Loading...
05/23/2000 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MAY 239 2000 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council President Miller in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor (arrived 8:15 p.m.) Thomas A. Miller, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember (arrived 7:51 p.m.) Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Frances Chapin, Cultural Program Coordinator Michael Karber, City Attorney Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCH MEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Councilmember White was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Orvis requested Item F be removed. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember White was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL pprave (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35961 THROUGH #41153 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 15 , Claim , 2000 IN THE AMOUNT OF $474,198.82. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS Checks #30002 THROUGH #28140 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1 THROUGH MAY 15, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $440,834.00 Report on (D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL General POSITION FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2000 Fund Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 1 1 L F 's (E) AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE TEAMSTER'S LOCAL UNION NO. 763 63 CONTRACT WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR A NEW PAY GRADE `F' FOR THE STREET MAINTENANCE WORKER I POSITION Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 16, 2000 Councilmember Petso requested the words "the committee was comfortable with" be deleted from the third bullet on page 7. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR Approve APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. (The vote 5116 was 4 -0 -2 with Council President Miller and Councilmember Davis abstaining. Councilmember Minutes as White was not present for the vote.) The item approved is as follows: Amended (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2000 Regulation Item F: Proposed Ordinance Amending Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.60 of rewarding the Regulation of Temporary Signs Signs mporary Councilmember Orvis proposed the following changes to the ordinance on Page 16: • Revise subsection A of Section 20.60.065 (Real Estate Signs) to read, " On premises eemmer-sial real estate signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in residential and commercial zones, subject to the maximum signage area and sign number limitations set forth in section 20.60.080 • Revise subsection B3 to read, "The maximum number of off premises real estate signs allowed per property shall be enema) only what is necessary to direct people to the premises." • Delete subsection D. Councilmember Orvis requested the City Attorney respond regarding the constitutionality of the proposed changes. City Attorney Michael Karber answered "commercial" in subsection A was not intended to refer to a commercial seller but the type of sign. , He agreed "commercial" could be deleted. He expressed concern with possible ambiguity with the insertion of the suggested language in subsection B3, explaining reasonable minds may differ regarding the number of signs necessary to direct traffic to a home. He said his review of any other cities' sign ordinances revealed varying standards, from one sign up to six. He said in drafting the ordinance, both the Planning Board and staff wanted a reduction in the accumulation of real estate signs. Councilmember Orvis pointed out the real estate signs were only -erected while a real estate agent or owner was at the house. Mr. Karber recommended an absolute number be selected to avoid any dispute regarding the number of signs. Councilmember Plunkett clarified Councilmember Orvis' question was with regard to the constitutionality. Mr. Karber reiterated it was a potentially ambiguous standard and could lead to legal interpretation question but it was not constitutionally defective to include that language. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out all codes were open to interpretation to some extent. . Councilmember Earling questioned who would count/enforce the number of signs erected. He supported the requirement to have the signs removed when the seller /agent closed the open house. Regarding Councilmember Orvis' suggestion to delete subsection D, Mr. Karber said the section referring to ECDC Chapter 18.70, specifically states the posting of a sign in a City right -of -way requires an encroachment permit. If the Council wished to delete subsection D, he recommended Council also Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 2 provide direction on amendment to ECDC Chapter 18.70 to remove the requirement to obtain an encroachment permit for a temporary sign. Councilmember Petso expressed concern with modifying other sections of the Code without researching what else they may apply to. Her understanding was a real estate office only needed to obtain one permit for all their signs. Mr. Karber answered that was open to interpretation; his interpretation was an encroachment permit would be required for each property but the permit would allow unlimited postings for that property. Councilmember Earling pointed out it was a challenge for real estate agents to determine each city's signage requirements. He commented Lake Forest Park requires agents to register 1 -3 signs for each open house and obtain stickers for the sign. Mukilteo requires registering the total number of agents in an office; Councilmember Earling commented the cost for his office would be approximately $280 per year. He