Loading...
Cm131001EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES October 1, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Thea Ocfemia, Student Representative ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Mike Clugston, Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Scott Passey, 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 Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson and Bloom. (Councilmembers Johnson and Bloom arrived shortly thereafter.) CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). At 6:32 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. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, and City Clerks Sandy Chase and Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 7:03 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:05 p.m. and led the flag salute. Mayor Earling introduced the new City Clerk Scott Passey. He also introduced Snohomish County Executive John Lovick and invited Executive Lovick to provide comment. Executive Lovick congratulated the Council on having a Student Representative. He described his background: 13 years in the U.S. Coast Guard, active and reserve; 31 years as a State Trooper with the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 1 Washington State Patrol, 5 years on the Mill Creek City Council, 9 years in the State Legislature, 5%2 years as Snohomish County Sheriff, and 120 days as Snohomish County Executive. He thanked the Council for their service, the foot soldiers of democracy, and looked forward to working with them. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #204473 THROUGH #204583 DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 FOR $457,915.02. C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM LINDA V. WIKSTROM ($11,231.50) AND TERESA PASCALE ($4,000.00). 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dave Page, Edmonds, stated he was the volunteer Marketing Director for the Senior Center. He explained the Senior Center has 1,600 members, adding 400 members this year, but serves about 2,000 including those who need the Center's services but cannot afford them. The Senior Center is responsible for 75% of its $600,000 budget. To generate more revenue, the Center is offering business memberships for $100/year. In exchange the business receives a plaque and window decals, a listing on the Center's website, the business name listed in the Center entry, and a 15% advertising discount. Business membership information was mailed to all Chamber members and he encouraged the Council and the public to spread the word. The more seniors that are helped, the better the community is. Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, recalled speaking to the Council last week regarding water and sewer rates. He suggested the City compare the low income utility discount with the amount of the proposed increase. He commented the current $23/month charge will increase to $50/month in six years. Victor Eskenazi, Edmonds, (Esperance), commented there is no water in the men's restroom, possibly due to a nearby fire, and suggested having hand sanitizer available. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled his comments to the Council last week about the difficulty some residents have paying their utility bills and suggested placing some of the burden of the increase on future generations. He referred to the C1P/CFP and the proposed walkway on Sunset Avenue, a project overseen by the Public Works Department rather than Parks. He relayed concern from residents on Sunset Avenue who did not know much about the project and suggested scheduling a public meeting to inform them about the project. Next, he observed the property for a multimodal project had been acquired but there was no money to construct a project that would address ferry traffic crossing the railroad tracks. He urged the Council to find the money for a multimodal project. 6. PROCLAMATION FOR FIRE PREVENTION MONTH Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring October 2013 as Fire Prevention Month. He presented the proclamation to Fire District 1 Deputy Chief/Edmonds Fire Marshal John Westfall. Mayor Earling introduced Fire District 1 Commissioners David Chan and Richard Schrock and Fire Chief Ed Widdis. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 2 Fire Marshal Westfall invited the public to an open house with activities and fire safety information at the Fire District Headquarters on Saturday, from 10:00 a.m. — 12:00 p.m Kim Schroeder, Fire and Life Safety Education Specialist, explained the District recently received a grant for community risk reduction which included home safety assessments and replacement of smoke alarms. They visited 110 homes in Edmonds and installed an average of 3-5 alarms per home. Their Project Care Connections program helps people with fall prevention and connects seniors with services available such as in -home care, transportation, minor home repair and meals on wheels. They also host a monthly car seat check-up event at the downtown fire station to check how seats fit in a car, how the child fits in the seat and recalls. The District teaches first aid and CPR classes at their headquarters and partners with Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace Park and Recreation Departments to register and advertise those classes. The training is offered free to city staff of Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace as well as the Edmonds Center for the Arts staff. Bicycle helmets are stocked at each fire station; in Edmonds there are three locations where the public can obtain a custom fitted bicycle helmet and information from firefighters about proper fit. She offered to work with Mr. Page and Mr. Hertrich on regular presentations at the Senior Center on fire safety, fall prevention and other topics. The District is active in all community events including the Taste of Edmonds, Edmonds Night Out, Edmonds Waterfront Festival, etc. 7. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (APL20130009) OF A HEARING EXAMINER DECISION IN THE CASE OF WILLOWDALE TOWNHOUSE FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE (PLN20130039). APPELLANT: WASHINGTON FEDERAL. Mayor Earling explained the purpose of the closed record hearing is for the City Council to address the appeal of the case of the Willowdale Townhome fence height variance. The appellant is Washington Federal. He opened the closed record hearing. Mayor Earling explained the City Clerk will make a recording of the proceedings. The hearing is not open to public testimony. The parties of record are Tom Barghausen, representing Washington Federal; Kim Prime; Stephanie Jones (not present tonight); John Gates; and Alvin Rutledge. It is not an open record hearing and there will be no opportunity during the closed record hearing for public testimony other than from the parties of record. Oral argument will be allowed from the appellant and parties of record. The parties of record include the appellant and any person who testified or provided written comment at the open record public hearing. The City Clerk has a list of individuals who meet the definition of parties of record. Mayor Earling explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires this hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it must also appear to be fair. He asked whether any member of the decision -making body had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this appeal outside the public hearing process. Council President Petso; Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Johnson, and Bloom; and Mayor Earling had nothing to disclose and no contacts. Mayor Earling asked if any member of the Council had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not consider and hear the application in a fair and objective manner. Councilmembers Bloom, Johnson, Peterson, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas; Council President Council President Petso, and Mayor Earling had no conflicts and nothing to disclose. Councilmember Buckshnis disclosed she has accounts at Washington Federal but that would not be a conflict and she had no other disclosures. Mayor Earling asked whether any audience member objected to his or any Councilmembers' participation. There were no objections voiced. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 3 Mayor Earling described the hearing procedures: Staff will be allowed 10 minutes for their presentation, 10 minutes for the appellant's presentation and 3 minutes each for the 3 parties of record. The procedures described were acceptable to the Council. Mayor Earling explained the Council's jurisdiction in the closed record hearing is to determine whether a decision by the Hearing Examiner is clearly erroneous given the evidence in the record. The City Council shall affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. Staff Presentation Planner Mike Clugston explained variances are Type III-B decisions which are appealable to the City Council as a closed record appeal. A closed record appeal means an administrative appeal on the record to the City Council (following an open record public hearing on a development project permit application). A closed record appeal is on the record from the public hearing with no new evidence nor information allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005(B). The written record from the Hearing Examiner public hearing is included in the Council packet as Exhibit 1 and Washington Federal's appeal statement is included as Exhibit 2. Mr. Clugston displayed an aerial photograph of the Willowdale Townhome site (packet page 22) at 20734 76th Avenue West, across the street from College Place Middle School. The parcel is zoned RM-2.4. A four -building, 17-unit townhome project was approved by the Architectural Design Board for the Willowdale