Loading...
07/27/2010 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 27, 2010 At 5:33 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley - Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, and Peterson. Councilmember Wilson joined the executive session at 5:48 p.m. Others present were Special Counsel Grant Weed, Weed Graafstra & Benson, and Recorder Jeannie Dines. The executive session concluded at 6:50 p.m. Mayor Cooper reconvened the executive session regarding pending litigation at 7:00 p.m. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 5 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Peterson and Wilson. Others present were Special Counsel Grant Weed, Weed Graafstra & Benson, and Recorder Jeannie Dines. The executive session concluded at 7:07 p.m. The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council Chambers, 250 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Cooper, Mayor Steve Bernheim, Council President D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Associate Planner John Westfall, Fire Marshal Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER WITH THE ADDITION OF AGENDA ITEM 2A, AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ERIC THEUSEN, KEN REIDY AND THE CITY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 1 A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2010. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #120179 THROUGH #120330 DATED JULY 22, 2010 FOR $2,027,444.99. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #49539 THROUGH #49607 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1 THROUGH JULY 15, 2010 FOR $751,071.01. D. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY REPORT — JULY, 2010. F. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT. ITEM E: AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR EDMONDS HISTORICAL MUSEUM EXTERIOR REPAIRS PROJECT. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED. 2A. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ERIC THEUSEN KEN REIDY AND THE CITY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ERIC THEUSEN, KEN REIDY AND THE CITY IN THE FORM REVIEWED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. SOUND TRANSIT UPDATE Ric Ilgenfritz, Executive Director, Planning & Project Development, Sound Transit, displayed a map of the tri- county Sound Transit system, explaining the system extends from Everett to Dupont in Pierce County and includes the urbanized areas of Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties. Sound Transit operates three different lines of service: light rail, commuter rail (Sounder) and ST express bus service. They carry approximately 3.3 million people a year and ridership continues to grow. There are three Sound Transit Board Members from Snohomish County: Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon, the Board Chair; Joe Marine, Mukilteo's Mayor; and Paul Rogers, Everett City Council. He recognized past Board Members from Edmonds: Dave Earling, Deanna Dawson and Richard Marin. He displayed a chart illustrating growth 1999 -2009. The light rail system that began in Seattle a year ago now carries over 24,000 riders per day. They are experiencing much higher than expected ridership on weekends and generally to /from the airport station. He highlighted projects in the past ten years in the north end including construction of the Ash Way and Lynnwood transit center parking facilities and direct access ramps, improvements at Everett Station, and the Mountlake Terrace facility. Sounder ridership continues to increase. Orders will be submitted for additional rail cars later this year to expand the fleet, operate large trains and accommodate demand as it grows. Bus service will continue to grow; Sound Transit has been phasing in an approximately 17% increase in ST express service in the north end since the ST 2 plan was approved by voters. Mr. Ilgenfritz announced a tentative date of August 18 for the groundbreaking on the permanent Edmonds station. He referred to a site plan for the station that includes improved parking, pedestrian/passenger Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 2 facilities, and turning the temporary station into a more attractive and better integrated facility for the community. Final design of the station is complete and work will begin in August and be completed by spring 2011. In 2008 voters approved ST 2, a plan to expand the Sound Transit system by adding approximately 36 miles of new light rail, additional Sounder trips and new bus service. Sound Transit is struggling with a fairly substantial hit to forecasted revenues as a result of the recession. ST 2 was an $18 billion capital and operating program over 15 years. Sound Transit is now projecting a $3+ billion or 15% reduction in forecasted revenues. There was an approximately 15% cushion in the plan so the reduction can be absorbed. All projects and services will be managed with more than the usual attention to detail with regard to controlling scope, managing costs and adhering to schedules. A comprehensive review has been done of the plan to develop strategies for addressing issues. The Sound Transit Board commissioned development of a white paper that identifies tasks for staff and the CEO that looks primarily at controlling operating costs whenever possible. Staff expects to submit a reduced budget this year. They will be advancing some project development work including on the north corridor. Sound Transit adopted a new scope control policy to help keep tight control on add -ons. Mr. Ilgenfritz explained the light rail line is open and operating over a 16 mile alignment between downtown Seattle and SeaTac International Airport. Construction is underway; approximately 20% complete, on the first extension north, a pair of tunnels from Westlake Center to the University of Washington serving Capitol Hill. That project came in approximately $150 million under the engineer's estimate, an indicator of the market in this economy. The North Link project extends from the UW to Northgate, a combination of tunnel, surface and elevated projects. That project recently moved into final design and is almost at 60% design. The goal is to open that section for service in 2020 and the UW project in 2016. Sound Transit is beginning work on an alternatives analysis for transit expansion from Northgate to Lynnwood Transit Center, a 9 -mile corridor. They envision four station stops at 145`", 185`", Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood Transit Center. Sound Transit has been successful in obtaining federal grants including an FTA grant for the first project of $500 million, an $800 million grant for the UW project and will be seeking approximately $600 million for the extension to Lynnwood. One of the steps in obtaining federal funds is an alternatives analysis to consider different project alignments and how the rail system compares with other modes. Sound Transit will create a new analysis of transit performance by mode between light rail, bus rapid transit and basic bus service. At the conclusion of that process, a report is created with technology review and a series of potential alignments that inform the EIS scoping process. He displayed the project schedule, an 18 month process for the alternatives analysis that will include engaging the public in north King County and Snohomish County this fall to discuss