Loading...
06/27/2000 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES JUNE 279 2000 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tern Tom Miller in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED .OFFICIALS PRESENT Thomas A. Miller, Mayor Pro Tern Jim White, Council President Pro Tern Dave Earling, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Kevin Taylor, Assistant Fire Chief Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Rob Chave, Planning Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Doug Farmen, Asst. Admin. Services Director Doug Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Michael Karber, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Change to COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO ADD Agenda "AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN DONATION AGREEMENT AND REVOCABLE LICENSE WITH THE EDMONDS -SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR THE DONATION OF THE RESTORATION OF THE GANAHL - HANLEY LOG CABIN AS A GIFT TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS" AS AGENDA ITEM 3B. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED, MAYOR PRO TEM MILLER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE ON ITEM B. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 1 1 (A) ROLL CALL Approve 6/20 (g) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 2000 Minutes Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35975 THROUGH #42017 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim JUNE 19, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $330,622.84. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS Checks #30260 THROUGH #30390 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $443,638.69 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 1 1 era] (D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL d POSITION FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2000 et ace (E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2000 STREET SURFACE Treatment TREATMENT PROGRAM Olympic View Dr. (F) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Retaining Wall RETAINING WALL uto. First (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AUTOMATIC FIRST RESPONSE AND Response/ AUTOMATIC ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT Assistance Quit Claim (H) ACCEPTANCE OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED AT 8028 - 234TH STREET SW FROM JOHN J. Deed -8028 REDFORD 234" St. SW eso #983 (I) RESOLUTION NO. 983 ADOPTING A SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION 6 -Year TIP IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND DIRECTING THE SAME TO BE FILED WITH THE STATE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD Reso #984 (J) RESOLUTION NO. 984 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO THE INTERAGENCY Application COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION (IAC) FOR WASHINGTON WILDLIFE for IAC Grant AND RECREATION PROGRAM (WWRC) GRANT FUNDS TO ACQUIRE MARINA BEACH PARK 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS sta Del Elaine Hamner -Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, asked whether the final plat hearing for Mar Final Vista Del Mar had been held at the last Council meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Miller asked staff to speak lat with Ms. Hamner -Yard. Donation 3B. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN DONATION AGREEMENT AND REVOCABLE Agreement — LICENSE WITH THE EDMONDS -SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY Restoration FOR THE DONATION OF THE RESTORATION OF THE GANAHL- HANLEY LOG CABIN AS of Log Cabin A GIFT TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS Councilmember Davis indicated he would abstain from the vote, as he was a member of the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN DONATION AGREEMENT AND REVOCABLE LICENSE WITH THE EDMONDS -SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR THE DONATION OF THE RESTORATION OF THE GANAHL - HANLEY LOG CABIN AS A GIFT TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS ABSTAINED. Update - 4. UPDATE BY THE GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING THE Chamber of STATE OF THE CHAMBER AND THE TASTE OF EDMONDS Commerce Shari Nault, Executive Director, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, recognized several members of the Chamber of Commerce in the audience. She explained the Chamber was managed by a 19 member Board of Directors and had numerous committees including two new committees added this year, Events and Technology. She identified the Executive Committee members, Josephine Lloyd Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 2 (Frontier Bank), Chamber President; Jim Slater (Bank of Edmonds), First Vice President and Treasurer, and Chris Brevik (GTE). Ms. Nault explained the function of the Chamber was to support the downtown and waterfront business community. This fall, they plan to expand to Perrinville, Westgate and Hwy. 99. She said their membership services include professional development, networking, business referrals, visitor and consumer information, member -to- member products, services and discounts as well as health and life insurance. Other membership services include communication such as the newsletter, resources guide, business directory, website and calendar of events, coordinating promotional events and a business retention and visitation survey in coordination with Snohomish County Economic Development Council. Ms. Nault explained the Chamber obtains approximately 40% of their funding from membership and 56% from the Taste of Edmonds. The Chamber's entire annual budget for staff, rent, materials, programs and fireworks is approximately $125,000. She said the Taste was important not only to the Chamber but also to the community at large as an economic generator (the Taste brings in approximately 75,000 — 100,000 visitors to the City). Ms. Nault said this year's retreat identified three issues the Chamber needed to focus on, 1) building a stronger relationship with the City, 2) activating neighborhood businesses and determine the Chamber's role in economic development, and 3) examining the relevance of Chamber programs to businesses. Ms. Nault identified challenges for the Chamber that include a 2% shopping market share (according to HyattPalma), marginal market position due to unfocused brand image, seasonal nature of tourism, few destination attractions, limited visitor services or amenities, changing demographics, and a number of business districts without a shared vision. Ms. Nault said assets include a community with soul and involved citizens, great social capital, excellent merchants, a micro urban environment (symphony, theater, etc.), and traditional values. She listed events the Chamber was involved in such as the fireworks, information services, Christmas tree lighting festivities, children's Halloween party, a brochure highlighting attractions in Edmonds, and a calendar of events. Ms. Nault said advertising for the Taste includes advertisements on seven radio stations, television advertising, billboards and 50 newspaper press releases. She pointed out the Taste provides local civic organizations and clubs an opportunity to generate funds for their projects which also benefit the community. Mayor Pro Tem Miller expressed his appreciation for the work the Chamber does. D.A.R.E. Scholarship 5. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES TO THE DARE ROLE MODEL SCHOLARSHIP Recipients RECIPIENTS Edmonds Police Foundation Member and Chair of the Scholarship Committee Tom Snyder explained Edmonds Police Foundation honored the top two D.A.R.E. role models at Edmonds - Woodway High School for their dedication to leading a drug and alcohol free lifestyle. He said in making the selections, they considered scholastic ability, school activities and community services. Both recipients will receive $1,000 for their college education. He recognized the efforts of the Edmonds Police Department Youth Services Sergeant Debbie Smith, D.A.R.E. Officer Bob Barker, and Crime Prevention Officer Robin Heslop. _ Mr. Snyder explained 11 applications were submitted which were screened to 5 candidates. The committee interviewed the 5 candidates and made their selection. He introduced recipient Jennette Blair Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 3 and described her school and community activities. He said the motivation Ms. Blair expressed for being a D.A.R.E. role model was she was inspired by Sergeant Mike Blackburn when he brought the D.A.R.E. role models to her elementary school who spoke about staying alcohol and drug free. Mr. Snyder presented Ms. Blair with a certificate from the Edmonds Police Foundation. Ms. Blair introduced her parents, Rena and Tim Blair, remarking they had had quite an influence on her life. Mr. Snyder introduced scholarship recipient Kristin Hepler and described her school and community activities. Ms. Hepler's motivation for being a D.A.R.E. role model was to be a positive influence on sixth graders and the importance of grade school students seeing high school students having fun and being successful without using drugs. Ms. Hepler introduced her parents, Pat and Barb Hepler, and said the experience of being a D.A.R.E. role model meant a great deal to her. Mayor Pro Tem Miller recognized the important role models the recipients' parents had provided. Councilmembers each congratulated Ms. Hepler and Ms. Blair. Shoreline 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A NEW Master SHORELINES MASTER PROGRAM REPLACING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Program CODE CHAPTERS 15.35 THROUGH 15.39. THE SHORELINES MASTER PROGRAM REGULATES USES IN EDMONDS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE SHORELINES MANAGEMENT ACT. SHORELINE USES ARE GENERALLY WITHIN 200 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATERMARK OF SIGNIFICANT WATER BODIES SUCH AS PUGET SOUND AND LAKE BALLINGER Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the process of amending the City's Shoreline Master Program began in 1994 and culminated in a recommendation from the Planning Board in 1997. During that period, the regulatory environment changed, including new state shoreline regulations as well as federal ESA regulations. The City Attorney recommended the City proceed with the current revised version of the Shoreline Master Program, understanding that further amendments would be necessary within the next 6 months to 2 years. The City Attorney indicated the proposed Shoreline Master Program put the City on better footing than the existing 25 -year old Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Chave summarized if the City did nothing, it would be at higher risk under the existing Shoreline Master Program than adopting the proposed Shoreline Master Program because it was closer to adhering to the new standards. The Planning Board recommended the City Council proceed with adopting the proposed Shoreline Master Program. Staff has been working with the Port of Edmonds as well as members of the original advisory committee to resolve outstanding issues. He referred to the first policy issue, height of structures, explaining the Port had some concern that the current height limits in the Zoning Code and current draft of the Shoreline Master Program did not consider future situations where they may be able to have higher structures if adjacent to a multimodal facility. Staff feels that although this may arise in the future, they were opposed to guessing what those circumstances would be and did not recommend a change. He said the Port was also willing to wait although they were not satisfied with the height limits. Regarding the second issue, boat motor /engine repair in the Port area (Mixed -Use I designation), the Port indicates incidental motor repair occurs in that area and they want assurance it could continue. Staff was concerned that larger repairs should be buffered and inside a building. He stressed the intent was not to regulate individual boat owners from performing incidental boat repairs. Regarding the third policy issue, Mr. Chave said the Port expressed concern that reconstruction of existing buildings in the Mixed -Use I area (i.e. Anthony's) may not meet the setbacks and the building would be required to be relocated further from the water. Staff felt this was a policy consideration; the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 4 15 -foot setback was intended to provide more open space and move buildings from the immediate water's edge. He said staff did not object to maintaining the existing buildings but if reconstruction occurred, there should be an opportunity to move the building 15 feet from the waterline. Mr. Chave said these three issues were the only issues that the taskforce did not reach agreement on. He said other recommended changes from the taskforce were minor and did not change the overall intent/direction of the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Chave acknowledged the work of former Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson in developing the draft Shoreline Master Program. Mayor Pro Tern Miller opened the public participation portion of the hearing and City Attorney Michael Karber explained the procedures including the 3- minute time limit. Bill Toskey, Director of the Port of Edmonds, 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, said he was the only remaining member of the original 30+ people who met in September 1994 to revise the Shoreline Master Program. He responded to a misconception that the Port's interest in these issues related to additional revenue, stating that since 