Loading...
Cm130226EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES February 26, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Strom Peterson, Councilmember ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Ronald Cone, Interim Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Peterson. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). At 6:16 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. He announced action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Senior Planner Kernen Lien and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:44 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 5 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 6:47 p.m Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 6:49 p.m. and led the flag salute. 3. MEET WITH CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD At 6:50 p.m., the City Council met with a candidate for appointment to the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board, Richard Zitzmann. The meeting was open to the public and took place in the Jury Meeting Room, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 1 located in the Public Safety Complex. All City Councilmembers and Mayor Earling were present for the meeting with Mr. Zitzmann. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, DELETING ITEMS 16 AND 17. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda so she could abstain from the vote. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1 & 2, 2013. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #200630 THROUGH #200746 DATED FEBRUARY 21, 2013 FOR $354,335.92. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #60030 THROUGH #60045 FOR $442,967.10, BENEFIT CHECKS #60046 THROUGH #60054 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $192,823.10 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1, 2013 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2013. D. APPOINTMENT OF MR. RICHARD (RICK) ZITZMANN TO EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD. E. ORDINANCE NO. 3912 — AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 5.14 - MARIJUANA ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2013 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM B. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINED. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Victor Eskenazi, Edmonds, (Esperance), commented the Edmonds Marsh is a unique area and suggested consideration be given to a cultural facility such as a restaurant featuring native food, the food that the first people ate. It could be a unique attraction with cultural activities that would attract school children and adults. Such a facility would generate tax dollars for the City, help preserve the Marsh and help preserve culture. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, relayed a King 5 news story that reported Snohomish County had over 1,200 building permits, the highest in the last 5 years, and that Sunquist Homes is constructing homes in Edmonds. Next, he reported Representative Cindy Ryu, who was not appointed to the vacant seat on the King County Council, plans to run for the seat in November, potentially vacating her seat on the legislature. He voiced his support for the Edmonds Marsh. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 2 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the concern he voiced last week with the Mayor's salary increase in the budget amendment and whether the increase was mandatory. His understanding is the Salary Commission makes a recommendation regarding salaries and if the Council does not take any action, simply agreeing to them in general without a hearing, the increases are permanent. He expressed concern the Council appeared to be eliminating hearings on important subjects such as the item on tonight's Consent Agenda regarding marijuana. He recalled a statement by Councilmember Yamamoto last week regarding an item the Finance Committee placed on the Consent Agenda and that a Councilmember could pull it if they wished. He urged the Council to remember the public wants to participate and to educate the public as thoroughly as possible. At Mayor Earling's request, Reporting Human Resources/Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite (staff liaison to the Citizens Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials (CCCEO), advised the Commission made a recommendation to the Council on May 1, 2012. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained there is a constitutional requirement that elected officials not set their own compensation. There are two ways to set the compensation for elected officials, 1) the Council setting compensation for a future Council, or 2) use of a Salary Commission. The issue with the Salary Commission was reconciling City code with State law and the State constitution. The City code uses the word "recommend" which it probably should not because the Council cannot set its own salary. Mr. Taraday recalled his advice regarding how the Salary Commission should operate to be consistent with State law is to make its salary determination and have it automatically included in the budget so that the Council is not taking action specifically on their own compensation. For that same reason, the Council would not hold a hearing on their own compensation; any hearing for that purpose should be held by the Salary Commission not the Council. If the Council is not satisfied with that process, the Salary Commission process can be abandoned and return to the Council setting compensation for a future Council. With regard to the question regarding the Mayor's salary, also set by the Salary Commission, Mr. Taraday explained his advice at the time of the Salary Commission's recommendation was to have that increase included in the budget so that there was no need to take action on it. For some reason that did not happen, so at some point the Council will need to determine what to do about that. Ms. Hite advised the Salary Commission held two public hearings; they were publicized and held in the Plaza Room above the library. The Salary Commission made their recommendations based on input at the public hearing, fact finding, interviews with current and former elected officials, etc. Mayor Earling explained if the City Attorney determines that he is obligated to accept the salary increase, he will decline it and if unable to do so, he will purchase something for the benefit of the City on Main Street between 5th and 6. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was opposed to the increase. She observed the Council receives recommendations from many boards and commissions and asked why the Salary Commission's recommendation was mandated. It was her understanding Mayor Earling declined the increase due to the City's financial difficulties. Mr. Taraday agreed it was counter -intuitive, particularly for Councilmembers used to receiving recommendations from advisory bodies. He offered to follow-up with the Council in more detail after he had an opportunity to do further research. He summarized the Council is forbidden by State law from setting their own compensation. That is why the Salary Commission is convened. To the extent the Salary Commission's action is a recommendation and the Council takes action, the Council would be setting their own compensation which is a violation of the State Constitution. He assumed that constitutional provision was intended to protect the public from public officials who might use the opportunity to line their own pockets. By automatically including the Salary Commission's recommendation in the budget, the Council is not setting its own compensation. He reiterated the Council Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 3 is not obligated to utilize the Salary Commission; the Council could return to setting compensation for future Councilmembers. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the same issue arose in 2009 with then -Mayor Haakenson who declined the increase and the Council voted not to approve the increase. Mr. Taraday responded in addition to setting compensation for Councilmembers, the Salary Commission also considers the Mayor's and Judge's salaries. The Mayor and Judge do not technically set their own compensation because they do not vote on the budget. The Mayor's increase was removed from the budget amendment on tonight's agenda to allow him to do further research. 7. CITY HALL ENERGY STAR AWARD 2013 Mayor Earling explained the City has been aggressive about pursuing energy savings, particularly at City Hall. The City received the Energy Star Award last year and was notified the City has received it again this year. He recognized staff members Jim Stevens and Dan Housler for their efforts. He presented the City Hall Energy Star Award to Public Works Director Phil Williams. Mr. Williams enthusiastically accepted the award on behalf of the facilities crew, all of whom do a great job. He thanked the Council for their past investments in projects that have led to energy savings in many City buildings. The Energy Star Award for City Hall recognizes that City Hall is in the top 20% of similar buildings nationwide and the only City Hall in Washington that received the award. This is the third year in a row the City has received the Energy Star Award. The award will be displayed prominently in City Hall. 8. PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT QUARTERLY REPORT Executive Director Joe McIalwain reviewed programming and operations: • 81 % average capacity this season, 500-600 attendees in 700 seat facility • Recent Sellouts: Pilobolus, Ed Asner • Up Next: Blind Boys, Ladysmith, Nanci Griffith, Taj Majal • Education/Outreach: Student Matinees, Residencies • Community Groups: DeMiero Jazz, Terrace Park, Edmonds Community College • Rick Steves' Europe: Symphonic Journey (free) • KIDSTOCK! 2013 — 2,500 Attendees (free) • Summer Camps — Shakespeare, Book -it, Zambini • 2013-2014 Season Planning Underway • Center Stage Sponsorship Event — May 1 Next, he provided a legislative update. He has been working in partnership with the 20-member Association of Washington State Public Facilities Districts (AWSPFD) to affect legislation to extend the State sales tax rebate for 15 years beyond its current sunset date. Bills have been introduced in the House (HB 1687) and Senate (SB 5599). He and other members of the AWSPFD presented to the House Finance Committee on February 18 and the Senate Ways and Means Committee on February 19. He was hopeful those bills would be successful and said he may ask the Council and Mayor to contact legislators to encourage them to support those bills. He also reported on Snohomish County Lodging Tax: • County finance staff is responding to a "fiscal note" in the 2013 budget to provide detailed • information regarding current reserves, projected revenues and allocation guidelines • Report to County Council scheduled for May 2013 • Awaiting announcement of grant opportunities and guidelines Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 4 With regard to facilities, Mr. McIalwain reported the ECA's Operations Manager Jeff Vaughan does a wonderful job managing all the rental contracts as well as managing and maintaining the facility. The Facilities and Maintenance Committee are preparing to conduct a facilities condition assessment to help identify immediate and long-term facilities concerns. The next step will be creation of a comprehensive and prioritized maintenance and capital replacement plan utilizing condition assessment results. Mr. McIalwain reviewed operating revenue/expenses: O eratin Revenue /ExPense Revenue 2012 Bud et 2012 PYE 2013 Bud et Contributions -Operating $ 562,000 $ 679,988 $ 650,000 Rental Revenue 330,000 322,696 340,000 Concessions 55,000 97,692 105,000 Ticket Sales & Fees 460,000 424,993 485,000 Total $1,407,000 $1,525,370 $1,580,000 Expense Presenting/MarketingPresenting/Marketing $ 431,000 $ 489,565 $ 485,000 Facilities/Operations 250,000 303,019 290,000 Labor costs 630,000 569,929 675,000 Other Expenses 72,000 94,280 75,000 Total $1,383,000 $1,456,792 $1,525,000 Net Revenue $ 24,000 $ 68,578 $ 55,000 Mr. McIalwain reviewed non -operating revenue/expenses: Non -Operating