Loading...
Cm131008EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES October 8, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 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 ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Kernen Lien, Senior 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 Councilmember Yamamoto. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1, 2013 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #204584 THROUGH #204753 DATED OCTOBER 3, 2013 FOR $953,947.02. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #60492 THROUGH #60507 FOR $462,871.95, BENEFIT CHECKS #60508 THROUGH #60519 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $210,166.82 FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 AUDIENCE COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 1 Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to the City's water and sewer rates and relayed that Lynnwood claims to have the lowest rates. He was told Edmonds' discount is only available in June. He was concerned the $23/month increase was $275/year and $600 over six years. Many citizens cannot afford an increase in utility rates. Donna Breske, Snohomish, and owner of property at 9330 218th Place SW, Edmonds, displayed a site survey of the lot and identified the catch basin installed in 1961 with the original plat and a catch basin installed by the City in 2002. A pipe system around the lot was also installed in 2002. Storm water collected from City streets and houses in the upstream basin flows into one catch basin, into the other, and through the pipe system around the property; flows have not gone onto the lot since 2002. She displayed photographs of the catch basins installed in 1961 and in 2002 and described water flows into the catch basin, through the pipes around the property, into Shell Creek and into Puget Sound, emphasizing the catch basin installed in 2002 diverted the water from her property. She is a licensed professional engineer with expertise in stormwater drainage who has practiced in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties for 16 years and has observed this lot since 2006. She displayed a Google Map photograph, identifying the catch basins and direction of water flows. She referred to a letter from the City Attorney that states the water must continue to run onto the property. She cautioned Mr. Taraday could be guilty of a gross misdemeanor if he was providing a misleading material statement to public servants via his letter. She suggested he consult with Professional Engineer Jerry Shuster. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded the matter to which Ms. Breske refers was litigated in front of the Hearing Examiner in 2008. After hearing testimony, the Hearing Examiner made several finding of fact as part of that administrative appeal. One of those facts is that notwithstanding construction that occurred near that property in 2002, 85% of the subdivision in which Ms. Breske's lot is located, still flows onto that lot. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the Mayor's attempt to secure funds for a "ditch or an open cut" that was presented by Public Works last week and the intent to dig a big hole in the mid -waterfront area and run cars through it. He recalled after examining several options, a multimodal facility at Pt. Edwards was identified as the preferred solution to preserve the waterfront and avoid a highway running through the City that separates downtown and the waterfront. He referred to North Bend and Sequim where the highway through the city was changed to go around the city. He asserted funding for Pt. Edwards was not obtained because the City did not keep the pressure on; Mukilteo has been successful in an alternate site for their ferry terminal. He feared the result in Edmonds would be a second slip at the current location. He urged the Council not to support funding for a "ditch" on the waterfront. 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 the Harbor Square Master Plan amendment was referred to Council Committee to develop a decision tree. Under Roberts Rules, in the event the body as a whole decides not to continue with a project, there is a procedure to pull the item from committee and dispose of it. The theory is there is no point for the committee to discuss it if the body as a whole does not wish to continue. She anticipated the Council taking that action in agenda item 7. Roberts Rules requires preliminary motions in this agenda item and agenda item 6. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the Parks, Planning & Public Works (PPP) Committee as well as the entire Council have worked hard on this issue. She did not envision the Council ever reaching consensus and preferred a comprehensive review of the entire waterfront, from Main Street to the Edmonds Marsh. She recalled the committee's discussion about the decision tree was about incentives Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 2 versus tradeoffs. She envisioned if the issue of incentives had come forward sooner, rather than being delayed since February, there would have been a better chance of proceeding. She supported pulling this item from the PPP Committee. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, 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 DECISION TREE. Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion. He was frustrated that the Council voted only 11/2 months ago to refer this to the PPP Committee. He recalled this happening before, the Council taking a vote but then repeatedly returning to the issue to hold up the process or until the losing side finally gets someone to change their mind. This topic is scheduled on the PPP Committee's agenda tonight; likely the last meeting they would discuss it. He had not anticipated consensus would be reached at the committee but that they would document the work that has been done. The decision tree would be helpful in the future when another proposal was submitted. He was frustrated with the effort by some Councilmembers to delay and stop this process from the get -go, summarizing it appeared they were getting their way but it would not be with his vote. As a member of the PPP Committee, Councilmember Johnson explained she had been optimistic that the committee could frame a substantive discussion for the Council and had nearly completed that effort. One of the reasons the Port withdrew their proposal was lack of substantive discussion or consideration of the Planning Board's recommendations. Her goal was to complete that review. Regardless of the outcome, the public deserves to have that discussion. She did not support the motion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND BLOOM VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND JOHNSON VOTING NO. 6. 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 Council President Petso explained this is the second of three steps in the process under Roberts Rules. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, 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. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the public for their comments. She wanted to have this issue addressed to prevent another Compass project. She supported looking at Harbor Square as a subarea. The decision tree contains a great deal of good information. She supported moving on due to the amount of confusion with incentive zoning. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Council President Petso explained a yes vote on the motion will allow the Council to proceed to agenda item 7, this item and item 5 are procedural. According to Roberts Rules, the way to proceed with agenda item 7 is to pass the motions in items 5 and 6. Under agenda item 7, the Council has an opportunity to make a motion regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan itself. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the process is flawed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 3 Councilmember Bloom clarified the process was based on Roberts Rules. Council President Petso agreed; the pending motion will allow the Council to discuss the Harbor Square Master Plan under agenda item 7. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), PETERSON VOTING NO. 7. CONTINUE 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 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO DENY THE PORT'S APPLICATION TO INCORPORATE THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned how the Council could deny the Port's application when the Port had withdrawn their application. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained as with any legislative matter before the City Council, the Council can vote it up or down. Although there is an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, when an applicant applies for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, they are commencing a legislative process and upon submitting the application they lose control of it and it effectively becomes the property of the City Council to dispose of as they chose. The Port's withdrawal of their application does not have the same effect as withdrawing a building permit. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding was the Council was stopping the process of looking at a subarea plan for Harbor Square. Mr. Taraday clarified the motion, if adopted, would terminate the review of the proposal originally commenced by the Port. Whether that review is terminated and recommenced in 6 months, 1 year, or 5 years is entirely up to the City Council to commence its own process or the Port to apply again. Council President Petso clarified her intent was as Mr. Taraday described. It was not her intent now or 6 months ago for the Council to shirk its obligation to plan for the near waterfront area. Through a series of meetings and heroic efforts by nearly every Councilmember to achieve compromise and consensus, no compromise or consensus has been reached on the Port's original plan or any proposed variation. Terminating this process does not terminate the intent or obligation to plan for the near waterfront area; it allows the Council to change the approach to planning for that area. Councilmember Peterson reiterated his frustration; once the Port introduced the plan to the City Council, it was no longer the Port's plan. The Council discussed changes to the Port's plan and the Planning Board recommended significant changes and staff was asked to make additional changes. The Council was in the process of reviewing those changes when procedural motions were made and obfuscation and confusion in an attempt to kill the process. To those who say more citizen input is needed and there needs to be a new plan, he questioned how the City could move forward with a new plan when the primary property owner has been