potential alignments and service configurations. Based on information from the public, the alternatives analysis will be conducted over the winter and reported to the Sound Transit Board. At that point Sound Transit will begin to seek funding from the federal government and begin the EIS process. He reviewed the timeline for the EIS and preliminary engineering process, beginning now and extending approximately 41/2 years. He offered to return to the Council this fall and/or hold an open house to engage Edmonds citizens. The East Corridor project is a 14 mile extension of the system from downtown Seattle via I -90 to Mercer Island into Bellevue and ultimately to Redmond. Sound Transit has been working with cities, WSDOT, the federal government and many other stakeholders during preliminary engineering and to identify a preferred alternative. The schedule is to complete preliminary engineering by the end of 2010, complete the EIS by April 2011 and have the Board act between April and July 2011 to adopt the project to be built. Bellevue has expressed their preference for a tunnel through downtown and Sound Transit has Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 3 emphasized that a tunnel is not part of the voter - approved budget. Sound Transit will work with Bellevue to identify a tunnel alignment provided that the City is able to participate financially in the project in a way that makes it cost neutral. Councilmember Wilson commented the Swift Bus Rapid Transit has had unexpectedly high usage and popularity. He asked whether Sound Transit had considered ways to integrate that success into its longer term vision. Mr. Ilgenfritz commented it was a great case study for all transit systems in the region. Sound Transit is looking at increasing its level of service in many corridors particularly those not served by rail such as the 522, 527 and 167 corridors. Their goal is a complimentary, interlocking grid of services that provide opportunity for connections. Sound Transit is looking at what they can do to increase reliability and making buses attractive to riders in order to attract traditionally transit- dependent users as well as elective riders. Elective riders are typically interested in reliability, safety, and a comfortable, productive experience. Councilmember Wilson inquired about service cuts. Mr. Ilgenfritz responded Sound Transit overall is not contemplating any service cuts. They adjust service annually as part of their budget process via their service implementation plan. Sound Transit typically does not have enough service to meet demand and is in a gradual upward trajectory of adding more service hours. There will be more significant adjustments in bus service as the rail system expands such as on the eastside. Sound Transit's highest performing bus route is the 550 that serves Bellevue; he expected that service to be phased out as rail comes on line and those service hours used elsewhere. The same would be true in the north corridor as the rail system moves north. Councilmember Wilson appreciated that there were no subarea equity implications from the tunnel in Bellevue. Given the funding mechanism of sales tax revenue and accrual necessary to fund such as project, he asked whether there were implications in the short or long term because a large capital project requires more funds. Mr. Ilgenfritz assured the financial plan must balance annually. The Snohomish County subarea is in robust financial condition. Sound Move finished with a surplus in Snohomish County and the capital investments in Snohomish County as part of Sound Transit are in the second half of the program. Right now, he was confident about the schedule in the north corridor. 4. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE PRESENTATION REGARDING REPLACEMENT OF THE EDMONDS MAIN STREET POST OFFICE. John Logan, United States Postal Service, explained this is a follow -up to the letter regarding the USPS's intent to replace the existing downtown post office with a more appropriately sized facility in the downtown or as close as they can get to the existing facility. The existing facility is approximately 8,000 square feet; they plan to replace it with approximately 4,100 square feet. This meeting is part of the community contact process that the LISPS has initiated to ensure the community and City is informed, there are no conflicts and the result is a project everyone is happy with. Following tonight's meeting, the LISPS will wait 15 days to accept comments from the City and the community. The USPS will then advertise for space and provide the City a list of spaces that has been offered. A 60 day comment period will follow. The USPS will then evaluate those sites, conduct a site selection process and select a favorable site. The USPS will then return to the City with that selection and allow another 30 days for comment before proceeding with development of the project. The initial decision - making stage is approximately 3 -4 months to ensure they understand the desires of the community. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 4 Councilmember Plunkett asked why the USPS did not simply use the site they already own. Mr. Logan answered the LISPS leases the current site. The building has been purchased; the current owner intends to redevelop the site and there is a possibility the post office could be part of that development. Councilmember Petso asked if any of the services /facilities will be lost when the facility is downsized. Mr. Logan answered nothing would be lost. The carriers in that facility were moved out because it was not big enough for that function. All the retail services will remain and be provided in a nicer facility. Councilmember Petso requested any future facility have comparable parking to the existing facility and have a drop box. Mr. Logan assured they would do both. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Colin Southcote -Want, Edmonds, explained he just came from the Edmonds Conference Center where the project at Pt. Wells is being presented by the developer. While talking with Richmond Beach residents, he learned one of their concerns with the proposal was the estimated 2400 car trips per day on Richmond Beach Road and the determination that this was not significant. He raised this issue because later on the agenda the Council will be discussing potential changes to Edmonds' SEPA regulations. He urged the Council not to weaken the City's environmental protections. He commented it often seems the City treats this as proforma, someone completes forms, a determination of non - significance is made and appealing that determination is very difficult. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, congratulated Mayor Cooper. With regard to his report at the July 6 meeting that it took 11 minutes for Fire District 1 to respond to a car fire near Old Mill Town, he relayed the Fire Chief determination that it took 7 minutes and 22 seconds. With regard to SEPA regulations, he expressed concern that the proposal had gotten this far. He referred to staff's indication that the SEPA regulations had not been changed in a number of years and needed to be updated. He questioned why the SEPA regulations needed to be changed when they seem to have done their job. He was opposed to any changes that would eliminate environmental protections. Due to the proximity of the Highway 99 Corridor to Lake Ballinger, he feared flexible SEPA regulations in that area would impact Lake Ballinger. He referred to the SEPA flexible exemption level map in the packet, expressing concern that the Medical Activity Center zone extended into single family neighborhoods. He recommended the Council consider amending the boundary of the Medical Activity Center zone. 6. INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSED UPDATES TO ECDC 20.15A SEPA REGULATIONS. Associate Planner Kernen Lien explained Washington State's Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was first adopted in 1971. Among other things, the law requires all state and local governments within the state to: • "Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have impact on man's environment," and • Ensure that "...environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations..." (RCW 43.21C.030(2)(a) and (2)(b) He explained any governmental action may be conditioned or denied pursuant to SEPA. The environmental process in SEPA is designed to work with the other regulations to provide a comprehensive review of a proposal. Where most regulations focus on a particular aspect of a proposal, SEPA requires identification and evaluation of probable impacts of all elements of the environment. Proposals can be project proposals such as fill and grade, new development, etc.; or they can be non - project proposals such as Comprehensive Plan changes, rezones, adoption of regulations, etc. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 5 The City of Edmonds SEPA regulations are codified in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.15A. The City's first SEPA regulations were adopted in 1976. In 1984 the City adopted Ordinance No. 2461 which created ECDC 20.15A in order to come into compliance with new SEPA rules in WAC 197 -11 and model SEPA ordinances in WAC 173 -806. ECDC 20.15A the City uses today is essentially the same ordinance that was adopted 25 years ago having undergone only minor amendments during that time. Due to changes in WACs, RCWs and the City's own code since the SEPA ordinance was adopted, it was appropriate to adjust the City's SEPA regulations to be in compliance with the State's rules and regulations. The City and the Planning Board reviewed a number of issues: • ECDC 20.15A adopts by reference significant portions of WAC 197 -11, the State's SEPA rules. Sections of 197 -11 have been added or removed since the City adopted its SEPA regulations in 1984 particularly in regard to SEPA -GMA integration; GMA was not in place when the City adopted the current SEPA regulations. This update reviewed the changes in WAC 197 -11, the adopted list in 20.15A to ensure the City is up -to -date and compliant with the State's regulations. • ECDC 20.15A is largely based on the State's model code in WAC 173 -806. There have been changes to the model code since 1984. This update reviewed the model code and made changes to the City's SEPA regulations where appropriate to ensure the City is up -to -date with the State's regulations. • The City's code has undergone a number of amendments since 1984. This update ensured the SEPA regulations are consistent with the rest of the City's development regulations. • The State's rules allow local jurisdictions to modify the categorically exempt flexible threshold levels for certain minor new development. Once the threshold is reached, a SEPA review is required. • The City's Climate Action Team SEPA Implementation Working Group released a report in 2009 in an attempt to clarify how consideration of climate change should be incorporated into environmental review and decision making. That report included strong consensus from the Work Group but few recommendations other than the Department of Ecology should consider the matter and develop guidelines. DOE released draft guidelines on addressing greenhouse gas emissions in May 2010; the guidelines refer SEPA practitioners to studies and analyses conducted across the United States and do not provide any clear standard of analysis. The City has begun groundwork to develop SEPA regulations through the adoption of the Sustainability Element in the Comprehensive Plan as well as development of a Climate Change Action Plan. Within those Plans, the City is developing policies that establish the foundation for the City to begin developing SEPA regulations to evaluate and mitigate impacts of climate change. The City recently participated in a conference call with other jurisdictions around the state regarding addressing climate change through the SEPA process. Staff will follow up with other jurisdictions who participated in the call to see how they are addressing climate change through their SEPA processes. Developing a program for Edmonds will be very technical and data intensive and as a result will take a great deal of time to develop. It is not part of this update and will be incorporated into 20.15A in the future. Mr. Lien reviewed the Categorical Exemptions Thresholds in WAC 197 -11- 800(1) where the City could adjust the thresholds: • The construction or location of any residential structures of four dwelling unit — Can be modified up to 20 dwelling units. • The construction of a barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage building, produce storage or packing structure, or similar agricultural structure, covering 10,000 square feet, and to be used Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 6 only by the property owner or his or her agent in the conduct of farming the property. The exemption shall not apply to feed lots — Does not apply in Edmonds. • The construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage building with 4,000 square feet of gross floor area, and associated parking facilities designed for 20 automobiles — Can be modified up to 12,000 square feet and 40 automobiles. • The construction of a parking lot designed for 20 automobiles — Can be modified up to 40 automobiles. • Any landfill or excavation of 100 cubic yards — Can be modified up to 500 cubic yards, and has been at 500 cubic yards since 1984 when the City adopted the ordinance that established 20.15A. Determining the environmental impact of a development involves context, intensity of the development and does not lend itself to a quantifiable test. The context may vary by physical setting; intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of the impact; the same proposal may have a significant impact in one location and less in another. For instance a 12,000 square foot commercial development in a neighborhood zone such as Five Corners or Westgate would likely have a greater impact on the surrounding neighborhood than the same scale commercial development along Highway 99. With this in mind the Planning Board reviewed the flexible threshold levels for categorical exemptions and discussed a number of options: • Leave the levels at the minimums established by WAC 197- 11- 800(l)(b) • Increase all, or a portion of the levels, for the entire City • Establish different threshold levels for different Comprehensive Plan designations • Establish different threshold levels for different zones • Establish different threshold levels considering zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation After considering the above options, the Planning Board recommended the following: • Increase flexible threshold in