1992, when the elimination of all tax subsidies of Port activities was completed, the Port has spent approximately $2.5 million on revenue generating projects, $50 million replacing equipment and facilities damaged in a snowstorm, $1 million for environmental projects in addition to those required by state and federal law, and $6 million on public access and improvements. He said during that time, the Port collected approximately $3 million in taxes, illustrating the Port provided significantly more in public amenities/benefits than taxes provided. He said the primary motive of actions taken over the past six years had been to make more efficient use of the land between the water and the railroad for public benefit, not necessarily to generate revenue. Mr. Toskey said the Port was in the process of developing a Master Plan, most of which includes plans for additional public amenities, not necessarily to generate revenue. Regarding the policy issues identified by staff, Mr. Toskey said the Port wants to retain the ability to rebuild buildings in their current location as it was in the public's best interest to rebuild them in the same general location. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, was concerned with the conservation and preservation of the waterfront for public use. He expressed concern with the Port's late participation in developing the Shoreline Master Program. He objected to increased building heights and adjustment of setbacks. He quoted from a 1997 Port meeting, sating this was an indication of what the Port might have in mind for development of a marina in Edmonds, "Mr. Toskey advised we have the opportunity to investigate a possible off -shore marina north of the fishing pier which would be a deep water marina accessible by a ferry or some other method." Mr. Hertrich said the citizens needed protection and limitation. He said the political process has placed a great deal of pressure on staff. Although he commended the efforts of the taskforce, he objected to the committee process because the public had not had an opportunity to review the revised Shoreline Master Program. He said normally the Planning Board would review the revisions and forward a recommendation to Council but in this instance, the revisions were made without public participation. He recommended the Shoreline Master Program be circulated to the public for further review. Harry Spicer, 200 Beach Place, Edmonds, said he reviewed the Shoreline Master Program today and said his understanding was the Port wanted the ability to store rowboats and kayaks between the fishing pier and the ferry. He opposed moorage of rowboats and kayaks in the area north of the fishing dock as many Edmonds beaches were marine sanctuaries and any increased activity would be detrimental to marine life. Further, boat moorage from Olympic Beach and Brackett's Landing South would be incompatible with the use of the beach by families. This use could also lead to increased use by the Port Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 5 in coming years. He urged the Council to oppose boat moorage and maintain the beaches in as natural a state as possible. Grady Handseth, 14204 64" Avenue W, Edmonds, asked how the revisions would impact single family homeowners and said that any changes that would affect single family homeowners should be carefully considered due to the unique shoreline location and railroad tracks. Due to the problems the railroad creates, he said the provisions that allow residents to make repairs due to slides, etc. could not be eliminated without causing serious damage to those properties. He commented on the lack of notification to property owners regarding the changes to the Shoreline Master Program and his expectation that information regarding the proposed changes would be provided tonight. He summarized the City needed to involve the public if there were changes being made that would impact single family homeowners. Bud Gold, owner of Anthony's restaurants, said the restaurant in Edmonds had been rebuilt twice since 1982, once in 1982 when they established the restaurant and again ten years later following a fire. In 1992, the building was expanded and a second restaurant, The Beach Cafe, added. He said the Anthony's building was constructed to the property line and the outside dining area was over the water, with walking space outside the restaurant. He urged the Council to allow them to rebuild their building in the same footprint. Elaine Hamner -Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, asked how the Shoreline Master Program would be enforced and how strong enforcement would be for single family residents. She said her property extends to the railroad tracks and she has found enforcement to be minimal or non - existent. Sam Fleton, 8415 Talbot Road, Edmonds, a scientist at the University of Washington School of Fisheries, asked whether the Shoreline Master Program would increase the potential of the hatchery. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Pro Tem. Miller closed the public participation portion of the hearing. In response to the concern regarding rowboat and kayak moorage, Mr. Chave said the Port was interested in stacked storage of kayaks and other small boats in the Mixed -Use II area which includes the area north and south of the Port. Although discussion regarding that issue occurred, no change was recommended as that use was not currently proposed and could be considered in the future. He said stacked storage of kayaks was currently prohibited in the Mixed -Use II area. Regarding moorage, he read from the Shoreline Master Program, "moorage structures and facilities located in the Urban Mixed -Use II Shoreline Environment may not be located waterward of public parks, public beaches or public facilities, nor may they be located so as to obstruct waterward views from these public uses." He said any moorage that would occur in the future would be extremely sensitively located so as not to obstruct views. Mr. Chave referred to the question regarding the impact on single - family property owners, and said he did not anticipate single - family property owners would notice any difference on their property as a result of these changes. He said it was more likely residents would see changes as a result of ESA regulations. He explained most items targeted in the Shoreline Master Program were protection of public areas and urban type uses. With regard to enforcement, he said enforcement would occur on a complaint basis only and the Shoreline Master Program would not change that other than the regulations could potentially have more "teeth" because they were more specific. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Chave said the hatchery was not within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program (within 200 feet of the shoreline) and therefore was not addressed. He said the Shoreline Master Program, which was intended to protect the shoreline and the natural environment, would likely be beneficial to the hatchery. Regarding the setbacks, if the 15 -foot shoreline setback regulation or 60 -foot parking regulation was changed, the setbacks would still exist in the Commercial - Waterfront (CW) zone and would still apply to those properties. If the Council wanted to change the setback, a change to the Zoning Code would also be necessary. Council President Pro Tem White asked whether the area north of the current building that houses Anthony's could be exempted from the setback. Mr. Karber answered the Shoreline Master Program was an overlay of the zoning and the stricter regulation applied. If the Council wanted to exempt a specific area, the Zoning Code would also need to be amended. He cautioned the Council could not spot zone a particular area, establishing a zero setback in one area and a 15 -foot setback in another area. He said it would be possible to amend the setback in the CW zone to zero in the Zoning Code and Shoreline Master Program, which would' then apply to all properties in the CW zone. Mr. Chave referred to the non - conforming provisions in the Shoreline Master Program that state, "if the non - conforming development is damaged to an extent not exceeding 75% replacement cost of the original structure, it may be reconstructed in the same configuration." For example, if Anthony's was demolished, the revised setback would apply. Any change to the percentage of the replacement cost would apply to all properties within the shoreline jurisdiction. Councilmember Earling asked Mr. Karber to address adopting the Shoreline Master Program as an interim ordinance as a short-term solution to a long -term issue. He also asked how long it would be until a final Shoreline Master Program was developed. Mr. Karber said the Department of Ecology (DOE) indicated the new Shoreline rules would not change the status quo a great deal. The public would be able to retain, maintain and rebuild existing structures. However, the rules would impact new development and require significant changes to projects proposed in the shoreline. He explained the draft Shoreline Management rules issued by DOE would likely be finalized in approximately 90 days. DOE has provided two options for compliance, options A and B. Option B was a very prescribed set of regulations that were stricter than the. City was considering adopting, addressing setbacks, heights, limitations on bulkheads, etc. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed those regulations and determined agencies that adopt Option B would,be in compliance with the requirements of ESA and the take limitations would apply. Option A was more flexible, allowing each jurisdiction to negotiate the terms of its own program with DOE but they would be "on their own" with NMFS. He said selecting Option A or B was a policy decision for the Council; both options and the issues associated with each would be presented to the Council in the future. If the Council selected Option A, it could be up to a two -year process. He said selecting Option B may be a quicker process although there may also be difficult issues to address in Option B. Mr. Karber recommended adoption of the proposed Shoreline Master Program because it was more protective of the environment, more consistent with existing regulations as it was developed with the current Zoning Code whereas the previous Shoreline Master Program was developed prior to the existing Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. He said staff would find the proposed Shoreline Master Program easier to understand and apply. He explained the 4(d) rule and the take limitation would be effective in December. NMFS indicated it would not take active enforcement action but would look to the jurisdiction's regulations to determine what, if any, action NMFS should take. The City would be in a stronger, legal position to defend compliance with the proposed Shoreline Master Program than the. previous Plan. He emphasized DOE and NMFS could not expect jurisdictions to have the financial or Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 7 technical ability to come into immediate compliance with the 4(d) rule, thus the proposed Shoreline Master Program would be an interim measure to show a good faith effort toward compliance. For Councilmember Earling, Mr. Karber said Option B would take approximately 6 -9 months. He explained Option B was fairly well defined and left little room for policy choices, making a great deal of review unnecessary as the City must either accept the policies in Option B or reject them. He said Option A would identify the goals and policies to be accomplished and require the City to develop the studies and technical basis for the buffers, etc. and demonstrate their defensibility to DOE and NMFS. He said a jurisdiction generally had two years from the time of adoption of new shoreline rules to bring its code into compliance. Realistically, the process for Option A could take longer than two years. Mr. Chave said the two years would begin in September. Councilmember Davis inquired about the consequences of the City not taking action to comply with the new shoreline rules. Mr. Karber answered any activity that was alleged to threaten or harm a threatened species or critical habitat could result in damages. He explained the ESA may be enforced by DOE and NMFS as well as by local citizens. He said the value of complying with the 4(d) rule was it recognized that many activities may be alleged to be a threat under certain circumstances, but if a jurisdiction adopted common sense regulations, NMFS was willing to exempt them from the ESA. Mr. Chave said having federal agencies support the City's Shoreline Master Program was a better situation than defending each regulation/land use decision one at a time. As an example, Mr. Karber explained one of the exemptions in the 4(d) rule was highway construction and maintenance. If the City met that exemption by having regulations in place that were deemed to be adequately protective, the City's participation in road projects was exempted from compliance with ESA. If not, the Federal Highway Commission would be required to independently consult with NMFS on every road project that included a federal contribution. Councilmember Petso asked if the proposed Shoreline Master Program would allow an offshore marina. Mr. Chave answered not in the Mixed -Use II if such a marina blocked a view. It possibly could be allowed in Mixed -Use I if it met all environmental regulations. Councilmember Petso referred to the Mixed -Use I area in Meadowdale (Haines Wharf) and asked if the same restrictions regarding noise and allowable uses applied in that area. Mr. Chave referred to a table of shoreline