completely alienated. He questioned how the City could move forward with a new plan when one governmental entity already spent $150,000 of taxpayer's money to engage citizens in 3-year process. He questioned whether the City would now spend another $150,000 to start a new process. He recalled seven years ago the Council rejected a plan for the entire waterfront and the efforts of the Work Group of 33. Councilmember Peterson expressed frustration with how to answer the question regarding what the Council's plans are because he thought the Council was moving forward with a very public process. Although frustrating and perhaps not reaching consensus, there at least was a process for developing a decision tree that could be used to reach consensus on at least some issues. This action seemed to be stopping the process before that point can be reached. He did not understand the timing of this action when the topic is scheduled on tonight's PPP Committee agenda; if this action was not taken, the decision Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 4 tree could be completed in about I1/2 hours. If Councilmembers were interested in doing something with the near waterfront area and the Harbor Square area, he asked how that was going to take place. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the decision tree in the packet, commenting it was clear to her that consensus would never be reached within committee. Developing a decision tree that will result in the same issues was a considerable waste of Council and staff time. She looked forward to considering the near waterfront in the future, something this Council has not done before. She suggested a short cooling off period would be helpful. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has received so many controversial comments and emails and there is a lot of confusion in the public. She agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' suggestion for a cooling off period. She preferred to consider the entire waterfront area as the Group of 33 did. A vision for both large parcels needs to be developed that could include an emergency vehicle overpass. Councilmember Bloom commented five consultants worked with the Group of 33; the consultant's plans included 8-10 story buildings. Nearly all the citizens who viewed the plans said they did not want the code changed. She will support the motion. The Council tried to integrate citizens' input; the Port was very unreceptive to those changes. The Port's withdrawal and the Council's denial of the plan will allow a Council -driven process with citizens' support and input to develop a plan for the waterfront and near waterfront that works for everyone. Councilmember Johnson recalled Mr. Taraday informed the Council they had several options, 1) deny the plan, 2) modify the plan, and 3) do a subarea plan. Mr. Taraday responded a fourth option was to terminate the review which had the same procedural effect as a motion to deny. To the extent there was any stigma attached to the Council denying the Port's plan, the fourth option would acknowledge the application has been withdrawn and terminate the review. He reiterated that option would have the same procedural effect as a motion to deny. Councilmember Johnson was interested in pursuing the fourth option because the Council has not yet discussed all aspects of the plan. Most of the time has been spent discussing the process. The first motion considered, made by Council President Petso, was to deny the plan. If the Council approves this motion, that will also be the last action. Although some Councilmembers have been very forthright in stating their objections to the plan, there has not been a full discussion. The most important issues are those that have risen to the top via the decision tree. She acknowledged it was unlikely consensus would be reached on all issues. As it relates to the Shoreline Master Program, the Council should at least decide whether residential development is appropriate for the site. Until changes are made, the existing contract rezone remains in place. She did not support the motion as she objected to denying the plan without a full evaluation. She would support a motion acknowledging the Port's withdrawal of the plan. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling said he found the Council's action disappointing and he relayed several concerns. Staff estimates the cost to study the complete waterfront to be $150,000 - $200,000. In addition to the expense of a consultant, a massive staff effort will also be required. He did not anticipate the Port would be interested in participating or contributing financially to the study. 8. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE. THE CITY IS REQUIRED BY THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (SMA) (RCW 90.58) TO UPDATE ITS SMP IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL SMPS. THE SMP APPLIES TO SHORELINES WITHIN THE CITY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 5 AND ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. THE SHORELINE AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS JURISDICTION INCLUDE PUGET SOUND, LAKE BALLINGER, AND THE TIDALLY INFLUENCED PORTIONS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH. SHORELINE JURISDICTION ALSO APPLIES TO UPLAND AREAS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SHORELINE EDGE (ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK) AND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the sixth time the SW update has been before to the Council; the intent of tonight's presentation is to solicit Council feedback on the proposed update. He explained the SMP is comprised of several documents: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations o Draft ECDC Title 24 o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications o Administrative provisions • Cumulative Impact Analysis He commented on 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 o Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP o SMP prevails where there are conflicts He reviewed Edmonds shoreline jurisdictions: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs • Lakes 20 acres or larger • Shorelands — upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands Mr. Lien explained within the shoreline jurisdictions there designations are analogous to zoning designations for area • Aquatic I • Aquatic II • Urban Conservancy • Natural • Shoreline Residential I • Shoreline Residential II • Shoreline Residential III • Urban Mixed Use I • Urban Mixed Use II • Urban Mixed Use III • Urban Railroad s One of the largest changes over the current SMP and the updated SMP was the designation of the Edmonds Marsh as a Shoreline of the State. In the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh is an associated wetland which means shoreline jurisdiction ends at the edge of the wetland marsh. For the SMP update, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 6 the salt influence portion of the Edmonds Marsh is designated a Shoreline of the State which means shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet shoreward. He displayed aerials maps of the Edmonds Marsh and adjacent areas. With that change comes a new shoreline environment, Urban Mixed Use III, which applies to the area on the south side of the marsh, the Harbor Square property, and a few parcels north of Main Street. Another aspect of the SMP is integration of the City's critical area regulations. The critical area regulations are an outgrowth of the GMA and ECDC Title 24 is the SMA. Within shoreline jurisdiction the SMP rules, outside of shoreline jurisdiction the GMA rules. Options for CAO integration include: • Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP • Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP • Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP • The City is pursuing options two and three With integration of the CAO, there were certain provisions of the CAO that Department of Ecology (DOE) did not feel should be in the SMP. The SMP must be approved by the DOE; staff has worked closely with DOE over the past several years developing the draft regulations. • 24.40.020.D — CAO Exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands • 24.40.020.0 — CAO Provisions allowed with Shoreline variance Mr. Lien advised the City was allowed to retain allowed uses within the critical area regulations; therefore, the provision for redevelopment within previous developed footprint would apply as the SMP and CAO are currently integrated. Another change in the updated SMP is related to administrative procedures shoreline permits ECDC 24.80.000-24.80.170: • Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 • 24.80.100 —Public Hearing o Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner o Proposing only significant permits go 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 • 24.80.140 Time requirements o Two years to start project o Five years to complete project o Under current SMP time requirements do not apply while other permits (local, state, and federal) are being pursued o Update gives applicants 5 years to get other required permits, plus a possible 1 year extension He highlighted two tables in the SMP update: • 24.40.080 — Shoreline Development Table o Allowed uses and required permits • 24.40.090 — Bulk and Dimensional Standards o Setbacks and height limits Mr. Lien highlighted the following definitions: • Jurisdiction — Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark of shorelines (OHWM) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 7 • 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 Questions Councilmembers raised in past meetings have related to: • CAO Allowed Activities • Setbacks and Buffers • Residential Use in Urban Mixed Use III Transportation Facility Expansion Mayor Earling relayed his understanding of the intent of tonight's presentation was question and answers and ultimately setting a public hearing date. Mr. Lien explained one public hearing has been held on the SMP; the Council has not yet proposed any changes. He suggested the Council identify any proposed changes; he would incorporate them into the SMP and hold another public hearing prior to submitting the SMP to DOE. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged moving the ferry to Pt. Edwards was not in WSDOT's ferry system plans until at least 2030. She asked whether there would be another SMP update before 2030. Mr. Lien answered the SMP must be updated every 7-8 years; there will be at least two more updates before 2030. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Urban Mixed Use III, noting there are currently houses on the waterfront. Mr. Lien answered the homes are located in the Urban Mixed Use lI zone. The Urban Mixed Use II does not include residential as preferred use, therefore, the two houses and the Ebbtide are nonconforming uses. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that area could be changed to Urban Mixed Use 111. Mr. Lien referred to the areas designed Urban Mixed Use III, explaining it is a different type of shoreline environment; it is separated from Puget Sound. Much of the SMA is geared toward navigable waters, water oriented uses, and water dependent uses which describes the area west of the railroad tracks. The Urban Mixed Use III east of the railroad tracks has no real connection to navigable waters, therefore he did not recommend changing the designation on the west side of the tracks to Urban Mixed Use III. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Council needed to decide whether to include Urban Mixed Use III as a shoreline environment. Mr. Lien responded he did not want to eliminate it completely because residential development was allowed in the MP 2 zone on the south side of the marsh and in the Office Residential zone. Another option would be to develop a new environment that only applied to Harbor Square. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Harbor Square could remain Urban Mixed Use 111. Mr. Lien answered it could, the Comprehensive Plan designation for Harbor Square mentions mixed use; residential is often considered as part of mixed use. The SMP would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the zoning regulations do not allow residential. The SMP, like the Comprehensive Plan, is a visioning document. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested an incentive for incentive zoning could be residential such as live/work space. She asked whether a footnote stating something like future potential residential would be required if Harbor Square remained Urban Mixed Use 111. Mr. Lien explained any development proposal would need to be consistent with the SMP and the zoning ordinance. If someone applied for residential development now, the zoning does not allow it. A footnote would not be necessary. When working with high level visioning documents, whether the Comprehensive Plan or the SMP, City Attorney Jeff Taraday encouraged the Council to figure out what they wanted and make the document say that. Where the Council got into trouble was when they tried to "keep kicking the can down the road" and say "we might maybe want residential." He encouraged the Council to figure out whether they wanted residential and have the document state that. Councilmember Buckshnis commented incentive zoning was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 8 one of the main discussions in the PPP committee. Residential could be an incentive in incentive zoning. Mr. Taraday responded that at least that was a clear statement of policy; residential is allowed only in exchange for a public amenity. He recommended against an unclear policy statement. Council President Petso referred to the critical area allowed activities exception, recalling Mr. Lien's statement that the railroad tracks would serve to physically separate and functionally isolate the entire City from Puget Sound. Mr. Lien responded the physically separated and functionally isolated portion of the CAO was not incorporated into the SMP. There is some physically separated and functionally isolated language on page 40 in the wetland section of the SMP. He referred to the 100-foot wide railroad right-of- way along Puget Sound as well as the bluff in the north part of the City. Council President Petso asked whether physically separated and functionally isolated applied near the marsh. Mr. Lien answered it did. What also applies to the marsh is development within the previously developed footprint. As the CAO is currently incorporated into the SMP, development within the previously developed footprint applies to the Harbor Square property. Council President Petso inquired about the property on the south end of the marsh. Mr. Lien identified the location of an old stormwater pond in relation to the marsh and Willow Creek. Council President Petso relayed she has been told that allowing building too close to the marsh impacts marsh quality and grant eligibility. She asked whether the physically separated and functionally isolated language would allow building closer to the marsh than the 100-200 foot buffer needed for grants. Mr. Lien identified the area where physically separated and functionally isolated does not apply. He displayed two aerial images, one a wetland delineation prepared by WSDOT. A 150-foot wetland buffer does not extend to the other side of the stormwater pond. He identified the area of the marsh that is an associated wetland where the critical area regulations apply. Council President Petso asked whether it was easier to just not bother with the physically separated and functionally isolated language in the SMP. Mr. Lien answered the idea of physically separated and functionally isolated is good to include in the SMP. That language and allowed activities were discussed with DOE, one of the criteria for development of the SMP is no net loss. Development in an area that is physically separated and functionally isolated results in no net loss; DOE agreed to that. Development in the previously developed footprint also meets the no net loss criteria. Council President Petso referred to the provision that would allow expansion of the ferry terminal. She asked whether that language would be removed