the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center as follows: o Residential units: 20 units • New construction: 12,000 square feet • Parking: 40 spaces • Landfill or excavation: 500 cubic yards (no change) For landfills and excavations in WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(b)(v) maintain 500 cubic yards in all locations through the City The Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian and transit oriented area focused on two Master Plan developments, Stevens Hospital and Edmonds - Woodway High School, along with related high intensity development in the Highway 99 corridor. One of the goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is to expand the economic and tax base of the City by providing incentives for business and commercial redevelopment in the planned Activity Center. The Highway 99 corridor is a narrow strip of commercial and retail uses with some multi family development on the fringes of the corridor. Like the Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center, in the Highway 99 Corridor area of the City is looking to encourage economic development and raising the threshold levels that trigger SEPA review may be one way to simplify the process for developers within these two areas. When the Planning Board was considering these flexible thresholds, they raised several questions including the effect of increasing the thresholds. He researched SEPA reviews the City conducted since 2004 and found there have been a total of 193 SEPA reviews since January 2004. Of those 113 would be subject to the flexible thresholds. With the proposed increase in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, 2 projects since 2004 would have been exempt from SEPA review under the proposed changes. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 7 pointed out there are other regulatory requirements; SEPA is only one part of the review. The City has other processes and regulations to control issues that would be considered such as transportation impacts and Critical Areas regulations. SEPA cannot control the level of development of a property; it can only condition development based on impacts that are not otherwise addressed in the code. There are some residential areas in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center; SEPA has very little impact on development in single family zones. For example the subdivision of five or more units requires a public hearing process and approval by the City Council. This requirement would not change as a result of changing the SEPA flexible threshold. SEPA as well as many other processes have a public notice requirement and hearing opportunities. He referred to the tables in Title 20, Type IN uses, II -V require public notice. Councilmember Petso offered to work with staff on some areas in the ordinance that do not appear to be in the model ordinance, 1) the .025 provision, reliance on existing plans and regulations, and 2) the provision that would allow a developer to request the City complete the SEPA checklist. With regard to the .025 provision and reliance on other regulations, Mr. Lien explained that was in WAC 197 -11 and rather than adopt that WAC or insert a reference to WAC 197 -11, he included a reference to the section within Title 20 that is essentially the same as WAC 197 -11. With regard to the ability for a developer to request staff complete the SEPA checklist, Mr. Lien advised that is in the current SEPA regulations. He explained often the City has more information than the person completing the checklist. One of the most frequent triggers for SEPA review is fill and grade; 95 of the 193 SEPA reviews were fill and grade and many of those are for single family residential development. Often they do not have all the information and staff completes the blanks as a way to assist the citizen. There is also a provision that developers can be charged for staff completing the SEPA checklist. Councilmember Plunkett asked how it was determined whether a developer was charged. Mr. Lien answered there is not a description of how a developer would be charged. Since he has been employed by the City, no one has asked staff to complete the SEPA checklist. Typically if there is a N/A when he reviews a SEPA checklist and information should be included, he will fill in the information such as the zoning, Comprehensive Plan designation, etc. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the City was potentially liable if staff was filling out portions of the SEPA checklist. He asked whether staff had been doing that and whether it was a common practice. Mr. Lien responded in all the places he has worked, staff typically filled in missing information. The SEPA checklist also includes a space for staff comment. With regard to liability, there is a SEPA appeal process; if staff completed the checklist, the applicant could appeal the determination based on the way the checklist was completed. Councilmember Plunkett observed under the proposed changes there would have only been two instances were neighbors surrounding the structure would not have had the benefit of SEPA review. He asked the rationale of not allowing two groups of neighbors the benefit of a SEPA review. Mr. Lien explained one of the primary reasons for selecting the Highway 99 Corridor and the Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center is those are two areas where the City wants to promote economic development. The Planning Board felt by removing one of the hurdles, SEPA review, it may be more attractive for development. He reiterated SEPA was only one of the processes. He did not research what other public notice requirements may have been required for those two developments. Councilmember Plunkett concluded the rationale was the neighbors would not have the benefit of SEPA because they lived in a neighborhood that was more industrial oriented. Mr. Lien explained impacts are different in different areas; a 12,000 square foot commercial development in Five Corners would have the potential for greater impacts than the same development on Highway 99. That was one of the reasons the State allows jurisdictions the flexibility to adjust those thresholds. Denying anyone the SEPA process was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 8 not discussed as a reason for adjusting the flexible thresholds, it was viewed as a way to promote economic development in these two areas by removing one of the regulatory hurdles. Council President Bernheim acknowledged since it had been 25 years since the SEPA regulations were adopted and other things are changing, it may be necessary to ensure consistency. He was concerned with changing policy as part of a statutory update. He asked the impetus for changing the SEPA requirement to make it more developer friendly. Mr. Lien responded when he presented the update to the Planning Board, the flexible threshold was the one area the City could change. The Planning Board requested he provide proposals for the flexible thresholds. His first proposal was changing thresholds in zones throughout the City. The Planning Board then directed him to look at the corridors. His next proposal was for four corridors in the City. The proposed changes are what the Planning Board recommended. Councilmember Peterson asked whether other jurisdictions have adopted these flexible thresholds. Mr. Lien answered most jurisdictions have