environmental uses, pointing out the Haines Wharf was Mixed -Use H. Councilmember Petso pointed out that area was identified as Mixed -Use I on the map. Mr. Chave said this would be corrected to Mixed -Use II in the final version. Mr. Karber advised the proposal was to adopt the Shoreline Master Program as an interim ordinance which required staff to provide an update and work plan within six months. Council President Pro Tem White referred to page 39, paragraph 2C which states that "moorage structures and facilities located in the Urban Mixed -Use II Shoreline Environment may be located waterward of public parks, public beaches, or public facilities..." and asked what property was in that area that was not a public park, beach or facility other than the Ebbtide. Mr. Chave agreed there were primarily public facilities in that area and did not expect moorage facilities in that area. Councilmember Petso asked staff to address the concern regarding public notification to individual property owners on the waterfront. Mr. Chave said notification was provided during the initial process, when the Shoreline Master Program was drafted and the proposed Program was essentially the same. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 8 Councilmember Petso recalled Mr. Chave indicated large impacts to property owners from this plan were not anticipated. She asked staff to address the concern regarding the ability to regulate /alleviate damage caused by the railroad. Mr. Chave said that was a property matter that the Shoreline Master Program did not address. Councilmember Plunkett said citizens with questions /concerns, those who were not satisfied with notification and/or who wanted to participate would have an opportunity to participate in the upcoming process. Mr. Karber said because this was an interim ordinance, state law required staff to return every six months with an update and work plan, providing the public an opportunity to comment on their involvement in the process. Councilmember Earling asked what notification had been provided for the development of the initial Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Chave said for the initial Planning Board Hearings, all individual properties within the shoreline jurisdiction along the City's shoreline had been notified. The notification highlighted that the shoreline process was beginning and invited residents to contact the City to be involved in the process. He said the intent was to inform residents to contact the City if they wanted to be involved in or track the progress of the Program. Councilmember Earling requested as the public discussion began and the first public hearing was held, the same "blanket" notification be provided so that property owners would have an opportunity to determine whether they wanted to participate. Councilmember Davis said his understanding was that once this was approved, amending it would be more difficult. Mr. Karber agreed, once it was adopted as a final document. The proposal was to adopt the Shoreline Master Program on an interim basis and begin the process of considering new regulations including the public process, to ensure the Shoreline Master Program was in compliance with the new regulations. Once that process was complete, the ordinance would be adopted in final form. Mayor Pro Tern Miller remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Council President Pro Tem White pointed out there were two policy decisions, whether to refine the Shoreline Master Program over the next two years or adopt the federal regulations. He felt the two -year process was more advantageous to Edmonds and although it was an expensive process, it would create an appropriate document for Edmonds compared to adopting Option B. The only area of the Shoreline Master Program document he found fault with was the unique situation posed by the building that currently houses Anthony's Restaurant. He objected to creating a situation where that building, by economic necessity, must change the current footprint. He said the building was unique, the outside seating, the walkway and the ramp to the boats on the north side, the boat slings on the south side, parking on the east, and parking, walkway and guest moorage on the west. He said the setback was unique in that area because the seating area and the walkway to the north of the building were over water. The setback, as defined, occurs from the bulkhead where the water stops; if the building was demolished and rebuilt, it would have to move 15 feet south. Council President Pro Tern White reiterated the building was unique and an accommodation should be made for it. He said the option for the owner was to construct a smaller building, which would decrease revenue to the City and opportunities for the public. Councilmember Petso recalled there had been a certain amount of discontent and rumor regarding the zero setback issue. She asked if this issue arose at the Planning Board and how they intended to address it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 9 Councilmember Earling asked the taskforce members to respond regarding the three issues before the Council. Regarding the height issue, Council President Pro Tem White said there was disagreement between the entities and staff whether adjacent buildings should be allowed to be constructed to the height of a multimodal facility, overpass, etc. He said there was agreement from all three taskforce members regarding that issue. Regarding boat motor /engine repair, Council President Pro Tem White recalled one of the purposes of the taskforce was to provide a historical perspective on how some of the regulations were developed, however, no one could provide a historical perspective regarding this issue. He said the initial language stated boat motor /engine repair was permissible but only if conducted on dry land. He pointed out this would not allow repair of boats in the water. The Port proposed striking that language but the concern discussed at the taskforce meeting and assumed to be the initial concern was that not be an engine repair look on the waterfront. The language proposed by staff states boat motor /engine repair and service [is allowed] provided commercial boat/engine repair involving complete engine overhaul or rebuilding shall take place within a building or be screened from public view. He said there was consensus that the language proposed by staff was acceptable although there was still some controversy as the language referred only to commercial boat/engine repair. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Regarding the setback, Mayor Pro Tem Miller indicated he concurred with Council President Pro Tem White. Councilmember Davis said he did not agree regarding the setback, as he was concerned with setting a precedent. Council President Pro Tem White said he felt it would not set a precedent because it was a unique situation and no other similar situation existed in the City. Councilmember Earling asked if this was indeed a unique situation. Mr. Chave agreed there was only one instance as the language referred to Mixed -Use I thereby limiting it to the Port area, referred to existing uses, and referred to a 25 -foot walkway. Councilmember Earling asked what precedent could be set. Mr. Karber answered the precedent could be allowing a non - conforming building not to be in conformance when reconstructed and applying that to only one zone. He was concerned with the Shoreline Master Program's non - conforming regulations being different than the Zoning Code non- conforming regulations and would need to determine what changes would be necessary to support that change. Mr. Chave said it may apply to the existing Port Office as well. Councilmember Orvis supported maintaining Anthony's in its current location. Councilmember Davis said he was not opposed to Anthony's remaining in its current location but he was concerned with setting a precedent. If an exception was made for this particular building, Councilmember Petso asked whether a change would be necessary if the exception did not comply with federal requirements. Mr. Karber answered yes, explaining the new regulations require a setback/buffer from the ordinary high watermark thus there may be objections from the DOE. Council President Pro Tem White acknowledged that although the exception may not be acceptable to DOE, he did not want to preclude it as an option. Councilmember Davis indicated his concerns had been addressed and he would concur with Council President Pro Tem White regarding setbacks. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 10 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT ACCEPTS AS AN INTERIM MEASURE THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED WITH THE PROVISION TO INCORPORATE THE CHANGE IN MATRIX ITEM 3 AS DISCUSSED. Councilmember Earling asked if the Council needed to make a decision regarding Option A or B tonight. Mr. Karber answered no, that policy issue would be presented to the Council within the next 3 -6 months. Councilmember Earling asked if there was an estimate for pursuing either option. Mr. Chave said staff could survey other jurisdictions, utilize the experience developing the draft Shoreline Master Program and /or obtain estimates from federal or state organizations. Mr. Karber pointed out Option B would still require incorporating those standards into the Shoreline Master Program. He emphasized a decision regarding Option A or B was not necessary at this time. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUEST STAFF PROVIDE A COST ANALYSIS OF OPTION A AND OPTION B WITHIN 60 DAYS. Council President Pro Tern White recommended staff also indicate whether Option B would be workable. Councilmember Earling assumed there would also be an analysis of potential grant funds. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. PROPOSED ORDINANCES AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET ORDINANCE AND 2000 NON Amending REPRESENTED SALARY ORDINANCE he 2000 Budget and Non -Rep. Assistant Director of Administrative Services Doug Farmen proposed an amendment to two ordinances Salary adopted previously by the Council. The first would amend the overall 2000 budget; the City was Ordinance required by State law to amend the budget anytime it added to expenditure appropriations or interfund transfers were required. For cost efficiencies, the budget was amended twice a year and another amendment would be proposed in December. He said the amendment included various items that had been previously approved by the Council as well as several new items. He explained the largest was a $300,000 interfund transfer to the Council Contingency Fund of which $50,000 would be returned to the General Fund to fund expenditures that were previously requested and approved by the council. This would add another $554,000 to the City budget, bringing the total 2000 budget to $52,436,000. An amendment was also requested to the 2000 Non - Represented Employee Salary ordinance due to four reclassifications previously approved by the Council. Councilmember Petso asked for clarification of expenditures related to fire training classes. Mr. Farmen said this was a request by Fire Chief Tomberg to provide fire training classes. He said the expenses were reimbursed with revenues. Assistant Fire Chief Kevin Taylor explained the $1,200 was a State Trauma Grant that was required to be spent on EMS. He said other revenue was from Hazmat reimbursement and fees paid by other jurisdictions to attend training provided by the Edmonds Fire Department. Councilmember Petso asked what other items had not been previously approved by the Council. Mr. Farmen identified equipment and supply items in the Criminal Justice Fund (Item B in the ordinance) and the gift catalog (Item I in the ordinance). He said all other appropriations had been previously approved by the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 11 Councilmember Petso asked what the approximately $50,000 in additional revenue to the General Fund was attributed to. Mr. Farmen answered approximately $20,000 in fire training revenues, $30,000 from the Council Contingency Fund to fund sanicans, youth playfields and acting Battalion Chiefs. Ord #3315 — COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR Amending APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3315, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, Budget for WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000, AMENDING Fiscal Year ORDINANCE NO. 3284 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND 000 EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, FOR Ord #3316 — APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3316, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, Salary Amending WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3285, EXHIBIT A, TO CONFIRM POSITION Ordinance RECLASSIFICATIONS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Self- 8. UPDATE ON SELF - INSURANCE HEALTH BENEFIT FUND Insurance Health Benefit Human Resources Director Brent Hunter displayed a chart illustrating the revenue, claims, balance, stop Fund loss, and administrative fees for the Self- Insurance Health Fund. He noted the fund was improving slightly, pointing out claims decreased considerably last month and remained low this month. He said the cash balance had also improved slightly to approximately $121,000 but should be approximately $250,000. Mr. Hunter displayed a comparison of average cost increases in national health care, commenting national focus on health insurance stabilized costs in the mid 1990's but increases were beginning to occur again. He pointed out health insurance costs were predicted to double by 2006. He