and the City not allow expansion of the ferry terminal at the existing site. Mr. Lien answered the addition of the language on pages 118-119, Transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline may be expanded or altered as a conditional use upon demonstration that alternatives to expanding in or alteration of the Aquatic I environment are not feasible, was prompted by DOE and is taken from WAC 173-26, the state guidelines for the SMP update. He referred to the table on page 52, Shoreline Area Designations, and the X for railroads which prohibits any fill in Aquatic I and II environments; however the asterisk relates to pages 118 and 119. If the railroad wanted to expand they can per State guidelines and State law. Ferry terminals are an allowed use in Aquatic I and H with a conditional use permit. The language was added because fill was prohibited for railroads within Aquatic I and 11 which was in conflict with the State guidelines and State law. Council President Petso asked whether they could be separated, allowing the railroad to do what State law required the City to allow but not allow expansion of the ferry dock at its current location. Mr. Lien answered State law applies to railroads as well as ferry terminals as they are both transportation facilities of statewide significance. He offered to forward his email with the RCW reference. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 9 Council President Petso observed there are references in the tables to 35 foot heights; it was her understanding the City's zoning did not allow 35 foot heights. Mr. Lien referred to the table on page 53, explaining the zoning in Urban Mixed Use I and II is commercial waterfront which has a maximum height of 30 feet. Urban Mixed Use 111, Harbor Square, has a maximum height of 35 feet. He referred to footnote 16 Urban Mixed Use III (The maximum height limit shall be determined by the underlying comprehensive planning document and zoning designation.) Council President Petso relayed her understanding that the height limits in the document were the existing height limits. Mr. Lien answered yes. The setbacks and height limits in 24.40.090 are from the zoning or the current SMP with the exception of Urban Mixed Use III which is a new environment. Councilmember Bloom referred to Urban Design Policy 24.20.100.C.I (pages 19 and 20), The shoreline area within and south of the north boundary of the Brackett's Landing North Park, to the south city limits (generally the urban mixed -use shoreline environment) is one of the most scenic areas of the city. It also, to a large extent, establishes the visual identity of Edmonds. As such, both public and private development in these areas should be controlled and regulated to provide an urban environment which preserves or enhances the opportunity for the public to enjoy the scenic quality of the shoreline. She noted this addressed Mr. Hertrich's concerns as well as Council President Petso's concerns about expansion of the ferry. She asked whether expansion of the ferry at the current location could be excluded as it had been determined not to be the best option and the area is key to the public's scenic enjoyment of the shoreline. She observed those two provisions seemed to be in direct conflict. Mr. Lien responded DOE indicated transportation facilities of statewide significance can expand. Mr. Taraday explained the ferry terminal is an essential public facility and local jurisdictions cannot use their land use regulatory power to preclude the existence or expansion of an essential public facility. He used the third runway at SeaTac as an example; although the surrounding jurisdictions fought it, they lost. Mayor Earling commented when he served on the Growth Management Hearings Board, when issues regarding this type of facility arose, the GMHB followed State law that allows essential transportation facilities to expand. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave recalled when the City tried to impose a condition on the duration of the overhead loading structure, the ferry system took the City to court and the City lost. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested retaining Urban Mixes Use III and indicate residential can only occur as an incentive in exchange for a public amenity. Mr. Lien pointed out that would also apply to the four parcels on Main Street. Councilmember Buckshnis observed it would apply from Main Street to the marsh. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested changing the shore setback for the Urban Mixed Use III from 50 feet to 150 feet. She commented on the OHWM for the marsh and dredging of channels as part of daylighting Willow Creek, relaying her understanding from WRIA 8 is that grant requests utilize a setback distance on a checklist. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the procedure for suggesting changes to the SMP. Mr. Taraday suggested the Council reach consensus on issues, acknowledging any votes tonight would be tentative until the actual SMP is adopted. Council President Petso suggested Councilmembers provide guidelines on changes, Mr. Lien could then determine what would be needed to implement those changes and the public would have an opportunity to comment. Mr. Lien suggested the Council reach consensus on issues so that he could make the changes to the SMP. Another method would be to include options related to Councilmembers suggestions for the public to comment on at the public hearing. Councilmember Bloom suggested Councilmembers propose changes based on the list Mr. Lien provided earlier (CAO Allowed Activities, Setbacks and Buffers, Residential Use in Urban Mixed Use III and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 10 Transportation Facility Expansion). Mayor Earling suggested Mr. Lien provide options to address Councilmembers' concerns. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the transportation facility expansion issue has already been addressed; State law requires expansion be allowed. She agreed with retaining the physically separated and functionally isolated language. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis' recommendation to expand the shore setback to 150 feet. With regard to residential uses in Urban Mixed Use III, she recalled there was not agreement on this at the PPP Committee. She was reluctant to allow the Urban Mixed Use III in the near waterfront area, noting there was little choice on the opposite side because there was already residential. She had many reasons including the Port's proposal for Harbor Square that included 350 condominiums and the issues that would raise. She recalled Councilmembers' indication they would support affordable housing or possibly artist live/work studios, but she did not think those were realistic or financially feasible. She stressed the need for further discussion regarding urban mixed use due to its relationship to the future of the entire waterfront and whether it will be used for private or public use. She did not support Urban Mixed Use III for the Harbor Square or Salish Crossing sites or any of the near waterfront areas. Mr. Lien requested the Council provide further direction regarding residential development. He recommended retaining Urban Mixed Use III environment for the areas south of the marsh and the parcels north of Main. He displayed a map identifying the location of the Urban Mixed Use III environment. If the Council does not want to allow residential on the Harbor Square site, he recommended developing a new shoreline environment that applies only to Harbor Square. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained the area south of the marsh was part of Pt. Edwards master planned area. The upper yard was developed with condominiums and the south was to be the Edmonds Crossing. He identified the MP 1 and MP2 zones, advising the MP2 zone allows for mixed use development including multi -family residential. He said developing a new shoreline environment for Harbor Square and integrating it into the SMP would be a significant amount of work. For Council President Petso, Mr. Lien referred to the definition of Urban Mixed Use I and II on page 30, pointing out Urban Mixed Use I and 11 did not allow residential. Council President Petso asked whether a new definition was required for areas where residential was not desired or could they be designated Urban Mixed Use I or II. Mr. Lien explained Urban Mixed Use I and 11 have direct connection to navigable waters and uses should be marine oriented, water dependent. The shoreline environment on the east side of the railroad tracks is different and different uses would be expected that would not be water oriented/dependent. If the Council did not want residential, he suggested developing a new shoreline environment and appropriate uses. Council President Petso observed two of the Urban Mixed Use III designated parcels already have residential; the only one that does not is Harbor Square. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Peterson commented it was important to retain the Urban Mixed Use III designation. Although the Council could not reach consensus regarding what they wanted at Harbor Square, everybody agrees an office park is probably not the best use. If the Council does not plan to allow residential, uses are limited to an office park or light industrial. He was uncertain what other development could occur unless someone purchased the entire site and turned it into a park. For Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Lien identified the OHWM, the edge of the saltmarsh, the 10-foot elevation, and the historic fill on the 2008 wetland survey conducted by WSDOT. He explained if Willow Creek was daylighted and Puget Sound flowed up Willow Creek, the saltmarsh could be expected to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 11 expand. Daylighting Willow Creek will not expand the marsh in the direction of the historic fill; it will change the wetland environment, making it more salt -influenced. Councilmember Peterson asked if Councilmember Buckshnis' concern was if the buffer did not change and Willow Creek was daylighted, the buffer would be in the middle of the wetland. Councilmember Buckshnis answered daylighting Willow Creek will include dredging two channels south toward the hatchery. Mr. Lien advised the boundaries of the marsh will not change with the daylighting of Willow Creek as they are established by historic fill; daylighting Willow Creek will change the nature of the marsh. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien advised the setback in the SMP is proposed to be 50 feet; the wetland buffer is 150 feet. The provisions in the CAO for development and redevelopment within previously developed footprint also apply to the SNIP. When the SMP was drafted and in discussions with DOE, physically separated and functionally isolated was intended to allow redevelopment in Harbor Square within the previously developed footprint. DOE's letter of support states, "Ecology supports Edmonds draft mixed use shoreline environment and associated shoreline recreation for Harbor Square area. These proposed standards recognize the exiting high intensity land uses present at Harbor Square and highly modified upland shoreline environment adjacent to Edmonds Marsh. The standards also allow for potential redevelopment in the same impervious footprint. The restoration plan and having a smaller setback, although greater than what currently exists, would allow for potential redevelopment and improvement of the buffer area. DOE noted redevelopment of Harbor Square could allow for improvement of stormwater facilities which would improve the marsh, provide opportunities for enhancement." He referred to a letter from Friends of the Edmonds Marsh expressing their support for Urban Mixed Use III, recognizing redevelopment would provide opportunity for enhancement of the buffer. The contract rezone requires a 25-foot open space; the draft SMP proposes a 50-foot setback. He relayed a 150 foot buffer discourages any redevelopment. Council President Petso asked whether a 150 foot setback from the marsh in the SMP would conflict with the CAO allowed activities provision that allowed redevelopment in previously developed footprint. Mr. Lien answered the intent as the SMP is drafted and in discussions with DOE is to allow redevelopment within the previously developed footprint. Council President Petso summarized even if the Council wanted a 150 foot setback, it would not be provided because development would be allowed within the existing footprint. Mr. Lien answered potentially yes, it will depend on how the Planning Board's recommended changes to the CAO. Council President Petso asked whether the CAO allowed uses must be incorporated into the SMP. Mr. Lien answered that could be an area that was excepted, meaning it would not apply. Currently allowed uses have not been excepted. For Council President Petso, Mr. Lien explained multi -family was the only residential use allowed in Urban Mixed Use III. Council President Petso asked whether it could be restricted as has been discussed in the Port Master Plan; for example not be a primary use on the property. Mr. Lien advised residential is a primary use on other properties where Urban Mixed Use III applies. Council President Petso suggested creating an Urban Mixed Use IV for Harbor Square. She asked whether residential development could be restricted in geologically hazardous areas. Mr. Lien answered that would be all the residential areas along the bluff in north Edmonds. Council President Petso asked whether residential development could be restricted in earthquake liquefaction areas. Mr. Lien answered if the Council does not allow residential development within the shoreline jurisdiction of Harbor Square it would push it away from the marsh. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 12 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Mr. Lien could provide a matrix of the proposed changes. Mr. Lien suggested scheduling another workshop prior to a public hearing. He offered to develop options based on Council input before integrating the text into the SMP. Mayor Earling requested that information be provided to the Council a week before it is scheduled on the Council agenda. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for an Urban Mixed Use IV environment that reflected the current development at Harbor Square and what the community wants to see there in the future. She was surprised by Councilmember Peterson's characterization of Harbor Square as an office park, noting there is a nautical school, two breweries, the Harbor Square Athletic Club, Maverick Label, restaurants, etc. She envisioned uses at Harbor Square such as incubator spaces to foster high tech businesses, marine related businesses, art studios, a year-round market, etc. Councilmember Peterson was unclear how the 150 foot setback would affect the marsh. His understanding was the current OHWM would not change. Mr. Lien offered to invite DOE to the next meeting to discuss that issue. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the 150 foot setback is one of the items on a grant checklist. She was interested in environmental sustainability and addressing the sins of the past. The marsh is a unique wildlife habitat, one of few in the United States. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he spoke with Councilmember Yamamoto last weekend; he is doing well following major surgery and expects it will be a few more weeks before he returns. Mayor Earling reported a 37-member delegation from Hekinan will visit Edmonds in late October. He encouraged the public to attend events. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis reported Mr. Shuster and Keely O'Connell received positive comments from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board review panel about the project to daylight Willow Creek. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there are a number of scarecrows displayed throughout the City. She thanked everyone who has built and displayed a scarecrow. 11. ADJOURN TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned to committee meetings at 7:55 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 13