09/07/2010 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
September 7, 2010
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President (arrived 7:03 p.m.)
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember (arrived 7:03 p.m.)
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Council President Bernheim and Councilmember Buckshnis were not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 31, 2010.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #120864 THROUGH #120962 DATED AUGUST 26,
2010 FOR $431,895.06, AND CLAIM CHECKS #120963 THROUGH #121100 DATED
SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 FOR $339,226.45. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT
AND CHECKS #49749 THROUGH #49806 FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 16, 2010
THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2010 FOR $662,509.81.
E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM LISA HANLON
($557.45) AND FROM TERRY CANFIELD ($663.79).
F. AM -3347 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER
CREEK WATERSHED FORUM.
G. PROCLAMATION DECLARING SEPTEMBER "NATIONAL ALCOHOL AND
SUBSTANCE ABUSE RECOVERY MONTH."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 1
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE (ECDC) 20.15A ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA). THE UPDATE IS BEING
CONDUCTED AS PART OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ITS
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE UPDATE IS BEING DONE TO ENSURE ECDC 20.15A
IS CONSISTENT WITH WAC 197 -11 WAC 173 -806 AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THIS UPDATE INCLUDES
PROPOSED INCREASES TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FLEXIBLE THRESHOLD
LEVELS FOR THE MEDICAL/HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER AS DEFINED BY THE CITY
OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
Councilmember Plunkett observed there was no recommendation from Mayor and Staff for Agenda Item
3 or 4 nor any potential action. He asked whether these were public hearings with future potential action
or was it anticipated the Council would take action tonight. Council President Bernheim explained after
the public hearing the Council would determine how to proceed.
Mayor Cooper advised this item began before he was the Mayor and there was no recommendation from
the Mayor at this time.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the difference between Agenda Items 3 and 4, observing that the
narratives in the agenda memos were nearly the same. Mayor Cooper explained the items were split at the
Council's request when the Council last discussed it. Associate Planner Kernen Lien explained when this
topic was introduced to the Council in July, it was decided to split the Planning Board's recommendation.
His presentation this evening included an introduction that applied to both areas, the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor.
When Mr. Lien reached the end of the introduction, he suggested the Council make a determination
whether to hear the presentation on both areas before opening the public hearing.
Mr. 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).
Any governmental action may be conditioned or denied pursuant to SEPA. The environmental review
process in SEPA is designed to work with 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, etc.
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 to be compliant with new SEPA rules in WAC 197 -11 .
and model SEPA ordinances in WAC 173 -806. The SEPA regulations the City uses today are essentially
the same ordinance that was adopted 25 years ago having undergone only minor amendments during that
time. Due to changes in the WAC, RCW and the City's own development regulations since the SEPA
ordinance was adopted, the update to ECDC 20.15A is long overdue.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 2
This update focused on the following four issues:
• Adoption by Reference — WAC 197 -11
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. 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.
• Model Code — WAC 173 -806
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 and compliant
with the State's regulations.
• Consistency within ECDC
The City's development code has undergone a number of amendments since 1984. This update
ensures the SEPA regulations are consistent with the rest of the City's development regulations.
• Categorical Exemptions Flexible Thresholds
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.
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 agricultural buildings — 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.
In response to a question raised by the Council regarding why consideration should be given to adjusting
the flexible thresholds, Mr. Lien explained:
• State Rules allow the City to adjust exempt levels where "supported by local conditions,
including zoning or other land use plans or regulations."
• Determining the environmental impact of a development depends on context and intensity.
Context may vary by physical setting; intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of the
impact. Some proposals may have a significant impact in one location but not in another.
• The Comprehensive Plan provides policy guidance on what type of development should be
encouraged in different areas of the City. The Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway
99 Corridor are identified as areas for more intensive development and areas where the City is
interested in expanding the economic tax base of the City by providing incentives for businesses
and commercial development.
• Comprehensive Plan also provides guidance regarding streamlining the permit process.
Mr. Lien provided several excerpts from the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with regard to
the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 3
• Highway 99 is recognized as a "...high- intensity development corridor." (Pg. 59)
• The Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center "...is intended to be an intensively development mixed
use, pedestrian friendly environment..." (Pg. 59)
• Goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor include:
• To expand the economic and tax base of the City of Edmonds by providing incentives for
business and commercial redevelopment in a planned activity center;
• Recognize and plan,for the distinct difference in opportunities and development character
provided by the Highway 99 corridor versus the local travel access patterns on local streets;
(Pg. 59)
• Policy A.6 of the Activity Center and Corridor Section states:
o Uses adjoining the Highway 99 corridor should provide more intensive levels of mixed use
development. (Pg. 60)
• The Highway 99 Corridor:
o Its economic vitality is important to Edmonds and should be supported. Commercial
development in this area is to be encouraged to its maximum potential. (Pg. 71)
• In -fill Development:
o The overall plan direction has been termed "designed infill" and can be seen in the City's
emphasis and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more
flexible standards, and improving its design guidelines. (Pg. 150)
• Edmonds Economic Development Plan
o Promote a results- oriented permit and licensing process, which consolidates review
timelines, eliminates unnecessary steps, and maintains a strong customer service approach.
(Pg. 14)
Mr. Lien summarized the Comprehensive Plan identifies the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the
Highway 99 Corridor as areas where more intensive development is appropriate. Increasing the SEPA
threshold for these areas is one way to achieve Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for encouraging
development and streamlining the permit process.
The Planning Board undertook a thorough review of the Categorical Exemption Threshold levels and
recommended the following:
• For landfills and excavations in WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(b)(v) maintain 500 cubic yards in all
locations through the City.
• Increase flexible threshold in the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
as follows:
• Residential units: 20 units
• New construction: 12,000 square feet
• Parking: 40 spaces
• Landfill or excavation: 500 cubic yards (no change)
When this matter was last presented to the Council, a decision was made to split the Planning Board's
recommendation into parts for the public hearing. Consistency with RCW, WAC, and ECDC applies to
both proposals. One proposal increases flexible thresholds for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
and the second proposal increases flexible thresholds for Highway 99 Corridor. The above information
applies to both the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor.
Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center
Mr. Lien displayed a map identifying the boundaries of the Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center, 208"'
Street to the north, 801" Avenue to the west, Highway 99 to the east and 2281h Street SW to the south. He
reiterated the statements in the Comprehensive Plan about the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, that
it is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian and transit oriented area focused on two
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 4
master planned developments, Stevens Hospital and Edmonds- Woodway High School with the related
high intensity development corridor along Highway 99. The overall character of the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center is intended to be an intensively developed mixed use, pedestrian - friendly environment in
which buildings are linked by walkways served by a centralized parking and landscaping to promote
pedestrian activity in a park -like atmosphere.
Mr. Lien displayed a map of the Comprehensive Plan designations within the Medical /Highway 99
Activity Center, explaining the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is an overlay, not a Comprehensive
Plan designation. The Comprehensive Plan designations within the Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center
include Highway 99 Corridor, Public near the High School, Medical around the hospital, Mixed -Use in
the center and Single Family Urban.
He displayed a map of the zoning within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center that exemplifies the
mixture of uses in the area that include General Commercial along Highway 99 (CG and CG2),
Community Business, Neighborhood Business, Public, Single Family and Multi Family zones.
The Planning Board's recommendation for increasing the Categorical Exemption Threshold levels for the
Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center are:
• For landfills and excavations in WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(b)(v) maintain 500 cubic yards in all
locations through the City
• Increase flexible threshold as follows:
o Residential units: 20 units
• New construction: 12,000 square feet
• Parking: 40 spaces
• Landfill or excavation: 500 cubic yards (no change)
With regard to the impact of increasing the flexible thresholds in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center, Mr. Lien explained a total of 193 SEPA reviews have been conducted by the City between
January 2004 and July 2010. Of those, 113 would be subject to the flexible thresholds. Of the 113, 95
exceeded 500 cubic yards fill and /or grade. He noted the largest trigger for SEPA review is fill and grade.
If the proposed increase in the flexible thresholds for the Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center were in
place, 2 of the 193 projects would have been exempt from SEPA review.
He emphasized SEPA is only one part of the regulatory requirements; the City has other processes and
regulations to provide public notice and hearing opportunity and to control issues that would be
considered such as transportation impacts and Critical Areas regulations. SEPA cannot control the level
of development on a property; it can only condition development based on impacts that are not otherwise
addressed in the code. SEPA has very little impact on development in single family zones.
Mr. Lien provided a case study for a 10 -lot residential development in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center, stressing this was a hypothetical development on real property.
• Subject Site and Assumptions
o 7723 and 7807 2201" Street SW
• Three parcels totaling 1.92 acres
• Zoned RS -8
o Assumes SEPA exemption thresholds have been increased
• 10 -lot subdivision
• Formal Subdivision — Five or more lots
• Multi -Step review and approval process
o Preliminary Approval — Type III -B decision before Hearing Examiner
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 5
• Civil Design Review and Approval
• Construction of improvements or Bonding
• Final Approval — Type IV -A decision before City Council
Formal Subdivision review criteria in ECDC 20.75.085
• Environmental
• Minimize impacts or impose restrictions to avoid impacts
• Minimize grading
• Can be denied if hazardous to future residents or nearby property owners
• Designed to minimize offsite impacts
• Lot and Street Layout
• Contain usable building area
• Special provisions to minimize traffic hazards
• Zoning Dimensional Requirements
• Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths
• Dedications
• City Council may require dedication of land for public use
• City Council may approve dedication of park land
• Dedication of land for streets
• Improvements
• Streets, curbs, sidewalks, stormwater, utilities, etc.
• Improvements determined by ECDC Title 18 and Chapter 1.9.75 Fire Code
• Septic may be approved if certain conditions are met
• Comply with Flood Plain Management
City Development Codes that may apply
• ECDC 16.20 Single- Family Residential
• ECDC 17.10 Bonds
• ECDC 17.50 Off - Street Parking
• ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires
• ECDC 18.80 Streets and Driveways
• ECDC 18.82 Traffic Impact Fees
• ECDC 18.85 Street Trees
• ECDC 18.90 Sidewalks
• ECDC 18.10 Sewers
• ECDC 18.30 Stormwater Management
• ECDC 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls
• ECDC 18.45 Land Clearing and Tree Cutting
• ECDC 19.25 Fire Code
• ECDC 20.75 Subdivisions
• ECDC 23.40 — ECDC 23.90 Critical Area Regulations
Review for consistency with development regulations
• The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed if the criteria
for their approval have been satisfied
• The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development in urban
growth areas, or other measures of density
• Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified in the
Comprehensive Plan
• Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as
required by Chapter 36.70A RCW
Notice of Application and Public Hearing
• Publish Everett Herald
• Post Subject Site
• Mail to property owners within 300 feet
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 6
• City of Lynwood (subject property within 1 mile of Lynnwood)
• Snohomish County (subject property adjacent to Snohomish County)
• Public Hearing before Hearing Examiner
• Type III -B decision
• Appealable to City Council
• Applicant prepares civil design
• Civil Design Review and Approval by City's Engineering Division
• Once civil design approved, applicant must complete or bond for the required improvements
• Final Approval
• Type IV -A decision by City Council
• Type IV -A decisions require public notice
• Notice published in Everett Herald
• Posted on site
• Mailed to property owners within 300 feet
• City Council's decision appealable to Superior Court
Mr. Lien explained to this point it was assumed the project would be exempt from SEPA. When a project
is reviewed for SEPA, it must meet all the exemption threshold levels. In the above case study, a 10 -lot
subdivision would meet the exemption threshold but it would require significant improvements for
sidewalks, roads, utilities, stormwater, etc. which would likely exceed the 5,000 cubic yard threshold.
Had SEPA applied to this project, SEPA review would be conducted with the underlying subdivision
application. In addition to the land use consistency review, the City will review the proposed subdivision
for consistency with RCW 43.21C (SEPA), the SEPA rules in WAC 197 -11, and the City's SEPA
regulations in ECDC 20.15A and will:
• Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately analyze all of the
proposed project's specific probable adverse environmental impacts.
• Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to adequately address
identified environmental impacts.
• Provide prompt and coordinated review by other government agencies and the public on
compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific
project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development
regulation level.
• It is only when existing local, state, or federal regulations do not provide adequate mitigation that
additional conditions under SEPA may be applied.
