Loading...
07/27/2004 City CouncilJuly 27, 2004 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Michael Plunkett, Council President (Arrived at 7:45 p.m.) Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marn, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Councilmember Wilson had an excused absence. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Jeannine Graf, Building Official Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Linda Hynd, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Plunkett was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Dawson requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Plunkett was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL 7ipoio4e (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2004. Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #72727 THROUGH #72866 FOR THE WEEK OF Approve JULY 19, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.63,246.10. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT Claim DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #38646 THROUGH #38790 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JULY 1 Checks THROUGH JULY 15, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,005,572.71. Liquor (D) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF Control THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL Board BOARD. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 1 Sewer (F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A SEWER LATERAL INSPECTION CAMERA Inspection FROM CUES WEST, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,670 (PRICE INCLUDES STATE Camera SALES TAX). Item E: Renort of Final construction costs for the Fire Stations 16 and 20 emereencv vehicle traffic signals Fire stations and Council acceptance of proiect. 16 and 20 Traffic Councilmember Dawson wanted the public to be aware of the excellent job that was done on the Fire Signals Stations 16 and 20 projects. She discussed how the projects came in on time, were under budget, and acknowledged all the hard work done by staff, including Dave Gebert, Darrell Smith, and Stephen Clifton. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Plunkett was not present for the vote.) The item approved is as follows: (E) REPORT OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE FIRE STATIONS 16 AND 20 EMERGENCY VEHICLE TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND COUNCIL ACCCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None. Meadowdale 4. WORK SESSION ON MEADOWDALE LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA PROPOSED ECDC 19.10 Landslide ORDINANCE CHANGES Hazard Area Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained that the contents of the packet that was provided for Agenda Item #4 proposed a 200-foot buffer zone with the Meadowdale landslide hazard area, which is not the case. Inadvertently those documents were included as pages 2 and 3 and should be stricken because they are not part of the presentation tonight, nor will they be presented at the public hearing being requested of Council. He explained that he had made the decision that the city would not include the 200-foot buffer in any map changes. Duane Bowman explained that staff wanted to give the entire council information and a background history on this particular sensitive area of the community. Information will be discussed that was shared at the Meadowdale Community Clubhouse meeting and about some of the concerns that were raised. Building Official Jeannine Graf explained the geotechnical consultants from Landau Associates, Geo Engineers, and Tubbs Geosciences will provide an overview of the landslide hazard area and will talk about the building moratorium history, the LID 210 improvements, the Geo Engineer's supplement report, and the proposed ordinance changes. Staff will also talk about the public comments that were received at the Meadowdale clubhouse meeting held on May 19, 2004, and will respond to Council questions and, at the conclusion, ask for council concurrence on the direction to follow. Consultant John Koloski discussed that he has been employed by Geo Engineers as an engineering geologist, a field of practice he has worked in for 43 years. He provided historical information about the Meadowdale landslide area and explained some of the geology in a context that would help clarify what it means relative to the regulation of building in that area. Mr. Koloski's introduction to the Meadowdale landslide hazard area occurred through an investigation that he was commissioned to perform through his firm in the mid 1960's. He is currently involved in the investigation of several building sites within the area and the practice has been continuous. The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 2 Meadowdale landslide area is located north of the center of Edmonds and is an area that is about 3,200 feet long. It ranges from about 600 to 800 feet wide measured from the shore line and rises from sea level. to about 300 feet elevation. He referred to a map from the Roger Lowe report that was prepared by he and Dr. Don Tubbs in the late 1970's and, since then, as employees of Geo Engineers, both he and Mr. Tubbs have prepared revisions or updates to the report as needed. Mr. Koloski stated the area has been the location of repeated glaciations over the last one and a half million years. There are at least four cycles that have occurred during that period of time. Each time the ice advanced into the Puget Sound basin from areas where it has formed in the southwestern mountains of British Columbia, it performed some major changes to the configuration of the basin. The ice advances very slowly and as it does it scours the topography to form hills and valleys and the channels of Puget Sound as it is seen today. In addition to the scouring, vast quantities of soil have been deposited during each of these glaciations. The glacial ice during the most recent period of glaciation, called the Vashon glaciation, extended from the foothills of the Olympics to the foothills of the Cascades, and from beyond the north end of Puget Sound to a few miles south of Olympia. In the Edmonds area, that ice at its maximum, stood to a thickness of about 4,000 feet, so the area was totally buried by ice and the weight of the ice had a profound influence on soil conditions. The Vashon ice advanced into Puget Sound about 13,000 years ago. As the Vashon ice entered Puget Sound, it dammed Puget Sound and all the rivers that flowed into Puget Sound became an immense lake that extended the full length and width of the Sound. Water from that lake discharged out to the south and ran through valleys and hills and eventually into the Pacific Ocean in the area of Grays Harbor. While the lake stood in the existing area of Puget Sound, the important thing that took place in Edmonds was the deposition of vast quantities of soil. In the lake, when the ice was at first distant, huge quantities of clay and silt were deposited on the pre-existing topography. That clay deposited in the lake was eventually capped with sand material and the sand was deposited by rivers that were melting from the front of the ice or were discharging into the basin from the adjacent mountains. The clay deposit extends from about sea level, relative to today's elevation, to about 200 feet above sea level, and the sand formation extends from there to about 300 feet, or to the top of the upland. As the ice overrode the area there were deposits of another type of soil called till, commonly known as hardpan. As the ice melts, the dam is relieved, marine waters reenter Puget Sound, and at the time when the ice has disappeared, weather very