explained the reason costs stabilized during the 1990's was due to cost . shifting to employees (co- payments /deductibles), plan redesign, self - funding, and managed care. The result was several years of cost stability, a shift in the health industry from small to large industry, and modest gains in delivery efficiency. Mr. Hunter explained costs are rising due to shifting demographics (aging workforce), industry consolidation, provider sophistication, cost shifting, improved access to care, prescription costs, and regulatory changes. He displayed a comparison of relative risk factor by age, commenting over half of Edmonds' workforce was over 40 years old. He explained the consultant estimated that cost increases in 2001 would range between 10.5% and 23.5% based on trends (based on the past eight months, costs were currently running 10% over budget). He summarized the worst case scenario would be a 23.5% rate increase to fund the self - insurance fund for the coming year. He said the General Fund was responsible for approximately 65% of the cost, or approximately $240,000 in addition to employee contributions. Mr. Hunter explained the plan runs through October therefore the Self- Insurance Committee plans to make a recommendation to the Council by next month. Options under consideration include requesting proposals from health insurance vendors, return to AWC (the reserve must be sufficient to cover residual claims, estimated at $250,000), continue self - insurance until January 2001 and then re- evaluate, reduce costs through benefit reduction, and partial self - insurance for dental /vision only. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 12 Mayor Pro Tern Miller suggested the Self- Insurance Committee also consider the possibility of joining with other self - insured entities such as the Edmonds School District or a neighboring city. Water, 9• UPDATE ON COMBINED WATER, SEWER AND STORMWATER UTILITY FUNDS Sewer, & Storm"' Assistant Director of Administrative Services Doug Farmen explained the fund was actually four Utility Funds separate utilities: water, sewer, storm drainage and treatment, but sewer and treatment were combined in this analysis. He said the purpose of the analysis was to separate each utility to ensure an accurate rate was being charged for operation, maintenance and infrastructure. He said when this information was presented to the Finance Committee on June 13, revenue assumptions for growth over the next five years were 2.5% for water, 2% for sewer and 1% for storm drainage. The FCSG study assumed revenue bond proceeds or the Public Works Trust Fund would be utilized to fund capital projects. Mr. Farmen displayed a graph illustrating the water utility cash balance, which was anticipated to decrease from approximately $1.8 million to $1.45 million over the. next five years. He said this indicates water rates would be, sufficient to maintain the operation, maintenance and capital need of the water utility. He displayed a graph illustrating the sewer utility cash balance which was anticipated to decrease to a $1.324 million deficit in 2005 due primarily to capital needs and rates that are insufficient to cover those costs. He said when the last sewer study was done in 1997, it was estimated revenue bonds would be used to fund capital needs. Mr. Farmen displayed a graph illustrating the storm drainage utility cash balance (with and without ESA costs) which was anticipated to decrease to a $6 -$7 million deficit in 2005. He said cost increases for storm drainage were due to ESA costs and capital needs. He summarized all three utilities were projected to decrease in the near future and if the City was unable to cover its expenditures, the City's bond rating could be lowered. Therefore it was important the City recover costs with rates. Public Works Director Noel Miller said staff was pleasantly surprised to see the water utility cash balance remaining substantially above zero because there have been significant price increases from Seattle and Alderwood Water District. He said the water utility fund cash balance did not decrease as much because the debt service for some water improvements had been retired. Regarding the sewer utility, he said rates would need to be increased before year -end in order to maintain the capital projects schedule. He referred to a memo from City Attorney Scott Snyder stating that increasing utility rates was in conflict with I -695. Mr. Snyder advised that although it was likely the appeal to Superior Court would be upheld, the City should delay an increase until the decision was issued this fall. Mr. Miller said the Finance staff was performing a utility rate study for stormwater including estimating how much rates would need to increase to fund the utility. Although some costs as a result of ESA had been included, he acknowledged the amount necessary was still unknown. More information regarding what would need to be done in 2001 and 2002 should be available by this fall. He advised rate increase information would be presented to the Finance Committee in August. Councilmember Petso asked whether rate increases would cover anticipated deficits. Mr. Miller answered the rate increases were based on the need to borrow funds so as not to deplete cash further. He said Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler would be the appropriate person to address that question. Councilmember Petso said it was also a legal question whether bondholders had a right, after purchasing the bond, to be invested in a utility that was meeting the coverage requirements. Councilmember Petso asked if the planned rate increases would be sufficient to satisfy the bond coverage requirements. Mr. Miller answered yes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 13 Councilmember Petso asked whether the utilities had their own emergency reserve. Mr. Farmen answered utilities were accounted for separately from General Fund expenditures but there were no reserves established specifically for the utility funds.. There was a bond debt service fund (413) that was established as a bond reserve for the debt service funds, fund 414 was for treatment plant capital expenditures and fund 412 was for utility capital construction fund. He said there was approximately $1 million per year in reserve capital funds. Councilmember Petso asked if there were funds available to address a catastrophic failure. Mr. Farmen answered yes. Mr. Miller pointed out the City was also part of an insurance pool that could assist with a catastrophic failure. Councilmember Petso referred to a FCSG memo that "strongly encourages the City to pursue this low cost funding source [Public Works Trust Fund money] aggressively for projects that may meet the qualifying criteria. Construction Loan Program applications for candidate projects are due in May." Councilmember Petso asked whether the City submitted an application. Mr. Miller advised his conversations with Olympic View Water and Sewer District indicated this was the second cycle of Public Works Trust Fund moneys and the City's chances to obtain any funding were small. Therefore, as the coming year would be the beginning of a 2 -year cycle, the City would apply its efforts there. Councilmember Petso said it was possible the applications for the coming year were due in May. Councilmember Orvis asked if consideration had been given to delaying some sewer projects. Mr. Miller said that was possible but the City assumed more risk for maintenance and operation and the increasing likelihood of a catastrophic failure. 