Mr. Lien reviewed SEPA notice requirements:
• SEPA Threshold Determinations are Type II decisions requiring public notice
• SEPA notice likely combined with Notice of Application and public hearing
• Additional SEPA notice requirements
• Other agencies with jurisdiction
• Department of Ecology
• Posted on SEPA Register at Ecology
• SEPA comment period & appeal
• 14 -day comment period on Threshold Determination
• Threshold Determination appealable to Hearing Examiner
Mr. Lien summarized key points from this case study:
• Formal Subdivisions have significant review criteria that must be met
• Public notice and public hearing are required
• SEPA does not significantly add to the review process for formal subdivision
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 7
It was the consensus of the Council to combine the public hearing on the Medical /Highway 99 Activity
Center and the Highway 99 Corridor and Mr. Lien proceeded with his presentation regarding the
Highway 99 Corridor.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE (ECDC) 20.15A ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA). THE UPDATE IS BEING
CONDUCTED AS PART OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ITS
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE UPDATE IS BEING DONE TO ENSURE ECDC 20.15A
IS CONSISTENT WITH WAC 197 -11, WAC 173 -806, AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THIS UPDATE INCLUDES
PROPOSED INCREASES TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FLEXIBLE THRESHOLD
LEVELS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR AS DEFINED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Mr. Lien provided a map of the Highway 99 Corridor, a narrow corridor from approximately 210 'h Street
SW to the north to 244"' Street SW /Lake Ballinger Way to the south. He referred to the Comprehensive
Plan policies for the Highway 99 Corridor that state uses adjoining the Highway 99 corridor should
provide more intensive levels of mixed use development and the Highway 99 corridor's economic vitality
is important to Edmonds and should be supported. Commercial development in this area is to be
encouraged to its maximum potential.
Mr. Lien displayed a map of Highway 99 Corridor Comprehensive Plan designations, explaining that
unlike the Activity Center which is an overlay with several Comprehensive Plan designations, the
Highway 99 Corridor itself is a Comprehensive Plan designation. He provided a map of the zoning within
the Highway 99 Corridor; the majority is CG (60 foot building heights) and CG2 (75 foot building
heights), there is also BC and BN zoning as a transition to the residential neighborhoods and limited
amounts of multi family zoning on the fringes of the corridor.
The Planning Board's recommendation for increasing the Categorical Exemption Threshold levels for the
Highway 99 Corridor are the same as the Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center:
For landfills and excavations in WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(b)(v) maintain 500 cubic yards in all
locations through the City.
Increase flexible threshold as follows:
• Residential units: 20 units
• New construction: 12,000 square feet
• Parking: 40 spaces
• Landfill or excavation: 500 cubic yards (no change)
With regard to the impact of increasing the flexible thresholds in the Highway 99 Corridor, Mr. Lien
explained a total of 193 SEPA reviews have been conducted by the City between January 2004 and July
2010. Of those, 113 would be subject to the flexible thresholds. Of the 113, 95 exceeded 500 cubic yards
fill and/or grade. If the proposed increase in the flexible thresholds for the Highway 99 Corridor were in
place, 1 of the 193 projects would have been exempt from SEPA review. He reiterated SEPA is only one
part of the regulatory requirements; the City has other processes and regulations to provide public notice
and hearing opportunity and to control issues that would be considered such as transportation impacts and
Critical Areas regulations. SEPA cannot control the level of development on a property; it can only
condition development based on impacts that are not otherwise addressed in the code.
Mr. Lien provided a case study for a mixed use development in the Highway 99 Corridor, reiterating this
was a hypothetical development on real property.
• Subject Site and Assumptions
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 8
0 23320 Highway 99
o Two parcels totaling 2.29 acres
o Zoned CG
o Assumes SEPA exemption thresholds have been increased
Mixed use Development
0 12,000 square feet commercial area on ground floor
0 20 residential units above
o Permitted Use in CG Zone (CG is the most permissive zone, the only use in CG zone that
requires Conditional Use Permit is an aircraft landings strip)
• Staff Review, no public hearing required
• Type I Design on District Base Design Review conducted by staff
Reviewed for consistency with development regulations
• The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed if the criteria
for their approval have been satisfied
• The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development in urban
growth areas, or other measures of density
• Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified in the
Comprehensive Plan
• Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as
required by Chapter 36.70A RCW
City Development Codes that may apply
• ECDC 16.60 CG — General Commercial: CG and CG2 Zones
• ECDC 17.10 Bonds
• ECDC 17.50 Off - Street Parking
• ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires
• ECDC 18.10 Sewers
• ECDC 18.30 Stormwater Management
• ECDC 18.40 Grading and Retaining
• ECDC 19.15 Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code
• ECDC 19.20 Plumbing Code
• ECDC 19.25 Fire Code
• ECDC 19.30 Energy Code
• ECDC 19.35 Ventilation Code
• ECDC 19.45 Housing Code
• ECDC 19.55 Electrical Code Walls
• ECDC 18.80 Streets and Driveways
• ECDC 18.82 Traffic Impact Fees
• ECDC 18.85 Street Trees
• ECDC 18.90 Sidewalks
• ECDC 18.95 Parking Lot Construction.
• ECDC 19.00 Building Code
• ECDC 19.05 Residential Building Code
• ECDC 20.12 District Based Design Review
• ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements
• ECDC 20.15A Environmental Review (SEPA)
• ECDC 20.60 Sign Code
• ECDC 23.40 — ECDC 23.90 Critical Area Regulations
When a project is reviewed for SEPA, it must meet all the exemption thresholds. This case study has
12,000 square feet of commercial area and 20 residential units which would meet the exemption under the
increased threshold levels. However, during consistency review, the off - street parking regulations in
ECDC 17.50 are also reviewed. Assuming the 20 residential units are 2- bedroom, 1.8 parking spaces
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 9
would be required for each or a total of 36 spaces. The 12,000 square feet of office with commercial
service requires 1 space /400 square feet or 30 parking spaces. The total parking required would be 66
spaces which would exceed the SEPA exemption threshold of 40 parking spaces.
