11/23/2004 City CouncilNovember 23, 2004
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding two legal matters, the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Noel. Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Frances Chapin, Cultural Resources Coordinator
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Change to Mayor Haakenson recommended reversing the order of Agenda Items 3 and 4.
Agenda COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED, REVERSING THE ORDER OF ITEMS 3 AND 4.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Marin requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approv
e (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2004
Minutes
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #75357, #75367 THROUGH #75540 FOR THE WEEK
Approve OF NOVEMBER 15, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $81.1,141.82. APPROVAL OF
Claim PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #39542 THROUGH #39620 FOR THE
Checks
PERIOD NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH NOVEMBER 15, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$970,136.20.
Claims for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM SHERYL
—
ages BANNISTER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND BRENT AND MELINDA KNIGHT
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 1
20" St. sw (F) ACCEPTANCE OF A STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED FROM ROBERT E. AND ANN
Improvement Project CHANDLER IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 220T" STREET SW IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT.
Sell/Surplus
City Vehicle (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO
Unit #466 SELL/SURPLUS CITY VEHICLE UNIT #466.
Ord# 3526
Composition (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3526 AMENDING THE PROVISION OF EDMONDS CITY CODE
of Historic Preservation SECTION 10.90.020, COMPOSITION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Commission COMMISSION, TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL VOTING MEMBER.
Res# 1076 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1076 SUPPORTING EDMONDS' APPLICATION
"America" Preserve FOR "PRESERVE AMERICA" COMMUNITY DESIGNATION.
Community
Designation Item E: ADDroval of List of Edmonds Businesses ADDIVinL- for Renewal of their Liquor Licenses
Signor with the Washington State Liquor Control Board
control
oard Councilmember Marin advised he pulled this item to abstain from the vote
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER MARIN
ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
(E) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD.
ANNUAL REPORTS
Heating Hearing Examiner Ronald McConnell expressed his pleasure with serving the City as Hearing
Examiner
Annual Examiner for the past ten years and looked forward to another year.
Report
Councilmember Wilson inquired about a PRD on Main Street and noted that following approval of the
PRD, the applicant applied for individual variances on each lot. He recalled questions were then raised
regarding why that was not considered as part of the PRD process. Mr. McConnell responded he did not
have a black and white answer and agreed that the potential should be watched for in the future.
Councilmember Wilson commended Mr. McConnell for his consistent position and for working with the
community's and the City's best interests in mind.
Public Public Defender James Feldman referred to his report, noting he had been the City's public defender
Defender since the mid-1970's and did not expect anything much different in the way of operations in the coming
AnnReport year. He commented on the legislature's passage of laws and increases in punishment that can make it
difficult to resolve matters.
Prosecutor Prosecutor Jim Zacker advised when Jeff Goodwin accepted an appointment to the bench, he took over
Annual the contract on an interim basis effective April 1, 2004, until a new prosecutor could be appointed. He
Report introduced Melanie Thomas, a partner in a new firm established when. Mr. Goodwin left, and the primary
person handling Edmonds' contract. He noted they also represent eight other cities and were known to be
very aggressive in dealing with sentencing and extremely active in motions, specifically DUI and
domestic violence cases. He stated Ms. Thomas was one of the more aggressive DUI prosecutors.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 2
Ms. Thomas commented on the court's activities in the City on Wednesdays. She advised they recently
hired a Domestic Violence Coordinator for Edmonds and Lynnwood who will assist her in developing
cases, maintaining contact with victims, etc. She commented on the fantastic probation department,
explaining her goal was to have defendants learn from their punishment and not return.
Municipal Court Judge James White referred to his report contained in the Council packet, noting the
Municipal revenue was continuing to increase. He described Live Scan fingerprinting,ex lainin when a
Court Judge passport g explaining
Annual person was arrested, the officer had the choice of booking them into jail or citing and releasing the person
Report with the exception of a domestic violence assault. In most cases, the person was not booked into jail and
may never be fingerprinted. Since obtaining the Live Scan system, after every conviction, if the person
has not been fingerprinted they are sent directly to the probation officer and their prints scanned into the
Live Scan system, establishing a permanent record of their conviction. He noted although there was a
State statute requiring every court to obtain fingerprints, Edmonds was the only court in the State
accomplishing it. He noted the equipment was obtained via a grant and a contribution from the Police
Foundation.
Judge White commented that electronic home monitoring and community service were being used as
alternatives to incarceration. He described a program the court planned to undertake in 2005, `Edmonds
Municipal Court Does CSI," that will include several community meetings with information from the
Washington State Crime Laboratory and State Toxicologist office as well as touring the State Crime Lab
to observe forensic investigations in progress.
Judge White explained there was currently no law library between Seattle and Everett. The court has
received funding for 2005 from the Administrative Office of the Court to replace computers, the surplus
computers will be used to establish a virtual law library at the court. He described data that could be
accessed via the virtual library.
Judge White referred to court revenue and expenses, noting filings were down slightly but revenues were
up slightly which he attributed to improved collection.