10. MAYOR'S REPORT Next Council Mayor Pro Tern Miller announced that next week's Council Meeting had been canceled and the Meeting is following week would be committee meetings; therefore, the next regular Council meeting would be July 18 Tuesday, July 18. He wished everyone a happy 4`h of July. 11. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS sound Councilmember Earling advised he was in Washington DC last week for Sound Transit working on two Transit issues, 1) an appropriation request for 2001 for $105 million and 2) establishing a long term contract with the federal transit administration; Sound Transit's obligation was to fund $500 million for construction of light rail. Due to the Legislature's funding of some shortfalls that occurred as a result of I -695, Community Transit will review the opportunity to reinstate Saturday service as well as long -haul Community commuter runs from Stanwood. He commented the funding would not allow Community Transit to Transit reinstate Sunday service, only approximately 80% of the Saturday service. COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO Excused EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBERS MILLER AND EARLING FROM THE JUNE 20 MEETING. [Absence MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBERS MILLER AND EARLING ABSTAINED. Iffiman- Councilmember Orvis asked Mr. Hunter to address the information that the Comprehensive Human ources I Resources Committee requested at their last meeting. Mr. Hunter explained it was brought to the mince committee's attention that chiefs in other cities were paid a higher rate. This prompted the committee to consider pay rates on a systematic basis. The methodology compared the salaries of four cities with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 14 higher population and four cities with lower population. The cities were then ranked on the basis of their salaries and the City's rates compared to the fifth ranking city. He said this methodology indicated Edmonds Police Chief was at the bottom. He displayed a salary comparison for all non - represented positions, comparing Edmonds' rate to the fifth ranked city. He pointed out the comparison illustrated the rate for several positions was below the fifth ranked city. Councilmember Orvis commented if the City's rates were too low, it was difficult to retain as well as hire employees. He pointed out the difficulty in recruiting a chief from within the existing workforce because the employee would be required to take a pay cut. He said the Comprehensive ,Human Services Committee would be considering this issue next month. Councilmember Petso pointed out the importance of comparing benefits as well as salaries. She said the committee may also want to consider union salaries. Councilmember Petso said an involved citizen called her today to express his concerns and she encouraged any citizens to call- Councilmembers to voice their concerns. She said the citizen who called her wanted the Council to quit raising taxes, make improvements to streets and street safety, and be fair in permitting and zoning issues. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. GAPY HA NSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 27, 2000 Page 15 0 1 C AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. JUNE 27, 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 JUNE 20, 2000 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35975 THROUGH #42017 FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 19, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $330,622.84. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #30260 THROUGH #30390 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $443,638.69. (D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2000 (E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2000 STREET SURFACE TREATMENT PROGRAM (F) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE RETAINING WALL (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AUTOMATIC FIRST RESPONSE AND AUTOMATIC ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT (H) ACCEPTANCE OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED AT 8028 — 234" STREET SW FROM JOHN J. REDFORD (1) PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND DIRECTING THE SAME TO BE FILED WITH THE STATE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD (J) PROPOSED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION (IAC) FOR WASHINGTON WILDLIFE AND RECREATION PROGRAM (WWRC) GRANT FUNDS TO ACQUIRE MARINA BEACH PARK 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 4. (10 Min.) UPDATE BY THE GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING THE STATE OF THE CHAMBER AND THE TASTE OF EDMONDS 5. (10 Min.) PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES TO THE D.A.R.E. ROLE MODEL SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS 6. (60 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A NEW SHORELINES MASTER PROGRAM, REPLACING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 15.35 THROUGH 15.39. THE SHORELINES MASTER PROGRAM REGULATES USES IN EDMONDS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE SHORELINES MANAGEMENT ACT. SHORELINE USES ARE GENERALLY WITHIN 200 FEET FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATERMARK OF SIGNIFICANT WATER BODIES SUCH AS PUGET SOUND AND LAKE BALLINGER. 7. ( 5 Min.) PROPOSED ORDINANCES AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET ORDINANCE AND 2000 NON - REPRESENTED SALARY ORDINANCE Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JUNE 27, 2000 Page 2 of 2 8. (10 Min.) UPDATE ON SELF - INSURANCE HEALTH BENEFIT FUND 9. (15 Min.) UPDATE ON COMBINED WATER, SEWER AND STORMWATER UTILITY FUNDS 10. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 11. (15 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS /UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS 3arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advanc4 totice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46. Delayed telecast of this meeting appear he following Wednesday at noon and 7 :00 p.m., as well as Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46. 1