said it may also be difficult to determine each city's boundaries. He supported an owner's right to sell their house and expressed concern with interfering with that process. He supported the amendment proposed by Councilmember Orvis. Councilmember Plunkett asked if a permit would be required for an owner selling his own house to place an open house sign at the corner. Mr. Karber answered, as the ordinance was currently drafted, any person could post one off - premises sign. The proposed amendment was "what is necessary to direct people to the premises," which was a difficult standard. Councilmember Plunkett asked if a permit would be required to erect two signs. Mr. Karber answered, as the ordinance was currently drafted, two off - premises signs would not be allowed. The consequences for posting two signs was possible enforcement action although the City provides enforcement on a complaint- initiated basis. Mr. Karber suggested the second sentence in subsection B3 be deleted if the Council accepted the amendment to first sentence: "Where separate rooms, office, or other portions of a building or structure are offered for sale or lease, a maximum of one (1) real estate sign shall be allowed for the entire structure, regardless of the number of rooms, offices, or other portions offered for sale or lease." He said the original intent of the second sentence was to prevent a multi - dwelling building erecting one sign for each unit. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTER 20.60 REGARDING THE REGULATION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: DELETE THE WORD COMMERCIAL FROM SECTION 20.60.065(A); REVISE THE FIRST SENTENCE IN 20.60.065(B)(3) TO READ, "THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF OFFICE PREMISES REAL ESTATE SIGNS ALLOWED PER PROPERTY SHALL BE ONLY WHAT IS NECESSARY TO DIRECT PEOPLE TO THE PREMISES; DELETE THE SECOND SENTENCE IN 20.60.065(B)(3); AND DELETE 20.60.065(D) IN ITS ENTIRETY. HE FURTHER MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO MAKE REVISIONS TO ECDC CHAPTER 18.70 FOR APPROVAL ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Petso supported the proposed changes but reiterated her concern with authorizing the City Attorney to make changes to ECDC Chapter 18.70 without the benefit of further review such as review by a Council committee. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 3 MOTION CARRIED. (The vote was 5 -1, Councilmember Petso opposed. Councilmember White was not present for the vote.) The ordinance approved is as follows: #3313 Sign ORDINANCE NO. 3313 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO SIGN Regulations REGULATIONS; REPEALING CERTAIN DEFINITIONS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 21 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC); REPEALING EXISTING ECDC CHAPTER 20.60; ADOPTING A NEW ECDC CHAPTER 20.60; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Les Bloom, 19026 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, asked if the Report on the General Fund and Other Selected Funds Financial Position for the Month of April 2000, approved as Item D on the Consent Agenda, was available to the public. Councilmember Earling provided Mr. Bloom with a copy. Mr. Bloom referred to the comments he made a few weeks ago regarding his military service, and said he was proud of his country and believed Edmonds was one of the best places to live in the United States or in the world. Next, Mr. Bloom reported that video tapes of Council meetings were no longer available at the library but could be purchased at City Hall. He referred to the information he provided to the Council at a previous meeting regarding the cost of government in Snohomish County, reiterating the cost of government in Snohomish County has increased 500% since 1986. He said he calculated he has paid nearly $250,000 in taxes during his 50 years in Edmonds. Council President Miller thanked Mr. Bloom for his service in the Army Air Corp as well as the service of other veterans. Funds Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled previous comments to the Council regarding Available - funds made available to Bellingham, Marysville and Auburn to address railroad crossing problems. He Railroad Crossing explained those funds were made available to improve the crossings to make them safer in light of higher Safety train speeds and increased traffic. He said double tracking would increase crossing problems in Edmonds. He asked if the City planned to apply for funds to increase the safety at railroad crossings and whether any of the crossings and potential problems at crossings had been identified in the Sound Transit EIS. Council President Miller recognized Boy Scout Troop 365 attending tonight's meeting for Citizenship in the Community. In response to Mr. Hertrich, Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde said the City was working with Sound Transit regarding the impacts of double tracking in Edmonds. She was unable to comment on the specifics. In response to Mr. Hertrich, Councilmember Earling said the Mayor's Office was likely researching the availability of funds to improve railroad crossings. Regarding potential improvements as a result of double tracking, Councilmember Earling said Sound Transit staff has been working with City staff to determine what type of upgrades could and should be made. He said in 1995 dollars, there was approximately $200 million for roadbed and safety crossing improvements on the 82 miles of Sound Transit track from Everett to Lakeview: He was unsure of the specific dollar allocation for the crossings in Edmonds but offered to provide that information. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 4 Arts 4. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ARTS COMMISSION AND PRESENTATION OF SCHOLARSHIP Commission RECIPIENTS Report & Scholarships Arts Commission Chair Edwina Baxter introduced members of the Arts Commission who were in the audience, Leigh -Ann Hafford, Kathy Archer, Erin Marsh, Julie Toothaker, and Joyeanna Chaudiere. Ms. Baxter reported the Arts Commission's accomplishments in 1999 included integration and coordination of many of the Arts Commission's programs allowing increased youth involvement, sponsorship and linking of the visual arts programs. She referred to the 5 -year strategic plan for the Arts Commission developed in 1997, explaining the plan, with annual revisions, was used as a compass for development and maintenance of their programs. She described major accomplishments in 1999 including sponsorship of seven free summer concerts in City Park, successfully obtaining sponsorship for four free Thursday family concerts at the Frances Anderson Center as well as ALS translation at each concert, the 10 annual Write on the Sound Writers' Conference, the first Youth Writing Contest, three concerts for the Winter Performing Arts Series including a free workshop for 75 students at Edmonds Woodway High School, and partnering with the library for the third year on the Best Book I ever Read Poster Contest. Ms. Baxter described completion of public art projects during 1999 such as "Fluid Motion" installed at Lynndale Skate Park, "Crane" by Steve Jensen selected for Hekinan, Japan's 50' anniversary in conjunction with the Sister City's Commission, "Cedar Dreams" by Benson Shaw was selected for the 5b and Main roundabout (funded via a gift from the Edmonds Arts Foundation), and the terrazzo floor by artists Hoggatt/Courtney installed in the lobby of the Public Safety Complex. She advised the Arts Commission continued its support of the Edmonds School District's Artists in Residence Program for elementary, middle and high school students and was recently awarded a certificate of appreciation at a district reception and school board meeting. Other accomplishments included installation of the new young artists display case in the Frances Anderson Center, continuation of scholarship awards to students pursuing higher education in the fields of literary and performing arts, expanding their mailing list of the quarterly Arts Bulletin to over 1,000, collaborating with local organizations to establish an annual arts gathering, producing the biannual promotional poster entitled "Gateway to the Puget Sound," and continued support of the local arts organizations via grants to promote their programs and increase their audience draw. Ms. Baxter thanked the many organizations and private sponsors who contributed to their program. She also thanked the Mayor and Council for their support during 1999 and over the past 25 years. She said the Arts Commission felt the City's strong commitment to the arts was an integral part of what made the Edmonds community unique. Arts Commissioner Kathy Archer explained the Arts Commission awards $3,000 annually to two or more individuals pursuing a secondary degree in literary or performing arts. The scholarships are funded by the activities of the Arts Commission throughout the year such as the Write on the Sound Writers' Conference and the Winter Performing Arts series. The scholarship committee was comprised of representatives of the City, selected Arts Commissioners and members of the local arts community. She reported three finalists were selected from the scholarship applicants whose qualifications and creative abilities met the eligibility requirements. She said the credentials and creative talents of the three recipients were so balanced that each would receive a scholarship of $1,000. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 5 Ms. Archer introduced this year's scholarship recipients, Julie Putnins, a senior at Meadowdale High School who plans to pursue a career in literary arts, David Kneeland, a senior at Meadowdale High School who plans to pursue a degree in music performance and audio technology; and Rachel Shields, a senior at Meadowdale High School who plans to pursue a career utilizing her literary talents. Ms. Putnins read a poem she wrote entitled, "Swept Away." Mr. Kneeland played a portion of a Brahms sonata for clarinet and piano. Ms. Shields read a portion of a personal essay. Councilmembers congratulated each scholarship recipient. Council President Miller thanked Arts Commission Chair Edwina Baxter and the Arts Commissioners for the gift they give to the City. Puget Sound 5. UPDATE OF THE REGION'S 1995 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN BY PUGET Regional Council — SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL Metropolitan ransponation Plan Kevin Murphy, Program Manager, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), provided an overview of the update to the 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). He distributed copies of the overheads for his presentation as well as a publication describing the PSRC and the update to the MTP. Mr. Murphy explained one of the major differences between the 2001 MTP and the 1995 MTP was a forecast horizon to 2030 in the 2001 MTP (only to 2020 in 1995). He said the updated MTP would address growing traffic concerns, economic vitality and growth management. He said the MTP update would incorporate everything that has been learned through cities and counties' GMA plans. Mr. Murphy explained a MTP was important as it linked local plans with each other as well as regional and State plans, identified state and local needs and solutions, matched expectations with resources, helped prioritize investments, ensured investments supported growth objectives, supported local plan implementation, and enabled local and State government as well as transit agencies to obtain State and