Loading...
20170328 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES March 28, 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 Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Kemen 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 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' 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. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 4.1 be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda item approved IS as follows: 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 0F MARCII 21, 2017 Councilmember Buckshnis requested the following clarification to page 17 of the minutes: I would like to apologize for not fully understanding Chevron's two-phase clean-up process and Mr. Scordino did not file an injunction to stop cleanup of phase 1; however, according to Chevron's public affairs manager, his appeal has placed phase 2 on hold. Her statement is as follows. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 1 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. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2017 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. 2016 ANNUAL REPORT - SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT ONE Fire District 1 Commissioners present: Jim McGaughey (Chair), Jim Kenney, Bob Meador, and Richard Schrock. Commissioner David Chan was not present. Fire District 1 staff present: Brad Reading, Fire Chief, Doug Dahl, Deputy Chief of Operations; Bob Eastman, Assistant Chief, Gregg Sieloff, Assistant Chief of Training; Shaughn Maxwell, Deputy Chief of EMS; Kevin Zweber, Fire Marshal; and April Richards, Executive Assistant to the Board of Fire Commissioners. Fire District 1 Commission Chair McGaughey read the following statement: In regard to Fire District 1 and our commitment not only to our fire department, our staff and our nearly 200 line personnel but to the cities of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Lynnwood and Mukilteo, Fire District 1 has a strong commitment to acceptance and support of all of our citizens regardless of ethnicity, religious, sexual orientation or immigration status. We fully understand and are in agreement with the City of Edmonds in regard to their commitment to their community as well. Your community is part of ours, as are the cities of Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Lynnwood and Mukilteo. There is an expectation of those that elected us and that is to represent their fire department and their communities in the most respectable manner. You can rest assured that our values and our commitment to honor diversity will always continue to remain of utmost importance at Fire District 1. Fire Chief Brad Reading introduced FDI Commissioners Jim Kenney, Bob Meador and Dick Schrock. He expressed appreciation for staff, Mayor Earling, City Attorney Jeff Taraday and Finance Director Scott James working with them on the new contract. He explained FDI has been in a blended management with the City of Lynnwood since July 2016. The 2016 numbers are based on the old deployment with Medic 17; the new deployment format began in February 2017. FDI is still learning and tweaking the New World system to get accurate numbers. As soon as FDI has a few more months of the new deployment, he will report to the City on how the new deployment is working. Deputy Chief of EMS Shaughn Maxwell provided 2016 highlights related to: • Emergency Medical Services o Cardiac arrest save rate is among the highest in the country: 53% vs. 37% o Key to improving is increasing bystander CPR o In 2016, we trained 1,038 citizens in CPR ■ Includes CPR and AED training at the Edmonds Senior Center, Madrona and Maplewood Schools and citizens at several community events in Edmonds o Created dive emergency checklist o Teddy Bear clinic at Station 17 ■ Children c-arina fnr a te.dcly hear to r1PCPnciti7P them to emerge.nr.ies making the. more comfortable during an emergency response • Community Paramedic Outreach Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 2 o Innovative falls and mental health programs, including the use of veterans. o Nearly 2,000 contacts. o White House meeting. o Presented at Pinnacle EMS Leadership Conference Disaster preparedness 0 300+ attendees at the Count Me In Town Hall at Edmonds Community College, 0 348 attendees at ReadySnoCo and Ready Sunday workshops. 0 275 attendees at Map Your Neighborhood Ambassador Workshops 0 120 attendees at ReadyFest Open House at Edmonds Fire Station 17 Councilmember Nelson recalled a comment during last year's presentation regarding the infrequent use of AEDs and asked whether that had improved since last year and what could be done to get people to use AEDs. Deputy Chief Maxwell said over 70% of cardiac arrests occur in the home, only 1-5% occur in public. AEDs are currently located in schools, airports, etc.; he is trying figure out other locations that have long hours such as coffee shops and community hubs. Assistant Chief of Training Gregg Sieloff reported one of the tasks he was faced with in the blended management was blending the two organizations' training division so they operate seamlessly as if there were no borders between Lynnwood and FD1. A Training Advisory Committee was formed with members from FD1 and Lynnwood who rewrote the probationary manual and task books and developed a new hose manual and ladder company operations manual. Another challenge was in 2016 the Snohomish County Fire Chiefs adopted a new Incident Management System (IMS) policy; it hadn't been updated since 1985. The IMS is based on a blue card, a program out of Phoenix/Sacramento and adapted for Snohomish County. Training has been conducted at the command level and first responders to ensure they understand the terminology. It is a countywide policy that all agencies have adopted, the first time that has been done in his 37 -year career. Assistant Chief Sieloff reviewed 2016 highlights related to training: • Blue Card training (incident command) • Red Card training (wildland firefighting) o A grant written by former Fire Chief Cockrum funded wildland firefighting training for 90 firefighters Pump operator training o Pump operator manual rewritten because the two agencies did it differently. Fire Marshal Kevin Zweber provided 2016 highlights related to: • Fire Prevention o Incidents and investigations Date Incident Location Est. Loss Cause 02/23/16 House fire 23491 94` $75,000 Overloaded electrical space heater 03/27/16 School fire 9300 236` St $200,000 Undetermined 04/9/16 House fire 931 Puget Way $100,000 Under investigation 05/12/16 Motel fire 22201 Hwy 99 $5,000 Accidental 05/30/16 Car fire 8123236 1St SW $2,500 Arson 06/08/16 City Park Car/Utility Building Fire 600 T Ave S $80,000 Arson Total roe loss $462,500 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 3 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the individuals involved with the arsons had been caught. Fire Marshal Zweber said one was a car fire which appeared to be juveniles and the police investigation of the City Park fire did not identify anyone. He continued his review: o Inspections ■ Annual inspections - 1,001 • New Business Inspections - 234 ■ Re -inspections - 214 o Permits ■ Special event/tank removal operational permits - 92 ■ Construction permit inspections - 618 • Major projects — Building 10 (50 Pine Street) — Memory Care — 210tH & 72"d — R2 Fire Alarm Project — Pre -construction work — Magic Toyota — Lynnwood Mazda — Westgate Mixed use — Madrona Elementary o Public Education and Events • 1,121 students reached in school presentations. ■ 656 citizens attending fire department events. • 7,915 citizens reached at community events Councilmember Buckshnis asked the minimum residential square footage that requires sprinklers. Fire Marshal Zweber answered 3,000 square feet of "fire area" which is the living area, excluding the garage, but including any covered projection greater than 4 feet. He commented on a 14,000 -square foot single family house under construction on Talbot Road. Fire Chief Reading recognized Kim Schroeder, FDPs Public Educator for over 30 years who will be retiring this spring. FDI is in the process of hiring a new employee. Deputy Chief of Operations Doug Dahl provided 2016 highlights related to: • Response by call type o Structure Fire: 1% o Fire Other: 9% o MVC: 4% o ALS: 29% o BLS: 53% o Other: 4% Total incidents in the City (calls within the City's boundaries and could include multiple units responding to same incident) 0 2013: 4,804 0 2014: 4,718 0 2015: 5,291 0 2016: 5,216 Deputy Chief Dahl reviewed the Compliance Report, advising a copy of the 2015 report was provided to Counc lmembers for comparison (in resnonge. to (nnnriImember Burckshnic' rPnmPct fact vPar)- • Total turnout time: Better than standard o Standard: 2:45 minutes on 90% of all calls Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 4 o Actual 2016: 2:38 minutes o Actual 2015: 2:39 minutes • First arriving fire engine on fire response: better than standard o Standard: 6:30 minutes travel time for arrival first engine on 90% of fire calls o Actual 2016: 6:17 minutes o Actual 2015: 6:49 minutes ■ Residential fire deployment of full first -alarm assignment: did not meet standard o Standard: 7:45 minutes travel time for arrival of all first -alarm response vehicles and personnel (15 firefighters) on 90% of residential fire calls o Incident l: 6:53 o Incident 2: 8:10 o Incident 3: 8:43 Commercial fire deployment of full first -alarm assignment: did not meet standard o Standard: 9:00 minutes travel time for arrival of all first -alarm response vehicles and personnel (18 firefighters) on 90% of commercial fire calls o Incident 1: 5:21 o Incident 2: 5:21 o Incident 3: 7:23 o Incident 4: 9:05 o Incident 5: 11:24 • Basic Life Support (BLS) response: did not meet standard o Standard: 5:15 minutes travel time 90% of time o Actual 2016: 5:57 o Actual 2015: 5:15 • Advanced Life Support (ALS) paramedic response: Did not meet standard o Standard: 6:45 minutes travel time o Actual 2016: 7:11 o Actual 2015: 6:49 Council President Mesaros commented it would be interesting to see statistics for five years such as a bar chart to illustrate the trend on meeting standards. It would also illustrate whether changes that are being made are effective. Deputy Chief Dahl agreed, noting there has been a major change in how data is gathered. Council President Mesaros suggested asterisking the date of the change in the data base. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the response time and asked if that was an Edmonds fire station response or any response from FDI. Deputy Chief Dahl answered it was the first unit to arrive. Chief Reading said it could also be a response from Shoreline or Lynnwood. Councilmember Tibbott asked to what extent station locations is a factor. Chief Reading answered the Fitch study indicated there could be better fire station locations. Station location definitely has an effect but how much was unknown. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was great that turnout time and response time was being met. He presumed there was a physical limit that could not be exceed with regard to turnout and response time based on staffing, training, equipment, etc. and asked how much better than standard could be achieved. Deputy Chief Dahl referred to the Fitch study which stated some agencies use one minute as a standard. He did not think FD 1 could ever get to one minute but they continually seek ways to improve. He did not think much below two minutes would be realistic; it is a long way to get there and there are many factors involved. A consultant is preparing a capital facilities plan that looks at that which includes measuring stations, how doors open, where restrooms located, etc. and will make recommendations regarding improvement. He summarized the standard can be established at whatever time an agency wants; for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 5 example, Seattle has a one minute standard but meet that standard less than 17% of the time. These standards were established in 2005 at what was felt to be realistic and the actual has hovered in that area. He believed FDI could do better over time and commissioners push that point often. Councilmember Nelson read from the Response Times in Edmonds section of the report, "In an emergency every second counts." and Section 3 of the Standards of Response Comparison (Standard of Cover) which states, "To measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operations before the critical events of "brain death" or "flashover" occur, the Fire Department is required to establish response -time objectives, and compare the actual department results on an annual basis against the established objectives." He reviewed the 2014, 2015 and 2016 reports and found the following trend: 2 standards were not met in 2014, 4 were not met in 2015, and 6 were not met in 2016. He expressed concern that the standards are continually not being met, but there appears to be no accountability. Although there may only be 1-2 in each type of incident, it only takes one incident for there to be a catastrophic loss of life. He asked how that could be addressed. Deputy Chief Dahl answered although Edmonds numbers are not high, overall there is a 10-12% increase in call load every year; one factor is as call loads increase, response times also increases. Chief Reading agreed the biggest factor is call load increases. The standards were developed in 2005 based on call loads and staffing in 2003 and 2004 when call loads were considerably lower. Call loads continue to increase as do transport times due to wait times at the hospital that takes units out of service. Councilmember Nelson remarked maybe if more people were on duty. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented none of the current Councilmembers were on the Council when these performance standards were established; she and Councilmember Buckshnis arrived about the time the fire department was sold to FD 1. She asked if Edmonds' performance standards asked too much as compared to national standards. Chief Reading said the new contract does not refer to these standards; with the new deployment, they will be reevaluated and FDl will work with the City to create new ones. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she had never heard a good explanation regarding how the standards were established. Deputy Chief Dahl said he was on the committee that set the standards; the legislature passed a new law that required standards be established. FDI ran the numbers from 2004 to determine how they did 90% of the time and that was used as a starting point and they have not been changed since 2005. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas remarked the standards are 10-12 years old, looking at the standards should be a priority, otherwise the data becomes almost unusable. Chief Reading said it is still a benchmark to show increases or decreases. As soon as some time has passed with the new deployment, FDI will work with the City to develop new standards. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what technical rescue response entailed. Deputy Chief Dahl answered there are two phases, the operational level which would be comparable to BLS; all members are trained at that level of rescue response. The new phase is the technician level response with responders who are trained at a much higher level. The District's technical rescue truck which actually serves the county, is stationed at the Martha Lake station on 164th. The county (FDI, Lynnwood, Mukilteo) has a technical rescue team; in a technician response, members come from other agencies. For example, if someone is over the bank, there is operation level response to do an assessment but the technicians with the tools and ability to go over the cliff come from other agencies further away. Technician response to Edmonds takes a little longer as they can only come from one direction. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the report that indicated there were two incidents in Edmonds. Deputy Chief Dahl recalled one was a person who fell down a bank in Meadowdale. Technical response includes high angle, confined space, trench rescue, ice rescue, and surface water rescue. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 6 Deputy Chief Dahl said hazmat is the same type of response; an operations level response followed by a county hazmat team comprised of members from multiple agencies. The hazmat unit is station in Everett and there is a decon unit in the northeast area of FD1. Assistant Chief Bob Eastman provided a progress report on the Lynnwood / Fire District 1 Regional Fire Authority Planning Committee. The committee was formed at the end of 2016 and began holding meetings in October 2016 and have had a very aggressive meeting schedule, holding 2-3 meetings per month. They are close to having a draft plan before the planning committee for consideration; he was hopeful outstanding issues would be resolved at the next 1-2 meetings. If the FD1 Board and the City of Lynnwood approve the plan, the intent is to go to the voters in the August 2017 primary election Council President Mesaros thanked FD1 for their report and looked forward to establishing new standards. 2. COMMUNITY TRANSIT PRESENTATION Emmett Heath, Community Transit CEO, introduced Todd Morrow, Deb Osborne and Barbara Earl. His report will provide the Council a high-level update of what has happened since the public transit expansion plan was approved by voters in November 2015. He commended Mayor Earling who has served on the Community Transit Board longer than any other official, from 1992 to 2002 and again for the past 5 years. Mayor Earling has a reputation among Community Transit staff for being a very thoughtful, customer -minded board member. He has also been a long-time participant on the Sound Transit Board; his experience on both boards gives him a broad perspective about public transportation that adds value as a member of the Community Transit Board. Mr. Heath recalled comments by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas during their last presentation about a family member that uses dial -a -ride service and how valuable it was to her family as well as a nephew who lives in Everett and puts his bicycle on the Swift Blue Line, takes Swift to Edmonds and then bicycles to her house. He has retold those stories many times internally at Community Transit. Mr. Health commented on Community Transit's long-time partnership with Edmonds, participating in many civic events. Community Transit recently participated in the Edmonds Downtown Crossing Coalition providing a financial contributor to that project as well as their Planning Director Joy Munker participated in the coalition at Mayor Earling's invitation. Last October, Community Transit celebrated its 40th anniversary; in 1976, Edmonds was one of 7 original charter members who formed the Public Transportation Benefit Area. Since the ballot measure in 2015, Community Transit has been regularly expanding service, including adding service in March and September 2016, less than 4 months after the election. Earlier this month Community Transit added 45 new bus trips, many of which are in south county, providing additional mid- day and extra trips later at night on the Swift Blue Line on Highway 99 as well as the local Route 101 on Highway 99. Two weeks ago Community Transit announced to the Board they will begin outreach on the next series of expansion proposals that would take place in September 2017 and March 2018. Those proposals include a new south county route to the Boeing manufacturing area and the new Swift Green Line that will intersect the existing Blue Line at Airport Road. He reviewed how transit helps our economy grow and protects our quality of life: • More than 60% of transit riders on Community Transit are going to work or school • PSRC estimates an additional 240,00 new residents in Snohomish County by 2040 • Mayor Earling's State of the City Address said 5,500 of those new residents will reside in Edmonds by 2035 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 7 4200 Edmonds residents board buses in Edmonds daily Community Transit serves a vital community mission: to transport people who do not have their own means of transportation Their goals in working with Edmonds and other jurisdictions is to protect the quality of life in the county and communities Mr. Heath described Community Transit, the pRide of Snohomish County: • Provide approximately 38,000 total rides every weekday • A notable number of customers reached out to Community Transit on Bus Driver Appreciation Day, offering thanks for the professional and