comparable to modern weather returns to the area. The hillsides along Puget Sound were left in a very steep condition, bluffs in most cases like they are seen today, and wave erosion at the base of those bluffs, together with other weather -related factors, have caused massive landslides to occur. He pointed out that this is not unique to the Meadowdale area, and there are a dozen other landslides of similar dimensions and character scattered around Puget Sound. Mr. Koloski explained that another issue to understand relative to the landslide is the magnitude of the elevation changes. Puget Sound is about 300 feet deep in the area near Edmonds and the upland is around 300 plus elevation, so that is about 600 feet in height. The local geologic conditions, specifically in the Meadowdale landslide area, consist of a layer of till on the upland, underlain by a layer of sand, underlain at about elevation 200 by clay, and the clay extends more or less to sea level or below. In the period when the landslide first started, it probably moved not as one massive unit, but as disparate blocks of soil, and eventually coalesced to form the arc that is now seen that is 3,200 feet long and 600-800 feet wide. That character of movement persists into modern history. He presented slides demonstrating that not all of the landslide moved at one time. Mr. Koloski discussed the things which motivate the landslide to occur included not just the erosion of waves at the toe of the hill slope, or along the sea coast, but also the occurrence of ground water seeping through the soil layers and, in particular, ground water that seeps on top of a not very permeable clay layer through the sand that occurs high up on the hillside. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 3 Three types of landslides occur, in general, within this area that is called the Meadowdale landslide hazard. One is a very deep-seated type of movement, landslide, so the base of the landslide is 50 to 100 feet below the ground surface, and it typically moves at a very slow rate of speed and in episodes where a measure of movement might occur once a century or twice a millennia. Another type is a localized landslide which might affect one or two building lots at a time but not the full landslide area. He pointed out on the map that there was quite a large area of the landslide complex, as well as individual landslides within that that are not very big. The upper landslide blocks are relatively intact, and they move as huge discrete blocks of soil and the trees remain standing. In the intermediate area, the portion from somewhat above sea level to the base of the steep upper slope, the type of landslide that moves there breaks the soil. up even more from the massive blocks into smaller pieces and considerable damage is typically done. The third area within the landslide is at the very toe near sea level. In that area the landslide blocks have progressively broken down to where they are so severely mixed that the soil has greatly reduced its strength, and the mixing of the soils tends to impede water flowing through them so that the water stands closer to the ground surface instead of draining out through the sand. Another type of landslide, he explained, that is of a more modern context, are very shallow, superficial landslides that continue to occur on the very steep slope around the upper head of the landslide area. They result primarily from weathered soils that have become saturated, that are very shallow. Mr. Koloski discussed the importance of blending the layer -caked geology together with an understanding of how hydrology works. In the Meadowdale area, the interest is in the sources of water and how that water moves. The sources of water include direct rainfall, but not just direct rainfall on the landslide area. He was including direct rainfall on the area that is in the upland well outside of the landslide area which infiltrates into the ground and becomes ground water and moves along through layers or aquifers within the ground. The third type of water is imported water: water that is used for irrigation, that is disposed of in septic systems, that collects in roadside ditches and runs from one place to another and can cause considerable problems. Water movement is important because the recharge occurs in one area and the discharge occurs somewhere else. In this particular case, recharge occurs on the landslide and in the upland the water moves through formations in the ground and is discharged either into or on to the Meadowdale landslide mass itself. For modern history, when the railroad was built along the coast line of Puget Sound, that stopped all wave erosion at the base of the landslide. But the landslide continued to move, and that is because of the ground water influence. In addition, the Meadowdale area has evolved from one of widely scattered cabins and has become a much more intensively developed area. The record of landslides actually began in the mid 1940's and there were numerous landslides that occurred. He displayed photos depicting slide events and pointed out that landslides still continue to happen today. Scott Snyder pointed out that this area was annexed to the city in 1963. Initially, the problems that the City Councils have dealt with were partially landslide problems, but were primarily sewer problems. He noted that the area was served by septic tanks and, in viewing the geography of the area and the topography, the fact that this was an unincorporated area of Snohomish County, it is apparent that no one had extended sewers to the area. As septic tanks failed, along with Mr. Koloski's discussion of the clay and hardpan, Mr. Snyder thought it was apparent why septic tanks were difficult to maintain in the area. The water that Mr. Koloski mentioned began to gather at the surface. Mr. Snyder explained that the initial impetus for the LID 210 improvements was the Snohomish County Health District. The problem initially was gray water: sewage water that lay on the surface, collected in ditches, and was considered a serious health problem. In 1979, the City Council of Edmonds, enacted Resolution 428, which was a moratorium on building in the area. That moratorium was imposed partially due to health concerns and partially to provide an assessment period of the geotechnical problems in the area. After the moratorium was imposed, the city began two efforts: one was an assessment of the area through the Roger Lowe report which was commissioned, and the other was the commencement of LID 210. He thought a driver both for the current ordinance and for the political and policy decisions that followed was the fact that the extension of sanitary sewers to the area was undertaken by a local improvement district. One essential Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 4 component of a local improvement district, is that the property owners who are benefited by the improvement pay for the improvement; and secondly, that the cost of the improvement is assessed against individual properties based on a hypothetical increase in value. Since a lot of the area was unimproved, property owners were assessed both on the value of their lot and the value of their building lot. That concept drove many of the decisions that the council made in the 80's when the improvements were completed. Consultant Don Tubbs of Tubbs Geosciences explained that he had worked with John Koloski at Roger Lowe Associates on the original report back in the late 70's and was also with him at Geo Engineers during some of the later reports in the 80's. The original report had a number of goals. One goal was to do analysis of the landslide to evaluate the relative hazards