Councilmember Dawson commented that due to a recent ethics opinion, a number of courts would no
longer be doing Stipulated Orders of Continuance (SOC) on cases and asked what Edmonds would be
doing in this regard. Judge White responded courts were only allowed to collect monies on something the
law allowed them to collect monies on; in many cases the court was entering into stipulated orders of
continuance. For example a prosecutor sets conditions such as alcohol treatment, domestic violence
treatment or payment of court costs, and if those conditions were met within a certain time period, the
case would be dismissed. The ethical opinion stated there was no statutory authority to collect fees
without a conviction. He explained Edmonds has stopped collecting monies on any case where there was
not ultimately a conviction of a crime. The prosecutor then modified the SOC so that now a person will
be convicted or agreed to forfeit bail on a different kind of offense such as assault or disturbing the peace
instead of domestic violence or negligent driving first degree instead of a DUI. He concluded the
conviction of a crime allowed the court to collect the funds. He noted the SOC was an agreement
between the prosecutor and the defendant and the court provided no oversight.
Councilmember Marin commended Judge White on his excellent work and advised he knew of three
people who would be interested in attending the crime lab.
Councilmember Moore complimented Judge White and his staff for their fine work as well as the grant
writer and the Police Foundation for making the court exemplary in the State.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 3
Critical 3. CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON THE DRAFT CRITICAL AREAS
Areas REGULATIONS AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
Regulations BY REPEALING ECDC 20.15B CRITICAL AREAS AND ENACTING NEW CRITICAL AREAS
REGULATIONS IN ECDC TITLE 23.
Councilmember Marin inquired whether removal of the requirement to list critical areas on the property
title would cause the City to get into difficulty with the State. Planning Manager Rob Chave answered he
did not think so, it was just something in the State's model ordinance. City Attorney Scott Snyder
referred to the chapter that contained that provision, explaining the purpose was to inform purchasers of
restrictions. He noted the provision provides for fencing and temporary and permanent signage which
may be a better way to inform property owners of restrictions.
Mr. Chave added that the fencing and temporary/permanent signage have been used for the past ten years
to remind people of critical areas; staff has never routinely recorded critical areas on the title. He noted
typically when a critical area was identified, fencing was provided or occasionally the area was set aside
as a separate tract or Native Growth Protection Easement. Mr. Snyder pointed out the substantial cost
associated with recording individual notices against properties — the cost to identify, get a legal
description, and create documents as well as the filing fee. He concluded in staff s opinion a sign in the
backyard was a more practical method.
Councilmember Marin inquired whether staff planned to provide further information regarding wetland
size. Mr. Chave recalled that issue was addressed previously in the consultant's presentation. He recalled
the initial threshold of 2500 square feet was determined to be too large and was reduced to 1000 square
feet which was presented to the Planning Board. He noted this was further reduced to 500 square feet as a
result of testimony at the Planning Board that encouraged further reduction.
Councilmember Marin asked whether there was a recommended threshold. Mr. Snyder explained this
exemption applied if certain things were done; an applicant was not automatically exempted, they would
be required to show this was an isolated wetland and the property was the same with or without the
wetland. He noted here was some flexibility as it was a process, not an automatic exemption. Jim
Kinney, EDAW, answered there was not a good science answer regarding a wetland threshold. A better
scientific answer could be provided if specific wildlife was identified for protection, however the City's
Critical Areas Ordinance did not address a specific group of species, only wetland habitat. Therefore, this
was a policy decision for the Council.
Councilmember Marin asked whether 1500 square feet was supportable by science. Mr. Kinney
answered science did not support any threshold as all wetland provides some function regardless of the
size. He commented Edmonds was a relatively built out, dense residential community with a number of
independent drainages that flow into Puget Sound. If the goal was to preserve the function and value of
those systems, preservation of any wetlands within the community would provide benefits to water
quality, ground water recharge, etc. He noted their original 1000 square foot recommendation was
lowered to 500 square feet as a result of public input. Mr. Snyder clarified that was the level at which a
person could apply for an exemption.
Council President Plunkett observed the purpose of notice on the title appeared to be to ensure the
property owner and potential buyer were aware of any critical areas. He found Form 17, the property
disclosure form used when a property was sold, to be insufficient because a seller may not know about a
critical area unless he/she had been notified. He commented when an individual came to the
Development Services Department seeking to do some work on their property and they were affected by
the Critical. Areas Ordinance, staff would put that property owner on notice regarding critical areas on
their property. He suggested staff have the property owner sign a statement at that time acknowledging
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 4
they recognized the critical areas on their site. Mr. Snyder advised that notice could be incorporated into
the application form. He noted this was not a risk issue, it was to ensure a purchaser was aware of the
critical area on their property. He concluded it was not a "buyer beware" but rather an attempt to ensure
property owners were aware of limitations. He referred to page 23 of the packet that illustrated the sign
that could be erected under the ordinance — "regulated wetland, call the City of Edmonds for
information." He concluded there was no reason other than Council policy to have notice recorded.
Council President Plunkett asked whether the scenario he described would provide adequate notice to a
property owner and obligate the property owner to indicate yes or no on Form 17. Mr. Snyder agreed it
would. He emphasized this was not a blanket recording requirement; it was only for properties being
developed. Per Council direction, language was added to indicate existing properties within their
footprint were exempt from application.
Council President Plunkett commented signage delineating the wetland buffer was quite common and
many people liked the greenbelt it provided. He asked which method would be preferable, the scenario
he described (acknowledgement at the time of application) or signage. Mr. Snyder advised the recording
requirement could be eliminated and both would occur, at the time of application the property owner
would be notified and signage was already addressed in the ordinance.