friendly service the coach operators provide • Map of Edmonds' current transit service and population density that is within'/4 mile of bus stop o '/4 mile is what most users consider convenience walking distance to public transit • Serve 184 bus stops, 71% of city's population lives within'/4 mile access to public transportation • Operate 10 bus routes - 2 commuter to downtown, 1 to UW, and 7 local • Operate 563 bus trips through Edmond's on weekdays • Swift service on Hwy 99 runs every 12 minutes on weekdays, and every 20 minutes afterhours and on weekends ■ Swift makes it easy for residents to connect to the three subarea anchor points on Highway 99 - International, Gateway and Health Districts • Community Transit remains alert for opportunity to improve east -west connectivity Mr. Heath displayed a system map for the Edmonds area, identifying local bus service and commuter service: • Route 196 — travels from 196"', stopping near ECC and on to Alderwood Mall • Route 116 — serving Edmonds Community College, Alderwood Mall, Lynnwood Transit Center and Ash way Park & Ride and east to Mill Creek • Routel30 — Aurora Village to Shoreline providing connection to King County Metro and points south and north and east to Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood • Route 416 — direct commuter service to downtown Seattle. • Edmonds Park and Ride on 212th Mr. Heath explained ridership is growing: • Carried over 10 million riders last year, about a 2% increase over prior year • Ridership growth achieved in spite of fact public transportation ridership down nationwide o Only 2 major metropolitan areas in United States have shown ridership increases; Snohomish County -King County metropolitan area had the highest rate of public transportation growth in United States. o The rest of United States is suffering from low gas prices and economies not as robust as the Puget Sound area o Recent Seattle Times headlines stated Snohomish and Pierce counties were the first and second fastest growing counties in the United States in 2016 • Have been adding service for 4 years. • Proposition approved in August 2015 provided substantial new revenue to accelerate expansion. • Sunday and holiday service was restored in 2015 • In 2016 a significant expansion included two new routes, beginning north of Quil Ceda Village, east bound through Marysville, south on Hwy 99, westbound to the 1-5 corridor at the Ash Way Park & Ride, a first effort to establish east -west connectivity in that corridor and open Hwy 9 as a new parallel corridor to 1-5 Mr. Heath described plans for service expansion: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 8 • Improving transit connections through Snohomish County • New Route 107 from Lynnwood transit center and Boeing Paine Field manufacturing center • More weekday trips to Seattle and UW • Improved Sunday service with more frequent buses and extending service later in the evening, targeting principally retail employment • Extending Route 105 to mimic the Paine Field routing of the new Swift Green Line scheduled to open in 2019 • Extending Route 196 to Ash Way Park & Ride Mr. Heath described the buildout of the Swift network: • Swift Blue Line implemented in 2009 • Has exceed ridership expectations, carrying 1.7 million people, more than any other route in the system. One out of six riders on the system use that corridor. • Swift offers faster travel time, frequent departures, real time information about next bus departure time via Smartphone, off -board fare payment and station dwell time of about 10 seconds • With the implementation of the Green Line, Swift will be a network ■ Green Line will connect the Bothell Canyon Park job center (25,000 jobs) with the Boeing manufacturing center in the north (65,000 aerospace jobs). • Green Line crossing Blue Line at Hwy 99 provides first network opportunity, first opportunity to use fast and reliable high capacity transit to reach Canyon Park, Aurora Village, Everett and Seaway transit center near Boeing's main gate. • Green Line is a very large capital project. Have applied for a federal grant to help defray cost. • President Trump recently announced a high level structure of his budget that suggested curtaining or eliminating historical funding for public transportation. Construction of Swift Green Line is not dependent on the federal budget. • Two weeks ago Mayor Earling and others accompanied Todd Morrow to Washington D.C. and met with the congressional delegation who are very supportive of this project and have pledged their continuing support for the federal grant. Mr. Heath described Community Transit's future network: • Envision future network of Swift high capacity transit lines that crisscross the county. • Network will be essential to move people east and west to rail heads in the 1-5 corridor when link light rail arrives at Lynnwood transit center in 2023 and later in Everett • Extension of Blue Line from Aurora Village south and east on 185'h to tie into the link light rail station at 185`'' • Expect to complete Orange Line, bus rapid transit on 196t" east to the Lynnwood transit center, north to Ash Way Park & Ride and east to Mill Creek by 2023 when link gets to Lynnwood o Feasibility study will begin soon to gather ridership estimates, identify potential terminal and station locations on the corridor and help identify the northerly routing from the Lynnwood transit center to 164`h • Following the Orange Line feasibility study, feasibility study will begin for the Red Line, from the Everett station north to Marysville on Highway 529 • In the process of updating long range plan, a 20 -year vision of the build out of the public transportation network in Snohomish County • Continuing to purchase buses and hire employees; expect to hire over 200 coach operators • Light rail extensions north and implementation of high capacity transit lines to feed rail will lead to a significant redeployment of existing commuter service to the south in an expanded local network Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 9 Councilmember Johnson relayed her continuing concern that an opportunity was missed by not connecting the Blue Line down SR -104 to the Edmonds Station and ferry. She was concerned about extending south to 185th in King County and not making that connection to the rail. Community Transit connects to the Everett rail but not to Edmonds rail. There are many potential riders in apartment complexes along SR -104. This is included in the City's Comprehensive Plan but has not been addressed. Mr. Heath summarized her concern: riders originating on the waterfront and getting train riders up to the rail head in the I-5 corridor. Councilmember Johnson clarified her concern was extending the Blue Line from the Everett station to the Edmonds station. Mr. Heath said a spur off the Blue Line on SR -104 has not been evaluated. The way to get something like that considered is to express interest and a belief that there is potential for ridership; he will relay the request to Community Transit's planners. Community Transit is in the process of a major outreach on existing service proposal. Input from that process is used to refine plans for future expansion. Councilmember Nelson appreciated Mr. Heath's comment about plans to redeploy buses locally and as feeders as link light rail is extended north. He relayed his understanding that Community Transit was currently the second largest fleet of double decker buses in the United States and asked if they planned to be number one any time soon. Mr. Heath answered if they are not number one now, they will be shortly. Community Transit was the first to demonstrate the success of a double tall bus in Snohomish County. Sound Transit saw that and have begun purchasing double tall buses for their commute services. Community Transit will operate all Sound Transit's double tall buses out of Snohomish County. Community Transit's current bus acquisition calls for a 100 vehicle double tall fleet in the short term. Councilmember Nelson asked if there were any clearance issues. Mr. Heath answered there can be; routes have to be carefully vetted to ensure clearance is not a problem and that operating facilities can accommodate the additional height. They are principally a commute vehicle and the I-5 corridor and major arterials generally do not have height limitations. Councilmember Tibbott asked why the Swift Line stops at the King County border, requiring people living in south Snohomish County to transfer. Mr. Heath agreed it required a transfer to a King County Metro Rapid Line, their version of BRT. Community Transit was formed as a Transportation Benefit Area that serves Snohomish County and the boundary between Snohomish and King counties serves as a barrier to extending services. Councilmember Tibbott said that was a hindrance to riders using that bus line. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether any studies have been done on how extending bus service impacts traffic on I-5 or Highway 99. Mr. Heath acknowledged there are a lot of studies; they all indicate expanded public transit will not reduce congestion but it will slow down how fast it gets worse. Congestion is best dealt with by a very effective network of transportation that includes public transportation, good road infrastructure, freight mobility, commuter rail, light rail, pedestrian, cyclists, etc. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether Edmonds' street maintenance or lack of, impacts Community Transit and its ability to deliver services. Mr. Heath answered it is important their vehicles have good street infrastructure to operate on, not just pavement in a good state of repair but also coordinated signals as well as systems that extend the green light to get a bus through an intersection. Some of those signal control systems exist on the Blue Line on Highway 99; it will be a standard feature of the Green Line. A jurisdiction's street infrastructure is very important to the operation of their vehicles. They have very close partnerships with road jurisdictions and share planning information many years into the future. For example, the Orange Line on 196°' will be reconstructing 128'' at I-5; Community Transit has been working with Lynnwood in anticipation of that project for 10 years. In conjunction with Lynnwood, Community Transit will be making major street improvements that will benefit the entire transportation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 10 network including general purpose traffic and providing faster speeds and better reliability for public transit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has taken the bus from Highway 99 to the ferry and ridden the ferry; there are buses that reach the ferry but not Swift service. Mr. Heath explained a feasibility study is being conducted for the Swift Line to inform the location of the terminals and stations. A western terminal for the Orange Line which will generally be on 196th has not yet been clearly identified. Until the feasibility study is completed, it is unknown how far west that will extend. To this point the conversations have anticipated a terminal somewhere in the vicinity of Edmonds Community College. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas remarked it is fun to follow the Swift Line down Highway 99 because it changes the lights. She thanked Community Transit for continuing to provide DART/paratransit services. Her son has ridden it three times/week for the past four years, providing him total independence to and from work. Her nephew still puts his bike on the Swift Line from Everett to come to her house. Many people may not be aware of the services Community Transit provides. She is a believer in transit and it personally benefits her family. Councilmember Buckshnis said her husband was relocated Seattle and often takes the train. However, due to the train's limited schedule, he often takes a bus from Seattle to the Lynnwood transit center and then down 1961h to Edmonds. He enjoys riding the bus and does not mind that it is not a Swift Line. She is a supporter of public transit, having grown up in Portland, Oregon. With regard to the federal budget challenge, Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding if that budget passes, it could result in billions of lost funding for light rail for this region. If that happens and it delays the buildout of light rail to Lynnwood and/or Everett, he asked whether Community Transit BRT would be able to absorb the capacity that would have gone to light rail. Mr. Heath answered no, light rail provides a significantly higher capacity than BRT. The loss of link light rail into Snohomish County would be a significant loss. Public transportation has enjoyed very strong support from the federal delegation and he expected that to continue; as recently as two weeks ago, they reaffirmed their commitment to these projects. The President does not act unilaterally to adopt the budget; that is done by Congress and Congress has historically shown support for transportation. It is a non-partisan issue; regardless of affiliation, people need to get to their destination. He remained optimistic that Sound Transit will move north and Community Transit will develop its system to help serve those riders. With regard to Councilmember Johnson's comment about Swift down SRI 04, Council President Mesaros said he is a regular Sounder rider. He agreed it would be nice to have service extended so that others living along SR -104 could easily reach the train station and the ferry as well as connect to other Community Transit lines near the Edmonds train station. There is also an opportunity to connect with the train to Vancouver BC every morning at 8:07. Council President Mesaros commented on the artificial barrier to service at the county border. People in this area utilize businesses and services in Richmond Beach. He described a senior couple who used transit to visit a doctor in Richmond Beach who first had to travel to Edmonds Community College to reach a connection to take them across the border, resulting in 2 hours each way for a 20 -minute doctor visit. He recommended eliminating that artificial barrier and suggested Community Transit and King County consider that in their strategic plans. Mr. Heath said the Orange Line is proposed to operate on 190 and although it is unknown how far west it will exteiid. that would be the logical extension of BRT, probably not the Blue Line. Regarding the artificial barrier, Mr. Heath said all the transit agencies in Puget Sound area do an excellent job coordinating and integrating their service. They all cross boundaries; King County Metro comes to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 11 Boeing, Community Transit has a robust commute market, a one seat ride to Seattle, and via a partnership with Everett, the Blue Line crosses into Everett. Mayor Earling relayed one Community Transit board member will be very interested in extending the 196th Orange Line into downtown Edmonds. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Todd Zuckey, Tulalip, Marine and Near Shore Program Manager, Tulalip Natural Resources Department, said he has worked with the Tulalip Tribe for 15 years; they have extensive experience studying exactly the marsh system Edmonds has. He worked with the Skagit River System Cooperative doing multiple studies across Whidbey Island and Snohomish County on pocket estuaries. As the Council proceeds with a decision on SMP buffers, he urged the Council to be cautious about the repercussions of their decision, primarily because not everything has been vetted. The Council is considering one portion of a system, the buffer system; other factors affect the marsh such as daylighting the stream, multiple property owners, a very developed watershed and stormwater draining into the system. He recommended the Council delay a final vote and offered to discuss details and research so the Council is better informed when making this decision. He recommended developing a watershed management plan or a master plan for the marsh to vet what is occurring between both stakeholders and Ecology. Tulalip has experience; it took them 20 years and $17 million to restore 850 acres in the Snohomish Estuary. They worked on a sustainable land strategy, a cooperation between the Tribe and farmers to restore river areas for salmon. Edmonds is within the Tribe's usual and customary area which is their traditional hunting and fishing grounds and the Tribe has an interest in ensuring that this habitat is protected and restored so that future generations retain the treaty resources. Denise Hotchkiss, Edmonds, speaking on behalf Leslie Brown, Edmonds, said on March 2"d, the Edmonds Beacon reported a sexual harassment lawsuit against the Police Department had been settled. It cost Edmonds citizens not only tax dollars but the loss of a valued and well-respected police officer. Since then, she learned of two other pending lawsuits against the Police Department and the City, one filed in 2015 by the victim of a sexual assault by an Edmonds Police officer and another recently by a Police Department employee whose request for accommodation was denied when she reported a health issue. These lawsuits will likely cost the taxpayers again. It was her understanding that sexual harassment in the Edmonds Police Department continues in the form of comments, jokes and rude remarks made toward officers. If true, it is a reflection of a culture that the police chief and his supervisors have been unable or unwilling to address. While officers are responsible for reporting, they may be reluctant to do after seeing that it cost one young woman her career while the perpetrators often receive little or no discipline which can lead to a continuation of the behavior. It is the responsibility of police leadership to listen, see and acknowledge problems and taken steps to resolve them permanently. Despite a strong labor union, requirements for arbitration and legal protections, the cost of a lack of accountability is too great. She requested the City Council start an objective investigation, conducted by someone outside the department, to determine whether sexual or any other forms of harassment or discrimination are occurring and if so provide recommendations to permanently stop it. Officers and police staff should be able to work in environment of trust and confident in their leaders, not in a culture of juvenile behavior, subject to harassment and in fear of appraisal. The citizens of Edmonds should expect nothing less. She looked forward to hearing from the Council regarding how they intended to proceed. Alison Starke, Edmonds, expressed concern about the harassment in the Police Department. Sexual harassment is classified as a form of sexual discrimination under Title 7 of the Civic Rights Act of 1964. The US Equal Opportunity Commission defines it as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that interferes with one's employment or work performance or creates a hostile or offensive work environment. In law enforcement where officers work long hours and conduct dangerous task, sexual harassment lowers job satisfaction and negatively Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 12 impacts mission, safety and results. According to the National Council for Research on Women, women are nine times more likely than men to quit their jobs, five times more likely to transfer and three times more likely to lose jobs because of harassment; Officer Sackville is unfortunately now part of these statistic. She was personally harassed by police officers in another agency and could attest to the fear and confusion and feeling of who to turn to when the police are the ones harassing you. The citizens of Edmonds and female police officers deserve better. In light of current lawsuits, it appears the current police leadership is unwilling or unable to effectively put an end to harassment within the department. She asked the City Council to take appropriate measures by initiating an inquiry by qualified outside investigators or agencies to determine whether harassment continues to take place and take appropriate action if it is. Mike Shaw, Edmonds, relayed his understanding that another marsh option was in the works and he applauded the effort, intent and intelligence of those involved. Considering where the Council began with the SMP and where it is now, it seems logical to conclude more time is needed to get it right for Edmonds and for the marsh. He urged the Council to give due consideration of all the factors in the SMP and ensure the Council had enough time. He wished there was a way to eliminate a residential option for Harbor Square. He knows there are 1-2 Councilmember who disagree but the more people there are at Harbor Square, the more detrimental the impacts will on the marsh and the more difficult and expensive it will be to mitigate the impacts. Residences at Harbor Square would be almost a worst case scenario. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, retired NOAA fisheries, employed for 32 years, in his later years as the deputy regional administrator for the Northwest, clarified why he appealed the NPDES permit. First, his entire appeal was related to hydrology of the marsh. When the tide gate is open, saltwater flows into the marsh during high tide. Where the Unocal operation is occurring, they are dumping their fluid discharge into that area. When tide gate is closed which keeps saltwater from entering the marsh, it also prevents freshwater from moving out; any water added to the creek area enters the marsh. That was the subject of his appeal of the Unocal discharge permit. When Ecology put out the draft NPDES permit for public comment, he pointed out nothing in their documentation acknowledged the hydrology of the marsh or Willow Creek. Further all their statements were to the effect that all water discharged from the site goes straight to Puget Sound. Ecology finally said they reevaluated the issue and would restrict discharge to periods when the tide was below six feet, essentially meaning discharge would only occur when the water goes to Puget Sound. Chevron immediately disagreed with Ecology restricting their permit. Ecology told him his only recourse was to appeal the permit so that's what he did. He felt Ecology was disregarding facts, their own assessments were incomplete, they did not take the marsh into account, and they had nothing to base any statement that the discharge would not affect the marsh. His appeal is available on Ecology's website for the Unocal cleanup; there are a lot of statements being made about what he appealed and he suggested the Council and public read the actual documents. Keely O'Connell, Edmonds, restoration ecologist with a Masters in marine and estuarian science from Western, said she has been supporting the City for the past seven years, helping facilitate the daylighting of Willow Creek project to help restore the Edmonds Marsh. She acknowledged the complexity of determining a buffer. Although the term best available science is used, it is difficult to know what that is and where to obtain it. The natural environment itself is very challenging and complex, adding in the urban environment, it is incredibly difficult. She expressed appreciation for the dedication of Council, City staff and the incredibly passionate and engaged community. With regard to Options C and D, although there are effective elements in both, she believed there could be unintended consequences if the Council adopted D. The first being stormwater; regional science of Puget Sound recovery knows contaminated stormwater is the number one challenge to the recovery of Puget Sound as well as a challenge in Edmonds Marsh where untreated stormwater flows directly into the marsh. Any buffer width, particularly on the Harbor Square property, will not address removing contaminants from stormwater because the trees in a buffer would be on top of the pipe system conveying the untreated stormwater from Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 13 the source into the marsh; all that water would continue flow under the trees, not allowing the trees to remove the contaminants. Removing those contaminants would require additional elements such as low impact development (LID) which include bioswales and rain gardens, elements not generally not allowed in buffers unless written into the SMP. The second challenge is buffer averaging. Using Willow Creek daylighting through Marina Beach as an example, buffer averaging was needed to make all the park elements work and not allowing buffer averaging would change that project. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reported on a speaker at the Floretum Garden Club knowledgeable about the marsh who pointed out the Council has not stated what it wants to accomplish with the buffer. He referred to another presentation about birds in the marsh that indicated planting trees on the edge of marsh reduces birds' line of sight. He recommended the Council include in its regulation no trees on the edge of the marsh and no tall buildings because both create shadows and cause problems for wildlife. He concluded the Council did not have enough information to make a good decision. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES AND SURPLUS CITY EQUIPMENT Public Works Director Phil Williams reviewed a list of City equipment and vehicles that can be sold as surplus: Equipment: • 1984 Onan 30 KW portable generator • 1994 Olympian 35KW portable generator • 2006 Toro riding mower Vehicles - 0 2001 Dodge 1 ton flatbed • 2001 Dodge 1 ton flatbed • 2002 Ford F-450 flatbed • 2003 Ford F-250 flatbed • 2002 Dodge Stratus • 1989 RTA SWAT bus • 2011 Ford Crown Victoria • 2011 Ford Crown Victoria • 2011 Ford Crown Victoria • 2011 Ford Crown Victoria It was the consensus of the Council to forward the item to the Consent Agenda for approval at the next Council meeting 2. PRESENTATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES FOR THE FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR RECOATING PROJECT City Engineer Rob English relayed the City has two reservoirs, a 1.5 million gallon tank built in 1960 and a 3.5 million gallon tank built in 1979. In late 2015, the City hired Murray, Smith & Associates to do an evaluation primarily from operational and structural basis. The initial evaluation revealed concerns from a structural standpoint, specifically seismic loads and further investigation was needed. A supplemental agreement was approved in spring 2016 to do additional work that included geotechnical investigation to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 14 determine soil bearing capacity of the site as well as look at the tank welds and operational possibilities. The as -built drawings for the tanks were located and from that were able to determine the type of material and fitness of the material of the shell. That information led to a good outcome; it is not necessary to replace the tanks but there need to be operational, recoating and modifications to the tanks to continue their lives. This supplement is for completing the design and construction documents before advertising the project. The entire scope of improvements for both tanks is identified on page 2 of the agreement. He highlighted major tasks: • Recoating interior and exterior of both tanks • Modify overflow piping, an operational issue that meets meet seismic loading • Make operational adjustments to improve the freeboard, distance between the roof and water operation level, related to seismic slosh • Miscellaneous improvements relate to piping, improving roof access, installing railing on the roof for safety • Adding fall protection to the interior ladder of the tanks • Upgrade the roof system on the 1.5 million gallon tank The fee for the design work is $170,000 plus a $16,000 management reserve. The plan is to advertise the project in January 2018 and construction within a few months of advertising. Councilmember Tibbott asked what longevity could be expected with these maintenance and operational fixes. Mr. English answered the coating system has a 20 year life; both tanks were recoated in 1994. From an operational standpoint to meet flow demands, the City is going through the Water Comprehensive Plan update which includes looking at the need of the system from a volume standpoint. From a structural standpoint, with continuing recoating and structural improvements, the life will be beyond 20 years but it is difficult to say exactly. Public Works Director Phil Williams said standards can also change; regulations may hasten the end of life for the tanks. Staff is confident this investment will buy a lot of years if growth projections are accurate. He anticipated at least 2-3 decades. It was the consensus of the Council to forward the item to the Consent Agenda for approval at the next Council meeting 3. PRESENTATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE GROUP TO PROVIDE CAPITAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING & INSPECTION SERVICES FOR 2017 City Engineer Rob English explained in late 2015 the City issued an RFQ to provide construction management support services to the engineering division for the 2016 and 2017 capital program. The type of services provided under this supplement include field inspection services and monitoring of improvements, daily inspection reports and project management services. The fee for the proposed supplemental agreement is $185,800 which includes a $20,000 management reserve that will be used on three projects including the 2017 sewer main replacement project, one schedule of work for the 2016 sewer main project, and the Northstream pipe abandonment project. Staff recommends forwarding this item to the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Teitzel thanked the team for their work on the signal cabinet on SR -104. Mayor Earling recognized Public Works, Police Department, and Engineering, commenting it was a magnificent effort to get the cabinet operational in 24 hours. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 15 It was the consensus of the Council to forward the item to the Consent Agenda for approval at the next Council meeting 8. ACTION ITEM 1. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Senior Planner Kernen Lien recalled at last week's public hearing, four options were discussed. Another option has been produced that City Attorney Jeff Taraday will review. March 30 is the due date for the response to the Department of Ecology. Today is March 28`" and he doubted it would be completed tonight and recommended the Council request until April 30 to respond to Ecology. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO EXTEND THE DATE FOR A RESPONSE TO ECOLOGY UNTIL APRIL 30, 2017. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Nelson explained he, Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday who reached out to DOE have been trying to find a path forward with the SMP. The proposed option will protect the marsh while meeting the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and hopefully final approval from Ecology. The proposal has two parts, 1) Option M, and 2) a separate Council -funded site-specific study. Mr. Taraday explained Option M is the result of an effort to take the position of the majority of the Council on the substantive issues and repackage it in a way that would be acceptable to Ecology and perhaps also to Mayor Earling and the three Councilmembers who were in the minority last fall. The goal was to provide a draft as a starting point for amendments if necessary and hopefully the draft is close enough without major amendments. He was hopeful having a starting point would streamline the process and eliminate confusion although the Council was under no obligation to work from this draft. Mr. Taraday explained the draft clarifies that the buffer would be modified through a shoreline conditional use permit (CUP) process, clarifies that buffer width would be set at a level adequate to mitigate adverse impacts from a proposed project on the shoreline ecology functions of the marsh adds a new definition of building setback and adds a new Footnote 19 to correspond with Footnote 18 in the bulk and dimensional standards table for the UMU IV environment. There is no reference to a scope of work for a site specific study in this option such as was previously referred to as Exhibit C. The assumption is the City Council would contract for a planning level, site specific study of the marsh to establish 2017 baseline ecology conditions. Mr. Taraday explained by performing that planning level study now, a future project level study would only need to address the impacts of the proposed project upon the existing baseline conditions. The City Council would also control the scope of work of the planning level study. It could be that something very similar to Exhibit C would be used to request proposals from qualified firms, but those firms might suggest changes to the scope of the work contemplated in Exhibit C. The planning level study would happen on a completely separate track from the SMP; the City Council would ultimately control the timing, the consultant selection process and scope of work for the study which would be performed at City expense. Mr. Taraday reviewed Option M: Option M. 110 foot fixed buffer with possible alternate buffer width derived from a scientific site- speciflc study. 0 don Zvi for lvlarsh has a default 11 u foot buffer and 15 foot setback for the UMU IV area at the Edmonds Marsh unless amended through the shoreline conditional use process. This option clarifies that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 16 the buffer starts at the outer edge of the Marsh wetland (i.e., the buffer starts at the Marsh edge of the berm at the property to the north known as the Harbor Square complex). This option allows consideration of an alternate buffer proposal at a later date if the alternate buffer is derived from a site-specific scientific study that analyzes a project's impacts upon the baseline conditions of the shoreline environment under applicable the legal standards of the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's Guidelines. In addition to the shoreline condition use process, this project -level scientific site-specific study would need to accompany a proposed master plan prior to Council consideration of the master plan. The default 110 foot buffer width or an any alternate buffer width that might be approved would not be further reduced or exempted by any SMP or CAO provisions including but not limited to, ECDC 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted wetland buffer] or ECDC 24.40.020 [additions to structures]. This option also clarifies that the buffer is separate from the setback for structures, and that the 15 -foot setback starts at the outer edge of the buffer. Option M is implemented by the following changes to the SMP. 1. Modify the 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table and footnote 18 as shown below. New footnote 19 is added Shoreline Development. Shoreline Area Designation Urban Mixed Use IV All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development Building Setback 15 Buffer 1108' 19 ,Recreation Building Setback 15 Buffer 11018,19 ,Residential Development Building Setback NA Buffer NA Transportation and Parking Building Setback 15 Buffer 1101819 All Other Development Building Setback 1 S Buffer 11018' 19 Footnote 18: The Urban Mixed -Use IV environment has a default 110 foot buffer that starts at the outer edge of the Edmonds Marsh where the presence and action of waters are common and usual or at the wetland/upland edge. An alternate buffer width may be established at the project stage through a shoreline conditional use permit if a site-specific scientific study determines that the default buffer is not necessary to protect and maintain the baseline functions of this wetland/tideland habitat and its other associated ecological functions from being adversely impacted by the proposed project. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 17 The site-specific scientific study must be peer reviewed by at least one independent scientist having wetland/wildlife expertise before consideration of a master plan or shoreline conditional use permit may proceed to a hearing. The site-specific scientific study must analyze the impacts of the proposed project upon at least these three broad ecological functions of wetlands and marshes: 1) Biogeochemical functions, which are related to trapping and transforming chemicals and include functions that improve water quality in the watershed; 2) Hydrologic functions, which are related to maintaining the water regime in a watershed including functions as reducing flooding; and 3) Food web and habitat functions. Any decision to approve an alternate buffer must be consistent with the legal standards of the Shoreline Management Act and State guidelines. No further buffer reductions or exemptions may be applied to the default buffer or any alternate buffer by any SMP or CAO provisions including, but not limited to, ECDC 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted wetland buffer] or ECDC 24.40.020 [additions to structures]. (Mr. Taraday suggested the preceding sentence be deleted as it duplicated Footnote 19) Regardless of the buffer width, upon development of the project, the approved buffer area shall be vegetated, used, and maintained as necessary to protect existing ecological functions and mitigate project impacts as contemplated by the site-specific scientific study that supported the approved width of the buffer. 2. Add anew definition of `Building setback" to the SMP to read: "Building setback" means the distance all buildings and other structure shall be set back from the edges of all buffers. The following may be allowed in the building setback area: A. Landscaping; B. Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not extend more than 30 inches into the setback area. Mr. Taraday explained why a new definition of building setback in the SMP was proposed. He displayed two aerials, one an image of an actual lot on Lake Ballinger (shown on the left) that shows how the City measures setback and buffers under the definition of shore setback as currently contemplated by the Council approved SMP sent to Ecology. That definition of shore setback means the distance between a structure and the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The shore setback line is shown as a yellow dashed line. Lake Ballinger has associated wetlands (shown as blue crosshatched) that also have a buffer. The buffer shown (in purple) is for illustrative purposes as the actual wetland buffer varies from 40 to 225 feet depending on the type of wetland under the CAO The point of showing the buffer is to illustrate that the CAO imposes an additional 15 -foot setback from the buffer (shown in green). He summarized under the existing regulatory scheme, there is a wetland, a wetland buffer and the 15 -foot setback from the outer edge of the wetland buffer. The shore setback is in middle of that, it does not have a regulatory effect in this situation because it is waterward of the critical area setback which is the setback that would keep someone from building eastward of the green line. Language in Option D proposed the definition of shore setback be modified to add language that would measure the shore setback from the outer edge of a buffer in situations where a buffer exists. When the definition of shore setback is changed, it also applies to environments in the Lake Ballinger, Urban Residential III. In the bulk and dimensional standards for that shoreline environment, there is a 35 -foot shoreline setback. When the definition of shore setback is changed in Option D to the outer edge of the buffer, on the sample property, what was a 15 -foot setback from the edge of the buffer in the left hand picture becomes a 35 foot setback from edge of the buffer on the right hand picture. The change to the definition of shore setback in Option D results in measuring the shore setback from the outer edge of the buffer, not the OHWM. The effect of applying that language in the UR III shoreline environment is basically taking the vellow dashed line on the left hand picture and moving it to the green line on the right picture. The easy fix is to not change the definition and continue to define shore setback the same way it has been defined and instead add a new definition for building setback which does in the UMU IV Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 18 environment the same thing that was intended to be done by the change to the definition of shore setback. It still measures from the outer edge of the buffer, adds an additional 15 -feet of setback from the outer edge of the buffer. In the UMU IV environment, the proposed definition in Option M for building setback and the change proposed in Option D do the same thing in UMU IV, adds 15 feet of setback to the outer edge of buffer. Mr. Taraday explained it seemed there were two concepts in Footnote 18, 1) how to establish the width of a buffer at the project stage, 2) once the width of the buffer is established at the project stage, whether exceptions or tweaks could be made to the buffer via tools elsewhere in the code. Because those are different concepts, he preferred to separate them into two separate footnotes. Footnote 18 addresses how to establish the width of the