in different portions of the landslide; and, two, to look at the areas that contributed to the landslide and the types of ground water and surface water sources that would contribute to the landslide. In addition, a goal was to look at the feasibility and cost estimates for minimizing slide hazards and dealing with the ground water, the drainage problems, and the health issues that were described. The report was submitted in October of 1979 and came to a number of conclusions: one, that the landslide is an old and historic feature that has been going on since sometime after the ice presence through several thousand years ago; the construction of the railroad tended to stabilize things by at least removing the shoreline erosion, but due to residual stresses within the slide and the ground and the surface water conditions, the slide continues to be episodically active in part. Mr. Tubbs discussed that there are a number of ways to deal with the stability issues and it is probably most sensitive to ground water conditions. A logical way of dealing with it is by lowering ground water levels within the slide by a combination of storm sewers, sanitary sewers and some collection drains to decrease the amount of water entering the slide mass. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of those drainage measures, a number of monitoring wells were recommended that were installed to watch what ground water levels were doing, and a landslide hazard map was created to evaluate what the existing hazard conditions are and then ultimately as the basis for seeing how those landslide hazards may change in response to the facilities that were installed. Mr. Tubbs discussed the three general types of material areas within the slide. The main landslide mass itself, the old landslide deposit and mass of previously failed material that is within the 400-600 foot wide zone adjacent to the shoreline. There is a steep back scarp, which has not failed to date, but is susceptible to failure in the future. There are areas that are further to the east or in uplands to the east of the landslide that are not susceptible to failure related to this landslide mass, but which can contribute surface water and ground water to it. He pointed out that this landslide area is not unique to Puget Sound. However, this area is unique for the city of Edmonds. They evaluated the relative risks of failure within the previously failed mass and, by looking at geomorphology, or the amount of disturbance or deformation of the blocks of material within the slide mass, were able to identify some areas that were highly deformed and that had failed a number of times in the past and, therefore, have a high probability of failing in the future. He noted some areas were defined as a 90 percent hazard zone (90 percent probability of failure within a 25-year period). Other areas were rated at 35 percent and 25 percent hazard (25 or 35 percent chance of failure of any location within those zones over a 25-year period). Those probabilities were based on what was observed in the previous 25-year period, and the fact that within those 3 zones it could not be distinguished the areas were materially differently from the other zones, so any area within one of those zones would have to be assumed to have a similar probability rate of failure. Since it was clear that ground water had an influence on the sliding, the LID went forward with the installation of sanitary sewers and some collection drains that decreased the amount of water that was entering the slide mass, resulting in a lowering of the water table within the slide mass. Following the LID, Geo Engineers did an evaluation of the change in the stability of the slide as a result of the lowered ground water levels, which resulted in a lower probability of failure and the probability Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 5 then was reduced in the highest risk zone from 90 percent down to about 30 percent chance of failure. He pointed out there is still a significant chance of failure within the 25-year period because it is an old deformed slide mass that still has water in it, but it is much lower than it was before the LID was put in. The lowering of the water table and the decrease in the likelihood of sliding occurred mainly within the area of the old landslide mass. Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer, explained that in the early 1980's the north Edmonds residents petitioned for a local improvement district for sanitary sewer and storm improvements and the purpose behind that was: (1) public health, (2) improve slope stability, specifically to protect the roads and the sanitary sewer system and, (3) remove the building moratorium. The city went through an extensive public process thereafter and the Meadowdale building permit process was established. LID construction began in the mid 1980's. Since 1980, the ground water elevations have been monitored regularly in the area and the ground water elevation declined at over 3 feet to about 5 feet on average at the different pizometers and has been constant. In 1991, there was a basin study prepared for the Meadowdale area that recommended new developments provide direct connection of drainage to closed pipe systems, and recommended a number of seepage collection systems to help slope stability. After the 1996-97 storm event in which there were some small slides, several improvements were identified in the Meadowdale drainage investigation study. Many of these projects have been constructed. Almost all of the high and medium priority improvements have been completed, and more are still planned. Mr. Snyder asked the Council to put themselves in the position of the Edmonds City Council in late 1983, having just installed $2.3 million of sewage improvements paid for by the citizens in the Meadowdale area and the city is about to lift a building moratorium when it is pointed out that the State building code requires that in order for a building permit to be issued for any lot, that lot has to be stable, but the State building code does not define the word "stable." Two studies are commissioned that show that while that 90 percent probability is now 30 percent, many of the lots which the city has just assessed at $2.3 million and paid the cost of the improvements now have a 30 percent chance of earth movement in 25 years. He pointed out the city enforces the state building code. While the city can amend it, any amendment of substantive provisions are required to be approved by the state building code council. When this problem became apparent, Mr. Snyder explained the city began a process to try to keep faith with the Meadowdale residents who had just spent $2.3 million of their money in order to enhance the value of their property, that value being enhanced only if somebody could build on it. One of the key factors in the ordinances that were developed is that the Meadowdale residents would each bear the cost of improvement of their particular lot, they would bear the risks associated with it, but that the city would do everything possible to ensure that there is no such thing as an unbuildable lot. There were no guarantees as to what that building might cost or what sort of measures might have to be installed in order to satisfy the state building code's requirements. The state building code council was petitioned to define "stable," and that was denied. The approach was then taken, which began the development of the current ordinance, Chapter 19.05 of the city code, which took two basic parts. One part was to define stability as a 30 percent or less probability of earth movement in a 25-year period. Because that is what was