Federal funding. He reviewed growth that would occur by 2030 such an increase in population to 4.7 million, 2 million households, and 2.5 million jobs. , Mr. Murphy described PSRC's analysis of various alternatives that might have an effect on the transportation system. Alternatives included updating the 1995 MTP with additional projects and programs adopted as part of local and regional efforts, current law revenue, MTP increased capacity, influencing the built environment, and influencing the pricing environment. He anticipated the draft EIS would include a more detailed version of current law revenue, the adopted MTP (the updated version of the 1995 MTP) and MTP Plus, which would be used to determine a preferred alternative. Mr. Murphy displayed and described MTP Full Plan needs for city streets, county roads, public transit, state ferries, and state highways that totaled $65.8 billion. In 1998, current law revenue was $50 billion, or approximately a $16 billion shortfall. As a result of I -695 and the elimination of MVET, approximately $9 billion was lost. He clarified if the same MTP was adopted (with no changes), the shortfall would be $25 billion. He pointed out there were many items not included in the current MTP such as solutions to 1 -405, 520, transit, etc., thus the need for an update to the MTP. He summarized the shortfall in 2030 would likely be much higher. Mr. Murphy displayed and described a planning and adoption timeline illustrating SEPA scoping that was done in September 1999, DEIS release and draft MTP available in August 2000, Draft FEIS and Final MTP available in November 2000, public hearing on MTP and EIS in December 2000, and adoption of 2001 MTP in March 2001. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 6 Councilmember Plunkett recalled several newspaper articles quoting Legislators, County Councilmembers, etc. in the Puget Sound area who expressed frustration that there was no coordinated transportation plan for the Puget Sound area. He questioned why these concerns were being expressed in view of the existence of PSRC. Mr. Murphy said one of the legitimate criticisms PSRC received on the 1995 MTP was the emphasis at the time on the HOV and transit system in the region. He said one of the intents of the updated MTP was to alleviate the misconception that there was no regional plan. Self- 6. UPDATE ON SELF - INSURANCE HEALTH BENEFIT FUND Insurance Health Benefit Human Resources Director Brent Hunter recalled last month's significant drop in the Self- Insurance Fund Health Benefit Fund led to the Council's request for a monthly update on the fund. He displayed a graph illustrating administrative costs, claims, premiums, and the fund's cash balance (reserve). He pointed out the fund reserve would be used to fund incurred but not reported claims if at any time in the future the City made a decision to cease to be self - insured. He explained if the City made a decision to stop being self - insured, there could be 1 -3 months in claims that the City would be responsible for paying. He said his short -term goal was to get the cash balance up to $250,000; when that was accomplished, he planned to ask the Council to make a decision whether to continue to be self - insured. Mr. Hunter said a more comprehensive report would be provided next month including trends in health insurance as well as trends in the City's health insurance plan. He pointed out April's claims were $108,000, down from $270,300 in March. He said the $117,000 cash reserve was somewhat misleading as there was $28,000 coming from Safeco for the stop loss insurance for one claim that exceeded the $40,000 specific loss limit (that claim is now approximately $78,000). 7. DISCUSSION OF ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE CONTRACT WITH MO 1NTLAKE Animal TERRACE ERRACE Services — Mountlake Assistant Police Chief Al Compaan said the Finance Committee had reviewed this issue. He explained Terrace in 1998 -1999, the City contracted to provide animal control services for Mountlake Terrace. Upon passage of I -695, Mountlake Terrace made a decision to suspend that contract which was done in January 2000. Mountlake Terrace has now requested the contract be reinstated effective June 1, 2000. Assistant Chief Compaan advised $23,050 was budgeted for 2000, assuming this contract would continue and the third Animal Control Officer position had been maintained. He said there was a good possibility that position would have been eliminated if Mountlake Terrace did not request the contract be renewed. He requested an additional appropriation of $9,750 through 2000. For Councilmember Orvis, Assistant Chief Compaan advised Mountlake Terrace would pay $2,150 per month. Councilmember Orvis inquired about revenue from parking tickets. Assistant Chief Compaan agreed parking tickets generated revenue and that was one reason the third Animal Control Officer position was retained pending Mountlake Terrace's decision. The Officer had been involved with animal control as well as parking enforcement in the downtown area. Councilmember Davis asked if parking enforcement in the downtown area would be effected. Assistant Chief Compaan advised without this position, the City would have less enforcement as there would be only two officers to do animal control and parking enforcement. By maintaining the third position and sharing it 50150 with Mountlake Terrace, the officer could devote some of his time to parking enforcement in Edmonds. Councilmember Davis observed it would increase parking enforcement. Assistant Chief Compaan agreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 7 COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN ADDENDUM FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE ANIMAL CONTROL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, CONDITIONAL