Mr. Lien reviewed the project review process for this case study:
Pre — application conference
• A form that lists the requirements for a complete application
• A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application
• The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards which may apply to
approval of the application
o The City's design guidelines
Complete application
• Routed to departments /divisions with permit review responsibility
• Reviewed for consistency with Development Regulations
• District Based Design Review
SEPA review conducted with underlying development permit application
The City will review the proposed subdivision for consistency with RCW 43.21C (SEPA), the SEPA
rules in WAC 197 -11, and the City's SEPA regulations in ECDC 20.15A and will:
• Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately analyze all of the
proposed project's specific probable adverse environmental impacts
• Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to adequately address
identified environmental impacts
• Provide prompt and coordinated review by other government agencies and the public on
compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific
project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development
regulation level
• It is only when existing local, state, or federal regulations do not provide adequate mitigation that
additional conditions under SEPA may be applied
Mr. Lien reviewed SEPA notice requirements:
• SEPA Threshold Determinations are Type II decisions requiring public notice
o Publish Everett Herald
• Post subject site
• Mail to property owners within 300 feet
• Additional SEPA Notice Requirements
• Other agencies with jurisdiction
• Department of Ecology
• Posted on SEPA Register at Ecology
• City also posts SEPA determinations at City Hall, Public Safety Building, Library and Post office
• SEPA Comment Period & Appeal
• 14 -day comment period on Threshold Determination
• Threshold Determination appealable to Hearing Examiner
• Design Review Type I decision appealable to Superior Court
• Other permit decisions on the application may be appealable to Hearing Examiner or Superior
Court depending on specific code section
Mr. Lien summarized key points from this case study:
• Highway 99 and CG zones are one of the most permissive areas in the City. Anything permitted
or requiring a CUP in any other zone in the City is permitted outright in the CG zones other than
an aircraft strip.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 10
Projects must meet all SEPA exemptions in order to be exempt from SEPA review. The focus has
been on flexible threshold levels, but there are also categorical exemptions, statutory exemptions,
and several exemptions in WAC 197 -11 -800. If a project does not meet one of the exemption
levels, SEPA would be required.
SEPA provides an opportunity for public comment and notice
Councilmember Petso asked whether any changes had been made to the provisions in the code where the
City prepares the SEPA checklist for the developer. Mr. Lien responded no changes were made and that
section remains as it currently exists in the SEPA regulations. Completion of the SEPA checklist for a
developer is an option in the model code. In his experience, no developers have asked staff to complete
the SEPA checklist for them. One of the instances cited when staff would fill out the SEPA checklist was
if misinformation had been provided in the past. If the City completed the SEPA checklist, the developer
would be charged for that service.
Councilmember Petso asked where the City's code departed from the model code with its .025 section,
the model ordinances refers to 158. Mr. Lien explained the section above .025 contains an adoption by
reference list. WAC 197 -11 -158 is contained within the adoption by reference list, the same code the City
has in another section, ECDC 20.04.002.C. Rather than adopt that section of WAC when an equivalent
section in the City's code, he referenced it in the adoption list. Councilmember Petso asked whether the
section in the City's code replacing the WAC makes it any less protective. Mr. Lien answered the
language is essentially the same. Councilmember Petso noted the WAC mentions planning staff will
review the environmental checklist. That was not stated in the substitute section. Mr. Lien answered that
was a given, that was how a developer applied for SEPA review, they submitted a SEPA checklist. There
are other sections that refer to the developer preparing a SEPA checklist.
Councilmember Petso referred to the case studies Mr. Lien provided; the first example was a 10 -unit
subdivision on 2 parcels. She asked whether there would be public notice provided if the proposal was 4
units on the western parcel. Mr. Lien answered there would be public notice for a 4 -lot subdivision which
is a Type 11 decision. The same notice requirements would be required for a short plat as are required for
a formal plat. The difference would be the preliminary approval of a short plat is a Type II staff decision,
appealable to the Hearing Examiner versus preliminary approval for a formal subdivision which is a Type
III -B decision which is appealable to the City Council.
Councilmember Petso asked whether major projects on Highway 99 could be proposed without public
notice. Mr. Lien answered if SEPA was not required, there could be major projects on Highway 99
without public notice because the CG zones are the most permissive zone in the City. There are other
zones in the Highway 99 Corridor.
Observing that the ability for staff to complete the SEPA checklist had been in the code for the past 25
years, Councilmember Plunkett assumed City Attorney Scott Snyder was comfortable with staff
completing the SEPA checklist with regard to the City's liability. Mr. Snyder referred to the Public Duty
Doctrine that generally holds that neither the City nor City staff is liable for simple negligence absent an
ultra- hazardous condition or special relationship. The completion of a SEPA checklist is akin to an
inspection by a Building Inspector.
Council President Bernheim asked who directed that this effort be undertaken, to rewrite Chapter 20.15A?
Mr. Lien answered this is part of the comprehensive code rewrite. The points under review were first
introduced at the Community Services /Development Services Committee in May 2009 and the question
was asked whether to consider the categorical exemption since the Comprehensive Plan includes policies
and goals for those two areas. Staff would have been remiss if they did not ask the question whether to
consider it during the update. It was presented as an option to the Planning Board and the Planning Board
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 11
decided that given the economic development direction from the Council, it should be considered. The
Planning Board's consideration resulted in the recommendation provided to the City Council.
Council President Bernheim asked who suggested the categorical exemption for 40 parking spaces,
12,000 square foot building and 20 units? Mr. Lien stated it was staff's suggestion. The Planning Board
requested staff present proposals; that was one of several proposals considered by the Planning Board.
Council President Bernheim referred to Section 20.15A.130.E.3 that states "The applicant's proposed
mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or conditions must be in writing and must be specific." He
expressed concern with the proposed additional language, "For example, proposals to "control noise" or
"prevent stormwater runoff" are inadequate, whereas proposals to "muffle machinery to X decibel" or
"construct 200 -foot stormwater retention pond at Y location" are adequate." Mr. Lien answered that
language was taken from the model ordinance.
Council President Bernheim referred to a section that states the City shall share the EIS consultant rather
than the City having sole authority. Mr. Lien answered that was also taken from the model ordinance.