Councilmember Orvis observed the City did not have an inventory of small wetlands. Mr. Chave
answered the City did not have a comprehensive inventory, the City was only aware of wetlands that have
been identified as part of a development application. Councilmember Orvis pointed out the City was
unaware how many properties would be impacted by the change in the wetland threshold and buffer. He
expressed his preference for retaining the existing 2500 square foot threshold in the code and indicated his
plans to provide an illustration later in the discussion.
Councilmember Dawson clarified the issue with a property that contained a wetland was not that the
property owner could not do anything on the property but they would need to do mitigation.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained if it was determined a critical area existed on a
property, the critical area ordinance would apply and appropriate buffers would apply.
Councilmember Dawson noted a Category 3 or 4 wetland of 500 square feet or less in size would be
exempted under certain conditions in the ordinance. Science did not support any wetland threshold
because every wetland was valuable in some way. Mr. Bowman agreed that was the information in the
record. Councilmember Dawson noted practicality justified some limits on wetland size.
Councilmember Dawson presumed because the recommended ordinance contained a limit of 500 square
feet that staff could live with 500 feet. Mr. Bowman agreed, noting it was a policy issue for the Council.
He explained the existing 2500 square feet was felt to be too large and was reduced to 1000 square feet
and later to 500 square feet as a result of testimony to the Planning Board. If the Council selected a
threshold lower or higher than 500 square feet, the Council would need to provide some justification.
Councilmember Dawson clarified a threshold below 500 square feet would be difficult for staff to deal.
with. Mr. Bowman answered below 500 square feet would mean regulating very small areas; the smaller
the area became, the more difficult it was to regulate.
With regard to notice on title, Mr. Bowman agreed with the option provided by Mr. Snyder. He noted
recording notice on the property title raised a number of administrative issues. He concluded signage
provided clear notice to property owners.
Councilmember Dawson referred to her conversations with Nathan. Gordon, Snohomish. County Realtors
Association, who indicated that if a property owner was aware of a critical area, it would be disclosed on
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 5
Form 17. Therefore, the Snohomish County Realtors Association was comfortable with using Form 17
rather than notice on the property title. Mr. Bowman indicated he was not comfortable with using Form
17 for this type of disclosure because most people would simply check "I don't know" because they may
realistically not know.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
REMOVE THE PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE RELATING TO REQUIRING NOTICE ON
THE PROPERTY TITLE IN SECTION 23.40.260. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder explained an exemption/threshold of 500 square feet meant that a wetland under that size may
apply to be exempted. Councilmember Dawson noted a significant wetland under 500 square feet may
not be exempted at the discretion of the Director depending on whether it could be mitigated properly,
there was wildlife present, etc. Mr. Snyder noted the level at which the Council set the threshold was the
level at which someone could apply to be exempt; they still would need to prove it. Mr. Bowman.
explained the ordinance required an analysis to determine the size; once that was done, the threshold
determination was made. Councilmember Dawson concluded people with a wetland on their property
would be impacted regardless of the size.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the process of determining whether a wetland exists on a property,
for example for a person applying for a fence permit. He also asked staff to describe the field data
determination sheet used to determine the type of wetland and whether staff differentiated between a
naturally occurring and manmade wetland. Mr. Chave answered it would begin with someone wanting to
do something on their property which required they complete a reconnaissance report regarding the
property circumstances. Staff would visit the property to confirm the property owner's report and a
determination would be made. If there appeared to be a wetland on the property, a higher level study
would be required such as a three -party contract to determine the size, function, value, etc. of the wetland.
Councilmember Wilson asked the number of licensed biologists on staff. Mr. Chave answered there were
none. Councilmember Wilson noted most of the wetlands in the City were likely Category 3 or 4. Mr.
Chave answered yes. Councilmember Wilson asked what was the first indication a property owner may
have regarding a wetland on their site. Mr. Chave answered it would depend on their experience but
usually vegetation combined with wetness. He noted although there were no licensed biologists on staff,
staff did receive training from the Department of Ecology including field training classes regarding types
of vegetation, soil conditions, etc. Most property owners were aware of whether they had a wetland
although in many cases small wetlands in wooded areas were difficult to spot.
Mayor Haakenson asked how many people who visited the second floor on a daily basis are affected by
critical areas. Mr. Chave estimated 10-15%.
Responding to Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Kinney explained there were three components of a wetland
— 1) soils that indicate saturation for a certain period of the growth season, 2) wetland plants, and 3) some
sign of wetland hydrology. He noted lawns were not included in any water plant category. He has done
hundreds of wetland delineations and usually the property owner was able to identify the potential
wetland areas. There can be small wetlands on a property that the property owner was not aware of. He
noted the 500 square foot threshold only applied to Category 3 and 4 wetlands of low value. He
explained there was sufficient flexibility in the Critical Areas Ordinance via buffer reduction/averaging to
do something on the property and if not, there was the reasonable use exemption or the variance process.
