item was not needed.
11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIA_ L ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:09 p.m.
DA ID O. EARLING, MAYOR OTT PASSEY,CITY C K
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2017
Page 26