Council President Bernheim asked why this much time was being spent on the amendment if it would
have only impacted 2 projects in the past 25 years? Mr. Lien answered he was surprised by the number of
projects that would not be exempt by the proposal. The Planning Board recommended this amendment as
part of the SEPA update.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how long it took to complete a SEPA checklist. Mr. Lien answered it
depends on the complexity of the project; it could take one to a few hours depending on the person's
familiarity with the project and how much information is included. Councilmember Buckshnis
commented in view of all the other requirements, completing a checklist would not be much more
burdensome. Mr. Lien answered the checklist was only part of the process. SEPA adds to the permit
"hoops" a developer would need to go through. The Comprehensive Plan addresses streamlining the
permit process. This was one thing that could be done to streamline the permit process.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Colleen McDonald, Edmonds, a resident of unincorporated Esperance within 300 feet of the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, expressed her opposition to the proposed changes to the exemption
thresholds for the Activity Center area. One of the goals for the Medical Activity Center in the City's
Comprehensive Plan is to avoid encroaching into single family neighborhoods; this proposed change
would do just that. While the proposed change would only affect a small number of projects according to
planning staff, the magnitude of the increase is substantial for those living next to a project; 4 houses to
20 houses, 40,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet for commercial building, and 20 parking spaces to 40
parking spaces. She pointed a large residential neighborhood was currently included in the Medical
Activity Center and sections of the Center border other neighborhoods. She supported development in
appropriate locations and would be willing to consider changes if there were a way to appeal an
exemption; according to the current wording, an exemption was final and there was no opportunity for
appeal. Approving this change would send a message to residents in neighborhood within the Medical
Activity Center that commercial development was more important than preserving neighborhoods. She
questioned the proposal to expand the threshold to the maximum allowed, commenting that may be
appropriate for a large city but not for Edmonds. She urged the Council to vote against the proposed
change in the interest of the families who live in the targeted areas.
Todd Cloutier, Edmonds, commented the flexible thresholds could be omitted and the remaining
changes adopted without any noticeable impact. He commented on the inappropriate use of SEPA to
control development when the intent of SEPA is environmental protection. The City controls
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 12
development via the development code not by misapplication of environmental concerns to achieve
development goals. He acknowledged there were real development concerns in the Medical Activity
Center area and there are numerous single family residences in that area. The area needs to be reviewed in
more detail, an issue separate from this SEPA proposal. A recent proposal for a large medical facility in
the Medical Activity Center zone located within a residential neighborhood highlighted the problem with
the boundaries of the Medical Activity Center. SEPA is not the correct tool to stop that development; the
development code is. The Planning Board recommended tailoring the SEPA review level to the area,
areas with proposed raised thresholds are completely built out and the environment is already understood
and development regulations prevent doomsday development regulations. The expected impact of
changes to the flexible thresholds is minimal. SEPA checklists are not a large burden and if there is an
environmental concern, it should be addressed. He recommended adoption of the proposed SEPA changes
with the exception of the new flexible thresholds. To address the real development problems in the
Medical Activity Center, he recommended a reassessment of the boundaries of that area in the
Comprehensive Plan as well as a review of the zoning in that area. He voiced a similar concern along
Highway 99, commenting that although Highway 99 was appropriately zoned, the areas directly adjacent
should be considered as a transition area.
Joe St. Laurent, stated he represents James Klug, the majority land owner on this block within the
Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center. He relayed Mr. Klug's concurrence with Ms. McDonalds's and
Mr. Cloutier's comments. He stated Mr. K1ug's opposition to the proposed changes in the flexible
thresholds. The neighborhood within the 2001" Avenue West, 801h Avenue West, and 76`h Avenue West
area is a prosperous middle class neighborhood. Mr. K1ug is a majority land owner on the block proposed
to be developed by Kruger Clinic, Blue Star and Tony Shapiro into a 4- story, 30,000 square foot mixed
commercial use medical building. This project is not a minor intrusion into the neighborhood; it will have
a major impact on an area already impacted by traffic, drainage and congestion issues. It appears the City
is trying to push development of this area and eliminate the middle class and affordable housing in this
area for commercial enterprises that may provide minimal tax revenue to the City. If a project is exempt
from SEPA, he wanted to ensure that due process was available for citizens to voice their concerns and
participate in the process as well as the ability to appeal any decision.
Marian Bacon, Edmonds, a resident on 220t1 for 48 years, explained 220"' is very busy and a main
corridor to Edmonds and she feared commercial development in their neighborhood would increase
traffic volumes. Her neighborhood is a residential area and once businesses begin to move in, historically
there is more than one business. Businesses locating in their neighborhood will reduce home values. She
asked whether any Councilmember would be willing to have a commercial building across the street from
their home. She concurred with the comments made by the previous speakers.
Cathy Lester, Edmonds, a resident in the middle of the Activity Center, encouraged the Council to vote
against the SEPA exemption in the Medical /Highway 99 Activity Center. She pointed out the diversity of
neighborhoods in the Activity Center that includes many single family residential homes. A blanket
exemption for larger developments is not feasible in an area where there is such diversity. The larger a
development proposal is, 20 homes versus 4 homes, 12,000 square feet versus 4,000 square feet, the more
important it is to have a thorough review of the project and SEPA is an integral part of the process. If as
the case study provided by staff states, SEPA likely would not significantly add to the review process for
the formal subdivision, she suggested keeping the review process as it currently exists. She questioned the
compelling reason for adopting the SEPA exemption for these two areas. She did not support any
reduction in the process or public notice for development of any size. She was also uncomfortable with
leaving the Department of Ecology out of the process which the exemption would do.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recommended the Council not approve the proposed exemptions, pointing
out the benefit to the developer versus the cost to Edmonds citizens was not balanced. Greater harm was
possible to the environment and citizens' right to participate under the proposed exemption. Changes in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 13
the Highway 99 Corridor zoning allowed nearly unlimited development; however, there are residential
areas close to Highway 99 that are affected. He suggested the case study for the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center was not the correct study; the medical center and accompanying parking lot would have
been a more appropriate case study. He referred to Council President Bernheim's question regarding how
this proposal originated, envisioning it was staff- driven or it was simply change for the sake of change.