Councilmember Wilson asked how many of the three were required to determine the existence of a
wetland. Mr. Kinney answered usually all three; if the site was recently altered, only hydrology and soil.
may be required.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 6
Councilmember Wilson asked if a differentiation was made between manmade versus a naturally created
wetland. Mr. Kinney answered Washington State utilized a manual based on the Corp of Engineers
criteria regarding wetland. Using that criteria, some manmade wetlands will meet the category of a
wetland.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether a boundary survey was required for wetlands or Native Growth
Protection Areas. Mr. Chave answered a stream channel and buffer would be delineated via a survey and
if there was a development proposal, the boundary would be surveyed and signs and/or a boundary fence
erected during the development process. If it were a large enough area, it may be separated into a
separate tract. He noted critical areas would be recorded on the plat as part of a subdivision. If it were
only an individual property, the survey would be on file with the development but would not be recorded.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the buffers were recorded as easements. Mr. Chave answered it
depends, if it was a significant area, it could be recorded as a Native Growth Protection Area but not
necessarily. He noted wetlands were typically either separated into a recordable tract or some type of
easement such as a Native Growth Protection Easement.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Orvis displayed a circle representing the existing 2500 square foot threshold and its
buffer (1 inch to 25 feet), noting the buffer width was approximately the same as the radius of the
wetland. He concluded although a large area was being protected, the buffer was in scale with the
wetland. He displayed another circle representing a 500 square foot circle, noting a property owner with
a wetland of that size would be required to provide mitigation measures. He displayed the buffer
proposed for a 500 square foot buffer, pointing out the overall size was similar to buffer for the existing
2500 square foot wetland threshold. He noted the illustration represented the lowest category wetland and
the smallest buffer.
Councilmember Orvis identified an area in the Council Chambers that approximated 500 square feet,
pointing out it was not a large area. He displayed the Category 4 buffer for a 500 square foot wetland,
noting the buffer was much larger than the wetland itself. He pointed out this was a huge area, 7100
square feet, or approximately equivalent to a lot in an RS-6 or RS-8 zone. He noted this would result in.
not only a property owner staying away from a wetland on their property but making the entire property
subject to expensive environmental mitigation. He displayed the buffer for a Category 3 wetland which.
totaled 12,000 square feet, noting that was nearly equivalent to the large lot zoning in the City.
Councilmember Orvis summarized the intent of this exercise was to illustrate to the Council the impact of
the buffers and make the following three points: 1) a 500 square foot wetland requires buffers nearly
equivalent to the lot they are located on and any change to the buffer would require expensive consultants
even for a small project such as a deck or small addition, 2) the City has no inventory of the small, 500
square foot wetlands and no idea of the number of properties that would be impacted, and 3) the new
Critical Areas Ordinance will encourage destruction of native wetland because a) the replacement ratios
for Category 4 wetland (1.5) are smaller than the buffer that would be required which likely would result
in a developer relocating a wetland to a more favorable location, and b) because there is no inventory of
these small wetland, there is no way to enforce their retention.
Councilmember Orvis acknowledged most Edmonds residents were honest people but pointed out it
would certainly be a temptation to fill in a wetland, replace it with grass, etc. to avoid the cost associated
with the wetland. He pointed out Edmonds residents like the environment, trees, plants, wetland, etc. and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 7
questioned why was it necessary to regulate them. He preferred to allow property owners to determine
what was good for the environment on their own property. He noted large buffers were currently required
for large wetlands which provided good protection for Category 1 and 2 wetlands. He concluded the City
was unlikely to obtain the desired result and instead would create a code that was not enforceable.
Council President Plunkett referred to the representation of a 2500 square foot wetland and its buffer and
the 500 square foot wetland and its buffer, noting they appeared to provide approximately the same
protection. Councilmember Orvis agreed it was very close.
Councilmember Moore referred to conflicting information in Councilmember Orvis' presentation, that
property owners could be trusted to preserve the environment on their property, yet the
developer/property owner may be tempted to fill in a wetland. Councilmember Orvis acknowledged a
single family property owner might have to make that determination although he did not think they would
fill a wetland unless forced to do so. He concluded more wetlands could be saved by allowing property
owners to decide how to best use their property.
Council President Plunkett clarified Councilmember Orvis' point was that the buffer was the same for a
500 square foot wetland and for a 2500 square foot wetland. Councilmember Orvis agreed, explaining a
500 square foot wetland under the proposed ordinance would be treated the same as a 2500 square foot
wetland under the existing ordinance.
Councilmember Moore asked the cost to a resident who wanted to build a deck but had a 500 square foot
wetland on their property. Mr. Chave answered it depended on a number of factors. He explained a
single family lot with a significant wetland would need a survey of the boundaries and an enhancement
report. He estimated the cost to be $1000 - $1500. He noted for a very low grade wetland on a small
portion of the property, it may cost only a few hundred dollars. He concluded the cost depended on the
nature of the wetland, access to the property, etc.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the same would be required if a property owner applied for a deck
or fence permit and found they were within the buffer area of a neighbor's wetland. Mr. Chave answered
yes, although it would likely not be to quite the same degree and may only be a reconnaissance to
determine the type of wetland and survey of a small portion of the property. Councilmember Moore
noted in that instance any mitigation would be on public property. NIr. Chave answered that may be an.
option or the property owner may want to enhance their portion of the property. He noted another
advantage of doing the survey was a property owner would be aware of the critical area and would not
need to do further investigation for future projects although additional mitigation may be required if a
future project intruded into the buffer.
Mr. Snyder cautioned this matter was advertised for deliberation and it was certainly appropriate for the
Council to ask for clarification. If the Council sought new information from staff that was not addressed
in the public hearing, the public hearing would need to be re -advertised and comment taken from the
public because there had not been an opportunity for them to comment on the changes.
Council President Plunkett asked whether the record indicated the buffer for a 500 square foot wetland
and a 2500 square foot wetland would be approximately the same as depicted by Councilmember Orvis.
