No preview available
11/16/2004 City CouncilNovember 16, 2004 Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an. Executive Session regarding labor negotiations, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5'h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Michael Plunkett, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember (arrived 7:10 p.m.) Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir. Noel. Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Scott James, Accountant Debra Sharp, Accounting Assistant Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council. Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.) CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 11i9iO4 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004. Minutes Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #75228 THROUGH #75356 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim NOVEMBER 8, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $242,954.05. Checks (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LAURA PEARSON Claim for (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND DEBRA APPLEBY ($1,718.79). Dania es Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 1 2005 Equipment Rental Rates (E) APPROVAL OF THE 2005 EQUIPMENT RENTAL RATES. Doubleday Intergovern- ental Con. (F) APPROVAL OF MIKE DOUBLEDAY INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT. rd# 3524 (G) ORDINANCE NO.3524 - FUND RENAME AND ELIMINATION ORDINANCE. and Rename &Elimination (H) APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE LABOR AGREEMENT WITH INTERNATIONAL Fire Labor ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS UNION LOCAL 1828 FOR 2005 — 2007. JAgreement Fire Engine (1) AUTHORIZE THE CITY TEAM TO CONTINUE THE FIRE ENGINE ACQUISITION Acquisition PROCESS. Res# 1074 (J) RESOLUTION NO. 1074 ADOPTING A REGIONAL NATURAL HAZARDS Natural Hazards MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS Mitigation (K) RESOLUTION NO. 1075 SETTING JANUARY 4, 2005, AS THE HEARING DATE FOR A Res# 1075 Request to REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF 8- AVENUE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY Vacate a DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO AND IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE PROPERTY Portion of 8°' ADDRESSED AS 808 DALEY STREET. (APPLICANTS: ROY AND SYLVIA ROBINSON Ave. N. AND JOHN AND LOIS RYAN / FILE NO. ST-04- 49) Public 3. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2005 BUDGET Hearing on 2005 Budget Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained Mayor Haakenson provided the 2005 preliminary budget on October 19; printed and on-line versions of the budget have been available since that date. On October 25, a budget overview was presented to the Council and community as part of the Council's budget workshop. A public hearing on the budget was held on November 1 with additional deliberation and discussion about the 2005 property tax levy on November 9. He summarized this public hearing was the final opportunity for the public to comment on budget proposals presented to date and an opportunity to review and comment on proposed Council amendments. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Don Kreiman, 24006 951h Place W, Edmonds, referred to amendments made to the budget — parking enforcement, Team Edmonds, Hwy. 99 and paperless packet — pointing out each of the amendments was an investment in the City. He explained the paperless packet was an opportunity for the public to receive exactly what the Council received with the exception of sensitive items. He noted the addition of parking enforcement, Team Edmonds, and the Hwy. 99 study would bring the City closer to its goals. He noted the only reason the City had the funds to invest in these programs was because of the good job Mayor Haakenson had done managing the City over the past year. He commented the City was on the right track and he encouraged the Council to adopt the budget. Ray Martin, 18704 941h Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed his annual protest of the "continuing economic snake oil policies of Mayor Haakenson and Council President Plunkett." He alleged that hundreds of thousands of dollars had been negligently wasted with no benefit to the taxpayers. He recalled in 1998 the Council had a policy to budget and build sidewalks where most needed; a policy he noted that has not been changed but had been ignored under the leadership of Mayor Haakenson and Council. President Plunkett. He noted 75th Avenue West north of 160`h Street SW had been at the top of the priority list since 1998. He commented if/when a serious injury occurred on 75th Avenue West, a factor of responsibility would be the neglect of Mayor Haakenson and Council. President Plunkett. Roger Hertrich,1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented the 2005 budget hid more than it showed via lumping costs together and not listing employee salaries and benefits by department. He relayed another Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 2 citizen's comments when asked if they were planning to speak regarding the budget that it made no sense to speak to the Council regarding the budget, a sentiment he agreed with. He pointed out Mayor Haakenson had developed a budget that the Council would not ask questions about and he was disappointed the Council did not ask questions. He noted all the expensive raises had already been provided last year, consequently it was easy to show a minimal increase this year. He suggested anyone interested in examining the budget review 2003 and 2004 expenditures. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. 4. 2005 BUDGET ADOPTION odd# 3524 AdCOUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR 200opt the 5 Budget APPROVAL OF THE 2005 BUDGET, ORDINANCE NO.3524. (Councilmember Wilson arrived at 7:10 p.m.) Councilmember Marin noted a number of questions had been asked during the budget process. He pointed out that a Councilmember participates on the budget committee, this year it was Councilmember Moore. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance reads as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2005, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Public 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS AMENDING THE Hearing on EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY REPEALING ECDC 20.15 B CRITICAL Draft AREAS AND ENACTING NEW CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS IN ECDC TITLE 23. Critical Areas Regulations Planning Manager Rob Chave introduced the City's consultant Tim Kinney, EDAW who introduced his colleague Kurt Brindle. Mr. Kinney explained that two public meetings and two Planning Board workshops had been held and this was the third time the issue had been discussed with the City Council. Mr. Kinney explained the Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates jurisdictions must update their Critical Areas Ordinance every seven years to protect human health and safety and protect functions of natural systems. G.MA requires the Critical Areas Ordinance incorporate Best Available Science (BAS) due to emphasis on anadromous fisheries. The update process is coordinated by the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED). Mr. Kinney explained critical areas were divided into five categories — wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (includes streams). He explained changes made as a result of the update including reorganizing the format, adhering to BAS principles, increasing wetland and stream buffer widths to provide greater flexibility, and minimizing the use of variances. He commented Edmonds was unique compared to other jurisdictions in Puget Sound as it was 96% built out; therefore, much of the density increases in future years would be via infill development and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. He noted the attempt to minimize the use of variances was an effort to reduce land owner frustration and City time as well as provide the City more flexibility to address site -specific issues. Mr. Kinney reviewed major changes in the update: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 3 Geologic hazards — now tied directly to building code restrictions, particularly in the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area. New reporting requirements, new 50-foot buffer that can be reduced with engineering or geotechnical report supporting reduction of the buffer. He explained geologic hazards were different than wetland or stream buffers because it was not for protection of a natural resource but protection of health and safety and was usually a geotechnical or engineering question. Wetland and Stream Buffers — The Department of Ecology (DOE) developed a new 4-tier wetland evaluation criteria, and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) changed their category system for streams from three tiers to four tiers. With regard to buffers, generally they were increased. For wetland buffers — Category 1 buffer increased from 100-feet to 200-feet