increased the thresholds. In his previous position, all the thresholds were maxed out except for agricultural buildings. Seattle raised thresholds in different zones throughout the city. He did not research other jurisdictions but found it unlikely that all were at the minimum established by SEPA. Councilmember Peterson acknowledged SEPA was not the be all and end all of public notification or environmental regulation. He assumed any City code changes below this would trump SEPA regulations. For example if the threshold was 40 parking spaces and the City only allowed 30 spaces in the zone, the specific zoning would trump the SEPA threshold. Mr. Lien explained SEPA does not set the intensity of zoning, if a zone only allows a parking lot for 30 automobiles, 30 would be the limit. If it was below the 40 space threshold, SEPA would not be done but the parking lot could not be larger than 30 parking spaces if that was specified by the zone. Councilmember Peterson commented he was a fan of SEPA regulations and review, finding it served the City, citizens and State well. If the Council and City were more proactive in defining zones and environmental regulations, SEPA may play a smaller role. Mr. Lien agreed SEPA played a smaller role today than when it was first adopted in 1971.. For example when SEPA was first adopted, there was no GMA, no Critical Areas Ordinance, Traffic Impact Fees, etc. to address potential impact from development. When an application is received, staff reviews it to ensure it is consistent with the City's development regulations. If all the impacts cannot be mitigated through existing development regulations, conditions can be added via the SEPA process. Councilmember Wilson commented this was not a limiting of SEPA regulations but an effort to remove hurdles for economic development. To the question of who has given that policy direction, he answered the Council has expressed support for incentivizing development on Highway 99 and development in the area surrounding Stevens Hospital. If Council did not support the proposed thresholds, they should be clear about what they want from the Planning Board to foster economic development in those areas or change the Comprehensive Plan. He recognized there may be more concern with the proposed change in the northern Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, recalling the Council declined a recent opportunity to change the zoning in that area. If the Council was sensitive to changes in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, Councilmember Wilson suggested it may be appropriate to bring changes to the thresholds in that area to Council separately from changes to the Highway 99 area. Mr. Lien answered one option would be to have three proposals at the public hearing, 1) keep the flexible threshold levels as they are, and 2) the proposal recommended by the Planning Board, 3) remove the Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center and only increase the thresholds for the Highway 99 corridor. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 9 Councilmember Wilson pointed out if the Council did not support incentivizing development in the Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center, the definition of the Activity Center may need to be changed to focus development around the commercial area and not impact the residential areas. He suggested having separate public hearings for Highway 99 and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. Mr. Lien suggested it may be more appropriate to have the public hearings together because increasing the thresholds was only part of the update. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the 40 parking spaces and 12,000 square feet were determined. Mr. Lien answered WAC 197 -11- $00(1) is the section that contains the flexible thresholds; 40 parking spaces and 12,000 square feet is the maximum. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether consideration had been given to a flexible threshold that could be waived on a case -by -case basis based on the project. Mr. Lien answered that would be difficult to implement for the City and the developer. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas referred to the red area on the SEPA Flexible Categorical Exemptions Level Map, noting it increases the SEPA thresholds into residential neighborhoods 6 -10 blocks off Highway 99 and in the south section, up to 12 blocks off Highway 99. She asked how that area was selected. Mr. Lien answered the red area is the Highway 99 corridor as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked the impact to development and economic development if the nothing was done. Mr. Lien answered the proposed changes would have only exempted 2 developments out of 193 in the past 6 years. If nothing is done, only 2 proposals would have benefited from the change. Councilmember Wilson commented the answer to Councilmember Fraley - Monillas' question was unknown because although two projects would have been exempt, it is unknown how many would have been proposed although he anticipated the requirement for a SEPA review would typically not be a deal breaker for a developer. Mr. Lien explained of the 193 proposals, 12 were within the CG or CG2 zone for which 2 would not have required SEPA review under this proposal. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSAL AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. Councilmember Plunkett supported the premise that the City needed to be consistent with WACs and RCWs. With regard to Councilmember Fraley - Monillas' comment about doing nothing, he pointed out the update was required to be consistent with those regulations. He did not support the concept of lowering neighborhood standards. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE THAT ALL INCREASES IN SEPA THRESHOLD LEVELS BE REMOVED, THEREBY LEAVING THE LEVELS AT THE MINIMUM ESTABLISHED BY THE WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. Councilmember Wilson asked what would be left for the public hearing if those change were removed. Mr. Lien asked for clarification whether the motion removed the increase in the SEPA threshold that was done 25 years ago. Councilmember Plunkett clarified only the increases in the Planning Board's recommendation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 10 Councilmember Wilson suggested if the Council did not want the policy to reflect what was in the Comprehensive Plan, more research should be done with regard to the boarder policy question. Councilmember Plunkett responded the Planning Board's recommendation with regard to meeting consistence complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Their recommendation also complies with reference in the Comprehensive Plan to encouraging economic development in this area. He did not anticipate that because a developer was required to complete a SEPA checklist, they would be prevented from seeking an economic development project. Councilmember Wilson advised he would oppose the amendment because he wanted to hear from the public. If the amendment fails he would make a different amendment that would separate consideration of the two areas in hopes it would better address the concerns with protecting residential rights in places where there are more residences such as the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. Councilmember Petso spoke