Mr. Chave answered yes, if Councilmember Orvis was referring to the lowest level wetland in the
existing ordinance and lowest level wetland in the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the process a property owner would go through was essentially the
same as the existing process such as submitting an environmental checklist, staff evaluation of the site,
etc. Mr. Chave answered essentially although it was somewhat more formalized. He noted the current
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 8
process for identifying a wetland worked fairly well. Mr. Chave summarized no study would be required
if a property owner indicated there was no wetland present and staff confirmed there was no wetland.
Responding to Councilmember Wilson's questions, Mr. Chave stated the City was only aware of the
wetlands that have been identified during a development process, were located on public property or were
very significant wetlands. Most of the new wetlands that would be identified would be Category 3 and 4.
Councilmember Wilson asked what options were available for a property owner who wanted to do offsite
mitigation but there was no public property available. Mr. Chave recalled a unique situation where a
developer owned two properties, both encumbered by wetlands, and he set aside/removed from
development one property, enhancing the wetlands on that property and fully developing the other
property. Mr. Chave explained the benefit was that the property where the wetlands were enhanced could
have been developed with homes, significantly degrading a much better wetland than the wetland that was
ultimately filled. He acknowledged that was a unique situation but illustrated there were unique, creative
solutions. He explained staff knew of a few wetlands on private property and it may be possible, with the
property owner's agreement, to allow those to serve as receiving areas for mitigation. He noted there
were also wetlands on public property where mitigation was possible.
Councilmember Wilson referred to a reference to state wetland banking area. Mr. Chave stated that was
something that had not yet been implemented but was being considered by the Department of Ecology.
Ord# 3527 MAIN MOTION
Critical COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
Areas APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3527 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SECTION 23.40.260
Regulations WHICH THE COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY REMOVED.
Councilmember Wilson recommended the 6 and 12-month review during the first year and annually
thereafter also be included in the ordinance. Mr. Snyder pointed out that was addressed in Section 3 of
the ordinance.
AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, TO
AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO USE THE SAME THRESHOLDS AND BUFFERS AS THE
CURRENT ORDINANCE.
Councilmember Dawson voiced her opposition to the amendment, pointing out Pest Available Science
did not support an exemption for any size wetland, however, practicality required some limit and staff
indicated they would work with a wetland threshold of 500 square feet. She found the 500 square foot to
be a reasonable level and did not believe it would impact a great number of people. Although she
appreciated Councilmember Orvis' presentation, she noted it was not usually a circular wetland in the
center of a property but rather a wetland on the edge of a property. A 500 square foot wetland
represented a significant wetland that deserved protection. Staff indicated 500 square feet was a number
they could deal with, then that was a reasonable number for the Council to select and if was determined
that size not reasonable, it could be changed in the future. Although she preferred not to exempt any
wetlands due to the value of every wetland, this was the highest number she was willing to accept.
Council President Plunkett agreed in principle with Councilmember Dawson that all wetland should be
preserved and found it compelling that a 500 square foot wetland might be filled in whereas a wetland of
2500 square feet was less likely to be filled in. Insofar as the buffer would be the same for a 500 square
foot wetland and a 2500 square foot wetland, he supported the 2500 square foot wetland threshold.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 9
Councilmember Moore thanked Councilmember Orvis for his presentation, although indicated she would
vote against the proposed amendment. She found the 500 square foot threshold reasonable although she
would prefer a smaller threshold. The value of the drainage systems in Edmonds are critically important
and support the preservation of as many wetlands as possible. She agreed with Councilmember Dawson
that a 500 square foot wetland was a huge area and she did not support a higher threshold than that.
Councilmember Orvis reminded it was unknown how many wetlands of this size existed in the
community or how many property owners would be affected. He disagreed with staff s estimate of the
cost, pointing out the costs of third party contracts which would be necessary to determine whether a
property owner could build on their own property. He concluded adding a huge cost was a great
temptation for a property owner to fill in the wetland, particularly when there was no enforcement
because the City did not know the location of many of these small wetlands.
Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Orvis that it was unknown how many property
owners would be impacted. She noted once the threshold was made very small, it would be much more
difficult to make it bigger.
Councilmember Wilson indicated he would vote against the amendment, pointing out the City was
required to adhere to Best Available Science. He did not support removing all exemptions because if the
State had intended there to be one standard for all communities, that is what they would have provided.
Instead they required cities use Best Available Science to evaluate their specific circumstances. He
pointed out there was also no inventory of wetland when the Critical. Areas Ordinance was first adopted
ten years ago. He suggested if a Councilmember wanted to inventory wetlands in the city, adequate funds
be added to next years' budget to conduct that inventory. He emphasized the process was not being
changed, the property owner still made the first determination, provided that information to staff which
staff confirmed. A wetland would need to be obvious for staff to require further analysis. It was likely a
neighbor would notice if a property owner was filling a 500 square foot wetland in their backyard and
even if a wetland was filled, the hydrology and soil still existed. He noted the reason he recommended a
6 and 12-month review the first year and annually thereafter was so that changes could be made
proactively as necessary.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT
UPON ROLL CALL, THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND ORVIS IN FAVOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE,
MARIN, DAWSON AND WILSON OPPOSED.
Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the main motion, noting that although he did not like the concept
of additional requirements, he realized that in the past some actions have been harmful to the environment
because no one knew better. He found it beneficial to the community and future generations to take
action now to correct things that have occurred in the past that were detrimental to the environment.