scientifically determined to be the stability of the area, that definition of stability was taken to the state building code council, who approved it. The basic premise is that any lot owner may improve their lot and build on it if they do so in a way which does not decrease the stability of the lot which they have. The second part was a series of measures to follow the premise that having kept faith with the Meadowdale residents and ensured that there was no taking of their development rights that it is done so in a way that did not impose liability on any other citizens, that is, that the cost of the Meadowdale area be contained in the Meadowdale area. The city used as a model for Chapter 19.05, the geotechnical provisions that had been enacted by the City of Seattle; their review process and bonding requirement. One key difference between the City of Seattle, is that Seattle is large enough to have a full-time Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 6 geotechnical expert on staff. That is not possible in the city of Edmonds given the number of permits that are issued each year. One basic premise for the new ordinance was to require each property owner to engage a geotechnical expert who would individually evaluate the lot before it was built and to certify to the city building official that the improvements that are going to be put in on the lot will not increase that percentage of instability. The second part is that the city would then engage a peer review where an expert looks at the geotechnical expert report and says whether it was done in accordance with generally accepted engineering geotechnical practices. Mr. Snyder discussed that next it was required that each property owner bond and have insurance available so that if they are wrong or if errors occurred in the building process or their neighbor's property was injured there would be someone to look to, which led to one of the problems which has been corrected in the past. There simply is no reasonable cost insurance available for this kind of hazard. The good news is that the improvements, the 3-foot lowering of the watering level, has kept the number of actual failures down. Requirements such as having a geotechnical expert on site to review the building in process and to certify that every step that they are required to take is being taken, has also been a practical. check on damage during the building code process. The type of claims that the city was concerned about was the potential for future purchasers. One of the other premises in exchange for the city basically stepping up, going to the state building code council and making sure that there is no such thing as an unbuildable lot was requiring property owners to notify future property owners of the information which their experts had uncovered. The concept initially was that the city hoped over a period of time that through individual assessment of each lot in the Meadowdale area as it was built that the city would gradually acquire almost a lot by lot picture of what conditions were like in the Meadowdale area through individual assessment of each lot by that lot owner's geotechnical expert. However, this has not been the actual result. Mr. Snyder explained one of the oddities of this particular area is because of the earth movement and creep over the years, none of the property corners and survey markers are where they should be. County roads over the years have moved as much as 20 feet downhill. Over the years the city has worked with neighborhood residents to abandon, and through deed exchange, cure problems. Following the approval of the definition of stability, following the approval of the final assessment roll of LID 210, and following the adoption of Chapter 19.05, the moratorium on construction was lifted. Ms. Graf explained that Ordinance No. 2661 needed updating. Staff has processed enough permits in that area and see where improvements can be made to the permitting system. The desire is to have applicants identify site -specific risks and mitigate hazards instead of just quoting the risk percentage from the adopted map. The desire is to use the best available science to designate the known landslide hazard area in mapping. Regarding changing the adopted map, Ms. Graf explained that staff has consistently received complaints from citizens on its quality. The map is hand -drawn; it was site plotted for topography; it does not have any monuments for bearings. The streets are not accurately depicted. It does not match any of the other city maps for overlay purposes. There is now a GIS, Global Information System, mapping capability, where individual lots, tax parcel numbers, and streets can be plotted and it will make it easier for folks to read and will assist the customers greatly. The consultants have noted a few map errors and staff will be able to correct those. Having a map based on best available science will help developers and potential home buyers by providing predictability where they can find their lot and know if they are in the designated landslide hazard area or not. Ms. Graf pointed out that staff is also proposing administrative code changes. Presently, if someone comes in to get a building permit, the plan has to be stamped by a licensed architect and a structural engineer. Staff is proposing to eliminate the requirement that the architectural plans be stamped. Also, the current application timeline is 180 days and an applicant can make a request for an additional 180 days. Permit time frames sometimes do not meet that period and staff proposes that applications be valid Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 7 for two years; also, when building permits are issued, they are good for one year and can be renewed for a second year for one-half fee. Staff proposes that once a building permit gets issued in the Meadowdale landslide area that it is automatically valid for two years and can be renewed for a third year for one-half the fee. Ms. Graf noted that staff asks for a stricter requirement on the vicinity map and would like it to indicate no landslide masses or debris flows that are within 100 feet of the site, which will provide more clarity and acknowledgment of the geological conditions that can affect a certain property. Regarding, temporary erosion control inspections, the current ordinance requires weekly inspections, but during the winter months staff is asking that daily inspections be done by the contractor of record, who is already on site, and he or she is keeping a log of checking the temporary erosion control filter fabric fence. Staff is also asking for a new requirement to inspect after -storm events. After -storm events are considered to be more than one inch in a 24-hour period and staff asks that an inspection be done by the contractor of record within 48 hours after a storm event. Staff considers this to be prudent following best management practices and also prudent in the landslide hazard area. Seasonal ground work is an issue because right now the ordinance limits work which is considered to be drainage or foundation work to between October 1 to April 30. Under the new proposed ordinance staff would like to be able to have a process to get geotechnical peer concurrence to allow certain work to continue year-round, which would also benefit the applicants. Debbie Ladd from Landau Associates in Edmonds addressed the proposed code changes related to the map. She stated that through the years she has specialized in landslides and ground water issues and has helped the city review some applications for this process and helped during the ordinance changes. One of the proposed code changes being considered are changes