site in 2008. During development of the west building, which was approved in 2008 and constructed in 2010, an unpermitted 3-4 foot retaining wall with a 6-foot fence on top was built along the western property line of the site. He identified the location of the fence and the four townhome units adjacent to the fence and several single family residents to the west in a single family zone on an aerial photograph. Planning staff noted this feature during a March 9, 2011 inspection of the west building and indicated that while the building itself satisfied permit conditions at that time, the wall and fence did not and therefore would have to be reconfigured to meet code. These features are regulated in ECDC 17.30.000(D) which states when a retaining wall 3 feet in height or greater is contiguous to and below a proposed fence, the proposed fence may be constructed for the purpose of safety not greater than 4 feet above the top of the retaining wall or the finished grade, whichever is less. Due to the economic downturn, the three remaining buildings were never built and the site went into foreclosure and the wall and fence remained unaddressed until 2012 when Washington Federal purchased the site and applied for a building permit to bring the wall and fence into compliance in 2013. The fence permit (BLD20130331) for a code -compliant 4-foot wood fence on top of the retaining wall was approved and issued on April 12, 2013. After the fence permit was issued, Washington Federal applied for a variance (PLN20130039) to retain the existing wall and fence and to allow it to exceed the maximum height allowed. Based on the record created at an open record public hearing held on July 25, 2013, the Hearing Examiner denied the variance request on August 8, 2013. Washington Federal appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision on August 22, 2013. According to ECDC 20.85, the Hearing Examiner must make six findings to approve a variance: 1. Special circumstances 2. Must not result in special privilege 3. Must satisfy the Comprehensive Plan 4. Must satisfy the Zoning Ordinance 5. Must not be detrimental 6. Must be the minimum variance Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 4 If each of the above criteria cannot be met, the variance must be denied which is what occurred in this case. Mr. Clugston referred to page 6, Exhibit 1, where the Hearing Examiner states the special circumstance criterion is not met because there are no special circumstances related to the proposal. The applicant advocates an "innocent purchaser" special circumstance based upon the fact that the application and other townhome owners purchased the property without knowing that the fence was built in violation of City code. Unfortunately ECDC 20.85.010(A)(1)(b) specifically states that special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. This language is not required by State statute and is fairly unique to Edmonds' code. The City Council's adoption of this language, particularly the "past owner" term, evidences a strong legislative intent against adopting any type of "innocent purchaser" exception to the variance criteria. The Hearing Examiner cannot manufacture an exception to this clear and unambiguous language adopted by the City Council. The property owner testified they would be looking directly into the windows of adjoining residences if the fence is reduced to four feet. Part of this loss of privacy is due to the grade separation between the properties, but this is a minor change in grade and could not be considered a "special circumstance," given that a grade separation would almost always exist for situations involving a fence on top of a retaining wall. Mr. Clugston relayed the Hearing Examiner analyzed the remaining variance criteria and ultimately denied the variance request because there are no special circumstances that necessitate the variance as is required by ECDC 20.85.010(A)(1)(b). Appellant Presentation Tom Barghausen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., representing Washington Federal Savings, explained Washington Federal inherited the property through default as a foreclosure when the prior owner failed to complete the project on time. He also represents three owners who are stuck in the middle. He was aware of the six criteria that must be met for the Hearing Examiner and Council to approve a variance. The one criterion at issue is special circumstances and the Edmonds -specific language stating it cannot be related to action by the owner or prior owner of the property. He explained when the application was approved in 2008 and the building permit approved for the prior owner in 2010, Washington Federal was financing the project loan. The developer built the building and built a 6-foot fence on the west side of the property that matches the property to the south that also has a 6-foot fence and a retaining wall nearly identical to the subject retaining wall/fence, and in fact is higher in places. The City noted this in an inspection in 2011 but granted a Certificate of Occupancy. The special circumstance is the granting of the Certificate of Occupancy to the owner allowed him to complete the sale of three of the four condominiums units. When the three purchased their homes, neither the bank nor the owners were told about the fence issue. The project then went into foreclosure. Washington Federal acquired the project in 2012 and hired Barghausen to unravel issues with the project including incomplete landscaping, disarray on the site, etc. Washington Federal directed Barghausen to have the improvements completed and comply with all outstanding City issues. During that process Barghausen learned about the fence height issue. Barghausen applied for and obtained the fence permit, prepared plans, etc. When they began cutting the fence down the townhouse owners objected. The townhouses have small backyards and the fence is critical to their privacy and the value of their property. That led to discussion with the City about options and the variance request. The Hearing Examiner denied their variance request based on special circumstances and the code language but failed to consider the fact that although it was not directly related to the City's issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, that inadvertently led to the situation. He summarized it is an odd set of circumstances that are unique to the site and unlikely to occur again. The action of the Certificate of Occupancy that allowed those units to be sold without that information available to the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 5 purchasers led to the current situation. Even though it was the action of the prior owner, the added issue of the Certificate of Occupancy created this situation. The 6-foot fence is located behind the building and not visible to the public. He acknowledged that was not part of the variance criteria. In reality it is a situation caused in part by special circumstances not completely related to action by a prior owner. Other than the homeowners, no one will be hurt by leaving the fence at 6 feet which has existed for the last 3 years. Mr. Barghausen concluded the Hearing Examiner erred in his findings by not giving weight to that specific issue which is unique to this case and essentially what created this issue. Parties of Record Mr. Taraday advised one person who signed in to speak is not technically a party of record. The Hearing Examiner referred to testimony of Kim Prime, Alvin Rutledge and Stephanie Jones who spoke at the hearing. John Gates did not speak at the hearing and according to the City's code, is only a party of record if he spoke at the hearing or submitted written comment. Kim Prime, Edmonds, Willowdale Townhomes resident, relayed three single family home owners who live behind them also want the fence to remain. No one understands why the fence height needs to be reduced other than it is in the City's code. The previous building was granted a Certificate of Occupancy which allowed the townhomes to be sold; the purchasers had no idea the fence was installed incorrectly. There are numerous 6-foot fences on retaining walls throughout the City. No one else will see this fence and only the four townhomes and the three single family homeowners are affected by the decision. The properties to the north and south have 6-foot fences on retaining walls. She relayed it is a safety issue; her two dogs will jump over a 4-foot fence. It was also a privacy issue; the townhome owners and single family homeowners will be able to see into each other's yards. She suggested if the issue in the City's code was visibility, there should also be consideration given to privacy. She questioned why after granting the previous owner a Certificate of Occupancy the fence height has to be reduced three years later. She cited environmental impacts of reducing the fence height including trampling plants, creating 2- feet of scrap lumber, fossil fuel and man-hours to cut the fence. She requested the Council grant the variance to allow the fence to remain as it is, which will have the least impact on the seven homes. Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, relayed he asked at the Hearing Examiner public hearing whether Washington Federal has other properties in the area. He agreed this was a privacy issue and it should not matter how many people are affected. Council Questions Councilmember Buckshnis observed the fence is located on top of a 2-foot retaining wall, therefore the total height is 8 feet. Mr. Clugston stated the City's code allows a 6-foot fence measured from the ground. He cited code language, when a retaining wall 3 feet in height or greater is contiguous to and below a proposed fence, the proposed fence may be constructed for the purpose of safety not greater than 4 feet above the top of the retaining wall or the finished grade, whichever is less. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there could be a 10-foot retaining wall topped by a 4-foot fence. Mr. Clugston answered presumably yes. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday referenced the Hearing Examiner's decision which states it clearly was not the Council's intent to allow this type of innocent purchaser special circumstance. With respect to whether purchasing the property from someone who did something not in conformance with the code would allow the purchaser to obtain a variance, the code appears to say no. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she is familiar with the area. She observed the 3-4-foot retaining wall and 6-foot fence creating a 9-10 foot barrier. Ms. Prime agreed that was the height on the single family home's side. On the townhome's side, there is only the 6-foot fence. Councilmember Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 6 Fraley-Monillas asked why the townhome owners objected to removing 2 feet from the fence. Ms. Prime answered the townhome owners were surprised the fence was incorrect. If the fence is lowered, one of the townhome owners will look out at an old rusty shed as well as into the home behind her unit. If the fence is lowered 2 feet, there is no privacy between the backyards for any of the homeowners which has the possibility of lowering property values. Councilmember Bloom referred to page 5 of the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Conclusions where adverse impacts are discussed and he states the aerial photograph shows the presence of trees that could serve as an aesthetic buffer and there is room on both the subject and the adjoining single family property to add additional trees. Mr. Clugston explained the Hearing Examiner considered the issue of privacy and how lowering the fence 2 feet could be mitigated such as adding a hedge or row of small trees on the single family side to the west or the multi -family side to the east. Councilmember Bloom observed the code allows a 4-foot fence on top of a retaining wall but without a retaining wall, a 6-foot fence is allowed. There have been references to other retaining walls with fences; if the code is being violated in those instances, someone could seek code enforcement. Mr. Clugston agreed. Councilmember Bloom asked the rationale for the code allowing only a 4-foot fence on a retaining wall. Mr. Clugston did not know the rationale; it has been in the code a long time. He envisioned a 3-foot retaining wall plus a 4-foot fence would be 7 feet total which is roughly comparable to the 6-foot fence requirement. Councilmember Bloom asked if the intent was so that a retaining wall plus a fence did not result in a huge barrier. Mr. Clugston answered that seemed reasonable. Councilmember Bloom referred to the Hearing Examiner's statements that although there are no immediate adverse impacts, cumulative and long term impacts are an issue. There is nothing unique about the property to justify the variance. Approval of the variance can serve as a limited precedent for similar situations throughout the city, resulting in a series of tall retaining wall/fence structures that the ECDC was designed to prevent. Mr. Taraday generally agreed with the logic of that statement; if the City Council agrees with the Hearing Examiner's statement about adverse impacts, it may suggest some code revision is in order. If the Council felt similarly to the Hearing Examiner that there does not appear to be anyone complaining or causing any harm, he recommended not using that logic to approve the variance and ignore the remaining variance criteria. That may suggest a code amendment would be appropriate, a completely separate process and decision. Councilmember Peterson asked whether Mr. Taraday agreed with the appellant that the only criterion that was not met was special circumstances. Mr. Taraday answered he did not entirely agree because looking at the special privilege criteria, the Hearing Examiner states the record does not contain sufficient information to establish compliance with the criterion; he does not find that the applicant satisfied the special privilege criteria. However in the one sentence decision at the end of the Hearing Examiner's decision, he only cites no special circumstances. Councilmember Peterson was disturbed the Certificate of Occupancy was issued and this code violation was lost in the shuffle when the project went into foreclosure. He assumed a code violation would trigger paperwork such as a declaration in a sale agreement to provide notice to the next person involved in the project. Mr. Taraday answered there are two different issues, first presumably the seller should have known the fence height was not in compliance with the code; second, he was unsure if the seller misrepresented that to the purchaser in the transaction. Mr. Clugston referred to Exhibit 1, page 42, a printout of the 2011 building permit that notes the unpermitted western and eastern fences need to be reconfigured to meet code for height. Washington Federal subsequently addressed the eastern fence and requested a variance for the western fence. This information is available online and at the 2nd floor counter. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 7 Councilmember Peterson relayed due to this unique circumstance, he was hesitant to fully agree with the Hearing Examiner that there is not a special circumstance. He asked if there was a clear definition of special circumstance that addresses a unique and perhaps convoluted process. Mr. Taraday referred to page 6 of the Hearing Examiner's decision which states, the applicant for a variance must demonstrate that because of special circumstances relating to the property the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use, right, privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. Mr. Taraday clarified the code seems to suggest the special circumstance is a characteristic of the property itself, not a characteristic of the City's permitting action. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Barghausen explained there is a difference in elevation between the properties on the west side of the fence and the properties on the east side. The trees in the aerial photograph are tall fir trees with no branches close to the ground to provide screening. The fence in the backyard of the townhouse units is a 6-foot fence measured from the ground. That site is basically level and the property to the south is level at the same approximate elevation. The property to the north is at the same elevation and the properties to the west generally all slope downward. Presumably when the project was approved, the developer graded and filled the site and in order to make the property line level, built a retaining wall that varies in height from 2 feet to 4 feet and built a 6-foot fence on top. On the other side, the house with the rusted shed is at a slightly lower elevation and from that side there is a low retaining wall with the fence on top. From the townhouse side, there is only the 6-foot fence. He envisioned the intent of the code was to avoid a really high retaining wall with a fence that did not serve any purpose. If the fence is lowered 2 feet, the fence in the townhouses' backyard will be 4 feet. The only difference on the other side is the 4-foot fence on top of the retaining wall instead of a 6-foot fence. Mr. Barghausen referred to the criteria in the zoning code regarding what constitutes special circumstances, advising that language is not exclusive to size, shape, topography, etc.; the language states "includes" those features. He reiterated neither the owners nor the bank created this problem; they are trying to solve the problem. The combination of the Certificate of Occupancy, the recession, foreclosure, and the timing of the sale of the units resulted in these three homeowners being innocent purchasers. That special circumstance, which is not necessarily excluded from consideration under the code, is sufficient to justify leaving the fence at 6 feet. Council Deliberation and Decision Councilmember Johnson asked what weight the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy has on this decision. Mr. Taraday answered Mr. Barghausen argued the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy satisfies the special circumstances criteria of the variance. The Hearing Examiner was not satisfied by that argument and he (Mr. Taraday) also was not satisfied by that argument. His interpretation of the code, which he said the Council could disagree with, was the code language "because of special circumstances relating to the property" means something inherent in the property such as the examples provided. Corroborating his interpretation, subsection b states special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. That is the language the Hearing Examiner utilized. While he acknowledged there was some minor difference between a foreclosure situation and a sale of property, it was still a non- conforming situation created by a past owner that would not have been created if the owner had sought a permit for the fence. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this was only regarding one fence. Mr. Clugston answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged from one side there was a 6-foot fence; on the other side was a 6-foot plus fence. She asked how the height was determined. Mr. Clugston reiterated the code Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 8 requirements for a fence on a retaining wall in ECDC 17.30.000(D), when a retaining wall 3 feet in height or greater is contiguous to and below a proposed fence, the proposed fence may be constructed for the purpose of safety not greater than 4 feet above the top of the retaining wall or the finished grade, whichever is less. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the reason the fence is 4 feet and not 6 feet is safety. Mr. Clugston agreed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how much weight should be given to the damages the homeowners are claiming such as privacy and view. Mr. Taraday answered if the focus is on the special circumstances criteria which the Hearing Examiner largely relied on, that is not considered. The code specifically states special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a view, or the ability to make more profitable use of the property. He recognized the appellants make a sympathetic case but his counsel would be not to make a results oriented decision but apply the code. If the Council does not like the code, the code can be changed at a later date. Councilmember Bloom clarified all the criteria listed must be met. Mr. Taraday answered all the criteria in 20.85.010 must be met. Councilmember Bloom referred to the Hearing Examiner's statement that the record does not contain sufficient information to establish compliance with the special privilege criteria. Mr. Taraday answered if the Council found the appellant satisfied the special circumstances criteria, he would ask the City Council to make a ruling on special privilege to determine whether it needed to be remanded for a finding on that criterion. If the Council upholds the Hearing Examiner's decision, that is not necessary. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION. Council President Petso was sympathetic that these were innocent purchasers but she accepted the City Attorney and staff s advice that if the code needed to be changed to take that into consideration, that needed to be done via a code amendment and not a variance. Councilmember Peterson said he will vote against the motion as he found the special circumstance criteria had been met, not due to the size, shape, topography, etc. but the language was open enough to include what has transpired. If the Council votes to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision, he agreed a code amendment should be considered. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling requested the City Attorney draft the necessary Findings and Conclusions to support the Council's action for approval on a date set by the Council President. POTENTIAL ACTION ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO UPDATE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE BC-EW AND RM-EW ZONES. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED. Planner Mike Clugston explained the Council held a public hearing last week regarding proposed changes to the BC-EW and RM-EW zones but did not vote on the draft language recommended by the Planning Board. The ordinance is contained in the Council packet as Exhibit 1. He displayed the proposed BC-EW zoning changes: Existing Proposed Street Setback(base) 0 feet 10 feet Maximum Height base 35 feet 25 feet Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 9 Street Setback incentives 4-10 feet 15 feet Maximum Height incentives 45 feet 40 feet Mr. Clugston reviewed specific design standards for all BC-EW projects if incentives are used: • Public benefits must be provided (3 of 4): o LEED gold certification or equivalent 0 15% affordable units as determined by Snohomish County Tomorrow o Public amenities like outdoor seating, plazas, walkways or other usable open space along at least 25% of any required street setback o LID techniques are employed • Additional design standards also apply: o Use preferred and recycled fagade materials He reviewed base and incentive setbacks and heights for the RM-EW zone, advising no changes are proposed: Existing Street Setback(base) 15 feet Maximum Height base 25 feet Street Setback incentives 15 feet Maximum Height (incentives) 35 feet He reviewed the Planning Board's recommended design standards for any RM-EW projects: • Preferred and recycled fagade materials: • 75% of a building face facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted if they replicate the appearance of the listed preferred materials. • At least 55% of building fagade materials must be salvaged, recycled content, bio-based or indigenous. He reviewed specific design standards for all RM-EW projects if incentives are used: • Public benefits must be provided (2 of 3): o LEED gold certification or equivalent 0 15% affordable units as determined by Snohomish County Tomorrow o LID techniques are employed He suggested the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee could consider additional design standards for both zones. Councilmember Johnson asked about the street setback for new development in Westgate particularly McDonald's and Walgreens. Mr. Clugston was uncertain but believed the parcels were zoned BN which has a 20-foot street setback. Councilmember Johnson asked the street setback for Key Bank. Mr. Clugston believed it was 18 feet. Councilmember Johnson asked the proposed street setback in the form based code proposal for Westgate. Mr. Clugston answered 10 feet. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave advised the Walgreens building was located further back on the site. The building with a 10 foot setback was constructed under an interim ordinance. He recalled the minimum setback for the bank was 10 feet but the building may be setback further because they had the space. He summarized the zoning along SR104 varies. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why there were two different zones in that area. Mr. Clugston answered there is a patchwork of different zones along Edmonds Way. It was likely due to the City annexing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 10 parcels and applying the zoning closest to the county's zoning. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in establishing consistent zoning all along Edmonds Way, similar to what was done with the BC zones downtown. Mr. Chave recalled that was done via a subarea plan in the area between McDonald's and the underpass toward the ferry. One of the goals was to allow redevelopment to occur but in a way that was compatible with the neighborhood and did not contribute to traffic. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Chave to send her the subarea plan. Mayor Earling opened the opportunity for public comment. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, commented the packet the Council received last week regarding this item was incomplete because it did not include the history of how a form based planning approach was slipped into the code in 2007. She recalled Mr. Clugston stated the zoning of the site and three others was adopted in 2007 based on a private applicant's application. Mr. Clugston stated the applicant proposed the RM- EW and BC-EW zones and the additional code language. The development was then constructed using that code language. She recalled Mr. Reed commented the BC-EW and RM-EW zones were reviewed by the Planning Board in December 2006. The Planning Board recommended denial of the application because there was not a specific proposal attached. The Council voted against the Planning Board's recommendation and approved the zoning designations. Mr. Reed asked how the properties were rezoned and Mr. Chave said it was done via the standard rezone process. Ms. Shippen asked if it was common for a private developer or anyone to submit a rewritten code proposal to the City and have it accepted for Planning Board discussion. She requested copies of the citizen developer's application, Planning Board and City Council minutes that pertain to that application, correspondence among City officials regarding the citizen's proposal and the record of the standard rezone process. She summarized a major change was made in a stable code; if incentive zoning is adopted, the building code becomes a matter of barter and the only thing the City has to barter is height. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the opportunity for public comment. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3943, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISING CHAPTERS 16.50 BC - COMMUNITY BUSINESS AND 16.30 RM - MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL, MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND REVISING REFERENCES. Councilmember Buckshnis commented some of the incentives such as LEED and LID should be requirements. Although the ordinance is an improvement, she supported sending it to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee for further review of design standards. Council President Petso agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis' comments. Councilmember Johnson stated although the ordinance is a step in the right direction, she will not support the ordinance as she preferred a more coordinated approach for building setbacks on SR104. The 20-foot setbacks in the subarea plan described by Mr. Chave in the western portion would be a good approach. She encouraged the Council to refer a coordinated approach to setbacks in the corridor to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee. Councilmember Bloom said she will support the ordinance because it is an improvement but she has many of the same concerns voiced by Councilmembers Buckshnis and Johnson. She recalled previous discussion about requiring green buildings and LID and until those are required, tightening the language regarding LID and public space incentives. She relayed her and Ms. Shippen's questions for response by Mr. Chave: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 11 • Can anyone apply for a code amendment as Mr. Shapiro did? Yes. • If yes, does the individual or developer have to be a citizen of Edmonds? No. • How much is the application fee? Approximately $2,000. • What state or city code describes this option? 