Councilmember Wilson indicated he would vote in favor of the motion, finding it to be a good attempt to
address the changing guidelines. He acknowledged there was room for modification/improvement and
hoped it could be modified in the future in a manner that respected the fact that Edmonds was an infill
community and as further information became available. He pointed out the need to balance protection of
the environment with maintaining the character of the community.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her thanks to staff, the consultants, members of the community who
have participated and Mr. Gorton with. Snohomish County Association of Realtors. She concluded this
was a workable ordinance that balanced protection of the environment with practicality.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 10
Councilmember Olson pointed out the need to educate the public as there were many people who did not
understand the process, how it impacted them or how to take care of a wetland and/or stream.
VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED.
ANNUAL REPORTS (con't)
City City Attorney Scott Snyder thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve them and the public. He
Annual referred to the issue of publishing special notice related to the Critical Areas Ordinance explaining from a
Annual P g 1> P g
Report staff point of view that was a no -win situation because staff would be required to identify who may be
impacted by an ordinance. He wondered why the members of the community who were concerned with
preservation of small town Edmonds and Edmonds' housing stock had not participated in the Critical
Areas Ordinance process as this ordinance provided the Council the tools to preserve trees, stream banks,
moderately priced housing stock, etc. He concluded it was difficult for staff to make a judgment
regarding who might benefit from notification regarding a specific ordinance.
Mr. Snyder explained each year he tried to give something back to the staff and/or community. He
explained he was more than willing to take a call or two from citizens to provide straight -forward
information and not bill the City. He offered to formalize this by providing a weekly legal column on the
City's website, answering questions submitted by the public. He cautioned the information would not be
legal advice and would be required to follow guidelines provided by the State Bar Association.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her appreciation for all Mr. Snyder does, acknowledging be provided
a great deal of off -the -clock assistance. She asked what the Council could do to make his job easier,
noting the Council may often burden him with things that were not the City Attorney's job. Mr. Snyder
responded he liked to know what was going on as it helped him serve the City better. He explained he
represented the City in its corporate capacity and the Mayor told him what to do. As a contract employee,
if a majority of the Council or the Mayor wanted him gone, he was gone. He described his "one hour,"
threshold — to try and answer a question for a Councilmember in less than an hour. If an issue was a
bigger project, he typically asked whether it was budgeted and was something that a majority of the
Council wanted to pursue. He commented the Council, as legislators, were elected to deliberate and make
decisions; rather than asking him or staff questions, he recommended the Council deliberate on matters as
that was what the citizens wanted.
Councilmember Marin expressed his appreciation for the value Mr. Snyder provided and supported his
offer to provide a legal column on the City's website.
Councilmember Moore also supported Mr. Snyder's offer to provide a legal column on the website,
noting because it would be public record, the press could also access that information. Mr. Snyder
agreed, pointing out citizens needed to be aware that both the questions and the answers would be public
record.
5. PRESENTATION AND REVIEW OF SISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP AND RECENT VISIT OF
sister city I THE HEKINAN DELEGATION.
elationship
Parks & Recreation. Director Brian McIntosh advised this item would include a report on the delegation of
25 Hekinan citizens, staff and officials who visited Edmonds in late October, as well as presentations to
citizens.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 11
Darlene McLellan, Director, Edmonds Arts Festival Museum and Board Member of the Edmonds
Art Festival Foundation, introduced Arts Festival Foundation members in the audience. She recognized
Iyoko Okano for her assistance with translation including speaking for Edmonds officials and citizens
with Japanese delegates, enlisting the aid of her family and associates in the Northwest and Japan to
provide exciting programs for the delegation, for her understanding of the value of cultural exchange and
patience dealing with others, and for her knowledge of protocol and clarity of language skills. On behalf
of the Arts Festival Foundation, she recognized Ms. Okano for her efforts with a gift of a vase.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation to Ms. Okano for translating for him with the delegation,
for her participation in various community activities and acting as an ambassador for Edmonds. On
behalf of the City, Mayor Haakenson presented Ms. Okano with a framed calligraphy artwork in
recognition of her outstanding community service.
Mayor Haakenson recognized Ms. McLellan for her contributions over many years to foster the City's
relationship with Hekinan through the arts, her command of the Japanese language, her extensive
understanding of both Japanese and American art and sharing her talents to help enrich Edmonds'
relationship with Hekinan. He recognized her efforts with regard to the coordination and arrangements of
the artwork collection by Hekinan artists in 1990, design and coordination of the sewing of the Edmonds
quilt, coordination of the selection of artwork by Edmonds artists that was presented to Hekinan in 1991
on the 40th anniversary of their cultural association, assistance with cultural orientation for Edmonds
students and residents going to Hekinan, assistance with decorations for receptions, assistance with tea
ceremonies and special annual exhibits of Hekinan art, assistance with the siting of a sculpture by Steve
Jensen at the new Hekinan City Hall, and assistance with the students involved in the design phase of a
sculpture on the Edmond waterfront.
Mayor Haakenson presented Ms. McLellan with a framed calligraphy artwork in appreciation for the
hours and creative work she has given to the City.
