Loading...
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