Loading...
2024-09-24 Council MinutesEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES September 24, 2024 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Chris Eck, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir. Mike Clugston, Sr. Planner/Acting Planning Mgr. Leif Bjorback, Building Official Navyusha Pentakota, Urban Design Planner Tristan Sewell, Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:59 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Nand read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. NHHM PROCLAMATION Mayor Rosen read a proclamation proclaiming September 15 — October 15 as National Hispanic Heritage Month and calling its observance to all residents. Dr. Ileana Ponce Gonzalez, founder and executive director of Community Health Workers Coalition for Migrants and Refugees, accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Hispanic community and Community Health Workers Coalition and said she was honored to receive the proclamation that recognizes their important contribution to Edmonds and the State. She thanked Mayor Rosen and the city council for promoting the diversity and culture of the Hispanic population. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 1 2. MAYOR'S FINANCE UPDATE Mayor Rosen announced he will present the budget to the council and the community on October 1 at the Edmonds Waterfront Center. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend. There will be several opportunities following the presentation of the budget for the public to become more engaged, starting with October 3' where the city council will partner with the Edmonds Civic Roundtable at the Edmonds Waterfront Center. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR FILING 2. AUGUST 2024 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 3. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL RETREAT MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2024 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 5. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE PLACEMENT OF LIEN ON CIVIC PARK PROPERTY 6. COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE SECTIONS 10, 11, 12 AND 14 7. ARTS COMMISSION CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT — LONDON 8. ARTS COMMISSION CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT — LEGGETT 9. UPDATE TO PROMOTION POLICY - COMPENSATION 10. UPDATE TO ECC 2.10.010 - ACTING APPOINTMENTS 11. SOCIAL WORKER SUPERVISION CONTRACT 12. ILA WITH EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 13. CORRECTION TO ORDINANCE 4362 ATTACHMENT A 14. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING CITY COUNCIL'S INTENTION FOR 2026 PROPERTY TAX LEVY 15. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS GRANTING TO NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES OF WASHINGTON, LLC, AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A AT&T WIRELESS, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, A NONEXCLUSIVE MASTER PERMIT AGREEMENT TO INSTALL, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN MACRO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN A CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREA OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 2 9. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT PROCESSING TIMELINE AND PUBLIC NOTICE CODE AMENDMENTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATES IN SB 5290 AND HB 1105 (FILE AMD2024-0002) Acting Planning Manager Mike Clugston explained during the past two sessions, the legislature passed a number of bills related to middle housing and other items. One of the lesser known bills was an update to permit timelines for land use permits. Since GMA was adopted about 30 years ago, the City had 120 days to review land use permits. Commerce has tracked that more or less, but there are no penalties if the 120 days was not met. SB 5290 required several small changes to the code; the main change was the requirement for new permit shot clocks. Land use permits have historically had a 120 day review period. With SB 5290, land use permit will have 3 different shot clocks. Mr. Clugston reviewed SB 529 Implementation Requirements for Jurisdictions • New Final Decision Timelines o Takes effect January 1, 2025: ■ For Type I project permits, staff decision with no public notice, the City must issue a final decision within 65 days of the determination of completeness. ■ For Type 11 project permits, staff decision with public notice, the City must issue a final decision within 100 days of determination of completeness ■ For Type III and IV project permits, which require public notice and a public hearing, the City must issue a final decision within 170 days of the determination of completeness ■ Timelines can be amended ■ Temporary suspension of more than 60 consecutive days may add an additional 30 days to time period until a final decision is required to be issued. Refunding Fees o When permit time periods are not met, a portion of the permit fee must be refunded to the applicant. A local government may provide for the collection of only 80 percent of a permit fee initially, and for the collection of the remaining balance if the permitting time period are met o The portion of the fee refunded for missing time periods shall be: ■ 10% if the final decision was made after the applicable deadline but the period did not exceed 20% of the original time period; or ■ 20% if the period from the deadline to the time of the issuance exceeded 20% of the original time period. UNLESS... Measures to Avoid Refunding of Fees o Refunding fee provisions are not applicable to cities and counties which have implemented at least three of these options at the time an application is deemed procedurally complete: a) Expedited review for project permit applications; b) Impose reasonable fees on applicants to cover the cost of processing permits; c) Enter into an interlocal agreement with another jurisdiction to share staff and resources; d) Maintain and budget for on -call permitting assistance e) Budget new positions that are contingent on increased permit revenue; f) Only require public hearings for permit applications that are required to have a public hearing by statute; g) Make pre -applications meetings optional h) Make housing types an outright permitted use in all zones where the housing type is permitted; Mr. Clugston anticipated the new timelines were achievable and the City already does some of the measures to avoid refunding of fees. HB 1105 requires a change to how the City provides public notice to include Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 3 specific dates and times when public notice is required. The planning board public held a hearing in August and recommended approval. This procedural change does not require SEPA. Mayor Rosen opened the public hearing. There was no public comments. Mayor Rosen closed the public hearing. Councilmember Tibbott commented he met with a neighbor this morning who said it was taking forever to get his permit approved; the engineering drawings had been returned and resubmitted and he was waiting for approval. Councilmember Tibbott asked how often people need to resubmit and stay within the 65 or 100 days. Mr. Clugston answered these changes apply only to land use permits; he was unsure if the permit Councilmember Tibbott referred to was a building permit or an engineering permit. Councilmember Tibbott assumed they were likely building permits. Mr. Clugston said those permits are not held to these timelines as it is a separate process. The goal in processing permits is that the information provided up front is as complete as possible, whether there is a preapplication meeting or development review committee meeting or handouts are easy enough to follow and understand so that people can submit information and it is correct the first time and there aren't multiple rounds of corrections. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the preapplication meetings are helpful. Mr. Clugston answered absolutely. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the preapplication meeting was at the applicant's discretion. Mr. Clugston said staff recommends both development review meetings and preapplication meetings. The issue is requiring them for permits; if they are not required, staff still recommends them as they are helpful and streamline the process. Eliminating the requirement for preapplication meetings is a way to avoid refunds. Councilmember Paine asked how the City's current review compared to the shot clock requirements. Mr. Clugston answered it will start with 2024 data; the City will have a better idea by the end of the year and Commerce will have a better idea for jurisdictions that are required to comply. Councilmember Paine asked for a rough estimate of the City's current compliance with the new requirements. Mr. Clugston answered based on the new guidance, he believed those would be met nearly all the time. The shorter time shot clocks are for easier permits so staff should be able to meet the 65 day requirement. SB 5290 will provide more time for the more difficult permits and he anticipated staff would be able to meet it in every case. Councilmember Paine said she opened some of the links in the PowerPoint and it looks like the City is able to ensure it has adequate staffing by collecting all the fees the department is entitled to. She asked whether a permit fee analysis had been done lately. Mr. Clugston answered it was last done in 2022 and the City typically does it every 3 years so it is due this winter. Councilmember Paine asked if the current permit fees were covering overhead, review time, etc. Mr. Clugston answered definitely, it also covered any passthroughs if an expert or consultant was needed. Councilmember Paine suggested when staff was ready to submit the report to Commerce to also provide it to council as it is a good feedback loop for the council to know staff is meeting the needs of community related to land use permits. Councilmember Chen commented he, like Councilmember Tibbott, has heard that some applications take a long time, but they maybe not be in this category. If someone submits an application and information is missing and they resubmit, he asked whether the shot clock starts over or does it continue with the original timeframe. Mr. Clugston answered the first step is to determine whether the application is complete or incomplete; staff has 28 days to make that determination. After it is determined to be complete, the 65, 100 or 170 day clock starts. From there, each time staff has additional corrections, the clock pauses, and once the applicant resubmits material based on that information request, the clock restarts. Council President Olson referred to the planning board minutes which reflect their desire to remove language regarding refunds if it could be removed. She asked if the fact that the language was still in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 4 proposed code amendment meant it could not be removed. Mr. Clugston answered it could be removed because the threshold are already being met, but he wanted to leave it in as placeholder to remind staff as they are processing permits that they have to meet these requirements and that language points to the RCW where the additional tools are listed. It is more of a placeholder or reminder to keep the shot clocks in mind and that if the timeframes are not met, it could lead to refunds. Council President Olson relayed her understanding that the planning board suggested taking out the language about refunds so the City would not be liable and need to refund permit fees. She did not see anything in the narrative that addressed whether that was optional. Mr. Clugston answered the language could be removed; he recommended retaining it as a placeholder for staff and the public to remind them the refund option exists if the shot clocks are not met. Council President Olson asked if the narrative explained that staff recommended something different than what the planning board's recommendation. Mr. Clugston referred to the 5t1i bullet on packet page 377 regarding permit review timelines, "While the refund language could be removed from the draft code because it is not currently applicable to Edmonds, the language is proposed to be retained as a placeholder and reminder should the City fail to meet the review shot clocks in the future." Council President Olson commented it has been a long time since council has spoken about this, but when there is a planning board recommendation and staff does not follow it, staff s recommendation should explicitly address the fact that their recommendation differed from the planning board's recommendation and why. She could have easily missed that if she had not carefully read the planning board minutes. It is important to honor the planning board's time and effort and not necessarily do what they say every time, but to give true transparency and expression to their recommendations. She recalled this came up once before since she has been on council and there was a very long conversation about it. Councilmember Nand relayed her disappointment that the State legislature decided to pass yet another unfunded State mandate, potentially cutting City revenue and requiring the addition of FTEs at a time the City is desperately trying to retain FTEs and the level of service to the community. She did not anticipate any issues with the planning department being able to meet these permitting timelines as the City has a very good reputation for turning permits around quickly. There are so many avenues of service from department of licensing to human services where the State government has waitlists that are years long. She found it very disappointing, especially in a challenging budget year for cities across the state, for the State to say cities need to cut timelines and make it easier for developers to get a quick turnaround and that they are somehow being injured by longer timelines and more touches and that cities will potentially need to decrease the process for permit applications. Councilmember Dotsch agreed the unfunded State mandates put a lot of pressure on smaller cities and are difficult to adapt to. If the planning board recommends removing the refund language and an annual review is required, she suggested using the annual review to analyze how the City is meeting its goals. Mr. Clugston answered that language can be removed; the City will be required to submit its permit shot clock information to Commerce annually. Councilmember Paine referred to the language that the planning board recommended be removed, asking if there is a huge delay or problematic codes such as the tree code not being the simplest for permit review, were there ways around providing a refund if the shot clock was not met by