Mr. McIntosh recognized Sister City Commission members in the audience. He described Hekinan, a city
with a population of 70,000, 30 miles south of Nagoya, Japan, the host of the 2005 Worlds Fair. He
described Hekinan's location on an active harbor, a major port for the export of Toyotas as well as a noted
fishing port and manufacturer. He explained it was a group of interested citizens who began the Sister
City relationship in 1986.with residents from both cities visiting and recognizing the many parallels and
common interests between the cities. This was followed in 1987 with Edmonds accepting an invitation
from Hekinan to form a Sister City relationship. An official proclamation was issued on April 5, 1988
and the City Council formed the Edmonds Sister City Commission on May 23, 1989..
Mr. McIntosh explained the mission of the Sister City Commission was to promote international
communication and understanding through exchanges of people, ideas and culture. He reviewed
activities that fulfill the goals of the Commission including exchange of portable art collections,
communication between schools, assistant English teachers as ambassadors to Hekinan, student
exchanges, Stevens Hospital healthcare professional visits, and the Edmonds and Hekinan sister library
relationship.
Mr. McIntosh remarked many places in. Edmonds illustrate positive signs of the City's relationship with
Edmonds including the items on display at Centennial Plaza, common areas of the third floor of City Hall,
and in the Brackett Room, as well as major artworks by Steve Jensen — "The Crane" at the Hekinan City
Hall in honor of the City's 50th anniversary of incorporation and the "Friendship Tree" dedicated last
month on the Edmonds waterfront.
Mr. McIntosh reviewed the busy itinerary of the Hekinan delegation during their recent 6-day visit to
Edmonds and expressed his thanks to everyone who assisted with the delegation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 12
Councilmember Marin provided his observations of the Hekinan delegation at the two events he attended,
the dedication of the "Friendship Tree" and dinner and exchange of gifts. He pointed out not only does
Hekinan have a friendly relationship with Edmonds, they also contributed approximately $6,000 to assist
with the repair of Edmonds' waterfront bulkhead. He presented a glass artwork to the Hekinan Council
President and the Hekinan Council President presented a wall hanging that describes the friendship
between Hekinan and Edmonds, created by Hekinan's Council President.
Ms. McLellan displayed and described a quilt presented by Hekinan to Edmonds. She also displayed a
quilt presented to the Arts Festival Foundation by the Hekinan. Cultural Association. Mr. McIntosh
presented a wall hanging done by Hekinan's Council President as a thank you to the Edmonds Senior
Center for the reception they provided and for the use of their bus to transport the delegation. Cultural
Resource Coordinator Frances Chapin displayed a wall hanging done by Hekinan's Council. President for
the Arts Commission and a lithograph by a Hekinan artist presented by the Hekinan Mayor's office to the
Edmonds Mayor's office.
Mr. McIntosh thanked the Council and Mayor for their continued support of the Sister City relationship.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation to Mr. McIntosh for his efforts with regard to the Sister City
program.
5�W1i11] 1011WO D[Ki]u 1►i 1 Biel IE
Rowena Miller, 8711 1.82"d Avenue SW, Edmonds, expressed her thanks to the Council for what they
did to protect the environment in Edmonds and making it a good place to live. She pointed out for Mr.
Snyder and the Council that many of the people interested in the environment did attend Planning Board
meetings, Architectural Design Board meetings and Council meetings in an effort to maintain the small
town character of Edmonds and prevent a lot of high buildings in the downtown area.
8. PRESENTATION — USING TELECOMMUNICATIONS FOR ALL CITIZENS
Community Councilmember Moore explained she asked that this topic be scheduled on the agenda as an outgrowth of
Technology the Community Outreach Committee. She explained when the Committee was established last year, they
Advisory began b studying was to use the public access channel, Channel 21, as a better communication device
Board g Y Y g Y
for citizens but discovered this was a much larger issue than just the public access channel. She noted the
goal of this presentation was to have the Council establish a Community Technology Advisory Board that
would bring together experts in the community to advise the Council on setting policy in the
telecommunications field.
Bart Preecs, 4 Park Place, Edmonds, a marketing professional in telecommunications and software,
explained the term Community Technology was selected to cast as wide an umbrella over wireless
broadband, fiber optic networks, public access cable, etc., noting the field was literally exploding with
opportunities. He described national trends and local opportunities/issues, explaining the goals were to
foster economic development, improve services, strengthen community involvement, and upgrade
community self. -concept. Mr. Preecs noted the incumbent providers prefer the status quo; the goal would
be to review existing assets, assess the status quo, survey other initiatives, gain holistic view of
possibilities, assess technology, gather experience from other cities, gauge interest and create a forum for
community involvement.
Councilmember Moore noted City Attorney Scott Snyder was somewhat of an expert in how
governments can affect the fixture of telecommunication provisions for their citizens. She noted Tacoma
considered itself the most wired city, and although they did not make a lot of money with their system,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 13
they lowered the consumer prices for citizens in Tacoma. She noted Seattle had also formed a
Technology Advisory Board to assist the Council. She advised the consultant who developed the Utopia
project in Utah, a consortium of 17 cities who created their own utility to bring broadband to their cities,
would be making a presentation to the Community Outreach Committee on December 2.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY BOARD WITH MR. PREECS AS
THE FIRST YEAR CHAIR, THE COUNCIL TO NOMINATE MEMBERS AND USE STAFF
RESOURCES TO SOLICIT OTHER MEMBERS.