in favor of the amendment, advising the public hearing could address the necessary statutory updates as well as other issues such whether staff should be completing the SEPA checklist for applicants. She was not satisfied with the solution suggested by Councilmember Wilson to separate the Highway 99 corridor and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center because under the Comprehensive Plan, both areas include several residential neighborhoods. The Planning Board minutes indicate the proposed change would have a minimal time and cost savings to a developer. However she preferred that projects such as a 20 unit residential development in front of another resident's solar collection panels or a project that technically complies with drainage codes but will impact Lake Ballinger have a SEPA review. She did not want to facilitate economic development at the expense of these neighborhoods or at the expense of Lake Ballinger. Council President Bernheim spoke against the amendment, commenting in the pursuit of economic development consideration is being given to environmental regulations. Although he did not object to that in principle as long as the right things were relaxed, he supported having a public hearing about the Planning Board's recommendation to relax the SEPA standards. The proposal could then be amended after the public hearing if appropriate. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas did not support the amendment, preferring to have a public hearing regarding the Planning Board's recommendation. She preferred to have one public hearing because there are residential neighborhoods in both areas. Councilmember Peterson did not support the amendment, commenting he did not view the Planning Board's recommendation as a relaxation of the environmental standards. He viewed it as an opportunity to reduce the bureaucratic paperwork and number of steps developers are required to complete. He commented on the importance of hearing from the public and having an open dialogue about environmental standards. MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND PETSO VOTING YES. Councilmember Petso understood the Planning Board's recommended proposal could be amended after the public hearing. She did not support the main motion because there was a good chance the public would not support the Planning Board's recommendation. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas spoke in support of the motion to hold a public hearing, commenting it was important to hear from the public, particularly the residents along the Highway 99 corridor and the Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 11 Councilmember Wilson asked what it would take for this proposed change to be relevant in a single family zone. He suggested first a developer would need to be interested in building a commercial development in a residential which would require a zone change and a Comprehensive Plan designation change. Mr. Lien answered if there were a proposal for a subdivision of more than 5 lots, although under this proposal that development would be exempt from SEPA review, it has notice requirements, and it requires view by the Planning Board and the City Council who ultimately approves /denies a 5 -lot subdivision. Depending on the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation, a Comprehensive Plan change would require SEPA review. If a rezone was required, a rezone requires SEPA review. Once the Comprehensive Plan designation change and rezone were accomplished, if the development was under the thresholds, SEPA would not be required. If the development exceeded the thresholds, a third SEPA may be required. Councilmember Wilson supported protecting single family neighborhood, noting there would already be two SEPA evaluations before a commercial development could occur in a single family zone. He summarized neighborhoods are not under threat of having an environmentally damaging commercial developments occur in their backyard as a result of the Council's consideration of the Planning Board's recommendations. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION, ONE REGARDING THE MEDICAL/HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER AND THE OTHER REGARDING THE HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR. Councilmember Wilson explained separating the neighborhoods would allow the public to indicate in which areas they felt the Planning Board's recommendations were appropriate. Councilmember Peterson spoke in favor of the amendment, commenting a one - size - fits -all approach does not work well for the City and it may be advantageous to separate the public hearings. Councilmember Petso supported the amendment to hold two public hearing although she did not expect it would have an impact due to the presence of single family neighborhoods in both areas. She pointed out this was not applicable only to commercial buildings. She provided as an example a residential neighborhood faced with development of perhaps 27 homes and under this proposal that would have required SEPA review. However if the development only had 17 homes it would have been exempt from SEPA review. In the 27 home development, staff required 6 SEPA conditions, 3 regarding preservation of trees, 1 regarding a traffic impact fee and 1 that required onsite parking. She summarized the SEPA process was what allowed those conditions to be placed on a residential development and that protection should be available to neighbors surrounding Highway 99 and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas did not want to have neighborhoods on the Highway 99 corridor pitted against each other. She wanted to maintain unity among the single family residences along the Highway 99 corridor of which she was one. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, BUCKSHNIS, WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY - MONILLAS AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO. Councilmember Plunkett understood the Council's desire for a public hearing. However, he did not support the motion because he did not support reducing neighborhood protections to allow major projects in single family neighborhoods. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 12 Councilmember Petso anticipated the public hearing would result in a different proposal than the Planning Board's recommendation. For that reason she would not support the motion. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND PETSO VOTING NO. As staff prepared for the public hearing, Councilmember Wilson said he would be interested in staff's response to the Councilmembers' concerns. He suggested staff prepare a couple case studies such as the Burnstead example cited by Councilmember Petso. Mr. Lien clarified the intent was to have two public hearings at the same Council meeting. Councilmember Wilson explained his intent was for one public hearing applying the Planning Board's recommendations to the Highway 99 corridor and a second public hearing on the same night applying the Planning Board's recommendations to the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. 