to the map and how it is used, and one of the key things to be changed is the geotechnical risk statement. Although the map has subdivided risk areas, staff would like applicants to look more specifically at their lots and identify the hazards, which was a premise in the Meadowdale ordinance and in the Roger Lowe Associates reporting, noting that certain hazards exist at certain sites and the city wants to specifically identify them. Staff proposes to eliminate the subdivision of risk percentages on the map. The whole map at this time, with the lowering of the ground water table, is judged to have a risk of instability of 30 percent or less in 25 years, so it meets the definition that Mr. Snyder addressed about stability in accordance with the state building code. The intent is to eliminate the subdivisions, have a mapped area, and instead ask applicants to identify the risks that are specific to their site. She then discussed a schematic cross-section that could be presented to the applicant to help them determine what to do with drainage and what to do with water. Ms. Graf discussed that at their first public hearing on April 20, 2004, a concern was raised that there was lack of citizen involvement and inadequate notification of the meeting, and Councilmember Dawson had suggested that staff and the geotechnical consultants meet with the Meadowdale residents. That was done at the Meadowdale Clubhouse on May 19, 2004. In order to assure proper notification, staff triple - checked the Snohomish County Assessor records against their own in-house records to make sure there was an accurate mailing, and 3 large public posting signs were posted in the area that contained flyers, a map, and public information about the meeting. The clubhouse meeting was a tremendous success in terms of the number of citizens attending, as well as the public comments received. It was an opportunity to educate citizens on the landslide hazard areas. It was also a chance for staff to present the ordinance changes and for citizens to talk about the proposed changes. At this meeting, Development Services Director Duane Bowman determined that the planned June meeting, which was a follow-up meeting to the clubhouse meeting, would have to be delayed in order for staff and the consultants to address all of the concerns that were raised. Ms. Graf pointed out that staff had categorized the citizen clubhouse comments into 3 categories: property value, administration, and technical. Regarding property value, a number of citizens commented that the term "Meadowdale" stigmatizes their property. She noted the earth subsidence landslide hazard area is a well -documented landslide hazard area. Citizens also discussed diminishing property values due to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 8 ordinance regulation. One reason that the development ordinance was adopted was to create standards which would require lot owners to address slope stability and landslide hazard problems on a lot by lot basis, and also to give clear public notice of any scientifically ascertainable hazards which may exist within a lot. All permanent applications for development must submit a covenant that waives the right of an owner, heirs, successors, and assigns to assert claims against the city by reason of or arising out of issuance of a permit or other department approval; further, the statement discloses that the owner will inform future buyers of the risks associated with development and any conditions, prohibitions, or restrictions on the property. Ms. Graf noted that one of the issues that arose was that taxes continue to increase but the property valuation does not keep pace. A citizen assisted staff in answering the question, stating that the county has established a process to challenge taxes, so staff will refer citizens to the County Assessor on that matter. Ms. Graf pointed out that at the hearing citizens were objecting to an educational flyer. Staff had tasked Landau Associates with creating a flyer that would provide language on the do's and don'ts of living in a landslide hazard area and the intent was to provide an ongoing education; however, from comments at that hearing, as well as at the clubhouse, the term "Meadowdale" was strongly objected to and, based on that input, staff agrees to drop the term "Meadowdale" from the flyer. Citizens objected to a graphic that showed a house tilting over an embankment and staff is willing to remove that. Citizens objected to 2 photographs that were in the flyer and staff has no objection to removing those photographs. With these changes, the flyer will be reprinted and copies will be available on the second floor at City Hall during business hours. She pointed out that citizens at the clubhouse meeting thought that the flyer would be beneficial to other steep slope properties in Edmonds. The flyer will not be remailed by the city. Regarding the Meadowdale designation, Ms. Graf pointed out that several citizens said all of Meadowdale is stigmatized and, looking back through the records, in general, the area north of 168th is commonly known as Meadowdale. The original Roger Lowe report calls this area the Meadowdale landslide complex. The current ordinance states `Barth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area, commonly known as Meadowdale." Staff is agreeable to using the technical term of earth subsidence landslide hazard area, or the term North Edmonds landslide hazard complex, or any other specific suggestions, noting no other specific suggestions were made at the clubhouse. Another topic that came up at the clubhouse concerned permit processing. Ms. Graf reported that citizens believe that the quoted average time frame may discourage potential buyers and felt that the city's consultant peer review timeline was excessive. Staff s proposed code changes are done with the intent of improving some of the permit timelines. Staff is agreeable to removing discretionary review times from their quote. Right now 12 to 18 months is quoted and it does sound excessive to laymen or to first-time developers or buyers. Staff is willing to quote just review times. For example, the initial peer review time is 45 working days, the second review is 30 days, and all subsequent review is 20 days. That does not sound as long as 12 to 18 months. Citizens were also concerned about consultant peer timelines being excessive and staff could suggest an expedited review for Meadowdale applicants with the caveat that they are willing to pay the premium rate that the peer review consultant would charge. Also, staff could look at requesting that all of their consultants reduce the initial review time of 45 days down to 30 days. Regardless of how the consultant review is structured, the applicant and his design professional have all the power in making a complete and high quality submittal to the city, which in turn would dramatically reduce all of the overall review times. Another citizen concern that was expressed at the clubhouse was that the application of the city's regulations were inconsistent. Ms. Graf was provided with no specifics so she was unable to respond to that, but staff has confidence that their heightened permit review process and required steps and requirements for a complete submittal has been consistent over the years. Also, a citizen suggested that staff was giving negative feedback to prospective buyers and to address this issue, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 9 if it is the Council's desire, staff could create a written script for all Meadowdale development that would be technical in process information and could have that immediately available at the public counter, or staff could require that all property inquiries for Meadowdale development be in writing and staff could respond in writing. Ms. Graf noted that at this time she is the designated lead person with regard to the ordinance requirements for the Meadowdale area. Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene discussed that an area of concern expressed during the clubhouse meeting regarding development bonding and the concern that other critical areas are not required to bond and it is burdensome with respect to the cost for construction. Staff s response was that development bonding is currently required of all shore plats, plats and commercial development throughout the city. The city requires the development bond to cover the potential costs of repairing infrastructure damaged during construction, such as roads, storms and sewer, and having a bond in place that facilitates the start of clean-up and repair work, and is an additional guarantee that the developer will take responsibility for it in a timely manner. Staffs intent is to continue this practice. Another concern he had heard regarded watershed and infiltration issues and the idea that infiltration in the area is a concern, that it is a big problem with more water on the hillside, meaning less stability, and the city should continue to do drainage improvements. There was also a concern about illegal drainage installations or changes to the approved system and that these things are going on unregulated. Staff's response to these issues is that the city has adopted best management practices and the State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Manual. Hard piping is required, as was suggested by the 1991 basin study, and it has been followed ever since. Temporary erosion control is regulated for the stormwater ordinance. Critical areas ordinances can impose native landscaping requirements on top of all of this. Staff has completed many capital improvements and are planning more. Staff inspects all improvements and responds to all complaints in the area and if there are any problems brought to staff s attention, they are addressed. With regard to temporary erosion control, concern was expressed that it was excessive to require it for all sites and that the city should perform all inspections, and the daily tracking of temporary erosion control is excessive and expensive for the client. Staffs response to these requirements are standard and enforced per the current stormwater ordinance and they are enforced not only in Meadowdale, but everywhere else in the city as well. A geotech is permitted to make site -specific recommendations for special soils or sites. The city currently performs the minimum required inspections and the general contractor is on site daily. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council consider for future Capital Improvement Project listings the comment made that the city should extend drainage improvements. One measure of the success of the ordinance, he explained, is the fact that the city has been sued relatively few times and has paid relatively little money out on those suits. One aspect of those suits is that the City is sued when a failure occurs and a claim that the improvements which the city has installed in the area either have failed or have not been properly maintained. As the city installs improvements, liability goes with that installation. The steps that the city has taken to reduce liability have been to institute through Public Works, trained, dedicated inspectors who are intimately familiar with the area and inspect all drainage improvements on a regularly recurring basis, and logs of those inspections are kept. Planning Manager Rob Chave pointed out that a question came up during the review of the regulations about whether or not the Meadowdale building code could be taken through the critical areas process. He explained that the key point to recognize is that the critical areas is a land use regulation. Critical areas regulations do not involve the design of building structures but deal with buffers and setbacks, technical. issues related to the use of the land. What the city does not regulate in critical areas are the life safety issues that the building code regulates. Moving those kinds of issues into the critical areas regulations would be awkward because at the critical areas stage it is not dealing with building -specific plans. If it was tried to deal with those kinds of issues up front at the critical areas stage, the difficulty would be later on if the building plan changed or as it gets into construction and there become other issues that cannot be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 10 effectively handled. Staff is updating the critical areas regulations this year to make sure that critical areas regulations and the landslide hazard building code regulations work together. The simple response is that the process is going to be targeted to the appropriate permit or approval being sought so that if someone is seeking a land use approval, the critical areas regulations will apply in that way. For example, if someone is doing a subdivision, they are going to be dealing with the critical areas regulation and how the land is laid out. If someone is dealing with a building permit, then it is going to be appropriate that the critical areas essentially defer to the building code issues that are going to deal with the specific structural and life/safety issues. Ms. Ladd discussed another technical issue that was raised at the clubhouse meeting was why the city cannot declassify the landslide hazard area. People brought up that the ground water levels have been relatively consistent, there are certain designated stability risks that everybody seems to agree on, and the comment that property values were decreased without any sort of effect on safety. Ms. Ladd believed that this area needed to be kept as a specific landslide hazard area. The landslide map does exist and it is fairly unique to the Edmonds area. It is possible that ground water levels in the future could raise over a several year period and re -energize the landslide. She thought the heightened permit review did include public safety and it helped to protect future owners, current owners, and the city's liability. The required notice to future owners is a benefit. The other issue that came up was that there was designated during the initial stages of the process an investigative zone on the map. The comments were that there was no scientific basis and why is the zone on the map. It was the 200-foot zone outside of the mapped landslide area that Mr. Bowman had discussed earlier. She understood from the city that it can require the requirements of the Meadowdale ordinance to be applied in areas outside of the mapped area. The hope was that mapping the buffer zone would help reduce subjectiveness, but she was looking forward to some updated mapping that would be done by using LIDAR as the basis for a better map and basis for a zone. Ms. Ladd explained that LIDAR stands for light detection and radar. These maps provide very accurate topography information, usually on the order of 2-5 foot topography. They can be GIS compatible with the City's GIS system and will help to develop a much more accurate definition of the Meadowdale landslide hazard zone. She believed that the city envisioned using the LIDAR along with some field mapping to improve the outline of the map and basically come up with a better map. Ms. Graf recounted that staff has proposed administrative code changes and has had successful public input into the process. Staff has heard that the citizens want an accurate map based on