Council President Plunkett asked how a Councilmember on the Technology Committee would be
selected. Councilmember Moore noted there were a couple Councilmembers very qualified to participate
on the Committee and suggested a Councilmember volunteer. Councilmember Orvis agreed to
participate.
lu MI Y C11o[tl:1%. 910411112/_1►11► 1*111 `I/1i
Comp Plan 7. REPORT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Update
Planning Manager Rob Chave reported the Critical. Areas Ordinance, which the Council approved tonight,
was one of the main components of the update. He explained the Planning Board was taking longer than
anticipated with their review of the Downtown Waterfront Plan; a hearing was held at the end of October
and another draft will be available in early December with another hearing on December 15. He
anticipated the Planning Board would complete the Downtown Waterfront Plan at one of their first
meetings in January and the Council could expect to see that material at the fourth meeting in January.
Mr. Chave advised the State had been notified of the delay. He noted as he told the Planning Board, it
was better to take the time necessary to complete the update rather than rush to an arbitrary deadline. He
noted the delay did not jeopardize any funding, grants, etc.
Mr. Chave referred to graphs in the Council packet that would be incorporated into the Comprehensive
Plan. He explained Edmonds was an urban area and the net density in the City was already over five
units per acre. This represents an increase over the past ten years from 4.9 dwelling units per acre to
approximately 5.4 dwelling units per acre. He noted this increase in density in a city that was already
96% built out illustrated successful infill development.
For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave explained the Growth Hearings Board has found that jurisdictions
could not preclude density that was not urban, defined as four dwelling units per acre or more, unless
there were specific reasons such as critical areas. He noted the 5.4 dwelling units per acre was the
average residential zoning citywide.
Mayor Haakenson commented on the senseless tragedy that occurred in the Seaview area of Edmonds
yesterday. He offered thoughts and prayers to the friends and family of yesterday's victims. He offered
his personal thanks to the Edmonds Police Officers who spent the day and night at the crime scene and
particularly those Officers and Firefighters who had to actually enter the home upon their arrival, noting
what they found had a profound impact on them particularly those who have children of their own.
Historic
Preservation 10. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Commission
Council President Plunkett advised tonight on the Consent Agenda the Council added a seventh member
to the Historic Preservation Commission. On. December 7, the Council would be considering a church for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 14
listing on the City's Historic Registry. If the Council determines the church is eligible for listing, the
property owner may choose to have it listed. He advised the Commission was expecting a report from an
architect who has been inventorying structures in the City; it was anticipated the inventory would include
up to 500 structures that were eligible to be listed on the Registry and receive the associated benefits. He
reminded that listing on the Registry was voluntary; if a property was identified, the property owner was
not obligated to participate.
SeaShore Councilmember Olson reported Councilmember Moore and she attended the SeaShore Forum, a group
°rum that discusses transportation issues in North King County and South Snohomish County. The agenda
included 1) the I-5 reconstruction project to resurface from approximately Boeing Field to Northgate that
could conceivably occur at the same time the viaduct is being rebuilt as well as the 520 bridge and Sound
Transit projects; 2) a "hot lanes" pilot project on SR-167 that allows solo drivers to use the HOV lanes
during off-peak hours, and 3) successful pilot projects in other areas to improve transportation.
uget Sound Councilmember Moore reported on the Posterity Partnership sponsored by Puget Sound Regional Council
egion 11 that Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend and she attended along with approximately 1200
ouncil
others in an effort to create an economic development plan for the region. She noted the concern was that
the Puget Sound area was in competition with other urban centers and countries and the Puget Sound
region needed to work on economic development. She advised the plan from this summit was to shift
through all the ideas and develop a plan for implementation by March 2005.
1
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m.
GAAY H61KENSON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 23, 2004
Page 15
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
6:30 p.m. - Executive Session regarding two legal matters.
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #75357, #75367 through #75540 for the week of
November 15, 2004, in the amount of $811,141.82. Approval of payroll direct
deposits and checks #39542 through #39620 for the period November 1
through November 15, 2004, in the amount of $970,136.20.*
*Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Sheryl Bannister (amount
undetermined), and Brent and Melinda Knight (amount undetermined).
(E) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor
Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
(F) Acceptance of a Statutory Warranty Deed from Robert E. and Ann Chandler in
conjunction with the 220th Street SW Improvement Project.
(G) Authorization to contract with James Murphy Auctioneers to sell/surplus city
vehicle Unit #466.
(H) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code Section
10.90.020, Composition of the Historic Preservation Commission, to add an
additional voting member.
(1) Adoption of Resolution supporting Edmonds' Application for "Preserve
America" Community Designation.
1
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NOVEMBER 23, 2004
Page 2 of 2
3. (30 Min.) Continued City Council deliberation on the draft Critical Areas Regulations
amending the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) by repealing
ECDC 20.15 B, Critical Areas, and enacting new Critical Areas Regulations in
ECDC Title 23.
4. Annual Reports:
(10 Min.)
(A)
City Attorney Scott Snyder
(10 Min.)
(B)
Hearing Examiner Ronald McConnell
(10 Min.)
(C)
Public Defender James Feldman
(10 Min.)
(D)
Municipal Court Judge James White
(10 Min.)
(E)
Prosecutor Melanie Thomas
5. (25 Min.) Presentation and review of Sister City relationship and recent visit of the
Hekinan delegation.
6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. (30 Min.) Report on the Comprehensive Plan Update.
S. (30 Min.) Presentation - Using Telecommunications for All Citizens
9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television - Government Access Channel 21.