He suggested the number of regulations referred to in the case study created the delay in the permit
process, not SEPA.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, pointed out comments regarding the Medical Activity Center highlight
concerns with the borders of that zone. He agreed with Mr. Cloutier's suggestion to reassess the
boundaries of the Medical Activity Center as well as the zoning within that area and suggested that be
done before the SEPA thresholds were changed.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, one of two citizen representatives on the Highway 99 Task Force for
Economic Development and one of seventeen commissioners on the Economic Development
Commission, stated he was not speaking on either group's behalf but as a citizen who lives in the Aurora
Marketplace Neighborhood near Highway 99. He supported intelligent economic development throughout
the City. He did not support economic development that did not take into consideration the impact of
development on long established neighborhoods. He supported the comments made in an email from Jim
Underhill, his citizen colleague on the Highway 99 Task Force as well as the comments of Ms. McDonald
and others in her neighborhood who spoke against the proposed changes. He urged the Council to build in
protections for single family neighborhoods that surround Highway 99 and the Medical Activity Center
before embarking on a relaxation of regulations that could adversely affect long established
neighborhoods. Appropriate development on Highway 99 and in the Medical Activity Center should be
permitted but as that development begins to encroach on and impact surrounding neighborhoods,
neighborhood protections should be in place to appropriately lessen the encroachment and impact.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether a change to the Comprehensive Plan needed to be initiated by the
Council or citizens. Mr. Lien answered it could come from the Council or citizens. The deadline to submit
a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is December 31. To place an item on the docket for next
year, it would need to be submitted by December 31, 2010. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the
Council could request an emergency amendment be expedited this year. Mr. Lien answered it would be
difficult to complete a Comprehensive Plan change by yearend.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Council should give the Planning Board specific direction to
consider the boundaries of the Medical Activity Center. Mr. Lien explained that was an issue separate
from the proposed SEPA update under discussion. If the City Council chose, they could provide policy
direction to the Planning Board to consider the boundaries of the Medical Activity Center.
With regard to how this proposal originated, Councilmember Wilson recalled an April 21, 2009 meeting
when 65 citizens on the Levy Review Committee stated, 1) we need a levy, and 2) to avoid a future levy,
the City needs to work on economic development. In addition, the Council passed a resolution creating an
Economic Development Commission. Within that context, it was reasonable that the Planning Board and
staff would look for ways to expedite economic development. It is now 14 -16 months later, there are three
new Councilmembers and a new Mayor. He appreciated staff and the Planning Board asking the question,
commenting it was now up to the Council to make a decision.
Council President Bernheim expressed concern that major policy changes were included in the draft along
with updates that were technical corrections. The proposed change to the SEPA threshold seemed like a
very low priority but has consumed a great deal of staff and Planning Board time. He preferred that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 14
planning staff work on green building codes, incentives for development based on energy efficiency,
preservation of view corridors, etc. He did not support the repeal of environmental safeties to facilitate
development which is what this sounded like to him. He did not support eliminating environmental policy
procedures for an entire class of development in the name of economic development. Because Highway
99 and the Medical Activity Center are economic development zones did not mean they should be exempt
from environmental protections. He preferred the entire City be subject to SEPA review.
Council President Bernheim expressed concern that this amount of work had been done with only one
presentation to the Community Services/Development Services Committee and no request for guidance
from the Committee. The only City Council involvement following the presentation to the Committee
was the presentation staff provided in July. He did not want the Planning Board to view this as another
effort on which the Council did not act. He did not want the message to be that the Council was interested
in promoting economic development by repealing environmental regulations. He acknowledged many of
the technical updates were non - controversial.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed the motive for the proposal was as Councilmember Wilson described but
in this case the Planning Board got it wrong. He would have preferred the Planning Board bring the
policy issue of whether to increase the SEPA threshold to the Council prior to providing a
recommendation on the updates for consistency along with a change in the policy. That would have
achieved both objectives, 1) the technical update, and 2) determining whether the Council was interested
in pursuing an increase in the SEPA threshold.
Councilmember Petso suggested staff return the proposal to the Council with the technical corrections and
without the change in the flexible thresholds.
Mr. Lien clarified the Council was not interested in repealing the 500 cubic yards that has applied
throughout the City for 25 years, only the Activity Center and the Highway 99 corridor. Councilmember
Petso agreed, expressing her intent to leave the policy thresholds as they are and make the other technical
updates to better conform to the model ordinance. She was not proposing a change to the grading
threshold.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ASK
STAFF TO BRING BACK THE SEPA UPDATES WITHOUT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO
THE FLEXIBLE THRESHOLD.
Councilmember Peterson concurred with Councilmember Wilson's explanation that direction for this
review came from the Council as a result of the Levy Review Committee's recommendation and the
formation of an Economic Development Commission. The Council has told staff and citizen groups to
look for positive economic development efforts. He emphasized the zoning would not change under the
proposal to increase the SEPA threshold; SEPA is a minor part of a development proposal. As an
environmentalist, he supports SEPA but wants to ensure citizens are aware that it is the development code
and zoning that protects single family neighborhoods, not SEPA. He recalled the proposal by the Kruger
Clinic would have required an extensive review; SEPA review would not have prevented that
development. He clarified neither staff, the Planning Board nor the Council was interested in radically
changing policy; the policy is in the zoning code and development code, not in the SEPA regulations. He
expressed his support for the motion.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified he did not mean that the Planning Board should not explore things, he
was suggesting the process was wrong when major policy changes did not come to the Council first
before the Planning Board spent time on it.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 15
Councilmember Wilson suggested redefining the boundaries of the Medical Activity Center as part of the
2011 Comprehensive Plan docket. He recalled the overwhelming lesson at the time of the Kruger Clinic's
proposal was that the Medical Activity Center was poorly defined which created conflicts between the
City's vision for the area and how it was described in the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Community Services /Development Services Committee discuss
Comprehensive Plan amendment at their next meeting and return to Council with a plan of action.
Mr. Snyder suggested a motion to docket review of the language and limits of the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center in next year's Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Wilson clarified the
Council could docket a proposed question without an answer to the question. Mr. Snyder answered yes,
explaining it kept all the options open.
Councilmembers Peterson and Petso expressed support for docketing review of the language and limits of
the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
PLACE REVIEW OF THE MEDICAL ACTIVITY CENTER ON THE 2011 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DOCKET. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1�t11111 D104 [K1l04 1011 D1 011 K`1
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, reiterated her question, how the ferry system plans to spend $26 million in
Edmonds and why the eight elected officials in Edmonds do not know how those funds will be spent. She
suspected the reason elected officials did not know the answer was because the elected officials have
never asked the ferry system that question; the email Mr. Clifton sent to the ferry system stated Ms.