and the Category 3 buffer increased from 25-feet to 35-feet (new Category 4). Similarly changes were made to stream categories — the existing Category 1 was 50-feet and the buffer for that category (Shorelines of the State) was increased to 150-feet. He noted Edmonds had no streams that met the Shorelines of the State classification. The buffer for remaining streams was increased from the 50 to 10 foot range in the existing code to 100 feet to 25 foot range in the proposed code. He noted the recommendations by CTED and DOE were for large buffers for streams, as high as 300 feet. The proposed regulations would also allow changes in the buffer; staff could work with a proponent to lower the buffer based on a report by a wetland or stream scientist to show validity for the buffer reduction and an enhancement plan based on science. ? Buffer averaging — Mr. Kinney explained this was intended to reduce the number of variances. He noted if an applicant was unable to acquire a buffer reduction via the code requirement for a report by a credible scientist that shows an enhancement plan could be done to reduce buffers that was neutral or enhances the value of the wetland, the applicant could apply for a variance that was reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. Wetland thresholds — if a wetland is below the established threshold, the Critical Areas Ordinance would not apply. The proposed threshold for Category 3 and 4 wetlands (the two lowest categories of wetland) is 500 square feet. Mr. Kinney displayed a comparison of wetland thresholds in several jurisdictions: Seattle — 100 square feet; Bellevue (proposed) — 2500 square feet; Renton — 2200 square feet (Cat. 2) and 5000 square feet (Cat. 3), Edgewood — 2500 (Cat. 2) and 10,000 square feet (Cat 4), and Kitsap County (proposed) — 3000 (Cat. 2) and 10,000 square feet (Cat 4). Mr. Kinney displayed a comparison of wetland buffers in other jurisdictions: Jurisdiction 1 11 111 IV Mukilteo (proposed) 160 100 75 50 Burien 200 100 50 30 Monroe 200 100 75 35 Edmonds (proposed) 200 100 50 35 Streams — some areas in. Edmonds have good riparian corridors, most are in public spaces, or ravines with dual critical area issues. There are also streams in Edmonds without riparian corridors. He displayed a photograph of a stream within 10 feet of a residence. He noted GMA does not allow jurisdictions just to do nothing because of an existing poor condition. GMA requires jurisdictions to look for opportunities to increase the function and value of those systems over time. To that end, a new implementation item was added — if a residence similar to the one depicted in the photograph proposes to increase the developed footprint on the property, a minor enhancement to the stream is also required with the goal of attaining some improvement over Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 4 time. He displayed a comparison of stream buffers in other jurisdictions — the proposed range in Edmonds is 150-25 feet, 250-75 in Mukilteo, 125-25 in Burien, 200-50 in Monroe. He displayed a conceptual buffer example illustrating existing and proposed buffers on an addition to an. existing structure and on a new structure. Application process — under the current code if an applicant could not meet the standard, a variance was required; the proposed code provides staff more flexibility via a BAS report. The proposed code also allows buffer averaging and buffer reduction options. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas — new category instituted by CTED and includes a number of resources including sensitive and endangered species. He noted this section also addresses streams. ? Miscellaneous Changes — a requirement was added for subdividable lots zoned RS-12 and RS- 20 to retain 30% of the native vegetation and/or landscaping with native vegetation to increase the habitat value. He acknowledged consideration was given to applying this requirement to all city lots but it was agreed retaining 30% of the native vegetation on smaller lots would be very difficult. ? Critical area notice on the title of property — Mr. Kinney noted this would only occur when property owners applied for a permit that required Critical Areas Ordinance review. Mr. Kinney pointed out the updated regulations also refer to improvements outside the Critical Areas Ordinance to protect critical areas. Edmonds is also updating its Comprehensive Plan; the inventory and mapping done in the Critical Areas Ordinance update will be applied to the Comprehensive Plan to determine lots in the City appropriate for density increases. Mr. Kinney described next steps in the Critical Areas Ordinance update including preparation of final revised code based on public hearing and input from the Council, eventual Council adoption of the updated Critical Areas Ordinance, and a SEPA addendum adding information to the 1996 EIS done on the Comprehensive Plan that will include information on the Critical Areas Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Kinney reviewed comments received with regard to the draft Ordinance including some who believed the buffers were too small and should be increased, others who believed the buffers were too large and too restrictive. The Thousand Friends of Washington and Pilchuck Audubon Society supported limiting the possibility for buffer reduction and buffer averaging. Pilchuck Audubon Society objected to the reduced wetland threshold size. Miscellaneous comments were receive regarding tree retention, increased enforcement fines, limiting pesticide and fertilizer use, and protecting a wider range of wildlife. Mr. Kinney reviewed comments made by DOE including a recommendation to use flexible buffer systems, allowing trails in the buffer, limiting stormwater facilities to the outer 25% of buffers, using the latest wetland rating system, limited use of buffer averaging in combination with buffer reduction, no wetland threshold, taking wetland forms out of the Critical Areas Ordinance, updating the inventory map to show areas that might be annexed in the future, and that the comparison to Burien and Kirkland Critical Areas Ordinances was not appropriate because the science had changed since those codes were adopted. He suggested adding the recommendation to limit stormwater facilities to the outer 25% of the buffer. Mr. Kinney noted there were two major comment letters from the State, from DOE and also from CTED who organizes and reviews the Critical Areas Ordinance update. He explained the City has met the requirements of the CTED review. CTED made several recommendations during the process, some that were adopted. He noted the CTED process was complete although it would be good to address the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 5 comments in the public record. He summarized there was no final approval process from CTED or DOE although either could appeal the SEPA. Councilmember Dawson referred to CTED's comment that the wetland and stream buffer widths were less than recommended by DOE and Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW). She asked how their recommended buffers compared to the proposed buffers. Mr. Kinney explained DOE and WDFW refer to a specific publication regarding buffer alternatives guidelines. He noted this allowed a range of buffers based on an overall rating of the wetland and then a subclass based on function for habitat and land use (low, moderate or high). Within each category was a range of buffers, for example the buffer on a Category 3 wetland could range from 150 feet down to 75 feet. DOE recommends a larger buffer for higher land uses. For example, a Category 3 wetland with a moderate level function, the recommended buffer for a low land use was 75 feet; and 150 feet for a high land use. He explained from a science standpoint, there was more input into a stream/wetland from stormwater, etc. so the higher level of land use supported protection of a wider area around the stream/wetland to preserve its functions. He pointed out this was difficult in a dense residential area such as Edmonds. Councilmember Dawson summarized it made sense from a science standpoint to have a larger buffer where there were higher land uses; however, it did not make sense in an urbanized/developed area. Mr. Kinney agreed, noting it was workable in areas where there were intact buffer widths; the difficulty in an area such as Edmonds was the impact those buffers would have on existing uses. Councilmember Dawson summarized the comments from CTED may reflect BAS but may not reflect an understanding of the 96% build -out of Edmonds. Mr. Kinney agreed, noting it was not CTED's responsibility to do the balancing, they considered only the science. The eventual code was a mix of science and policy. Councilmember Dawson summarized because Edmonds had a high land use, CTED's general recommendation was higher buffer widths. Mr. Kinney agreed. Councilmember Dawson asked whether BAS supported CTED's recommendation to allow stormwater facilities in the outer 25% of the buffer. Mr. Kinney answered that would be an appropriate accommodation. Kurt Brindle, EDAW, noted the CTED