ON APPROVAL FROM MOUNTLAKE TERRACE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PRESENTATION OF MILLENNIUM BADGE TO MAYOR HAAKENSON Assistant Police Chief Compaan presented a badge to Mayor Haakenson that he purchased when officers purchased badges in commemoration of the new millennium. Shoreline 8. WORK SESSION ON SHORELINE MASTER PLAN Paster Plan Planning Manager Rob Chave referred to City Attorney Michael Karber's memo attached to the materials as Exhibit 3. Mr. Chave explained for several years the City had been working on a new Shoreline Master Program to replace the Plan adopted over 20 years ago. Since the original Shoreline Master Program was adopted, various other plans have been adopted such as the Comprehensive Plan, the GMA and the Regional Transportation Plan. Further, the regulatory environment regarding shorelines has changed as well as changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He said these all have rendered the old Shoreline Master Program woefully out -of -date. He explained when the Planning Board adopted its recommendation in 1997, it became apparent the Department of Ecology was changing its rules regarding what Shoreline Master Programs were to contain. He commented substantial revisions to the draft Shoreline Master Program would be necessary in view of recent changes to ESA. Mr. Chave explained that as the memo from Mr. Karber indicated, there were compelling reasons to move ahead with adoption of the Shoreline Master Program as an interim measure to put the City in a better response state to deal with new regulations. He said the City was at a point where it could no longer wait and must take some action on adoption of a Shoreline Master Program. He reiterated staff's recommendation was to adopt the draft Shoreline Master Program as an interim measure and revisit it in a short period of time. Mr. Chave commented the original draft recommended by the Planning Board was included in the packet as Exhibit 1. He said Exhibit 5 was an additional draft containing non - policy recommendations for changes based on comments provided by the Port of Edmonds after the Planning Board made its recommendation. Through meetings and correspondence, the list of issues raised by the Port were narrowed to six issues that staff feels were policy issues requiring resolution by the Council. He pointed out in some instances comments were withdrawn by the Port following consultation with staff. Responding to questions of Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Chave stated the existing zoning would remain and continue to govern zoning issues, the Shoreline Master Program contained additional requirements.. City Attorney Michael Karber said the shoreline environmental designations functioned much like zoning designations, but were another layer of regulation for areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Port could revisit their issues and concerns if the Council adopted the proposed Shoreline Master Program as an interim document. Mr. Karber answered yes. Councilmember Earling asked how the 4(d) rule would be incorporated into the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Karber explained staff's recommendation was to adopt the Shoreline Master Program as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 8 an interim regulation. He said a regulation adopted as an interim measure must be reviewed every six months. He anticipated the 4(d) rule would be issued within the first six month review period. Staff would then provide an assessment regarding how the interim Shoreline Master Program stacks up against the 4(d) rule and Council would need to determine a procedure to bring the interim document into compliance with the 4(d) rule. He anticipated significant revisions to the draft Shoreline Master Program would be necessary as a result of the 4(d) rule but felt it was futile to begin making changes until a final 4(d) rule was adopted by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Department of Ecology (DOE). Port Commissioner Bruce Farris, 23028 102 "d Place, Edmonds, said the Port had two major goals for this year, first to revisit and put in place a new Master Plan and a new strategic plan to develop a vision for what the Port will become over the next 1 -2 decades. Their second goal was to develop a relationship with the City to move forward with a common vision for the Port, community and region. He said the Port believes there were some elements of the Shoreline Master Program that were in conflict with the synergistic plans that would emerge over the next few months. He urged the Council to listen to and consider the Port's comments. Dennis Derrickson, David Evans and Associates, 1620 West Marine View Drive, Everett, said he was asked to review the City's Shoreline Master Program as part of the team updating the Port's plans. He briefly described his 28 years of experience with shoreline master planning. He observed the goals and policies of the proposed Shoreline Master Program did not reference or acknowledge the Legislature's 1995 mandate to integrate the Shoreline Master Programs with Growth Management plans. He said the platform for complying with ESA requirements was via integration of shoreline plans into GMA plans. He recommended that be acknowledged even in the interim plan. He said several of the specific policies in the revised Shoreline Master Program contained missed opportunities such as ensuring the Shoreline Master Program did not allow things that were inconsistent with City codes and implements, in a positive way, the City's Comprehensive Plan. He said the Shoreline Master Program should also promote good economic development. He recommended some of the key policies that were worded very negatively be worded more