Revenue/ExPens Revenue 2012 Bud et 2012 PYE 2013 Budget Sales Tax Rebates $ 435,000 $ 418,866 $ 435,000 Transfer from Operations -- 45,000 35,000 Interest Earnings 130 1,454 130 Total $435,130 $465,320 $470,130 Expense Debt Service Interest $396,026 $410,240 $256,226 Debt Service Principal 305,000 305,000 380,000 Capital Expenditures 15,000 -- 20,000 Total $716,026 $715,240 $656,226 Net Revenue Shortfall $280,896 $249,920 $186,096 He explained the $186,096 is the amount the PFD will need to request in a City loan to assist with meeting the PFD's bond obligation, provided another solution cannot be determined by yearend. He pointed out the success of the facility has allowed transfer from operations to reduce the loan request from the City. The City budgeted $190,000 for a loan to the PFD in 2013. Mr. McIalwain reported on the Strategic Plan: • Designed to guide EPFD/ECA through next 5 years • Consulting Team - BERK and AdvisArts • Stakeholder input received through interviews focus interviews, groups and surveys • Reviewing and updating mission and vision • Confirms two key points of essential focus: debt retirement and major facility maintenance/repair • Five key strategic categories: o Arts Programming & Outreach Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 5 o Funding and Financial Management o Facility Maintenance & Capital Improvements o Facility Redevelopment Planning o Governance & Organizational Capacity • Once completed and approved, a copy of the plan will be provided to City Council and staff • A nearly final draft has been completed and forwarded to Steering Committee for review/approval • ECA Board review/approval — Tuesday, March 12 • PFD Board review/approval — Thursday, March 28 • Implementation begins April, 2013 Mr. McIalwain summarized: • Programming continues to expand and improve • Cultural and economic impact of ECA continues to grow, gaining more local and regional recognition • Operation's financial performance is strengthening • Legislative actions are being taken to try to address long-term debt and reduce/eliminate need for City loans • Strategic plan scheduled for completion in March, implementation in April Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the PFD/ECA audit exception and what is being done to correct it. Mr. McIalwain responded the audit finding the PFD received last year is as follows: The District's financial position continues to place it at risk of not meeting its financial obligations. During the current audit, the auditor found the District is working to increase revenue and decrease expenditures; however it has not generated sufficient funds to meet its financial obligations. Mr. McIalwain explained the State auditor applies formulas to the financial statements and produces ratios; the current ratio raises a red flag due to the $250,000 difference between revenues and expenses. The auditor's analysis does not take into account the loan the City provides the PFD to meet its debt obligations in the short term because they view it as a shift of long term debt from one place to another. Until a solution is identified, he was unsure if that would continue to be a finding. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the PFD has not created a capital reserve policy. Mr. McIalwain agreed that has not been done. The issue is earning enough net revenue in operations to apply a portion to debt service to keep the City's loan as low as possible and establish reserves to meet ongoing maintenance and ultimately capital replacement. The Strategic Plan will provide some guidance. If a new revenue stream cannot be identified, the PFD may have to work with the City on a middle -ground of keeping the loan to assist with debt service as low as possible and continue to take care of the facility. He assured staff continues to seek capital grants. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the non-profit ECA Board could apply for grants. Mr. McIalwain answered they can but funds from non -profits are typically investments in new buildings, and not maintenance. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the City provided the PFD $250,000 in 2012, recalling the City provided less due to a payment from the PFD. Mr. McIalwain answered the $250,000 was correct and offered to meet with Councilmember Buckshnis, explaining Finance Director Shawn Hunstock and Accountant Deb Sharp met to resolve the numbers. Councilmember Buckshnis spoke in favor of setting up a capital reserve for the ECA, and the possibility of establishing a reserve policy. Mr. McIalwain explained sales tax rebates from Snohomish County are improving. He anticipated in the future the PFD would ask for less and less loan amounts and then begin Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 6 to repay the loans. The loan amount in 2013 is less than 2012 and he assured the loan amount in 2013 would be $187,000 or less. 2013 FEBRUARY BUDGET AMENDMENT Mayor Earling explained Finance Director Shawn Hunstock reviewed the amendments in detail at last week's Council meeting. Interim Finance Director Ronald Cone explained other than the removal of the Mayor's salary increase, there were no other changes to the amendment presented to the Council last week. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the $12,000 for professional services for Hainline for Haines Wharf Park and Walkway. Public Works Director Phil Williams responded that was the last billing from Hainline for Henry Speiker's work during the settlement process. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3913, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3904 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT UPDATE Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained since the Council approved Ordinance No. 3909 in January 2013, Finance, Information Technology, Community Services/Economic Development and the City Clerk's Office have been reviewing information to ensure it is as accurate as possible before letters and assessment statements are mailed. A decision was made to send out two letters; the first letter was mailed last week to both the business address and the mailing address on the business license. This was done to ensure the business owners received the letter as soon as possible. The purpose of the first letter is to 1) inform the business owner that the City Council formed the BID for the downtown area, 2) invite interested business owners to submit their name for consideration for appointment to the Interim Members Advisory Board (appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council), and 3) on a separate page in large font, inform the business that all future mailings related to the Edmonds Downtown BID will be sent to the mailing address on the business license and asking the business owner to contact Huda Olsen in the City Clerk's Office if the address is incorrect. Thus far no calls have been received. The second letter will be from the Members Advisory Board following appointment of the Board. The letter will explain more about the Edmonds Downtown BID, the levy of assessments, a table listing the square footage ranges, the per quarter assessment for "by appointment" or "open door" businesses, and the assessment collection schedule. The letter will also include a separate page, stating in large font that their business has been identified as either an open door or by appointment business, the square footage of the business listed on the business license and identifying the assessment per quarter. Business owners will be asked to contact Sarah Mager, Accounting Supervisor, with questions about their square footage or the type business. It is hoped by the time both letters have been issued, all questions can be resolved before assessment notices are issued. Mr. Clifton explained that due to the resignation of the Finance Director, it took longer than anticipated to send out the first letter. ECC 3.75.120 establishes two 90 day periods; one period follows adoption of the ordinance for creation of the 2013 work program and a second 90 day period that begins when the Members Advisory Board is created to develop the bylaws. Because it took approximately 1'/2 months to send out the letter and the Mayor needs to appoint the Members Advisory Board, approximately half of the 90 days to create the work program has elapsed. He requested the Council amend ECC 3.75.120 to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 7 add an additional 60 days to the timeframe to develop the work program. That amendment could be prepared and presented to Council next week. The Members Advisory Board will present the 2013 work program to the Council for approval. Once the members of the BID choose their own Members Advisory Board, they will prepare and submit a 2014 work program to the City Council before the end of September 2013. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Members Advisory Board will be selected. Mr. Clifton responded the ordinance calls for appointing members based on proportional representation based on the valuation of collections. It is approximately a 50150 split now. The ordinance allows for appointment of an Interim Board of 7 to 11 members. Thus far, 14 individuals have expressed interest in serving on the Interim Members Advisory Board; a proportional representation would be 5 members from by appointment businesses and 5 members from open door businesses. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the deadline for businesses to submit their name to participate on the Board. Mr. Clifton advised the letter requests names be submitted by March 8. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the 50150 split of open door and by appointment businesses. Mr. Clifton responded the percentages based on the total assessment collected are 50.6% open door and 49.4% by appointment businesses. Councilmember Bloom pointed out if the percentage was based on the number of businesses, there would be more by appointment members of the Board. She asked whether the calculation method could be changed. Mr. Clifton answered it was in the ordinance and the only way to change it would be for the Council to revise the ordinance. 11. DISCUSSION: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE INTRODUCTION Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the second introduction to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. He provided a brief introduction at the December 4, 2012 Council meeting, primarily related to the Harbor Square property. A continued work session regarding the SMP is scheduled on March 26 and a decision will be made at that meeting whether to hold another work session. Mr. Lien provided an overview of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA): • Adopted in 1971 • Policies address: o Shoreline Uses ■ The SMA establishes the concept of preferred uses of shoreline areas. Preferred uses include single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses, water dependent industrial and commercial developments and other developments that provide public access opportunities. o Environmental Protection ■ The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life..." against adverse effects. All allowed uses are required to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline. o Public Access ■ Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities • Shoreline Master Program o Under the SMA, each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a SMP that is based on state laws and rules but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline -specific combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 8 In 2003 the Department of Ecology (DOE) adopted SMP Guidelines that are contained in WAC 173 -26. The SMP Guidelines are state standards which local governments must follow in drafting their shoreline master programs. The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the SMA (RCW 90.58.020) into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. Edmonds did a fairly significant update of its SMP in 2000; the prior SMP was adopted in the early 1970s. The SMP is comprised of several documents: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations • Draft ECDC Title 24 • Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications • Administrative provisions • Cumulative Impact Analysis He reviewed components of the SMP update: • Technical Advisory Committee, convened in 2006 • Consultant Documents o Shoreline Inventory and Characterization o Restoration Plan • Development Regulations — ECDC Title 24 • Cumulative Impact Analysis • SMP must be approved by Ecology o Have tentative DOE approval of regulations Mr. Lien explained the SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (Edmonds has none) • Lakes 20 acres or larger • Shorelands — upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands Mr. Lien described the differences between jurisdiction, setback and buffers: • Jurisdiction —Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high watermark of shorelines (OHWM) • Setback — Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM • Buffer — the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. Buffer widths vary depending on the relative quality and sensitivity of the area being protected. Unlike zoning or shore setbacks, buffer areas are intended to be left undisturbed, or may need to be enhanced to support natural processes, functions and values. Mr. Lien explained often people think of an idealized natural concept of an undeveloped shoreline when thinking about buffers. The reality in Edmonds is a heavily developed shoreline with the Port, railroad tracks and other uses. Thus the naturalized concept for buffers does not apply in urban developed areas. As an example, he provided an image of Lake Ballinger, identifying the shoreline jurisdiction, shore setback prescribed by the SMP, and wetland setback. He provided an image of the bluff area in north Edmonds, identifying the railroad tracks, steep bluffs, bluff setback, and critical area building setback. Council President Petso asked if the appropriate setback and buffers are intended to be in Title 24 or will other critical area ordinances apply. Mr. Lien answered he would address that later in his presentation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 9 Mr. Lien explained a key aspect of the SMA and a key consideration in developing the SMP is the concept of no let loss: • RCW 90.58.620 — Updated SMP's must ensure expansion, redevelopment and replacement of existing structures will result in no net loss of the ecological function of the shoreline. • WAC 173-26-186 — Local master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions. Achievement of no net loss is documented via the cumulative impacts analysis. • SMP Handbook — Setbacks only, with vegetation conservation and enhancement with new development meet the requirements to protect ecological functions. Mr. Lien reviewed the draft Shoreline regulations in ECDC Title 24. • Part I: Introduction ECDC 24.10.000 — 24.10.060 o 24.10.030 — Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations ■ SMP is adopted element in Edmonds Comprehensive Plan ■ SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC • Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP • SMP prevails where there are conflicts • Part II: Goals & Policies ECDC 24.20.000 — 24.20.110 o Goals and Policies reviewed by Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in 2006 o Largely unchanged from current SMP o Added policies on climate change, LID, and Edmonds Marsh • Part III: Shoreline Environments ECDC 24.30.000 — 24.30.080 o Intent is to encourage uses that will protect or enhance the current or desired character of a shoreline. o Environment designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction o Environmental designations reviewed by TAC o Edmonds has 11 Shoreline Environments: ■ Aquatic • Aquatic I (Low Intensity) — purpose is to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the OHWM. • Aquatic II (high intensity) — purpose is protect the unique characteristics and resources of the aquatic environment by managing water -dependent use activities to prioritize preservation and restoration of natural resources, navigation, recreation, and commerce, and by assuring compatibility between shoreland and aquatic uses. Natural — purpose is to protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require that only very low -intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. • The Edmonds Marsh and the historically contiguous wetland to the east of State Route 104. • The Shell Creek wetland and lower riparian zone Conservancy — purpose is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplains, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses • Bracket Landing South and North • Off -leash Dog Park • Willow Creek outlet of Edmonds Marsh Shoreline Residential — purpose is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with the SMP. • Shoreline Residential I Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 10 — North Edmonds east of railroad, RS-12 & RS-20 zoning Shoreline Residential II — East of railroad, RS-6 zoning Shoreline Residential III — Lake Ballinger, RSW-12 Mr. Lien explained one of the major changes between the current SMP and the updated SMP is the change in designation of the Edmonds Marsh. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh was considered an associated wetland which meant shoreline jurisdiction ended at the edge of the Marsh. In this update, DOE determined the Edmonds Marsh was itself a shoreline and the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the edge of the Marsh. The portion of the Marsh that is shoreline jurisdiction is the portion that is tidally influenced, the salt marsh area. He displayed an image identifying the historic boundaries of the Edmonds Marsh and the boundary set for the SMP. He identified an area where WSDOT estimated would turn into a salt marsh if Willows Creek were daylighted. Mr. Lien continued with the list of Edmonds' 11 shoreline environments: ■ Urban Mixed Use — the purpose is to provide for high -intensity, water -oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded • Urban Mixed Use I — North of fishing pier to Brackett's Landing South • Urban Mixed Use II Ferry Terminal Marina Beach to fishing pier • Urban Mixed Use III Upland areas around Edmonds Marsh Commercial area north of ferry terminal Councilmember Buckshnis commented Urban Mixed Use III was the only classification that allows residential. Mr. Lien agreed, explaining the SMP update is to consider all plans made or being made. Staff was aware the Port was considering redevelopment of Harbor Square which included a residential component. He identified an area where the Urban Mixed Use III applies to a Master Plan II zone that also envisions mixed use development with residential and commercial. He advised the use tables consider residential development within Harbor Square. Council President Petso asked if Urban Mixed Use II was an option for the south end of the Marsh as it was her understanding that was to be a transportation oriented use such as the ferry terminal relocation. Mr. Lien answered the south end of the Marsh allows for residential use. There is a MP 1 zone on the hill and MP 2 zone at the base of the hill. In the MP 1 zone, multi -family residential, offices, hotels/motels, restaurants, local public facilities and other uses are allowed. In the MP 2 zone, all uses permitted in the MP 1 zone are allowed. Council President Petso relayed her understanding the area on the map colored purple was intended to be used for the new ferry terminal, a transportation use. Mr. Lien responded it is the Edmonds Crossing site, but some commercial development was also envisioned in that area. Mr. Lien advised language describing the difference in the Urban Mixed Use environments is contained on page 30 of Title 24. Mr. Lien continued with the list of Edmonds' 11 shoreline environments: ■ Urban Railroad — purpose is to identify the 100-foot right-of-way for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad along the Edmonds shoreline. This designation will provide for high -intensity transportation uses while protecting ecological functions • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 11 Mr. Lien continued his review of the draft Shoreline regulations in ECDC Title 24. • Part IV: General Policies & Regulations ECDC 24.40.000 — 24.40.090 0 24.40.080 — Shoreline Development Table ■ Allowed uses and required permits 0 24.40.090 — Bulk and Dimensional Standards ■ Setbacks and height limits Councilmember Buckshnis observed there is a jurisdiction of 150-200 feet from the OHWM, and a shore setback of 50 feet and asked whether the jurisdiction trumps the setback. Mr. Lien answered the jurisdiction is not a buffer or setback; 200 feet from the OHWM is the shoreline jurisdiction and is where the SMP applies. Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example: a house could not be located in the dog park because it is not 200 feet from the OHWM. Mr. Lien answered a house could not be located in the dog park because it is a conservancy environment which does not allow residential development. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the shore setbacks in Urban Mixed Use III are 50 feet and 15 feet for Urban Mixed Use I and 11. She asked if that could be changed, expressing her interest in having the correct setbacks to seek grant funds. Mr. Lien responded he has worked closely with Ecology drafting these regulations; Ecology submitted a letter to the Port, copied to the City, regarding the Mixed Use III environment, and it states Ecology supports the Edmonds draft Mixed Use III shoreline environment and the associated shoreline regulations for Harbor Square area. The proposed standards recognize the existing high intensity land use that is present at Harbor Square and the highly modified upland shoreline environment adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh. Standards allow for potential redevelopment in the same impervious footprint. He explained although there are small setbacks, the setback is larger than currently exist and any redevelopment of the area provides an opportunity for enhancement. This also applied to critical area regulations that are outside the shoreline. Edmonds is 96% developed and many of the buffers encompass 2-3 parcels and the science the buffers are developed on areas that are undeveloped natural areas and do not apply to urbanized area. Councilmember Yamamoto asked how the OHWM is determined. Mr. Lien answered the OHWM on Puget Sound is the mean higher high tide. There are two high tides each day, one is always higher. The mean higher high tide for the Edmonds area is 10 feet. Around the Edmonds Marsh area, the OHWM is the edge of the wetland. Mr. Lien continued his review of the draft Shoreline regulations in ECDC Title 24. He explained a major change is proposed in the SMP update: • Part VIII: Administration — Shoreline Permits ECDC 24.80.000 — 24.80.170 o Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 0 24.80.100 —Public Hearing ■ Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner ■ Proposing only significant permits going to Hearing Examiner: • One or more persons request a hearing • A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued • Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use • The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits • Part IV: General Policies & Regulations ECDC 24.40.000 — 24.40.090 o 24.40.020 — critical areas o GMA vs. SMA o CAO Integration Options: 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO 3. Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 12 o Recommend City pursue options two and three Mr. Lien explained there are certain provisions within the CAO that had to be excepted out such as the reasonable use variance in the CAO. There is a shoreline variance process in the SMP that will need to be followed, not the CAO variance process. Councilmember Bloom asked what was meant by "except out." Mr. Lien explained these are provisions of the CAO that do not apply within shoreline jurisdiction. The entire CAO was adopted by reference. He referred to Section D, page 35 of the SMP which lists the provisions of the CAO that would not apply within shoreline jurisdictions. The remainder of the CAO would apply within shoreline jurisdictions. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained the reasonable use variance in the CAO does not apply in shoreline jurisdictions; however, there is a variance process in the SMP for shorelines. He summarized he has worked closely with Ecology in developing the City's SMP and these were items that Ecology said would need to be excepted out before they would approve the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified in this instance the SMP trumps GMA. Mr. Lien agreed. Mr. Lien explained another major change with regard to exceptions is there are certain provisions that are allowed in the City's CAO that would require a shoreline variance. He provided an example in a bluff area in north Edmonds; the CAO requires a 50 foot setback from the top of the bluff and a 15 foot building setback for a standard setback of 65 feet. The CAO regulations allow construction close to the bluff with a geotech report that says it is safe. In the updated SMP, building closer to the standard setback would require a shoreline variance. The same is true with wetland buffer reductions, construction closer than the 50% reduction allowed by the CAO would require a shoreline variance. Mr. Lien reviewed CAO integration: • 24.40.020.13 — CAO exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands 24.40.020.0 — CAO provisions allowed with shoreline variance Wetlands 0 24.40.020.17 — Wetlands o Wetland regulations based on Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities: Publication No. 10-060- 002 o Wetland compensatory mitigation ratios according to Ecology's Guidance for protecting and Managing Wetlands, Appendix 8-C, Table 8-C11: Publication No. 05-06-008 Mr. Lien asked what other details the Council would like to have provided at the March 26 work session. Council President Petso asked if the PowerPoint slides were available in the Council packet or on the City's webpage. Mr. Lien answered he could make the slides available to the Council. Council President Petso requested the slides Mr. Lien presented tonight be posted on the City's website. Mr. Lien advised he has created a webpage on the City's website for the SMP update that contains all the details and links to Planning Board and City Council agenda items. He will add this PowerPoint to that webpage. Councilmember Buckshnis commented her primary concern is having the correct setbacks around the Marsh so if/when WRIA 8 funds are available, the setbacks are consistent with other cities' setbacks. Mr. Lien commented every city is different; the SMP update is intended to fit Edmonds. Mayor Earling suggested Councilmembers forward any additional questions to Mr. Lien. Mr. Lien explained he plans to review the use tables and setbacks at the March 26 work session. He encouraged Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 13 Councilmembers to inform him if there were other elements of the SMP update they wanted him to provide further details on. 12. DISCUSSION: CITY CODE REVIEW/REWRITE Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained this is a follow-up to a presentation made at the Council retreat. He reviewed the general approach for a code mapping project: • Technical exercise o Improve organization o User-friendly orientation o Web -based for online delivery o Identify and resolve conflicts • Identify policy issues o Policy issues will require a separate public process o Could be simultaneous or follow-on process • Problem: o Edmonds has standards that are specific to Edmonds and reflect community values and identity o No single template to adopt o No single consultant can provide a finished product • Intent is to maximize available recourses o Requires substantial staff commitment and time o Use Code Publishing for presentation and online format and delivery o Use AWC template/author to provide legally sound modules to help organize re -mapped code Mr. Chave described research done thus far: • January 2013 — met with Code Publishing to review existing and potential expansion of online formats and features • January 2013 — met with Carol Morris to review AWC templates and potential legal services • 2012 — completed digital mapping of existing code (displayed digital map of ECC and ECDC) Council President Petso asked how issues that are policy and/or legal issues will come back to Council. She assumed once they have been identified, they will need to be prioritized. Mr. Chave answered that will entail working with Carol Morris. For example, Ms. Morris has been working on a template that integrates a standard subdivision process that tracks with State law and the civil review. As civil review is not included in the City's code, that will be a high priority. He anticipated a few high priorities will be identified early in the process and others will arise throughout the process. His plan is to provide an update to the Council every 1 to 2 months, identify policy issues that have arisen and determine whether the Council wants them pursued via a separate process or incorporated in the rewrite. Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Chave to provide further details regarding the overall civil review process that is not mentioned in the subdivision code. Mr. Chave explained there is a preliminary approval in the subdivision process where most details are worked out. Final approval occurs after the process of developing and having civil plans approved administratively by the City and showing that the requirements of the preliminary approval have been met. The subdivision code is essentially silent regarding the process for approving civil plans. Councilmember Bloom asked whether most other cities include the civil process in their code. Mr. Chave was uncertain, noting subdivision processes primarily come from State enabling legislation and do not include the civil process. Subdivision processes were developed primarily via zoning rules; whereas civil approvals are related to Public Works and Utilities. There are a number of potential issues that can arise Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 14 during a civil review process such as it is not feasible to do something that was envisioned during the preliminary stage. It would help administratively to identify the process that would be used in those circumstances. Councilmember Bloom observed the information presented regarding the code mapping had icons with drop down menus. She asked how the drop down menus could be viewed. Mr. Chave answered it is specific software and the City only has licenses for a few copies. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Chave explained the boxes displayed on the code mapping page represent sections of the existing code. Using the software, pieces of the code can be moved around and exported into a word processor to revise the language. The benefit is there is an electronic trail and allows for visual organization. He noted the new code sections would likely have different names than the old. For example, it would not necessarily be "zoning," it may be called something different such as "private property development." When people look at the code, they want to know more than just the zoning; they want to know all the regulations. Councilmember Bloom asked when in the process the Council could see those details. Mr. Chave answered the high level titles in the reorganization will be identified and the listings under those subjects. That will give the council a good idea of what the new code will look like and will be available in 2 to 3 months. 13. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Yamamoto reported he is the Council liaison to several boards including SnoCom, CTAC, Port of Edmonds, and Seashore Transportation Forum. With regard to SnoCom, as part of a dispute resolution, he visited the New World vendor in Detroit along with other SnoCom, SnoPac and NorCom representatives. This has been ongoing since 2009, and the only leverage is to withhold maintenance payments which amount to $300,000 to $400,000. The live date for the New World product has been repeatedly delayed. The New World system will provide enhanced 911 capabilities and coordination between Snohomish County and King County as well as provide additional information to police and fire. He further reported SnoCom's budget is doing well and they reduced their monthly costs by $73,000. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Public Health District meeting did not have a quorum. They were able to distribute food establishment awards for grocery stores, restaurants and mobile food vendors in Snohomish County. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she was recently appointed to the Law and Justice Committee for Snohomish County. She has attended one meeting and looks forward to learning more about law and justice standards in Snohomish County. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board plans to make its annual presentation to the Council on March 5. The Tree Board's recent meeting included discussion regarding a tree inventory and an Arbor Day celebration. Councilmember Bloom reported the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee discussed exploring advertising on social media and wayfinding signage. Councilmember Bloom reported the Economic Development Commission (EDC) discussed communicating with Council and getting direction from Council. The EDC may develop a questionnaire for Councilmembers to complete. The meeting also included reports from subcommittees, discussion regarding uses in the BD 1 zone and a summary of issues related to gambling. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 15 Council President Petso reported the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) included training for Commissioners on registering properties and conveying the benefits of listing a property on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. She anticipated public hearings and approvals of additional properties on the Register. The HPC also discussed a grant for next year's calendar. She advised calendars are still available for $5 and contain gorgeous photographs. Council President Petso reported on the Regional Fire Authority meeting, the first meeting of the group since several jurisdictions made a decision not to participate. The financial model using only Fire District 1, Mountlake Terrace and Brier indicates the numbers are not as attractive with only those three jurisdictions. Councilmember Buckshnis reported WRIA 8 is seeking projects to fund. She has been in contact with Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and Keely O'Connell, Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, regarding potential projects. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the upcoming Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) meeting will include voting on growth targets. She has reviewed the targets with Mr. Chave and Mayor Earling; Edmonds' targets are reasonable. SCT will also be appointing officers, reviewing the interjurisdictional agreement related to affordable housing, and discussing conflict compromise. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling recalled at the retreat there was discussion regarding interaction between Councilmembers and Directors. He will email guidelines to Councilmembers tomorrow. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson announced SnoCom's open house Wednesday, February 27, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. She also reviewed the February 27 Planning Board meeting agenda: 1) Public hearing to amend the ECDC related to design standards for B132 — B134 zones. 2) Discussion on increasing the timeframe for validity of preliminary short plat approval 3) Discussion on Edmonds Way Zoning Council President Petso reported staff is working on live streaming Council meetings so that meetings can be watched as they occur. Approval to launch live streaming will come to the Council in the near future. 16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(I) This item was removed from the agenda via Council action under Agenda Item 4. 17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was removed from the agenda via Council action under Agenda Item 4. 18. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 16