using three of the methods. Mr. Clugston answered the City already has at least three and could have several more. He did not think the City would need to issue refunds for permit application fees any time soon. Councilmember Paine asked what would happen if something went entirely sideways. Mr. Clugston answered if there was something really off center, there would be communication between the applicant and the City to resolve it. Some permits take more time; legislative permits are not included such as comprehensive plan and code Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 5 amendments, etc. because they take more time. Even at the City's current staffing level, which he acknowledged is a little low, he anticipated the new requirements could still be met. Councilmember Dotsch recalled at the beginning of the presentation, Mr. Clugston mentioned streamlining the paperwork and asked if that was something that was anticipated. Mr. Clugston answered this mandate applies to all cities in the State. Some cities are much further behind; a lot of cities still do not have electronic permitting which Edmonds has had since Covid. Staff is always looking for ways to streamline, but already have a number of processes in place that have streamline things fairly well. Councilmember Dotsch asked if there were things on staff's wish list. Mr. Clugston answered within the next month, the City will be implementing new permitting software that will be more responsive to needs and less expensive than the current permitting system. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. GREEN BUILDING INCENTIVES DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS (AMD2023-0010) Building Official Leif Bjorback introduced Planner Tristan Sewell and Acting Planning & Development Director Shane Hope. He explained staff is bringing this back to continue the discussion from last month and to discuss aspects that were not part of that presentation. The presentation includes slides from the previous presentation, but will focus primarily on the new portions of the presentation including enhanced graphics that will hopefully provide a better understanding of the zoning incentives for height and setbacks. The goal is to get direction from the council tonight regarding how best to move forward with this program. He reviewed: Staff Recommendation o Incentivize green building in pursuit of climate neutrality by 2050 by: ■ Leveraging well -established certification programs ■ Reducing permit review timeline 50% for certified projects ■ Granting height bonuses, reduced setbacks, reduced off-street parking, and increased dwelling unit density to certified projects ■ Providing deeper incentives for higher levels of certification ■ Limiting scope of eligible projects to certain zones and land uses, prioritizing each zone's primary intent ■ Enforcing follow-through via performance bonds, if needed o Supported by Planning Board as of July 24, 2024 Construction Standards (Established Certifications) o Single -Family Residential: Built Green o Flexible, point -based, not prescriptive 4-Star o Commercial, Multifamily, and Mixed Use: LEED Gold or Built Green 4-Star Multifamily • Points Categories o Built Green o Updated in response to market and regulation o Widely used and recognized o Third -party verified o Built Green benchmarked on 20% improvement over State energy code Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 6 ■ Site and Water ■ Energy Efficiency ■ Health and Indoor Air Quality ■ Materials Efficiency ■ Equity and Social Justice ■ Operation, Maintenance, and Homeowner Education ■ Built Green Brand Promotion o LEED ■ Integrative Process ■ Location and Transportation ■ Sustainable Sites ■ Water Efficiency ■ Energy and Atmosphere ■ Materials and Resources ■ Indoor Environmental Quality ■ Innovation ■ Regional Priority • What Green Building Can Look Like o Encouraging active transportation o Responsible materials sourcing o Functional landscaping o Efficient fixtures and appliances o Efficient building envelopes ■ Energy code requires additional insulation which requires additional height o Interstitial space ■ Energy code encourages ductwork within the thermal envelope, often located in floor framing (interstitial space) ■ Interstitial space is intermediate space between floor levels usually to accommodate mechanical systems AMu- .'� s Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 7 o 5' foot additional building height incentive is not only to accommodate energy code but also can be the difference between designing an additional story for a project • Draft Permit Review Incentives DRAFT - EDMONDS TARGET TIMES FOR PERMIT PROCESSING (WEEKS) Actual Review times may vary Permit Type Review Type New Single Regular Family Expedited Single Family Regular Addition or Remodel Expedited CommerciaU MF Regular New Expedited Commercial/MF Regular Additions Expedited Commercial Regular Remodel (Tenant Improvement) Expedited Total Target Review Time 1 st Review 2nd Review 3rd Review Review Time Savings 6 3 2 11 3 2 1 6 5 weeks 3to5 2to3 1to2 6to10 2 to 3 1 to 2 1 4 to 6 2-4 weeks 8 5 3 16 4 3 2 9 7 weeks 4 3 2 9 2 2 1 5 4 weeks 4 2 1 7 2 1 1 4 3 weeks Expedited review for single family not available in RM or B zones Review times may vary depending on staff work volumes and complexity of project. Mr. Sewell reviewed: • Important Notes on Land Use Incentives o Incentives never supersede environmental regulations. o Onsite or financial realities may limit utilization of incentives. o Not every project may pursue every option. o Possible limiting regulatory factors: ■ Critical areas ■ Building and Fire codes ■ Stormwater ■ Design review, including landscaping ■ Street frontage improvements and right-of-way access ■ Shoreline Master Program • Draft Land Use Incentives r - - Single -Family Multifamily Residential Commercial and AD . Business (B)Zones (RM)Zones (C)Zones Built Green 4-Star LEED Gold or Built Green 4-Star Multifamily Built Green 5-Star or better get setbacks one zone smaller N/A (i.e., RS-10 to RS-8) +5' plus the 5' pitched roof bonus Choose one: for all portions sloped at least: +5'where all portions above • +5'in addition to the existing 3-in-12 Be standard height limit are pitched roof bonus of Ch. 16.30 4-in-12 BN. BP sloped at least 4-in-12 . Maximum unit density increased fCW only) one tier (i.e., RM-3 to RM-2.4) 6-in-12 BD5 N/A BD1-4 1 per dwelling unit 1 perdwellingunit 1 per 500 sq. ft. leasable commercial floor area • Business Zones — LEED Gold o Parking: One per 500 sq. ft. leasable floor area or 1 per dwelling unit, except in BD — no requirement for commercial. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 8 BN/BP Pitched Roof Bonus Incentivize Max. Std. Height Max. Images to scale Height BC BD5 34n-12 6h1-12 BD1-4 30' 3D Illustrations o Some choices were necessary developing these examples. ■ Establish baselines — minimum lot dimensions, zoning, etc. ■ Show maximum development potential — unit count, lot coverage, size, etc. ■ Flat, rectangular lots ■ Simply masses in which a building must fit, not indicative of architecture o Incentives illustrated in green Minimum RS-8 lot o Standard lot - 70' wide, 8,000 sq. ft. o Most common zone o Built Green 5-Star RS-6 setbacks in green Highly idealized scenario, not reality Illustrating max. use of regulation o Max. 35% coverage 0 1,300 sf primary dwelling footprint o Two 1,000 sf DADUs ■ 500 sf footprint for 2-story ■ 1,000 sf footprint for 1-story o No other buildings (shed, garage, etc.) o Orientations are somewhat arbitrary o Built Green 5-Star RS-6 setbacks in green o Footprints 30' wide (needed later) 0 3 parking spaces required for 2 ADUs. Illustrated as outdoors m • RS-8 Setback Incentives Existing Code/Built Green 4-Star Built Green 5-Star or Better Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 9 • Existing Regulation o Orientations - could rotate 90' o Maximum distance between units pinned to setback corners o Built Green 5-Star or better setback incentives illustrated in green • Built Green 4-Star o Adds 5' pitched rooves o Orientations - could rotate 900 o Maximum distance between units --+ pinned to setback corners o Built Green 5-Star or better setback incentives illustrated in green Built Green 5-Star o Uses RS-6 setbacks o Orientations - could rotate 900 o Maximum distance between units --+ pinned to setback corners o Built Green 5-Star or better setback incentives illustrated in green RM Existing Zoning and Density Incentive Massing Example Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 10 o Minimum RM-2.4 lot for 5 units (square) o Maximum lot coverage 0 5' pitched rooves — 4-in-12 o Setback landscaping, driveway not shown o Two stories most likely o These examples may look the same, except parking o Existing Zoning ■ 5 dwelling units (ag <2,200 sf) ■ Parking depends on unit bedroom count (6-10 spaces) 0 4-Star/LEED Gold — only density ■ 8 dwelling units (avg <1,360 sf) ■ 8 parking spaces I N RM Height Incentive Massing Example o Minimum RM-2.4 lot for 5 units o Maximum lot coverage • 5' pitched rooves — 4-in-12 o Landscaping, driveway not shown 0 3 stories more likely, increasing potential unit size Again, these examples look the same, except parking 0 4-Star/LEED Gold — Only Height ■ 5 dwellings, 5 parking spaces 0 5-Star/LEED Platinum — Height & Density ■ 8 dwellings units, 8 parking M Mr. Bjorback reviewed: • Proposed Enforcement Measures Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 11 o Certification required prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy o Failure to achieve certification will require posting a 2-year performance bond. Bond amount is based on: ■ Expedited permit review bond valued at 50% of building permit fee ■ Land use incentive bond valued at 5% of the project valuation ■ Bonds released upon approval of certification o Failure to certify within 2 years surrenders the bonds as a penalty. ■ Expedited permit review bond processed as permit fee revenue ■ Land use incentive bond goes to the City's general fund Enforcement Examples (Monetary penalties for failure to achieve certification) o Bond amounts based on scale of project ■ 3,000 sf new house $27,908 ■ 10,000 sf commercial mixed use $79,750 ■ 100,000 sf commercial mixed use $777,225 Next Steps o Staff to draft enforcement code - Chapter 17.XX ECDC o Public Hearing: October 8, 2024 o Council Action: Late October 2024 ■ Potential Options - Approve as presented - Approve with modified incentives - Approve with expedited plan review only - Delay approval of the program to a later date Councilmember Paine expressed her appreciation for the depth of the presentation and the description of why additional height may be needed due to necessary equipment to help make a building green, something that is important for people to recognize. She asked whether performance bonds were common for green buildings. Mr. Bjorback answered he would not say they were common in the region; it was proposed because it is already a tool the City has related to building permits. Performance bonds are currently issued for items in a construction project that are not complete at the time the building needs occupancy and defers the completion of some portions of the project while allowing the building to be occupied; it is an alternative way to achieve occupancy. Councilmember Paine asked for examples of other performance bonds other than green buildings. Mr. Bjorback answered those are most often generated or imposed by the engineering or planning divisions. Mr. Sewell said the planning division uses them for a handful of things, primarily landscaping performance bonds; for example, if a commercial or multifamily development submits a proposed landscaping plan to ensure the landscaping is planted, a performance bond is issued. A maintenance bond can also be issued to ensure the landscaping survives for at least two years and if not, the plants have to be replaced before the bond can be released. The critical area code can implement performance and maintenance bonds, primarily in the context of code enforcement. He believed the tree code also allows issuance of performance bonds. City Attorney Jeff Taraday commented with subdivision improvements there is often a need to finalize work after the subdivision has been recorded so a bond is taken for that purpose. The City has had situations over the years, due to various circumstances, where the bond is not adequate to correct the problem. Bonds in theory are a great tool to enforce the City's code, but careful thought should be given to the effects of inflation and other things that can make a bond not the perfect tool. He summarized bonds are a good tool, but the City should assess things that can go wrong. Councilmember Tibbott observed there is a lot of information in the presentation to digest, pointing out the numbers were very difficult to read and suggested he get together with staff to get a better understanding Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 12 of the measurements. With regard to the space between floors needing to be greater, a lot of houses use 2x10s between floors, the presentation indicated there need to be more space. He asked why so much space was needed between floors for duct work, etc. Mr. Bjorback referred to the photograph of interstitial space that illustrates typical duct work that may happen in an attic or the crawl space. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the illustration was in the attic or between floors. Mr. Bjorback answered between floors; the photograph was an example of interstitial space between floors. Councilmember Tibbott observed the photograph showed about 3 feet. Mr. Bjorback answered it was likely about 2 feet. The average floor system may be about 1 foot; this would be an additional 1 foot of height required to put that equipment in place. Councilmember Tibbott asked what equipment needed to be put in place. Mr. Bjorback answered the heating system. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the space needed to be bigger to accommodate insulation. Mr. Bjorback answered if it is within the thermal envelope of the house, it did not need to be insulated in quite this manner. Councilmember Tibbott commented it seemed a very expensive endeavor to put that much duct work between floors. Mr. Bjorback answered it is common in commercial construction for many years and is becoming more common in residential homes; he could think of several houses currently under construction that look just like the illustration. Councilmember Tibbott commented he was very surprised. Councilmember Tibbott asked about credits for a pitched roof. He referred to the illustration of a pitched roof which are proposed to be up to 35 feet. Mr. Bjorback asked if his questions were based on energy code impacts or the zoning height increase. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was a benefit to a pitched roof compared to flat for achieving green objectives. Mr. Sewell answered most of the pitched roof bonuses with the exception of BN and single family residential already exist in the code and are not the result of this program. Instances where they are offered by amendment in this program are out of a compromise for height versus obstruction of views and other concerns that staff has heard and wanted to acknowledge. It reduces the area above the 25-30 foot height, depending on the zone. Councilmember Tibbott said according to the illustration, it would be above 30 feet. Mr. Sewell agreed, explaining the incentive is 5 additional feet wedged between the existing height limit and the pitched roof bonus. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding that there is currently a pitched roof bonus. Mr. Sewell agreed that already exists in all the zones illustrated on the Business Zones — LEED Gold slide except for BN and RM zone. Councilmember Tibbott observed it is not a green benefit. Mr. Sewell commented it was a design choice and had been on the books in Edmonds for about 60 years. It was not new and not part of this program; the height benefit was just inserted below it. Council President Olson referred to the height bonuses, commenting it would be helpful to know what it was going on top of. She expressed concern with having this in isolation from the comprehensive plan, the zoning, the DEIS and where density will be located, and preferred to wait on that part of the green incentives until the land use plan is completed. She agreed the expedited permit process was a great incentive and something that should be implemented as early as possible to the extent the department can handle the faster processing. Council President Olson referred to the RS-8 Setback Incentives slide, commenting that was a perfect depiction. She has been frustrated by offering reduced setbacks as an incentive for anything due to the need to preserve comfort, space and residential feel, reasons people chose Edmonds in the first place. These illustrations show how buildings get closer to the property line and closer to neighbors' buildings in order to give another parcel more space between the buildings on their property which she felt did not make sense. The intent has been for property owners to stay away from their neighbor's property and preserve open space. Historical the biggest trees have been on the perimeter of properties. People aren't making the connection between losing setbacks and losing the tree canopy, but setbacks are absolutely linked to trees. She did not like offering a setback incentive and hoped the council, by looking at these illustrations, will be able to see what she has been trying to say in previous conversations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 13 Councilmember Eck thanked staff for the additional information which made the information clearer for the council and the public. She asked how the proposed green incentives compared to what other cities offer. Mr. Sewell answered that was the first step in the process, looking at what other cities are doing and how to copy them. Shoreline's program is the most similar to what staff is proposing in terms of the incentives they offer, meaning tiered along with deeper incentives for greener development. Some cities' programs are a bit more bespoke. The intent of this program is for it to be compatible and easy to implement with the existing code, and not be more ornate or difficult to implement on a day-to-day basis. The intent was to create a package that was easy to understand and implementable for both applicants and City staff. It is not exactly the same as another city's models, but Shoreline's Deep Green Incentive Program is probably the easiest to recognize in this code. Councilmember Dotsch thanked staff for the improved visuals. Her office was in Shoreline and she saw development occurring there and knew Shoreline was backtracking a bit. One of the challenges she saw with a green incentives program is developers with big backing and big money can do it and get their bonuses, but it is more challenging for the traditional single family home builder to have that cash on hand to do this extra work because it costs more. She was also very concerned about with letting developers who can pay more jump to the head of line because it delays others. She relayed a staff member told her the City was already behind due to staffing and bandwidth. When she talked to a developer of a single family home, they said the extra spacing to make it a green building is not required, it is more for commercial and multifamily. She provided an analogy, someone is making a chocolate cake and it turns out as pecan pie because the cook didn't know the ingredients; how does the public know what they are commenting on, a chocolate cake or a pecan pie, when not all the ingredients for this code are known, especially with HB 1110, zero lot lines, 4 units can be 6 if located near a major transit stop, reduced parking, etc. She was concerned these could change and the public doesn't know what they are commenting on. Councilmember Dotsch continued, on Bell Street, two lots from 7', the permitted building is almost 5 stories tall with an addition 5 feet for the pitched roof and all glass. With all the slopes in the City and how slope already gives extra height, she was concerned about neighbors' loss of enjoyment, light, privacy, views, and transferring property values to the new development. It would be beneficial to illustrate at the public hearing how adding this on top of the additional height was allowed due to slopes. For example 3 stories can quickly become 5 stories on a steep slope. Councilmember Nand thanked staff for the 3D renderings, finding them very useful for laypeople when trying to visualize code. She understood the mission of the green incentive program was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency in new buildings which is a huge waste in residential and commercial development. When the planning department brings forward the tree code update, she wondered if there would be any intersection for green building incentives if property owners choose to retain mature trees on properties when doing redevelopment. Ms. Hope answered staff hasn't gotten to that yet; all those things will be looked at when updating the tree code. Councilmember Chen asked for clarification on the 5-foot additional height for an ADU. Currently the City allows ADUs to be 2 stories and 24 feet; a 5 foot addition would be a height of 29 feet. Mr. Sewell referred to the Built Green 4-Star slide and the 2-story ADU in the back with a 5' pitched roof bonus illustrated in green. Councilmember Chen envisioned that could create an issue in some zones with regard to views and blocking the houses behind. He referred to the RS-8 Setback Incentives slide, commenting the building is moved closer to the edge. He asked if the space between was 5 feet. Mr. Sewell offered to provide higher resolution versions of the drawings tomorrow. The setbacks in RS-8 as illustrated on the left will be 7.5 feet on the sides, 5 feet shown in yellow, 2.5 feet shown in green on the left and right sides, thereby a 5- foot side setback. This is copied and pasted from the RS-6 residential zone. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 14 Councilmember Chen observed it would be 5 feet from one house and 5 feet from the neighbor's house for a total of 10 feet. He asked about overhangs. Mr. Sewell answered eaves can be up to 30 inches before they are considered part of the building footprint. Councilmember Paine asked how the current tree code intersects with single family or multifamily development, recalling there were some protections. Mr. Sewell answered there are retention requirements and the overlap with the critical area ordinance. Councilmember Paine commented trees and preserving the tree canopy needs to be part of the conversation because it all needs to be layered in. Mr. Sewell explained 30% of viable trees have to be retained on a single family development site, and 25% for multifamily. Sites are subject to landscaping requirements that can require planting more trees. Trees can be captured in the points a development can earn. He referred to the points categories, things like site and water, sustainable sites can likely earn points by integrating tree retention or plantings or other tree related topics into their plan. The green building program is not necessarily at the expense of the tree code; there are opportunities to leverage what is required to earn points or go above and beyond the requirements. Councilmember Paine asked if it would be possible to leverage points through the existing tree code, layer it rather than being an extra step especially if there were significant trees. Mr. Sewell answered it could potentially be possible. As he was not a LEED accredited professional, he could not speak to LEED, but all the Built Green materials are publicly available. Councilmember Paine commented it would make some sense to maintain significant stands based on the tree code as well as have it work for the parcel and she would like to have that count in the points category. Mr. Sewell commented the difficulty guaranteeing that is these are non -prescriptive programs, a developer does not need to choose those points and could choose an alternate points category. Councilmember Paine observed a developer has to follow the tree code but the others points categories are flexible. Mr. Sewell agreed, a developer would need to follow the tree code, but they may not choose the point category to earn tree related points. Councilmember Dotsch referred to packet page 449, the planning board's recommendation regarding green building incentives, the proposed incentive for an additional 5% of structural lot coverage for ADUs. In the example of a house with 2 ADUs, each one gets additional coverage. She asked the actual lot coverage in that example. Mr. Sewell answered that is not currently proposed in the draft code. The current lot coverage is 35%, so under that model, the 5% would be cumulative so it would be increased to 40%. Councilmember Dotsch observed that was in the planning board's recommendation. Mr. Sewell agreed it was. Councilmember Dotsch recognized there were still some issues with HB 1110 related to lot coverage. Councilmember Dotsch referred to packet page 455, Section 16.43.050(C) "Height. Certified development in the BD 1 — 4 zones can receive an additional 5 feet above the stated height limit in ECDC 16.43.030(A). Properties zoned BD5 receive 5 additional feet in addition to the pitched roof bonus of ECDC 16.43.030(C)(2)." She asked why. Mr. Sewell referred to the Business Zones — LEED Gold slide which illustrates BD5 has a pitched roof bonus. BD5 is a more residential version of the BD zone which he assumed was why the bonus exists. That was probably written in the `60s or `70s. He offered to clarify that in the draft code. Councilmember Dotsch summarized the additional 5 feet was because BD5 was more residential. Mr. Sewell explained it still gains a 5-foot bonus, but it also has a pitched roof bonus and its total maximum height (orange line on the slide) is lower than the rest of the BD zones. Another 5 feet is inserted as a potential incentive for LEED Gold or better, but the pitched roof bonus is retained as it currently exists. 13131-4 does not have a pitched roof bonus but there is a 30 foot standard height limit which would allow them to gain a total of 35 feet. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 15 Councilmember Dotsch observed BD5 is the arts corridor and asked if the goal was to create more density on that street by offering the additional 5 feet. Mr. Sewell explained the core premise of this program is to enable and incentivize development that is Built Green or LEED certified that wouldn't otherwise occur. With regard to parking, Councilmember Dotsch commented like other cities and around Green Lake, Edmonds has a lot of dead -ends, little lanes, and a lot of areas that are not pedestrian friendly. Because Edmonds does not have a street grid and is not flat, she was concerned with offering reducing parking as an incentive everywhere. That is a concern she has heard from many people who moved to Edmonds from areas like Ballard or other places where that type of incentive made parking difficult. Offering reduced parking may make sense in a highly urbanized place, but she suggested giving careful consideration to where it makes sense in Edmonds and not offer it as a blanket bonus. Council President Olson said Councilmember Dotsch's comments are related to her question. It is always desirable to have a code that is straight forward and easy to apply, but some of the incentives make sense in some part of the City and not in others. She asked if incentives could be allowed by zone. The height is a similar issue, it could be allowed for regular buildings, but not for DADUs for which the setbacks have already been reduced. She questioned allowing additional height for a 24-foot DADU that is right at the property line; she did not think that was appropriate. She recalled State law did not allow imposition of design limitations on DADUs that were not imposed on single family and questioned whether incentives were allowed to apply to single family that did not apply to DADUs. She wanted that question answered before the council took action. Mayor Rosen declared a brief recess. 2. PROCESS FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) Acting Planning & Development Director Shane Hope reviewed: • What is State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)? o Washington state law adopted in 1971 to inform governmental agencies and the public about environmental considerations for proposal o Provides method to identify environmental impacts and mitigation opportunities before action is taken o Tool for identifying and analyzing environmental aspects of proposal ■ The EIS process - Provides opportunities for the public, local, state and federal agencies, and tribal governments to participate in developing and analyzing information. - Provides decision -makers with environmental information - Identifies significant impacts - Recommends reasonable alternatives for accomplishing proposal - Identifies potential mitigation for impacts Types of EIS o There are two tvpes of environmental impact statements SEPA Project EIS SEPA Non -Project EIS Purpose Analyzes potential impacts and Provides a basis for future project alternatives to a proposal decisions Actions Proposals that are likely to have a Plans, policies, programs, or Covered significant adverse environmental regulations that control the use of the impact environment Project New construction; facility