positively. Mr. Derrickson referred to policy references in the Shoreline Master Program to public access, recreation and conservation, pointing out there was no reference made to the Port as a potential partner in achieving better recreation opportunities, conservation and public access. He recommended the policies refer to the Port as a possible partner. He referred to the urban design element, suggesting the groundwork be laid regarding central waterfront mixed use development design guidelines. He said the City of Mukilteo adopted a new central waterfront mixed use zoning district including design guidelines that provide direction for development. Mr. Derrickson expressed concern with the use matrix and the prohibition on Port uses in the Urban Mixed Use II. He said it was unprecedented and inappropriate to refer to the Port in a use matrix as the Port was an entity not a use. He said certain Port uses could be prohibited in certain environments, but those uses should be specified. He urged the City to reconsider this prohibition. He recommended the parking provisions be revisited, pointing out that while it may be desirable to move parking as far from the shoreline edge as possible, there must be more flexibility than was provided in the draft Shoreline Master Program such as averaging, flexible setback standards, allowing parking in contained structures within the shoreline area, etc. Mr. Derrickson said although the City Attorney's suggestion to review the interim Shoreline Master Program every six months would be helpful, he said the City's focus appeared to be on ESA. He said the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 9 planning efforts should incorporate items from the 1994 Waterfront Plan into the Shoreline Master Program. Port of Edmonds Director Bill Toskey stressed nearly all the Port's uses would not be allowed today under the proposed Shoreline Master Program. He said his not commenting on staff's summaries did not necessarily mean he agreed with their comments. . Mr. Toskey reiterated the concern with prohibition of the Port in the Shoreline II areas, pointing out the Port was the only entity that was specifically excluded. He objected to the measuring point for setbacks for over -water structures, particularly for parking (60 feet). He said the Port has spent over $2 million in public funds constructing public walkways on the waterfront and believe the measuring point should be where public access is available because the purpose of setbacks was to allow public access to the water. He said requiring a 60 -foot setback, plus the walkway, would negate approximately half of their parking and therefore was a significant policy issue. Mr. Toskey also objected to the specific prohibition from operating any motors outside of a building. He explained most boats have motors and nearly every boat taken out of the water required the engine to be run briefly if for no other reason to clean out the saltwater. He said many of the Port's other concerns had been addressed in the annotated draft. Councilmember Plunkett said he did not want to minimize any of the Port's concerns but asked if the Port agreed with staff's interpretation that their concerns could be addressed even if the Council moved forward with adopting the Shoreline Master Program as an interim regulation. Mr. Toskey said it took 25 years to bring the last set of shoreline documents to this point. He said everything the Port does, now and in the future, would be regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. He said even if the Shoreline Master Program was revisited in six months, the Port must use it as their planning guideline during those six months. He reiterated everything the Port has, every building, every structure, every parking lot, would not be allowed under the proposed Shoreline Master Program if it were implemented without changes and therefore would have significant impacts on how the Port operated in the future. He said the Port's Master Plan would be the result of the community's collective ideas, approved by the Port Commission and forwarded to the City for approval. Mr. Derrickson said the Port was in the midst of their Master Plan and Strategic Plan and the Port's planning must be based on the existence of an emerging Shoreline Master Program. He said the City adopting an interim plan made it difficult for the Port to proceed with their planning when it was unknown whether the issues they raised would be addressed. He said many of the concerns expressed by the Port could be addressed fairly straightforwardly in the first version rather than waiting for a future revision. Councilmember Plunkett asked, if the adoption of the proposed Shoreline Master Program would have a serious detriment to the Port's operations. Mr. Toskey answered it could have. He said the Port would not exist as it did today if this plan had been in effect a number of years ago. He recommended the Shoreline Master Program be rewritten and offered to have the Port's consultant participate in that effort. Councilmember Plunkett observed that process could take 6 -12 months. Mr. Toskey said the Port's process would only be a matter of weeks. Councilmember Plunkett observed the Port was requesting more time but it was the City Attorney's opinion that time made the City more vulnerable.. Mr. Karber agreed. He said when the 4(d) rule took affect, it would place a prohibition on threatening endangered salmon or their habitat. That would have a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 10 drastic affect on any project proposed in shoreline environment. NMFS recognized that and has offered to create an exemption for cities. In order to meet the exemption, NMFS must review the regulations of each city to determine if they are adequately protective of salmon habitat. Once