buffer at the project state. He suggested the following: 3. As it relates to Urban Mixed Used IV, add footnote 19 to clarify that CAO provisions in Appendix B and/or SMP Section 24.40.020 may not further reduce or exempt the SMP buffer for the Edmonds Marsh. Footnote 19: The buffers in the Urban Mixed Use IV environment may not be further reduced or exempt from the normal buffer use limitations through ECDC 24.40.020 (F)(2)(e) [Additions to structures] or any of the provisions in Appendix B, including but not limited to, sections 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]. Mr. Taraday explained the concept is that the City would initiate a planning level site specific scientific study of the marsh in the near future. That study would simply do the work that has not yet been done to analyze species using the marsh, habitat needs of those species, things that are known anecdotally but have not been analyzed scientifically, etc. to establish a baseline condition. If City Council initiates that study and is willing to pay for it, the Council has total control over the scope of work and could chose to have Exhibit C be the scope of work. He suggested using Exhibit C as a starting point and getting feedback from the consultants interested in doing the work about how the scope of work could be tweaked. The Council can have a role in finalizing the scope of work. Mr. Taraday explained a project level study would potentially happen in the future and would likely be funded by the Port as part of a master plan proposal. That study would have a different focus; baseline conditions would already be established, and the emphasis of that study would be how a project impacts the existing conditions of the marsh and specifically what buffer widths are needed to mitigate adverse impacts from the project and what, if any, buffer vegetation is needed to mitigate adverse impacts from the project. One of Ecology's concerns during this project has been distinguishing between mitigation efforts and restoration efforts. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO UTILIZE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUNDS TO PROVIDE A SITE- SPECIFIC STUDY AT THE EDMONDS MARSH. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the basic premise would be a baseline study and hopefully utilize Appendix C but remove the sentence in the site-specific study, "In the context of an approved master plan development or redevelopment on one or more edges of the marsh." Councilmember Teitzel said a site specific study makes sense and aligns with Ecology's Option A and B. He was concerned with writing a blank check, recalling during last week's Town Hall, citizens expressed concern with how the Council is managing taxpayers' money. He suggested the Council have an opportunity for a second touch and opportunity for a follow-up vote in the event the cost estimates are Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 19 exorbitantly high. He was concerned there may not be enough money in the Council Contingency budget to cover the cost of the study. Mayor Earling recalled Mr. Taraday's email today suggested having questions/answers tonight and pursuing motions at a later meeting. Councilmember Johnson asked whether the planning level study would apply only to the northern edge of the marsh or the entire marsh. Mr. Taraday answered it is ultimately up to City Council to determine if the Council proceeds with a study. Because it is not a project level study, his initial thought was it would cover the entire marsh. Council President Mesaros supported a site-specific study but felt it was premature to vote tonight because the Council has nothing in writing regarding what would actually be done. He suggested developing a document that described the framework and the cost and allow the public an opportunity to review it. He was not against doing the study, he simply wanted to know what he was voting on, to have it in writing, and to inform the public what the Council was voting on. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for Councilmember Buckshnis' motion. She agreed there needed to be an estimate of the cost. She disagreed with Council President Mesaros about involving citizens via further comments. Once a report is completed, it would be appropriate for citizens to comment. She did not want to delay the effort further to await citizen comment regarding who would be hired, the cost or even the scope of work. She asked who and how the scope of work would be defined. Mr. Taraday said his thought was to use Exhibit C as a starting point to reach out to environmental consulting firms, publish an RFP asking them to provide a proposal to the City for a study that adds to, subtracts from or modifies Exhibit C and to provide a cost. The Council can then review those scopes of work and proposed costs. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked at what point should citizens be involved. Mr. Taraday said it was up to the Council. Through the process, he anticipated RFP responses would be included in a Council packet and citizens could speak during Audience Comment if they wished. A public hearing might be overkill. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas feared unless the ball gets rolling tonight, it will be back to where we've been. Development Services Director Shane Hope suggested a draft scope of work be presented to the Council for approval and then proceed with an RFP/RFQ process that would provide more specifics. That would be done in public meetings so the public will be informed. Councilmember Buckshnis said she prepared an agenda memo but it was not included in the packet because Option M was not finished. She suggested using the spirit of Appendix C. Many citizens are interested in having a baseline study conducted; the last study was done in 2005 and only addressed daylighting of Willow Creek. She will include a scope of work in next week's agenda packet. Councilmember Johnson supported looking at the entire marsh, not from a project standpoint but from a planning standpoint. She supports the intent of the motion which is to get ball rolling. Council President Mesaros said he did not envision a big public process but it was important to have an open process so the public knows what is being studied. He expressed support for the intent but found it difficult to support specifics when none have been offered. He suggested Councilmember Buckshnis include the specifics in next week's agenda packet. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 20 Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order: the motion is not regarding intent. If the motion were revised, he could support it. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not interested in using the word "intent" because it needs to be done. She suggested returning to Council with guidelines and costs. Council President Mesaros agreed it needed to be done but he did not know what was being done and it would be preferable to have specifics. Councilmember Buckshnis restated the motion: TO UTILIZE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUNDS FOR PROVIDING A SITE SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC STUDY AT THE EDMONDS MARSH. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE THE COST AND A SCOPE OF WORK BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Teitzel invited David Pater, Shoreline Planner Department of Ecology and Joe Burcar SEA Section Manager, NW Regional Office, Department of Ecology, to join the discussion. He asked if they had had an opportunity to review Option M. Mr. Pater answered yes, they received it earlier today. He felt it was a great idea to remove the baseline study from the SMP. It will provide more flexibility to determine the needs of the study and it separates a baseline study from a master plan generated study to address the impacts of a project on the site. Councilmember Teitzel said the term "no net loss" does not appear in Option M. Recalling that was important to Ecology, he requested their input. Second, he recalled asking what no net loss would be measured against and Ecology's response that it would be measured at the time a development proposal is brought forward. This proposal seems to suggests no net loss would be measured against a baseline study which could happen a decade before a development proposal. He asked if that concerned Ecology. Mr. Pater answered it does concern him a bit but he knows the reality of the two sites; when redevelopment occurs, it will be a major redevelopment and the conditions of sites will really not have changed. Some of the conditions around the marsh may change if there is a 10 -year lag between the City -funded baseline study and a master plan -generated study focused on mitigation and sizing the marsh buffers. He summarized it was a bit of a concern but not as much given the land use and triggers for a major redevelopment. Mr. Burcar commented the footnote and the SMP still include the authority to look at changes if there was a time lag between the baseline study. Focusing on the broader intent of scientific site study criteria and having that established in the SMP will allow for those changes to be addressed. Councilmember Teitzel commented if there is a 10 -year lag, there is potential that a major stormwater improvement project will have been completed in Harbor Square that substantially cleans up the stormwater discharge to the marsh. If that happens between the time the baseline study is done and development is proposed, that cleanup would not be part of the analysis. If it worked that way, it would make it easier for the Port to the meet standard. Mr. Burcar agreed it could make it easier to meet the standard. He reiterated Mr. Taraday's comment that Ecology's interest was the authority under the SMA and the guidelines related to guidelines for future development mitigation. A lot of that depends on what the identified impacts are at the time of development. They may not be impervious surface or surface water related; they could be noise and habitat related. As those impact elements are unknown at this point, it will need to adapt to the development proposal.. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 21 Councilmember Teitzel asked if Ecology wanted the term "no net loss" added to Option M and to discuss how it would be calculated. Mr. Burcar said that initially caught Ecology's eye; the definition in Option C is much more in line with what is commonly seen in SMPs and what they are more comfortable with but in looking at the details, the intent is there by focusing on clarifying that the SMP's role is to look at existing conditions and focus on assessing the potential impacts of the development at the time of development and the necessary mitigation associated with it, distinguishing between mitigation and restoration. Mr. Pater viewed the proposed baseline study as an extension of the SMP inventory characterization. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:20 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about timing and getting this option out to the public and having further discussion next week. According to the extended agenda, next week's agenda is already lengthy. Council President Mesaros assured room would be found on the agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the proposed options should be made available to the public as many have questions about building setbacks. She asked if the building setback would be added to the tables in the SMP. Mr. Lien answered it would not be added to the table. The UMU IV environment is the only environment that specifically calls out a buffer. When the setback was separated from the buffer, it created the need for a definition of building setback. In all the other shoreline environments, the setback is from the shore; in UMU I and 11, it is from the OHWM of Puget Sound so it does not make sense to change it in the rest of the table. It will be added to the definitions. Ms. Hope said Option M would be part of packet. Councilmember Johnson said on March 23, the Beacon published a notice from Ecology about rule changes to the SMA. The notice provided a contact email and phone number. Her email that was returned undeliverable and she received no reply when she called. The closest public hearing is April 6 in Bellevue. Specific chapters will be addressed, but without seeing the redline version, it was difficult to figure out. Mr. Burcar offered to send her additional information. It is an update to the SMP guidelines that will do two things, 1) describe the process that jurisdictions will go through for a periodic review of the SMP, and 2) establish a streamlined amendment process. The current amendment process is the same for comprehensive updates and a limited amendment update. There are also a number of housekeeping amendments. Mr. Lien offered to send her a link to the page. Council President Mesaros recalled during last week's discussion regarding Highway 99, Councilmember Nelson expressed support for green buildings and incentivizing green building. He questioned how to incentivize redevelopment around the marsh to improve the buffers. Although there may be a 110 -foot buffer and 15 -foot setback on paper on the north side of the marsh, in reality there is a 25 -foot buffer. If runoff is the major threat to the marsh, he asked how the City could incentivize expanding the buffer. He referred to the second paragraph in Footnote 18, "An alternate buffer width may be established at the project stage through..." and asked if the site-specific study would provide incentives to improve the north side of the marsh. Mr. Taraday said this is the distinction between mitigation and restoration; mitigation is something a developer will have to do to mitigate the impacts of their project. To the extent that the City wanted to create incentives to go beyond mitigation to restoration, that could be done via the master planning process. Council President Mesaros wanted to ensure that was not precluded. Mr. Taraday assured it does not preclude that and the master plan would be the best method. Council President Mesaros commented development may never happen and if it doesn't, there will always be a 25 -foot buffer. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 22 Councilmember Tibbott asked for a description of the CUP process and who conducts that review. Mr. Taraday said the City's Hearing Examiner would conduct an open record public hearing on the proposal and make a recommendation based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to Ecology and Ecology makes the final decision. Mr. Burcar explained there is also State criteria in the WAC for CUPs that range from whether the development is capable with surrounding uses, considering cumulative impacts, etc. Mr. Pater said the City would do their own assessment of that criteria before sending it to Ecology. Councilmember Tibbott asked if that would be the City Council or Hearing Examiner. Mr. Taraday said under the current process, it would be the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Tibbott observed the site specific study at the planning level did not reference peer review and asked if that would be recommended. Mr. Taraday answered the planning level study peer review is probably not needed; peer review is frequently done because developer's interests may not match the environment's needs. The peer review provides a doublecheck that the analysis was done correctly. In the planning level study, the City Council has control over the scope of work and there would not be the same conflicts, particularly if the Council is involved in the consultant selection process and the RFP process. The RFP process is robust enough that peer review is likely unnecessary. Councilmember Tibbott commented although the proposed language does not include "no net loss," there is language approximating that standard and it utilizes the State standard to describe the wetland edge. He was concerned with the Council drafting an SMP that Ecology does not find acceptable. With regard to green development mentioned by Council President Mesaros, Councilmember Fraley- Monillas pointed out the City has a green development area in Development Services. She asked whether the City currently provides incentives for green development. Ms. Hope answered there is currently not a specific incentive but she was interested in considering it. There are a lot of incentives in the market; green buildings help attract tenants, they save energy and there is a lot of personal motivation among developers. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for developing incentives for future development, particularly if Edmonds expects 5,500 more residents in the next 20 years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Mr. Taraday and Councilmembers Buckshnis and Nelson working on this. She acknowledged in the end the Council was likely to have disagreement but that should not be considered a massive failure; there are seven different opinions on the Council. She was hopefully this new process would help the process move more quickly. Councilmember Teitzel inquired whether Councilmembers could send Mr. Taraday suggested changes to be incorporated into the draft that will be included in the Council packet. Mr. Taraday said he has already made a few amendments and he wants to continue to get feedback from the City Council, Ecology, City staff, the Mayor and the public. He will do his best to synthesize all of it into one recommended Option M. To be included in the Council packet, comments need to be provided by close of business Wednesday. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Mayor Earling said Mr. Taraday is not available the second Tuesday in April so getting most of the questions to him quickly would be a good thing. Mr. Taraday advised Mr. Lien is also not available the second Tuesday. Council President Mesaros advised he will modify next week's agenda to provide adequate time for discussion and hopefully resolution. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 23 Mayor Earling reported he was in Olympia yesterday; the House released their transportation budget which contains $700,000 for the Waterfront Access Study. That along with the money assembled locally will move the project through environment work and preliminary design. If the Senate's budget is different, they will need to conference and reach agreement for a vote by both houses before it is sent to the governor. While inclusion in the House's budget is good news, it is not conclusive. Mayor Earling reported a text from Senator Liias today stated the Senate has $391,000 in the capital budget for the Frances Anderson Center roof. It is unknown what the House's capital budget includes, but he is guardedly hopeful. He has not verified with the City's lobbyist whether funding has been included for a couple other projects. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Teitzel announced an event at the Edmonds Marina promenade on Saturday, April 1 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., "Ask a Scientist, Biology and Bluegrass" that will include bluegrass music and scientists displaying the sea life that grows along the marina. Council President Mesaros referred to comments tonight about sexual harassment in the Police Department. He and Mayor Earling will ask the Police Chief to describe training that has been done since these incidents. He replayed Chief Compaan's invitation for a Councilmember to participate in the selection of the parking enforcement officer. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that explains why she has been receiving complaints about parking enforcement. She also received a text from Senator Liias today about the Frances Anderson Center. The roof has needed to be replaced for five years; the $391,000 is very important to the longevity of the Frances Anderson Center. According to Senator Liias, the Senate budget includes $2.2 million for the Waterfront Center and she was hopeful that would make it through the House. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented during the last week Council and citizens have received a number of bullying and insulting letters and emails. There is a point where giving opinions becomes insulting and bullying and some of the communications could be seen as bullying. She reminded that talking about Council and citizens in derogatory ways was not the best way to get the Council to listen. 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 24 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m. 4.120'. & t -,,_I DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR PAS�f7 ERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 25 M