representative advised their response letter to Edmonds was the most favorable response letter they had written. He noted DOE did not look at the code in detail; for example DOE's letter referred to retention/detention facilities in buffers which the code specifically excludes. Councilmember Dawson referred to the wetland threshold and asked whether any cities were not exempting any size wetland. Mr. Brindle commented if the threshold was eliminated, one could argue that a puddle was a wetland. Mr. Kinney acknowledged that 500 feet was on the low end as compared to other jurisdictions. Councilmember Dawson asked whether any consideration was given to allowing offsite mitigation rather than onsite mitigation. Mr. Kinney answered the code does not require onsite compensatory mitigation; the code includes a section regarding mitigation sequencing that provides flexibility, from modifying a design to avoid impact to enhancement to compensatory mitigation which includes off -site mitigation. He noted the code states a preference for onsite mitigation but allows staff to identify offsite mitigation options if they would produce more valuable returns than onsite mitigation. The code suggests several areas in the city for enhancement possibilities. Mr. Chave recalled earlier drafts required mitigation be along the same stream but that was determined to be too restrictive as there may not be any mitigation opportunities in the area where the impacts occur. Mr. Kinney agreed, commenting the streams in Edmonds were very small and flowed directly to Puget Sound, limiting areas for mitigation. Councilmember Wilson commented DOE's approach would be great if a city were starting with a clean slate with no existing development but it was difficult to reconcile their comments in a built -out Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 6 environment such as Edmonds. He noted the application of DOE's guidelines appeared to require new development rectify the problems created by previous development in that area, placing a disproportionate burden on that lot. Mr. Kinney agreed some of DOE and CTED's recommendations were not practical in a built -out environment such as Edmonds. Although some streams would never be salmon -bearing streams, the habitat value and stream filtration properties could be enhanced by requiring redevelopment provide minor enhancements. He noted there were two ways of looking at enhancement, how it affected an individual property owner's resources versus the benefit to the community of preserving/improving natural resources. Mr. Kinney noted there are several specific locations suggested in the code where offsite mitigation could be done. Councilmember Wilson noted there were instances in the past where the City has allowed small, isolated wetlands to be mitigated by improvements to a larger wetland system offsite. He asked whether an overlay of the existing and proposed buffers on existing land uses was conducted. Mr. Kinney answered there was no lot -by -lot comparison. Applying a GIS layer to an overall map indicated the larger buffers were not appropriate. Mr. Kinney acknowledged larger buffers on streams and wetlands were the most desirable; however, in considering how this would be applied to existing land uses, reasonable policy decisions were necessary to achieve some enhancement. Councilmember Wilson stated although the City was required to update the Critical. Areas Ordinance every seven years, the City could make amendments more frequently. Mr. Kinney agreed it could be amended at any time; whether a SEPA review was required would depend on the change. Councilmember Wilson commented on the balancing act between protecting the natural environment with the GMA requirement to accept population and density requirements. He asked whether there was any analysis of the impact of increased buffers on the City's ability to meet the population and density goals. Mr. Chave advised that would be addressed in the SEPA analysis. The intent in the proposed code was a density neutral approach. Mr. Chave noted although DOE's letter references WDFW, individual comment letters were provided by WDFW and CTED that were more supportive and aware of the challenges Edmonds faced. He noted CTED's primary comment was that the City show its work. Mr. Kinney explained GMA requires the City meet density requirements. In areas with large lot zoning, the question arises whether that zoning is justified by critical areas and if not, consideration must be given to high density zoning. Mr. Chave commented that was being addressed in a Comprehensive Plan amendment_ Councilmember Wilson referred to DOE's comment that they did not find the comparison to Burien and Kirkland's Critical Areas Ordinances appropriate because the science had changed since those codes were adopted. He expressed interest in providing some degree of certainty but their statement that science has changed appears to indicate residents could not rely on today's determination as science may change in the future. He inquired about the likelihood of large swings in science in the future. Mr. Kinney answered he and his colleagues were not certain what DOE meant by that comment as there had not been any huge jumps in the scientific literature referenced by DOE, CTED, and WDFW. He surmised DOE may not have been happy with those jurisdictions codes. He noted DOE had a policy mandate to protect the natural resources of the State; therefore, their interest was in the most protective Critical Areas Ordinance possible and not in balancing. With regard to the progression of science and whether there could be a drastic change in how the Critical. Areas Ordinance was applied, Mr. Kinney explained the only reasonably foreseeable change would be the listing of a new species. In considering the species on the horizon to be listed, he noted there were few that could occur within Edmonds. It was also possible that a species could be delisted such as is being considered for the Bald Eagle. There could be science in the fixture that addresses stormwater issues. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 7 With regard to buffers, he noted there was a wealth of science now and it was not likely to change; if even larger buffers were recommended, the practicality of implementation in the City would still need to be addressed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the requirement to retain 30% native vegetation could include areas set aside for functions such as a stream buffer. Mr. Kinney answered yes, they did not need to be separate. For Councilmember Orvis Mr. Kinney advised the existing wetland threshold was 2500 square feet, the proposed threshold was 500 square feet. Councilmember Olson clarified if a property owner changed the footprint of their home, they may be required to enhance the buffer; if a person purchased a home, nothing would be required. Mr. Kinney agreed, there were no requirements if nothing was done on the property other than normal maintenance. A critical area review would only be triggered if the footprint of the building was increased and the footprint encroached into a wetland or stream buffer. Councilmember Olson asked how a purchaser would be notified. Mr. Kinney answered under the proposed ordinance, the only time notification would be provided on the title was if the previous property owner had taken an action that required Critical Areas Ordinance review in the past. He recalled some members of the public have indicated that the real estate disclosure form would address notification. He noted his research provided conflicting information whether the disclosure form addressed critical areas. City Attorney Scott Snyder commented this rule was consistent with State law; upon filing a completed building permit application, an applicant must meet any new codes. Councilmember Olson asked what happened if the City missed the December 1 deadline. Mr. Snyder advised CTED has indicated they will not seek sanctions against cities that do not meet the December 1 deadline if the city adopts a work plan and makes reasonable progress toward completing it within a reasonable period of time. He noted although that was CTED's position, the City could be sued by other parties. His advice was the City would be reasonably safe for 3-4 months as that was the period of time it would take to file an action in State court or with. GMA and schedule a hearing. Council President Plunkett asked whether Edmonds was unique as compared to other communities because it was built -out, had slopes, streams, an existing Critical Areas Ordinance, etc. Mr. Kinney agreed in his experience, Edmonds was unique. For Council President Plunkett, Mr. Kinney explained the BAS documentation jurisdictions prepare is an overview of the science based on resources in their community. In preparation for the Critical Areas Ordinance update, CTED developed guidelines for BAS documents and buffer recommendations. DOE and WDFW each have guidelines. Mr. Snyder explained if the City adopted the State's cookie -cutter approach based on the State agencies recommendations, the City would have