Shippen was asking the question. The ferry system's response has been the funds are a placeholder. Next,
she asserted the City had never asked the ferry system what one improvement project would be built with
the $26 million. She urged the Mayor and Council to ask the ferry system what the $26 million would be
spent on. To the comment that this is far in the future, she pointed out the project would be built in 19
years, and the ferry system must know what the project is. She objected to the suggestion to appeal to the
legislature with regard to this issue, anticipating they would have little interest. She assumed the project
was a second slip at the main street terminal and planned to pursue discussion of the second slip and the
Edmonds Crossing "crackpot scheme."
Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, Steering Committee Member of the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Project,
spoke in favor of the ordinance to create a Citizens Tree Board. Last April, Edmonds received
Community Wildlife Habitat certification from the National Wildlife Federation following nearly two
years of dedicated work by Laura and Paul Spehar and a committee with the support of 191 residential
property owners, 5 schools and 19 parks and green zone managers who registered their properties as
backyard wildlife habitats. The Tree Board will engage in several sub - projects that include, 1) developing
a tree ordinance designed to preserve and protect existing trees and encourage planting of additional trees,
2) increasing community outreach and education regarding the value of trees, proper selection of trees and
current methods of planting and carrying for trees, 3) working with citizen groups to organize invasive
plant removal and native vegetation planting in conjunction with the Department of Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services, 4) sponsoring an annual Arbor Day event, 5) working toward achievement of Tree City
USA status. Meetings will be open to the public and minutes will be filed with the City Clerk's Office.
Dr. Richard Senderoff and she met with Planning Manager Rob Chave and Parks Director Brian
McIntosh who reviewed and provided input on the ordinance. The ordinance has also been reviewed by
the City Attorney Scott Snyder. Once the ordinance to create the Tree Board is approved by the Council,
the Mayor's office will prepare a press release seeking applicants for the Tree Board. She encouraged all
interested parties to apply.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 16
Carlo Boley, Edmonds, expressed support for the creation of a Citizens Tree Board to provide oversight
to the process of tree removal. He has helped organize a community greenbelt cleanup and removal of
invasive species around the former Woodway Elementary and Madrona Schools. He envisioned the Tree
Board could provide support for such efforts. He noted one of the goals of the Mayor's Climate Protection
Agreement is to reduce the City's carbon emissions by 7% below 1990 levels by 2012; protecting trees is
one way to achieve this goal.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked whether the City could still collect taxes that funded the water and
sewer bonds after the bonds were paid off. He concurred with Ms. Shippen's request that the Mayor and
Council should ask the ferry system how they plan to spend $26 million in Edmonds. Next, he objected to
the Planning Department's efforts to incorporate PRD regulations into the subdivision ordinance.
Observing that a PRD is a special type of zoning that provides protection for neighborhoods, he urged the
Council to instruct the Planning Board to discontinue that effort. He summarized if PRDs were
eliminated, there would not be any perimeter requirements.
Sheri Cam, Edmonds, a Floretum Garden Club Member, Snohomish County Master Gardener,
Backyard Habitat, Plant Amnesty Member, and Heritage Tree Foundation promoter in Seattle, expressed
support for establishing a Tree Board in Edmonds. She encouraged Edmonds to also establish a Heritage
Tree Program.
6. UPDATE FROM PLANNING BOARD ON PRD /SUBDIVISION STUDY PRD PERIMETER
BUFFER ORDINANCE AND PLANNING BOARD NEEDS/PRIORITIES.
Council President Bernheim observed the Planning Board indicates they plan to review the perimeter
buffer issue next week and hold a public hearing in late October. He suggested the Council review the
Planning Board's Work Plan and he will schedule discussion of the Work Plan on a future agenda.
7. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED "TREE
BOARD."
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this topic was discussed at the Community Services/
Development Services Committee. The Tree Board is proposed in support of Tree City USA as well as to
undertake proactive efforts. If and when the Tree Board begins to review City regulations, they will need
Council approval because that effort will require substantial staff time. The Tree Board will do a lot of
their work because there will not be any staff directed to that effort. He requested the Council clarify
whether the Council President or Mayor would appoint the alternate and how replacement members
would be appointed. The standard process is for the Mayor to make appointments which are then
confirmed by the Council.
Council President Bernheim explained there is a question regarding the number of members. As
proposed, there would be 7 members; it has been suggested there be up to 15 members. Another issue is
appointment to staggered terms. He suggested if the Council approves the formation of the Tree Board,
half the members be appointed to a full term and half appointed to a half term to provide some rotation.
Mr. Chave relayed Mr. Snyder's suggestion that the sunset clause in Section 2 be eliminated.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the Tree Board would be staffed. Mr. Chave explained it would be
similar to the Historic Preservation Commission where staff does what they can. Historic Preservation
Commissioners do their own research. There is also no funding for minute taking for the Tree Board; they
would be expected to elect a Secretary who would prepare minutes.
Councilmember Wilson asked if a Tree Board was required to become a Tree City USA. Mr. Chave
answered it was one of the requirements.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 17
Councilmember Wilson commented there was no other commission structured like this in the City; even
the Historic Preservation Commission has a Council liaison. There was no provision for a
Councilmember to participate on the Tree Board. Mr. Chave answered that was typical for most boards
and commissions; there is not a direct Council liaison.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the Tree Board could be structured to ensure the Board integrated the
Council's vision. Mr. Chave commented most boards and commissions periodically report to the Council.
Providing staff and a minute taker for the Tree Board was a budget issue.
Mr. Snyder commented the Tree Board was being created to develop a tree ordinance designed to
preserve and protect trees. If the tree ordinance affected the zoning code, review and public hearing by the
Planning Board would be required. Although the Tree Board would be subject to the Open Public
Meetings Act, there are no public hearing requirements. Mr. Chave viewed the Tree Board as a fact -
gathering advisory body. The Tree Board could also serve as a sounding board when the tree regulations
are reviewed in the future.