the best available science. Staff is recommending implementing the proposed administrative changes to the ordinance that include no architect stamp, application and permit limit to two years, vicinity map with greater detail, creating a summary of Roger Lowe and Geo Engineer's reports, temporary erosion control, daily inspection during winter months, special storm temporary erosion control inspections, geotech concurrence on winter ground work, eliminate the geotech risk statement, eliminate the percentages on the map, adopt a concept of the hazard zones and require designers to mitigate site specific hazards, and request Council during the fall budget process to fund LIDAR to be implemented in the spring of 2005. It is intended that the geotech consultants will review that material and have findings ready for a public hearing process in late to early summer of 2005, and then adopt a more accurate map by mid to late summer of 2005. Staff desires feedback from Council as to their direction and, if agreeable, wanted to propose a public hearing on September 20, 2004. Councilmember Moore congratulated the group on a great presentation. She inquired how the LIDAR would read subsurface material. Debbie Ladd explained that LIDAR does not read the subsurface material. It provides an improved topography map and the subsurface information would be gathered by such means as borings and some limited exposures. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page I I Councilmember Olson wondered how critical the LIDAR mapping would be for someone wanting to develop their land before it is ready for use. Debbie Ladd commented it would be valuable to look on a specific lot basis at the features that are on the land with respect to where the parcel is within the landslide mass, and which the city already does. Mr. Snyder explained that the LIDAR is a departure point. The ordinance now and in the future will continue to place primary responsibility on the person building on the lot to do a valid and thorough investigation of what their site specific conditions are. Ms. Ladd thought that the LIDAR could be a big aid to the city in terms of the screening process and an improved map for the applicants. Councilmember Moore inquired about the citizen complaint regarding illegal drainage installations in the area or changes to an approved system which were unregulated and the city's response to that. Ms. Graf explained that there was no specific example but that was a comment she had noted and felt that it was important to put in. Mr. Snyder stated that from the city's experience there have been people who have made changes to city - owned drainage improvements, to catch basins, hooked up their down spouts, and it is of concern because every drop of water that goes back into the landslide mass and is not removed increases the potential for instability. Ms. Graf pointed out when the city gets a stormwater complaint, the Engineering Department or the Public Works department investigates it. Councilmember Moore asked for clarification regarding the point when asked to continue the drainage improvements, the city's response was that it is going to do them, but yet there is a legal liability issue. Mr. Snyder thought it was a matter of the council needing to weigh the benefits from each improvement versus the liability that it is taking on. Councilmember Marin referred to the technical slide that says "declassify" on it. He noted that he had spoken with the 3 consultants and the City Attorney before the meeting and he was sensitive to the idea of the feeling from people in the area that their area is being tagged with a name that might sound derogatory. He pointed out that on the top of the right-hand column, it states, "Geologically the designated land mass exists and is not fully stabilized." He thought it seemed as though the Council was recognizing the fact that there is still a potential problem and asked Mr. Koloski to explain the difficulties that he sees regarding the transition area between the clay and introducing the sands into the clay. Mr. Koloski thought the accuracy of the comment that it is not fully stabilized is their opinion and has been preceded on the basis that it is stabilized enough that the risk is an acceptable one. As to Mr. Marin's comment about the transition between the zone of sand and the zone of clay, he felt that the word "transition" unfortunately is used in a variety of ways. The clear and most literal definition is that area in which there is in fact a physical transition between the deposit of blue clay and the overlying deposit of sand in most cases is not a sharp line. There are sand beds that become interbedded with the upper portion of the clay and that transitions upward to an area where there are a few clay zones within the lower portion of the sand. It is that physical transition between clay and sand which is the most treacherous of the landslide propagating conditions, the most treacherous of the natural landslide conditions. With the advent of the drainage measures that have been installed, the frequency of landslides that now occurs is almost exclusively related to human causes, either digging an unshored excavation or discharging water in a place where it should not be, or accomplishing some other construction act that results in a landslide. He was trying to clarify the point that the use of the term "transition" should relate Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 12 in this case to the place where the underlying clay transforms or transitions into the overlying sand, and that is a very treacherous zone on a natural basis. Councilmember Marin asked Mr. Koloski to explain how the layers of sand provide the conduits for introducing the water into that treacherous area. Part of what he was trying to understand was if there was some other kind of name that this area could be called that would destigmatize it and would not call it a landslide area. From his understanding, based on what he had heard, the reality seemed to be that it is a landslide area and the city probably should appropriately call it that. Mr. Snyder explained that the term that the city used in the ordinance is "the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area." As he understood from speaking with Dr. Tubbs, earth subsidence does not mean too much. But at the request of the property owners that was added in because it was designed to designate that there are lesser risks. As a practical matter, the adoption of the Growth Management Act has put the city more firmly in a corner where the city needs to retain landslide hazard for a couple of reasons. The GMA requires that the city use best available science and "landslide hazard" or "landslide mass" are the most commonly used terms. The Growth Management Act itself uses that term and requires that the city map known landslide hazard areas. He did not see it mentioned in the report but recalled that the Meadowdale landslide area was first used in the 1950's vintage treatise by a University of Washington professor who used the slides that were shown as the basis for an extensive learned treatise, which was one of the first examinations of landslide masses. The GMA requires that the city map steep slope and landslide hazard areas. Steep slopes are dangerous because of their angle of repose. Landslide hazard refers typically to situations in which these other factors that have been discussed at length are present. He commented it is important to keep faith with current property owners, but one of the premises for the last 20 years is that the city keep faith with future Edmonds citizens and to make sure that the city is being honest with them