7. FIRST READING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3.65 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY -SEVEN (37) TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF WALKWAYS, INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, STREET UPGRADES, TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES, CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, SIGNALIZATION INSTALLATION AND REBUILD, AND BICYCLE LOOP SIGNAGE WITH THE PROCEEDS OF A FORTY DOLLAR ($40) VEHICLE FEE INCREASE, IF APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AUGUST 3 2010. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained if passed, the proposed ordinance would expand the authorities of the existing Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (TBD) which the Council created in November 2008. The Charter of the TBD at that time was to engage itself in fundraising and provide funds for preservation and maintenance of the transportation assets within the City's rights -of -way. The proposed ordinance would modify those authorities to add to what the TBD can do and specifically authorize the TBD to seek voter approval of a $40 increase to the local transportation user fee that is now established at $20. The additional $40 would be allocated toward the completion of a project list that includes 37 projects of the type outlined in the agenda title. If the ordinances passes with second reading next week, the TBD would be able to enact an ordinance to place the item on the November general election ballot, establish voter pamphlet language and a ballot title, and provide voters an opportunity to approve or reject the proposed additional fee. Councilmember Plunkett commented this has been discussed by the TBD Board and was now at the City Council. He asked whether the City Council must approve placing it on the ballot. Mr. Williams explained because the City Council created the TBD via ordinance, only the Council can change their charter and give them new authorities. The Edmonds TBD Board can then act as the new authorities establish. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 3, 2010. Councilmember Wilson asked if this allowed enough time to hold a public hearing. Mr. Clifton answered City Clerk Sandy Chase has already issued a public notice for the August 3, 2010 public hearing. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 13 8. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THE 1938 FORD FIRE ENGINE. Greg Jorgenson, President, Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation, explained in 2003 the 1938 Ford fire engine became available to the City to be used for social events and other activities. The Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation raised $12,000 to purchase the engine from a retired Edmonds firefighter, Lt. Ron Barton, and return it to the City of Edmonds. At the Fire Department's 100th centennial celebration in 2004, the Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation presented the 1938 Ford fire engine back to the City. The engine was then used from 2004 to 2009 for events such as raffle ticket sales, the 4th of July parade, Waterball competition, the Edmonds car show and to transport Santa Clause to the Christmas Tree Lighting. When the Edmonds Fire Department was sold to Fire District 1, Fire District 1 leased the fire stations from the City. The agreement with the City when the 1938 Ford fire engine was presented to the City prevented the engine from being sold and the Fire Safety Foundation retained the first right of refusal. The 1938 Ford fire engine has been stored in a back bay at Fire Station 17. Fire District 1 needed the space for equipment storage and did not want the responsibility of the engine when it was owned by the City. The Foundation unsuccessful searched for a permanent space earlier this year and the engine was moved temporarily to the old Public Works shop on 2 a Avenue. Since it has been stored at the old Public Works facility, the engine has not been usable /accessible. The Foundation's goal is to find a permanent home for the 1938 Ford fire engine in Edmonds so that it can continue to be used in displays and events. The Foundation has met with the South Snohomish County Historical Society and the Arts Commission and other organizations to discuss the future of the engine. Mr. Jorgenson presented the Foundation's proposal for storing the 1938 engine. He explained the Foundation searched for a space at the Old Mill Town building; the ramp on Dayton Street is where the 1938 engine was parked for use by volunteers from 1938 — 1965. That space is not available as it is the designated space for tenant dumpsters. It was then suggested a storage /display case be located outside Station 17 such as on the plaza outside the Public Safety building on either the walkway or the parking lot or near the museum. The building would have a steel roof that matched the Public Safety building's roof with glass sides, doors and walls such as the glass enclosure in front of Krispy Kreme donuts on 125 /Aurora Avenue. A glass enclosure to house the 1938 Ford is estimated to cost $40,000 with a concrete foundation, steel corner posts, steel roof and glass on four sides and provide access to the engine for events, displays, etc. In the process of developing this idea, the Lieutenant in charge of firefighter volunteers for Fire District 1 spoke with Fire District 1 Chief Widdis who suggested if ownership of the 1938 Ford was given to Fire District 1 they would store the engine in Fire Station 17 temporarily until a structure could be built. In addition, Fire District 1 would return the restored 1925 REO to the City. A building to display both vehicles is estimated to cost $60,000. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether the Fire Safety Foundation would raise the money for the display case. Mr. Jorgenson answered the Foundation has the capability of reaching that goal. The first consideration would be whether the City would allow the space outside the Public Safety building to be used. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Edmonds would give the 1938 Ford fire engine to Fire District 1. Mr. Jorgenson explained Fire District 1's proposal was for the City to give them the 1938 Ford engine and they would donate the 1925 REO to the City. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested developing a hold harmless agreement with Fire District 1 if they stored the 1938 engine and Fire District 1 could use the engine at events in Snohomish County. Mr. Jorgenson explained Fire District 1 has more resources ability maintain and move equipment. The City may not have the same capability with regard to the 1938 engine. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 14 The agreement between the Fire Safety foundation and the City required that if at any time the City could no longer store or maintain the engine, it could not be sold and the Fire Safety Foundation had the first right of refusal. This was to prevent the engine from leaving the City of Edmonds. Councilmember Wilson commented none of the Council wanted anything bad to happen to the 1938 Ford fire engine. He was impressed with the Fire Safety Foundations proposal to raise the money for the glass enclosure. He asked Mayor Cooper whether he planned to meet with Fire District 1. Mayor Cooper advised he had a meeting scheduled with Fire District 1 Chief Widdis and Jim Kenny, Chair of the Board of Fire Commissioners, to discuss a variety of topics. He suggested delaying any action for a few weeks to allow for further discussions with Fire District 1 regarding a solution. Council President Bernheim observed Fire District 1 was willing to store the 1938 . Ford fire engine in Fire Station 17. It is a burden on the City's storage space; and it would be preferable to move it back into the fire station. He anticipated transferring ownership to the Fire District 1 could be a good thing and the City could consider alternate storage and display options. For Councilmember Fraley- Monillas, Mayor Cooper assured he intended to ask Chief Widdis and Commissioner Kenny to locate the 1938 engine in the fire station immediately. Councilmember Peterson anticipated this could be a phenomenal opportunity. He agreed the best place for the 1938 engine was in front of the Public Safety building but there may be technical issues related to the number of required parking spaces, etc. He suggested staff determine where a 10'x40' building could be located. Councilmember Petso commented there were arts organizations using space in the old Public Works facility. She asked whether the Fire Safety Foundation had discussed whether those entities could find a more suitable space and allow the Fire Safety Foundation to use the vehicle bay. Mr. Jorgenson explained the bay with the closed door is leased by the Edmonds Arts Festival to store their supplies. Artworks uses the next bay and Driftwood players use the other end of the building for storage and rehearsal space. The only suitable space available is where the Edmonds Arts Festival stores their supplies. Councilmember Petso asked whether that space would be suitable if an alternate space were identified for the Arts Festival supplies. Mr. Jorgenson answered there was discussion about using that space as a fire museum and that garage space would be advantageous for accessing the engine for events. It was the consensus of the Council not to take further action until Mayor Cooper had an opportunity to meet with Fire District 1.. 9. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported the recent Snohomish Health District meeting included discussion regarding the increase in tuberculosis in the general population nationwide that has not occurred since the 1950s. She also reported on the Disability Board meeting she attended with Councilmember Peterson. Councilmember Wilson reported at the SnoCom Board meeting there was discussion regarding Fire District 1 not having a seat on that Board. He suggested at the meeting that Edmonds would not object to Fire District 1 having a full seat on the board. Interlocal Agreements will need to be approved by each Council to allow Fire District 1 a seat on the SnoCom Board. The Lake Ballinger Forum is developing an Interlocal Agreement for the next phase of managing the watershed and water quality. That Interlocal Agreement will be presented to the Council in the near future. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 15 Councilmember Buckshnis reported on the Port of Edmonds Commission meeting. The Port is moving forward with Phase 1 of the Harbor Square development. She also attended a WRIA 8 meeting where there was discussion regarding involving the Port. Efforts are underway to move the cleanup of the Edmonds Marsh from WRIA 8's 10 year plan to their 3 year plan. The Port is also working on an improved budgeting method and providing financial to their citizens. Councilmember Buckshnis reported on the Economic Development Commission meeting where the Edmonds Film Festival made a presentation. Representatives from Swedish and Stevens Hospital also made a presentation regarding their affiliation. They will make a similar presentation to the Council on August 3. The EDC subgroups reported to the Commission regarding their efforts which include involving the University of Washington students in a study of Five Corners and Westgate for a very modest cost. Staff hopes to identify funds in the current budget for that effort. Councilmember Peterson reported he met with the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee and participated in a nationwide conference call with several other jurisdictions about ways to challenge businesses and residences to reduce their carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. He reminded the reusable bag ordinance goes into effect August 27. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Cooper announced he had selected Barbara Chase to serve on the Levy Committee. Mayor Cooper expressed interest in meeting with Councilmembers individually to discuss their goals and provide an opportunity to learn about each other. He invited Councilmember to email him to schedule a meeting. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Plunkett expressed his appreciation for the way Mayor Cooper conducted business in a calm, relaxed, respectful professional manner. Councilmember Petso looked forward to an opportunity to meet with Mayor Cooper. Councilmember Peterson welcomed Mayor Cooper and commented on his outstanding demeanor tonight. Councilmember Peterson thanked Mr. Hertrich for correcting the record with regarding to Fire District 1's response to a car fire downtown. He noted Fire District 1, like the Edmonds Fire Department, are committed fire professionals and among the finest in the State. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported she attended Edmonds Night Out briefly before the Executive Session. She welcomed Mayor Cooper and looked forward to meeting with him. Councilmember Wilson welcomed Mayor Cooper, reporting he met with him today. He complimented Council President Bernheim in his capacity as Mayor Pro Tem during what could have been a contentious and unstable period. Council President Bernheim rose to the challenge and he has only heard good things from staff and others in the community. Councilmember Buckshnis reported she met with staff and Mayor Cooper about the Levy Committee. She provided a PowerPoint regarding the Levy Committee: • Meet: Thursday, July 29, 2010 (last Thursday) • Time: 6:00 — 8:00 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 16 • Where: Brackett Meeting Room (City Hall) • Levy Committee Members: Barbara Chase, John Reed, Jessie Beyer, Darrol Haug, Harry Gatjen, Bill Vance, and Eve Wellington • Moderator: Diane Buckshnis • Public Comment: 3 minutes With regard how this Levy Committee would differ from the 2009 Levy Committee, she explained this Levy Committee will review expenses, research and compare salaries and FTEs with surrounding cities, review the General Fund, review compliance to newly created financial policies, review capital planning, and establish projections for a sustainable budget to 2015. The Levy Committee plans to be a spectator in the budget process, research bond financing and /or levy, engage the public in providing their research and questions, provide presentations to the public, and take their time to provide comprehensive review. With regard to how the public can help, she encouraged them to get involved; talk about it; give the Committee their ideas; support staff, the committee and the City Council; and think of how much they are willing to spend for the City. The Committee also plans to solicit input via the use of Survey Monkey. Council President Bernheim thanked Andy Eccleshall who was in the audience for painting a superb mural that adds to the City's ambiance. He welcomed Mayor Cooper and looked forward to their relationship. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2010 Page 17