20.80, the map and text amendment section. • Does the applied for code amendment have to be reviewed by the City Attorney at any point in the process? Generally the City Attorney would have an opportunity during either the Planning Board or City Council review or both. • In this case, was it reviewed by the City Attorney? The City Attorney provided a memo to the Council with specific recommendations during the adoption process THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a 5 minute recess. 9. MAYOR EARLING PRESENTS TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AND CITIZENS HIS 2014 RECOMMENDED CITY BUDGET Mayor Earling provided the following: Members of the City Council and the Citizens of Edmonds: I am pleased to present to you the 2014 Edmonds City Budget. Unlike the 2013 Budget, which was at best, "hold the line and reductions, " we present a budget of improvement for 2014. We are beginning to see a positive turn in the economy; sales tax revenues are increasing and the real estate market has stabilized and shows signs of improvement. We are attracting new businesses on Highway 99, Westgate, S Corners and in the downtown core. Also we are finally showing increases in residential and commercial construction. With those improvements, obviously, our revenue projections are far ahead of last year. Beyond the budget itself, much good work has gone on to improve our community, the economy and thus, our financial position. Our efforts in Economic Development are making good progress. Automobile sales are strong and the quality businesses we are bringing into Edmonds are having a positive financial impact. The major improvements in Old Milltown, Salish Crossing and other new construction add a sense of vitality to the community. And let's not forget the dramatic expansion of Swedish/Edmonds Hospital that will bring new jobs and quality health care to Edmonds. Our excellent staff continues to seek and gain grants that improve the city. Major infrastructure improvements, ongoing park improvements, traffic improvements, in large part occur from a variety of grants. I reported to you last year we had $14 million in grants underway or in the pipeline. Since last October, we have been successful in gaining another $3.1 million in additional grants. Without these quality staffgrant writers, we would have little progress for major needed improvements. Another important fact to remember is we made very deep cuts in the budget last year knowing the serious challenges we were facing. A 4. S% across the board, painful cut was made in each department, a renegotiated health care package resulted in a savings of $300, 000, and the loss of 12 staff members, all led to an overall reduction in our General Fund of $1. S million. The turn in the economy, the dramatic reductions we made last year and the careful and conservative management by staff of this year's budget, allows us breathing room for this year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 12 In setting priorities for the aforementioned "breathing room", our focus for improving the city is on one- time expenditures. New staffing, while important, was considered after one-time expenditures were addressed. On the revenue side, we assume a 2% under -expenditures or about $720, 000 to be utilized for one-time expenditures. Due to a strengthening economy, projected 2013 actual revenues are 3% more than in our modified 2013 budget. Our 2014 General Fund revenues increase by 7.0% over those 2013 actuals. However, anticipated under -expenditures included as a revenue line item, increased fee permit revenues due to updated fees and major construction projects, an increase in EMS Property tax which changes directly with property values and new reimbursements from street and utility funds for engineering services represent the majority of this growth. 2014 revenue growth due to the economy has been modestly projected. Two additional efforts you need to be aware of are: we have negotiated a contract agreement with a private company who will handle our Labor and Industry claims saving the General Fund approximately $100, 000 in the first year; additionally, I have asked the staff to do a thorough review of fees charged city wide, but principally in the Development Services and Engineering areas. Many of our fees have not been changed for nearly 20 years. Should the council approve the recommended changes, they will result in nearly $200,000 in new revenue. Even with the increase, our new fees structure will place us in the mid- range of fees charged by other regional cities. Because of the very difficult reductions we made last year, additional new revenues will be focused as a priority on one-time expenditures which in many cases were deferred because of last year's difficult budget, or in other cases, have been deferred longer. We all know that for the past several years we have not addressed our streets in a fundamentally responsible way. For the past four years no key streets in Edmonds have been repaved unless we have received a special grant, as is the case with the current repaving of Sth Avenue. Our streets simply are not in a condition that meets the expectation of the community. Included in next year's budget I have designated $1.2 million dollars to change course and begin a street repaving program. This is approximately three times the traditional past practice yearly street investment, but we simply must 'jump start" the program to recover for lost ground. If possible, we need to continue to provide this level of funding. That decision will need to be based on a yearly evaluation of the economy. In addition, I have set aside $300, 000 for our basic street maintenance program. Examples of other one-time expenditures include: • $71, 000 in information technology infrastructure updates designed to improve security and dependability of our technology network. • GIS system improvements and a Human Resources Applicant Tracking System. • Funding for design of a paperless court system. • Consultant costs for undertaking a review of the City critical areas ordinance with $40,000 in 2014. • Consultant costs of $62, 500 to complete the Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan update. 0 Cash funding of $280, 000 for the current ESCO III project which otherwise would have required a loan. • $300, 000 Energy Efficiency Project bringing LED fixtures to street lights and replacing the aged HVAC system in the library. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 13 • $43, 000 to replace hardware and upgrade for the Public Safety Building HVAC system. • Replacement of all city -owned downtown garbage receptacles. And knowing the council may have important one time projects they may wish to consider, we have set aside up to $600,000 for their project selection and implementation. At the same time, if council chooses not to select additional one-time expense projects, the funds may be returned to fund balance. On the staffing side, this past year has been a challenge to maintain the level of service expected by the citizens of Edmonds. As you know, we had to make some mid year adjustments in staffing as it became obvious workloads in certain areas were overwhelming staff. With improving financial projections, I propose to add a position of Director of Development Services, as well as a new position of plan checker/building inspector. I also propose to add an engineering position that will be funded out of appropriate Public Works Funds. We have also looked long and hard at improving our Development Services and Public Works Departments. We are engaged in a process of evaluating our permitting processes, and are making strides in streamlining and moving more permitting online, improving internal coordination, and setting fees to capture actual costs. With the major construction projects and improving economy, the workload is growing quickly. If we are to provide the efficiencies needed, we must also furnish the staffing. Over the past several years Public Safety has been spread too thin with the reduction in programs and officers. The safety of our citizens should always be our first concern. The budget before you includes one FTE to reinstate an Assistant Police Chief and one FTE to lay the ground work for reinstatement of our Street Crimes Unit which will occur by 2015. All of you are aware of the success of the Arts Summit this past April. Over 230 arts practitioners, business leaders, council members and citizens were in attendance. The meeting created an energy and a high level of interest to develop the prospect of a coordinated effort to further develop Edmonds' reputation as a regional arts center. Due to that success, I am proposing a one-year line item for a part- time consultant with an hourly fee structure not to exceed $40, 000. The person would need communication skills on a variety of levels including the arts. The position could also give advice on how city government should better communicate with the public. With all of these adjustments, our General Fund balance including all of the sub funds, remains strong. The 2014 General Fund balance projects to be about 31 % of annual revenues. The amount of fund balance is increased from $10.7 million at the end of 2012 to $11.2 million at the end of 2014. Edmonds has come through a turbulent few years in relatively better shape than other cities in the county and state. We have accomplished this by making hard decisions and committing ourselves to spending wisely during a very tough national economic time. With a lean staff we have been able to provide basic necessary city services. And yet, in certain areas we have fallen behind. We now need to focus on how we begin to make long needed improvements and at the same time remain vigilant to national and regional economic dynamics. The budget presented tonight allows us to piece together some needed infrastructure improvements in citywide departments for technology to better function internally and better serve the public, as well as provide better information security. The biggest change in infrastructure of course, comes with a long needed re -commitment to better manage the quality of our streets. The $1.2 million commitment is only a beginning to meet our street Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 14 repaving needs. We will need to devise a long term plan for improvement which includes long term funding. Staffing requests are kept to a minimum, understanding new staffing provides long term financial commitments. Again, our first priority this year has been devoted to one time expenditures to improve service quality to the public. I look forward to working with the council in the coming weeks to draw the 2014 budget together. Our staff has gone through months of hard work to establish needed priorities. The finance department especially deserves accolades in working with me and the Directors in assembling the budget. We have come through dill cult financial times in good shape. It is now time to look around the corner. City Clerk Sandy Chase distributed 2014 budget books to the Council. 