the advantage of all the science the State has developed. As the City deviated from those recommendations, the burden was on the City to show why the City was unique including the science upon which the deviations were based and to show from a policy perspective why the city deviated. Mr. Chave concluded that was what the City's BAS report did; it used the State's and other standards from other cities to develop BAS that addressed Edmonds' unique situation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 8 Council President Plunkett relayed his understanding that the State standards were based on rural land versus urban land. Mr. Kinney disagreed; using a stream buffer as an example, he explained the assumption was that a native vegetation buffer existed and to reduce the buffer would have some consequence to the function and value of the stream. It did not address the situation when a stream in a residential neighborhood had no existing buffer. He agreed the State standards did not address all circumstances; it addressed a hypothetical, unaltered situation. Mr. Chave explained the State standards have several different approaches to buffers depending on the intensity of the uses; the problem was with applying that in a nearly built -out environment. Mr. Kinney concluded the State standards were not based on rural land uses. Council President Plunkett commented as long as the City used the State's standards, the City was in a defensible situation; if the City deviated, the City must establish its own BAS. Mr. Snyder agreed. Council. President Plunkett asked how close the existing Critical Areas Ordinance was to meeting the standard. Mr. Kinney answered not close, citing the low stream and wetland buffers, inflexibility, etc. Council President Plunkett asked whether the Planning Board and/or staff/consultant considered amending the existing code. Mr. Kinney answered their first impression was that the existing code was cumbersome and confusing and needed a major reorganization. Mr. Chave advised amending the existing code was discussed with the Planning Board early in the process. Mr. Snyder explained when the Critical Areas Ordinance was last adopted, the City did not make a significant effort to develop a scientific basis and relied to a great extent on what the State provided. If the Council wanted to readopt the existing code, a scientific basis would need to be developed including why it deviated from the State's standards. Council. President Plunkett asked whether a home that was accidentally destroyed would be grandfathered. Mr. Kinney answered if they were rebuilding to the existing footprint, a Critical Areas Ordinance review would not be triggered. If they increased the footprint, the process would be same as for an addition. Council President Plunkett asked whether the flexibility proposed in the ordinance was only with regard to buffers. Mr. Kinney answered it was in regard to buffers for wetlands and streams as well as some flexibility in mitigation and options for resolving geotechnical issues based on an engineering and geotechnical study. He noted the proposed code allowed flexibility if supported by appropriate reports and if not, the variance process was still available. Council President Plunkett commented on the lack of participation at the Planning Board and Council level. Although he was certain the City accomplished the legal notification, he questioned whether adequate notification was provided. He asked whether homeowners received a letter that notified of the Critical Areas Ordinance changes and whether the letter informed the homeowner that their property could be encumbered. Mr. Chave advised legal notice as well as display ads in the newspaper were used to notify the public; a citywide notice which costs $1.0,000 — $15,000 was not provided. He noted during the process extensive email and mailing lists have been developed that were used to notify of public meetings. The Critical Areas Ordinance update process has also been highlighted on the City's website. Specific notice was also provided to developers prior to the Planning Board hearing and information regarding the process has been provided at the counter. Council President Plunkett acknowledged the difficulty notifying property owners and inquired whether signs were used to notify the public. Mr. Chave answered since the action was not property specific, notice was provided at the library, post office, etc. but no signs were posted. He noted a specific notice regarding potential changes in zoning was provided to 800 properties in the northern part of the city and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 9 there was a mailing early in the process to approximately 900 property owners along streams. He concluded most people who would be impacted by the ordinance had been specifically notified. Council President Plunkett asked what the notification stated. Mr. Chave answered it indicated changes to the critical area regulations were coming and it was in their best interest to learn more about it, advertised the open house and informed them how they could be added to the mailing list to be informed of the process. Council President Plunkett asked whether the notification stated that their land could potentially be encumbered or recorded on title. Mr. Chave answered residents' property was already encumbered by the existing Critical Areas Ordinance. Council President Plunkett asked whether the mailing stated their land could be further encumbered. Mr. Chave answered no, because at that time the specific changes had yet to be determined. Councilmember Moore referred to CTED's recommendation that the City show its work, specifically with. regard to wetland buffers and asked whether that had been accomplished. Mr. Chave answered there were changes made to the BAS report including the addition of sections regarding the updated wetland and stream buffer widths. Councilmember Moore inquired about offsite mitigation. Mr. Kinney answered ideally it would be accomplished on public land; the code identifies several areas where mitigation could occur. Mr. Chave commented in one instance the offsite mitigation was accomplished on another property the resident owned. Councilmember Moore asked whether there were enough public offsite locations. Mr. Chave acknowledged there were limited opportunities for offsite mitigation within the City. Councilmember Moore asked for an example of the type of things staff could make a decision on to avoid the variance process used in the past. Mr. Chave answered the primary one would be working in buffers; currently if work was to occur within a buffer, a variance was automatically required. Under the proposed code, if enhancement could be accomplished within the buffer area as identified by a qualified report, construction within the buffer may be allowed to occur without a variance. Councilmember Marin referred to DOE's letter that states if the City decides to adopt a wetland buffer that is smaller than supported by BAS, the City should prepare and provide a written evaluation of the risk to the City's wetland resources that is likely to result from the proposed wetland buffer widths and the findings should be part of the adopting ordinance. He asked whether findings other than the difficulty balancing BAS and GMA density goals and the 96% build -out of the City would be required. Mr. Chave advised the SEPA documentation would enhance the justification for the deviation stated in the BAS report. He concluded the adopting ordinance would likely echo the BAS and SEPA documentation. Council President Plunkett asked the notification requirement for a person constructing a small development or making a significant land use change. Mr. Chave answered the notification requirement was typically property owners within 300 feet. Council President Plunkett asked whether it would be considered inadequate notice if a developer failed to notify property owners within 300 feet. Mr. Chave answered yes. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Warren Henderson, 1.8335 81" Avenue W, Edmonds, commented he had not seen any notices regarding the Critical Areas Ordinance update in either the Seattle .Times or Everett Herald and had been. alerted by his neighbor who indicated possibly their additional undeveloped lot could be affected. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 10 noted their property was not on a stream or slope and did not contain a wetland but was moderately treed. He asked whether a single lot not in a critical area would be affected by the Critical. Areas Ordinance. Mark Loewen,18312 81" Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed concern with BAS, pointing out it appeared a few property owners were footing a huge bill. He requested the Council carefully consider all options. He referred to the reduction in the wetland threshold from 2500 square feet to 500 square feet and suggested this may be an opportunity for a compromise. Dan Tomasek, 7339 NE 204th Place, Kenmore, a realtor in the Edmonds area speaking on behalf of his clients, pointed out the decision the Council made would affect the future value of property in Edmonds. He questioned establishing the same buffers in Edmonds as there were in. Monroe. He also questioned the notice to title, citing the already required Property Disclosure Statement (Form 17) as a better avenue for disclosing a critical area. He pointed out King County removed the notice to title requirement from their Critical. Areas Ordinance. Nathan Gorton, Government Affairs Director, Snohomish County Association of Realtors, 3201. Broadway, Suite E, Everett, commented there was no evidence that the City's current Critical Areas Ordinance was not working. With regard to the buffers DOE recommended, he noted DOE admits prescriptive, one -size -fits -all buffers were not scientifically justifiable and that critical areas could be better protected via the scorecard system which they recommended in their letter to the City. He agreed the scorecard system could result in more protective, less invasive buffers. He commented there was a great deal of information available that the Council did not have as well as a number of questions that had not been answered. He urged the Council not to vote on this tonight and continue the process. He commented of the 109 jurisdictions in Washington mandated to update their Critical Areas Ordinance, only approximately 31 have completed their update and CTED and DOE do not expect any more jurisdictions to complete their updates by the deadline. William Gregerson, 1.3320 Beverly -Edmonds Road, Mukilteo, commented Mukilteo was a lot like Edmonds with streams that flow into Puget Sound, a lot of ravines, cliffs and unstable areas. He noted Mukilteo's Critical Areas Ordinance update was on hold until after the first of the year. He described his lifelong experience fishing in the area and the value he placed on salmon. He expressed dismay about the salmon smolt destroyed in the Deer Creek Hatchery by a polluted stormwater surge in. September 2004. He noted the proposed Critical. Areas Ordinance would provide better protection of Deer Creek and would benefit the salmon in Deer Creek Hatchery. He concluded a strong Critical Areas Ordinance would provide better protection for wetlands and streams in Edmonds as well as areas annexed in the future. Janet Chalupnik, President, Women's League of Voters, 540 Dayton, Edmonds, advised the League was very supportive of GMA and the adoption of strong Critical Areas Ordinances throughout Snohomish County with strict enforcement provisions. The League was particularly interested in public information and public participation and encouraged the Council to proceed with a strong educational program once the Critical. Areas Ordinance was adopted. With regard to public participation, she commented the City had done an excellent job allowing for public input. She expressed concern with a change in the Critical Areas Ordinance to limit the variance process with more decisions being made by staff. She questioned how that process would be monitored and how neighbors would be notified if staff made the decision. Tony Shapiro, 1.81.05 Sunset Way, Edmonds, pointed out this region lagged behind the nation dramatically with the highest unemployment rates and lower level of growth. He noted one of the reasons for this may be regulations, pointing out CTED had overlooked the issue of economic development in their review. He pointed out increasing regulations results in more costs that must be borne by developers. As an example, he pointed out a small project he was working on with a total project cost of $1.3 million, $350,000 was consumed by site costs including a 17,000 cubic foot detention tank. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 11 pointed out no BAS report has been prepared that discloses how the existing regulations were not protecting the environment. He expressed concern with the new requirement to retain 30% of existing vegetation, and questioned whether this could be substituted with landscaping. He urged the Council to consider the ramification of a decision tonight and conduct further study of the economic interests in the area rather than just environmental materials. Suzie Schaefer, Vice President, Pilchuck Audubon Society, 1.055 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, commented it was not about economics but about the livability of Edmonds. She found this to be an opportunity to develop the best Critical Areas Ordinance and correct some of the failures in the past. She was disappointed pesticides were not addressed in the Ordinance. She recommended the Council adopt the Ordinance as presented with minor changes such as eliminating the wetland threshold because of the importance of all size wetlands. She commented on her meetings with Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend offering to hold workshops to assist homeowners in improving their small streams. Rob Michel, 7909 21.2th Street SW, Edmonds, provided a letter from a property owner who was unable to attend tonight's meeting, urging the Council to postpone their decision on the Critical Areas Ordinance. Mr. Michel pointed out the increments in the code were minimums including the 30% retention of native vegetation and buffer widths and could be expanded at the Director's discretion. Mr. Michel referred to the conceptual diagram illustrating the existing and proposed stream buffer, pointing out the diagram did not indicate the category of wetland and did not accurately illustrate the width of the buffer as compared to the structure. He concluded there were many issues with regard to private property rights and there were many citizens who were unaware their property rights could be affected by the adoption of the Ordinance. He favored improved notification of affected property owners. Steve Waite, 324 Main, Edmonds, followed up on. Councilmember Wilson's questions regarding whether there was any overlay done to identify stream locations. He pointed out a 100 foot buffer, even if allowed to be reduced by 50% via mitigation likely could not be accomplished in the R-6 and R 8 zones. Regarding notification, he suggested the notice inform property owners of the possibility of encumbrance. With regard to Mr. Gregerson's comments about Deer Creek Hatchery, he noted the hatchery only used the water from Deer Creek and the smolt were trucked off site. He pointed out surface runoff from public streets was not addressed in the Ordinance. He referred to the Edmonds Stream. Inventory and Assessment which stated there was little or no available information on stream flows or fish presence in several of the streams covered by this study and that there was considerable evidence that under present conditions, without adequate stormwater detention, peak flows have adversely affected fish habitat. Eric Theusen, 18323 85th Place W, Edmonds, urged the Council to consider BAS and how it applied to best available sites. He recalled there was literature that indicated the main reason for buffers in infill areas was to protect streams and wetland from pollutants and that the maximum buffer for that purpose was 50 feet. He concluded the existing Critical Areas Ordinance was supportable by BAS. He disagreed that the proposed Ordinance would simplify the process, preferring the scoreboard system because of the delineation of wetland into more categories. He pointed out the buffers had been doubled from 50 feet to 100 feet and now a report and review process were necessary to reduce a buffer to 50 feet. He referred to the conceptual drawing of the existing and proposed buffer, pointing out if a house with a critical area were demolished, there would be no buildable footprint with the new buffers. He questioned whether the entire ordinance needed to be changed or only a portion of it. Rowena Miller, 8711 1.82"d Place SW, Edmonds, commented she was not a developer nor did she want to increase the footprint of her home, she cared about Edmonds and the quality of life. She acknowledged property rights and economic development were important, questioning what better kind of economic development was there than clean water which protection of wetland and streams would accomplish. She noted the proposed changes would only affect people who redeveloped and/or increased density, the most Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 12 important time to be mindful of the environment. Mayor Haakenson clarified none of the City's drinking water came from sources in. Edmonds; the City's drinking water came from Everett and Seattle. Ms. Miller commented the function of wetlands and streams and their buffers affected drinking water. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, observed one of the intents of the Critical Areas Ordinance was to protect against flooding. He recalled a system of creek bypasses was created to route them to Puget Sound. He agreed water quality was enhanced with vegetation, however, many of the creeks in the City have lawns to their edge, have been channelized or dammed and are vegetated with blackberries. He suggested the City develop regulations regarding appropriate vegetation to be planted along creeks. He found some of the proposed buffers to be excessive, commenting there were other ways to provide adequate protections. He concluded the best way to reduce pesticides and fertilizers in the water was public education. He noted there were many options that could be used as an incentive for smaller buffers. Don Kreiman, 24006 951h Place W, Edmonds, commented on the numerous meetings, open house and public hearing held by the Planning Board, pointing out many of the issues being raised tonight should have been raised during the Planning Board process. He questioned what more staff and/or the Planning Board could do if the Council remanded the Critical Areas Ordinance. John Mauro, Pilchuck Audubon Society, 1803 Hewitt Avenue #108, Everett, commended the City for their effort to get the public involved. He suggested refraining the issue, from something that restricted some property owners, to a quality of life, community issue. He disagreed with the comment that no new significant information had been released recently, citing a major publication that was released in August 2004. He highlighted the following issues in his November I I letter: wetlands smaller than 1000 square feet needed protection, the importance of buffers in conjunction with enhancement, and the importance of stream buffers. He encouraged the Council to think of the Critical Areas Ordinance as a set of protections for Edmonds residents and as a way of leaving a legacy. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. In response to the question from. Mr. Theusen regarding whether the city could retain its current ordinance with minor changes, Mr. Snyder explained the need to establish a scientific basis for that ordinance. He explained the difficulty was the State's BAS could not be utilized, the existing ordinance did not have a sufficient basis to defend it and the City's recently developed BAS report also did not provide a basis. He concluded the City could retain its current ordinance if there was adequate basis in the record which there was not as it currently exists. Mr. Chave explained the BAS report was a review of the State standards and an attempt to apply those and other scientific sources to Edmonds. In response to public comment that there was no evidence that the current code did not protect natural resources, Mr. Kinney explained a lot of data would be necessary to support that assertion including trends in wetland and fish populations, water quality, etc. He explained the BAS document was a review Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 13 of scientific data, policy decisions other jurisdictions have made, CTED and DOE recommendations and applying it to the natural resource issues that exist in. Edmonds. With regard to Mr. Henderson's comment concerning development of a second parcel, Mr. Chave explained if the only outstanding feature was trees, if the property was not subdividable, it would not be regulated by the Critical Areas Ordinance. With regard to the requirement to retain 30% of the native vegetation, Mr. Chave pointed out that only applied to subdividable properties that were zoned RS-12 or RS-20. He explained if the large lot zoning was maintained to protect critical areas but there were no restrictions on what could be done on the property, it was unclear what was being protected. Mr. Kinney noted blackberries were a noxious weed, not native vegetation. With regard to whether a planting plan could be utilized for the 30% native vegetation, he pointed out flexibility was added to the code language recently that refers to a vegetative management plan that would allow retention of existing native vegetation and/or planting native plants. Mr. Kinney referred to comments by the public that they liked the flexibility in. DOE's code matrix that considered different land use levels and applied two aspects of the wetland rating system, explaining although it may allow more flexibility, that system would result in much larger buffers than the method recommended in the proposed code. He noted the buffer averaging and buffer reduction proposed in the code provided flexibility Mr. Chave referred to a comment regarding the impact of a 200 foot buffer, explaining the only 200 foot buffer was in the Edmonds Marsh. He acknowledged buffers had been increased but not to that magnitude. He noted it was unlikely any Class 2 wetland would be identified, most of the wetlands that are encountered during redevelopment are Class 3 or 4. In response to comments regarding public participation, Mr. Kinney agreed with. Ms. Schaefer and Ms. Chalupnik regarding the importance of a public education process following the adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance. Mr. Snyder clarified as Mr. Chave noted, the 30% native vegetation requirement only applied to large lot development. A Comprehensive Plan update is proceeding on a separate track; absent justification via the critical area process, the City would be required to meet the four dwelling units per acre GMA density. Without justification via the critical area process, there would be no 12,000 square foot and larger lots in the City under GMA. Councilmember Wilson referred to questions raised by the public regarding notice to title, specifically King County removing that requirement. He asked staff to describe the benefits of notice to title, whether it was necessary, and what other cities have done. Mr. Kinney answered the general idea was to give more notice to a purchaser. He recalled a realtor suggested the use of Form 17, noting his limited conservations with two realtors provided conflicting views of whether critical area information would be disclosed on that form. With regard to what other cities have done, he was not aware how it had been addressed in other city's Critical Areas Ordinances. Councilmember Wilson asked whether notice to title was required under GMA. Mr. Kinney answered it was specifically mentioned in. CTED's guidelines and in their model Critical Areas Ordinance. Mr. Snyder commented CTED included that recommendation without a great deal of background for their position. He explained the existing and proposed Critical Areas Ordinance defer steep slope landslide hazard areas to Chapter 19.10 where the City currently requires and will continue to require recorded notice for landslide hazard areas as those properties develop. He concluded the notice to title was not Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 14 scientifically supported and was within the Council legislative discretion. Mr. Chave agreed it was a policy decision. With regard to the scoreboard system and it resulting in a larger buffer rather than a reduced buffer, Councilmember Wilson asked how such a system would be implemented, whether the application would hire a consultant to conduct the scoreboard analysis and whether that process would be more cumbersome and more costly than what is proposed. Mr. Kinney answered it would be more complex as it would need to be completed by someone with a biological background and experience with applying that type of rating system in similar situations. He reiterated applying DOE's recommendation would result in larger buffers in at least Category 3 and 4 wetland, the most common wetlands in Edmonds. Mr. Chave pointed out there was not a range of uses in Edmonds, it was predominately urban, a land use where DOE recommended higher buffers. Mr. Kinney explained the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance did not lower buffers based on science, it was a policy decision to reduce the buffers. He clarified the science indicated larger buffers would provide the most protection but those large buffers were largely unachievable in Edmonds due to existing land uses. Councilmember Wilson commented the proposed buffers were lower than the BAS literature indicated was appropriate based on policy and the situation in the Edmonds community. He asked whether this same logic could be used to retain the existing standards. Mr. Kinney replied it would be a much greater stretch because the buffers in the existing code were so small they would be difficult to defend on any scientific basis. Mr. Chave explained one of the goals of this process was to obtain enhancement of the existing critical areas and buffers. He noted the City was largely developed, in areas where development could occur, the City had tools such as the PRD ordinance to work around buffers. The bigger issue was existing homes on existing lots next to existing streams and how to long term improve the stream. Minimal hard buffers attained via the variance process resulted in people staying out of the buffer but did not result in any improvement in function. One of the premises in the Critical Areas Ordinance was although science indicates larger buffers were important, in already disturbed areas, rather than preserving poorly managed unfunctioning critical areas, it was preferable to improve the function. Councilmember Wilson asked how non -conforming structures or a structure that was destroyed or torn down would be addressed. Mr. Snyder answered it was not a non -conforming issue, the issue was whether or not the Critical Areas Ordinance was triggered. The application of the Critical Areas Ordinance was not triggered if the burden of development, the footprint, was not expanded. Councilmember Wilson asked whether an existing structure within the buffer would be non -conforming. Mr. Snyder answered that was a different development regulation. Councilmember Wilson suggested that be articulated more clearly in the ordinance. Mr. Cleave suggested staff determine whether any additional reference needed to be added to the existing non -conforming provisions in. Chapter 1.7. Mr. Snyder advised the issue was addressed from a technical point of view but it was always appropriate to make the code more user friendly. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the number of public workshops and public hearings. Mr. Chave answered there was one public hearing before the Planning Board and three public workshops at the Planning Board. Councilmember Wilson recalled the update had been ongoing for most of the year, periodic updates had been provided to Community Services/Development Services Committee and a joint workshop was held earlier this year with the City Council and Planning Board. Mr. Chave also pointed out approximately 900 notices mailed to residents along streams and approximately 800 mailings to residents in the northern part of the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 15 Councilmember Wilson referred to Mr. Kreiman's comment about new information provided tonight and asked how may people participated at the Planning Board level. Several members of the audience raised their hands. Councilmember Olson acknowledged the City had been working on the Critical Areas Ordinance update for a long time and she was glad residents who live along streams had been notified. She noted the problem was that many residents may not equate "critical areas update" with the stream in their yard. She asked about the verbiage in the notice to residents who live along streams. Mr. Chave did not recall the exact language but assured it was not a cryptic message. He noted the intent was to explain how the Critical Areas Ordinance would affect them and encourage them to get involved in the process. Council President Plunkett referred to the notification brochure which contained paragraphs regarding stream banks, native plants, trees, limited use of lawn chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, etc. He confirmed with staff that the brochure was mailed before any specifics regarding the buffer widths were available and prior to the first public open house. Council President Plunkett noted the brochure did not indicate there could be an increase in the encumbrance on a residents' property. He questioned whether the information provided was sufficient. Mr. Chave acknowledged no specifics regarding the buffers were available at the time the brochure was mailed, the intent was to alert residents that the update to the Critical Areas Ordinance may affect them. Council. President Plunkett asked whether the Planning Board would be willing to take the testimony provided tonight and hold another public hearing within the next three months. Planning Board Chair Jim Young answered the Planning Board would accept anything the Council referred. He noted the Planning Board meeting agendas through the end of 2004 were full. After the first of the year, a decision would need to be made regarding items to postpone to allow the Planning Board to reconsider the Critical Areas Ordinance. He commented he had not heard anything new tonight, much of the decision was a policy decision_ The Planning Board had at least two open houses, a large number of mailings and fairly good participation at the public hearing as well as public workshops. If the City Council felt it would be valuable to have another public hearing, the Planning Board would be willing. Council President Plunkett responded he felt it would not only enhance the process but may also provide additional input for the Planning Board. Mayor Haakenson emphasized no matter what the Planning Board did, it was still a policy decision for the Council with regard to buffers. Councilmember Moore referred to Ms. Chalupnik's concern with the variance process versus staff having the flexibility to make decisions. Mr. Chave recalled her concern was how the flexibility would be tracked and how residents would be notified of pending staff decisions. He explained public notice would depend on the type of application; a building permit with work in steep slopes would not require public notice. A subdivision or variance would require notice to residences within 300 feet. Mr. Chave assured the underlying decision must be based on a scientifically valid report that was prepared by a professional. He noted the report could be prepared via a 3-party contract or a resident would obtain their own report for staff review. If there were questions regarding the report, third party review may be required. Councilmember Wilson asked whether this was a legislative action. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Councilmember Wilson observed the notice requirement for legislative actions was notice in the newspaper, not mailings. Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Wilson questioned why Councilmembers who wanted to provide different public notice had not requested finding in the budget for a citywide notification. He pointed out notification for legislative matters had been done in this manner for decades. The existing Critical Areas Ordinance had been in effect for about ten years; most citizens were aware of it and if changes were being made they Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 16 would get involved if they were concerned. He asked whether it would establish precedence if mailed notice were provided regarding this legislative action_ Mr. Snyder answered GMA, RCW as well as City ordinance set minimum thresholds for legislative notice. The City had more than complied as well as provided individual mailed notice for this item. Mr. Kinney referred to the concern expressed regarding the drawing illustrating the existing buffer and proposed buffer, advising the drawing was conceptual and not to scale and was not intended to depict any specific buffer width. The drawing was only intended to provide an example of how residents not previously affected by the Critical Areas Ordinance could now be impacted due to the larger buffer. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN WITH AN ORDINANCE ON THE MATTER IMPLEMENTING THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH THE ADDITION OF LIMITING STORMWATER FACILITIES TO THE OUTER 25% OF BUFFERS. Council President Plunkett expressed his pleasure with all the work that has been done with the exception of the notification, not necessarily the amount of notification but that the brochure did not inform property owners their land may be increasingly encumbered. He felt the City owed it to residents to inform them and he supported an extra effort to notify them. He commented on the importance of this decision, potentially increasing encumbrance on residents' land. He summarized he would vote against the motion, preferring it be remanded for an additional Planning Board hearing with better notice. Councilmember Marin indicated he would vote in favor of the motion. As a builder, he often winced when he asked for an inspection because there was always something new. In his discussions with other builders, the natural reaction was to avoid any further regulation which unfortunately was not always possible. After reading the Critical Areas Ordinance documentation, he was impressed this was a reasonable proposal. He found no value in a further delay; if the Council wanted predictability, adopting the ordinance would allow for improvement over time. Councilmember Moore found the notification fantastic, noting many Council decisions have been made with much less notification. She noted if someone from Mukilteo could learn about what the Council was doing, the citizens of Edmonds should be able to also. She noted there was a cost to citizenship and that was paying attention to what the government was doing. She concluded even if the Critical Areas Ordinance was remanded to the Planning Board and they returned with a different recommendation, there was still a policy decision to be made. She found the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance to be a moderate, common sense approach that was tailored to Edmonds. Councilmember Moore commended staff, the consultant and the Planning Board for their efforts to balance the GMA density requirements. In this instance, she did not care what other cities were doing and did not favor missing the deadline just because a number of other cities would miss it. She noted that was not Edmonds' style because Edmonds was usually a leader and she hoped other jurisdictions would adopt their Critical Areas Ordinance update to provide further protection for the environment. Councilmember Moore agreed with the suggestion for public education. She noted the only way to make a positive change in the environment with the least intrusion was long term by controlling redevelopment. Councilmember Orvis indicated he would not support the motion. Although he was supportive of the environment, he felt the City had a good Critical Areas Ordinance with buffers for streams, steep slopes and wetland that could be improved upon. As a single family homeowner, he was concerned with the proposed buffers and felt the 500 square foot wetland threshold was too low, particularly in view of the buffer that would also need to be provided. He recommended the numbers be reconsidered to balance BAS and single family homeowner property rights. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 17 With regard to flexibility, Councilmember Orvis noted that usually equated to money expended by the property owner to obtain the necessary information to make improvements to their home. He summarized a single family homeowner should be allowed to do minor expansion, deck, etc. without going through a big rigmarole. Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Orvis, indicating she would also vote against the motion. She commended the work done by the consultant and staff and did not necessarily feel a delay would result in a better product but supported allowing the public the right to ask questions. She concluded this would have a big impact on some residents for a long time and she did not want to rush into it. Councilmember Wilson did not see a need to refer this back to the Planning Board. He noted if the Council was uncomfortable with any aspect of the proposal, they could continue the public hearing and discuss it further at an upcoming meeting. He reiterated this was a policy decision, regardless of how many boards or commissions reviewed it, the Council would make the final decision on the numbers. He cautioned the Council not to do the same thing with this as was done with Design Guidelines which had never been adopted. He found it a waste of taxpayer resources to fund a study and then do nothing; the Council must take action sooner or later. If Councilmembers wanted additional notification, the policy needed to be changed and the budget amended to provide $10,000 - $15,000 for notice of any legislative change that might impact a property owner. He commented after 20 years in the public sector, he knew there was nothing harder than generating public interest in an item until after it was adopted. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the City must amend the Critical Areas Ordinance every seven years but it could be amended more frequently if necessary. He suggested requesting staff provide a six and 12- month update regarding how the ordinance was working and examples of the administrative decisions staff has made. Councilmember Wilson acknowledged Councilmember Orvis' concern with the 500 square foot wetland threshold, and suggested options be provided regarding increasing that threshold to provide flexibility. He summarized the ordinance was a great step in addressing issues and a tremendous amount of work had gone into documenting BAS. He expressed his appreciation to staff for attempting to balance conflicting GMA goals. Councilmember Dawson commented the notice issue was a red herring; if the Council felt the notice was not adequate, additional notice could have been provided. This public hearing has been scheduled for weeks and there was no request for additional public notice and now it was time to make a decision. She agreed with Councilmember Wilson's suggestion for staff updates. With regard to public comment that a balance needed to be found, she emphasized that was exactly what this ordinance did — balance the protection of natural resources with the practical difficulties inherent with redevelopment in a community already 96% built -out. She thanked the Planning Board, staff and the consultant for their work. She agreed with the importance of a public education program on the new Critical. Areas Ordinance. Councilmember Wilson suggested the following friendly amendment to the motion which was acceptable to Councilmember Dawson: REQUEST STAFF PROVIDE A SIX AND 12-MONTH UPDATE DURING THE FIRST YEAR AND AN ANNUAL REPORT THEREAFTER TO INCLUDE INFORMATION REGARDING HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION PROCESS WAS WORKING. Councilmember Wilson suggested the wetland threshold be returned to 2500 square feet. Mr. Snyder suggested scheduling the ordinance on a future agenda for continued deliberation and possible amendment. Councilmember Wilson suggested staff and the consultant consider BAS approach to the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 18 2500 square foot wetland threshold. Mayor Haakenson clarified the continued deliberation was not a continuation of the public hearing. Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows: THE COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN WITH AN ORDINANCE FOR CONTINUED DELIBERATION ON NOVEMBER 23 IMPLEMENTING THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH THE ADDITION OF LIMITING STORMWATER FACILITIES TO THE OUTER 25% OF BUFFERS AND REQUEST STAFF PROVIDE A SIX AND 12-MONTH UPDATE DURING THE FIRST YEAR AND AN ANNUAL REPORT THEREAFTER TO INCLUDE INFORMATION REGARDING HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION PROCESS WAS WORKING. UPON ROLL CALL, THE MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, DAWSON, WILSON, MARIN AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no members of the audience who wished to address the Council. 7. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004 ublic Public Safety Committee Safety Committee p p Councilmember Dawson reported discussed purchase oa new fire d the Committee did the hf engine in 2006 and authorization for the City team to continue the acquisition process was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda Finance I Finance Committee ommittee Councilmember Marin reported the Committee discussed proposed 2005 Equipment Rental Rates which were approved on the Consent Agenda. The Committee also requested staff prepare an amendment that would eliminate the requirement to separately adopt rates. The Committee then discussed the intergovernmental contract with Mike Doubleday which was also approved on the Consent Agenda. community/ Community Services/Development Services Committee Development Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee discussed a suggestion made during the tree house Services Committee appeal to impose a fee for filing complaints. Staff reminded the Committee that an ordinance had been passed in 2000 to impose such a fee and was eliminated after a very short duration due to public outcry. Staff discouraged implementing a fee for filing code enforcement complaints and the Committee concurred. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmembers had no reports. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:14 p.m. M"IflENSON,. w SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 16, 2004 Page 19 1 LL AGENDA MW EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 51h Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 D. m. November 16, 2004 6:30 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding Labor Negotiations 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2004. (C) Approval of claim checks #75228 through #75356 for the week of November 8, 2004, in the amount of $242,954.05.* *Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us (D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Laura Pearson (amount undetermined), and Debra Appleby ($1,718.79). (E) Approval of the 2005 Equipment Rental Rates. (F) Approval of Mike Doubleday Intergovernmental Contract. (G) Approval of Fund Rename and Elimination Ordinance. (H) Approval of Collective Labor Agreement with International Association of Firefighters Union Local 1828 for 2005 - 2007. (1) Authorize the City team to continue the fire engine acquisition process. (J) Proposed Resolution adopting a Regional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan for the City of Edmonds. (K) Proposed Resolution setting January 4, 2005, as the hearing date for a request to vacate a portion of 8' Avenue North right of way directly adjacent to and immediately west of the property addressed as 808 Daley Street. (Applicants: Roy and Sylvia Robinson and John and Lois Ryan / File No. ST-04-49) Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA November 16, 2004 Page 2 of 2 3. (30 Min.) Second Public Hearing on the 2005 Budget 4. (15 Min.) 2005 Budget Adoption 5. (75 Min.) Public Hearing on the draft Critical Areas Regulations amending the Edmonds Community Development Code by repealing ECDC 20.15 B, Critical Areas, and enacting new Critical Areas Regulations in ECDC Title 23. 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 7. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of November 9, 2004. 8. ( 5 Min.) -Mayor's Comments 9. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN 1 Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television - Government Access Channel 21.