about what is involved. Further, per state law, Form 17 for realtors requires that future sellers disclose any potential hazards known to them associated with the property. Councilmember Marin was impressed with the presentation and liked the idea of the site specific work to improve the lot and to protect other people and he was anxious to move ahead with the public hearing. Mr. Koloski thought it was imperative that direct language be used so that is clearly understood by all readers and that the landslide hazard phrase is a term that is not just used in Edmonds but is used on a very widely distributed basis on a global scientific foundation. He thought that if it is a landslide hazard, either the location is defined as being within the limits of that hazard, or not within the limits, and that is a simplistic approach that he strongly recommended that the Council adopt. Council President Plunkett inquired if he could fax Mr. Bowman a number of questions on this matter to research and respond to before the next public hearing. Mr. Bowman suggested Mr. Plunkett send the questions to him and, depending on their level of complexity, he would respond promptly. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 20TH FOR THIS MATTER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. MAYOR'S COMMENTS August 31 Mayor Haakenson reminded everyone that 5 weeks from tonight is another open mike council forum Community Outreach where public comment will be taken from anybody about anything without any time limits. He stated that Meeting TPnnifPr CtarPnrl the naw Frnnnmir rlavalnnmant Tlirartnr hnd hPan hirari rPrantly and the rite line nclrarl the council and the public to give some ideas or some guidance as to what kind of retail businesses they Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 13 would like to see in Edmonds and what types of services they would like to see and to come that night and share that information. 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Plunkett wished Councilmember Marin a Happy Birthday. Health Councilmember Marin reported that as a member of the Snohomish Health District and the Program District Policy Committee they had met and discussed the subject of motorized scooters and the health implications and the apparent risks. A lieutenant from the Sheriff's department spoke with them about the history behind this matter and that it was an unintended consequence of legislation that changed the RCW to allow for the segue way, which led to the loophole that allowed for the scooter craze. He had learned that the cities of Lake Stevens and Stanwood have already taken action or are in the process of taking action. The city of Long Beach, California, probably has the best legislation and a copy of that has been requested. The city of Snohomish is about to take action, the city of Mountlake Terrace is about to take action. Marysville and Snohomish County are also looking at it. Based on the discussion from the meeting, he felt it was likely that a recommendation would be coming from Snohomish Health District to recommend to cities to enact legislation that will require helmets. The District is looking at a DOT - approved helmet that might be available in the $24 price range. Scott Snyder introduced Biel Park, a young man interning with his law firm this summer who is a law student at Seattle University School of Law. He is also an Edmonds resident and voter. Councilmember Marin pointed out that Mr. Snyder is an asset to the city and it is a great opportunity to work with one of the best attorneys that he knows. Seashore Councilmember Olson reported that she went to the Seashore Forum, along with Mauri Moore, and that Forum on June 14th the City of Seattle adopted a resolution seeking state legislative action to address funding for municipal transportation infrastructure. Seattle is encouraging other Washington municipalities to pass similar resolutions as a means of conveying the importance of this dire situation. Edmonds is on a 65- year cycle of road repair and part of the problem with that is that the last comprehensive action by the legislature to provide local options for transportation funding was in 1999 and at that time they recognized the need for local transportation funding by authorizing four mechanisms: local option fuel tax; commercial parking tax; street utility fees; and vehicle license fees. Fourteen years later none of these sources have become a viable mainstay for local transportation funding and as the condition of the transportation infrastructure deteriorates, the cost become significantly more expensive for repair or replacement, effectively doubling in every ten years. She pointed out that they are going to ask their council at the next meeting to pass a resolution calling on the governor and the legislature to try and provide new and appropriate funding tools that may be administered at the municipal level to pay for transportation infrastructure and ask them to provide additional direct funding generated by the state for municipal transportation infrastructure. Councilmember Moore had attended the Economic Development Advisory Board meeting in Edmonds. Economic Development She discussed that last year the council agreed with the Mayor's request to hire an Economic Advisory Development Director. It was an impressive meeting with some wonderful citizens who agreed to be part Board of the council. Jennifer Gerend is the city's new Economic Development Director and has only been with the city for a short time but has made progress in assessing the city's available space and needs for commercial and retail business. The meeting included a wide cross-section of citizens and was used to get an overview of what kind of business might be desired and what kinds of businesses might have a chance for success in the downtown core and all the other commercial areas of the city. Some of the members talked about wanting to see more viable commercial space in terms of higher ceilings. Some Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 14 talked about support for the arts. Others talked about the predictability in permitting for builders. She was happy that this process has started and thought it was going to be very successful at a critical juncture in Edmonds' economy. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. GXRY HORINSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK 1 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 15 .y. AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. J U LY 27, 2004 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) . Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2004. (C) Approval of claim checks #72727 through #72866 for the week of July 19, 2004, in the amount of $163,246.10. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #38646 through #38790 for the pay period July 1 through July 15, 2004, in the amount of $1,005,572.71.* *Claims information may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. (D) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board. (E) Report on final construction costs for the Fire Stations 16 and 20 emergency vehicle traffic signals and Council acceptance of project. (F) Authorization to purchase a sewer lateral inspection camera from Cues West Inc. in the amount of $32,670 (price includes state sales tax). 3. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 4. (go Min.) Work Session on Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area proposed ECDC 19.10 ordinance changes. 5. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 6. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings. ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.