10. PRESENTATION ON THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (2014-2019) AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2014-2019). City Engineer Rob English provided a comparison of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Canital Facilities Plan (CFP): CIP CFP Mandate? None GMA Reason? Budget GMA Time Frame? 6 years 6 years 20 years Must include Capital? Yes Yes Must include Maintenance? Yes No Mr. English provided a diagram showing components found only in the CIP and only in the CFP and components found in both the CIP and CFP. The CIP contains 6-year maintenance projects with funding sources, the CFP contains long range (20-year) capital project needs, both contain 6-year capital projects with funding sources. The 2013-2018 CFP contains 3 project sections: • General o Parks, buildings & regional projects • Transportation o Safety/capacity & pedestrian/bicycle • Stormwater Mr. English provided a summary of CIP fund numbers and the department managing each fund: Fund Description Department 112 Transportation Public Works 113 Multimodal Transportation Community Services 116 Buildings Maintenance Public Works 125 REET-2 Transportation Public Works 125 REET-2 Parks Improvement Parks & Recreation 126 Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation 129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 132 Parks- Construction Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 421 Water Projects Public Works Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 15 422 Storm Projects Public Works 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 423 Wastewater Treatment Plant Public Works 112 Street Fund Mr. English displayed a photograph and described the Main Street project completed last year. It was a Complete Streets design that included widening the sidewalks, mid -block crossing, and bike sharrows. He also displayed a photograph and described the 5th Avenue Overlay which includes updating the curb ramps to make them ADA compliant, grinding the existing pavement surface, and overlay. He highlighted 112 Street Fund projects: • Street Improvements 0 5th Avenue Overlay (construction) o Signal Cabinet Improvements o Five Corners Roundabout 0 228th Corridor Improvements o SR99 Lighting Phase 3 Design 0 212th & 76th Avenue Improvements • Walkway Improvements o Sunset Avenue Walkway (Bell Street — Caspers Street) 0 238th Street Walkway (100th Avenue — 104th Avenue) 0 15th Street SW Walkway (Edmonds Way— 8th Avenue) 0 236th Street SW Walkway (Edmonds Way — Madrona Elementary) 0 3rd Avenue ADA Curb Ramps (Main Street — Pine Street) o School Zone Flashing Beacons Transportation o SR104 Corridor Study o Alternatives Study to Resolve Conflicts at Dayton Street and Main Street Railroad Crossings o Transportation Comprehensive Plan Update Mr. English advised the above street projects were funded via state and federal grants. He displayed photographs and described the watermain replacement and sewer lift station rehabilitation. He highlighted Utility Fund projects: • Water Utility Fund (421) 0 9,500 feet of Watermain Replacement (construction) o Replacement of 3 Pressure Reducing Valves Stations (construction) o Overlay 2,000 linear feet of roadway affected by waterline replacement projects (2014) 0 10,000 feet of Watermain Replacement (2014) o Replacement of 2 Reducing Valves Stations (2014) • Stonnwater Utility Fund (422) o Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Creek Feasibility Study (complete) o Dayton Street & SR104 Drainage Alternatives Study (complete) o Public Works Yard Pile Covers (complete) o Lake Ballinger Model Improvements (complete) 0 2381h Street Drainage Improvements (2014) o Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction Study (2014) o Vactor Waste Handling Facility Upgrade (2014) o Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Creek Pre -Design (2014) o Dayton Street & SR104 Drainage Pre -Design (2014) • Sewer Utility Fund (423) o Rehabilitation of nine sewer lift stations (8 substantially complete, 1 under construction) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 16 0 300 feet of Sewer Main Replacement (complete) o Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update (substantially complete) 0 1,500 feet of CIPP rehab for sewer mains (construction) 0 6,500 feet of sewer main replacement (2013/2014) 0 1,500 feet of CIPP rehab for sewer mains (2014) Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite highlighted Park CIP projects: • Completion of Mathay Ballinger park • Completion of SR99 International District • Beginning design development of City Park renovation • Progress on 46' Avenue Cultural Corridor, wayfinding signs • Beginning Dayton Street Plaza Ms. Hite highlighted 2014 REET 125 funded projects: • Additional repairs needed at Yost Pool: used 2013 $120,000 for hot water tank, asbestos removal. Added another $120,000 next year for additional repairs (still need to replace boiler) • Additional set aside for Woodway Athletic Complex • Edmonds Marsh, daylighting of Willow Creek: continue work with Earthcorps • Marina Beach Park: Master plan around Willow Creek concept, playground equipment • Meadowdale Clubhouse playground replacement Ms. Hite highlighted Park Construction Fund 132 projects, advising this fund does not have its own revenue source; it receives funds from grants and transfers from REET 125: • Completion of Dayton Street Plaza • City Park renovation: green design, will be coming to Council for budget approval • Waterfront property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation • 4' Avenue Cultural Corridor planning, placeholder, dependent upon securing funding Mr. English reviewed the CFP/CIP schedule: • September 10 — Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee • September 25 — Planning Board presentation and public hearing • October 1 — City Council; Introduction • November 4 — City Council Public Hearing • December 2013 — Adopt CFP with Comprehensive Plan Update Councilmember Bloom referred to the Alternatives Study to Resolve Conflicts at Dayton Street and Main Street Railroad Crossings that has an allocation of what she assumed was grant funding of $1 million in 2014 and 2015. The CFP also includes the Pt. Edwards multimodal and pedestrian access over -crossing. She asked what the Alternatives Study would study. Public Works Director Phil Williams answered the intent is to seek $2 million from the State Legislature, possibly in the special session regarding a transportation package to fund an alternatives analysis on all available alternatives that might address the problems of the at -grade railroad crossing. The intent is to start with a large universe of possibilities with input from the Council and the public, do a screening analysis of all the alternatives, and do additional analysis of those alternatives. Mr. Williams explained the problem is the at -grade crossing; the solution is to change grades either by going over or under the tracks at some location or move the ferry operation. He summarized it would be to consider a lighter, more affordable version of Edmonds Crossing. A train trench has been suggested and that likely would be included in the initial list of projects for further evaluation. Various combinations of overpasses and underpasses in different locations and different capacities such as pedestrians only, emergency vehicles only, all traffic, etc. would also be included. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 17 Mr. William explained a specific scope for the study has not been determined; the first step in the study will be to work with citizens and elected officials to determine the scope of the alternatives analysis. He assured it will be a robust, sizable effort to identify alternatives, determine which ones are feasible, analyze those further, develop a short list of feasible projects and then spend significant funds to analyze the scope, estimated cost, constructability issues, how successfully they would address the issues, and finally reaching a recommendation. Once a recommendation is reached, whether it is one project or a combination of smaller projects, some predesign work would be done. Mr. Williams explained Edmonds Crossing is still on the project list primarily because the City has a legitimate concern with being the one to formally take it off. The State has withdrawn all funding commitments on the project, the federal government has withdrawn all grants offered and the State removed it from their transportation project financing plan through 2030. Effectively the project is dead but leaving it on the City's list of projects is wise to avoid suggesting the City was the one that killed the project. That also prevents anyone from asking the City to return grant funds that were spent on the project in the past. He acknowledged Edmonds Crossing is not a real project now; a new plan needs to be developed that can be built and financed that will solve as many of the problems as possible. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Mr. Williams' explanation that there may be a ferry overpass similar to Pt. Edwards but in a different location. Mr. Williams answered a specific project has not been identified; this would start that analysis. Some of the alternatives were evaluated in the past and the solution was Edmonds Crossing. In reality that project is no longer fundable. He pointed out the railroad plans to have 104 trains per day traveling through Edmonds by 2030 and there are no funds to solve the conflict that presents. He recommended developing an alternatives plan as soon as possible. Councilmember Bloom referred to the Reed Middleton Study in the Waterfront Comprehensive Plan that studied an underpass and overpass and that was when Pt. Edwards rose to the top. The only difference now is perhaps the trench idea would be explored and it was her understanding that may have more engineering challenges than the underpass. She asked how this analysis would differ from the Reed Middleton Study that already found Pt. Edwards is the best alternative, had fewer engineering challenges and likely would be less expensive than an underpass. Mr. Williams answered once a list of potential alternatives is developed, he suggested reevaluating alternatives that have been studied in the past to determine if anything has changed and to determine if they were feasible. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern that emergency vehicle and pedestrian access was not being considered which she felt was the most important things to address. The Comprehensive Plan speaks to pedestrian access over the railroad track and ferry access but there is nothing about emergency vehicle access. She suggested including that in the Comprehensive Plan and approaching the State for funds to study emergency access possibly in advance or in conjunction with a terminal at Pt. Edwards which was already determined to be the best alternative. She questioned the plan to seek $1 million from the State in 2014 and $1 million in 2015 and not address emergency access over the railroad track first. Mr. Williams assured that would be done. To eliminate the at -grade crossing, somehow grades have to change, either access needs to be provided over or under the railroad or the railroad has to go over or under. A variety of overpasses and underpasses in different locations and different capacities would be evaluated. One of the alternatives to be studied would be a very small overpass whose sole purpose would be to transport emergency vehicles over the tracks. His intent was to cover all possibilities in the study. He acknowledged it may be infeasible from a constructability standpoint to build a project large enough to solve all the problems. Expectations would then need to be scaled back to find something that solved the problem of transporting emergency vehicles over/under the tracks. Councilmember Bloom said she would be much more open to this if it stated clearly that it was focused on emergency vehicle access in conjunction with some alternative similar to Pt. Edwards. She was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 18 concerned with putting that much money into another study and being beholden to the results regardless of what the study determines. Mr. Williams responded if that study resulted in identification of a project or a short list of projects that could address the problem and it was constructible and financeable, that would be something to move forward with. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Williams and Mr. English for their explanations at the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee. She acknowledged Pt. Edwards/Edmonds Crossing is not going to happen, there are no plans to even think about it until at least 2030. In her view this was a placeholder to research and investigate something to address the at -grade crossing. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed the Friends of the Cedar River have a 5016. She has been asked why there is not a 501c3 for the Edmonds Marsh to collect donations. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite answered the City's Donation Fund can be used for donations to the Marsh. She suggested discussing the formation of a 5016 with the Friends of the Edmonds Marsh; formation of a 5016 requires community leadership, the City cannot set up a 501 c3. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if donations could be dedicated to the Marsh. Ms. Hite responded the City's Donation Fund currently has subfunds for the flower program and Yost Pool; another could be established for the Edmonds Marsh. Another important aspect would be a capital campaign for the Marsh. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if consideration had been given to doing an emergency access on the waterfront now rather than waiting. She referred to the pedestrian overpass at Richmond Beach that can also accommodate an emergency vehicle if necessary. Mr. Williams envisioned the study would result in a subsection of the CIP, one project that solves all the problems or a list of projects that addresses some but not all issues. One of those projects may be strictly an emergency access over or under the tracks. Even that would not be a small project; compared to the typical projects in the CIP, it would be a huge project. He explained there is $18 million in expected CIP projects in 2014 and $12 million in 2013; a small overpass that could accommodate an emergency vehicle would cost that much or more. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the City could afford to wait. Her vision was not an access that would accommodate a ladder truck, but to be able to get a paramedic and some type of vehicle across the tracks. She was concerned with the length of time a study will take and the time to fund the project, anticipating it could be 20-25 years before a project is funded. Mr. Williams answered there have been discussions about interim solutions while a more robust solution is determined such as siting a response vehicle on the other side of the tracks so that only emergency personnel had to cross the tracks. That is not an elegant solution and there are a lot of other problems that need to be resolved. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not interested in an elegant solution, she was interested in safety. Mr. Williams explained getting paramedics to the other side of the tracks is one aspect of the safety issue. The two at -grade crossings are a significant safety hazard, especially with 104/trains a day. Even with crossing arms, there have been two accidents in the past year. There are additional safety benefits of separating the two modes of travel. Beyond safety, there are many other issues to be addressed. Councilmember Johnson asked whether it would be possible prior to the November 4 public hearing to provide the Council a more detailed description of this project. Mr. Williams answered yes, explaining he could forward the Council the description he wrote for the legislature. He emphasized it purposely is not very specific; an alternatives analysis starts with developing the scope. If the scope is provided, there will be criticism that the process and therefore the outcome have been predetermined. He noted that was what occurred a year ago, people assumed the answer had already been determined. The intent was for an objective analysis of what can be done realistically to address the issues. Councilmember Johnson expressed interest in a definition of the project limits; as written it appears it is only from Main to Dayton. Mr. Williams answered the intent was to have the SR104 Corridor be part of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 19 this study. Councilmember Johnson expressed support for a corridor study the length of SR104. She suggested the study also consider the lack of westbound access from SR99 to SR104. Mr. Williams agreed that could be part of the analysis. Councilmember Johnson suggested it also include a non - motorized component, the PROS Plan and a regional bike corridor. She recalled a presentation at the Council mini -retreat indicated the projects that are being funded are Complete Streets that include all modes of travel. Mr. Williams answered the intent was to include everything Councilmember Johnson described in the package. Councilmember Johnson referred to the recently completed Strategic Plan which is also a tool to guide the budget process. She asked whether staff has used the Strategic Plan to identify the most important projects and how the Council can consider that during the budget process. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO EXTEND THE MEETING 30 MINUTES UNTIL 10:30 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED THAT ITEMS 11 — 14 BE POSTPONED TO THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY AND COMPLETE DISCUSSION OF ITEM 10 AND THEN GO ON TO ITEM 15. THE AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. Ms. Hite responded the Parks CIP projects are developed using the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan that was adopted in 2008 and extends through March 2014. Staff is in the process of updating the PROS Plan and is using the Strategic Plan to inform that update. The current PROS Plan is used for planning now and the new Plan that will be adopted in February 2014 will be used for planning over the next 6 years. That Plan will include items from the Strategic Plan. The PROS Plan update considers the Strategic Plan actions that rose to the top and specific items from the community related to parks. For example an aquatic facility was a high priority in the current PROS Plan and will be tested in the community open houses and survey in the update of the PROS Plan. She summarized the items from the Strategic Plan and in the 2008 Plan as well as new ideas from the community will be prioritized via community input. Councilmember Johnson observed Ms. Hite's response addressed what would be done once the PROS Plan was adopted; she was interested in comparing the Parks CIP/CFP projects to the Strategic Plan for the 2014 budget process. Ms. Hite answered that has not been done for the 2014 budget because the 2008 PROS Plan must be used to inform the CIP. There is generic language in the Strategic Plan about updating parks, landscape maintenance and preserving open space; the CIP reflects that via projects related to the Edmonds Marsh, Willow Creek daylighting, landscape maintenance, etc. The Strategic Plan refers to rebuilding the Senior Center; that has been included in the CIP. She summarized the CIP is not void of input from the Strategic Plan; it has not been incorporated into the PROS Plan yet. Councilmember Johnson asked how the SR104 Study will be coordinated with the update of the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Williams envisioned it being part of the Transportation Plan update. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS ITEM TO NEXT TUESDAY'S MEETING PRIOR TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Councilmember Peterson observed this was an introduction to the CIP/CFP and it is scheduled for a public hearing on November 4. He suggested Councilmembers email staff any additional questions. He would not support the motion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 20 Council President Petso agreed with Councilmember Peterson, noting it was scheduled for 30 minutes and discussion has taken over an hour. She feared discussion would never end without continuing it to the next meeting. She supported the motion. Ms. Hite advised she will be at the National Recreation and Parks Association conference next week at the invitation of the Washington Recreation and Parks Association. She invited Councilmembers to email her any park -related questions; she will respond via email or address questions at the November 4 public hearing. UPON ROLL CALL, THERE WAS A TIE VOTE (3-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday advised Mayor Earling could vote to break the tie. MAYOR EARLING VOTED NO, AND THE MOTION FAILED (3-4). Councilmember Bloom expressed support for Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Johnson's comments regarding defining the project. She recommended separating the emergency access from the alternatives study and prioritizing it as she feared including it in the study would take too long. 11. MOTION TO DISCHARGE THE PARKS, PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM FURTHER WORK ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FROM FURTHER WORK ON THE ASSOCIATED DECISION TREE. Council President Petso explained she was asked to return the Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan amendment to full Council for consideration of ceasing work on that plan. When last discussed by the Council, the plan was referred to the Parks, Planning & Public Works (PPP) Committee for a decision. No decision or report has been provided by the PPP Committee. Under Roberts Rules an item can be pulled from a committee if the group wishes to discontinue work on the matter; to do so will require passing motions in this agenda item and the following agenda item. Councilmember Peterson suggested due to the late hour and since the Council needed to take action on Item 14, Items 11 — 13 be rescheduled to next Tuesday. Councilmember Johnson agreed with Councilmember Peterson, explaining the PPP Committee and staff plan to meet next week and finalize the work and present it to the City Council. Until she received the Council packet, she was unaware this action was being considered. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO POSTPONE ITEMS 11, 12 AND 13. Councilmember Peterson was surprised this was proposed to be pulled from the PPP Committee without the knowledge of half of the committee's membership. When he saw this on the agenda he assumed the PPP Committee was in agreement; if not, he was at a loss why it was on the agenda. He will vote in favor of Councilmember Johnson's motion. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Council President Petso announced this three weeks ago during a meeting. She agreed Item 14 was timelier than Agenda Items 11 -13. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reminded Councilmember Johnson that she, Council President Petso and Councilmember Johnson discussed this last week. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 21 UPON ROLL CALL, THERE WAS A TIE VOTE (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND PETERSON, VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday advised Mayor Earling could vote to break the tie. MAYOR EARLING VOTED YES, AND THE MOTION CARRIED (4-3). A brief discussion followed regarding whether the motion was to postpone to next week. City Clerk Sandy Chase relayed her understanding the vote was to postpone Items 11, 12 and 13 to next week. Councilmember Johnson said her motion was to postpone because the PPP Committee will discuss it next week; she did not intend for the Council to consider it next week. Mayor Earling ruled the matter will be scheduled for next week. 12. MOTION TO BRING BEFORE THE FULL CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. This item was postponed to next week via action taken under Agenda Item 11. 13. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. FINAL DISPOSITIVE ACTION IS EXPECTED TO BE PROPOSED. This item was postponed to next week via action taken under Agenda Item 11. 14. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: APPROVAL OF THE 2013 SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this was first presented to the Finance and Parks, Planning & Public Works Committees in June. A preliminary draft without the financial chapter was presented to the Council on July 16. On September 17 the complete draft was presented to the full Council. A public hearing was held last week. The intent of this item was for Council to further discuss and take action to approve the 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. There have been several discussions regarding the financial approach to funding the plan; both options discussed are in the Plan. By approving the Plan, the Council is not making a decision regarding the financial approach. A public hearing is scheduled in November including the rate structure to support all the utilities' work; that is when the Council will make a decision regarding the rate structure. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITHOUT SPECIFYING A RATE. Councilmember Buckshnis commented everyone is sensitive to rate increases. It is important to compare Edmonds' rates to other cities. She supported a rate structure that did not require continued bonding because it was too costly. Mr. Williams advised the City has a low income utility rate adjustment. A resident that meets the State's definition of low income can be eligible for up to a 50% discount on their City utility bills and a 30% discount if they met other income criteria. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported on the Edmonds Center for the Arts Red Carpet Gala, a spectacular event. There was a full house and considerably more funds than last year was raised. He congratulated the ECA for their organization of the event. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 22 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Petso reported she will add a discussion of a more coordinated review of SR104 zoning and setback to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee's November agenda. She will also schedule the Harbor Square items that were not addressed tonight on the agenda of next week's Council meeting prior to committee meetings. She reminded that in order to discuss the item, a motion to pull the item from committee as well as a motion to put the item before Council will be required. The Council can then discuss the items. If the Harbor Square Master Plan is not addressed soon, it will be delayed due to the closed record review on October 15 followed by budget presentations on October 22 and 29. The rationale for a motion to pull from committee is the committee's work is pointless if Councilmembers are ready to discontinue the process. She will notify the Port that the matter will be on next week's agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the scarecrow display is beginning today but scarecrows can be entered later. She thanked citizens who called her about finances. She will be participating on the Finance Committee and Council President Petso will take her place on the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee. She was hopeful the 2014 preliminary budget will be available on the City's website soon. 17. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. At 10:26 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 5 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, and City Clerks Sandy Chase and Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 10:32 p.m. 18. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:33 p.m. He announced no action would be taken as a result of meeting in executive session. 19. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:34 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 1, 2013 Page 23