Councilmember Wilson supported having 7 members appointed by Councilmembers. He suggested rather
than having half the members serve 3 years and half serving 4 years, the terms be 2 years and 4 years. He
did not feel it was necessary to appoint an alternate. Although he supported the formation of a Tree Board
and a tree ordinance and protecting and preserving as many trees as possible, he did not want to protect
and preserve 100% of the trees in Edmonds.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:
1. KEEP THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS AT 7.
2. REVISE THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH A ON PAGE 2 TO READ,
"SUBSEQUENT TO THE INITIAL APPOINTMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
RENEWAL/REPLACEMENTS, WHEN REQUIRED, WILL BE MADE BY THE FULL
COUNCIL."
3. CHANGE 3 YEAR TERMS TO 2 YEAR TERMS.
4. REMOVE THE PROVISION REGARDING AN ALTERNATE MEMBER.
5. REMOVE THE SUNSET CLAUSE IN SECTION 2.
Councilmember Wilson suggested clarifying in Section 10.95.01013 that the terms correlate to the terms
of Councilmembers. Council President Bernheim agreed. Mr. Snyder suggested the ordinance be revised
in accordance with Council direction and scheduled on the Council's next Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Peterson referred to Section 10.95.01013 that states each member may seek renewal for
one additional term. He clarified if a person were appointed to a 2 year term, they could seek renewal for
one additional term, a total of 6 years. Council President Bernheim agreed, noting subsequent to the initial
appointments, all terms would be 4 years.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether other boards and commissions had term limits. Mr. Snyder
answered there were on some.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
In response to Ms. Shippen, Mayor Cooper explained Mr. Clifton's communication with the Washington
State Ferries (WSF) was at his request and there have been several telephone conversations subsequent to
the email Ms. Shippen referred to. Staff is pressing WSF but the answer they give is the answer they give
and there was little more that could be done other than make the City's position clear. He suggested the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 18
Council may want to consider making its position clear to WSF at some point. Their consistent answer
has been it is a long term project 19 years in the future and the project has not yet been determined. He
has a meeting scheduled with WSF's executive director and he will raise the subject then.
Mayor Cooper encouraged citizens to complete the customer satisfaction survey available on the City's
website. In the short time the survey has been available, approximately 80 responses have been received.
He looked forward to reviewing the results of the survey with the Council later this month.
Mayor Cooper congratulated Edmonds - Woodway High School's football team who participated in the
Red Onion Burger Intimidator's Challenge, defeating Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Meadowdale
High School's football teams. The Edmonds - Woodway High School's football player finished 3.5 lbs. of
food. As a result of Edmonds - Woodway High School's football team winning the challenge, Mountlake
Terrace Mayor Jerry Smith will be on display at halftime at one of Edmonds - Woodway High School's
football games dressed in feminine attire in Edmonds- Woodway colors.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Peterson congratulated the citizens involved in forming the Tree Board and bringing the
matter to the Council. This is a great opportunity for Edmonds to be a leader in environmental efforts.
Councilmember Peterson announced a fundraiser at the Edmonds Center for the Arts on Friday,
September 10 for a new 501(c)(3) started by an Edmonds resident that helps soldiers returning with Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder. Further information is available at EC4arts.org or Operation Open Arms'
website, operation- open- arms.com
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the 2010 Citizen Levy Committee is meeting Monday, September 13
at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room. The team is working hard, looking at various aspects of a levy and
how the City operates. The Committee had a presentation from Finance Director Lorenzo Hines at the last
meeting and. Public Works Director Phil Williams will make a presentation at the September 13 meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis provided a reminder regarding the car show on Sunday, September 12.
Councilmember Wilson expressed thanks to Parks and Recreation Director Brian McIntosh who is
retiring after 27 years with the City. Councilmember Wilson explained he joined the Council in 2008;
since April 1, 2009, 6 of the 10 director positions in the City have been vacated — Finance Director,
Administrative Services Director, Parks Director, Fire Chief, Public Works Director, and the
Development Services Director. He noted 3 of the 10 positions have not been filled since the position was
vacated. He summarized that although there had been a lot of turnover on the Council and staff, the
employees who serve the City continue to do a great job.
Councilmember Plunkett congratulated Mr. McIntosh, noting he had always been available and helpful.
He will be missed.
Councilmember Plunkett reported on the special Finance Committee meeting that was held regarding the
budget amendment presented to the Council. Mr. Hines spent 2 hours with 3 Councilmembers and 6 -7
members of the public and satisfied about 80% of their questions. The Finance Committee has
recommended to the Council President that the budget amendment not be scheduled on the Council
agenda until two things are resolved, 1) an hour with Ms. Councilmember Petso to address additional
questions, and 2) there is a $2 million accounting that is still being researched. The CAFR actual General
Fund balance at the end of 2009 is $6 million. When that is moved forward via the amendment, the
balance is $4 million including the emergency reserves according to Exhibit A in the quarterly report.
Mr. Hines has said that money is rolled in and he can and will account for it. Councilmember Plunkett
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 19
assured he was not saying the money was not there, it just has not been accounted for in the quarterly
report.
He referred to clauses in the resolution on financial accountability, Resolution 1266, that are incorporated
in Chapter 3.04 Financial Reporting, which strongly suggest Mr. Hines having the information in his head
and on his computer does not meet the financial reporting requirements. He summarized that when the
amendment is presented to the Council, the Council should be able to see the numbers.
Councilmember Wilson expressed appreciation to the Finance Committee for holding a special meeting.
He expected none of the Councilmembers would say their expectations had been met with regard to
financial reporting. He observed the $6 million at the end of 2009 was the actual. The $4 million in the
quarterly report was based on the adopted budget. His understanding was there would be a $2 million net
benefit to the actual reserves once the amendment was adopted which would make the $4 million in the
Quarterly Report equivalent to the $6 million in the actual. Councilmember Plunkett preferred to see the
numbers on paper.
Mayor Cooper commented Councilmember Wilson's explanation was accurate with regard to how the
money flowed. It's comparing apples and oranges by comparing the CAFR to the Quarterly Report, it's
actual versus budget.
Council President Bernheim commented the objective of the budget amendment and the budget process
was for the Council to understand what was going on. He looked forward to an understandable
presentation.
Council President Bernheim commented all the turnover of directors except in one case had been due to
retirements which is a great testimony to the City.
Council President Bernheim announced there are two vacancies on the Planning Board. He encouraged
anyone interested in applying to contact the Mayor's office.
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 20