that determination was made, the city would qualify for the exemption. Although he agreed the Shoreline Master Program would require some changes, Mr. Karber said it was a better plan than was currently in effect as it was more protective and more consistent. He said the City was more likely to obtain the adequately protected determination from NMFS with the proposed Shoreline Master Program than with the Shoreline Master Program that is currently in place. Councilmember White asked how long after the 4(d) rule was adopted would NMFS be reviewing the City's Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Karber said the 4(d) rule was currently anticipated to take affect in late summer. The Tri -County group is seeking to have an agreement on what is adequately protected on the same day the 4(d) rule takes affect. Councilmember White said that assuming the 4(d) rule would be out in August still gave the City 2 -3 months to address the remaining issues. He said he had participated in numerous meetings over the past 1 -2 months with Port Commissioners, Port staff, City staff and Councilmembers. His understanding was the proposed Shoreline Master Program had evolved over may years and somehow was buried and now has re- emerged due to the urgency imposed by ESA. He said the problem was no one had been able to explain the basis for the policy decision in the proposed Shoreline Master Program. He said over 50 issues have been analyzed and reduced to six significant unresolved issues. He shared the Port's concern that the issues would not be resolved in six months, particularly since the Port was actively involved in establishing their plan for the future. He agreed it was impossible for the Port to plan for the future without knowing the rules that govern their plan. He understood there was some urgency to implement the Shoreline Master Program but said it was not as imminent as within the next month. He preferred to continue to discuss the issues and believed the majority of the issues could be resolved prior to adoption. Council President Miller noted Mr. Karber's recommendation was that time was of the essence and the City needed to adopt an interim Shoreline Master Program but he also recognized the Port's concerns. He said the Planning Board held public hearings and heard the same concerns from the Port and had tried to include the changes in the proposed Shoreline Master Program. He recalled the Planning Board voted 7 -0 to recommend adoption of the plan. He felt it would be a travesty to delay adoption in view of the Port's need to plan as well as the City's. He encouraged the Council to adopt the proposed Shoreline Master Program as an interim measure and work with the Port and staff to develop a permanent plan within the next six months. Councilmember White proposed a timeframe whereby the Shoreline Master Program would be adopted by the end of June. He pointed out the plan should have come to the Council years ago but nothing had been done with it for the past few years because it had been buried. He said the concerns raised by the Port have not been argued for two years, they had only been discussed for about a month. He said since the last meeting, twelve changes were made by staff to the Shoreline Master Program because they agreed with the Port's suggestions. He suggested the proposed plan be returned to the Council within the next month and staff and the Council continue to work to reach a reasonable conclusion. He acknowledged there may be issues that could not be resolved during that time frame. He questioned whether other Councilmembers knew the basis for the policy decisions made in the plan. He felt a month's delay would not harm the City and could enhance the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 11 Regarding the Planning Board's vote to recommend the proposed Shoreline Master Program, Councilmember White pointed out that none of the Planning Board members, with the exception of the Chair, Bruce Witenberg, were on the Planning Board at the time that recommendation was made. Councilmember Petso asked if the Council moved forward by scheduling a public hearing, whether the Council could make changes to the Shoreline Master Program or if the Council was tied to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Karber responded the Council could make changes now through the public hearing process. Councilmember Petso asked whether a major rewrite of the Shoreline Master Program would require another public hearing. Mr. Karber said if significant changes were made, he would recommend a second public hearing but minor changes could be made at the public hearing. For Mayor Haakenson, Mr. Chave explained staff was not comfortable making changes in the text regarding the six remaining issues without direction from the Council. He said it would be difficult for staff to make those changes without deviating from the Planning Board's recommendation. Mayor Haakenson inquired how Councilmember White proposed to resolve the issues. Councilmember White said the facts and information by which the Council could make a policy decision were not before the Council tonight. He suggested the issues be addressed one at a time at a work meeting. Councilmember Earling suggested scheduling a public hearing for June 27 and in the interim request Mayor Haakenson appoint a taskforce with a minimum of two Councilmembers to consider the policy issues and who could present a recommendation prior to or at the public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett recalled this was similar to the discussion regarding the parking garage and pointed out the effectiveness of a committee bringing information to the Council. He agreed the Council needed to be better informed regarding the issues. He found Mr. Toskey's indication that moving forward with the Shoreline Master Program would be detrimental to be a compelling reason to continue to work out the issues. Council President Miller said the action recommended by staff was to set a public hearing date. He said scheduling a public hearing for June 27 would allow five weeks for Councilmember White to continue working with Mr. Toskey and Mayor Haakenson on these issues. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 27, 2000, REGARDING THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM. IN THE INTERIM MAYOR HAAKENSON IS TO APPOINT A TASKFORCE OF PORT MEMBERS, STAFF OR ELECTED, WITH A MINIMUM OF TWO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AND A MAXIMUM OF THREE, AND THAT THEY WORK DILIGENTLY TO COME TO AGREEMENT ON THE ISSUES IN THE INTERIM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Responding to Mayor Haakenson, Councilmember Earling said an additional 1 -2 Councilmembers on the taskforce would provide a greater cross - section of views and lay the groundwork for potential resolution. Councilmember Petso suggested a written list of the Port's concerns and staff's response to their concerns be circulated to the Council. 9. MAYOR'S REPORT ja ouncil Mayor Haakenson announced there would not be a Council meeting on Tuesday, May 30 as it was the eting 3 0 on fifth Tuesday of the month. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 12 Town Mayor Haakenson advised a Town Meeting was scheduled for Saturday, June 10, at 9:00 a.m. at the Meeting - Edmonds Theater to provide a budget presentation. He said the budget would be the same as presented June 10 to the Council with some adjustments made as a result of revenues received via the State Legislature's action. He sought citizens' input regarding how they wanted priorities established, departments they favored over others, how to fund the library in the future, and whether a police or Ere levy lid lift was preferred over a library levy lid lift. 10. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS Memorial Council President Miller announced there will be a Memorial Day Service at the Edmonds Cemetery on Day Service on May 29 Monday, May 29 at 11:00 a.m. He reiterated there would be no Council meeting on Tuesday, May 30 as it was the fifth Tuesday. Excused COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO Absence EXCUSE COUNCII:MEMBER DAVIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER FROM THE MAY 16 COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. (The vote was 5 -0 -2, Council President Miller and Councilmember Davis abstained.) Alliance for Councilmember Plunkett reported the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development (EAED) had Economic created an initial list of issues it was interested in becoming involved in and planned to create a Development permanent objective /goal list in the future. He said these issues included: • parking (quality, location, financing, and code requirements) • building codes (modernizing the codes, alter designs and the review process) • lighting • banners and a directory for downtown businesses • more marketing of downtown • expanding and improving events and festivals • supporting the multimodal project • facilitating quality development of the Unocal property • development at Harbor Square • developing destination tourist activities in the City • future development of the Christian College property • developing a Fine Arts Center • optimizing the impact of commuter trains • future development of other waterfront properties such as the Port, private property and the Unocal site He encouraged the public to provide input on these issues. Health Councilmember Orvis reported the Snohomish County Health Board would be considering a hand District washing policy, an important tool for keeping restaurants safe. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. G RY H ENSOf�, f1AY0R S/1NDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 23, 2000 Page 13 I J AGENDA Y _ EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00-- 10:00 p.m. MAY 23, 2000 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 MAY 16, 2000 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35961 THROUGH #41153 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 15, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $474,198.82. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #30002 THROUGH #28140 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1 THROUGH MAY 15, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $440,834.00. (D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2000 (E) AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE TEAMSTER'S LOCAL UNION NO. 763 CONTRACT WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR A NEW PAY GRADE `F' FOR THE STREET MAINTENANCE WORKER I POSITION (F) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTER 20.60 REGARDING THE REGULATION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 4. (30 Min.) ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ARTS COMMISSION AND PRESENTATION OF SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS 5. (30 Min.) UPDATE OF THE REGION'S 1995 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN BY PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL 6. ( 5 Min.) UPDATE ON HEALTH INSURANCE HEALTH BENEFIT FUND 7. (10 Min.) DISCUSSION OF ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 8. (45 Min.) WORK SESSION ON SHORELINE MASTER PLAN 9. ( 5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 10. (15 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS /UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel.46 Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday at noon and 7: 00 p.m., as well as Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46.