operation Comprehensive plans, watershed Types changes; environmental cleanup management plans, shoreline master projects; demolitions; and purchases, programs, and development regulations Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 16 sales, leases, transfers, or exchanges of natural resources Non -project EIS o Background and objectives ■ Issue background including purpose and need for action' ■ Legislative authority or mandate ■ Primary objective statement ■ Relationship to ongoing and future regulatory and planning efforts o Existing situation ■ Description of existing situation and current regulations ■ Existing means to achieve objective ■ Current institutional structure o Proposal and alternatives ■ Description of proposed regulation, policy or plan ■ Proposed alternatives that could reasonably meet the primary objectives o Environmental impacts ■ Summary of adverse environmental impacts from the proposal and alternatives. EIS Process Steps Notice of August 2023 Early step in preparing the EIS; publication of the Notice of Intent Intent in the Federal Register Scoping Aug 4-Sept 10, Determines the scope of issues to be considered within the Period 2023 DEIS document. Interested parties may submit comments DRAFT EIS Sept 30, 2024 DEIS identifies the project's goals and objectives, assesses the (DEIS) environmental impacts of each alternative, proposed measures to miti ate any identified adverse effects Comment Sept 30-Oct 29, DEIS undergoes an extensive public and agency review. A Period 2024 (30 days) virtual meeting will be held 15 days after publishing the DEIS to provide an overview and seek comments Final EIS Nov 2024 Includes analyzing and responding to all comments received on the draft EIS. To be published no later than 60 days after the close of the comment period. Role of Preferred Alternative o SEPA does not require "preferred alternative" in EIS process o Naming a preferred alternative can signal the approach to the plan or project thought to be the most likely o Advantage of naming a preferred alternative is that people can focus on the key features and issues related to that alternative • FEIS and Final Plan o Final EIS includes all the public comments o The Final EIS may or may not contain the preferred alternative o The City's comprehensive plan is adopted only after the Final EIS is issued o Includes a public hearing before the final adoption a FEIS Issued ® refinement of ® „__. RPM If everything goes well, Ms. Hope believed adoption could occur before the end of the year. This is a very tight timeframe; staff is beginning to plug in dates for council consideration which includes some optional city council or planning board meetings. There may be additional public engagement outside city council Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 17 and planning board meetings. If the process can stick to the schedule, adoption could occur before the end of the year. However, if anything goes awry or there are complications, the deadline won't be made. She relayed it was her obligation to do her best to meet the State law and it remains to be seen how close that will come. Council President Olson expressed appreciation for the clarity this information provided. She acknowledged the timelines are tight and some residents may be concerned about the report on the Final EIS. She asked if that was the first time the public will get to see the Q&A or will staff maintain a blog on the website as comments occur in real time in case the public has follow up questions. Ms. Hope responded she did not want to commit to posting comments on the website in real time, but that could be done periodically such as on a weekly basis. Council President Olson responded that would be amazing, anticipating that would help the public process especially since it is condensed at the end and council will be taking action rather close to the deadline. Council President Olson referenced Ms. Hope's comment that the preferred alternative is not locked in, relaying that was not the council's impression and she appreciated hearing that. Ms. Hope clarified, it is not required to have a preferred alternative, but it is helpful for people to know where the City is leaning which is the reason for having a preferred alternative so people pay more attention to that alternative. With the FEIS, the action that follows needs to think about and address what the EIS said. If the City ends up with something different that was not considered in the EIS, that does not work under SEPA. There can be variations between the bookends, but it cannot be totally different. Council President Olson relayed her understanding the City is locked into what is between the bookends. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Dotsch asked what type of public comments are helpful during the public comment period. Ms. Hope answered there will be two documents, first the DEIS on which she hoped people would focus their comments on environmental impacts, things they have concerns about, things the DEIS didn't catch, offering additional information, and if they have a preferred alternative. The public can also offer comments on the draft comprehensive plan which may not be related to an environmental issue, but could be related to a concern or idea that they want incorporated or comments about a specific element. Recognizing the State deadline is the end of the year, Councilmember Dotsch asked with the budget discussion, holidays, public participation, etc. could the City take an extra month. Ms. Hope answered the State's deadline is December 31, 2024. It takes Commerce and other agencies time to determine who has adopted their comprehensive plan by the deadline so there may be a little time in January to submit the plan if it can't in good faith be done sooner. Councilmember Paine commented it is not just Commerce who reviews the comprehensive plan, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and others review it. She asked if other agencies look at the EIS as well as the comprehensive plan. Ms. Hope answered they get the EIS, but usually do not go very far into it. For example, PSRC as the regional body, needs to ensure the transportation component in particular is consistent with regional planning requirements and policies. If Edmonds is not consistent, that could create ineligibility in the future for transportation and other funding. The State Department of Commerce provides the comprehensive plan to a number of other State agencies such as WSDOT, Department of Health, Fish & Wildlife, etc. Councilmember Paine commented the City has a Climate Action Plan (CAP) although that is not yet required. She asked if there is a review of the CAP at the comprehensive plan level and who would do that, the State or PSRC. Ms. Hope answered it would be the State; the PSRC may consider whether the Climate Element said something contrary to regional policies, but they would not review it at a deep level. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 18 Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. Hope for the information regarding the timeline and process. If a preferred alternative is not required, he asked if one of the options could be to leave out that portion in completing the preferred alternative to meet the deadline and be eligible for State funding. Ms. Hope answered a preferred alternative is not required under SEPA, but it is useful because when thinking about capital projects, it is helpful to have a list of the most likely projects. For example, if the City has a preferred alternative, it provides time for staff working on capital projects to get the list right. Councilmember Chen observed a preferred alternative is still useful. Ms. Hope agreed that while not a SEPA requirement, it is useful to the City and the public. Councilmember Chen asked if there would be an option after year end to complete that part. Ms. Hope responded there is no time requirement for selecting a preferred alternative; it would be useful for the city council to choose a preferred alternative during the period between the DEIS and FEIS or after the FEIS comes out. That way the comprehensive plan can be scoped to ensure it does what is intended and not spend a lot of time on an approach that is not viable. Councilmember Chen asked about the budget for the consultant. Ms. Hope answered if the process remains within the current year, it will be within budget unless something new is added to their list of obligations. If the process goes into next year, additional funds may be required. Councilmember Chen asked if council would have an opportunity to meet with the consultant. Ms. Hope answered it was her understanding the consultants came to one meeting; bringing a consultant to a meeting is expensive due to paying for travel time, prep time, etc. She preferred to have them working on the documents and have staff attend meetings. Councilmember Chen suggested maybe they could attend over Zoom sometime. Councilmember Nand thanked Ms. Hope for the transparency related to the EIS timeline. Her question was related to something that occurred before Ms. Hope rejoined City staff; a decision was made to repeal the Highway 99 EIS and do a citywide EIS. She wondered what level of granularity there would be for a specific subarea, and whether Highway 99 would have benefited from its own EIS versus being folded into the citywide EIS. Ms. Hope answered at the time, the Highway 99 subarea benefited greatly from its own EIS. It structured things and reduced surprises about the fairly significant impacts of the changes coming to that area. Having a citywide EIS is fine and still works. She summarized the Highway 99 subarea EIS was useful at the time, but not necessary if there is a citywide EIS. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Chen referenced the condensed comprehensive plan timeline and expressed his thanks to staff, Ms. Hope and everyone for their hard work to meet the timeline and produce a good product for the City. Councilmember Tibbott expressed his appreciation for the overview tonight, commenting he could tell the planning & development department was doing a lot of work to keep the council and the community updated. To the community, he said the City is entering the final quarter of year when all the excitement and must -watch TV and opportunities for public input happen. The council's packets are often enormous, this week's was 500 pages and included a Reports on Outside Boards and Commissions which describe things happening in and around the City such as Community Transit, Snohomish County Tomorrow, etc. and make for great reading. Council President Olson shared the great opportunity she had for professional development in the last few days, joining Commander Machado and the graveyard shift on a police ridealong on Sunday night. They said it was a slow night, but she did not want more activity than that to be going on in the City. She gave a shout out to the police department and the great service they provide every day. She plans to attend the CERT disaster skills and community preparedness training this Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Next week she will find out what it is like to live without a car by participating in Community Transit's Week Without Driving. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 19 Councilmember Dotsch echoed councilmembers' kudos to Ms. Hope for the clarity she provided which is helpful for the council and public to know. Councilmember Paine reported since the last council meeting, she participated with a local bus advocate, Roger Pence, in a bus and light rail field trip, taking the bus from the Edmonds station at the waterfront to the Lynnwood station, putting money on ORCA card in the store, and then taking the light rail to Northgate. Through Community Transit, she was able to arrange a marvelous transit trainer who even had swag. There was an electrical problem with the light rail station that day and they barely missed the end of service on their return trip. She appreciated everyone's questions and hustling to where they needed to be. Councilmember Paine agreed council packet item 7.4, Reports on Outside Boards and Committees, contains a lot of great information. She highlighted the PSRC meeting, relaying she took light rail to and from their meeting. The report includes data about new electric vehicle registrations which are up 20% across the PSRC region and declining vehicle miles traveled mainly due to the addition of other modes of transportation such as bus, light rail, pedestrian and bicycles. She highlighted the increase in deaths and injuries for pedestrian and bicycles and she stressed the importance of lowering accident rates in Edmonds and being safe with all modes of transportation. Councilmember Nand reported on the SnoCom 911 meeting which included discussion regarding construction of their future facility, adoption of Flock cameras, and various other topics related to Snohomish County fire, EMS, and police dispatch. She was fascinated to hear from police and fire chiefs about the work their rank and file do to keep the community safe. A new nonprofit is being formed to support Edmonds Pride activities. She invited anyone interested in participating to contact Rowan Soiset at EdmondsQueerYouthAlliance(&gmail.com. The City has done a great job providing leadership and planning Pride activities, but the local LGBTQ community is forming their own nonprofit and she was excited see the work they will do going forward. Councilmember Eck reported on the 9/11 memorial ceremony held at the downtown fire station. She and others including Mayor Rosen as well as people from South Snohomish County and first responders from SCF and the local police force attended. She was honored to attend and hear the words spoken and to observe a moment of silence to remember and acknowledge we will never forget what happened. Councilmember Eck said she usually asks people whether they have ever been to Edmonds and then gushes about everything available in Edmonds including the International District on Highway 99. During the last week she has talked to a handful of people who live outside Edmonds that have gushed to her about Edmonds. She was excited the word was out about the wonderful amenities in Edmonds for tourists and everyone who lives in and loves Edmonds and that it was bringing revenue to the City. She encouraged everyone to share the wonderful things that Edmonds offers. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Rosen commented because his life these days is almost exclusively about numbers, he shared there are only 89 days until the days start getting longer. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 9:11 pm. sm --- r, 0 0 SCOTT PASSEY; CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 24, 2024 Page 20